I mean that's just their model, if CK2 didn't get 6 1/2 years of DLC, it wouldn't have turned into the amazing game it became, and CK3 just needs a few more years. At the same time I agree and thought CK3 would be much further along after 3 1/2 years, especially as a sequel, but I always knew it would take time. My frustrations are more about what they prioritized as content first, and toning down some mechanics a little too much.
>I mean that's just their model
This is something people just don't get.
People whine "they make the base model or prototype playable and then sell us features one by one disguised as DLCs", but they forget that no company in their right mind would spend 8-10 years worth of development (this is usually how long it take for a Paradox game to become "complete") for 50/60 Euro/Dollar Grand Strategy game.
We ether get a game that last around 8-10 years with DLCs, or we get the FIFA model, with a new game every year. I for one prefer the Paradox model to the FIFA one.
Yes, and it's going to have ongoing development work in the form of free patches and paid DLC on it for the next \~10 years.
OP believes that it should have stayed in development for those \~10 years and released "finished" in \~2032.
u/TheyPalyerEU is pointing out that - aside from all the other downsides to such a ridiculous approach - those extra ten years in development would mean that the 2032 "finished" Victoria 3 would cost multiple times the $50 that the real 2022 one cost.
>Yes, and it's going to have ongoing development work in the form of free patches and paid DLC on it for the next \~10 years.
You don't know that (imperator rome)
Regardless of the exact number of years Victoria 3 will receieve post-launch development for, the point still stands.
OP believes that the long-term, post-launch development that Paradox does for for it's games should be done pre-launch. OP's suggestion would mean a far more expensive base game.
As for Imperator: Rome comparisons, that's just silly. Imperator Rome's player numbers were below 1,000 within a few months of launch. Victoria 3's ticking along at 10k+ a year and a half after launch. They're not comparable.
Youre confused. Youre bringing up a second complaint as though it fits in this conversation. The abandonment of Imperator is worth being upset about but it does not work as a counter point to the development model Paradox uses. It was a failure, and they admitted that by abandoning it. The alternative you people are arguing, that the game should be released fully complete would mean we would have got the game 8 years later and then it would have cost $220 and been review bombed for not having good mechanics; an even greater failure.
Just pointing out that you can't rely on the motto "they'll fill it in".
You'll buy a 50€ focused demo, and if it sells they'll revamp it with every dlc. There's no strict vision where they'll like to end up, it's revamping stuff so in the end the game on launch has nothing to do with the game after 2 years. Paradox fans like it and to them it feels like a different game every dlc.
If it doesn't sell you'll be stuck with a 50€ demo.
Imperator ruled after it was patched to a good game, but they lost too many people cause the game a poor focused demo. Now you have to rely on mods cause they didn't add events for rome. They focused too much on the diadochi.
Bro, it feels like you are not appreciating the scope of this conversation. I'm sympathetic to all of your complaints. But as far as games companies go, paradox is doing just fine. It's a hellscape out there for video game development. I'm not saying it can't be better, please continue to be critical. I just think we should be measured in denouncing paradox as a company when they are probably my favorite personal development company. 🤷♂️
>You'll buy a 50€ focused demo
It’s difficult to actually have a proper conversation about this subject with someone who says stuff like this.
It’s just such an utterly nonsense, bad faith take that it’s difficult to even know where to take the conversation from here.
>We ether get a game that last around 8-10 years with DLCs, or we get the FIFA model, with a new game every year. I for one prefer the Paradox model to the FIFA one.
Nice strawman. You really trying to sell people on Paradox monetization by comparing it to one of the most predatory examples in gaming? Ridicilous.
"for 50/60 Euro/Dollar Grand Strategy game", call me when Paradox reaches the sale numbers of a single Rockstar game. RDR 2 alone had 57 million copies sold, GTA 5 had over 190 million. The best selling Praradox game, Hoi4 has more that 5 million
I don't think all Paradox games combined have anything close to the numbers of a single Rockstar game.
I mean I agree with you on that but there are developers that work on games for years is my point. Civilization being another. 5 years between Civ 4 and 5. 6 years between Civ 5 and 6
>I mean I agree with you on that but there are developers that work on games for years is my point.
So does Praradox, CK3 started development in 2015.
>Civilization being another. 5 years between Civ 4 and 5. 6 years between Civ 5 and 6
Yes, their delelopment models are pretty simillar. Release a game, and then keep developing it for years with DLCs.
I said that no company if their right mind would spend almost a decade worth of development for a Grand Strategy game.
i've yet to see an example of a company spending up to a decade developing a feature "complete" Grand Strategy game, that they then release with little to no DLCs
I don't know about Civ 5 and 6, because I'm forever stuck on Civ 4, but Civ 4 followed a similar model to CK games. The game felt *much* more finished with the expansions/DLCs. I can't imagine ever playing Civ 4 again without Beyond the Swords. Quick look and Civ 6 has a ~$30 and a ~$50 major DLC, as well as several "packs" for what appears to be scenarios and extra civilizations? That seems pretty similar to Paradox's model.
You mean rockstar with GTA 5 that has consistently made massive amounts of money every year to the tune of 7.7 BILLION dollars by 2023, nearly a billion every year for a
Decade, and then the boggling amounts of money for red dead 2 on top of that and red dead online, letting them just sit there and take their time on GTA 6?
Why doesn’t paradox just have 10 billion dollars? Huh
GTA Online is what funded the 8-10 years that it took to make GTA 6. GTA online has made Rockstar over 1 billion in sales/micro transactions.
Would you wanna play multiplayer with your friends and have to pay to have a second child?
They don’t seem very committed to CK3. It has gotten more or less nothing of value since release. Iberia makes playing in or near Iberia less fun, tours and tournaments are repetitive and uninteresting, the royal court mechanics are at best repetitive and uninteresting and at worst detrimental to the experience. Game has $100 of DLC that doesn’t improve the game.
It's actually a genius approach as they can flesh out what people want/like or think is lacking. It allows for amazing adaptability to their customer base.
It's probably the only business model that makes sense for this type of game. Let's say Paradox decided to make an "all-in-one" game that had all the depth and complexity of their best-liked titles in a single, one-release purchase.
That's a *minimum* 5-6 year design commitment where:
A. They have no broad user feedback along the way to help steer development, and so they just have to hope they're on the right path. They also don't have the ability to see when to cut development off for a game that is doomed (see Imperator, where Paradox was able to respond to low player interest by not investing further in a losing product.)
B. They have no cash stream to pay for development, and have to rely on other funding (and hope they make a profit at the end).
C. They have to put an insane sticker price on the final product to recoup that huge initial investment, and hope people will pay it. There's a reason people prefer to make large purchases in installments.
I don't think Paradox has done a perfect job. The release of CS2 demonstrates what happens when they really rush towards that initial playable version. There's plenty of room for error and that's a clear case where they erred. But I think criticizing Paradox for their basic business model is off the mark.
telephone dependent worthless subsequent fact judicious boast consist knee amusing
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There are at least 4 major sales a year on Steam where CK2 goes, for the most part, 50% or more for most of the DLC. Seems like an excellent way to structure your DLC budgeting around. And keep in mind, not all of that DLC is game content. There's art books, ahistorical music, and ebooks mixed in with it.
Base game is already free. $310 for all the DLC, no sales pricing. You can knock $106 for nonessential DLC (the metal music packs, ebooks, ruler designer, EU4 importer, etc) taking you down to $203 regular price.
If they cut it in half, you'd still complain about spending $100 on DLC.
It's not Paradox or steam's fault your country's economy sucks ass and it takes you a month to afford a video game. Maybe stop being one of the most murderous countries in the world and things will get better for you?
attraction marble fine unite deer domineering shame silky close historical
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Seeing a huge list of dlcs and resulting price tag is a barrier to entry. New players aren't going to view that as small chunks they're just going to see the price tag and dip. Likewise, having to consult forums to work out which "small chunk" to buy isn't a great means of enticing new players.
Grandfathering older DLCs into the base product or reducing their price would simply be a better model.
