Will Paradox consider streamlining their DLC business model for future games?

[AndPimentel]

I don't understand how everybody can see that having a lot of DLC is kinda of a issue while the devs and others from the company don't see it that way.

Well, they have more data than us, so maybe they can be right. We have more experience trying to make a lot of friends that never played any PDS games play a game with $150 worth of DLC, so we can be right too. In the end, who knows...

 

[Groogy]

I think you misunderstood. Me and Darkrenown were talking about our own purchase behavior which is in very much contrast to what is described in regards to the stories about convince a friend. Just like you no data involved just "this is my thought process when I buy a game" where more content available for a game is a good thing. I think whoever you try to persuade and they rejected it because of the amount of extra content are probably not rejecting it because of extra content but because those people most probably think we deliberately cut out features to sell later and as such don't get the "full experience ". Most probably we'll never be able to persuade people with that train of thought because in their eyes we are the ones that did cut out features as such anything we say is instantly rejected.

We also buy games and play stuff from time to time all I'm saying is that making informed decisions when being a customer of anything will leave you happier and you might even get off it cheaper.

 

[Wagonlitz]

I think you misunderstood. Me and Darkrenown were talking about our own purchase behavior which is in very much contrast to what is described in regards to the stories about convince a friend. Just like you no data involved just "this is my thought process when I buy a game" where more content available for a game is a good thing. I think whoever you try to persuade and they rejected it because of the amount of extra content are probably not rejecting it because of extra content but because those people most probably think we deliberately cut out features to sell later and as such don't get the "full experience ". Most probably we'll never be able to persuade people with that train of thought because in their eyes we are the ones that did cut out features as such anything we say is instantly rejected.

You cannot fault them for being skeptical though with the shady practices certain companies use.

We also buy games and play stuff from time to time all I'm saying is that making informed decisions when being a customer of anything will leave you happier and you might even get off it cheaper.

Indeed.

 

[sdms]

I'd like to comment about DLC, DLC policy etc. To make things clear: Since this post may violate some of the rules I asked BjornB for permission to write this post. Since the answer was "you can post it" I believe I have permission to say what I'm going to say. This especially applies to my comment about piracy so to make things even more clear I'd like to state that I don't, in any way, promote or recommend making, uploading, downloading, buying or sharing any illegal material.

I noticed that some people complain that there's too many DLCs or that they make a game more expensive or that they add some unnecessary stuff etc.

Since I may consider myself as rather new owner of EUIV - I actually bought the game with most of DLCs available 2 weeks ago - I think I may say that the DLC list on Steam scares people off because it makes them uncertain of what they really should or shouldn't buy. They may say "oh I don't have time for this so I won't buy this game at all" but as someone already said - it's their loss. They can also say "Alright I'll buy base game and see how it looks" then they can play the game and think it's fun and they may want to buy additional stuff. They also may spend some time and consider if they can buy some DLC collections so they don't have to buy each DLC separately. That's what I've done. There's always lots of options. Of course there will be some people who will download pirated copy of the game - some of them will notice that game is actually worth its price and will buy the game. I will comment about that later.

Some people say that 1,99€ for a music pack dlc or unit pack is a lot, but is it? I wonder how much time it takes for people at Paradox to make a single song or single portrait etc. The same applies to any content they make. Inventing, programming, scripting etc. It all takes time. And Dev Team isn't just a bunch of guys who do stuff for free. It's their job to make games and make content to these games. And they deserve to get paid for what they do. And as much as probably many of players would like to have lots of free stuff these guys have to make their living.

And for example. Songs of war music pack for EUIV is 29 minutes of music. Not any kind of music but the one that needs orchestra to get recorded. So if anyone says that paying 1,99€ for 29 minutes of orchestral music is a lot I recommend you go to music store and try to buy anything similar for the same price. Good luck with that.

Of course some DLCs may be unnecessary for some people, but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be there. Anyone should ask himself "do I really need this music/units/portraits pack?" and make own decision. Personally I believe that if I'm spending 10 hours a day playing a game I like I really would like to have the best experience I can. But still there will be people who will mute in-game music and play their own music. Everyone has right to say "I would not buy this stuff".

