To an extent - but my issue with this is that it's more than possible that the game could have been released with plenty of these features in the first place - and they were intentionally witheld - or that they could instead release significant expansions that far more justify the expense. EUIV, for example, I could see having 3-4 major expansions that each incorporate 3-4 of the DLCs/extra cosmetics etc together. The only reason not to do this is greed.
Uh, isn't this exactly what does happen? A roadmap? It's not a grand conspiracy, it's just how stuff works. I do not for one second believe that the content that is in a DLC is just an idea that pops into their heads and makes them say "oh, we should add that, it would be cool!" No, it's something they have pre-planned. Look at strategy games from 10-15 years ago and compare the way they were patched/expanded. Games like Dawn of War and Company of Heroes would receive a handful of major patches to address balance and bugs. DoW received three standalone expansions that were essentially each new games, adding tremendous amounts of content that more than justified the cost. CoH received two standalone expansions that equally added a huge amount of content and could basically be considered their own games. Compare this to Company of Heroes 2; this game was released in such a poor state with fundamental issues to it that required it to be patched more times in its first year than its predecessor needed in its entirety. What else were the devs doing? Churning out DLCs that essentially operated as Pay2Win and eventually an expansion with a decent amount of content but so poorly designed that it resulted in the game needing legions of patches, and still remains fundamentally unbalanced.
How about Total War? Rome Total War came with 2 expansions. It was patched just 4 times to address major issues each time. The 2 expansions featured entirely new grand campaigns with huge amounts of content. Medieval II was patched 5 times after its own singular expansion came with 4 unique campaigns and new features. The moddability the devs made available to the community has resulted in mods that are so advanced and amazing they are still being played and developed to this day. Compare that to Rome II or any of the newer Total War games, that are coming out practically every year, with shoddy AI, shallow mechanics and pack after pack of DLC.
I'm not really singling out any particular 'scummy' developer; it's a critique of the industry in general. Games used to be a labour of love - developers wanted to make something amazing, and of course make money from that, but the intent was artistry. I do not believe this is the case any longer. I remember reading about the way Obsidian made Knights of the Old Republic 2, in an attic, with only around 20 people, desperately trying to work to deadlines set by LucasArts that they had to meet or lose funding. They put everything into getting the game as good as they possibly could, but it was not fully finished when it came out. They shipped it with all the data that didn't make it on the disk anyway, so that the community could at length restore it. And regardless of its unfinished nature, the game is still one of the best RPGs ever made; with the restored content, even better. I cannot see any company in this day and age putting that kind of effort into a project. I struggle to see that developers really care anymore.
Of course, I never disputed this. But the key is that modders never work for money. They work because they love the game, because they have a vision for how to make something really damn good and that they want other people to experience it. That's what a game developer should be. The comparison I've drawn between HOI3 and BlackICE is to illustrate this point - HOI3 could have looked like BlackICE. It could have had thousands of historical events and decisions, unique units, historically accurate counters for divisions, a beautifully textured map, far more options for technology and construction, more diverse division options, a more engaged and supported AI... but it did not.
Do you not recall what the sentiment was when the dev diaries were being released? I was with plenty of beta testers who were constantly saying 'we need better AI than this', and PDX's response was 'it will be better for the release version' - and it was not. They ignored the comments made at the time about the lack of OOB, the battle plans and other things. What was the response from the community in general when the game released?
Of course I do; the past years I have spent doing my utmost with incredibly limited tools trying to get the HOI3 AI as functional as possible. The point being, good AI is the absolute most important thing to any good strategy game. PDX have plenty of experience with this, they knew full well that it was #1 on most of the community's priority list, and they did not, in my eyes, really put the effort in to it. For want of a better phrase, HOI4 felt half-assed.
It's entirely up to them what they charge. I would simply ask if you think the DLCs that have been released at this price are worth that cost. If you think they represent that much in effort. How much would you pay for a mod?
True - and this is a good thing that PDX do that not many others do - not requiring all DLCs to play, and multiplayer still being accessible etc. However I remember when I first got into EUIV about a year ago and I asked a friend what DLCs were absolutely essential, since obviously it was daunting to spend hundreds on them all. I was told that in order to get the best from it I really had to get all of them. Is that what a game should be now? That unless you get all the DLCs, you will be missing out on the best experience? What does that say about the state of the game when it is first released? To me, it says that it is barely a fraction of what it could have been.
