The implication that EU4 or CK2 weren't complete games on release is incredibly unfair. I've put a chunk of time into both games post expansion content, but I spent most of my time on both games with the base game!
- 3
- 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.
I'm sorry but if you don't like it play something else instead of trying to ruin it for the people who do. I personally love the fact that years after release a good portion of my gaming time still goes to ck2 and eu4 due mainly to the fact that they are constantly updating and improving the games. I have no problem paying full price for a dlc or two every 6 months or so to support Paradox doing this.
- 2
- 1
My only problem with the DLCs is that the Steam UI for buying DLCs sucks (though it has slowly improved from abysmal to merely lousy).
I remember the "good old days" of HOI3 and EU3 with their expansions. The DLC model is vastly better (because everuone van stay on the same version) and no more expensive.
I remember the "good old days" of HOI3 and EU3 with their expansions. The DLC model is vastly better (because everuone van stay on the same version) and no more expensive.
- 1
The dozens of cosmetical DLC's should really be seperated from the big stuff like The Old Gods.
- 1
- 1
only they shouldn't. theey should have been part of it.
why did i have to buy accurate dynasty pictures for the old god dynasties? same for Charly, who gave me another shield DLC and TWO seperate clothing packs for early period accurate portraits. why? Because why not.
and then there's always my complaint that i have to buy black people.
- 2
In CK2 we had to pay an extra $25 just to play as every ruler in the game. EA was once a good company too.
- 1
i dont consider that out of the question. the game as made was about crusading kings. i have no reason to need to also play pagans, muslims and indians right away. the only one that could have been argued was republics
- 1
You had no reason to play them right away because the game was released incomplete and the mechanics for these countries did not yet exist. I'm not saying that CK2 was bad on launch because I bought it on release and enjoyed it. But knowing how it is now I know that I shouldn't spend $40 on a PI game at its release when I can wait a few years and get a more complete game on sale. I'm sure they consider the reality of how people buy games today and decided that this approach is the best way to profit from their games, which I can understand. But I don't understand how you can say that their games are complete upon launch when they are designed to be expanded multiple times shortly after release.
- 1
- 1
"it was incomplete" there you go with that idiotic lunacy again. and expanded with a "but they plan to release expansions after release". Were you against Expansion packs in the same way? Those games were also designed to have stuff added onto them after release as well, there isn't a difference.
Why the hell are you here? Why are you on this forum? Why are you supporting somebody you consider greedy moneygrabbers giving us shoddy, incomplete products designed from the start to only be "finished" a few years later?
Go away. you obviously don't like paradox, so go away.
- 1
- 1
- 1
- 1
No to be taken out of context !
Anyway, the DLC model. I'll take it in an example of how it is supposed to work in an ideal world : Let's imagine that CKII was a burger. 20 years ago, you'd have had 2 pieces of bread and meat, as well as salad, tomatoes, ketchup and mayo, all for 15$. 10 years ago, you'd have 2 pieces of bread and some meat for 10$, but they would offer you their Deluxe Addition (salad + tomatoes + ketchup + mayo) for another 5$. Now, you still have 2 pieces of bread and some meat for 10$, salad for 2$, tomatoes for 2$, ketchup for 0.5$ and mayo for 0.5$. But they also added pickles for 1$ and a drink for 3$, which was NOT the case 10 years before because they knew many people hate pickles and wouldn't buy the Deluxe Addition if they had added it.
So, yeah, the price for a full product went up, from 10$ to 15$ to 19$, but that is only because the customers can now flavor their burger as they wish. Same burger would either not have been possible before or cost the same price. That is how the DLC-system is supposed to work, and why it is inherently a GOOD system.
It can however be abused, don't get me wrong. What people are afraid of, is "cutting content". An example : 1990's, I'd offer you a burger with salad and bacon for 10$. 2010's, I'd offer you a burger with bacon for 10$, and add salad for another 2$ => I have cut content from what was in the base-product before, so that I can make more money. Evil me is abusing the DLC system ! The DLC system is a bad system !
