Experimentation

[Indiehindi]

Please tell me what is still muddy. I'm trying to unmuddy things the best I can here

What you've said and what is being advertised in game files creates a contradiction. Thats the muddy stuff.
I don't think you necesseraly knew the things that the team implemented into the game with the last patch. So I cant blame you.
But as I said, coming clear with your intentions as soon as possible with another thread would help you guys.

 

[BjornB]

Any other thing you might want to mention or we dig it up more by ourselves?
Another thread as an official statement on whats going on so far would help you I guess.

Not that I can think of. Like I said, we would have preferred for the whole picture to be visible before having to discuss details. I'm not sure in what way keeping things under wraps would in any way benefit the actual subscription service? I know that several of you believe this is out of malice in some way, but soon all of this would be revealed no matter what.

 

[BjornB]

Wait what? Source?

This is hardly a secret. But I think it can be overestimated how far down a CEO's involvement in specific projects go.

https://www.paradoxinteractive.com/en/paradox-interactive-to-strengthen-team-with-new-ceo/

 

[OldmansHQ]

@Groogy Why have you still not provided a clear answer to the question of subscription exclusive models, and, thus, the possibility of other content exclusive to subscription?

I have read through all eleven pages to gauge the consensus and PDX responses. Groogy, I believe you to be a genuine guy and involved developer, but I do not trust Paradox the company — rather, I trust them to to their best to prioritise accumulating money over your dignity as a dev, our concerns as emotionally and financially invested players, and any other principle other than law, because that would result money lost. I despise the cross-product marketing; get a scrap of content in game A if you purchase game B, and I know, just as you must know, that in time a subscription model will enable more of these tricks — you’re already entertaining subscription exclusive models! There are some thing you simply can’t get me to do. And there is absolutely nothing you can do to change this trust.

I used to evangelise for anything Blizzard, got multiple copies of their games because they differed somehow. That company can burn for all I care. Even the genuine talent has been there from the start has abandoned this sinking ship. Diablo II is my all time favourite, and I don’t care about D4. They had their chance. I’m not angry or blaming. They’ve lost me completely and forever.

What this means in practice is that when, say, Vicky 3 rolls around, I will not forget that the goal post will have been moved and no hype can make me chase it.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

One other thing: people are making slippery slope arguments, but in an industry where most of the players have been racing down that slope as fast as possible, that is a bit less of a fallacy.

Slippery slope is not a fallacy when you have an established causal link leading down the slope. Giving an extreme example: someone picks up a cigarette and smokes it. We know things about addiction and probably should warn about how this can and often does lead to serious illnesses with regular use. Even if Joe Camel starts complaining about slippery slopes.

While not pinned down quite as rigorously as smoking, gaming in general is not hurting for evidence of where a subscription model like this leads, nor does Pdox's behavior in this thread or in the game prior it do anything to refute that evidence.

Basically, if you have a causal chain + measured outcomes consistent with that causal chain claiming slippery slope is a "fallacy"...doesn't work.

 

[Eelectrica]

Only question I have is how would people who don't need to subscribe get access to the unit model if they want?
Locking people who have supported the game for several years to the point where a subscription model is deemed the way to go for new players doesn't seem fair.

I've nothing against subscriptions. I've manages to watch quite a few things on various subscription tv services I wouldn't have otherwise watched.

If I liked EA games their subscription seems like a brilliant deal as does the MS Xbox subscription package for Win 10.

 

[TheSunEmperor]

And about that unit model:
It will not be subscriber exclusive. Most likely it will be included in the next expansion, but we might consider other options as well. In the spirit of transparency: It was considered as exclusive content at first, but it has been decided against since then. Go ahead and bring out the pitchforks if you like. It was a poor idea and that's why it was retracted.

//Edited as I felt this should be it's own post and not attached to a reply to something else

Thank you for the clarity, BjornB!

