• 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.
For how long, though? 'Are we there yet?' gets old quite quickly...

Kids ask 'Are we there yet?'... Are you suggesting we're immature kids because we want a product that works as advertised?

To answer your question: Kids keep asking that question until the destination is in sight. Right now, we don't even know what the destination is...
 
  • 5Like
  • 2
Reactions:
For how long, though? 'Are we there yet?' gets old quite quickly...
Not so quickly as "we'll get there, don't worry", which is what we heard every week for 2,5 months now. Instead of an apology and a roadmap, we still get this "too high expectations" nonsense, a "most bugs should be fixed next spring", some vague guesses about official modding and a promise to optimize the simulation when the graphics optimization will be over.

CO should be thankful for the "are we there yet" crowd because we're the ones still caring, still waiting. There is now less CS II's players than CS I's. A lot of disappointed buyers won't come back which means they won't buy any of the many future DLCs.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Are you suggesting we're immature kids because we want a product that works as advertised?
Not at all. But I am suggesting that repetition weakens a message, rather than strengthens it.
 
Not so quickly as "we'll get there, don't worry", which is what we heard every week for 2,5 months now. Instead of an apology and a roadmap, we still get this "too high expectations" nonsense, a "most bugs should be fixed next spring", some vague guesses about official modding and a promise to optimize the simulation when the graphics optimization will be over.

CO should be thankful for the "are we there yet" crowd because we're the ones still caring, still waiting. There is now less CS II's players than CS I's. A lot of disappointed buyers won't come back which means they won't buy any of the many future DLCs.

I did not realize this was the case, but you are right. I checked on SteamDB, and that's wild.

CS1: 12,401 24-hour peak

CS2: 11,013 24-hour peak

Do people know how long this has been going on?

For how long, though? 'Are we there yet?' gets old quite quickly...
Given the above, I assume until the game gets fixed or people decide to give up and stop playing/caring altogether?

On a positive note, the total player count across both games seems to be what CS1 player count was before CS2 release. Looking at the chart, it seems people returned to playing the first game after a while (which is probably a positive long-term for CO as they may return to CS2 eventually).

As long as people are polite (I feel people have been in this thread), I don't believe antagonizing them because they are complaining would benefit the company or the game. They are unhappy but engaged customers. That's probably much better than indifferent ones.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
On a positive note, the total player count across both games seems to be what CS1 player count was before CS2 release. Looking at the chart, it seems people returned to playing the first game after a while (which is probably a positive long-term for CO as they may return to CS2 eventually).
I haven't checked myself but I don't think it's positive. CS is a popular and wonderful game but the 2015 version has mostly run its course, even periodically refreshed by a DLC. 8 years is a very long time and the "crazy" (Mariina's word in the video) number of DLCs was somewhat discouraging for new players. So a sequel should have attracted much more players, new or returning, not just us CS-addicts.

I wonder how many copies were sold. Has someone seen numbers? In 2015, 1 month after CS release, Mariina was proud (and rightly so) to announce the first million of copies.

The bad reviews on Steam don't help and with 40% negative they won't change overnight. I'm eager to change mine to positive as soon as CO give me reasons to (better performance, major bugs fixing and full official modding with all editors, the platform and the region packs) but most people never update their reviews. It'll take a lot of new satisfied players to get to "very positive" and only 9% negative reviews like CS.
 
15th does sound better than "a few weeks out" :)

In the last Word of the Week, you basically just said, we're continuing to fix bugs and listen to your suggestions. That's not useful information. We want to know exactly which todos are on your list, from major bugs that need immediate attention to small suggestions you might do in a few months. (Is roadmap the right word? Maybe backlog is better.)

That would allow us to understand the current situation and where you want the game to be. For example, the missing animations on firefighters (a small detail, but it makes the city feel more alive and real). Were they cut because of performance issues, or because you ran out of time, or was this even a deliberate choice (I hope not)? We don't know - at least I haven't seen a response to this. Maybe you answered it somewhere in the forums, but the information gets lost here. That's why we need a central place to look up what we can and cannot expect in the future.
We can definitely look into a better overview of what we're currently working on and what's next on our list. What exactly that might look like is something we'll have to figure out.