Some people say that you have to buy DLC to get complete game. It especially may apply to CKII because you for example can't play as muslim without a DLC. But is it truth? The game title says "Crusader Kings" not "muslim sultans" or whatever. It means that even the title suggest that it's a game about being a christian (or catholic) ruler in exact period of time when crusades happened. So DLC is not unlocking a part of game that should be there from beginning but it adds new stuff that is not necessary in the base game.

I also noticed that the main problem is Steam. Well knowing how much Paradox is doing for their fans, I believe they probably suggest some things to Valve to make DLC experience more user friendly. The solution I personally would find best is to sort DLC into categories like "Major add-on", "Unit packs", "Music packs" etc. and to make it possible to buy entire category with a discount or buy any DLC in that category without discount. That could be great solution for new people who will buy base game and then they will be able to buy groups of DLC with a discount. But on the other hand there should be some kind of reward for people who own lots of DLCs. So maybe such people should get some stuff at lower price or just get some free stuff that wouldn't be available for others. But I don't know if such things are possible with Steam.

I'd like to explain more about piracy. I'd like to make a reference to what Marcin Iwiński (co-founder of CD Projekt) said in interviews for PC Gamer and Gazeta Wyborcza (this one is in Polish). In both interviews he says about his own view on piracy. He says that "people who has pirated copies didn't buy a game for a reason" and he mentions some of such reasons. He says that in case of The Witcher 2 they probably had 4.5-5 illegal copies for every 1 legal copy of the game. But he says that some people who downloaded pirated copy of TW2 will for sure buy legal copy because they like the game. Then he says that some people just can't afford to buy the game, but with positive approach from company they will one day buy it.
What he says about piracy seems to be pretty reasonable but I think the most important part is that it's how company treat players. If company loses contact with its fans they will more likely get illegal copies of such company's games. And that's where we have PI who, in my opinion, has great contact with fans. And that means that people will more likely buy their games.
Iwiński says that "a pirate is badly handled customer". And as I said earlier some people who will see a list of DLCs for Paradox games will say "No, I'm not going to buy this stuff, it's too expensive". It's kind of like goods at shop put on shelves in pretty bad order. And some of them will probably go and download illegal copy. It's good. I doesn't mean that downloading illegal copies is good, but in this case it's better than not getting a game at all. Why? Because anyone who downloads an illegal copy of game may see how good the game is and then reconsider buying it. A person who will say "it's too expensive" and just decide not to buy that game will probably never reconsider buying it. So in that meaning it is good if such person will decide to actually try a game than ignore it. To answer this PI should probably do more actions like recent free week for CKII and EUIV. It's really great idea. People may actually try a game in a legal way with all benefits that they won't get from illegal copy (for example achievements). And that's IMHO the best way to get new players.

I want to say one more thing. The games that PDS makes are kind of games that could be developed indefinitely. Because there will always be things that can be added (like new decisions, events etc.), changed, improved etc. Paradox adds a lot of great new stuff to their games and they really deserve to get paid for what they are doing. That doesn't apply to things that are bugged - they need to be fixed and all patches need to be free. And it is pretty normal that if they have huge game with lots of events etc. there will always be something bugged. Because they are only humans and they have right to make mistakes. Someone said that every time PDS issues new DLC something is wrong. Yeah that stuff happens and we have to accept it. They obviously can't try everything and predict every situation that may occur in game. And that's why they need us - their fans. We may say "this bug destroyed my game, I won't buy any other Paradox games", but we may also say "Oh, I've discovered a bug, I have opportunity to make this game better and report that bug". So yeah, people don't blame developers for everything, I'm sure they are doing their best to give us the best games they can.

Well that's basically all. I wanted to make this comment because I think there's a lot of misunderstandings about DLC. I hope it makes some things more clear.

 

[Sarmatian]

I'd like to comment about DLC, DLC policy etc. To make things clear: Since this post may violate some of the rules I asked BjornB for permission to write this post. Since the answer was "you can post it" I believe I have permission to say what I'm going to say. This especially applies to my comment about piracy so to make things even more clear I'd like to state that I don't, in any way, promote or recommend making, uploading, downloading, buying or sharing any illegal material.

I noticed that some people complain that there's too many DLCs or that they make a game more expensive or that they add some unnecessary stuff etc.

Since I may consider myself as rather new owner of EUIV - I actually bought the game with most of DLCs available 2 weeks ago - I think I may say that the DLC list on Steam scares people off because it makes them uncertain of what they really should or shouldn't buy. They may say "oh I don't have time for this so I won't buy this game at all" but as someone already said - it's their loss. They can also say "Alright I'll buy base game and see how it looks" then they can play the game and think it's fun and they may want to buy additional stuff. They also may spend some time and consider if they can buy some DLC collections so they don't have to buy each DLC separately. That's what I've done. There's always lots of options. Of course there will be some people who will download pirated copy of the game - some of them will notice that game is actually worth its price and will buy the game. I will comment about that later.

Some people say that 1,99€ for a music pack dlc or unit pack is a lot, but is it? I wonder how much time it takes for people at Paradox to make a single song or single portrait etc. The same applies to any content they make. Inventing, programming, scripting etc. It all takes time. And Dev Team isn't just a bunch of guys who do stuff for free. It's their job to make games and make content to these games. And they deserve to get paid for what they do. And as much as probably many of players would like to have lots of free stuff these guys have to make their living.

And for example. Songs of war music pack for EUIV is 29 minutes of music. Not any kind of music but the one that needs orchestra to get recorded. So if anyone says that paying 1,99€ for 29 minutes of orchestral music is a lot I recommend you go to music store and try to buy anything similar for the same price. Good luck with that.

The problem with this reasoning is that music in EUIV is something to put you "in the mood" while you're playing the game. It's not a separate piece of entertainment. You wouldn't buy on its own, as a separate piece of entertainment. That would mean to movie DVD's would need to be priced 100 or 200 dollars/euros if you charge every possible type of media in them separately.

Of course some DLCs may be unnecessary for some people, but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be there. Anyone should ask himself "do I really need this music/units/portraits pack?" and make own decision. Personally I believe that if I'm spending 10 hours a day playing a game I like I really would like to have the best experience I can. But still there will be people who will mute in-game music and play their own music. Everyone has right to say "I would not buy this stuff".

Some people say that you have to buy DLC to get complete game. It especially may apply to CKII because you for example can't play as muslim without a DLC. But is it truth? The game title says "Crusader Kings" not "muslim sultans" or whatever. It means that even the title suggest that it's a game about being a christian (or catholic) ruler in exact period of time when crusades happened. So DLC is not unlocking a part of game that should be there from beginning but it adds new stuff that is not necessary in the base game.

That is false analogy. The title of the game tells us roughly what to expect from the game. It shouldn't be taken literally - if we followed the same logic, we shouldn't be allowed to play counts, dukes or emperors, we shouldn't be able to play as Orthodox Christians. Basically we should only be allowed to play as kings, and only during Crusades, while AI takes over when there is no Crusade.

I also noticed that the main problem is Steam. Well knowing how much Paradox is doing for their fans, I believe they probably suggest some things to Valve to make DLC experience more user friendly. The solution I personally would find best is to sort DLC into categories like "Major add-on", "Unit packs", "Music packs" etc. and to make it possible to buy entire category with a discount or buy any DLC in that category without discount. That could be great solution for new people who will buy base game and then they will be able to buy groups of DLC with a discount. But on the other hand there should be some kind of reward for people who own lots of DLCs. So maybe such people should get some stuff at lower price or just get some free stuff that wouldn't be available for others. But I don't know if such things are possible with Steam.

I personally find the entire DLC system a rip-off. People often try to justify it by emphasizing how much work goes into that new content. If that's the price of content, base game should be 200$ or something like that. Paradox is better at this than the rest, but definitely, you pay X amount of content much more in a DLC than you pay for same X amount of content in the base game. That was true also for base game -> expansions model prevalent during previous decade or two, but on a much, much smaller scale.

I want to say one more thing. The games that PDS makes are kind of games that could be developed indefinitely. Because there will always be things that can be added (like new decisions, events etc.), changed, improved etc. Paradox adds a lot of great new stuff to their games and they really deserve to get paid for what they are doing. That doesn't apply to things that are bugged - they need to be fixed and all patches need to be free. And it is pretty normal that if they have huge game with lots of events etc. there will always be something bugged. Because they are only humans and they have right to make mistakes. Someone said that every time PDS issues new DLC something is wrong. Yeah that stuff happens and we have to accept it. They obviously can't try everything and predict every situation that may occur in game. And that's why they need us - their fans. We may say "this bug destroyed my game, I won't buy any other Paradox games", but we may also say "Oh, I've discovered a bug, I have opportunity to make this game better and report that bug". So yeah, people don't blame developers for everything, I'm sure they are doing their best to give us the best games they can.

Well that's basically all. I wanted to make this comment because I think there's a lot of misunderstandings about DLC. I hope it makes some things more clear.

"The designer knows he's achieved perfection not when there nothing left to add, but when there's nothing left to take away."

A quote by Antoine de Saint-Exupery, made known to strategy gamers in Civ IV, although there have been artists/designers saying basically the same thing earlier.

There is a point after which adding content doesn't give value, and it is in fact detrimental. CK2, in my humble opinion, reached that a long time ago. Constant retooling of the game made it an unfocused mess. New mechanics break old mechanics, then old mechanics are nerfed or removed and that has been constant with every DLC. Some areas of the world are bland or unplayable if you don't own the proper DLC, and if you do, it makes other areas bland in that regard. Change in mechanics makes strategies that were working earlier now pointless. It often leads to an outrage on the forums, and an over-reaction by PDS. Sometimes it changes the whole balance of the game. Sometimes it is fixed in the next DLC but something else gets broken.

EU IV probably passed that point, also, but I pretty much gave up on these two games so I don't know.

I don't mind DLC but it really needs to be:

1) Bigger
2) more polished
3) less frequent
4) better integrated into the base game
5) cheaper.

At the moment it is a rather expensive mess.

And, let's be frank, Paradox is much better than most when it comes to DLC policies.

 

[sdms]

The problem with this reasoning is that music in EUIV is something to put you "in the mood" while you're playing the game. It's not a separate piece of entertainment. You wouldn't buy on its own, as a separate piece of entertainment. That would mean to movie DVD's would need to be priced 100 or 200 dollars/euros if you charge every possible type of media in them separately.

My reasoning is fine. You don't have to buy additional music and it wouldn't make your game experience in any way worse. But if you want additional music you have to pay for that. As I said - if you think that 1.99€ for 22 minutes of orchestral music is too much than try to buy something similar in music store. Everything cost money.

That is false analogy. The title of the game tells us roughly what to expect from the game. It shouldn't be taken literally - if we followed the same logic, we shouldn't be allowed to play counts, dukes or emperors, we shouldn't be able to play as Orthodox Christians. Basically we should only be allowed to play as kings, and only during Crusades, while AI takes over when there is no Crusade.

I said that the title suggest that the game will take place in crusades era and will be about Catholic rulers not that it should be taken literally. Main features are explained in game info. It doesn't say you will be able to play as Muslim or whatever. So why people complain that Muslim DLC should be free or should be in base game? It is additional feature that isn't really necessary for this game. But yeah. Probably guys at PDS already thought that they will make Muslims, Pagans and whatever playable when they completed base game. Even if they did such features still aren't necessary in a base CKII, because this game is meant to be about crusaders not jihadists or whatever.

I personally find the entire DLC system a rip-off. People often try to justify it by emphasizing how much work goes into that new content. If that's the price of content, base game should be 200$ or something like that. Paradox is better at this than the rest, but definitely, you pay X amount of content much more in a DLC than you pay for same X amount of content in the base game. That was true also for base game -> expansions model prevalent during previous decade or two, but on a much, much smaller scale.

Well you have right to have opinion. For me it is quite understandable that any person deserves to get paid for any work done. The thing is that you don't have to buy any DLC. Just play the base game for 40$. I want more experience and I'm willing to pay for that experience and I don't think what Paradox is selling me is worth less than it costs. That is my opinion. Even if I don't have money to buy some content I still believe it's worth its price. Why? Because I can spend literally thousands of hours playing Paradox games and they will still be fun. For example I've recently installed EUII and it is still great game (even if it's annoying that I can't use mouse wheel to zoom in and out). So if I find a game I bought 13-14 years ago still entertaining it means it was worth its price.

"The designer knows he's achieved perfection not when there nothing left to add, but when there's nothing left to take away."

A quote by Antoine de Saint-Exupery, made known to strategy gamers in Civ IV, although there have been artists/designers saying basically the same thing earlier.

There is a point after which adding content doesn't give value, and it is in fact detrimental. CK2, in my humble opinion, reached that a long time ago. Constant retooling of the game made it an unfocused mess. New mechanics break old mechanics, then old mechanics are nerfed or removed and that has been constant with every DLC. Some areas of the world are bland or unplayable if you don't own the proper DLC, and if you do, it makes other areas bland in that regard. Change in mechanics makes strategies that were working earlier now pointless. It often leads to an outrage on the forums, and an over-reaction by PDS. Sometimes it changes the whole balance of the game. Sometimes it is fixed in the next DLC but something else gets broken.

Well you can always see it this way. But yeah. We could have waited several years longer for CKII or EUIV or any other game. I'm sure they would get polished to the maximum by that time. But it's better for anyone if we are able to play the games and comment which features are good and which are bad. This way developers can get lots of new ideas and implement them and make their games better (or worse). They gain experience and players gain experience and by that we may expect future games to be even better. And what is wrong about learning new strategies?

I don't mind DLC but it really needs to be:

1) Bigger
2) more polished
3) less frequent
4) better integrated into the base game
5) cheaper.

At the moment it is a rather expensive mess.

And, let's be frank, Paradox is much better than most when it comes to DLC policies.

We're talking about major DLC here, right? So we had 5 major expansions to EUIV so far. They came every 3-4 months. I think it's okay.

I think every game, patch and DLC is getting tested by Paradox prior to release. They actually play the games they make. But obviously they cannot test everything and that's why they need fans.

Like someone said - vote with your wallet if DLC is good or bad

 

[Wagonlitz]

I also noticed that the main problem is Steam. Well knowing how much Paradox is doing for their fans, I believe they probably suggest some things to Valve to make DLC experience more user friendly. The solution I personally would find best is to sort DLC into categories like "Major add-on", "Unit packs", "Music packs" etc. and to make it possible to buy entire category with a discount or buy any DLC in that category without discount. That could be great solution for new people who will buy base game and then they will be able to buy groups of DLC with a discount. But on the other hand there should be some kind of reward for people who own lots of DLCs. So maybe such people should get some stuff at lower price or just get some free stuff that wouldn't be available for others. But I don't know if such things are possible with Steam.

You can buy elsewhere than on steam so I don't see how a discount would be working; free stuff could work, but I don't think it is a good path to walk down.

 

[sdms]

You can buy elsewhere than on steam so I don't see how a discount would be working; free stuff could work, but I don't think it is a good path to walk down.

I just noticed that most people say that the problem is with how Steam is showing DLCs. The idea is based on fact that DLCs are of several types so it is rather easy to categorize them. Paradox could easily make DLCs packs based on categories. For example "Expansions" and include each new major DLC into this pack. For example in case of EUIV, they released CoP in January 2014 and then WoN in May 2014. When they released WoN they could make "Expansions Pack" which will include both CoP and WoN and will cost a little less than CoP+WoN bought separately. Then after release of RP in July 2014 they could make "Expansions Pack #2" which will include all three expansions and will cost a little less than each expansion bought separately. And so on. This doesn't have to be limited to Steam as such packs can be sold anywhere. It's just an idea but I think it would make things easier for new people as they will be able to buy DLCs at lower price and they will see just 3-5 DLC packs instead of lots of separate DLCs.

 

[Wagonlitz]

I just noticed that most people say that the problem is with how Steam is showing DLCs. The idea is based on fact that DLCs are of several types so it is rather easy to categorize them. Paradox could easily make DLCs packs based on categories. For example "Expansions" and include each new major DLC into this pack. For example in case of EUIV, they released CoP in January 2014 and then WoN in May 2014. When they released WoN they could make "Expansions Pack" which will include both CoP and WoN and will cost a little less than CoP+WoN bought separately. Then after release of RP in July 2014 they could make "Expansions Pack #2" which will include all three expansions and will cost a little less than each expansion bought separately. And so on. This doesn't have to be limited to Steam as such packs can be sold anywhere. It's just an idea but I think it would make things easier for new people as they will be able to buy DLCs at lower price and they will see just 3-5 DLC packs instead of lots of separate DLCs.

The problem of DLC clogging is a problem elsewhere too. And Johan previously stated that in the past lowering prices only lead to less income since sales didn't rise.

By way I agree that the music DLC are a bargain; as you mentioned you cannot get such good music for that price everywhere. And it is good listening to outside of the game too. Actually for me the most important DLC are expansions first (or course) and music DLC second. Then things like coat of arms packs come as third and something I still deam reasonably necessary. On the other hand graphics packs and face packs I don't really deem necessary although nice to have; I have them all, but I doubt I would have bought them if PI wasn't PI. Expansions, music and probably things like coat of arms pack I would have bought no matter the dev.

 

[sdms]

The problem of DLC clogging is a problem elsewhere too. And Johan previously stated that in the past lowering prices only lead to less income since sales didn't rise.

As far as I know it is better for any company to sell more than less. So it is better if someone buys for example all expansions at once than only 1 or 2 expansions. And that's good reason to reward someone who is buying all expansions at once by lowering the price of set a bit. It's like you can buy six beers or a 6-pack of beer - 6-pack has usually lower price than six beers bought separately. So all 5 expansions to EUIV cost 64,95€ on Steam. Selling it as a set of expansions for for example 50,99€ probably wouldn't be much of loss but would probably look more inviting for new customer.

And it is good listening to outside of the game too.

+1

 

[Wagonlitz]

As far as I know it is better for any company to sell more than less. So it is better if someone buys for example all expansions at once than only 1 or 2 expansions. And that's good reason to reward someone who is buying all expansions at once by lowering the price of set a bit. It's like you can buy six beers or a 6-pack of beer - 6-pack has usually lower price than six beers bought separately. So all 5 expansions to EUIV cost 64,95€ on Steam. Selling it as a set of expansions for for example 50,99€ probably wouldn't be much of loss but would probably look more inviting for new customer.

That is what I would think too; Johan's post just stated that it doesn't happen. They simply just make less.

 

[sdms]

That is what I would think too; Johan's post just stated that it doesn't happen. They simply just make less.

I'm fairly sure it's a normal market rule that people are more likely to buy something that's on sale than they are to buy something that is just cheap normally. A $40 game at 75% off screams "Bargain! Buy me!", but a $10 game says "I am probably cheap because I am low quality".

^ This.

If it says "buying a DLC set you save 5/10/15%" it will look inviting to people. But it shouldn't be like this one, but there should be sets of DLCs of single category. Less content but more categorized so people can buy only what they want but still save some money buying it. I think it would be fair for both Paradox and customers.

 

[Wagonlitz]

^ This.

If it says "buying a DLC set you save 5/10/15%" it will look inviting to people. But it shouldn't be like this one, but there should be sets of DLCs of single category. Less content but more categorized so people can buy only what they want but still save some money buying it. I think it would be fair for both Paradox and customers.

Againt Johan has previously stated that in the past all they got from lowering prices was less revenue.

 

[Sarmatian]

My reasoning is fine. You don't have to buy additional music and it wouldn't make your game experience in any way worse. But if you want additional music you have to pay for that. As I said - if you think that 1.99€ for 22 minutes of orchestral music is too much than try to buy something similar in music store. Everything cost money.




I said that the title suggest that the game will take place in crusades era and will be about Catholic rulers not that it should be taken literally. Main features are explained in game info. It doesn't say you will be able to play as Muslim or whatever. So why people complain that Muslim DLC should be free or should be in base game? It is additional feature that isn't really necessary for this game. But yeah. Probably guys at PDS already thought that they will make Muslims, Pagans and whatever playable when they completed base game. Even if they did such features still aren't necessary in a base CKII, because this game is meant to be about crusaders not jihadists or whatever.




Well you have right to have opinion. For me it is quite understandable that any person deserves to get paid for any work done. The thing is that you don't have to buy any DLC. Just play the base game for 40$. I want more experience and I'm willing to pay for that experience and I don't think what Paradox is selling me is worth less than it costs. That is my opinion. Even if I don't have money to buy some content I still believe it's worth its price. Why? Because I can spend literally thousands of hours playing Paradox games and they will still be fun. For example I've recently installed EUII and it is still great game (even if it's annoying that I can't use mouse wheel to zoom in and out). So if I find a game I bought 13-14 years ago still entertaining it means it was worth its price.

Of course I "don't have to" buy. We're discussing the merit and whether the price is justified. "You don't have to buy it" is not a valid argument. You're comparing apples and oranges. That music is not good enough for anyone to buy it separately and listen to it without playing the game. It is meant to enrich the game experience, and therefore it only has value in conjuction with the game.

Well you can always see it this way. But yeah. We could have waited several years longer for CKII or EUIV or any other game. I'm sure they would get polished to the maximum by that time. But it's better for anyone if we are able to play the games and comment which features are good and which are bad. This way developers can get lots of new ideas and implement them and make their games better (or worse). They gain experience and players gain experience and by that we may expect future games to be even better. And what is wrong about learning new strategies?

There's a difference between polishing and design focus. I'm not talking about polishing, rather about the policy to tack on onto the base some features that don't work well with previous features, and instead of focusing on a single area and improving it in a balanced way (or even a few areas, but with each change taking into account other changes), we're getting a lot of small add-ons focusing on a lot of different things.

I think every game, patch and DLC is getting tested by Paradox prior to release. They actually play the games they make. But obviously they cannot test everything and that's why they need fans.

Of course it is tested, but it obviously wasn't tested enough. With complex games, you need to be extra careful. If you fix something in one area, you may break something else in another area.

Like someone said - vote with your wallet if DLC is good or bad

Voting with your wallet isn't as effective as you would think. The concept of selling small amounts of content through a series of micro-transactions over a long period of time is so profitable that if 10 persons vote with their wallet, it takes only 1 person to buy oit and the devs are still better off.

 

[Wagonlitz]

That music is not good enough for anyone to buy it separately and listen to it without playing the game. It is meant to enrich the game experience, and therefore it only has value in conjuction with the game.

That depends on the person. I think it is good enough to buy without the game---and I also listen to it outside the game---and I know there are many others who think the same.

 

[sdms]

That music is not good enough for anyone to buy it separately and listen to it without playing the game. It is meant to enrich the game experience, and therefore it only has value in conjuction with the game.

That is your subjective opinion. Still - if you don't think that music is worth its price don't buy it. It's that easy. You are not being forced to buy it or anything. There's enough music in base game and you can always mute it and play whatever music you like.

There's a difference between polishing and design focus. I'm not talking about polishing, rather about the policy to tack on onto the base some features that don't work well with previous features, and instead of focusing on a single area and improving it in a balanced way (or even a few areas, but with each change taking into account other changes), we're getting a lot of small add-ons focusing on a lot of different things.

I don't get your point. Every expansion is focusing on and trying to improve game experience in single area of the game. It may sometimes cause problems and dev team cannot test every single configuration - it's impossible.

Of course it is tested, but it obviously wasn't tested enough. With complex games, you need to be extra careful. If you fix something in one area, you may break something else in another area.

So? You know how many possible configurations there are in game? It is impossible to test every single configuration or they will have to hire thousands of testers who will play the game 24/7 to check everything possible. You have to accept the fact that people are just people and they have their own limitations and they make mistakes. That's why there's fan base that help developers track errors and fix them.

Voting with your wallet isn't as effective as you would think. The concept of selling small amounts of content through a series of micro-transactions over a long period of time is so profitable that if 10 persons vote with their wallet, it takes only 1 person to buy oit and the devs are still better off.

Where's your problem? If you go to the mall you see lots of different beers there and you buy the one you like. You may think that some kinds shouldn't be there because they taste awful to you. But there are other people who have different tastes and will buy such beers. The same is with games and DLCs. You don't like music packs to Paradox games - don't buy them. I will buy them because I think it's great piece of music. It's just a matter of choice. I'm sure guys at Paradox see which content is more popular and which is less and by that they can decide what people want.

