However, due to Paradox's advertising, can't the same be said for FtG?
-
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.
However, due to Paradox's advertising, can't the same be said for FtG?
A bit, yes.
But FTG is a bit diferent because it was spread out in diferent "online shops" like gamersgate/steam/impulse, so even non-forum users could have acess to the game.
But FTG is a bit diferent because it was spread out in diferent "online shops" like gamersgate/steam/impulse, so even non-forum users could have acess to the game.
People chose the most recent number regardless of comments. as an example if Paradox release EU4 in december and then release EU5 in January. EU4 will not sell, regardless of how much better EU4 is over EU5.
Which brings me to the point that Paradox flawed in naming EU2 , EU2. If you recall Eu1 was only ever EU
If they called EU2 something else and EU3 something else again.............all these augments would never have happened.
Which brings me to the point that Paradox flawed in naming EU2 , EU2. If you recall Eu1 was only ever EU
If they called EU2 something else and EU3 something else again.............all these augments would never have happened.
Well I could connect just fine with my then vista 34 and windows 7 64 to some people and other times not. I couldn't figure out for the love of me why it kept being an issue. I think Mats was using XP 32 bit so. Someone else was using 64 and could connect as well. There was no real pattern to observe and it pissed me off.
Actually, we did the similar amount of advertising for both. However, the AoD team provided far more material beyond what was required.
It seems that some people here think we deliberately killed FTG?
We spent more money on FTG than on an average Eu3 expansion, but sold about 1/50th of the volume. The fans seemed to not like it. Deal with it. Don't go around saying its our fault you didn't want to buy it.
What I see, is that the bulk of the news was promised for later expantions. A lot of people standed waiting for them, and then Yoda threw away everything and vanished. As it is now, FtG is NOT an alternative to EU3. It is an EU 2.5. Maybe a little more, maybe a little less. With further work, it would have been REALLY great. But MichaelM is one alone, can't code for three.
I think the biggest flaw of this game was a lack of a single big feature, that would distinguish it form EUII. When people asked what was different, the common answer (both by users in forums and in oficial Paradox site) was improved modibility and improved UI. The improved modibility wasn't meaning anything to most users (even if it means FtG will and did receive a lot of mods, totally changing the game), and improved UI isn't something to pay 20 dolars (or euros in EU), especially as lots of things were compied form EUIII.
So as it stands, even if adverstasing would be adequate, FtG just couldn't deliver the news "buy this game, it great and better than EUII because of some very cool, big and unique features". Something like "totaly new and much improved map" would have greatly helped. It's sad that somewhy developers of FtG didn't allocate enought attention to this part of the game.
So as it stands, even if adverstasing would be adequate, FtG just couldn't deliver the news "buy this game, it great and better than EUII because of some very cool, big and unique features". Something like "totaly new and much improved map" would have greatly helped. It's sad that somewhy developers of FtG didn't allocate enought attention to this part of the game.
That's interesting, thanks ^^
The only reason the magazine I write for even heard of the game was because I played it and it was my very first review for that magazine (they asked me to review something recent they hadn't done) yet they'd reviewed EU3 and all it's expansions. I'm sure you spent just as much time/money advertising the two of them like you said but if a computer game reviewing website doesn't even notice a games release, it does ask the question if the time/money was directed in the right places. Note there are no accusations in this message -_- I'm not on anyone's side.
On YouTube search field, enter Arsenal of Democrasy. Enter any newer Paradox product. Then enter For the Glory. The results are just miserable 
.
.
I believe in your word but as a gamer i noticed otherwise.
Propaganda about Arsenal of Democracy apeared everywhere. I remember even seeing AoD in the last pages of manuals or strateguides of diferent paradox games in the last part where Paradox usually advertises other games they made. For example in the Victoria2 strategy guide available for download. AoD is there, but you dont hear anything about For the Glory. In the online shop where you can buy diverse gadgets there are also plenty of clothing or other items for sale about Arsenal of Democracy. I even remember seeing boxer shorts with the name "Arsenal of Democracy" written on them. But none about For the Glory. Personally i would like some boxers with "For the Glory" written on them. :rofl:
Anyway, i also remember seeing multiple magazines making reviews about Arsenal of Democracy, but i only saw ONE speaking about For the Glory, and this specific magazine only had like 2 short phrases about the game and one tiny picture of the main screen of the game (with the horseman).
And whenever you saw the game for sale, or even on these forums, the info about the game is extremely lacking and poor in details if its main purpose is to lure people into buying the game.
So, to be frank, i am not surprised the game sold so poorly.
Last edited:
We know FTG 1.2 is far superior than EU3 and its mods ( I do not have HTTT though) in AI and challenge , but lets just ask what does Paradox expect from gamers , who own FTG OR gamers who will buy FTG ( i assume Paradox still sell it) . These are the questions I wasnt clearly stated and not some answer like "live with it". What does this mean from a Paradox customer "freindly" person ??
In the meantime, Paradox might like to start on EU4 and use the FTG game AI and other great changes done by the FTG developers and move away from the dreaded CIV type graphics and poor interface.
The only thing missing will the historical gameplay for players who like that path.
I know we'd sell a copy to you, and maybe someone else if we did it.. But I'm not sure charging 250,000 euro per copy is that a smart idea.
Ehh.. You DO realise that..
1) Victoria 2 and the gadget stores were released about 7-10 months after For the Glory was released.
2) In the gadget store we just used the games that had sold enough for us to assume there was a community of more than a dozen people interested in things.