Regarding animations for firefighters, that's something I can answer. The character models were unfortunately delayed, which meant that anything requiring them to be animated wasn't possible before release. This is also why we do not have bicycles in the game. More animations with citizens are on our list of things we'd love to add, but as they're a visual improvement, I'm afraid they're not a high priority at this time.

Until either the game is fixed and mods are out and it's enjoyable enough that we're willing to overlook whatever cracks remain that can be polished over with future updates/DLC, or until they give us some concrete information about proposed improvements.

On that latter, I mentioned a roadmap in my above post, one thing that I'd point to would be that there seem to be some parallels between the release of CS2 and Victoria 3 in terms of community ire with the delivered product. One thing that significantly helped quell unrest was Wiz posting roadmaps concerning post-release development objectives, and acknowledging major shortcomings that are highest priority for revamping.


Wiz has posted several of those as development has progressed, marking things off and discussing the practical implications of new developments, what they're experimenting with, what's worked, what hasn't, and overall what final vision they have for the game. With the most recent we can see the concrete progress that's been made.


I appreciate that some of this is reflected in some Words of the Week, but it often feels a bit piecemeal and vague. I think having objectives that we see and know they're working towards to improve the game would be a big step in both creating the desired transparency and reducing the tension in the community about the state of the game.
Thank you for these! I'll have a look and see what we can "steal" and apply to our dev diaries/CO Word of the Week. :D

Let's look to the future rather than dwelling on the past.
I don't think we have to avoid talking about what's happened, there's been a lot of valuable feedback coming from that. But we can't change the past, only make improvements for the future, and that does make the conversations about what's to come more valuable to us. To keep the "Are we there yet?" analogy going, I'd be curious to hear what there looks like for everyone. What are the most important improvements to you? While I'm sure we have players with different priorities, it's always really good feedback to hear about the things that are at the top of your list, whether it's performance or bug fixes, or little details like animated firefighters. It helps us determine if we're prioritizing the right things, and what should perhaps be on the list of "Up next" improvements. :)
 
To keep the "Are we there yet?" analogy going, I'd be curious to hear what there looks like for everyone. What are the most important improvements to you? While I'm sure we have players with different priorities, it's always really good feedback to hear about the things that are at the top of your list, whether it's performance or bug fixes, or little details like animated firefighters. It helps us determine if we're prioritizing the right things, and what should perhaps be on the list of "Up next" improvements. :)
The priority? No offense but I'd say full official modding because I trust the modders to fix the game much faster than CO (BTW, thanks for all your CS assets, I love your work and used them for years in my builds). Loading Screen Mod and FPS Booster brought huge performance improvements to CS. Other mods fixed bugs or balanced the simulation. I expect the same for CS II.

Any full release 50$/€ game, whatever the marketing campaign, is expected to be mostly bug-free and having good performance. But there's more: with CS II, just like with any CO game, everybody expected modding support. Being a detailer, I feel cheated, like having paid full price for half a game. The vanilla maps are ugly, almost all assets are american and most of them are barely OK, there is only a few textures and they're flat. Plus no props, no themes and we have to do with the boring repetition of a few buildings.

Open the gates to the wealth of creativity and talent of the CS modders. That'll make us a community again instead of the crowd of upset customers we became since this terrible release in october.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I wonder how many copies were sold. Has someone seen numbers? In 2015, 1 month after CS release, Mariina was proud (and rightly so) to announce the first million of copies.

I don't know how reliable the stats are, but Steamspy gives 9.24M owner for CS1, and 1.43M for CS2. CO would probably have more accurate numbers, but I don't know if they publish such figures.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The admission of broken trust. I can respect that.
They knew their actions would break that trust long before they took them.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Not at all. But I am suggesting that repetition weakens a message, rather than strengthens it.
Not repeating the message might let colossal order and paradox think that maybe people just didn't care as much about releasing a broken game that the CEO themselves said didn't match up to their marketing.

How about you look forward to another section of the forum and not start trolling this one to dump on people who have spent their hard earned on a broken game that was deliberately released in a broken state instead of delayed for the 2+ years of development it clear will need to become an acceptable standard.

