The DLC system is obsolete for paradox grand strategies

[calebmarkle]

Look at it this way. Horse lords adds a new campaign with a new faction, Raja of India adds an extra map with an added campaign. Conquest of Paradise pretty much adds the native americans as a faction as they were initially a placeholder for hostile ai that you invade for more money. It doesn't feel like a new campaign or faction because in an RTS you would be able to see a new army that blatantly looks like an extra faction. Or it adds a campaign that is labelled as a campaign instead of stuff like horse lords where you get a completely new play style in a new region. If paradox were to limit you at the start it would feel like a full expansion. Imagine if EU4 you started with France, England, Austria and Spain as the nations you can choose. Then they added an expansion that unlocks the Ottomans and Muscovy. Suddenly it feels like an expansion because you get 50% more factions. Instead of having 300 countries you can choose and suddenly 10 get heavily updated. The fact paradox gives you so much at release is why it feels like you don't get as much from an expansion

 

[EU3NOOB]

via Imgflip Meme Maker

 

[witekgreg]

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.

very baad idea. Thanks to DLC they are still developing old games. You want Paradox to be like Creative Assembly... They left Rome total war 2 with a lot of bugs after a year (despite a lot of patches) the game is barely playable now, but it still needs a lot of work (rework). So just NO!!! for you idea

 

[henzington]

Rome 2 had a bunch of dlc as well so that isn't the issue so much as how the company handles the game itself. None of the dlc paradox releases is buy to win or makes their games purposefully a huge grind to sell dlc or mircotransactions which is the issue I have with most dlc.

 

[delra]

and also seems greedy

That's where I stopped reading the OP and clicked on Disagree.

I think that in a long-term Paradox should move to a subscription system, like EVE.

 

[Maarten99]

I think that in a long-term Paradox should move to a subscription system, like EVE.

The only games which are, IMO, somewhat excusable for adopting a subscription system are MMO's, since the company has constant costs to the game (servers). I don't cost Paradox anything if I decide to play version 1.1.11 of CKII, so why should I pay a monthly fee ?

I guess your argument is "but you cost Paradox money under the form of bugfixes/free new mechanics". However, these are one-time only costs (in theory, Groogy doesn't need to resolve the same bug each month, over and over and over again) and should be payed for with one-time only payments - such as when I buy the DLC which funded all the awesome "free" stuff.

 

[TCWolffe]

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.

Being released in a buggy/beta/unplayable state is one thing (and still happens way to often, but that's industry-wide and no post on any individual developer's forum will change that).

Releasing a game that then, through add-on purchases, allows for iteration and improvement on features that are complete/don't "need" improvement.

Why is this a bad thing, again?

This isn't that different from standalone games ($50) with expansion packs ($10-30) that, similarly, contain some bug fixes and core engine adaptations (to allow for new features) which the team took advantage of the opportunity to bundle in. This was true in the boxed games days and is still true now, it just happens with more overlapping cycles at work at the same time (DLC being released today, DLC which is nearing completion/in testing, DLC which is still being worked up, and probably multiple DLCs in concept phase). Plus DLCs often come with core game features added, but enticing and well-supported variations of those new mechanics available with the purchase. This means even a player who never purchases a DLC may see new features added to their game with no additional investment. The old boxed expansions was all-or-nothing.

 

[RELee]

This again?

The DLC system is so superior over the old expansion system that I really do not understand why there is a section of players arguing against DLC's. Makes me wonder why people call me reactionary.

V2 is a prime example of the expansion system. Do you want to play V2 these days? Well then get ready to buy the base game AND both expansions if you want a good experience, and even after 2 expansions there are still a few things that could have / should have been tweaked a bit. It's like having a gun held to your head. You have no choice but to spend more money to get your patches to remove the annoying features of the game.

The DLC's. Get them or not. It's up to you. Oh, and while we are at it, here are some really nice fixes for some annoying issues in the base game. If you like the free fixes and the DLC sounds interesting, you might consider purchasing the DLC. Releasing these nice DLC's is how we help pay for the continued support of your game, but hey - no pressure. But it not. It's you choice.

Oh well. Opinions differ. Go ahead and complain. I will support your right to provide constructive criticism. I just don't happen to agree with what you are advocating. I like the DLC system.