The DLC system is obsolete for paradox grand strategies

[mestermagyar]

IMO, we all see that this DLC system can be very confusing, and limiting, and also seems greedy.

Paradox grand strategies are literally early access games in the good term. They do not just add extra content, they develop a game they way like it was incomplete, changing every existing feature over time. Forexample: Ck2 has a new method for distinguishing feudal, tribal, nomad, iqta, theocracy holding.

DLC kind of distribution is for extra weps and missions, but not for a game under literal development. I think that this system needs to change.

I would prefer something where:
1. You dont have to spend hundreds of dollars to join in with a complete game, but neither paradox studios becomes Jesus 2.0 with 10 humble traits. Some kind of system where the game is expanded completely free for 1 year after you buy the Season pass. Version stops there for people who dont buy more.

2. Developers dont have to mess around with compatibility and necessity of the 50+ DLC you either buy or not.

3. Developers can build on everything they made for the game before, as they dont have to make it a DLC and keeping up their promises for it. They could improve India without having to go through a new DLC, messing around and people being pissed for getting india experience in 2 DLC. You cant do it now, because if you buy something like an india DLC, they cant really say that they want to improve it further and release a DLC only for people who bought the previous DLC (well if they did, that would seem even more greedy).

Yeah, I know it has cons, and people who never buy anything for the game will disagree. But all the others would get a bit cheaper game where you are up to date for a year after season pass without worrying of being left out of anything.

 

[lordmichael95]

I would prefer something where:
1. You dont have to spend hundreds of dollars to join in with a complete game,

Why are you including all the extra song and sprite packs? That's just being dishonest. In addition, you forgot to mention that Paradox has frequent sales.

But if you really want a Paradox employee to see this thread, you should wait until they come back from vacation.

 

[jacktimes2]

From their point of view, it makes them money, therefore it is not obsolete.

 

[novapaddy]

I must admit, yesterday, with the release of a new expansion to CK2, I noticed also the paradox sale being advertised. I looked there, and was very surprised to count FORTY TWO dlc's for sale in one collection. WOW!!!!! FORTY TWO DLC'S.

I then opened up my Steam account to see how many did I have already bought, because here was my chance to go get those I had missed for a cheap price.

DOUBLE my surprise to count up my Steam list of CK2 dlc's .... I had already bought 95% of them!!!!!!

Yes I see your point in realising the vast amount of expansions, but to counter that, Paradox do have good sales, and I ask you: What other way can they have to keep working on the game?

 

[Daddl]

Steam or other shops should just make a clear distinguition between "DLC" and "Expansion". Label them more differently, put the expansions at top of the lists and don't hide them between 40 graphic assets. Maybe people realize then that they exaggerate the costs for Paradox games massively (because half the price is cosmetical stuff most people don't need), especially considering there are sales with 50-90% off every few months.

 

[yourworstnightm]

The DLC system is fine if you're on the train from the beginning (from launch). It's paced decently and you throw money at Paradox every once in a while. However if you want to start CK2 now it would be a nightmare with more DLC than anyone can count, valued over 100 dollars/ euros.

 

[Spartanlemur]

The DLC system is fine if you're on the train from the beginning (from launch). It's paced decently and you throw money at Paradox every once in a while. However if you want to start CK2 now it would be a nightmare with more DLC than anyone can count, valued over 100 dollars/ euros.

£122 to be exact.

But when it's on sale (as it is now), only £30 for essentially everything. I don't see a problem with this.

Keep in mind that the rewards of DLC are what have kept it being made. Season passes disincentivise content.

 

[aruon]

what most of the above posts state.

sure, even without unit, sprite, and music packs, the total cost for expansions passes $100. however, the features seen in CK2 and EU4 are the very real genuine expansion, as in adding something actually new and previously impossible to the game. even with open worlds like TES, fallout, witcher, etc. expansions are not physically impossible for anyone outside of the development team to make; it's astronomically unlikely but it's possilble. hell, look at falskaar for skyrim. that mod really is a full non-official expansion for the game.

plus the cost of expansions being double the base game when all is said and done isn't anything new. hell, some season passes are the same exact price of the base game now!
fortunately everytime you so much as fart steam has some 1000% discount on everything.

