Thanks Paradox! (and BTW...)

[yak]

But in a game based around the crusades don't you think it should have been?

How about friendships and rivalries ? Shouldnt it be in a game about medieval characters ? Of course it should. Which is why it was part of the CK1 expansion "Deus Vult".

Every reasonable feature for an expansion/DLC you can imagine will fit into the game such that it could/should have been part of the base game. Otherwise it would be a shitty and useless feature.

[MylesSCP]

I'll freely admit that I do like that aspect of DLCs - but they cost too much vs the cost of "full" expansions.

I'll admit it's wholly subjective, but I feel that the amount of content released in SoI is in the same neighborhood as a lot of full expansions for a third of the price.

[zedyue]

How about friendships and rivalries ? Shouldnt it be in a game about medieval characters ? Of course it should. Which is why it was part of the CK1 expansion "Deus Vult".

Every reasonable feature for an expansion/DLC you can imagine will fit into the game such that it could/should have been part of the base game. Otherwise it would be a shitty and useless feature.

Which is why I argued all characters should be playable. Also as a side note, I think friendships and such are done pretty well in terms of "both kind" or "both crusader", but I would like more concrete stuff such as in CK1.

[Palfouri]

I'm not saying they shouldn't charge for it, I would just rather have a full fledged expansion rather than continued DLC's.

Oh, my mistake.

At any rate, I agree with what MylesSCP said; the DLC policy means you only have to pay for what features you want rather than buy 3 $15 expansions, each of which cease being supported once the newest one comes out, in order to keep up. Don't want to play as Muslims? You don't have to buy the DLC, yet all the features will still be in game and you can still play with your friends.

I can understand why "DLC" would be considered a uglier word rather than the "expansions" P'dox put out in the past but I don't agree with people saying that they're trying to nickle and dime you when in the end they're giving you more choice over what you want to pay for instead of being forced to buy everything.

[MrTaxman]

How about friendships and rivalries ? Shouldnt it be in a game about medieval characters ? Of course it should. Which is why it was part of the CK1 expansion "Deus Vult".

Every reasonable feature for an expansion/DLC you can imagine will fit into the game such that it could/should have been part of the base game. Otherwise it would be a shitty and useless feature.

Let's watch the language - there are impressionable minors here

[zedyue]

I'll admit it's wholly subjective, but I feel that the amount of content released in SoI is in the same neighborhood as a lot of full expansions for a third of the price.

Except SOI itself was rather small and involved enabling muslims for play. Most of the content in 1.6 was free and is NOT RELATED to SOI except for time of release.

[MylesSCP]

Except SOI itself was rather small and involved enabling muslims for play. Most of the content in 1.6 was free and is NOT RELATED to SOI except for time of release.

You need SoI to access the content.

[MrTaxman]

You need SoI to access the content.

Not all of it - only some of it.

[zedyue]

You need SoI to access the content.

I played 1.6 for a while before I got SoI. I know at LEAST the strong and weak claims were in 1.6, I'm sure much of the content was in 1.6.

[HabemusZlatan]

The reason they changed from full expansions was because large amounts of people weren't happy. They didn't like that to play Divine Wind you had to purchase all the expansions before it. They didn't like that different expansions couldn't play with each other over multiplayer. And they especially didn't like that every previous version became unsupported when a new expo was released. With the change to DLC they remedy all of that.

Yet the problems remain - You'll have to pay 10 bucks for negligible content update. And while I liked SOI and paid for it gladly, I still felt something was amiss. I understand this way you can choose what you want and still play multiplayer with others, but it really slips out of my mind why someone wouldn't want something that, after being developed and sold, shouldn't be in the game. Most of the downloadable content was stuff that could have been in the game since the beginning or released in a single pack for 20 bucks with some other minor addiction (like, for example, maybe, playable republics or the possibility to play as Pagan. Hell, I still have to understand why the option to be a zoroastrian is in the Ruler Designer when you can't play as one). Now, in that case I wouldn't have felt so bad about a full expansion, but as it is the game somewhat forces you to buy the new DLC. Which, as many pointed out, isn't necessary, but so is playing video games.

Still, there will be some SOI only mods that will force some players to buy the expansion the same. It is really the same thing, only with less content and with a bigger prize.

Sorry if I sounded a bit confusional about my post, I love you guys and I'm glad to support you but I felt a little betrayed by this whole CK2 DLC thing.

[MylesSCP]

Not all of it - only some of it.

Ok, you're right. I should have said you need SoI to access the main features of the new content.

[Pelarys]

I think we have unearthed a cultural problem here, the new DLC system is coming from Sweden which is VERY culturally different from the USA and the whole pay for a better experience for everyone pill seems not to be going down your throats. That's quite interesting.

[masonhales]

Guys it's over. The industry has changed. Paradox, the last beacon of hope, has fallen.

Just the mere fact people are defending Paradox's dip in modern nickel and diming business practices means there's nothing we can do.

Paradox will never go back to being the good Paradox we use to love.

As long as there's that one person who accepts the degenerate practice of the modern game industry, Paradox will continue to be blinded by increasing profits, and be deaf to public outcry.

It's over.

R.I.P - Grand Strategy

[zedyue]

I think we have unearthed a cultural problem here, the new DLC system is coming from Sweden which is VERY culturally different from the USA and the whole pay for a better experience for everyone pill seems not to be going down your throats. That's quite interesting.

Yeah that's what I was trying to explain earlier. I want to pay for 100% of my content. not 20% of my content and 80% of someone else's, or pay for something I was given for free. It feels weird and bad. It's a fundamental 'morals' issue.

[MylesSCP]

Yet the problems remain - You'll have to pay 10 bucks for negligible content update. And while I liked SOI and paid for it gladly, I still felt something was amiss. I understand this way you can choose what you want and still play multiplayer with others, but it really slips out of my mind why someone wouldn't want something that, after being developed and sold, shouldn't be in the game. Most of the downloadable content was stuff that could have been in the game since the beginning or released in a single pack for 20 bucks with some other minor addiction (like, for example, maybe, playable republics or the possibility to play as Pagan. Hell, I still have to understand why the option to be a zoroastrian is in the Ruler Designer when you can't play as one). Now, in that case I wouldn't have felt so bad about a full expansion, but as it is the game somewhat forces you to buy the new DLC. Which, as many pointed out, isn't necessary, but so is playing video games.

Still, there will be some SOI only mods that will force some players to buy the expansion the same. It is really the same thing, only with less content and with a bigger prize.

Sorry if I sounded a bit confusional about my post, I love you guys and I'm glad to support you but I felt a little betrayed by this whole CK2 DLC thing.

I disagree with pretty much everything you said. I don't think SoI is negligable in content. I don't think larger expo's that force you to purchase content you may not want are better. And you can make the argument that any new features added to the game should have been there from the start or else they wouldn't be good features to add.

[MrTaxman]

I think we have unearthed a cultural problem here, the new DLC system is coming from Sweden which is VERY culturally different from the USA and the whole pay for a better experience for everyone pill seems not to be going down your throats. That's quite interesting.

I was just pointing this out to my wife (who wandered by and asked what the discussion was about). Culturally, this does not sit well with many Americans, while many Europeans seem quite happy with this model.

[Pelarys]

Yeah that's what I was trying to explain earlier. I want to pay for 100% of my content. not 20% of my content and 80% of someone else's, or pay for something I was given for free. It feels weird and bad. It's a fundamental 'morals' issue.

And that's funny that a better game for everyone seems weird and bad. To be honest I don't really like that way of thinking.

[MrTaxman]

And that's funny that a better game for everyone seems weird and bad. To be honest I don't really like that way of thinking.

But if it makes it a better game is the core here - sure we all love more content. But how it is paid for, through "nickel and dime-ing" or through expansions that leave previous ones in the dustbin, is the key part.

[HabemusZlatan]

I disagree with pretty much everything you said. I don't think SoI is negligable in content. I don't think larger expo's that force you to purchase content you may not want are better. And you can make the argument that any new features added to the game should have been there from the start or else they wouldn't be good features to add.

It is when you think I paid CKII plus the other dlc 2 bucks more. I know it was a sale, but still it feels rather dreary since most of the stuff came free and all SOI did was to make the "play" button when selecting muslim rulers blue. And enacting stuff the AI can choose regardless.

[zedyue]

And that's funny that a better game for everyone seems weird and bad. To be honest I don't really like that way of thinking.

Because it's more of a get what you pay for and work for yourself kind of thing. Feeling obligated to help others is bad. Doing it on your own is nice, altruism is nice. But enforced altruism is socialism and is wrong. Because then you are paying not for poor people, but for LAZY or CHEAP people. Not everyone deserves free stuff, especially out of MY paycheck.