Imperator Rome will get updates?

[Napoleon1971]

500k to 1 million sales allegedly according to this site. https://steamspy.com/dev/Paradox+Interactive

Seems like a success to me, if HOI III did the same thing after its third release with an established player base (over a longer period of time). Why should the period be dead?

HOI III always has seemed like nobody really liked/wanted it. I enjoyed it well enough. But, I didn't even buy HOI IV in part because it wasn't as good as HOI II. I thought there were some interesting ideas in HOI III (like making more of something making it cheaper) but it was an ambitious project that wasn't ever really balanced well IMHO. I think the map was really ugly too but its been a while since I touched it

 

[Tebriel]

I tried liking HOI IV, but couldn't get there. I'm not really understanding IV's current popularity. The flashy graphics and art stuff don't do anything for me at all.

I kinda prefer III still, but the dated UI and something else (maybe lack of Linux support?) make it inaccessible for me these days. HOI II was also very good but suffers from even more dated tech problems. HOI III's additional provinces added compared to II were a massive improvement for me though. Suddenly you could do encirclement operations and other stuff that actually happened.

 

[Dagda]

500k to 1 million sales allegedly according to this site. https://steamspy.com/dev/Paradox+Interactive

Seems like a success to me, if HOI III did the same thing after its third release with an established player base (over a longer period of time). Why should the period be dead?

Talk about a disingenuous comparison. Steam's install base (and Paradox's for that matter) was exponentially larger in 2019 than in late/early 00/10s, not to mention HOI3 was released on Gamersgate initially.

To claim success you would have to look at their development budget and from what we know Imperator was full hands on deck from Johan for years (along with optimistic claims) and was a featured toga cosplay event at PDX con. Dev support was abandoned very quickly compared to their more successful titles. If it was making money, they would have at the very least employed a maintenance patch team if they were actually considering continuing development at a later date, especially when there are critical outstanding bugs to be addressed.

"Reading between the lines" is going off of imagined decisions that have not been communicated, and assumes bad faith.

Paradox is publicly traded and is partially owned by Tencent. Money is the bottom line at the end of day. Take them at their word? The statement you're harping on was very obviously and intentionally ambiguous considering the PR drama which was going on at the time. It seems the intent had its desired affect on you; either way it doesn't cost them anything. Quietly 'officially' killing the game a year+ after that statement won't be viewed as being dishonest. People will have just stopped caring. Typical corporate speak.

 

[Tebriel]

Talk about a disingenuous comparison. Steam's install base (and Paradox's for that matter) was exponentially larger in 2019 than in late/early 00/10s, not to mention HOI3 was released on Gamersgate initially.

While I'll always admit I could be wrong, and I appreciate being corrected if I make a mistake, I don't really appreciate comments about being disingenuous. Criticizing arguments is fine, but why people resort to ad hominem attacks if they think they have a strong argument, I don't understand. What did I do to you other than write a comment you disagreed with?

Maybe my reasoning was unclear so I'll assume that's the reason. I was saying I:R looks successful enough when compared to HOI III, considering the pre-existing popularity of HOI. I don't think I claimed it was more or even equally successful (I don't know that). I do know the market is larger now, but HOI III is a 3rd generation game, while I:R is an entire new setting which had no prior fan base waiting for a sequel. Theoretically that helps cancel out the market size factor, doesn't it? But what really matters is whether it can fund a dev team, and the numbers seem to be there.

Perhaps it's a good point that if the game were profitable, they'd have funded an O&M team for this year. I thought this is just a staff shortage problem after realizing they needed a resource boost elsewhere. I haven't seen any public evidence that funding was the problem. If it were, why wouldn't they just tell the truth and avoid pissing off everyone more? A lie that gets exposed later is far worse than an admission of failure.

It seems the viewpoints here mostly come down to: "How much do you trust this company?"... I didn't really expect to get stoned for insufficient cynicism.