 

[heliostellar]

If it's obsolete as you're suggesting the why is it so successful? Also, they've said in the past that the DLC model is what supports the free patch system as well. Considering how responsive they are to user input vs a monolithic company like EA, you have to look at the totality of what you're paying for.

Having said that, I do think that it can get too expensive for a brand new player, but I don't mind paying full price for a new DLC, especially where you can have the actual developer directly respond to constructive criticism. Try that with any other game company. It doesn't happen.

 

[Sernista]

More individual sales units means more choice for the consumer on what they want to buy. That's a good thing. You don't have to pay any more for three packs at $2 than you do for one pack at $6. Does it look messy in the interface? Yeah, a bit. But being able to decide what precisely you think is worth your money is good for us, and good for helping Paradox figure out what sort of content people want.

Plus, by all indications they've been highly successful commercially on the current model, which enables them to make better games. For example, see how they have the money to delay HoI IV and ensure it's awesome and polished in the Blizzard style, rather than having another HoI III launch? That's a direct consequence of the CK II / EU IV business model. We get better games because of it. That's a win for us, and a win for them too. Everybody wins.

 

[Hakuromatsu]

@OP
A subscription/pass model does little to alleviate the problems you've described. Players that close their wallets at any given point may get left with a buggy product that won't be patched for as long as their wallets are closed, and are left with the same fundamental question of "do I want to spend more money on this game, when it's not entirely clear what I'm spending it on?" It's the same issue of players who continue to buy into the system getting the full product and players who don't continue to buy into the system getting an incomplete product.

Now that said, I'll concede that the DLC model is overly confusing for EU4. In the first 2-3 years of CK2 DLC development we got breadth-based expansions that were easily marketable and had clear, concise functions -- "the Muslim expansion," "the republic expansion," "the Indian expansion," etc. A player that has no intention of playing a Muslim character can ignore SoI and miss literally nothing (IIRC). The game is fully complete for non-Muslim characters without purchasing Sword of Islam.

With EU4, though, most of the expansions have been depth-based and not easily marketable, which I'll admit makes it difficult for me to recommend the game to new players; I play with all expansions/DLC 100% of the time and don't have an intuitive sense for how ignoring any individual expansion would change the game. And that has also, very clearly, made the parallel development of free versions and expanded versions of EU4 a mess for the EU4 dev team (just look at the development/building slot issues faced by 1.12 players who didn't buy Common Sense). So I would agree that the new DLC model only works for breadth-based expansions and not depth-based expansions.

However...all that said, it's also very clear that this has been a lucrative model for Paradox (in both revenue and player count). So it's working in spite of that, which counts for something.

 

[markmid]

I prefer games I enjoy to be supported with new content, rather than not.

I prefer getting to pick which bits of that content I want and don't want.

I don't yet see a better system proposed.

 

[KaleRaven]

It's not ideal, but I don't think a pass system would be better. First of all, you realize that the number of DLC the game gets depends very much on how each one sells. It's not like they plan ahead that there will be 20 DLC from the beginning. Hence, to argue that it is 'early access' is completely false, because Paradox can and will leave games without DLC if there is no demand. The DLC system they have now is not too far from a subscription model actually, but more discrete. So long as there are enough 'subscribers,' they will keep adding new content. While DLC gets a bad rap for its abuses, its not a bad system for delivering additional content over time. If people like the content, they buy it. Otherwise they don't.

 

[Wowi]

Paradox grand strategies are literally early access games in the good term.

Well, that's clearly just not true. EU4 on release was a solid game in itself with everything you needed to have a good experience. Anything they've added since is basically expansions, but in modern terms "DLC" covers that as well it seems. I suspect you've never actually tried an early access game if you compare them to EU4.

