They are likely involved in DLC policies, no? Of course not the minutiae of the development but rather its method of execution.
- 8
- 2
- 1
-
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.
They are likely involved in DLC policies, no? Of course not the minutiae of the development but rather its method of execution.
They really don't. Currency movements worked 8-10% against them. Also last year had strong lockdowns resulting everyone staying at home and playing.
The biggest problem with Paradox at the moment is not the demand for their products, its the very meagre output of DLCs and new games. Now all gaming companies report suffering because of working from home, so its nothing new. If Fred Wester can unclog the slow output. Good times are coming.
- 4
- 1
Imperator may have bounced back on technically becoming a much better game, but that wasn't really reflected in player numbers at all. It's not really a coincide that it's development was put on ice even after how much better 2.0 made it as a game. It's competing with Victoria 2 in activity on steam, a game paradox hasn't actively focused development on for close to 8 years now, and that's not a good look.
- 13
- 1
How long was Fred Wester's previous tenure? I know he stepped down in 2018, but when was he appointed?
Seeing what the company accomplished under him would be helpful to imagine what might be coming ahead.
Seeing what the company accomplished under him would be helpful to imagine what might be coming ahead.
- 1
Didn't want to derail the topic, but I see I can't PM you.
(feb 18th is when it peaks at 7083 concurrent players)
It was on the verge of recovery when it was put down. If it was to be saved, the development should've continued. If it was to be killed, I hate to say it, but it shouldn't have advanced further than Johan's initial fixes. They took the high road and should've stuck to it. Would've been the best for everyone involved.
(feb 18th is when it peaks at 7083 concurrent players)
- 5
- 4
I'd say Ebba's vision is less in our interest than Fredrik's. She was one of those who thought that mobile games are the future, and from what I hear she was a full-marketing person who doesn't play games.
Fredrik is the old CEO, so his return basically suggests returning to old ways rather than a change for the new.
I:R's plug was most certainly pulled before 2.0's release. If anything, I'd say 2.0 is the only reason why it is called "Frozen" instead of "Cancelled".
- 7
- 1
Im sorry... "It was on the verge of recovery before it was put down"... The graph shows it wasn't. The 2.0 patch provided a temporary boost, but players soon dwindled back to pre 2.0 levels. Now whether development has been continued or not, makes no difference here, because if it had been continued, there would not be new content or big patches out so soon anyway.
In the end, PDX is a business and the player numbers dont justify the continued investment. The resources used on Imperator are better used on HoI4, Vicky3, CK3, etc.
- 5
- 4
That graph doesn't make the point you seem to think it does.
What it shows is that player numbers had a temporary increase as some players returned to check the new patch out, and then the player population dropped back down again post 2.0 during a period where no one even knew they had plans to cease development on it, which wasn't announced until early May.
- 3
- 2
- 1
Do you guys really think there was no opportunity to be seized there? Genuine question. I mean those player numbers took a month to die down.
- 4
- 1
Sure there was an opportunity... If PDX had unlimited GSG developers. But they don't. And Stellaris has sold 5,5m copies. HOI4 has 4 million copies sold and 1m active players a month. And Stellaris & HOI4 players would love more content & faster DLC releases.
Thats why they froze Imperator. If in a years time, they can afford to build up a new Imperator team, I'm sure they will.
- 3
- 2
If it's about strategic direction, I think it's a good move to switch CEOs. I think Wester's vision is more in line with longtime fans' expectations. Might be mistaken though, time shall tell.
- 5
- 1
If they don't have the resources now, or a year ago, when will they have them? I think I:R is pretty dead. And I think it's just easier to tell both the investors and the fans that it's frozen. The point I wanted to make in my initial post was that CEOs are relatively irrelevant. If there is any problem with the modern paradox, different from the old, it's them going public as a company. Not any CEO. In time you'll all see.
Last edited:
- 9
That is always the case, for every PDX game.
Whenever a DLC is released, numbers spike, then within a month or two they are back to the usual value, maybe with a marginal increase.
Imperator sadly wasn't an exception here, hope was that it would reach at least a good percentage of its initial playerbase, then normalize on a higher overall value.
It didn't, numbers weren't even substantially higher than with the release of previous patches.
Though it has to be noted, with the decision to freeze development already taken, PDX made a very poor effort in the marketing of 2.0.
Hard to say how decisive that was, and we can only speculate how different the situation could've been had this not been the case, but that's that.
This is really what has me the most pessimistic about IR's situation.
Putting myself in an exec's shoes, I can honestly see how allocating resources to the game in the future would seem like a very unappealing proposal.
But who knows, maybe having a CEO more passionate about PDX games could make the difference here.
- 5
- 1
What has "going public" changed? The controlling shareholders Fred Wester / Spiltan are exactly the same as before going public.
Going public adds some financial scrutiny, sure. But in terms of strategy or control, what has changed by going public? Nothing.
- 3
- 1
I'm quite sure Fred wester had been ceo since the start of pdx
- 5
- 4
Being financially accountable to a significant amount of people isn't big enough of a change? I can't read the minds of senior executives, and neither can you. And we sure as hell can't speculate from all the way down here to what could and couldn't have been achieved in accordance to that accountability. But it's there and it's a large factor. One can throw it under the rug as much as they like.
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
Yep, that just might put the tighty whities of major stock holders in a bunch. Last year you could understand those numbers. Q2 of this year, not so much. Couple that with "philosophical differences" and it's time for a change.
- 1
The only valid question is:
What will this change for the players?
(Will he relaunch the development of Imperator, or say he is dead or do as his predecessor and say nothing?)
What will this change for the players?
(Will he relaunch the development of Imperator, or say he is dead or do as his predecessor and say nothing?)
- 4
- 2