 

[ThePHD]

I tried liking HOI IV, but couldn't get there. I'm not really understanding IV's current popularity. The flashy graphics and art stuff don't do anything for me at all.

I kinda prefer III still, but the dated UI and something else (maybe lack of Linux support?) make it inaccessible for me these days. HOI II was also very good but suffers from even more dated tech problems. HOI III's additional provinces added compared to II were a massive improvement for me though. Suddenly you could do encirclement operations and other stuff that actually happened.

It's just better at appealing to a younger and more mainstream audience than other Paradox games.

- Fast pace compared to other Paradox games.
- Games are short and are not a massive time sink.
- Easy to learn compared to other Paradox games.
- Based on a recent event everyone knows about.
- It's winning on social media. It has a bigger youtube community than every other Paradox game combined. Lots of free advertising.

 

[Dagda]

While I'll always admit I could be wrong, and I appreciate being corrected if I make a mistake, I don't really appreciate comments about being disingenuous. Criticizing arguments is fine, but why people resort to ad hominem attacks if they think they have a strong argument, I don't understand. What did I do to you other than write a comment you disagreed with?

Except I WAS addressing your argument/position and in fact not attacking your person. Ad hominem? Nope, try again. I clearly stated such.

Maybe my reasoning was unclear so I'll assume that's the reason. I was saying I:R looks successful enough when compared to HOI III, considering the pre-existing popularity of HOI.

Well actually it doesn't look successful at all with all the current evidence. Weird comparison and massive reach. Again, I already stated why.

I don't think I claimed it was more or even equally successful (I don't know that). I do know the market is larger now, but HOI III is a 3rd generation game, while I:R is an entire new setting which had no prior fan base waiting for a sequel.

Ah yes the brand new niche Antiquity setting. EU: Rome we never knew ye

Theoretically that helps cancel out the market size factor, doesn't it?

Uh, not at all. Especially when initial release sales are so important. Releasing a game on an obscure platform in 2009 vs Steam 2019 are light years from each other. Then you factor in Paradox's growth in the last decade, I doubt your 'theory' would look better if we actually crunched the numbers on development cost/team size.

But what really matters is whether it can fund a dev team, and the numbers seem to be there.

Yet no Dev team.

If it were, why wouldn't they just tell the truth and avoid pissing off everyone more? A lie that gets exposed later is far worse than an admission of failure.

Because there was no lie? Nor did I imply they were lying. Ambiguous statements are just that.

It seems the viewpoints here mostly come down to: "How much do you trust this company?"... I didn't really expect to get stoned for insufficient cynicism.

Well no it really doesn't. It has nothing to do with trust as no promises were given. It's just that the writing is very clearly on the wall when you factor in their past actions of moving on from projects

 

[Tebriel]

Except I WAS addressing your argument/position and in fact not attacking your person. Ad hominem? Nope, try again. I clearly stated such.

"Talk about a disingenuous comparison."

It's right up there but you're going to deny it? You may as well have called me a liar directly. There are ways to try and correct someone when you think they're wrong without implying they're being intentionally dishonest. That's not what a neutral tone in a friendly conversation sounds like, that's how you kick off an argument.

It seems you're just looking for a fight, so I'm out. The rest of that stuff, well that's just your opinions anyway. We have few hard facts to go on, so this is pointless.

I truly have no idea what you think you're accomplishing here. Gone are the days when people could have a normal back and forth conversation about a topic they disagree on, I guess.

 

[manager2525]

I know it is a bit early but I am sure that we would all appreciate any feedback from you @Dnote provided that there of course one at this point!

 

[Tebriel]

I know it is a bit early but I am sure that we would all appreciate any feedback from you @Dnote provided that there of course one at this point!

I doubt we'll get any more information until (if) the situation actually changes. They did say they'd update us once they get more information.

Which to me is just more evidence that they're serious about attempting to resolve the staffing issues and resume updates, but I'll probably get flamed for daring to voice an opinion that it's even a possibility. haha

Anything less than a promise to return to updates at some definite time will be torn to shreds, and interpreted in the worst possible light by the cynical, the entitled, and those with a chip on their shoulder, so they're probably wise to stay silent.

 

[manager2525]

At this point I am also wondering if intentionally (or most possibly not so) if this stop and restart could be a good thing for the brand. In the sense that a restart will cause more hype and get more attention so in the end it can work better for PDX marketing wise. Probably I am thinking to much on it...

 

[Tebriel]

Yeah it's anyone guess how much of a say the "marketing people" get. haha

Another factor we don't know is how much investment went into this game. Someone on these forums I believe said CK3 had about two more years of development time put into it. So you're damn right that CK3 had better perform better than I:R. I:R's expectations can be lower, if it was relatively cheap. That math still works.

Does anyone think the absolute worst case is likely? No more I:R updates and never a sequel either? I mean I guess that could happen, but would anyone say that's assured now? The definiteness of some pessimistic statements being made is frustrating. We don't know many "definites".

 

[Palando]

I doubt there'll be updates anytime soon, because they're still looking for employees to fill up their ranks for HoI, Stellaris, the launcher, the Clausewitz engine and CK III. So what some predicted, when the stop was announced, might be quite true: they'll always need more people for their prioritised games. Now, this might change in the future, but I don't think this will happen until some time next year at the earliest.

 

[Tebriel]

Wow, if they're really still needing to fill spots for all those even after taking I:R staff, that is a pretty tough situation.

 

[Kadanz]

Yeah it's anyone guess how much of a say the "marketing people" get. haha

Another factor we don't know is how much investment went into this game. Someone on these forums I believe said CK3 had about two more years of development time put into it. So you're damn right that CK3 had better perform better than I:R. I:R's expectations can be lower, if it was relatively cheap. That math still works.

Does anyone think the absolute worst case is likely? No more I:R updates and never a sequel either? I mean I guess that could happen, but would anyone say that's assured now? The definiteness of some pessimistic statements being made is frustrating. We don't know many "definites".

I think we won't see any updates for this year or next year. At most we might see a small bugfix patch or modding additions. If there is no movement after next year I think we can safely assume that the king is dead, long live the king.

 

[Palando]

Wow, if they're really still needing to fill spots for all those even after taking I:R staff, that is a pretty tough situation.

You can have a look here https://career.paradoxplaza.com/jobs

Also don't forget that they redistributed the Swedish EU IV team last year. Only Johan moved to Catalonia, whereas everyone else moved either to Stellaris, HoI or Vicky.

 

[Tebriel]

Holy crap it's a mile long... it's a shame they don't do much remote.

 

[Hendreforgan]

500k to 1 million sales allegedly according to this site. https://steamspy.com/dev/Paradox+Interactive

Seems like a success to me, if HOI III did the same thing after its third release with an established player base (over a longer period of time). Why should the period be dead?

Whilst "up to one million sales" might sound good how many of those where heavily discounted "sales" compared to my pre-launch purchase? The chart you quote, which shows I:R in nineteenth place, also shows the top spot held by a game originally launched in 2015 with sales of up to ten million and an average game run time of three times I:R. Indeed many of the places above I:R are also held by "old games".

So, more likely, that chart shows I:R to be more a failure than success, surely?

I long waited for something like I:R having played "EU : Rome/Rome Gold/Rome VV" to death over the years I used it, to me the period of Classical Antiquity has a magic charm and should be a stable product in ANY game's studio output. However I certainly agree that the games up to v1.5 were rather shaky . . it wasn't that you couldn't play the game, it was more you seemed to play against issues within the game.

Please remember everyone that PDX are a company whose purpose is to make profit for if no profit then they can neither update old games or design new ones. Sadly I too often see an attitude amongst far too many that, having bought the game and/or the DLC's in a "bargain basement sale", they then sit back taking an attitude that PDX owe them. NO, get real those of you that do!