However, had I sold the burger with bacon for 8$ and added salad for 2$, everything would have been in order. So this "abuse" is in fact over-pricing of a product - a problem which isn't inherent to the DLC system : after all, a game in the 90's could be over-priced as well. If this is the case, customers will vote with their wallets, and companies (be it Paradox or whomever) will have to adjust their prices. And the magic thing is, that even if your meaning differs of that of the majority about what something is worth, you will just have to be patient : sales occur often in the game industry, and there is a good chance that the game/DLC you want will be 50/60/70% off before a year has passed.
TL;DR : The DLC system is inherently a good system since 1. the customer can buy only the bits he wants without having to pay for things he doesn't want 2. It lets devellopers create more content, that would not have been available in previous business models (eg : Sunset Invasion). The only problem included with it may be the pricing, which isn't inherent to the DLC system but to our capitalistic market of offer and demand, and is easily resolved by patience since games and DLC's go often on sale nowadays.
- 2
- 2
You've never played EU3 when it first came out did you? It was a bug-filled shallow clusterfuck. EU4 was a complete game on release. It was literally EUIII+. CKII was the same as was CKI with the expansion. In CKI you couldn't play as Muslims or pagans or Republics.
You do realize you'd still end up paying the same almost the same amount as with out the Season pass?
I only have about 4-5 DLC for EUIV and the only have more for CKII because I bought a pre-ToG bundle for about $11-12, which also included CKI.
There aren't 2 DLC for India, except for the minor DLC that are optional?
Paradox isn't greedy.
i hate that anaology because it isn't correct, atleast fully.
I likened it to starting with the mona lisa and by the end the picture was napoleon riding on his horse. It's a full product, and by the end of the ck2-eu4 forward dev model, it'll still be a full product, just a different one from before.
You've never played EU3 when it first came out did you? It was a bug-filled shallow clusterfuck. E
vanilla eu was really easy to break if you found the files for it. i was stuck with a cd release state copy of it for a while when i first got it (and i had Vanilla HoI 1 way before that) and watching nations in india become HRE was fun.
Anyone who claims that DLCs are proof that the original is incomplete has never worked in software. There are always more features that you want to implement but lack the time/manpower to do. At a certain point you have to make a decision about which you will implement and which ones you won't. If it is profitable you can go back and do those other features (or any others you come up with) but that doesn't mean the original is incomplete.
- 2
- Jul 1, 2015
- 3.736
- 3.529
I'd also like to just chip in here to share my thoughts.
Our games are never "early access", they are fully fledged games in their own right and you never have to buy a DLC to get a "complete game". Releasing a game and then going "No DLC will ever be released, this game is done!" makes sense for a lot of game types, however, I don't think you can ever call a game like CKII or EUIV "done". There will always be something that can be added and the developers feel the same.
Don't want to pay beyond the original CKII or EUIV? That's fine, you will still have hundreds and hundreds of hours worth of content. Remember, DLC is always optional and we will never force players to buy them.
Our games are never "early access", they are fully fledged games in their own right and you never have to buy a DLC to get a "complete game". Releasing a game and then going "No DLC will ever be released, this game is done!" makes sense for a lot of game types, however, I don't think you can ever call a game like CKII or EUIV "done". There will always be something that can be added and the developers feel the same.
Don't want to pay beyond the original CKII or EUIV? That's fine, you will still have hundreds and hundreds of hours worth of content. Remember, DLC is always optional and we will never force players to buy them.
- 21
- 1
- 1
The fact that Paradox let players without DLC play fully with people who do have the DLC shows their attitude towards new content. They want to produce it and sell it to those who want the added experience without splitting the community.
I was cautious about the new system when it was announced but have come to love it, I get new content every other quarter or so instead of once a year, which well suits me far far better. And it's great for all the guys who don't pay who get free content as well. Personally I say bring it, the more the merrier.
- 2
i disagree cos i bought ckII for the first time last year when there was some sort of megapack on sale, IIRC i paid about $60AUD for everything until WoL, including all units'n'faces'n'stuff. so as long as Paradox keep doing this they'll keep attracting new players.
- 1
that's a GOOD thing! if you enjoy a game then one would think you'd enjoy expansions and improvements as a matter of routine.
i really don't think the devs feel unsupported by people who get things at a discount.