Not to mention that as far as niche games go, Paradox is going cheaper than they need to already. More money means better cash flow, which means more flexibility to delay if it's necessary.
-
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.
Not to mention that as far as niche games go, Paradox is going cheaper than they need to already. More money means better cash flow, which means more flexibility to delay if it's necessary.
The base game should be good enough that we really don't feel like we need to buy any DLC for it. Of course, a much better game is more likely to sell the expansions for it anyway, as long as they aren't excessive. A $60 well polished and content heavy game with $30 substantial expansions once per year is better than a $40 game that feels somewhat half-baked with obvious mistakes that need to be patched that sells with a $20 "deluxe upgrade", then another $20 expansion nine months later (for that much needed flavour), with a $10 content pack that's not included for some reason, then another $10 immersion pack a few months after that, plus $5 for some historical and graphical enhancements sold separately and look out 'cause another $20 expansion is coming your way etc. etc.
I am sorry but in germany i had to pay 55 euro for the deluxe edition. Thatx expensiver as some cheap aaa games. Just saying
I think they are moving there. They recently talked about something they built between Clautwiz and their GSGs that contain features shared across GSGs. I think they also realised they were wasting resources where it was probably unnecessary. However, there is technical issues to roll that sort of things out and it will only pay for imperator and the following games.
Whaaaaat? =)
Literally the vast majority of MP campaigns in EU4 and CK2 are 15-19 y.o. teenagers that are studying at school, college or university. The second most common group is 20-23 y.o. adults.
Funny, my read on the situation is they want that years extra development time but DON'T want to pay more for it, in fact some are yammering that the current price is too high...
Current price is definitely not too high. However, my guess is more development time could be afforded at the current price given how Paradox is turning into a larger publisher, not just a developer, so they'll end up with a steadier stream of products and therefore cash. No need to rush once that's accomplished.
So, what you're proposing is that we pay €35 more for features to be directly added to the game, that would otherwise come in free patches?
Not the first time this has been suggested, and not in an "angry bitter" non-ironic way.
For Paradox to do an EA release for the first 45 days then a retail release wouldn't be a terrible idea, that way if the initial launch WAS buggy as all get-out the actual response would be "Guys, this is the EA version. Relax."
It really might not be a terrible idea. I'd support it.
I think it is far better to release the game early for cheaper and have more DLCs later. The reason is that the devs will have more feedback earlier and can take it into account when making the first patch/DLC.I mperator one year after release will be better than if they had continued pre-release development for one more year.
Also, the current model gives players the option to not buy the first DLC.
Also, the current model gives players the option to not buy the first DLC.
I think that's the issue though, people look at CKII and its current form (which is magnificent) and then say "why did they reinvent the wheel for Imperator?" Those lessons were already learned and the next game should build upon the previous games rather than reset to basic. Why should they expect to wait until 2025 for Imperator to looks as good as CK?
I didn't buy the game, so I've got no dog in this fight, but I think that's where the 'barebones' folks are probably coming from.
Nowadays lots of services got three different price categories: normal, social and supporter’s price. No one is forced to buy them for the latter one.
Because CK2 (technically with it's dlcs) costs $350 while Imperator $40?
If you want to change the policy, don't buy it.
Pdox did enough to earn that conclusion from me for both Stellaris and I:R, though for different reasons. I:R's release reviews coupled with systemically earned distrust were enough for me that I wouldn't play I:R if it were offered free. Which someone did, and I thanked them when I turned down the gift.
It's unfortunate. I don't want the game to be bad, or to engage in dishonesty. Years of documenting UI lying and watching broken aspects of basic mechanics go untouched in multiple games erodes trust that way, but it's not with a triumphant sense that I'm saying this. I don't *like* that devs were so out of touch that they buffed an option players were already bending over backwards to use "because they needed a reason to go there". But it happened, and along with similarly nonsensical changes by Pdox's own provided data (showing idea group pick rate/strength then nerfing below-average stuff + buffing high pick rate stuff) EU 4 became worse for it. We still got DLC for it, all while in-game UI lies from 4 years ago are still there.
I don't consider that acceptable. There's only one vote that counts much, however, and that's the one you make with your wallet. I've made mine. I enjoyed these games a long time and would still like to enjoy them, but it's not just out of principle that I've chosen as such. I:R looks like a degraded version of more of the same. Already being given reason to distrust as the quality of a title I enjoyed was degraded, why go into an apparently worse experience? Even free, that's not for me.
DCSS is free too, and when the game lies to you the devs try to fix it. Novel concept in strategy gaming lately, I know.
Pdox did enough to earn that conclusion from me for both Stellaris and I:R, though for different reasons. I:R's release reviews coupled with systemically earned distrust were enough for me that I wouldn't play I:R if it were offered free. Which someone did, and I thanked them when I turned down the gift.