This level of disaster shouldn't be something that gets buried by moderators or the devs. The message (don't lie to customers in the marketing, don't charge full price for a beta, don't blame customers for being tricked by marketing you had full control over, don't release broken products) should be in their face every single time they walk in the door to Colossal Order & Paradox until they fix the game.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
I'd be curious to hear what there looks like for everyone. What are the most important improvements to you? While I'm sure we have players with different priorities, it's always really good feedback to hear about the things that are at the top of your list, whether it's performance or bug fixes, or little details like animated firefighters. It helps us determine if we're prioritizing the right things, and what should perhaps be on the list of "Up next" improvements. :)
Bug fixes:
-Export cargo
-Economy (tax of a merchandise goes crazy)
-Land value
-The high elementary school (too many children, is it a failure? If not maybe adjust to capacity x2)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I'd be curious to hear what there looks like for everyone. What are the most important improvements to you?

This is a vague concept in name, but "game feel".

I can live with bugs, I cannot live with major design flaws that carry through the entire experience.

The game balance is so far off I don't believe the game was seriously playtested in a way where someone "played the game". Yes, someone tested "do buildings place right?" and "how do cars handle this kind of thing" and whatnot, but I don't believe anyone seriously sat down and played the game and took note of how it "felt".

The progression systems all feel off. The money all feels off. The speed all feels off.

In CS1, all of its flaws included, playing felt like you were constantly climbing a mountain and it was constantly getting bigger in front of you.

In CS2, playing feels like you're just kinda walking in circles at the base of a hill.

You unlock features within half an hour of playing that you'll not be able to afford, or need, for another 25 hours. You get progression points to spend on upgrades that aren't necessary until you have 100,000 people sitting around. It takes ages to get a higher population. You have citizens going to school for such a long, long, long time that you have to play for hours upon hours to see the impact the education system is even having on anything.

And by the time it has an impact on anything, you have placed 20 elemetnary schools to your 1 high school, because the ENTIRE education system is broken. It's broken, and we know it's broken, and modders have figured out why it's broken, and yet- no patch addresses it. No patch addresses the simple, objective, proven, cataloged, written-down-and-available-for-anybody-to-understand problem that kids spend a zillion times more time in school as teens who pop out of school nearly immediately, resulting in an extreme disparity in age development and in education progression. We've had this bug figured out for over a month, there's been mods to adjust it for over a month, and when will we see it patched? Who knows. We have no idea when to expect anything.

Your city of 50 people will suddenly start refusing to live in houses and DEMAND rowhouses meant for major metropolitan areas because they for some unfathomable reason unlock when you have been playing for 15 minutes. Then you unlock high density housing within the hour, and your small town wants to live in high-rises. Meanwhile your commercial stagnates as low density for another two hours, during which time you don't want to develop it anyway because all your existing commercial says there aren't enough customers and your entire city is too poor to buy anything anyway because their rent is too high because they move into whatever house they feel like without any attempt at trying to budget for it or actually make sure they can afford it.

Nothing in this game works. It works! You tested whether or not the functions exist and do things, but nobody tested if it works.

I've been playing since launch. I have over 100 hours in the game. I have still yet to make a city where I actually need garbage services because every single service can be handled by outside connections for such a long time, and there isn't even a way to disable those services from coming over and helping. But in CS1 you unlocked garbage and BAM! Instantly every house needed its trash taken out! You have to build garbage services, hurry! And within a short time those services are overwhelmed. Did you plan space for more? Can you upgrade to something better? What are the tradeoffs? Quick, figure it out! People move out real fast if their garbage piles up!

But in CS2? You get 60k people and MAYBE you'll need garbage, which you've had access to for 25 hours, and it'll last you a lifetime before you ever need to consider any of the upgrades that you've been able to afford to buy since the first two hours of playing the game.

Same goes for basically every service.

It's just not balanced.

