• 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.
My personal theory is that AoW had highly visible (free) content which made people feel like their purchase was worth it, despite the fact that their purchase did not actually buy that content.

Humans in general are honestly not very good at estimating value, so we'll just have to try and be better at explaining what you get for your money in the future.
Extra Credits had a nice episode on this some time back. In general, what customers feel they get often gives them a better feeling than what they actually do receive.

A store selling goods at for example $20 instead of $19,99 might be more honest, but may also experience lost sales.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Like some others in the thread, I pay for an expected amount of play time. My general rule of thumb is £1 for every hour... adding the Cossacks price onto the current total, I'm paying about 5p per hour of gameplay and that's only going to shrink before the next lot of DLC is out.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
only reason why i haven't bought Cossacks is simply due to me not being able to afford it till either January, or if it gets a relatively deep discount in the 50% range somewhere in the Christmas/Winter sale.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
For me, the problem is being asked to pay for what amount to simple balance and quality of life changes. Here's my take on the individual The Cossacks changes:

Major
Estates: Definitely major, a big change to the game and overall improvement. DLC could have used more focus on this, and it would have been justifiable.
Diplomacy: Also major, added a lot to the game (although may need to be rebalanced). Old system still in place for those without DLC.

Medium
Advanced Change Culture - Probably should be minor, not incredibly useful or important.
Build Directly to Army - Has no impact on how the game is played, just makes things easier on the player. Shouldn't be listed as expansion feature.
Improved Espionage - Espionage was almost universally thought of as terrible. Unfortunately, to make it worthwhile you have to pay money. This is a balance change and should have been free.
Horde Unity - A legitimate change that fits the expansion subject. Old system is still usable by people without the DLC.
New Subject Interactions - We already had one DLC (Common Sense) focusing on these interactions, but now they're split between two. That's frustrating. Also minor.
Native Policies - Basically the same system as without DLC, but with less micromanagement. Not an expansion "feature."
Tengri - As with Horde Unity, a legitimate change that fits the expansion subject. Old system is still usable by people without the DLC.

Minor
Name Your Heir - Not really significant, but it fits in the minor section
Victory Cards - I don't know that anyone asked for this, and it doesn't have much impact, if any.
Concede Colonial Area - Very significant change, would have put as medium. Although it doesn't really fit the theme, it is a good idea.
Distribute Spoils - A balance change fixing something that was broken. Hard to justify as an expansion "feature"
Construct in Subjects - Minor change
Threaten War - Very significant, could be medium change. Fits with diplomacy theme.
Forced Migration - Fits with theme, useful and original.
Declare Colonial War - Good idea, although does not fit with theme. Could be medium.
Raze - Fits with topic, also original idea for hordes. Could be medium.

So in my calculation, there were 2 major features, 6 medium changes, and 5 minor changes. There were also 4 balance changes that were sold as part of the DLC, and 1 multiplayer balance change.

I always liked PI's DLC system, as I felt like I was paying for significant mechanical improvements. But paying for balance changes and having to buy 3 different colonial DLC's is frustrating, and I wish you would reconsider how you do things. Even worse are things like AoW's removal of "don't give me provinces" toggle, forcing you to buy AoW to transfer these provinces away.
 
  • 15
  • 4
Reactions:
Totally fair, this is a large expansion, but a $ value is always a muddy thing depending on how you personally use a feature.

Also, I'm more than happy to support a great team and studio to keep improving Europa Universalis. You guys do a great job and love the way you put yourself in these developers diary, engaging with the community. :)
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
huh, having all the paid features shown there makes a lot more sense. Seems to be quite a bit of overlap with paid DLC and free updates, particularly with the older expansions, so it's nice to see a good summary like that :)
 
Now I don't want to be an asshole or anything, but tbh 'advanced change culture' and 'build directly to army' might be hard to code, but I don't think they add that much to the game (now I don't think that adding lots of provinces in regions people normally don't play (or care about) is a better thing to add). But I just wanted to say that.

Now what I do think adds a lot to the game are the little things here, like 'name you heir', 'construct in subjects', 'threaten war' and raze.
 
There's nothing wrong with the price tag. After all, there is no obligation to actually buy it - you've already paid for a game, if you want more, pay the price..which isn't that outrageous.

I think if it were any less, they (Paradox) wouldn't find it cost effective - if that were the case, then there wouldn't be any free extras either.
 
One growing problem is that the game is becoming more expensive for new players over time.

Eventually it will be more expensive than a cheap car.

Also question for paradox : How much revenue is coming from new players, and how much from "the faithful"?

I like the content in the new expansion, but what features go with which expansion is becoming increasingly incoherent. I don't see how someone new could make sense of it. Certainly I wouldn't buy EU 4 at this stage in its life. Too big a price tag.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
One growing problem is that the game is becoming more expensive for new players over time.