 

[marquina#9999]

Reading this whole thread... I can't believe pdx is behaving like this. Your userbase is one of the best you could pray for. Loyal fans that believe in what you guys are doing. And seeing you treating your user base like a money printing machine is just sad. Developer to user relations should be of mutual respect, not one sided.

 

[Cancerofthehead]

And about that unit model:
It will not be subscriber exclusive. Most likely it will be included in the next expansion, but we might consider other options as well. In the spirit of transparency: It was considered as exclusive content at first, but it has been decided against since then. Go ahead and bring out the pitchforks if you like. It was a poor idea and that's why it was retracted.

//Edited as I felt this should be it's own post and not attached to a reply to something else

The fact that this was ever the intention is exactly why people are really concerned about the direction this will lead. It definitely brings the intent of the people pushing this forward into question and reasonably makes people skeptical as to what will come in the future.

 

[Zylathas]

I don't get the whole drama, I like subscription models more than DLC as I don't ever feel like I am missing out of anything when subscribed to something. And if I don't want to play a game, I don't subscribe so thats no costs.

For me its probably the most consumer friendly situation, especially in a world of cash shops & dlc. But then I guess I am probably the only one here.

 

[Denkt]

Maybe it is time for an official general statement about the future of the subscription model you intend to use, there is alot of questions, especially about what it will mean for future games like CK3 and since the "experiment" seems to have been a kind of failure I don't see why a whole new business model should lie hidden here on EUIV forum.

 

[Eelectrica]

The fact that this was ever the intention is exactly why people are really concerned about the direction this will lead. It definitely brings the intent of the people pushing this forward into question and reasonably makes people skeptical as to what will come in the future.

Well the fact they recognized it was a bad idea and decided against it before acting is a good thing.
I'm sure we've all had ideas that seem good then after more thought realize it's not so great afterall.

 

[Pete0714]

Bjorn is not Johan?

Oops, I meant Bjorn, autotyped Johan. Need to be careful with that.

 

[Cymsdale]

And about that unit model:
It will not be subscriber exclusive. Most likely it will be included in the next expansion, but we might consider other options as well. In the spirit of transparency: It was considered as exclusive content at first, but it has been decided against since then. Go ahead and bring out the pitchforks if you like. It was a poor idea and that's why it was retracted.

//Edited as I felt this should be it's own post and not attached to a reply to something else

As long as the employee who suggested it was summarily executed, I don't see a problem.

 

[Zephyrum]

It will not be subscriber exclusive. Most likely it will be included in the next expansion, but we might consider other options as well. In the spirit of transparency: It was considered as exclusive content at first, but it has been decided against since then. Go ahead and bring out the pitchforks if you like. It was a poor idea and that's why it was retracted.

Thanks for clarifying and the transparency here is appreciated. Shocking that being this direct isn't the standard behavior from Paradox anymore, sadly.

 

[Beagá]

I don't get the whole drama, I like subscription models more than DLC as I don't ever feel like I am missing out of anything when subscribed to something. And if I don't want to play a game, I don't subscribe so thats no costs.

For me its probably the most consumer friendly situation, especially in a world of cash shops & dlc. But then I guess I am probably the only one here.

It depends on the price of the subscription. 10$ per year is one thing, 100$ per year (like in the infamous Fallout 76) is another.

Also on the quality of the service. I´m against subscriptions if the quality isn´t up to it. After new DLCs Paradox games are VERY messy. If they came polished? Well... It´s another situation.

However, what really kills subscriptions for me is that they assume you will play every month of the year, and for me that is not a good argument. simply because, well, I get bored after 100 hours in a new expansion. Meaning I´ll be paying for months I won´t be playing at all.

 

[Cancerofthehead]

Well the fact they recognized it was a bad idea and decided against it before acting is a good thing.
I'm sure we've all had ideas that seem good then after more thought realize it's not so great afterall.