Not one single aspect of play feels like it's balanced and well organized, and I fear there's never going to be any significant look into this sort of thing to make it better- which really, really sucks, because if you guys had launched this game as early access, this is the feedback you'd be working on. But since you decided to launch it "finished" but absolutely loaded with problems and missing content, we instead get "Well, this isn't a priority at this time..." on everything because "actually finishing the game" takes precedence. And it should take precedence, but the idea that we're gonna be waiting a year or two for you to actually get to the smaller stuff that changes how the game *really feels to play*, if you ever get to it, is so depressing.

Balance is what makes games like this fun to play and it's just not there! There is no gameplay loop to this game. I'd even argue on some levels it's more of a "city painter" than the first game which is just so unfortunate when it really did seem like you guys were aiming to make it NOT that. The industry systems should be so fun to play with! To set taxes to influence what moves in! To get industrial sectors that all work around a couple of types of products, to specialize a la SimCity 2013, to encourage your city to thrive off the forest or to extract oil and produce computers and software! The pieces are there! But they don't *work*.

I'm just scared they're never going to. Or if they ever do, they'll be locked behind paid DLC.
 
  • 7Like
  • 2
Reactions:
I don't think we have to avoid talking about what's happened, there's been a lot of valuable feedback coming from that. But we can't change the past, only make improvements for the future, and that does make the conversations about what's to come more valuable to us. To keep the "Are we there yet?" analogy going, I'd be curious to hear what there looks like for everyone. What are the most important improvements to you? While I'm sure we have players with different priorities, it's always really good feedback to hear about the things that are at the top of your list, whether it's performance or bug fixes, or little details like animated firefighters. It helps us determine if we're prioritizing the right things, and what should perhaps be on the list of "Up next" improvements. :)

For me, a huge step would be getting the official mod store open so that those folks who have been fixing things can really unleash their talents. If it's not ready for assets yet, then delay that part, but the coding folks and map makers have been hard at work and giving us fixes to improve our experience for a good while now without the official tools.
 
And frankly F- for deciding not to be transparent until weeks after release when they already have our money without offering any resolution to their unhappy customers other than "We're working on it, we promise."

This does nothing to address the break in trust between the community and CO right now. Especially since they're now claiming they "ran out of time" when at release they said no one was forcing them to release it and that they were releasing it because they were satisfied with the state of the game. Especially with the talk near the end of this video about how great it is that they have so much more data to fix things now; because bug reporting for what should have been labeled an Early Access game was effectively offloaded to the community.

At least Creative Assembly is giving partial refunds for Pharaoh after they released a game that clearly didn't match the price or marketing, all we get it "We'll do better, sorry for the stealth Early Access release."

I'll be happy if we have this level of transparency going forward, but in my eyes CO still hasn't made their marketing campaign and decisions surrounding release right to the extent that trust can be rebuilt in the community that feels alienated and misled by marketing, which is going to be necessary for CS2 being a success.
Hear hear. It’s incredibly easy and convenient that they became transparent once they took everyone’s money after 2 weeks and not to give refunds or any free DLC as an apology, simple steps which Paradox did with Imperator. As their CEO says, their actions speak far more than their words.

I take issue with the suggestions from CO and its defenders that the player-base is at fault for overhyping a game. The basic contract of a released game is that it’s playable and works what was advertised, which in my opinion falls far short of what it was portrayed. No one is sacrificing developers to the altar for penance - it’s a basic ask that the game which was released works as it should be. Had CO stood up and said “This is an Early Access. There are bugs in the simulation that causes it to not work as intended”, we would be a lot more accepting. Far too many things are hidden from the player, neither were failsafes ever told to us during their many many dev diaries on this.

As someone said on Reddit which imo hits the nail on the head: “Just because the underlying logic you used to build your simulation is correct does not mean your simulation works. And if you have built your simulations in such a way that ever simulation has a dependency on another simulation then non of them work. And worse still if you have built in these inter-dependencies and failed to build full pipeline tests at the same time then i don’t think you are the experts you think you are. The CEO saying ‘we know how to make simulations that is what we do’ was incredibly arrogant since she was the one that also tweeted that if you don’t like the simulation the game isn’t for you when the simulation is currently broken. I have no doubt the simulations are real but the fact they are bugged out makes it so they may as well not be to some extent. And watching this video from the point of view of a developer and scientist just left me thinking this is not only damage control but the team needs to just work to fix it rather than complaining about having people you sold a game to at full price that complaining that it doesn’t work properly.”