The game is actually much cheaper for new players. They just had practically everything on sale at 75% off.

My problem is that for $20, I'd expect a game-changing expansion - something that really gets me excited to play. This expansion is having the opposite effect. I don't feel it's worth $20, but it has enough quality-of-life features behind the paywall that I probably won't play EU4 w/o it, so I'll never get the itch to buy it until it gets a drastic sale. The expansion makes me less excited to play the game.
 
  • 9
  • 2
Reactions:
This is probably one of the best Dev Diaries I've, seen, mainly because we now have a glimpse into how the DLCs are priced. I've always wondered how a certain XPac gets priced, and now I know. Couldn't ask for more than that. I wonder how closely PDox's own grading of Mega-Major-Medium-Minor compares to the public perception of each particular change as falling into each category. Admittedly, there is the time involved to implement each change, but some of the "lesser" changes feel more game changing to me than the "major" ones. TBH, I've yet to feel like I haven't easily gotten great value for my $, so this is all entirely curiosity for me.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I don't know why I want to blame Cossack vs Common sense.
But the one I want to complain is...It is totally more lag when I install the Cossack. And I'm thinking about refund because of really low framerate (clicking the province of interest use 1 and a half second to choose each of it and everything is laggy just like during the first week of the Art of war.)
So could you take a look at the lower end machine too Wiz,please? :)
 
despite the ability to easily get them for free I am willing to pay for paradox games - they all hit the exact sweet spot for the perfect type of game for me and anything I pay above the "value" I consider subsidizing the other awesome projects; I'm loving Cossacks so far, can't wait for HOI4 and Stellaris
 
  • 5
Reactions:
One thing that's always noticable in threads like these is how different people place different values on different changes. I've seen some people saying about how they love x but don't care about y, when I'm thinking about how x wasn't interesting to me but I wish we could have more y. EU4 is a game that can appeal to people who want to play in a lot of different ways, so it's entirely expected that people feel differently about different feaures. Inevitably, this means that everyone will end up with some DLC that they find better value and ome that they find worse. The only way to avoid that would be to start having a million different micro transaction style DLCs. $0.50 for the ability to name your heir. $1.50 for Tengri syncretic faith. And so on and so forth. And that would be all manner of terrible mess.

My own experiences with The Cossacks and 1.14 have been pretty negative so far. Some features I don't care about, some changes in the patch that I don't care for, some things that are just going to take me a while to get used to. But overall I don't begrudge any of what I paid for it. I've bought every DLC there is (including graphics and music packs, excepting only the new Sabaton pack) and I am entirely happy with the money I've spent. My overall money:enjoyment ratio is exceptional, and that's what's important to me.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
If your argument is that the perceived quality of Cossacks features is low compared to other expansions, then I can only say that I disagree, as perceived quality is entirely subjective. People are arguing that the actual number of features are the same for a higher price though, and that's just not true.

You classified the new features by size based on how much time it cost to develop them. As a customer it makes a lot more sense to classify the new features based on how much they add to the game for me personally. You mentioned that the map overhaul that came with Art of War (as part of the free update, but it's still relevant) cost a relatively low amount of manpower to make. For me that's completely irrelevant. It adds A LOT to the game so for me it's worth a larger price tag.

Fair enough if you want to classify this as "perceived quality". That's all that should matter to me as a customer. How much does this DLC add to the game for me and what price am I willing to pay for it. I generally don't pay more than 10-20 euros for most games. I got the base game of EU4 for 10 euros. I can't imagine ever paying 20 euros for an add-on to an existing game unless it's something truly extraordinary.
 
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
Humans in general are honestly not very good at estimating value,
Don't tell that to an economist.


They might get violent.:p:D
 
  • 4
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
we're also working on a larger bugfixing patch (as we always do after an expansion) that currently has no decided ETA.

Could you comment on whether you expect the patch to come before or after christmas? I'd like to start a new campaign, and I'm wondering if I should start now or wait for the patch and play over the Christmas holidays.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I mostly compare the cost of the game to the hours I get out of it and I could say EU4 has been one of the cheapest games from that perspective for me.

Totally this! Also I enjoy spending lot of time on EU4 and some crazy runs. Like my darcula's revenge run and few other memorable ones such as habsburg dying within 3 months and fall under PU to Spain or was it Hungary? Either way I decide to not fuss about the price point but this post is still interesting regardless!
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Don't tell that to an economist.


They might get violent.:p:D

I think it's the other way around -- economists get violent because humans are bad with value, so the market doesn't act in the way it 'should' in a perfect system.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
Huh, so there is actually a method to this madness.
In hindsight it's not surprising, though.
 
  • 1
Reactions: