The bundle is most definitely live right now. Interestingly, it's missing Conquest of Paradise though, so maybe the tweet was taken down since it was technically inaccurate.
- 1
Experimentation
- Thread starter BjornB
- 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.
The bundle is most definitely live right now. Interestingly, it's missing Conquest of Paradise though, so maybe the tweet was taken down since it was technically inaccurate.
ah thanks, I didn't see it on my humble home page and just assumed it wasn't out yet
- 1
I don't think subscription models are bad in and of themselves but this is a terrible argument for them.
- 1
What I wonder is why they were so incompetent about hiding it? If they hadn't mentioned it in plain text in files in the update, we still wouldn't know. If they feel we would be suspicious about an empty update, they could have included a few bug fixes- there's plenty of low hanging fruit.
- 1
This is a funny way to install a distributed bitcoin mining program on everyone's machine..... I'm joking of course.
- 1
My bet, they were planning to not say anything at all. Then at the last minute someone pointed out why that was a very bad idea and then threw something out.
I think such a subscription would be perfect for people that come back to the game for a few weeks with each expansion/major patch, play a run or two, and then go away until the next one.
- 1
yea, I think the subscription definitely has a place. They're just going about gathering data for interest in it at the worst possible time
Why is anyone gonna sign up to the subscription when they can get the game and all current DLC for $17 and keep it forever? Is the current playerbase really representative of the standard player base, when the game is getting regular releases, or are we left with only the biggest fans currently booting it up with any regularity, since we're so far between major updates?- 1
As many has pointed out: the subscription is aimed at allowing an easier point of entry for people who haven't already purchased the expansions. We don't expect players that already own most of it to convert to this model, although the test might prove that maybe they do after all which would be an interesting find.
If you think that adding another option to players to obtain the game is a poor idea. Please let us know why.
Yeah, the localization file did reveal things. We would also have liked to have launched it together with a more useful patch, but circumstances didn't allow for it unfortunately. Releasing "a proper patch" does require a fair bit of work. And we rather try to space bigger patches out a bit as they tend to break save files and mods, and doing that too frequently is quite annoying.
If you think that adding another option to players to obtain the game is a poor idea. Please let us know why.
Yeah, the localization file did reveal things. We would also have liked to have launched it together with a more useful patch, but circumstances didn't allow for it unfortunately. Releasing "a proper patch" does require a fair bit of work. And we rather try to space bigger patches out a bit as they tend to break save files and mods, and doing that too frequently is quite annoying.
Last edited:
- 1
Cool, I will get a couple of those bundles sold.
Conquest of Paradise is a weird exclusion. I know it is a bit of a black sheep in how ignore that part of the world is and PDX, but just seems weird unless they are going to fold that content into the base game or other DLC (or it is included in one of the packs)
- 1
ITT: people angry at paradox for giving their customers more options for payment.
Make it about "communication" if you like, but there was never any reason to believe that this was going to replace the quite lucrative dlc model. This reaction is completely absurd.
Exactly what I've come to expect from this forum.
Make it about "communication" if you like, but there was never any reason to believe that this was going to replace the quite lucrative dlc model. This reaction is completely absurd.
Exactly what I've come to expect from this forum.
- 1
More, people seeing the trends throughout the industry and already apprehensive about Paradox’s business models (and for good reason) being worried about what this means going forward.
- 1
It simply doesn't make sense to think it would replace the purchase model. Paradox makes money from selling dlc when they are released- subscriptions are obviously about serving a new audience who are looking at the game *after* lot of dlc has been released.
- 1
I bought most of the DLC when it was on sale at 75% off a couple years ago. So too late for me, but a subscription option for new players doesn't sound like a bad idea. Making units or anything exclusive to the subscription is a terrible idea though.
Companies need to get exclusives out of their head. No one likes missing out.
Companies need to get exclusives out of their head. No one likes missing out.
- 1
This is a weird one for sure. In the current environment, doing native council reforms by dumping 2500 points and then losing them is so detrimental that COP can be seen as a strict player handicap. You're literally better off just being random tribal sitting there on 1-3 provinces and developing for institutions than you are waiting until 1580 to "reform". 7500 points is an enormous tax to pay for something that disappears. Given opportunity cost in advisers from development/earlier access to idea groups this is nearly guaranteed to overpower the reform boost. A good parallel for this can be seen by simply observing any good player use the Central African tech group and take the handicap of developing feudalism. They're still stunted, but not even close to as much.
El Dorado suffers this problem too and their religions are trash, but at least they a) keep their reforms and b) pay much, much fewer monarch points to pass them. So they can play the DLC minigame without an enormous long-term kneecapping.
- 1
And why don't you think this last part is exactly why it works on their side of things?
- 1
I just want to start by saying ; miss the old days of pre-digital products. You buy the game, you own the game. The ''game'', is literally in your hands. You're able to do whatever you want with what you have in your hands. Nothing will change it, re-design it, re-value it, ditch or patch some parts of it... Heck, even if the game has some gamebreaking bugs, this is all you have.