 

[Wagonlitz]

So? You know how many possible configurations there are in game? It is impossible to test every single configuration or they will have to hire thousands of testers who will play the game 24/7 to check everything possible. You have to accept the fact that people are just people and they have their own limitations and they make mistakes. That's why there's fan base that help developers track errors and fix them.

Not to mention that they actually had an open beta with HOI3 and even with all those many testers (thousands?) it still had many many bugs.

 

[Sarmatian]

That depends on the person. I think it is good enough to buy without the game---and I also listen to it outside the game---and I know there are many others who think the same.

Ok. How many times you entered a music store and bought orchestral music CD you know nothing about performed by an orchestra you know nothing about?

If it is really that good, that's fantastic, but let's not kid ourselves that it would sell on its own in music stores.

That is your subjective opinion. Still - if you don't think that music is worth its price don't buy it. It's that easy. You are not being forced to buy it or anything. There's enough music in base game and you can always mute it and play whatever music you like.

Naturally, and BTW, everything I say here is my subjective opinion. I just hope you understand the same applies to everything you say.

I don't get your point. Every expansion is focusing on and trying to improve game experience in single area of the game. It may sometimes cause problems and dev team cannot test every single configuration - it's impossible.

Of course it is impossible. The current system makes it extremely probable. Let me try to illustrate it with an example:

A dish is made in the kitchen. Now different cooks add a single ingredient. After a first few it tastes better. After tenth or 20th cook, it tastes a lot worse because they just add different ingredients without really thinking how well it goes with the original dish or with what previous cooks put into the dish.

That's the feeling I'm getting.

So? You know how many possible configurations there are in game? It is impossible to test every single configuration or they will have to hire thousands of testers who will play the game 24/7 to check everything possible. You have to accept the fact that people are just people and they have their own limitations and they make mistakes. That's why there's fan base that help developers track errors and fix them.

That's why constant retooling is a problem. That's the reason why they shouldn't try to radically alter game mechanics or add a host of new features without taking into account how will it affect the base game.

That's not a proper defence of the current DLC model, you're citing why it should be changed.

Where's your problem? If you go to the mall you see lots of different beers there and you buy the one you like. You may think that some kinds shouldn't be there because they taste awful to you. But there are other people who have different tastes and will buy such beers. The same is with games and DLCs. You don't like music packs to Paradox games - don't buy them. I will buy them because I think it's great piece of music. It's just a matter of choice. I'm sure guys at Paradox see which content is more popular and which is less and by that they can decide what people want

My problem is that I used to get better products for smaller price.

Your beer analogy doesn't work. It's not about the taste.

The proper analogy would be if I used to buy a liter of beer for 1 euro, now I can only buy 0.1 liter for 0.5 euros. The sad thing is that people are not seeing it and are happy beer is now cheaper, without into account the difference in volume.

 

[Wagonlitz]

Ok. How many times you entered a music store and bought orchestral music CD you know nothing about performed by an orchestra you know nothing about?

A few times.

 

[sdms]

Of course it is impossible. The current system makes it extremely probable. Let me try to illustrate it with an example:

A dish is made in the kitchen. Now different cooks add a single ingredient. After a first few it tastes better. After tenth or 20th cook, it tastes a lot worse because they just add different ingredients without really thinking how well it goes with the original dish or with what previous cooks put into the dish.

That's the feeling I'm getting.

Well not exactly. It's more like changing recipe. Every new cook can add something or remove something - that's how I see this. That way they can make it better (or worse) but never only worse. PDS guys many times said they actually play games they make so I believe they know what they're doing.

That's why constant retooling is a problem. That's the reason why they shouldn't try to radically alter game mechanics or add a host of new features without taking into account how will it affect the base game.

That's not a proper defence of the current DLC model, you're citing why it should be changed.

So tell me - what exactly is a difference between being unable to test every single possibility in DLC and the same in expansion? Because I can't see a difference - there will always be bugs that weren't there when dev team tested a game.

My problem is that I used to get better products for smaller price.

Your beer analogy doesn't work. It's not about the taste.

The proper analogy would be if I used to buy a liter of beer for 1 euro, now I can only buy 0.1 liter for 0.5 euros. The sad thing is that people are not seeing it and are happy beer is now cheaper, without into account the difference in volume.

May I ask for example from Paradox?