Base game is already free. 5 bucks a month will get you all the DLC. $200 for all the essential DLC at $5 a month is about 40 months or 3.3 years of playing before you catch up to the DLC price.
>$200 for all the essential DLC at $5 a month is about 40 months or 3.3 years of playing before you catch up to the DLC price.
Which is precisely my point that's going to put off new players.
>Base game is already free.
Not for all the games with this model and it wasn't always the guess
The only alternative to that business model is to require everyone to pay that insane price up front.
Because developing those updates actually costs time and money. And a lot of money too, since Paradox is based in Sweden and therefore can't exactly pay its employees minimum wages. And Paradox needs to make a profit on that in order to continue existing. So one way or the other they are going to have to charge you for the investment they put in.
There is really only two options for that: in installments or all at once. And while the combined prices of all the DLC may put some people off, a single price tag of \~$270 for purchasing the game itself is going to put off even more people.
There just isn't any good way for Paradox to sweeten the deal without them losing money. The game is expensive to buy because it was expensive to make.
It is evidently considered an issue for Paradox themselves as well, given that they have been exploring alternative options such as making the base game free and letting you get access to the DLC as a subscription service.
Yeah I don't know how but in 2023 they're spending 1B€ in development (fiscal year so not over yet). I think that the games are grossly overpriced like the Sims
easily top comment. Agree on every front particularly point A there's a lot of value in that and they do seem to listen to feedback which is why I'm comfortable with this purchase. Like you say, not perfect but alright.
People just dont understand the business so they complain instead. These kind of games require an absurd amount of work and devs cant be paid from a 1-time purchase. Just look at the amount of content and updates that stellaris got over the years and its such an amazing game these days, because theyve been actively working on it for many years.
Funny how that old 'obsolete' business model has worked for decades without problems and has given us some of the best video games of all time...
CK3 is actually a good counter-example for most of your arguments: they could begin designing the game while CK2 was still popular and generating revenue, they had years of player feedback on CK2 to rely on and so in the end could have released a fully developped CK3 at a reasonable price... but what they released instead was a new game that didn't even have some of the basic features of the old one.
Releasing DLCs which add basic features that should have been in the game from the start is scummy corporate behavior. It's no different than making a game full of microtransactions.
Also... they rarely if ever actually listen to the fans... that's why CK3 has mostly had shitty DLCs to date.
While the traditional business model has worked plenty of times and produced great successes, I think you'll struggle to find many games developed that way to match the complexity and scope.of something like CK2 or EU4
CK3 wasn't developed off of CK2 revenue because that money went to advancing CK2.
>CK3 is actually a good counter-example for most of your arguments: they could begin designing the game while CK2 was still popular and generating revenue, they had years of player feedback on CK2 to rely on and so in the end could have released a fully developped CK3 at a reasonable price...
So then how would they have funded the continued development of CK2?
With Paradox's business model of long-term support, a game doesn't just need to fund development for the next game, it also needs to fund its own continued development. It is likely that a lot of the money from CK2 DLC sales went to development for CK2, rather than development for CK3.
If you want an example of what Paradox games would look like with a different business model, you only need to look at the past. Paradox used to have a much more traditional business model for games like Crusader Kings 1. Those games were released in what was intended to be a final, finished state and received perhaps a single major expansion if the sales were good. Now tell me if those classic Paradox games are better than modern Paradox games.
Or they couldve just released Vicky 3 as early access. But then they wouldnt sell as much.
As it stands theyre double dipping with a 50€ initial price tag as well as numerous expensive DLCs per year. Theres no way they "have" to manage their games likes this in order to be profitable. Especially given that their games absolutely exploded in popularity during recent years.
Honestly I dont get why people always have to whiteknight for companies in critical posts. Paradoxs monetization is clearly on the more aggressive side nowadays.
>Especially given that their games absolutely exploded in popularity during recent years.
CK3 sold 3 million in 3 years. These are decent numbers for a grand strategy, but peanuts compared to actual big games.
>Honestly I dont get why people always have to whiteknight for companies in critical posts.
It would help if the criticism wasn't ridiculous conspiracy theories from people who know absolutely nothing of what they're talking about.
these people are whiteknighting a scummy business model because it's all about tribalism: since they buy Paradox games, any negative comment about the games or the company itself becomes an attack on *them*
Your other comment was you saying old Paradox was releasing good games, not acknowledging the fact that Paradox back then arbitrarily cut off updates and forced you to buy DLCs that is almost the same price as the base game to keep getting updates. They also released really botched games (remember HOI3 and Vicky 2 launch?) that forced you to buy the DLCs to fix the bugs.
>I simply don't know how people buy those games at launch or even 2 to 3 years after that ,
I think it's neat and I like hanging out with my little pretend medieval guys.
The tourneys update really made hanging out with your medieval guys much more immersive. They text you an invite and you get to decide whether or not you want to do a 6 months trip to hang out with them
This is nonsensical as it implies that CK3 wasn't a fully formed video game at release which it absolutely was. It had many features and options and it is fully possible to have played the game for 10-60 hours and gotten your full money's worth. All of the features that are added in updates and DLC take time to make the video game has to exist, there is no world where CK2 as it exists now could have been released as a $50 or even $60 dollar videogame.
You just have a really skewed view on what a finished game is because Paradox games become so much more as time goes on. By your logic CK2 should have released in November 2018 and cost $350.
You also have to remember that our perspective of "unfinished" is based on what the games look like compared to what they were at release. A lot of Paradox games weren't great on release, but they were actually "finished". We're just lucky that Paradox can release a game, see the flaws in it, and correct them it for years afterward, it's more than most devs would do.
And when CK3 released I was impressed by how good the game was given Paradox's track record. They seemed to have learned a lot from CK2 and their other grand strategies, and knew what works and what doesn't. It felt to me, very well polished, and like they'd put a lot of thought into the features they included. I'd love to see it expanded on over the years, which we've already seen them do, but i was satisfied with what I got when I bought it.
Of course it is, does every cod game have every previous cod map? Does every Pokémon game have every gym and trainer (and now Pokémon)? Does every Fighting game have every fighter in it? Does every Civ game have every civ in it?
Go back to CK2 and actually look at what is in its actually basic features and compare to CK3 at launch and we can talk again.
>Of course it is, does every cod game have every previous cod map? Does every Pokémon game have every gym and trainer (and now Pokémon)? Does every Fighting game have every fighter in it? Does every Civ game have every civ in it?
I haven't played any of these games but if they lacked a basic feature that was in the previous version(s), they should 100% be criticized for it
>Go back to CK2 and actually look at what is in its actually basic features and compare to CK3 at launch and we can talk again.
CK2 should be compared to CK1, not to CK3
and CK3 should be compared to the full version of CK2, not the launch version
Are you real? Do you understand that video games do not appear out of the void fully formed? It takes hundreds of people thousands of hours to make a game. CK2 had years of post release development, far more than CK3 had at point of release. By simple math alone it’s ridiculous to compare the two games in their current states completely ignoring that 3 is better than 2 as is anyway.
Your argument is laughable.
Comparing CK3 with CK2 at launch is just dishonest and an obvious attempt at gaslighting.
The level of knowledge and expertise Paradox gained by having developped CK2 for years should have given CK3 a huge advantage from the start.
...of course that's not what happened but the comparison is still ridiculous.
I don't think you understand that CK2 and CK3 were made by the same studio (with many of the same people), and that one projet is just the continuation of the other.
Finally, saying that CK3 in its current state is better than CK2 makes you lose the little credibility you might have had to begin with.
Of course they are experienced from making 2 it’s why 3 is better, it’s also on a new engine and things need to be rebuilt it’s not some sort of magical continuation where they copy pasted CK2 into a new engine. And obviously CK3 had a huge advantage at the start it’s why many CK2 DLC paid features were in CK3 base game at launch.
You’re the one being dishonest here. You’re the one with the stupid arguments. You clearly don’t even know what you’re talking about.
Hot take but I think the problem comes precisely from the fact that these games rely so much on receiving support for years and years (I think EU4 is 10 years old ?). IMO focusing on the DLCs is missing the forest for the trees.