Now we have to deal with fishy people and their fishy actions.
I have over 7k hours in this game and if you were to check my steam account there's only 30 something achievements so far. I dont care and I dont play for the achievements. With all DLCs so far, the amount of possibilities in the game are limitless. Thats how I'm having fun with it. Because of that I bought everything related to EU4. Every single DLC out there. So if you were to make DLCs subscription exclusive [insert such lovely curses here]...
Some are arguing by comparing renting a flat or a car to this... Keks. Even going further ''Dont you work live like me? Salary to salary?''
People should know their rights better, sometimes with such deals in real life you're letting your rights fly away. I remember years ago a guy sued a company for such thing and the company came up with ''No you didnt buy the game, you bought the access to the game'' topkeks. Now that its digital-era anything can pass the EULA. And you guys cant do anything about it.
Let me give you an example, I have all the content packs and while creating a custom nation I dont have any access to any other model types than the vanilla ones. But I've paid the money, bought it! Dont have any rights? ITS JUST COSMETICS! keks. And mods would allow you to ''fix'' that are ironman incompatible.
Beside this nonsense I've said so far subscription is not gonna bring that much people in to the customer pool.
Imagine one, completely alien to strategy games = only to get a grip of this game would take 1 year in total.
Imagine one, familiar with strategy games = 9 months maybe?
Imagine one, familiar with PDX games = 3 months? Yeah but instead would buy the DLCs.
And without tutorial vidoes made by players on Youtube I cant imagine how long would it take for one to just learn the game.
And yeah you always have multiplayer option, play as Crimea march of your friends Ottomans, problem solved.
In short term learning curve for this game goes far beyond subscription plan which means buying the game and DLCs much more logical.
You could've listen to your community PDX. You could've lower the DLC prices.
Here's some ''data'' for your ''telemetry''.
Now we have to deal with fishy people and their fishy actions.
I have over 7k hours in this game and if you were to check my steam account there's only 30 something achievements so far. I dont care and I dont play for the achievements. With all DLCs so far, the amount of possibilities in the game are limitless. Thats how I'm having fun with it. Because of that I bought everything related to EU4. Every single DLC out there. So if you were to make DLCs subscription exclusive [insert such lovely curses here]...
Some are arguing by comparing renting a flat or a car to this... Keks. Even going further ''Dont you work live like me? Salary to salary?''
People should know their rights better, sometimes with such deals in real life you're letting your rights fly away. I remember years ago a guy sued a company for such thing and the company came up with ''No you didnt buy the game, you bought the access to the game'' topkeks. Now that its digital-era anything can pass the EULA. And you guys cant do anything about it.
Let me give you an example, I have all the content packs and while creating a custom nation I dont have any access to any other model types than the vanilla ones. But I've paid the money, bought it! Dont have any rights? ITS JUST COSMETICS! keks. And mods would allow you to ''fix'' that are ironman incompatible.
Beside this nonsense I've said so far subscription is not gonna bring that much people in to the customer pool.
Imagine one, completely alien to strategy games = only to get a grip of this game would take 1 year in total.
Imagine one, familiar with strategy games = 9 months maybe?
Imagine one, familiar with PDX games = 3 months? Yeah but instead would buy the DLCs.
And without tutorial vidoes made by players on Youtube I cant imagine how long would it take for one to just learn the game.
And yeah you always have multiplayer option, play as Crimea march of your friends Ottomans, problem solved.
In short term learning curve for this game goes far beyond subscription plan which means buying the game and DLCs much more logical.
You could've listen to your community PDX. You could've lower the DLC prices.
Here's some ''data'' for your ''telemetry''.
- 1
The bigger difference: El Dorado includes important stuff for playing in Europe or Asia. Exploration, treasure fleets, custom nations vs random new world (which has massive issues) and native Americans (which have massive issues).
- 1
Hmm, something that no one seems to have discussed is that a subscription model would imply that a hypothetical EU V is likely a long way off.
- 1
The option, in itself, isn't atrocius per see in the current state. Because it lives next to another one.
The problem stems from the general trend of removing ownership to people. Subscription leads to limited duration ownership, leads to not needing to leave the files client side, leads to cloud gaming... I think you see where I and the industry are going (sadly as the Stadia tried, but thankfully failed, to prove). Don't see it as 'us disliking having this option alongside the other one', but 'us preemptively pushing back against the moment this new option will fully replace the previous one from the get go on new games'
The problem stems from the general trend of removing ownership to people. Subscription leads to limited duration ownership, leads to not needing to leave the files client side, leads to cloud gaming... I think you see where I and the industry are going (sadly as the Stadia tried, but thankfully failed, to prove). Don't see it as 'us disliking having this option alongside the other one', but 'us preemptively pushing back against the moment this new option will fully replace the previous one from the get go on new games'
- 1