The problem of price barriers for new players

[Gamshud]

Dear Paradox, time passes, DLC for your games becomes more and more, and with each year of the game's existence, the full version of the game with all DLC costs more and more ... so much so that sometimes it looks like an attempt to rob. I know that this is your model for making money, but let's be honest, it should not work like that. For example, now a player who think about buying Crusader Kings 3 with DLC faces a barrier of 200+ euros (174 DLC's + 40 base), which is quite a lot as a one-time expense for the game, and every year this amount will grow by about 40 euros.

I suggest you reconsider this model a little, all new DLC of course should be sold as now (I understand that money is needed for support and development of games), but in order to avoid prices for the full version of the game at 200+ euros, I suggest adding old DLCs that are more than 2-3 years old to the basic version of the game. By adding the old DLC to the base game, a new player will have an incentive to buy new DLCs to play the full version of the game now and not in a few years.
This way, we as players will have more incentive to buy your games, because their price + DLC will not be as crazy as it is now. And you as a publisher will make a profit in the same way by selling new DLCs.

P.S. I understand that a question like "Why did I pay for the DLC and someone will get it for free in a few years?" may arise, but let's be honest with ourselves, DLCs are sometimes given away for free, and sometimes added to the base game ("Death or Dishonor" and "Together for Victory" from Hearts of Iron IV"), and we - old players who bought the DLCs at the time will not lose anything if new players will have these same DLCs immediately after purchasing the game.

Thanks to everyone who read, I would be glad to hear your thoughts on this matter.

 

[Mr.Supreme]

Paradox's top selling games usually have subscription plans for pretty cheap. Just subscribe when you want to play for a month or two then cancel your subscription. The whole $20 DLC strategy is fine. They usually improve the designated title quite a bit. There are times that the DLC is poorly recieved and it gets review bombed but whatever. No one is perfect.

Personally I'm fine with Paradox's busniess model. They need to make money somehow. If it seems like too much, don't play or choose to subscribe to game.

 

[Gamshud]

Paradox's top selling games usually have subscription plans for pretty cheap. Just subscribe when you want to play for a month or two then cancel your subscription. The whole $20 DLC strategy is fine. They usually improve the designated title quite a bit. There are times that the DLC is poorly recieved and it gets review bombed but whatever. No one is perfect.

Personally I'm fine with Paradox's busniess model. They need to make money somehow. If it seems like too much, don't play or choose to subscribe to game.

Yes, I agree with you, the developer and publisher should get money for their work.
As for the subscription, not all Paradox games have it, for example, Crusader Kings 3 does not have such an option, in addition, there are many old games like Surviving Mars for which there are no subscription plans (and let's be honest, they would not be popular since the game is dead).
So, I'm not saying that we should completely abandon the sale of DLC, I'm only for adding old DLC to the basic version of the game over time, which would simplify further development without constant checks "does the player have a six-year-old DLC?" and for new players, the entry threshold is lower.
However, I am grateful for your position, thank you.