As has already been pointed out, you can find both EU4 and CK2 (and almost all the older DLCs) on sale at pretty much any time so talking about how much the full experience would cost at full price is pretty much pointless. If you're just looking to get into the game now and don't buy the base game and the majority of the older DLCs for 75% off or more you only really have yourself to blame. And talking about "50+ DLCs" is equally pointless, as so many of them are either cosmetic or extra music. In EU4s case, the number of DLCs that really adds to the game is six, which is a lot more manageable.

 

[Mr. Capiatlist]

The problem I see with this constant critique of the DLC system is this notion that the games first release was/is "incomplete", which is a lie. No project is ever "complete" there is always something that has to be removed or left "for another day".

The recent expansion policies allow for that dropped material and mechanics to eventually be incorporated into the game by a) expanding the lifetime of the game and b) funding the addition of more material with occasional injections of money below the base price of a game.

Am I the only one who remembers such beloved games as Age of Empires II with its one expansion pack and a handful of patches? And that expansion pack added a scenario, five races - three of which were copy-pastes with new unique units, and the AI still was super easy to exploit? And not so much as a single new mechanic? That was life before DLCs. EUII - same thing. I'm not sure what the final patch for EUII was but it certainly wasn't as high as 2.4.2. I think it was 1.08e.

If CKII came out in 1996 or even 2005 you would have gotten base game, Sons of Abraham, and maybe.... MAYBE Sword of Islam. Prices would've been around $45, $20, and $30. Total life of the game would have been five years, maybe two with support. Four if sales were really good. And the thing was is that'd be completely okay. People were excited when new material came out for games they loved. I remember (though only vaguely) the days before patching. When if a game sucked it sucked forever. When patching finally came around it meant you were a super nerd. What you actually check their website for updates? Nerd. Now it is automatic, games get constant support and updates, and yes we have to pay for it. Oh no. People expect to be compensated for their work? Are you kidding me?

But I'll take dropping $15 every six months for a whole new breath of life in my game than an imperfect base game, one expansion that doesn't fix anything and adds what today would be considered an optional aesthetic DLC, and six patches, four of which actually deliver noticeable improvement.

 

[P-51]

I prefer games I enjoy to be supported with new content, rather than not.

I prefer getting to pick which bits of that content I want and don't want.

I don't yet see a better system proposed.

I prefer receiving a game on release instead of an outline. 10 years ago games were designed to be complete by themselves and expansions were only considered if the game was super successful. Now games are designed to be expanded in the near future.

 

[KaleRaven]

Don't be colored by nostalgia. EU4 was no less "complete" than EU2 was, prior to the DLC age. The difference is that there were few effective ways to extend a game's lifetime long beyond release, as there are now. With DLCs, they have been able to cram far more detail then ever before, and add complex new mechanics that were considered impractical in the past. The sheer amount of actual game content is far beyond what older games had. No question.

Features and content have always been cut to make release dates and fit tight budgets. The difference now is that they can actually go back to those ideas post release and implement them if the game is successful.

 

[P-51]

But how much of that additional game content can be credited to the DLC model? I would guess that its because they finally got good at making the same game after the fourth time.

 

[Mikalos]

£122 to be exact.

But when it's on sale (as it is now), only £30 for essentially everything. I don't see a problem with this.

Keep in mind that the rewards of DLC are what have kept it being made. Season passes disincentivise content.

the problem with the "but when its on sale it's super great!" is that you really shouldn't be -encouraging- a userbase of people who only bought into paradox lifestyle when it was on the cheap, instead of fully supporting the devs.

 

[Mikalos]

I prefer receiving a game on release instead of an outline. 10 years ago games were designed to be complete by themselves and expansions were only considered if the game was super successful. Now games are designed to be expanded in the near future.

the games -are- complete on launch. Eu4 was a fully formed Eu3 + some stuff. That sounds like a complete game unless you want to argue Eu3 isn't "complete". Ck2 was everything ck1 was at the end + more!

You're treating this like it's EA, releasing the same game every few years but witholding all the stuff added onto the last one since release so we can buy them again.

and im happy ith the dlc model if it means i get my map expansion in the pfree patch instead of having to buy it like with DW