There are a few issues with it still:

1) The initial decision on this in the first place shows a major disconnect from consumers in this industry in general and their games in particular (something that people have been pointi out for a while).
2) If they tried to do it on the initial launch it isn’t unreasonable to think that it is a direction the decision makers want things to go. Just because it won’t be there to start with, they clearly have it in mind.
3) They didn’t realize it was a bad idea, they got called out on it and changed things before they had too much pushback.
4) The marketing team lead said there would be no subscription exclusive content with no further comment in his initial post here despite the fact that people had already pointed out that the game files contradicted this. And it was quite some time before Bjorn commented on it. This is either awful messaging or just hoping it goes away (which is just a bad idea).

As I said many times. I can see the good of the subscription model. But I can completely understand why people are skeptical and PDX hasn’t exactly helped matters here.

 

[El Novato]

Well... I´m gonna throw my two cents on this, on my point of view, as it can be expandable to another of your games.

First of all, i have mostly a negative opinion on dlc policies on many companies, and i don´t know what to think of paradox dlc policy. The only difference is that you usually stay on point and don´t release a game yearly, funding the support of the game for many years, i guess, on dlcs. So... that´s your ace on the sleeve. You keep supporting games for years while other companies usually don´t.

I´m very aware that the AAA games and the kind haven´t changed the price of them for 10 years or so, and as a company, bussiness, you are ussually looking for maximizing the profits. While, also customers keep suffering the effects of the last economic crysis.

Keeping the subscription an option is nothing i have against, but offering exclusive contents while not giving access for those that had the game for years seems...inappropiate.

I´m gonna tell you what i usually say to my friends " If it´s a game from paradox, don´t buy it unless some years has passed and a bundle or sale has come, because without sells is just an extravagant price, or just don´t buy them at all".

So...i usually keep your games on sight, but feel reluctant to buy them. I think i could be categorized as one of those that didn´t have Europa Universalis IV because of the price ( gonna buy the bundle in humble ), and i try not to buy games developed from you just because i know it will be hard to stay on pace. That is usually the first thought.

I have a formula... A personal formula...for any coffe price on a bar ( now 1,40 euros ), that i use to have for an hour, same enjoy i should have using a proportional system price-hour on a game.

So...Everytime i see your games i have to think if i´m gonna spend the same hours to let it be worthy. And Europa Universalis is too expensive on a full.

So i did my research when i bought Crusader kings to buy the dlc that commonly was labeled as "necessary" or "worthy" and man...it was worthy and still is. I waited for years before i bought stellaris and i bought it only when i was so sure that i would enjoy for the price in the last Christmas or sale. But it was a stressfull buy it, even if i watched so many gameplays that i was 99% sure i was gonna like it...And it is worthy.

So, coming back on track... i´ve been peeking the price of Europa Universalis from time to time, the subscription system "optional" seems... not a bad idea, except for:

- The EXCLUSIVE content, based that on those who already bought such amount of dlcs and indeed supported Europa Universalis for years ( not my case ).
- If it´s not the same degree of property on the game and dlc that those who bought it, it´s not worthy. I mean... You can put...how do you say it in english ?... Milestones? Like, 4 months on subscription you are owner of the base game and this expansion and this other not matter what, but you will lose the chance to play with the rest. And so on...

I´m not gonna say that buying your games is as tough decission as getting married or buying a house, that would be a lunatic or possessed idea, but enclosing it on the subscription idea or the usual way of buying games, in the "BUY A GAME" world, is really close to have a relationship. Every time anyone buy a game developed from you he/she/it/they know is gonna be an investment for years. xD.

So, also, i don´t think the idea someone throw some posts ago, about reducing the dlc prices every x months ( or years) is bad, (say to a limit 50% because steam goes with a dlc policy in which case you would have to drop it even less on sale ), i don´t have a financial degree, i don´t know your financial situation, your consideration on that or your worries, but i´d like to say that it seems you have built a really loyal customer base during all these years ( not me, because i tend to jump from game to game ), in a niche world of games, so, while like any other company you must do steps to stay ahead or keep going on front, try to do it carefully.

