if the game under license was to be sold, it was supposed to allow some shares on the results. how much for every part is probably a secret and surely a surprise 
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Thanks. Some players don't like EU3, some won't never go back to EU2 philosophy (and thus FTG one now) and some like them both as different games.
Europa Engine License is a contract between us as a dev studio and Paradox as owner and editor. Revenues of the game will be shared according to the terms of the contract.
I don’t see any similarity between EU1 and EU3. In the general opinion it was some kind of early version of EU2 so nobody played in EU1 after EU2 release.
Was great after few patches
It is hypocrisy. You talk about the money but don’t forget that 8 years ago Paradox was unknown company and distribution of the games was poor. Thanks to EU2 you have the big customer base and good position in the market. The community sites were created after EU2 release and were promoting every new Paradox game.
EU1/2, HOI1/2, Viki and CK are different than EU3 and HOI3 not because philosophy of the game but poor interface/3D engine. All (almost
) other futures are great and I like them
Last edited:
It's not about linear evolution, but rather diverging paths. Paradox chose a path from EU2 that lead to EU3. FTG is simply taking another one of the many paths possible from EU2, no one is trying to turn the clock back.
In the FtG forum? No, nor would I claim so as it would be patently ridiculous since this, as you note, is a divergent development path.
I was referring to Johan's comments on EU2 and the tirade of "EU2 is so great" or "Do things like in EU2" comments that he's been encountering in the other game subforums and in OT over the last many years and in particular since EU3 was released. The very worst of those people really do, for whatever reasons, want to turn back the clock with regards to future Paradox developed products (get rid of this, get rid of that, do things like you used to do), and such people are frigging annoying to any developer.
Incredibly, incredibly wrong. EU2 was one of, if not the, worst selling games Paradox has released. It reportedly did little to expand Paradox's userbase. Johan has said as much numerous times. EU1, HoI2, and EU3 did far more than EU2 could have dreamed of in that regard.
Agreed. I am addicted to computer games since about 1990 and i got a huge collection of CDs/DVDs/Diskettes at home, and always bought computer magazines, and i never heard of europa universalis 2 (much less of EU1). I only discovered it existed because a friend of mine from norway spoke highly about the game, and the next day after that event, i found europa universalis 2 for sale at 5€ in a computer store. It was the only copy of the product, and was situated with other crappy products in these 5€ garbage tin cans.
EU3 was a diferent story - it had one page dedicated to it in most magazines, and had plenty of advertisement. They cant really say that EU2 wasnt so profitable as EU3, if the times and conditions were different.
When you think of Paradox, what do you think of?
The answer is, for better or for worse, EU2.
Various family members and friends play Paradox games, and even if they don't play the EU games, they consider Paradox to be the EU franchise above all.
I dint say that EU2 was profitable game for PI in the short term but gave extra profit in the future.
In the FtG forum? No, nor would I claim so as it would be patently ridiculous since this, as you note, is a divergent development path.
I was referring to Johan's comments on EU2 and the tirade of "EU2 is so great" or "Do things like in EU2" comments that he's been encountering in the other game subforums and in OT over the last many years and in particular since EU3 was released. The very worst of those people really do, for whatever reasons, want to turn back the clock with regards to future Paradox developed products (get rid of this, get rid of that, do things like you used to do), and such people are frigging annoying to any developer.
Oh, I see.
Yes, I can see how annoyed Johan is at stuff like that.
ehh? Eu2 was profitable, but..
When Eu1 sells X copies, Eu2 sells a small fraction of that and then Eu3 is back up to X copies, it is a kind of indication that a large majority of paradox gamers want an open ended sandbox game.
There is a group of people who want historically rigid games. For the Glory will be for those people, and we may do other such projects for them in the future.
Really? That surprises me considering the depth and longevity of the EU2 forums. I suppose the forums were not so well known back in the EU1 times though.
Actually, when I think of Paradox, I think of strategy games, then EU3, as, though I loved and was introduced to Paradox via. EU2, EU3 is, in my eyes, a superior game. EU2 is not Paradox's flagship game, and I don't know if it ever was.
And rightly so IMO.
I played it religiously over a long time. From all P'dox titles I own, only HOI2 DD/A had the same long time/replay value for me. V/Ricky is nice too, but when I finally got it I already had spent lots of time with EU2/HOI2 so it felt not that new anymore, even when it had some completely different features. These three are still my all-time favourites from P'dox.
I played it religiously over a long time. From all P'dox titles I own, only HOI2 DD/A had the same long time/replay value for me. V/Ricky is nice too, but when I finally got it I already had spent lots of time with EU2/HOI2 so it felt not that new anymore, even when it had some completely different features. These three are still my all-time favourites from P'dox.
I'd say that being an open-ended sandbox game was not at all the reason for EU3's financial success, I am fairly convinced that the many more features and details within the game (it is possible that a majority prefers detail before historical flavour, but not necessarily sandbox before historical flavour) combined with superior marketing, were the deciding factors behind it.
I never recall EU2 being called the lead game of Paradox like EU3 is now, but I'll go ahead and take your word for it. It doesn't hurt my point, anyway.
Uh.. Maybe? I don't recall. I know I joined the forums a year or so after playing Paradox games, so probably not. What's your point?