Why do you release this mess of a DLC?

[Wagner Joy Division]

It was obvious for ANYONE you will get this:

Why? Even after running beta for months it was obvious new system will be broken and release will result onlyin massive negative ratings. Why do you even accept that oh well, we have to release but then massive influx of players will allow us to beta-test better from crash and bug reports. Negative ratings won't go away in you fix SOME problems, look at other messed up releases - they are still on negatives, none of them drastically changed to positive.

Every major DLC, especially a major system rework, is expected to be unplayable for the first weeks at best, months at worst. At this point I fully expect Paradox to adopt a philosophy of "Why bother with pre-release QA if all work is done after release and release will be a mess anyway?".
I am tired of expecting new DLCsto be unplayable and set ~a +month after release to actually see semi-playabe game sessions.

 

[-Marauder-]

The DLC isn't the problem, the DLC works. The problem is the scope creep of the 4.0 patch and the massive reworks, which while some may end up positive eventually and with enough time weren't realistically doable during the time before the DLC was released and were rushed out the door anyway.

 

[Telenil]

Negative ratings won't go away in you fix SOME problems, look at other messed up releases - they are still on negatives, none of them drastically changed to positive.

TBH this says more about the reliability of Internet ratings than anything else. Always check the reviews themselves, it is sometimes possible to guess if the problems have already been fixed.

 

[-Marauder-]

TBH this says more about the reliability of Internet ratings than anything else. Always check the reviews themselves, it is sometimes possible to guess if the problems have already been fixed.

No, the ratings were reliable and justified at the time. And they help establish a track record and pattern. Calling them unreliable because devs fixed something over the span of months of not years isn't accurate.

 

[Telenil]

No, the ratings were reliable and justified at the time. And they help establish a track record and pattern. Calling them unreliable because devs fixed something over the span of months of not years isn't accurate.

As you say: they may have been justified at the time. But if I'm considering buying a DLC six months later, I obviously have little interest in the problems it had at release. An example that stuck in my mind was Diablo 3: it has one of the worst customer ratings in video game history because the servers crashed on day 1 (which was certainly a major screwup), then went on to be a reasonably successful game. If people did change their reviews as the game improved, that would be one thing, but that doesn't seem to happen very often. So I'm saying you should look at the written, commented reviews to see if the raw numbers are about the game at release or the game now - which doesn't feel like a controversial proposition.

 

[DreadGrunt]

As others have stated elsewhere, the DLC itself is more or less fine. I don't think it's quite as good as Machine Age, but it's still a solid addition to the game and gives me hope the psionic rework will be good too.

The 4.0 patch, however, is a disaster. There's few other ways to describe it.

 

[SS Boss]

Yes, it was obvious that we'll have this mess, again.

Well, except for PDX I guess...

 

[Ker0]

Yes, it was obvious that we'll have this mess, again.

Well, except for PDX I guess...

It is very much possible that the devs assumed this would happed...but since Paradox are selling a season pass they have fixed deadlines they need to hit.
On the plus side 4.04 is already dropping tomorrow, im pretty hopeful Stellaris will be in a stable state in a month.

 

[Imp0815]

The DLC isn't the problem, the DLC works. The problem is the scope creep of the 4.0 patch and the massive reworks, which while some may end up positive eventually and with enough time weren't realistically doable during the time before the DLC was released and were rushed out the door anyway.

The DLCs are the problem. If they would first "fix" the game to a state where the systems are finished, fun, workable, and logically well-integrated, they could start producing DLCs for that solid foundation.
But no—we get both at the same time, and in tandem they rework systems that are not in need of a rework.
The list of half-baked and badly integrated features, and the gameplay loop that’s advertised as an exploration story experience but only boils down to military expansionism with different steps, is just egregious and insulting.
But I know, I know—they need to make money. Still, there must be another way, a better way, to have both.

 

[Falrinn]

Going to agree with the overall sentiment. The problem isn't Biogenisis, there's maybe a few rough spots in the DLC but nothing particularly egregious and the foundations are strong. The 4.0 patch on the other hand was absolutely not ready.

Like I'm probably going to abandon my current save because a fanatical purifier civ managed to reach the final stage of Galactic Nemisis before the midgame year. And despite being the strongest member of the Galactic Community given the strength of their fleets it will be almost impossible for me to fight my way to their capital before they implode the galaxy.

 

[-Marauder-]

It is very much possible that the devs assumed this would happed...but since Paradox are selling a season pass they have fixed deadlines they need to hit.
On the plus side 4.04 is already dropping tomorrow, im pretty hopeful Stellaris will be in a stable state in a month.

Sorry, but while deadlines are set by the suits. The scope creep and massive reworks for various things were very much on the devs. People need to stop pretending that the devs are innocent victims of circumstances. The dev team DECIDED to do the planet rework, empire focus trees, etc on top of a very ambitious pop rework.

They could've done this one step at a time, they could've made sure these things worked before they pushed them through. They didn't.

 

[-Marauder-]

The DLCs are the problem. If they would first "fix" the game to a state where the systems are finished, fun, workable, and logically well-integrated, they could start producing DLCs for that solid foundation.
But no—we get both at the same time, and in tandem they rework systems that are not in need of a rework.
The list of half-baked and badly integrated features, and the gameplay loop that’s advertised as an exploration story experience but only boils down to military expansionism with different steps, is just egregious and insulting.
But I know, I know—they need to make money. Still, there must be another way, a better way, to have both.