It was also Colossal Orders responsibility to hand part of the PR machine over to YouTube Content creators who proceed to showcase all of its positives and hid the negatives. Coupled with the negative attitude by said content creators and the closed beta modders towards people who had genuine concerns about the game, with no effort by CO to rein them in. Like it or not, by accepting free games they have become a part of COs marketing team and machine, and must adhere to guidelines that CO sets. It’s never a good sign of a healthy game to start saying it’s the playerbase fault for releasing a broken game or overhyping the game when it’s literally CO to control and write about. The only thing which they were fully transparent on (with credit to them) was performance issues. The pre-release marketing on Steam hyped up the game as complete fully-featured game and a more engaged simulation than the first.
 
Last edited:
  • 6Like
  • 1
Reactions:
We have no idea when to expect anything.
And that's the huge problem. We players may have different priorities (balance, performance, bug fixing, modding...) but we're all in the dark as to "when". This video suggests CO doesn't know either and is in over its head with its own game. No offense, Avanya, and I know as a communitry manager you're not responsible for any of this, but asking what are our priorities makes even more obvious this lack of vision.

I think all these attempts from Mariina to manage the crisis are more infuriating than conforting. Meanwhile, this morning (Paris hour):

CS: 11 208 in-game
CS II: 8 950 in-game

If you can't fix the game, hire people who can, for god's sake.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
It was also Colossal Orders responsibility to hand part of the PR machine over to YouTube Content creators who proceed to showcase all of its positives and hid the negatives.
CO's agreements to the youtubers to allow them to make pre-release content including an NDA/embargo on discussion regarding the biggest negatives of the game, it's performance and in-depth discussion regarding the economy.

Of course, this doesn't absolve the content creators for agreeing to those terms, but it does provide more responsibility on the hands of CO, who knew probably a year before the game released that it wouldn't live up to expectations, and for sure knew it wasn't going to run well on anything but a supercomputer at 1080p a month before release.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
CO's agreements to the youtubers to allow them to make pre-release content including an NDA/embargo on discussion regarding the biggest negatives of the game, it's performance and in-depth discussion regarding the economy.

Of course, this doesn't absolve the content creators for agreeing to those terms, but it does provide more responsibility on the hands of CO, who knew probably a year before the game released that it wouldn't live up to expectations, and for sure knew it wasn't going to run well on anything but a supercomputer at 1080p a month before release.
Definitely true, but none have covered anything about the saga that has gone on. They have had plenty of time to talk about it now and none of the major ones have done so.

Its taken as always the community to force CO to admit there are faults with the simulation. No Youtube creator did a comprehensive breakdown of how the core simulation was not working as intended, instead pretending nothing is happening and focusing in performance issues (which is a testament to how bad the launch is that these issues imo are almost a red herring to the safeguards/failsafes). This one isn’t CO fault - it’s the creators that purposefully don’t.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Hear hear. It’s incredibly easy and convenient that they became transparent once they took everyone’s money after 2 weeks and not to give refunds or any free DLC as an apology, simple steps which Paradox did with Imperator. As their CEO says, their actions speak far more than their words.

I take issue with the suggestions from CO and its defenders that the player-base is at fault for overhyping a game. The basic contract of a released game is that it’s playable and works what was advertised, which in my opinion falls far short of what it was portrayed. No one is sacrificing developers to the altar for penance - it’s a basic ask that the game which was released works as it should be. Had CO stood up and said “This is an Early Access. There are bugs in the simulation that causes it to not work as intended”, we would be a lot more accepting. Far too many things are hidden from the player, neither were failsafes ever told to us during their many many dev diaries on this.