3) We can't advertise for non-box products in boxes, as they need to have the same age-rating or lower than the game being released.
4) Our partners thought AoD was a good game and wanted it in box in various parts of the world. FtG was not picked up anywhere in Europe or America.
5) FTG and AoD information was all sent out in similar amounts to the press. I just think FtG was not interesting enough to them.
so, 250,000 euro to make EU4 .......... well then .........I do not see much after DivineWind
Still no answer afer 6 weeks......
Paradox is a company. Companies make money. Money is made by bringing the market games which sell. EU3 sold. FTG didn't. So the only logical path for Paradox is to continue the EU3 road. I think it's sad, you think it's sad, but it was sad when Bambi's mother died too.
I know that and have previously indicated this in previous posts on what u said.
I just think a lot of people don't see that FtG didn't deliver in fields that are easily noticeable by the casual players that have never tried Europa Universalis series, or have tried EU2 and later bought EU3, or have started plain from EU3.
The first group saw that this is Europa Universalis game, just like EU3, but the latter being newer and prettier, with 3D and stuff, having lots of expansions (the release of HttT at the same time just didn't help ether). Here FtG failed to deliver a message that it's easier for older computer platforms to handle, is a product of tried and thoughtfully tested game engine, a new reincarnation of popular game. Because of this, with it's cheaper price (nearly twice as cheap as EU3 and you don't have to buy expansions) it is a good option for trying EU series and gameplay for the first time.
The second group, despite having a lot uproar after the release of EU3 with it's sandbox gameplay and 3D graphics, grew accustomed to it, especially after expansions fixed a lot of things and improved gameplay. They just didn't see enough of new features and most decided that nostalgia about EU2 with improved UI and better modability was enough to justify paying 20 euros, especially as that money could be spent for buying HttT and improving EU3 (to be honest, HttT brought much more new stuff to EU3 than For the Glory brought new stuff to EU2). Just compare HttT and FtG trailers and developement diaries. Wars with specific war claims, increased dimplomatic options, more control over HRE, improved merchant republics, magistrates and province decisions, rebalanced land combat, cultural tradition, heirs vs. different types of cores,more settings at the start of game, better UI with very usefull reminders. I don't count the improved modding as this is mostly not what the casual gamer is looking at. So FtG failed to deliver something new and unique compared to EU2.
The third group just played EU3 and what they saw in FtG is probably a same game with worse graphics and worse control over your country. For them, FtG failed to deliver that it is very different game with different feeling, different gameplay elements and probably even a bit different philosophy, and it's worth to try them both.
All in all, I think the creators of FtG were focusing too much on "modders to modders" stuff that "players to players" stuff and didn't think about what different groups of players what expect. So it is how it is - the moders appreciate the game and play it, but the players community mostly unnoticed it.
All is not lost though - the game is still great, the UI is much improved, taking lots of frustration from the game, Mods are great, easy to install and play. Sadly developers lost their heart. Few gameplay videos on Youtube, improved promotional trailer and features page on Paradox site, patch with a few minor gameplay improvements and maybe some small discount of the price could just push the sales by quite a margin.
The first group saw that this is Europa Universalis game, just like EU3, but the latter being newer and prettier, with 3D and stuff, having lots of expansions (the release of HttT at the same time just didn't help ether). Here FtG failed to deliver a message that it's easier for older computer platforms to handle, is a product of tried and thoughtfully tested game engine, a new reincarnation of popular game. Because of this, with it's cheaper price (nearly twice as cheap as EU3 and you don't have to buy expansions) it is a good option for trying EU series and gameplay for the first time.
The second group, despite having a lot uproar after the release of EU3 with it's sandbox gameplay and 3D graphics, grew accustomed to it, especially after expansions fixed a lot of things and improved gameplay. They just didn't see enough of new features and most decided that nostalgia about EU2 with improved UI and better modability was enough to justify paying 20 euros, especially as that money could be spent for buying HttT and improving EU3 (to be honest, HttT brought much more new stuff to EU3 than For the Glory brought new stuff to EU2). Just compare HttT and FtG trailers and developement diaries. Wars with specific war claims, increased dimplomatic options, more control over HRE, improved merchant republics, magistrates and province decisions, rebalanced land combat, cultural tradition, heirs vs. different types of cores,more settings at the start of game, better UI with very usefull reminders. I don't count the improved modding as this is mostly not what the casual gamer is looking at. So FtG failed to deliver something new and unique compared to EU2.
The third group just played EU3 and what they saw in FtG is probably a same game with worse graphics and worse control over your country. For them, FtG failed to deliver that it is very different game with different feeling, different gameplay elements and probably even a bit different philosophy, and it's worth to try them both.
All in all, I think the creators of FtG were focusing too much on "modders to modders" stuff that "players to players" stuff and didn't think about what different groups of players what expect. So it is how it is - the moders appreciate the game and play it, but the players community mostly unnoticed it.
All is not lost though - the game is still great, the UI is much improved, taking lots of frustration from the game, Mods are great, easy to install and play. Sadly developers lost their heart. Few gameplay videos on Youtube, improved promotional trailer and features page on Paradox site, patch with a few minor gameplay improvements and maybe some small discount of the price could just push the sales by quite a margin.
Simple.
1. FtG team said that a new compatible map would be available soon after FtG release. False.
2. HttT released one month later.
1. FtG team said that a new compatible map would be available soon after FtG release. False.
2. HttT released one month later.
What kind of "information" are we speaking about in here? The same kind of "information" about the game we can see in the sticky on this forum?