If PDX return to I:R and I agree with those that say it would be far easier for them to continue development than start afresh then they would be wiser to create v3.0 as a "new product", advertising it's long pedigree and development in v2.0 but ONLY to be played by being bought by all, not an automatic update. Then they have the chance to increase the profit the game overall will have brought the studio. Existing players will then have two choices, buy the "new game" or continue to play v2.0.

If you don't like my words please take into account what happens with most software? Very few offer "lifetime development"?

. . . in any case come Windows 11 many of us may lose a lot of our games as Microsoft's "marketing strategy" will force games studios to adapt old games and make new ones ONLY for that platform . . lest non-compliance with Microsoft "orders" cost them their business!

 

[Vohen]

To be fair, rather than simply looking at total sales numbers, I figure it'd be more useful looking at DLC sales or just game sales through time.
After all, long term development is sustained by these things, not much by initial sales.
And Imperator infamously had very poor player retention after its initial release.
And then there's also refunds, which maybe could also be a factor to consider.

 

[Tebriel]

Yeah, sale prices did occur to me, but sales work to lower revenue for all products if we're comparing. (I managed a discount myself, but would have gladly paid full price sooner had I not confused it with an EU expansion.) I was looking at it from a "DLC/expansion potential market" perspective, but also from a product maturity perspective (if we assume Paradox continues the pattern of sequels).

Is what I read somewhere about I:R's development time being 2 years shorter than CK3's accurate? That would set the bar for financial success a lot lower. It's still all guesswork but I don't think the numbers look as bad as people imply when they compare to Paradox's most popular successes. But if you're short on staffing, and you need that short term income, your larger user base is where you need to move them.

As for "Windows 11", well anyone complaining can move to Linux. I:R works perfectly on Linux. Yeah I know, [excuses] and [reasons]. You can probably get over those if Microsoft is bad enough to voice serious complaints (they are, IMO). No need to rehash all that here (trying not to hijack the thread topic too much).

 

[manager2525]

Please remember everyone that PDX are a company whose purpose is to make profit for if no profit then they can neither update old games or design new ones. Sadly I too often see an attitude amongst far too many that, having bought the game and/or the DLC's in a "bargain basement sale", they then sit back taking an attitude that PDX owe them. NO, get real those of you that do!

If PDX return to I:R and I agree with those that say it would be far easier for them to continue development than start afresh then they would be wiser to create v3.0 as a "new product", advertising it's long pedigree and development in v2.0 but ONLY to be played by being bought by all, not an automatic update. Then they have the chance to increase the profit the game overall will have brought the studio. Existing players will then have two choices, buy the "new game" or continue to play v2.0.

If you don't like my words please take into account what happens with most software? Very few offer "lifetime development"?

. . . in any case come Windows 11 many of us may lose a lot of our games as Microsoft's "marketing strategy" will force games studios to adapt old games and make new ones ONLY for that platform . . lest non-compliance with Microsoft "orders" cost them their business!

I have to respectfully disagree at some points.
I think that constructive criticism is a good thing overall all regardless of where it comes from. I would rather have constructive criticism from an offer bundler purchaser than a toxic rant from a pre purchaser. So ihmo its more about the quality of the comment than from whom it might come from. In any case I assume that you only refer to people making toxic comments when talking about attitude of "Paradox owing them".

I agree that continuing the development of I:R makes more sense than starting from scratch. The game has some solid foundations and is at no point outdated. I also understand your point as a fellow enthusiast of the time period and I personally wouldn't mind having to pay for a game like imperator to become even better (even a much higher amount than the current base price). However I do believe that any such move (selling V3.0) would be perceived in a negative way from the vast majority of the playerbase and Paradox would be criticised a lot and Imperator V3.0 would be flamed to oblivion. Just because you and I might be willing to pay more for a game that might interest us a lot doesn't mean others would do too. So ihmo this might not be the best move sales/marketing wise.