• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
So why not just offer an early access version of the game? Usually Early Access games on steam are discounted, but I'd pay full price.
Sorry to break it for you but people with your attitude can cause more harm than good, and are part of the problem why games with great potential can miserably fail. Seeing everything through rose-tinted glasses, not providing constructive feedback, being over-hyped. Nope, it's better to let a narrow group of people showcase the game at this very early stage.
 
  • 19
  • 2
Reactions:
Seeing everything through rose-tinted glasses, not providing constructive feedback, being over-hyped.

Lmao. Yeah because creators who live off hyping up this game are not over hyped nor do they see things through rose tainted glasses.

Not saying you are wrong, but you cant use as an example of the opposite of that the YouTubers lol
 
  • 10Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Lmao. Yeah because creators who live off hyping up this game are not over hyped nor do they see things through rose tainted glasses.
Regardless, the wider community has not exactly shown a good historical approach to "early access" to the game (as evidenced by the reaction to the Vic 3 leaked build).
I'm amazed Johan & Co were willing to discuss this much early on, and I hope that overall it has been a good experience for them.

EDIT: As others have said, you can get a creator to sign an NDA and mostly prevent them from talking about stuff you don't want them to. You can't make the entire internet do so. For better or worse in terms of game development, it's better for the devs sanity not to unleash everyone on the game till it's ready.
 
  • 17
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Lmao. Yeah because creators who live off hyping up this game are not over hyped nor do they see things through rose tainted glasses.

Not saying you are wrong, but you cant use as an example of the opposite of that the YouTubers lol
Well, if anything then the evidence is that, at least in the case of EUV, content creators have been quite good at relaying their concerns to the community and providing constructive feedback. But that wasn't really the point of my post.

Meanwhile, the broader community could create a lot of noise and false positives (as in- "this is great no matter of what others says, they're haters and complainers"). Look at the OP's example- they literally are willing to pay more than a full release price for an unfinished game. And this is the sort of attitude that, as I said, causes more harm than good. Because games where only a handful of die-hard, blinded players enjoy a game despite its major flaws, get terrible first impression, have low sales, and die (or in the best scenario receive limited maintenance).

So the TLDR of my first post is- be a fan, not a fanboy.
 
  • 5Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
2k hours in an old paradox game is quite common. You see this as a reward to streamers but it is just marketing

Didn't say 2k hours wasn't quite common. Actually, I'd put it in the rare to elite territory with only legendary above. Contrary to those who live on these forums, the average person isn't putting more than 100-200 hours in it. I still see it as a reward to people I often consider "dorks" who either get paid for it or are obsessed with likes and followers (modern day narcissists). I must say, I am quite content with my respectfully disagree ratio though. :D

Yeah, this is clearly the PDX equivalent of an ad campaign. This isn't a beta and while I'm sure they will take feedback, it's also on a version of the game the streamers said was from March.

So why do it if things will be quite different later? I won't watch because I don't want the surprises spoiled. Best part of Paradox games has always been learning from failure.

2k hours? Ah so you've finished the tutorial, congrats!

Of all the 2k quips, this was the only clever one. Though for the record, I've never played a tutorial in a game where it can be skipped.

Sorry to break it for you but people with your attitude can cause more harm than good, and are part of the problem why games with great potential can miserably fail. Seeing everything through rose-tinted glasses, not providing constructive feedback, being over-hyped. Nope, it's better to let a narrow group of people showcase the game at this very early stage.

And will that narrow group of people be honest or bootlickers to ensure they maintain their spot?

Well, if anything then the evidence is that, at least in the case of EUV, content creators have been quite good at relaying their concerns to the community and providing constructive feedback. But that wasn't really the point of my post.

Meanwhile, the broader community could create a lot of noise and false positives (as in- "this is great no matter of what others says, they're haters and complainers"). Look at the OP's example- they literally are willing to pay more than a full release price for an unfinished game. And this is the sort of attitude that, as I said, causes more harm than good. Because games where only a handful of die-hard, blinded players enjoy a game despite its major flaws, get terrible first impression, have low sales, and die (or in the best scenario receive limited maintenance).

So the TLDR of my first post is- be a fan, not a fanboy.

Yes, I would pay more for an open beta/early access because my input would potentially be more valuable. I remember being a closed beta tester for WWII Online 20+ years ago. 10 year NDA I signed and couldn't even admit I was in it til it expired. Anyways, the game was trash at that point, but I still loved it. So yes, I would pay extra for that experience again.
 
  • 4
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
More beta testers comes not only with diminishing returns, but as you get more and more, it becomes an active detriment. Someone has to filter through the noise and if you have an open early access beta test thing as you're asking for, you have to hire someone specifically to filter through the noise and repeat complaints.

A small group is best, and yeah this was also marketing and a statement of "we are proud if our work and won't hide any of it" as we content creators had total, unrestricted freedom on sharing our opinions. If the game had been shit, we were 100% allowed to say "this game is shit"
 
  • 18Like
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
They would get the same shitstorm

Are they getting a shitstorm now ? I'm surprised how civil it remains mostly. Maybe there should have been a "no new threads unless at least 100 posts" policy, but for the rest I'm quite sure they knew what they were getting into and were prepared for worse.

Yeah, there's always trolls, but they didn't need the recent videos for that...
 
  • 7Like
Reactions:
I'm a strongly supporter of early access to a game, it gives me the feeling of completeness and organic growth of the game, also I like to play a new game and discover it by myself and not watching streamers who are telling you how the games works, that's why I think it is a bit unfair they have access to it.
On the other hand, I understand the company-logic, streamers are there to create more hype which means more copies sold in the future, also, there are many many motherfu...... who would give negative feedback straightfordward to an early access to a game ruining the company plans.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Are they getting a shitstorm now ? I'm surprised how civil it remains mostly. Maybe there should have been a "no new threads unless at least 100 posts" policy, but for the rest I'm quite sure they knew what they were getting into and were prepared for worse.

Yeah, there's always trolls, but they didn't need the recent videos for that...

Well by shitstorm i didn't mean necessarily trolls or negativity, but a huge amount of feedback, 85% of it repetitive as they would with a beta
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I do not agree. Though I think a closed or open beta test would be nice and beneficial to the game, giving access to streamers and youtubers allows them to showcase the game in a lot of detail to their audiences. On top of the feedback from the streamers, the developers will get even more feedback from the playerbase at large, much like they have with the dev diaries. It can only be a good thing.
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Yeah, I just view it as essentially given the marketing department early access. Obviously you're going to do that.

It used to be that it kinda felt disrespectful - you are supposed to be paying for a product someone else just gets for free, and early, and perhaps with access to the developers, to possibly even actually make themselves heard unlike your feedback which inevitably will go somewhere into the void.

But yeah. Since it's become so standardized it's more like "marketing guy on infomercial TV does marketing things" (either for the game or marketing themselves, of course; usually both) so a bit whatever ...
... and still better than IGN, on average. Just about.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I disagree with the idea that streamers shouldn't be allowed to market the product for paradox - that's silly.

But I am a bit baffled on why Paradox hasn't embraced the early access model more. They have everything needed to succeed in that field (good communication, a rabb...fanat...committed fanbase) and more often than not, their releases turn out to be sort of early access anyways.

"Here is an enormous game with great potential that we want to build with YOU our great community" is just such a better sales pitch than "here is a "finished" game but you know we are going to apoligize for how unfinished it is JUST after you've bought it".
 
  • 9
  • 2Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Steam Next Fest coming soon...
Foundry had a demo at steam fest(2023 or 2024)...
Behind The Scenes ends June 12th....
Steam fest will be June 9-16th...
 
Last edited:
To be honest the streamers that got acces probably have more then 10k hours in the game easily so from that perspective alone I allready don't understand this feeling. Aside from the streamers there's bound to be a beta program planned or allready going on so if you are interested keep your eyes peeled for that.

I think this is pretty fine, they used the streamers to generate content and interest at the announcement date and no matter how you look at it personally streamers are an important part of a games succes in this day and age. What's pretty nice is that it wasn't a heavily curated showing as well but he streamers where free to give any kind of feedback they wanted.

I for one are looking forward to see more in depth content in the coming months from them.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
I think the viability of early access really depends on how far the full release is away. While we have an impression from the youtubers, we have to keep in mind that they could only showcase the first 100 years of the game.

If the game is legitimately 95% complete (I am defining "complete" as feature complete, all the systems fully work, you can play the different types of nations like banking nations etc, but there isn't necessarily flavour for every country) then sure, release it as early access.

What I would be concerned about is a Bannerlord approach. They did release the game as early access, and it was seriously dysfunctional, there were memory leak issues that made it impossible to play on many systems, no story, a lack of features in the previous game, and really the initial impression killed a lot of interest right away and I don't believe it will ever reach it's potential.
 
  • 7Like
Reactions: