HOI4 - Development Diary - October 12th 2016
- Thread starter podcat
- Start date
-
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.
Well I would have expected a bit more patch work on the game itself especially things like the pacific war and AI before we are expected to start paying for things. Things like Blitz is a requirement of the vanilla game that shouldnt be an expansion. I dont mind expansions that add something extra and expand the timeframe or units available or lesser faction techs and portraits etc but it could be well argued that being able to encircle the enemy is an expected feature of any WW2 game.
- 14
- 1
Cool story, bro.
It was like this when Paradox was niche company producing games for a very narrow auditory. And people were ready to endure a lot just to play such games - terrible bugs, not working gaameplay mechanics, strange pricing policy, constant flow of cosmetic stuff just to stay afloat and a lot more. People were ready to be free testers for the games they want, to help shaping it into something great. Everybody knew that Paradox "1.0 release" is more close to today "Early Access" than to complete game gameplay-wise.
Nowadays, Paradox is a big company and a big Publisher too - just go to Forum main page and count the number of games Paradox developed or took part in development one way or another. Read about their clear statements about how they want to focus and appeal to broader auditory. And they succeeded - both Stellaris and HoI4 became most sold Paradox titles. But the process of game development didn't change even a little bit - same horrible bugs and non-working mechanics, same "be a tester for free", same million cosmetic stuff and costly DLC with Add-ons. They have huge auditory and probably big on cash now, but somehow are still trying to pretend a small niche company they were years ago.
But a lot of people still go like: "It's a Paradox, chill a little bit, they always are like that". But thing is Paradox is nothing like it was. We must start addressing it like all other big players in game Industry. What people do when EA release another game riddled with bugs? Or Ubisoft mess up another title? A ****-storm appears. Paradox messed up TWO of their titles, one after another? "Well, it's Paradox, let's wait a year or two till they sort their games out", paying double the cost of original games on DLCs and cosmetic stuff". At least EA and Co sell Season Passes for their games...
Last edited:
- 36
I don't like blitz button to be paid feature.
Why put the blitz option in the paid basket.
Don't you have good ideas to be paid?
Why put the blitz option in the paid basket.
Don't you have good ideas to be paid?
- 18
- 1
Politely, I think you are missing the point. I think people are happy to buy DLC for things like sprites, more national focuses, greater historical data (like renaming infantry 1 to unique things for each nation), etc. Generally, I think we can all see those types of things as value added DLCs.
And I totally get that Paradox is a company out to make money, and to pay their employees for their work, and that DLC helps continue the development of the game. I've purchased many EU4 DLCs and CK2 DLCs. And I suspect I'll purchase many Stellaris DLCs.
From a player point of view, it just is disappointing to see what seems like an integral and basic command, to be walled off with DLC.
I'll reserve final judgement until we get all the paid features and free patches out. It'll be interesting to see the final list, and to see if the paid content minus Blitz feature, would have been enough to "hold up" the DLC in terms of subjective price analysis to content ratio. If the DLC could have stood on its own, without the inclusion of Blitz as a paid feature, Paradox will have created an issue that could have been avoided.
Smiles
Last edited:
- 11
>Be me
>oh boy new dev diary, I've waited a whole week!
>opens page
>first feature is behind a paywall
>2 paragraphs long
>"oh interesting, free feature"
>is a garrison order
>only 1 paragraph
>end of dev diary
>dies inside
Smh
>oh boy new dev diary, I've waited a whole week!
>opens page
>first feature is behind a paywall
>2 paragraphs long
>"oh interesting, free feature"
>is a garrison order
>only 1 paragraph
>end of dev diary
>dies inside
Smh
- 22
What on earth are you talking about? "Feature designed for use by the AI" - what?
I added the bold, just to make sure you read it properly this time.
- 1
one frontline with width of 6 provinces, that suddenly changes to 11 provinces, because 1 province was taken. Is a broken feature.
One thing is not having enough time to solve it because laziness or not enough resources, but other is leave it intentionally broken to charge for it, or tie it to a DLC.
and the battle planner is not a simple QoL, like it was in vic2, It actually gives a % attack bonus for the divisions. It is a huge deal, to have behind a paywall something that actually improves the performances of the army.
One thing is not having enough time to solve it because laziness or not enough resources, but other is leave it intentionally broken to charge for it, or tie it to a DLC.
and the battle planner is not a simple QoL, like it was in vic2, It actually gives a % attack bonus for the divisions. It is a huge deal, to have behind a paywall something that actually improves the performances of the army.