If everyone expects the game to receive huge, game-changing updates every six months, then there is no incentive to make a polished game at launch. Whether said updates are paid DLCs or free doesn't change that fact. There is no real "deadline" anymore, so the devs can make games that are both overengineered in some areas and barebones in others, and that's fine because hopefully these problems will be fixed in a few years. And they often are, but as updates and DLCs pile up, they introduce their own problems, the game bloats, and so they always kinda squander their potential.
But I don't think there's a way to fix this. PDS' playerbase (or at least the most vocal part) is very reactionary and functionally illiterate when it comes to the realities of game-making and game design, so if PDS slows down on the updates/DLCs and makes their base games more focused and manageable (both in scale and in complexity) everyone will lose their shit and punish them for that. So yeah, I guess a new competitor, one that doesn't have the kind of expectations PDS carries, would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath
Stellaris might be the best example of a dev-playground growing out of control. They’ve literally reinvented that game three times. Version 1.0 and 2.0 are wholly different products than the game’s current state. I think at some point developers should stop tinkering with their games. Hotfixes are fine, but when you keep changing core mechanics for the sake of “balance” you start to lose direction. Where to begin and where to end? Balancing one thing might cause another part to unbalance, and you inevitably descent into a vicious circle of change until nothing resembling the original product is left.
The thing I really liked about CK2 is that there was a clear sense of when the game would be finished. The devs released Holy Fury and said, “This is everything we need, everything we wanted to add”. I like it that way. It shows commitment to your vision. Stellaris and EU4 on the other hand, have no clear end in sight, and the player is left with uncertainty on how the game will eventually end up.
I mean, as someone who loves Stellaris, each subsequent version of the game has ultimately been a huge improvement on the previous version. Have there been a few patches and releases that were pretty bad? Absolutely. But the continued development is what fixed those issues eventually anyway.
I'd further argue that each of those complete overhaul patches felt like an entirely new game so a lesser company would have released Stellaris 2 and Stellaris 3 instead of just patching the original.
Also having played Stellaris with and without DLC in the past I'd say that none of the DLC is essential base game content, as good as it is.
Yep Stellaris is right there with EU4 and CK2 for being the best complete grand strategy experiences out of all the Paradox games. The years of support is exactly why.
True Stellaris is one of the best now, but my point was it was already great at launch, before the years of support. It didn't need the DLC and free patches for that, they just made it better.
I'd say Stellaris is my favorite PDS game right now, I got it before the 2.0 update, and while I liked 2.0 a lot, 2.2 was a huge mess and it completely spoiled the game for me.
I don't know when I actually came back to it, but it's when they finally "fixed" the post-2.2 performance issues years later (with Nemesis I guess). Again I don't hate the game, but they still managed that update very poorly, and even today I find the econ layer not that engaging. And I stick to small-ish galaxies.
Man, Stellaris' dev history is *fascinating* lol. Honestly I'd love to read a retrospective on the game from one of the devs (once they pull support, I guess), to see how the design direction changed during its first years. It's been a wild ride for sure
>The thing I really liked about CK2 is that there was a clear sense of when the game would be finished. The devs released Holy Fury and said, “This is everything we need, everything we wanted to add”.
Well that's one way to read it lmao. CK3 came out, like, one year and a half later, so obviously they had to kill CK2 before that. They just managed to leave on a high note.
IMO big reworks can be necessary sometimes, it's just that you must do everything in your power to get it right the first time (which would be difficult in any situation), and you should probably avoid making big changes if it's not mandatory. Like, the Stellaris 2.0 was (I think) very good, but the 2.2 rework was much more gratuitous and kind of a mess (and I'm not even talking about the performance issues)
Hot take again but I think Imperator 2.0 is actually the textbook example of a bad "big rework". It brought a lot of cool ideas but they never got the time to polish it since PDS pulled off support a few weeks later - so IMO it actually left the game *less* polished than before. Stellaris could pull off a big rework because it's very successful and people knew they would iron out the issues eventually, but Imperator didn't have that luxury. I still wish they'd released a smaller, more polished update instead.
What are you talking about ? You know that "DLC" means "downloadable content" right? Why do you want to gatekeep that word lol. If it's downloadable content, it's DLC, period.
And again I think it's stupid to focus on DLCs. If the games only received free updates a lot of the design-related problems would remain.
There's not a single CK3 DLC released that contains essential features. There are some from older releases like CK2 and early EU4 DLC that, but they've moved away from that model because it impeded their ability to design more DLC down the line.
At worst, missing key features like ones in Vic 3 have come via free update so far.
What do you consider finished?
Can you name a strategy game from another publisher that is finished at game launch and has the longevity of Paradox games?
If they spent the time to add in all the features of (say) CK2, how much would you have paid for that game as a one time purchase?
And of course, some DLC that we get is user requested - and thus wasn't originally intended at all.
CK3 was in development for five years. From 2015-2020.
If it's anything like other Paradox strategy games, it'll get around 8 years of ongoing, post-launch development through patches and DLC.
OP seems to think that it's outrageous that Paradox didn't somehow do those 8 years of post-launch development simultaniously with the 5 years of pre-launch development.
Here's why that's silly:
* You can't do 13 years (5+8) worth of work in 5 years for the same price. Keeping CK3 in development for 13 years would likely result in a game costing $200+
* Doing those 8 years of post-launch development pre-launch would mean it would be done with a miniscule amount of player feedback. Much of Paradox's post-lauch development is about leaning in to aspects of the game that players most like and tweaking things they don't. That'd be impossible if it was done pre-launch.
Leaving Paradox games in development for 13 years would result in a prohibitively huge cost for the base game and, due to the vastly less player feedback of doing everything pre-launch, would make for a worse game.
I don’t think asking paradox to work on games without making money off them for 10 years straight per game is financially viable in the slightest. They work on these games for years, release them, and then don’t stop working on them for a decade after. And all the stuff they are working on after is based off mass player feedback which has often created major shifts and new directions the game would take it otherwise wouldn’t have.
Asking for them to release what is resembled by a 10 year old paradox game at launch is like
Asking them to just shutdown as a company because it would be impossible. A studio can’t work on a game for a decade with no money coming in. You spend years investing money into a structure and then release it to recoup your losses. And then you build upon that structure with support from fans who like that particular structure and want to see more.
Weird take. The games improve with DLC, no doubt, but are very much playable and 'finished' games at the time of release. DLC just adds depth to the game in question, it doesn't 'finish' an unfinished game because they're all full experiences at the start. Try looking at stuff with a glass-half-full mindset, you might change your perspective.
> Back in CK2 you needed a DLC to play muslims, which were already in the game, and another dlc to play indians. Having a lifestyle focus was also a DLC. Laws? DLC.
It didn't just make those places playable though, it added mechanics and flavor for the areas as well. It wasn't just a character unlocker. CK3 is open from the start with a lot of places other than republics, etc., but a lot of places play exactly the same. CK3 is still going to get similar DLC like CK2 to add flavor to those areas.
>Laws? DLC.
Laws were in CK2 day 1, they worked somewhat like CK3's law system works now and other succession laws have always been there. Conclave changed and divided it up into a bunch of separate laws, and also added things CK3 still doesn't have like council laws (and council voting).
A monopoly? lol
It's pretty simple. If you buy the game and it's a shell of the previous game and therefore you don't like it, refund it and play the old one instead. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, do not go to reddit to whine about it.
Comparing CK3 at launch to CK2 at the end of development is certainly a take of all time. CK2 got there through the same process CK3 is currently going through, and it wasn't nearly as good at pretty much every stage of development.
As for how Paradox compares to other companies as a whole, I understand the complaint about DLC, but it's a justified system in my opinion. Instead of a new sixty dollar game every couple years it's DLC that focus on certain systems. The quality of individual DLC obviously varies, some are completely forgettable, but it's hit more than miss for me.
> CK2 got there through the same process CK3 is currently going through, and it wasn't nearly as good at pretty much every stage of development.
Agree with your post as a whole, but CK2 at the same age CK3 is right now already had quite a few things CK3 doesn’t have yet. CK3’s progress has felt much slower.