As i said, at least me, that i have a negative view in the current policy game developers on dlcs, you got me in the "I don´t know what to think about paradox dlc policy". And i got the trait stubborn.

Pd: I did it on the sugesstion, but i´m gonna take advantage on this thread. I think it would be a good idea for several game companies a unique id to access their forums. At some point i know i´m gonna have to tick the "remember your password" option, because all of you are driving me crazy everytime i have to register to access the forums.

Thank you for your attention.

 

[marquina#9999]

Every time anyone buy a game developed from you he/she/it/they know is gonna be an investment for years. xD.

When it comes to a Grand Strategy Games and Paradox Games to be more specific it is not your average gaming experience. And marketing department should know about this, and not treat their products like the last Battle Royale of the month.

I have fond memories of the campaigns I've played. I've been a king that has fought many wars. The president of a newly formed republic. The religious figure of Catholicism. And the Holy Roman Emperor among many others. I have not only played as them but I've experienced it like it was myself. When you sit down and buy a Paradox game you know what you are getting into. It's not only a huge monetary investment but a time investment as well. But you know in the end is worth it. And part of it is this amazing community that really brings life into it.

On the other note. There is a huge difference between making profit and ripping off your consumers.

Making profit = Getting a ROI and a surplus to allow you to work on more stuff.

Ripping off = Conducting tests on people to see how much they would pay monthly without feeling they are getting robbed because they don't want to waste 200+ euros/dollars on a game that's going to be 7 years old and that has had doubtful management decisions like the one we are experiencing today.

Run a game company like a game company and not like a casino. Thanks.

 

[JiroDyne129]

I'm going to add in my own 2 Cents, as a more resent buyer of Paradox games.

First being that Subscription in a Single Player game, no matter the situation, is a horrible thing and whoever suggested it should be kicked in the nuts, if not harsher and more fatal. It heavily preys on people that play for little bit every few months, as they would have to spend money rebuying a new month every time they get the fancy to load up the game again and replay it for a few days, then stop for another month. It's heavily Predatory..

Secondly, your games are far, FAR too expensive, compared to every other game with DLC in the market except The Sims, and yet even with those expensive prices, costing multiple $20s, $15s, and $10s across the board, and yet most of those 'content' were Free Updates with only 1-2 specific features which either Break the balance game, or is so little content, it shouldn't even cost $5 and be more multiple of them bundled for together in a pack for $15 at most for all of them.

Crusader Kings 2 was a game I got the taste of from my brother years ago, playing it over at his house, and for a long time I wanted to own it myself to enjoy whenever I wanted and not just go over to his house when he's busy at work to be able to play it. But while the main game itself could have been worth the asking price, NONE of the DLCs were ever worth buying. Go on Steam, search up Crusader Kings 2, and then click on any DLC. It's always the same. Mixed to Negative Reviews, pointing out how very little content there is, and yet you, Paradox, are charging full price $15 to $20, for basically just a new button and a few extra lines of codes, so bad that there are literal Mods for the game, that are 100% free, and do the exact same features as the DLCs but do it BETTER. And again, they are mods, FREE mods. So why ever buy the game or the DLC? Just not worth it, I'd just play it at my brothers. That is till the Humble Bundle came out, and I was able to snag the game and all the content DLCs for a very cheap low price. Going to do the exact same thing for EU4 tomarrow when I get paid even. But even when it is 'on sale' through Steam, even 50%+ off on everything, I'd never buy a Paradox Game, or any of their DLCs. Cause they just aren't worth it. They aren't worth half.

If you want more sales, Paradox, and more Gamers. How about making the $20 expansion pack, actually be WORTH $20, or just start selling your DLCs at the price they are actually WORTH, $2-$3.