- 18
- 1
I don't understand how much time does it take to make an order that says go forward and don't expand your lines lol, kind of a joke
- 3
- 1
Wow this heated up fast. I'll have some discussions about it tomorrow and see if its possible to switch things around. I do mostly blame how I presented things and I should have anticipated the hostile environment to these particular things. As a feature its nothing different than what we normally put as part of DLC, but I understand how it might appear otherwise to someone just reading this.
Do note that its important to understand that we need to actually charge money for DLC as much as people would like everything to be free, its what fuels bug fixing and continued development. We arent like a lot of other companies who release 1-3 patches then make sequels instead so we need to find a good balance between paid/free stuff, and sometimes stuff is in a grey zone. Sometimes big stuff need to be free (like tech changes in EU's Rights of Man) to give a base to build on, and because you cant just replace an existing system and then not have it accessible for all so it needs to be free.
Do note that its important to understand that we need to actually charge money for DLC as much as people would like everything to be free, its what fuels bug fixing and continued development. We arent like a lot of other companies who release 1-3 patches then make sequels instead so we need to find a good balance between paid/free stuff, and sometimes stuff is in a grey zone. Sometimes big stuff need to be free (like tech changes in EU's Rights of Man) to give a base to build on, and because you cant just replace an existing system and then not have it accessible for all so it needs to be free.
- 37
- 27
- 6
While what you are saying is commendable, it is incredibly naive and frankly pretentious.
Answer me this; when you are buying a product, what are the terms you judge it by? Do you compare it's price to other similar products? Do you compare it's quality to others? Do you empirically try and judge which one is the most value for the money? Do you buy the one you think is worth it's price? Or do you ask yourself whose makers need money the most? Did you ever buy a product in a store because you thought those who make it need to pay their bills too?
Don't judge me when you don't even get the point of my rhetoric. You said it yourself; "if you don't like it, don't buy it". This is exactly what I'm talking about. You may care about those things, but the market doesn't. THAT'S my point. Customers are not stupid. Even rabidly loyal ones will give up support after a number of dissapointing releases and questionable tactics. And when that happens the company will go out of business. Who will you lecture about capitalism then?
I'd rather Paradox keep making games indefinitely, and for that to happen a reality check once in a while is not only welcome, but essential.
How dare you?!
How dare you condemn me to a life of tedium and unhappiness just because I'm poor! How dare you presume to tell me how to spend my money! How dare you lecture me about the way I should live! How dare you lecture me about being cold to the developers and say this to me right after! Shame on you.
You think a person has no right to entertainment if he/she is poor? You think a poor person is supposed to be miserable?
You're pathetic.
I've been successful, I've had failures and I'll be successful again, but one thing I will never be is a pretentious, entitled, patronising pri*k.
I'm done talking to you.
- 21
That first behaviour will not change. its required for a lot of cases to work out. If all you had was something like blitz the system would break down all the time for general use and require a lot of babysitting. Also insinuating lazyness is just down right rude.
as for bonuses, well as you must know you get those as long as you manually play with stuff attached to a plan, so I have no idea what your argument is here
- 15
- 13
- 1
Personally I am terrified by ANY part of the battleplanner being in a DLC. If it's split between a DLC and core gameplay that basically means we can't expect it to continue development. And the battleplanner does not feel finished.
If the battleplanner was completely finished and polished then *maybe* there could be paid DLC for it. But it's just not remotely there.
- 23
Apparently we're the 0.25% of their customer base, in the excuse posted the other day. So our opinion is irrelevant because the majority do not speak out.
- 12
- 3
- 2
I have no problem with that. And honestly many people will buy the first DLC anyway (or already have). So what the point of adding Blitz to the DLC ? Increase sells figure ? You are most likely getting the opposite by including such basic feature in a DLC. I feel cheated as a customer. Please reconsider.
- 14
Yeah that was some really ugly class-ism. And im not one to throw ism's around but yuck. You have every right to save money for entertainment. Im pretty poor myself but soend what i can on games that make me happy.
Dont let that guy get to you, game on
- 11
If there was any risk of that then I wouldnt have added blitz to it.
- 8
- 2
- 1
Yeah, you can set up a plan and build planning bonuses and then micro the units. Sounds so easy. Now go try doing that as the USSR with Germany attacking you on one side and Japan attacking you on the other and see how well it works out for you.
If I wanted a game where I had to inject speed into my eyeballs and do 6000 clicks a minute in order to win, I'd just play Starcraft 2.
- 7
About the bonuses the problem is that the only way to workaround is to use ctrl+H to remove from the battleplan the spear units (motorised+tanks) so that they never come back to or go to a province where they are not intended to be. So, if they are not tied to the battleplan, they start losing slowly the bonus.
edit.
will it requires more babysitting than the actual state? because if I have 2 battlefronts, that suddenly expand per province conquered, It's actually a lot of babysitting.
Last edited:
- 2