It's unfortunate. I don't want the game to be bad, or to engage in dishonesty. Years of documenting UI lying and watching broken aspects of basic mechanics go untouched in multiple games erodes trust that way, but it's not with a triumphant sense that I'm saying this. I don't *like* that devs were so out of touch that they buffed an option players were already bending over backwards to use "because they needed a reason to go there". But it happened, and along with similarly nonsensical changes by Pdox's own provided data (showing idea group pick rate/strength then nerfing below-average stuff + buffing high pick rate stuff) EU 4 became worse for it. We still got DLC for it, all while in-game UI lies from 4 years ago are still there.
I don't consider that acceptable. There's only one vote that counts much, however, and that's the one you make with your wallet. I've made mine. I enjoyed these games a long time and would still like to enjoy them, but it's not just out of principle that I've chosen as such. I:R looks like a degraded version of more of the same. Already being given reason to distrust as the quality of a title I enjoyed was degraded, why go into an apparently worse experience? Even free, that's not for me.
DCSS is free too, and when the game lies to you the devs try to fix it. Novel concept in strategy gaming lately, I know.
About price:-
1)Even CK2 imperial collection without sale doesn't cost 350$ , I just bought it about 2 weeks ago.
2)You don't have to get IC to enjoy all or most of the features even 100$ is good enough to enjoy most of the good feature without sale.Especially in Euro region.
3)IMHO even base CK2 is wayyyy more detailed than IC.Granted because of updates.
4)It has been on sale a lot of times and even the base game was free for a brief period so people generally bought it for much less.
About being good:-
1)Being good doesn't depend on the amount of features you crank into it with DLCs or just vanilla.
2)People consider Vicky 2 good or even better which I haven't played and it doesn't have so many DLCs or even updates.
Well yeah, of course people consider that the basic features of previous games belonging to the same genre should be included in newer games. It has always been the case.
And honestly I'm tired of the bad faith of people who can't see how Imperator is barebones. Every country on the map feels roughly the same (there are tribes and non-tribes, plus a few different modifiers, and that's all). It's not even about having features of previous games, it's about being consistent with the chosen theme of the game - the antiquity. Why even have such a big map everything on it is the same? It's not about perfection either. It's just about the basic fun of playing a strategy games.
All strategy game designers opted for solutions in order to prevent the feel that "every faction is the same". Usually the solution is asymmetric gameplay. The devs didn't even try for Imperator. And it has such an unimmersive gameplay that I'd prefer to play one of those german tabletop games where everything is about points and worker management than Imperator. People complain about mana, but the problem is that it's just points, points everywhere and army spam.
Nobody is going to blame you for liking Imperator. It's an old school, straight forward wargame with a relatively pretty map. But it's a plain lie, or a big default of awareness, to pretend that you can't see why people dislike Imperator.
Paradox games are no longer niche, and have not been in quite a long time now.
I understand why you would think that if you're still a fan of those bland wargames (or "map painters" as we call them these days) they used to make. But just look at how popular CK2 or Stellaris are. You'll find references to these games everywhere. CK2 is as popular as Civilization now. Everytime I see a post on the web that is about medieval things, there's a reference to CK2. Popular streamers who don't play strategy games usually did some videos about CK2.
And EU4 is the biggest reference in strategy gaming (which is big enough to not be called niche).
I will just quote the steam stats as I'm writing this. CK2 is currently at 4177 players, between Grim Dawn and SMITE. EU4 is at 5207 between SKYRIM (yeah) and Killign Floor 2. Stellaris is at 7024 (!!!) between Left for Dead 2 and World of Tanks. Do these games evoke "niche" to you?
Meanwhile, Imperator isn't even in the list of the 100 most played games.
So yeah, Paradox released a niche wargame in 2019, and advertised it as a grand strategy game. Which is obviously the problem. They were unable to see that Imperator was absolutely not a game for the same audience as their other strategy games. Imperator should have been sold for 20 euros or something, and presented as a side project. Not as the BIG NEW GAME of 2019. We could say that Stellaris was also a bit bland at release, but it would be dishonest. Stellaris was incredibly ambitious. Almost everything in it was new for Paradox, or new for strategy games. Meanwhile, Imperator is a EU4 reskin with some new features (like families) that are poorly done anyway.
I don't know what the core problem of Imperator is ; if it's whether they lacked time, if it's just a marketing issue, or if it's because the game design lead has an obsolete view on Paradox games. But there's definitly an issue and Paradox has to try to find solutions. The issue is not the player having higher standards.
How should they make them feel differently? Our information on the era is that those were all "barbarian" tribes after all. I'll grant that some differentiation between the different pagan religions beyond name & icon should be there but that is being addressed. Should they have just pulled %^&* out of their #$%es to differentiate between this barbarian tribe and that one? You and I both know what would have happened then-howls of outrage because this tribe actually did x, not y, based on dubious sources and other forum whining.