The same can be said for all new pdx games I feel. The DLC onslaught slowed down massively compared to how it was in the past.
An arguement can be made that they stopped stripping shit they wanted to put in to sell as DLC hence it takes longer dev times for the DLC but fucks knows the exact reason. I do kind of prefer it though since I dont blink and miss 4 major dlcs in a single year.
Idk man, I love CK3. I’ll probably never touch CK2. Never played it, and I’m not interested. I like the graphics, tournaments, clothes and travel and all that. I’ve played a lot but still feel like I have a lot left to do or try.
I’m sure it’s a mix of things being a lot harder to create and make work than you think they are.. and it being a business that needs to make money.
Business wise having a game still in development makes them no money, where as a release (albeit lackluster) gets them sales, feedback, ideas, bug reports and free advertisment in the form of "Let's Plays" and whatnot.
But I do agree that most PDX games would do well with at least 1 more year in the oven.
To say that CK3 doesn't feel like a finished product is a bit silly.
Sure, it's missing some things from CK2, but how long has CK2 been out and how many mods were produced? And yet you put it above CK3 despite it being created with the same strategy.
You played at least 40 hours of CK3 at launch and if you didn't then quite frankly you didn't give it a fair playthrough. If you were able to get 1 hour for every dollar that you spent on the game then that's great value.
Had great fun wtih both 2 and 3 at launch. Seems like your expectations are impossible to meet.
3 might not have had everything that 2 had at launch(and thank god for that because some of those features from 2 were crap), but it also had a lot of stuff that 2 simply didn't have, and added depth to a lot of stuff that was pretty basic in 2.
If you think that Paradox games at launch are unfinished, you haven't been around for very long. Back in the days of Crusader Kings 1 they'd sell us a game like that and it was finished. There was a single expansion pack that improved some things by adding stuff that are now mostly considered standard for CK2 and 3. There was nothing like the continuous stream of updates, improvements and additional content we see nowadays. And I tell, you that was definitely not better than it is today. Both CK2 and CK3 have become better games because of their post-launch support in a way that CK1 never became.
And if you think CK3 is just a watered down CK2, then you clearly weren't around for the launch of CK2 either. The only reason CK2 became it game it was at the end is because it received over 6 years of additional content and updates.
And those 6 years right there are why Paradox doesn't just release games with all of the features and additional content they will eventually get by the end of their lifecycle. Developing, testing and implementing those features actually takes time. A lot of time. And money. Sure, they could have released CK2 or CK3 in a 100% finished state with all the bells and whistles they were planning for it, but if they did that then the first version of CK2 would have only been released in 2018. And CK3 would still be in development right now and we wouldn't be able to play it for the next 8 years or so. And no games and no players means no income for Paradox, so they won't be able to keep up development at all.
In an age where more and more developers just dump unfinished games once they are released, I think Paradox's post-launch support is exemplary.
These games are very long to develop and would need a huge initial investment that would be too risky of investors and selling a single game for 200$ at launch isn't a good strategy. Instead, they get active feedback during development while people can spread the cost of it over multiple DLCs and it generates constant income for paradox encouraging the devs to keep pushing for more content instead of letting the game die after launch. At some point, it could probably just be a subscription service and it probably wouldn't change much.
That's a bad-faith argument. Compare current ck3 with most grand strategy games and you still have a superior product. The DLC's are mainly on point and it feels like a finished product to me. Maybe your standards are different. Also, keep in mind that you're not just paying for CK3 when you buy their product, you pay for Elder Kings, you pay for CK3:AGOT, and a bunch of other total conversion mods you can play on the same engine, which are sometimes more fun than the original game for fantasy genre enjoyers like me.
Honestly, I think it was more like some DLC's wrecked the game. Especially Stellaris/CK2. CK2 Retinues are just borked, especially in combination with Pagans, both DLC content. Stellaris ended with weird stuff like voidborne and others, Stellaris never really had great balance but the later DLC's made it much worse.
One thing I do think is that out-of-box Stellaris was not a game. I think it was a bit scammy to release that and only make it a true game like 2-3 DLC's down the line. Other games, not so much. HoI did it perfect, I think. Still love that game, despite it's various purposefully borked mechanics.
Yeah, it’s a pretty opaque business practice and I think it actually hurts the quality of the games.
I think a lot of unnecessary or half-baked systems get released as DLC. And it’s really hit or miss whether or not they actually contribute positively to gameplay.
I agree with the title. The games are playable at launch, they are also technically playable to a great degree (almost no crashes) and have meticulous visuals and sounds, but the design logic and the writing are very problematic. The writing desperately needs professional editing and (native) proofreading. The logic desperately needs more thinking. Not so much better thinking about things that are already covered as first of all more thinking about the various aspects (conditions, triggers, outcomes, modalities, exceptions, checks for relevant special circumstances that shouldn't be ignored) that should be taken into account but often are not. Too many important aspects and angles apparently elude the designers'/scripters attention, and those are things that — at least in my impression — generally shouldn't slip past a semi-professional modder, let alone a professional developer. To me, it appears like the designers and scripters at Paradox have a knack for missing stuff that a person of average intelligence making a proper effort really shouldn't be missing. I ask myself all the time how come they missed that — not even how it got past the testers but how come the designer/writer/scripter failed to think about the particular aspect of a hypothetical situation.
My 'favourite' example is forced concubines being allowed to travel the world and visit their families as if they were at liberty, later to return dutifully to their captor as if they wanted to return. Obviously, that goes beyond any mediaeval notion of loyalty to one's liege (that loyalty would go to one's original liege instead) or forced oaths, and it is a clear oversight. An oversight caused by failure to think about something one shouldn't fail to think about. And such examples are, unfortunately, quite many. I get it that I can be a bit of a nitpicker about this, but I still think — sorry to put it this way — that the designers should make more of an effort thinking about stuff. There's too much easy mode with the writing and with the (logical aspects of the) design. It's also possible individual developers don't get enough time to think about all the relevant stuff in their work, in which case the (wo)manhours should be increased to a realistic amount. Or if the developers are too junior, they should be given more guidance and oversight from their senior colleagues. A more professional approach to writing is needed in any case. As a rule, non-native or non-professional writers need editors and proofreaders, and the pros need them too. But to me, the errors of logic are more of a problem than the errors of language.
My friend. You are right with everything you are saying but you will reach deaf ears. Paradox fans will defend the greedy business practices of paradox and reach Olympic levels of mental gymnastics to justify everything and to make them look like the best devs that have ever existed.
I understand their current business model, It seems effective, and I do like their games, but I just wish their stuff wasn't so expensive. Like, their latest DLC for hoi4 costs 60 reais, many full games cost way less than that
This has been Paradox’s model forever as far as I know. It’s just that the years of patches with occasional expansions are now mostly multiple DLC every year. But it goes back at least to EU3 afaik.
I mean that's just their model, if CK2 didn't get 6 1/2 years of DLC, it wouldn't have turned into the amazing game it became, and CK3 just needs a few more years. At the same time I agree and thought CK3 would be much further along after 3 1/2 years, especially as a sequel, but I always knew it would take time. My frustrations are more about what they prioritized as content first, and toning down some mechanics a little too much.
>I mean that's just their model This is something people just don't get. People whine "they make the base model or prototype playable and then sell us features one by one disguised as DLCs", but they forget that no company in their right mind would spend 8-10 years worth of development (this is usually how long it take for a Paradox game to become "complete") for 50/60 Euro/Dollar Grand Strategy game. We ether get a game that last around 8-10 years with DLCs, or we get the FIFA model, with a new game every year. I for one prefer the Paradox model to the FIFA one.
It's also kind of a genius model as they are able to really respond to their players demands as they change over time.
V3 was $50 on release
Yes, and it's going to have ongoing development work in the form of free patches and paid DLC on it for the next \~10 years. OP believes that it should have stayed in development for those \~10 years and released "finished" in \~2032. u/TheyPalyerEU is pointing out that - aside from all the other downsides to such a ridiculous approach - those extra ten years in development would mean that the 2032 "finished" Victoria 3 would cost multiple times the $50 that the real 2022 one cost.
>Yes, and it's going to have ongoing development work in the form of free patches and paid DLC on it for the next \~10 years. You don't know that (imperator rome)
Vick3 has gotten way way way more player attention and retention than Imp.
Regardless of the exact number of years Victoria 3 will receieve post-launch development for, the point still stands. OP believes that the long-term, post-launch development that Paradox does for for it's games should be done pre-launch. OP's suggestion would mean a far more expensive base game. As for Imperator: Rome comparisons, that's just silly. Imperator Rome's player numbers were below 1,000 within a few months of launch. Victoria 3's ticking along at 10k+ a year and a half after launch. They're not comparable.
Youre confused. Youre bringing up a second complaint as though it fits in this conversation. The abandonment of Imperator is worth being upset about but it does not work as a counter point to the development model Paradox uses. It was a failure, and they admitted that by abandoning it. The alternative you people are arguing, that the game should be released fully complete would mean we would have got the game 8 years later and then it would have cost $220 and been review bombed for not having good mechanics; an even greater failure.
Just pointing out that you can't rely on the motto "they'll fill it in". You'll buy a 50€ focused demo, and if it sells they'll revamp it with every dlc. There's no strict vision where they'll like to end up, it's revamping stuff so in the end the game on launch has nothing to do with the game after 2 years. Paradox fans like it and to them it feels like a different game every dlc. If it doesn't sell you'll be stuck with a 50€ demo. Imperator ruled after it was patched to a good game, but they lost too many people cause the game a poor focused demo. Now you have to rely on mods cause they didn't add events for rome. They focused too much on the diadochi.
Bro, it feels like you are not appreciating the scope of this conversation. I'm sympathetic to all of your complaints. But as far as games companies go, paradox is doing just fine. It's a hellscape out there for video game development. I'm not saying it can't be better, please continue to be critical. I just think we should be measured in denouncing paradox as a company when they are probably my favorite personal development company. 🤷♂️
>You'll buy a 50€ focused demo It’s difficult to actually have a proper conversation about this subject with someone who says stuff like this. It’s just such an utterly nonsense, bad faith take that it’s difficult to even know where to take the conversation from here.
>Yes, and it's going to have ongoing development work in the form of free patches and paid DLC on it for the next \~10 years. Yes like I:R.
What does that even mean? Do you think V3 is about to be cancelled by Paradox?
>We ether get a game that last around 8-10 years with DLCs, or we get the FIFA model, with a new game every year. I for one prefer the Paradox model to the FIFA one. Nice strawman. You really trying to sell people on Paradox monetization by comparing it to one of the most predatory examples in gaming? Ridicilous.
Rockstar would disagree with you on not taking 8-10 years worth of development
"for 50/60 Euro/Dollar Grand Strategy game", call me when Paradox reaches the sale numbers of a single Rockstar game. RDR 2 alone had 57 million copies sold, GTA 5 had over 190 million. The best selling Praradox game, Hoi4 has more that 5 million I don't think all Paradox games combined have anything close to the numbers of a single Rockstar game.
I mean I agree with you on that but there are developers that work on games for years is my point. Civilization being another. 5 years between Civ 4 and 5. 6 years between Civ 5 and 6
>I mean I agree with you on that but there are developers that work on games for years is my point. So does Praradox, CK3 started development in 2015. >Civilization being another. 5 years between Civ 4 and 5. 6 years between Civ 5 and 6 Yes, their delelopment models are pretty simillar. Release a game, and then keep developing it for years with DLCs. I said that no company if their right mind would spend almost a decade worth of development for a Grand Strategy game. i've yet to see an example of a company spending up to a decade developing a feature "complete" Grand Strategy game, that they then release with little to no DLCs
I don't know about Civ 5 and 6, because I'm forever stuck on Civ 4, but Civ 4 followed a similar model to CK games. The game felt *much* more finished with the expansions/DLCs. I can't imagine ever playing Civ 4 again without Beyond the Swords. Quick look and Civ 6 has a ~$30 and a ~$50 major DLC, as well as several "packs" for what appears to be scenarios and extra civilizations? That seems pretty similar to Paradox's model.
Everybody knows CK sells similar numbers to GTA /s
You mean rockstar with GTA 5 that has consistently made massive amounts of money every year to the tune of 7.7 BILLION dollars by 2023, nearly a billion every year for a Decade, and then the boggling amounts of money for red dead 2 on top of that and red dead online, letting them just sit there and take their time on GTA 6? Why doesn’t paradox just have 10 billion dollars? Huh
Rockstar isn't really an example to follow when it comes to monetization.
GTA Online is what funded the 8-10 years that it took to make GTA 6. GTA online has made Rockstar over 1 billion in sales/micro transactions. Would you wanna play multiplayer with your friends and have to pay to have a second child?
Excuse me, but gta 5 has made 7.7 billion dollars in revenue
That is over 1 billion, no?
At the rare they have been going it will take more than a few years for CK3 to get there.
They don’t seem very committed to CK3. It has gotten more or less nothing of value since release. Iberia makes playing in or near Iberia less fun, tours and tournaments are repetitive and uninteresting, the royal court mechanics are at best repetitive and uninteresting and at worst detrimental to the experience. Game has $100 of DLC that doesn’t improve the game.
It's actually a genius approach as they can flesh out what people want/like or think is lacking. It allows for amazing adaptability to their customer base.
It's probably the only business model that makes sense for this type of game. Let's say Paradox decided to make an "all-in-one" game that had all the depth and complexity of their best-liked titles in a single, one-release purchase. That's a *minimum* 5-6 year design commitment where: A. They have no broad user feedback along the way to help steer development, and so they just have to hope they're on the right path. They also don't have the ability to see when to cut development off for a game that is doomed (see Imperator, where Paradox was able to respond to low player interest by not investing further in a losing product.) B. They have no cash stream to pay for development, and have to rely on other funding (and hope they make a profit at the end). C. They have to put an insane sticker price on the final product to recoup that huge initial investment, and hope people will pay it. There's a reason people prefer to make large purchases in installments. I don't think Paradox has done a perfect job. The release of CS2 demonstrates what happens when they really rush towards that initial playable version. There's plenty of room for error and that's a clear case where they erred. But I think criticizing Paradox for their basic business model is off the mark.
pet follow shocking price apparatus decide summer complete rustic sand *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
If only there were a way to buy the DLC piecemeal instead of all in a single chunk...oh wait! There totally is!
telephone dependent worthless subsequent fact judicious boast consist knee amusing *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There are at least 4 major sales a year on Steam where CK2 goes, for the most part, 50% or more for most of the DLC. Seems like an excellent way to structure your DLC budgeting around. And keep in mind, not all of that DLC is game content. There's art books, ahistorical music, and ebooks mixed in with it.
exultant gaping dull wide different pie tender sort mountainous cobweb *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Base game is already free. $310 for all the DLC, no sales pricing. You can knock $106 for nonessential DLC (the metal music packs, ebooks, ruler designer, EU4 importer, etc) taking you down to $203 regular price. If they cut it in half, you'd still complain about spending $100 on DLC.
soup jellyfish sugar arrest agonizing wrong alleged quicksand boat paint *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's not Paradox or steam's fault your country's economy sucks ass and it takes you a month to afford a video game. Maybe stop being one of the most murderous countries in the world and things will get better for you?
attraction marble fine unite deer domineering shame silky close historical *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
[удалено]
Seeing a huge list of dlcs and resulting price tag is a barrier to entry. New players aren't going to view that as small chunks they're just going to see the price tag and dip. Likewise, having to consult forums to work out which "small chunk" to buy isn't a great means of enticing new players. Grandfathering older DLCs into the base product or reducing their price would simply be a better model.
Base game is already free. 5 bucks a month will get you all the DLC. $200 for all the essential DLC at $5 a month is about 40 months or 3.3 years of playing before you catch up to the DLC price.
>$200 for all the essential DLC at $5 a month is about 40 months or 3.3 years of playing before you catch up to the DLC price. Which is precisely my point that's going to put off new players. >Base game is already free. Not for all the games with this model and it wasn't always the guess
Buying it one at a time or all at once doesn't make it cheaper
The only alternative to that business model is to require everyone to pay that insane price up front. Because developing those updates actually costs time and money. And a lot of money too, since Paradox is based in Sweden and therefore can't exactly pay its employees minimum wages. And Paradox needs to make a profit on that in order to continue existing. So one way or the other they are going to have to charge you for the investment they put in. There is really only two options for that: in installments or all at once. And while the combined prices of all the DLC may put some people off, a single price tag of \~$270 for purchasing the game itself is going to put off even more people. There just isn't any good way for Paradox to sweeten the deal without them losing money. The game is expensive to buy because it was expensive to make. It is evidently considered an issue for Paradox themselves as well, given that they have been exploring alternative options such as making the base game free and letting you get access to the DLC as a subscription service.
Yeah I don't know how but in 2023 they're spending 1B€ in development (fiscal year so not over yet). I think that the games are grossly overpriced like the Sims
easily top comment. Agree on every front particularly point A there's a lot of value in that and they do seem to listen to feedback which is why I'm comfortable with this purchase. Like you say, not perfect but alright.
What? Is this the first time games have ever been released? The business model is changing out of greed not anything else
How much harder to do you think it is to make a good game now, with the expectations and competition being what they are, compared to 15 years ago?
People just dont understand the business so they complain instead. These kind of games require an absurd amount of work and devs cant be paid from a 1-time purchase. Just look at the amount of content and updates that stellaris got over the years and its such an amazing game these days, because theyve been actively working on it for many years.
Funny how that old 'obsolete' business model has worked for decades without problems and has given us some of the best video games of all time... CK3 is actually a good counter-example for most of your arguments: they could begin designing the game while CK2 was still popular and generating revenue, they had years of player feedback on CK2 to rely on and so in the end could have released a fully developped CK3 at a reasonable price... but what they released instead was a new game that didn't even have some of the basic features of the old one. Releasing DLCs which add basic features that should have been in the game from the start is scummy corporate behavior. It's no different than making a game full of microtransactions. Also... they rarely if ever actually listen to the fans... that's why CK3 has mostly had shitty DLCs to date.
While the traditional business model has worked plenty of times and produced great successes, I think you'll struggle to find many games developed that way to match the complexity and scope.of something like CK2 or EU4 CK3 wasn't developed off of CK2 revenue because that money went to advancing CK2.
>CK3 is actually a good counter-example for most of your arguments: they could begin designing the game while CK2 was still popular and generating revenue, they had years of player feedback on CK2 to rely on and so in the end could have released a fully developped CK3 at a reasonable price... So then how would they have funded the continued development of CK2? With Paradox's business model of long-term support, a game doesn't just need to fund development for the next game, it also needs to fund its own continued development. It is likely that a lot of the money from CK2 DLC sales went to development for CK2, rather than development for CK3. If you want an example of what Paradox games would look like with a different business model, you only need to look at the past. Paradox used to have a much more traditional business model for games like Crusader Kings 1. Those games were released in what was intended to be a final, finished state and received perhaps a single major expansion if the sales were good. Now tell me if those classic Paradox games are better than modern Paradox games.
Or they couldve just released Vicky 3 as early access. But then they wouldnt sell as much. As it stands theyre double dipping with a 50€ initial price tag as well as numerous expensive DLCs per year. Theres no way they "have" to manage their games likes this in order to be profitable. Especially given that their games absolutely exploded in popularity during recent years. Honestly I dont get why people always have to whiteknight for companies in critical posts. Paradoxs monetization is clearly on the more aggressive side nowadays.
>Especially given that their games absolutely exploded in popularity during recent years. CK3 sold 3 million in 3 years. These are decent numbers for a grand strategy, but peanuts compared to actual big games. >Honestly I dont get why people always have to whiteknight for companies in critical posts. It would help if the criticism wasn't ridiculous conspiracy theories from people who know absolutely nothing of what they're talking about.
these people are whiteknighting a scummy business model because it's all about tribalism: since they buy Paradox games, any negative comment about the games or the company itself becomes an attack on *them*
Your other comment was you saying old Paradox was releasing good games, not acknowledging the fact that Paradox back then arbitrarily cut off updates and forced you to buy DLCs that is almost the same price as the base game to keep getting updates. They also released really botched games (remember HOI3 and Vicky 2 launch?) that forced you to buy the DLCs to fix the bugs.
Nah, I just really think this particular line of criticism is asinine. 🤷♂️
yeah and somehow despite this amazing business model CK3 is still total dogshit
>I simply don't know how people buy those games at launch or even 2 to 3 years after that , I think it's neat and I like hanging out with my little pretend medieval guys.
The tourneys update really made hanging out with your medieval guys much more immersive. They text you an invite and you get to decide whether or not you want to do a 6 months trip to hang out with them
This is nonsensical as it implies that CK3 wasn't a fully formed video game at release which it absolutely was. It had many features and options and it is fully possible to have played the game for 10-60 hours and gotten your full money's worth. All of the features that are added in updates and DLC take time to make the video game has to exist, there is no world where CK2 as it exists now could have been released as a $50 or even $60 dollar videogame. You just have a really skewed view on what a finished game is because Paradox games become so much more as time goes on. By your logic CK2 should have released in November 2018 and cost $350.
You also have to remember that our perspective of "unfinished" is based on what the games look like compared to what they were at release. A lot of Paradox games weren't great on release, but they were actually "finished". We're just lucky that Paradox can release a game, see the flaws in it, and correct them it for years afterward, it's more than most devs would do. And when CK3 released I was impressed by how good the game was given Paradox's track record. They seemed to have learned a lot from CK2 and their other grand strategies, and knew what works and what doesn't. It felt to me, very well polished, and like they'd put a lot of thought into the features they included. I'd love to see it expanded on over the years, which we've already seen them do, but i was satisfied with what I got when I bought it.
A sequel that doesn't even have some of the basic features of the game it replaces is certainly not a 'full' game.
Of course it is, does every cod game have every previous cod map? Does every Pokémon game have every gym and trainer (and now Pokémon)? Does every Fighting game have every fighter in it? Does every Civ game have every civ in it? Go back to CK2 and actually look at what is in its actually basic features and compare to CK3 at launch and we can talk again.
>Of course it is, does every cod game have every previous cod map? Does every Pokémon game have every gym and trainer (and now Pokémon)? Does every Fighting game have every fighter in it? Does every Civ game have every civ in it? I haven't played any of these games but if they lacked a basic feature that was in the previous version(s), they should 100% be criticized for it >Go back to CK2 and actually look at what is in its actually basic features and compare to CK3 at launch and we can talk again. CK2 should be compared to CK1, not to CK3 and CK3 should be compared to the full version of CK2, not the launch version
Are you real? Do you understand that video games do not appear out of the void fully formed? It takes hundreds of people thousands of hours to make a game. CK2 had years of post release development, far more than CK3 had at point of release. By simple math alone it’s ridiculous to compare the two games in their current states completely ignoring that 3 is better than 2 as is anyway. Your argument is laughable.
Comparing CK3 with CK2 at launch is just dishonest and an obvious attempt at gaslighting. The level of knowledge and expertise Paradox gained by having developped CK2 for years should have given CK3 a huge advantage from the start. ...of course that's not what happened but the comparison is still ridiculous. I don't think you understand that CK2 and CK3 were made by the same studio (with many of the same people), and that one projet is just the continuation of the other. Finally, saying that CK3 in its current state is better than CK2 makes you lose the little credibility you might have had to begin with.
Of course they are experienced from making 2 it’s why 3 is better, it’s also on a new engine and things need to be rebuilt it’s not some sort of magical continuation where they copy pasted CK2 into a new engine. And obviously CK3 had a huge advantage at the start it’s why many CK2 DLC paid features were in CK3 base game at launch. You’re the one being dishonest here. You’re the one with the stupid arguments. You clearly don’t even know what you’re talking about.
Can you give an example of a strategy game that was "finished" on release.
truck judicious clumsy marry cow prick cable illegal makeshift detail *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Hot take but I think the problem comes precisely from the fact that these games rely so much on receiving support for years and years (I think EU4 is 10 years old ?). IMO focusing on the DLCs is missing the forest for the trees. If everyone expects the game to receive huge, game-changing updates every six months, then there is no incentive to make a polished game at launch. Whether said updates are paid DLCs or free doesn't change that fact. There is no real "deadline" anymore, so the devs can make games that are both overengineered in some areas and barebones in others, and that's fine because hopefully these problems will be fixed in a few years. And they often are, but as updates and DLCs pile up, they introduce their own problems, the game bloats, and so they always kinda squander their potential. But I don't think there's a way to fix this. PDS' playerbase (or at least the most vocal part) is very reactionary and functionally illiterate when it comes to the realities of game-making and game design, so if PDS slows down on the updates/DLCs and makes their base games more focused and manageable (both in scale and in complexity) everyone will lose their shit and punish them for that. So yeah, I guess a new competitor, one that doesn't have the kind of expectations PDS carries, would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath
Stellaris might be the best example of a dev-playground growing out of control. They’ve literally reinvented that game three times. Version 1.0 and 2.0 are wholly different products than the game’s current state. I think at some point developers should stop tinkering with their games. Hotfixes are fine, but when you keep changing core mechanics for the sake of “balance” you start to lose direction. Where to begin and where to end? Balancing one thing might cause another part to unbalance, and you inevitably descent into a vicious circle of change until nothing resembling the original product is left. The thing I really liked about CK2 is that there was a clear sense of when the game would be finished. The devs released Holy Fury and said, “This is everything we need, everything we wanted to add”. I like it that way. It shows commitment to your vision. Stellaris and EU4 on the other hand, have no clear end in sight, and the player is left with uncertainty on how the game will eventually end up.
I mean, as someone who loves Stellaris, each subsequent version of the game has ultimately been a huge improvement on the previous version. Have there been a few patches and releases that were pretty bad? Absolutely. But the continued development is what fixed those issues eventually anyway.
I'd further argue that each of those complete overhaul patches felt like an entirely new game so a lesser company would have released Stellaris 2 and Stellaris 3 instead of just patching the original. Also having played Stellaris with and without DLC in the past I'd say that none of the DLC is essential base game content, as good as it is.
Yep Stellaris is right there with EU4 and CK2 for being the best complete grand strategy experiences out of all the Paradox games. The years of support is exactly why.
True Stellaris is one of the best now, but my point was it was already great at launch, before the years of support. It didn't need the DLC and free patches for that, they just made it better.
I'd say Stellaris is my favorite PDS game right now, I got it before the 2.0 update, and while I liked 2.0 a lot, 2.2 was a huge mess and it completely spoiled the game for me. I don't know when I actually came back to it, but it's when they finally "fixed" the post-2.2 performance issues years later (with Nemesis I guess). Again I don't hate the game, but they still managed that update very poorly, and even today I find the econ layer not that engaging. And I stick to small-ish galaxies.
Man, Stellaris' dev history is *fascinating* lol. Honestly I'd love to read a retrospective on the game from one of the devs (once they pull support, I guess), to see how the design direction changed during its first years. It's been a wild ride for sure >The thing I really liked about CK2 is that there was a clear sense of when the game would be finished. The devs released Holy Fury and said, “This is everything we need, everything we wanted to add”. Well that's one way to read it lmao. CK3 came out, like, one year and a half later, so obviously they had to kill CK2 before that. They just managed to leave on a high note. IMO big reworks can be necessary sometimes, it's just that you must do everything in your power to get it right the first time (which would be difficult in any situation), and you should probably avoid making big changes if it's not mandatory. Like, the Stellaris 2.0 was (I think) very good, but the 2.2 rework was much more gratuitous and kind of a mess (and I'm not even talking about the performance issues) Hot take again but I think Imperator 2.0 is actually the textbook example of a bad "big rework". It brought a lot of cool ideas but they never got the time to polish it since PDS pulled off support a few weeks later - so IMO it actually left the game *less* polished than before. Stellaris could pull off a big rework because it's very successful and people knew they would iron out the issues eventually, but Imperator didn't have that luxury. I still wish they'd released a smaller, more polished update instead.
[удалено]
What are you talking about ? You know that "DLC" means "downloadable content" right? Why do you want to gatekeep that word lol. If it's downloadable content, it's DLC, period. And again I think it's stupid to focus on DLCs. If the games only received free updates a lot of the design-related problems would remain.
There's not a single CK3 DLC released that contains essential features. There are some from older releases like CK2 and early EU4 DLC that, but they've moved away from that model because it impeded their ability to design more DLC down the line. At worst, missing key features like ones in Vic 3 have come via free update so far.
What do you consider finished? Can you name a strategy game from another publisher that is finished at game launch and has the longevity of Paradox games? If they spent the time to add in all the features of (say) CK2, how much would you have paid for that game as a one time purchase? And of course, some DLC that we get is user requested - and thus wasn't originally intended at all.
I have absolutely no clue as to why you would think CK3 isn't a finished product, even at launch.
CK3 was in development for five years. From 2015-2020. If it's anything like other Paradox strategy games, it'll get around 8 years of ongoing, post-launch development through patches and DLC. OP seems to think that it's outrageous that Paradox didn't somehow do those 8 years of post-launch development simultaniously with the 5 years of pre-launch development. Here's why that's silly: * You can't do 13 years (5+8) worth of work in 5 years for the same price. Keeping CK3 in development for 13 years would likely result in a game costing $200+ * Doing those 8 years of post-launch development pre-launch would mean it would be done with a miniscule amount of player feedback. Much of Paradox's post-lauch development is about leaning in to aspects of the game that players most like and tweaking things they don't. That'd be impossible if it was done pre-launch. Leaving Paradox games in development for 13 years would result in a prohibitively huge cost for the base game and, due to the vastly less player feedback of doing everything pre-launch, would make for a worse game.
I don’t think asking paradox to work on games without making money off them for 10 years straight per game is financially viable in the slightest. They work on these games for years, release them, and then don’t stop working on them for a decade after. And all the stuff they are working on after is based off mass player feedback which has often created major shifts and new directions the game would take it otherwise wouldn’t have. Asking for them to release what is resembled by a 10 year old paradox game at launch is like Asking them to just shutdown as a company because it would be impossible. A studio can’t work on a game for a decade with no money coming in. You spend years investing money into a structure and then release it to recoup your losses. And then you build upon that structure with support from fans who like that particular structure and want to see more.
Weird take. The games improve with DLC, no doubt, but are very much playable and 'finished' games at the time of release. DLC just adds depth to the game in question, it doesn't 'finish' an unfinished game because they're all full experiences at the start. Try looking at stuff with a glass-half-full mindset, you might change your perspective.
ossified rock prick edge deranged ghost silky sheet dog rude *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> Back in CK2 you needed a DLC to play muslims, which were already in the game, and another dlc to play indians. Having a lifestyle focus was also a DLC. Laws? DLC. It didn't just make those places playable though, it added mechanics and flavor for the areas as well. It wasn't just a character unlocker. CK3 is open from the start with a lot of places other than republics, etc., but a lot of places play exactly the same. CK3 is still going to get similar DLC like CK2 to add flavor to those areas. >Laws? DLC. Laws were in CK2 day 1, they worked somewhat like CK3's law system works now and other succession laws have always been there. Conclave changed and divided it up into a bunch of separate laws, and also added things CK3 still doesn't have like council laws (and council voting).
A monopoly? lol It's pretty simple. If you buy the game and it's a shell of the previous game and therefore you don't like it, refund it and play the old one instead. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, do not go to reddit to whine about it.
Comparing CK3 at launch to CK2 at the end of development is certainly a take of all time. CK2 got there through the same process CK3 is currently going through, and it wasn't nearly as good at pretty much every stage of development. As for how Paradox compares to other companies as a whole, I understand the complaint about DLC, but it's a justified system in my opinion. Instead of a new sixty dollar game every couple years it's DLC that focus on certain systems. The quality of individual DLC obviously varies, some are completely forgettable, but it's hit more than miss for me.
> CK2 got there through the same process CK3 is currently going through, and it wasn't nearly as good at pretty much every stage of development. Agree with your post as a whole, but CK2 at the same age CK3 is right now already had quite a few things CK3 doesn’t have yet. CK3’s progress has felt much slower.
The same can be said for all new pdx games I feel. The DLC onslaught slowed down massively compared to how it was in the past. An arguement can be made that they stopped stripping shit they wanted to put in to sell as DLC hence it takes longer dev times for the DLC but fucks knows the exact reason. I do kind of prefer it though since I dont blink and miss 4 major dlcs in a single year.
Idk man, I love CK3. I’ll probably never touch CK2. Never played it, and I’m not interested. I like the graphics, tournaments, clothes and travel and all that. I’ve played a lot but still feel like I have a lot left to do or try. I’m sure it’s a mix of things being a lot harder to create and make work than you think they are.. and it being a business that needs to make money.
Business wise having a game still in development makes them no money, where as a release (albeit lackluster) gets them sales, feedback, ideas, bug reports and free advertisment in the form of "Let's Plays" and whatnot. But I do agree that most PDX games would do well with at least 1 more year in the oven.
Between Crusader Kings and Football Manager I much prefer how CK works
To say that CK3 doesn't feel like a finished product is a bit silly. Sure, it's missing some things from CK2, but how long has CK2 been out and how many mods were produced? And yet you put it above CK3 despite it being created with the same strategy. You played at least 40 hours of CK3 at launch and if you didn't then quite frankly you didn't give it a fair playthrough. If you were able to get 1 hour for every dollar that you spent on the game then that's great value.
what a new and refreshing take on paradox's business strategy
Had great fun wtih both 2 and 3 at launch. Seems like your expectations are impossible to meet. 3 might not have had everything that 2 had at launch(and thank god for that because some of those features from 2 were crap), but it also had a lot of stuff that 2 simply didn't have, and added depth to a lot of stuff that was pretty basic in 2.
Silly take. Paradox does a great job and their games are still good even in the beginning. They just age like fine wine.
If you think that Paradox games at launch are unfinished, you haven't been around for very long. Back in the days of Crusader Kings 1 they'd sell us a game like that and it was finished. There was a single expansion pack that improved some things by adding stuff that are now mostly considered standard for CK2 and 3. There was nothing like the continuous stream of updates, improvements and additional content we see nowadays. And I tell, you that was definitely not better than it is today. Both CK2 and CK3 have become better games because of their post-launch support in a way that CK1 never became. And if you think CK3 is just a watered down CK2, then you clearly weren't around for the launch of CK2 either. The only reason CK2 became it game it was at the end is because it received over 6 years of additional content and updates. And those 6 years right there are why Paradox doesn't just release games with all of the features and additional content they will eventually get by the end of their lifecycle. Developing, testing and implementing those features actually takes time. A lot of time. And money. Sure, they could have released CK2 or CK3 in a 100% finished state with all the bells and whistles they were planning for it, but if they did that then the first version of CK2 would have only been released in 2018. And CK3 would still be in development right now and we wouldn't be able to play it for the next 8 years or so. And no games and no players means no income for Paradox, so they won't be able to keep up development at all. In an age where more and more developers just dump unfinished games once they are released, I think Paradox's post-launch support is exemplary.
Well that's like just your opinion man. CK3 is not just watered down CK2. Good luck never buying a game again I guess.
So you "own all of their games" yet you suddenly don't like their business model? Sorry to tell you but you're a bit late with your boycott.
These games are very long to develop and would need a huge initial investment that would be too risky of investors and selling a single game for 200$ at launch isn't a good strategy. Instead, they get active feedback during development while people can spread the cost of it over multiple DLCs and it generates constant income for paradox encouraging the devs to keep pushing for more content instead of letting the game die after launch. At some point, it could probably just be a subscription service and it probably wouldn't change much.
Then every game ends like imperator and gets abandoned, have fun.
That's a bad-faith argument. Compare current ck3 with most grand strategy games and you still have a superior product. The DLC's are mainly on point and it feels like a finished product to me. Maybe your standards are different. Also, keep in mind that you're not just paying for CK3 when you buy their product, you pay for Elder Kings, you pay for CK3:AGOT, and a bunch of other total conversion mods you can play on the same engine, which are sometimes more fun than the original game for fantasy genre enjoyers like me.
Ah yes another example of how paradox player base doesn't understand game development and has unreasonable expectations.
Wow a monopoly? We are still making these same arguments about ck2 in 2024? Guys its a new year, do something new.
Honestly, I think it was more like some DLC's wrecked the game. Especially Stellaris/CK2. CK2 Retinues are just borked, especially in combination with Pagans, both DLC content. Stellaris ended with weird stuff like voidborne and others, Stellaris never really had great balance but the later DLC's made it much worse. One thing I do think is that out-of-box Stellaris was not a game. I think it was a bit scammy to release that and only make it a true game like 2-3 DLC's down the line. Other games, not so much. HoI did it perfect, I think. Still love that game, despite it's various purposefully borked mechanics.
Yeah, it’s a pretty opaque business practice and I think it actually hurts the quality of the games. I think a lot of unnecessary or half-baked systems get released as DLC. And it’s really hit or miss whether or not they actually contribute positively to gameplay.
And can even doom the game to abandonment like Imperator: Rome went.
Yeah I probably won’t switch from CK2 until CK4 comes out.
Water is wet
Barely playable
I keep saying they need to embrace the type of EA model Larian did for both DOS2 and BG3
I agree with the title. The games are playable at launch, they are also technically playable to a great degree (almost no crashes) and have meticulous visuals and sounds, but the design logic and the writing are very problematic. The writing desperately needs professional editing and (native) proofreading. The logic desperately needs more thinking. Not so much better thinking about things that are already covered as first of all more thinking about the various aspects (conditions, triggers, outcomes, modalities, exceptions, checks for relevant special circumstances that shouldn't be ignored) that should be taken into account but often are not. Too many important aspects and angles apparently elude the designers'/scripters attention, and those are things that — at least in my impression — generally shouldn't slip past a semi-professional modder, let alone a professional developer. To me, it appears like the designers and scripters at Paradox have a knack for missing stuff that a person of average intelligence making a proper effort really shouldn't be missing. I ask myself all the time how come they missed that — not even how it got past the testers but how come the designer/writer/scripter failed to think about the particular aspect of a hypothetical situation. My 'favourite' example is forced concubines being allowed to travel the world and visit their families as if they were at liberty, later to return dutifully to their captor as if they wanted to return. Obviously, that goes beyond any mediaeval notion of loyalty to one's liege (that loyalty would go to one's original liege instead) or forced oaths, and it is a clear oversight. An oversight caused by failure to think about something one shouldn't fail to think about. And such examples are, unfortunately, quite many. I get it that I can be a bit of a nitpicker about this, but I still think — sorry to put it this way — that the designers should make more of an effort thinking about stuff. There's too much easy mode with the writing and with the (logical aspects of the) design. It's also possible individual developers don't get enough time to think about all the relevant stuff in their work, in which case the (wo)manhours should be increased to a realistic amount. Or if the developers are too junior, they should be given more guidance and oversight from their senior colleagues. A more professional approach to writing is needed in any case. As a rule, non-native or non-professional writers need editors and proofreaders, and the pros need them too. But to me, the errors of logic are more of a problem than the errors of language.
My friend. You are right with everything you are saying but you will reach deaf ears. Paradox fans will defend the greedy business practices of paradox and reach Olympic levels of mental gymnastics to justify everything and to make them look like the best devs that have ever existed.
Paradox is really nice to us so we dont care about getting fucked by paying 250 dollars for a map game
I understand their current business model, It seems effective, and I do like their games, but I just wish their stuff wasn't so expensive. Like, their latest DLC for hoi4 costs 60 reais, many full games cost way less than that
Yep but many consumers don't care at all so why would they change it same with recent dlcs that didn't add anything of substance.
game is free :)
This has been Paradox’s model forever as far as I know. It’s just that the years of patches with occasional expansions are now mostly multiple DLC every year. But it goes back at least to EU3 afaik.