As someone said on Reddit which imo hits the nail on the head: “Just because the underlying logic you used to build your simulation is correct does not mean your simulation works. And if you have built your simulations in such a way that ever simulation has a dependency on another simulation then non of them work. And worse still if you have built in these inter-dependencies and failed to build full pipeline tests at the same time then i don’t think you are the experts you think you are. The CEO saying ‘we know how to make simulations that is what we do’ was incredibly arrogant since she was the one that also tweeted that if you don’t like the simulation the game isn’t for you when the simulation is currently broken. I have no doubt the simulations are real but the fact they are bugged out makes it so they may as well not be to some extent. And watching this video from the point of view of a developer and scientist just left me thinking this is not only damage control but the team needs to just work to fix it rather than complaining about having people you sold a game to at full price that complaining that it doesn’t work properly.”

It was also Colossal Orders responsibility to hand part of the PR machine over to YouTube Content creators who proceed to showcase all of its positives and hid the negatives. Coupled with the negative attitude by said content creators and the closed beta modders towards people who had genuine concerns about the game, with no effort by CO to rein them in. Like it or not, by accepting free games they have become a part of COs marketing team and machine, and must adhere to guidelines that CO sets. It’s never a good sign of a healthy game to start saying it’s the playerbase fault for releasing a broken game or overhyping the game when it’s literally CO to control and write about. The only thing which they were fully transparent on (with credit to them) was performance issues. The pre-release marketing on Steam hyped up the game as complete fully-featured game and a more engaged simulation than the first.
Having seen this exact phenomenon play out more than once, where a game goes into early access during the marketing blitz... no, gamers would not be nearly as forgiving as you think they would be. An FPS that I played back in the day, Killing Floor 2, did exactly this and faced similar criticisms. Empty promises, missed opportunities, overhyped PR, and missing key features from the previous game even at launch a year out from the early access release. A rather telling similarity if I do say so myself. The only real difference was in the performance of the game. It played buttery smooth at launch, which is the principal reason why the game continued on, IMO. And is something that, as you yourself said, was something CO was pretty transparent about. So no, I do not buy this argument in the slightest.

People were demanding that the developers fall on their own sword and trying to downplay it like this is quite telling. People were creating hyperbolic posts about the lies CO allegedly told about the game (even though, many times, those lies turned out to be true and that the player didn't understand the underlying mechanics). Talking about how the traffic management was horrible even as they were trying to collapse multiple lanes of traffic into a single lane onramp. About how goods supposedly don't move through a city even though you could plainly watch them do exactly that. Talking about how the game was (supposedly) fundamentally broken because of it in threads that, I'll note, I took part in and helped debunk. People were (and still are) demanding that CO/Paradox or, barring that, Steam and other platforms refund the game well beyond the stated refund time period by claiming 'two hours isn't long enough to determine if a game like this is good or not', ignoring the very real (and very relateable) criticisms that you could see simply by launching the game. Heck, the very real criticisms you could see simply by watching the very same YouTubers that, it is claimed, couldn't talk about the problems the game had. For not talking about problems they sure had a great way to highlight them in their coverage given how the negative comments were shouted down by the hysteria.

At the time had you raised some of those very real problems you would have been shouted down by the crowds of people hyping and overhyping the game on the basis of ephemeral promises not made by the company themselves and from interpretations and re-interpretations of their videos and blogs. Yes, the company has a duty to market a game accurately and I do think they dropped the ball on that one rather hard. But we, as consumers, also have a duty to do our due diligence and to buy intelligently. We have a responsibility to think critically about footage and coverage of a game in development, something that, I'll remind you, was conspicuously absent prior to the game's launch and that, if memory serves, you and others pointed out. And at the end of the day, had they tried to rein in the community hype they would have been accused of silencing the narrative, just as they are being accused of now. So yes, we have a responsibility to temper our expectations and to actually critically think about what a company uses to advertise its game. The community as a whole failed at that, even if individuals within that community saw through both the positive and the negative.

Put bluntly: to my knowledge, Steam never offered the same refunds that Microsoft or Sony or even bloody Gamestop did on Cyberpunk 2077 (or at least I can't find any reference to them changing their policies in the wake of the game's launch and I'd be willing to change my opinion if you can). They never offered the same refunds that either did for No Man's Sky. They operated on the same refund policy that they have for years now. Why on Earth would they change that for a game that is demonstrably not nearly as fundamentally broken as either of them at launch? If you're going to be angry at someone about this, be angry at the storefront.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 6
  • 2Like
Reactions: