Why are they still developing EU4?

[Johan]

I don't believe I've ever seen the devs say something like that around here. What I have heard them say is they won't make a sequel just to make a sequel but rather because they have ideas for improvements they can't execute with the current game.

As for the original question; why wouldn't they? Unlike 99+% of other games out there EU IVs active player base is still growing after all this time. At the end of the day they're a business and it's not good business to just turn your back and walk away from servicing a growing market...

I am pretty sure I've said that we would continue to support a game as long as its profitable to do so. That has no major correlation with when a sequel is created or not. iirc, CK3 had been in full development for over 3 years when Holy Fury was released.

 

[DominusNovus]

After Vic 3 and CK 3 im not sure I want a sequel.

I trust Johan and his team more.

 

[ArtFart]

Why are you like this?

Only because I am looking at the recent trends for PDX games and I strongly dislike the direction they are taking with the UI. Following the trend of Ck3 and Vic3 we can assume that EU5 will have a similar look, which is very bad for me. Hence why I advocate for more development on EU4 so I can carry on playing that instead.

 

[Jarvin]

Only because I am looking at the recent trends for PDX games and I strongly dislike the direction they are taking with the UI. Following the trend of Ck3 and Vic3 we can assume that EU5 will have a similar look, which is very bad for me. Hence why I advocate for more development on EU4 so I can carry on playing that instead.

Unsure if that's accurate. I find it doubtful that there'd be some from the top policy dictating how UIs in PDS games should look like.
On the flipside, my understanding of how PDX generally works is that you have developers who smoothly move between projects, depending on what is needed.
You could draw a theory from this, that the UI trend in recent PDX games is a result of 4-5 people agreeing to do things this way, and this'd include: UI artist(s), UI programmer(s), UX designer(s) and who just moved between projects (it's not like a released game like CK3 needs the same UI/UX attention as a game that only now began developing)

Tinto is a completely separate entity from Stockholm. As far as we know - I might be wrong on this - the only real connection to "main" Paradox is Johan himself, the remaining ~~30 people or so(numbers by Johan) are said to be all fresh recruits (some recruited from the community, some from the industry)
There's a good chance that their approach will be different.


Also if you pay attention to Johan's posts, I feel like it's easy to get an impression that his line of thought is generally very independent from other studios.


If the above is wrong I hope someone smart can correct me.

 

[zorkman]

Only because I am looking at the recent trends for PDX games and I strongly dislike the direction they are taking with the UI. Following the trend of Ck3 and Vic3 we can assume that EU5 will have a similar look, which is very bad for me. Hence why I advocate for more development on EU4 so I can carry on playing that instead.

You do realise that whatever quality EU5 is, a big percentage of the people buying it will see it as a failure. If the same expectations were around in 2012-13 both EU4 & CK2 would have been deemed failures. People expect so much more now, which is probably why Paradox are reluctant to announce the game.

 

[ArtFart]

You do realise that whatever quality EU5 is, a big percentage of the people buying it will see it as a failure. If the same expectations were around in 2012-13 both EU4 & CK2 would have been deemed failures. People expect so much more now, which is probably why Paradox are reluctant to announce the game.

Oh I don't expect it to be a failure at all, I expect EU5 will sell extremely well. It's just I personally have an issue with the path PDX are taking with the UI. That doesn't mean I am saying it's going to fail at all.

 

[ArtFart]

Unsure if that's accurate. I find it doubtful that there'd be some from the top policy dictating how UIs in PDS games should look like.
On the flipside, my understanding of how PDX generally works is that you have developers who smoothly move between projects, depending on what is needed.
You could draw a theory from this, that the UI trend in recent PDX games is a result of 4-5 people agreeing to do things this way, and this'd include: UI artist(s), UI programmer(s), UX designer(s) and who just moved between projects (it's not like a released game like CK3 needs the same UI/UX attention as a game that only now began developing)

Tinto is a completely separate entity from Stockholm. As far as we know - I might be wrong on this - the only real connection to "main" Paradox is Johan himself, the remaining ~~30 people or so(numbers by Johan) are said to be all fresh recruits (some recruited from the community, some from the industry)
There's a good chance that their approach will be different.


Also if you pay attention to Johan's posts, I feel like it's easy to get an impression that his line of thought is generally very independent from other studios.


If the above is wrong I hope someone smart can correct me.

But then again we don't know if EU5 will be devloped by Tinto or PDX yet. We just know that PDX decided to put EU4 to Tinto, that doesn't mean EU5 is going to be developed by them solely.

If it is Tinto, I really hope the Tinto team see the good in the current UI style, I'd be over the moon to see EU5 follow the EU4 UI style, and would be a very early backer no doubt, however I doubt this will be the case.