I disagree. If they had focused solely on the pop rework. Chances are stuff might've worked out, at least better than they did. But they decided to also completely rework planets, rework the economy, change a thousand minor things that come with this, rework the ui, and do various other things such as focus trees.

That's not on the DLC, that's not on the suits. That's scope creep and a lack of focus.

 

[-Marauder-]

As you say: they may have been justified at the time. But if I'm considering buying a DLC six months later, I obviously have little interest in the problems it had at release. An example that stuck in my mind was Diablo 3: it has one of the worst customer ratings in video game history because the servers crashed on day 1 (which was certainly a major screwup), then went on to be a reasonably successful game. If people did change their reviews as the game improved, that would be one thing, but that doesn't seem to happen very often. So I'm saying you should look at the written, commented reviews to see if the raw numbers are about the game at release or the game now - which doesn't feel like a controversial proposition.

If you promise me the world and sell me a broken mess I'll review that broken mess. You spending time and actually remotely living up to what you sold me in the first place doesn't retroactively change that you sold me a broken mess initially. You still did that, you still earned those reviews and it makes it clear what I and others can expect from you going forward.

You never sold me "a shoddy rushed half finished product that'll be fixed over the next couple years". You are giving sellers way too much leeway while pretending justified reviews and sentiments are unreasonable. You are inverting responsibility between seller and customer.

 

[Jean-Luc]

My rule of thumb is to never play Stellaris for 3-4 months after a major update and probably longer in case of a major rework like this. I'm grateful to all the unpaid "beta testers" willing to put up with it though.

 

[Wagner Joy Division]

You cannot separate DLC from peroformance. Paradox are selling a product, not a "DLC concept that looks fine on paper, should everything work".
This is not a Star Citizen

 

[Ker0]

Sorry, but while deadlines are set by the suits. The scope creep and massive reworks for various things were very much on the devs. People need to stop pretending that the devs are innocent victims of circumstances. The dev team DECIDED to do the planet rework, empire focus trees, etc on top of a very ambitious pop rework.

They could've done this one step at a time, they could've made sure these things worked before they pushed them through. They didn't.

I'm not shielding the devs, but one has to assume that large reworks such as the pop rework don't happen without input from above.
I'm pretty sure the suits wanted a big, eye catching free feature to give to players alongside the DLC and the 4.0 update, and the pop rework certainly qualifies as that.

The real solution would have been a longer, more in depth beta than what we got. All of this probably could have been avoided by simply releasing the update one or two months later.

But this is the real problem. Paradox doesnt seem to have an issue releasing updates or games in a broken state and fixing them later. Stellaris isn't unique in this regard. Paradox has done it before with other games and will likely do it again.

This is not me hating on Paradox. I love their games but I have seen this across their games happen on and off.

 

[Kataclyszm]

but one has to assume that large reworks such as the pop rework don't happen without input from above.

Why? Do you think the management team cares about that?

 

[Imp0815]

I disagree. If they had focused solely on the pop rework. Chances are stuff might've worked out, at least better than they did. But they decided to also completely rework planets, rework the economy, change a thousand minor things that come with this, rework the ui, and do various other things such as focus trees.

That's not on the DLC, that's not on the suits. That's scope creep and a lack of focus.

You need to see the hierarchy of the issue. They can't rework systems well while they are also adding content.

What I tried to say was: if they could stop adding content for a year or more and focus on reworks and patches—and make these reworks stick, focused, and final—they could then produce DLCs on that basis. But they won’t, because they are trying to churn out DLCs that neither tackle the lackluster systems—in fact, some of them introduce even more systems that build on the bad ones—adding to the pile of systems that need to be reworked. It’s a devil’s spiral they need to break by first stopping the production of sloppy DLCs meant to wow the masses.

 

[Telenil]

You still did that, you still earned those reviews and it makes it clear what I and others can expect from you going forward.

Let's leave aside how every major studio has reviews so identical that you can't tell which they describe if you black out the name. You seem to believe I use the reviews to make an opinion about the developers: no, I use them to make an opinion about the game. What this type of review tells me is, perhaps, that releases can be buggy, which will only be news once. Some people are, in fact, buying the game years after release, by which point the reviews may refer to a version of the game that no longer exist.

You are giving sellers way too much leeway while pretending justified reviews and sentiments are unreasonable. You are inverting responsibility between seller and customer.

I am doing no such thing and I suggest you re-read my post. At no point did imply complaints were invalid when they were written. What I am saying that changes to the game aren't typically reflected in the reviews. Therefore, the latecomer who wants to make an informed purchase should take the time to read what people actually wrote in the reviews, especially when the game has been out for a while.

 

[Dr. B]

It is incredibly much more efficient and useful to release something like 4.0 and get a horde of bug reports from 1000s of users, than to test all possibilities yourself. As well as general feedback, balance etc.

The problem is that as paying customers, we expect a decent, quite finished product. A serious company should not treat customers as guinea pigs without informing them first.

At the very least, a company should be up front and honest about their practices. A simple "we have to release new version in this state, and are dependent on your feedback to wrap up development" would be enough to show some honesty.