Bi-Yearly Reminder that EU4 DLC policy has been terrible

[ZechsMerquise73]

Hello, friends. I'd like to remind you all that most of the EU4 DLC are currently sitting at mostly negative reviews on Steam, are overpriced even on sale, and typically only contain one gameplay feature of value. Some DLC is worth buying only for UI features, like Art of War's troop builder.

Even at half-price, the starter pack for EU4 which doesn't contain anywhere near all the DLC is more than the full price of a retail Triple-A game.

The games store pages don't itemize what they provide as features, so you have to do intensive online research to figure out how to get certain necessary features, like aforementioned Art of War troop builder.

Many of the features from these DLC are broken and never maintained, such as trading and exploration missions, or and some features of republics. In the case of the latter, it seems you need to buy this newest DLC to get them working again; great business strategy!

While I think this new expansion pack sounds good, I don't think I'll be able to fully enjoy it because I don't want to pay a hundred dollars to make sure I have all the features that make the game playable. Furthermore, I'm not sure I want to support Paradox's (so-far) most egregious DLC policy, which is to fire out DLC that has a handful of features and forget they ever existed. The least Paradox could do at this point is bundle them ALL affordably or make the more essential ones like Art of War free DLC. That might help them make sure the DLC are actually supported rather than remaining in glitchy ruins because they can't be bothered patching features that are outside the base game's financial purview.

 

[Metz]

They should incorporate the older DLCs into the base game and have a pattern of every time a new DLC comes out, an older one is incorporated into the base game for free.

 

[EarlKonrad]

The steam page for the DLCs are generally awful and Don't give you all of the features that the DLC contain. I can understand them wanting to have some bullet points for the main selling features of the DLC but what I cannot understand is why they don't list the features in depth as well. I shouldn't have to go to the wiki or a buyer's guide in order to read abou all that the DlC has to offer.

 

[KubiG37]

I disagree about this bit: Art of War is one of the better DLCs actually - 30 years war, Marches, custom vassals, fleet mothballing, war reparations, using subject's claims, revolution target... I never used army builder once. I don't even know how to use it.

The rest however... better not count how much I've already spent on this game so far (while still skipping terrible DLCs like Dharma, or Golden Century).
I don't have a problem with their DLC policy, perhaps they could be cheaper (well everyone would want them for free!). I only have a problem with sometimes lackluster content, or complete lack of further support. If it was broken during the release, it will remain broken for the rest of the time (Looking at you! Russian and Ottoman Mana buttons! )

 

[MadDoctorScientist]

They should incorporate the older DLCs into the base game and have a pattern of every time a new DLC comes out, an older one is incorporated into the base game for free.

Correct me if I am wrong, but would not that make the folks who bought it one by one really really angry?
Mixing all the paid patches minor DLCs together at a less greedy price would be nice, however.

 

[omega20056]

They should incorporate the older DLCs into the base game and have a pattern of every time a new DLC comes out, an older one is incorporated into the base game for free.

I never considered this but it is an excellent idea.

 

[Nyrael]

Correct me if I am wrong, but would not that make the folks who bought it one by one really really angry?
Mixing all the paid patches minor DLCs together at a less greedy price would be nice, however.

This model is used in some Multiplayer games. People generally don't care as long as there's a lot of time between release and the point when it became free, and as long as they know when something will become free.

 

[DSR]

I see DLCs as a way to support the devs in their endeavour of improving EU4 over time, fixing bugs, balancing, introducing new gameplay ideas... for free for everyone that owns the base game.

If we think the DLCs/expansions are too pricey even when on discount, we must voice it and let the devs know, sure, but never forget that you buy a finished product and if you don't like it, you have a limited time to refund it. At least on Steam. Some of these reviews on steam writting something along the lines of "DLC is pricey and lackluster" then you check their profile and they have 4000 hours in EU4... After so many hours, everything is going to feel lackluster if they were expecting a major game revamp.

 

[valentin4]

I own several pdx games with many dlcs, I am pondering to get into stellaris which is on sale but there is only a bundle at 35 euro and even then you miss the 3 last major dlcs. That's why I always give up

 

[PostTenebrasLux]

I'm torn by this question because we have a few things simultaneously going on:

1. It is difficult to get new people to play Paradox titles because of the DLC issue. They see that price tag and it looks like some kind of trash EA product to them and I can't blame them too much. Doesn't help that the names are confusing. "Content pack" and "Immersion pack" would make more sense flipped, IMO, because when most people say "content" in reference to a game, they're referring to actual gameplay.
2. It's hard to argue that some of the DLCs are less worth it than others and nearly all of them, even the "immersion packs" contain something every country can use. I don't like that this is the case. I play this game too much, so I pickup immersion packs when I'm going to play a country in that region, and so I have all of them, but why should I miss out on flagships just because I don't want to play an Iberian in the near future? It would be great if each feature that can be reasonably separated could be and over time these can be put into packs.

However, on the other side:
3. The DLC policy has helped support this game with new content for years. The content since release has truly revolutionized the game to the point they are almost different games. It's unreasonable to ask Paradox to spend this many developer hours on the title without a generous amount of compensation and they are pretty generous with what they provide in free updates compared to other GameDevs.

Overall, because of this, I think the DLC policy has done more good than harm, but the harm is still there and it isn't insignificant.

 

[Dalos]

For me the worst issue is that features like development and estates (not anymore) or government reforms are locked behind DLCs.

Stellaris team handles this much better.

 

[Vaximillian]

Correct me if I am wrong, but would not that make the folks who bought it one by one really really angry?

Art of War is almost six years old at this point, Rights of Man, three years and a half, you get the point. These expansions have long paid for themselves, and those who have bought them have already extracted any worth out of them.

 

[PostTenebrasLux]

Art of War is almost six years old at this point, Rights of Man, three years and a half, you get the point. These expansions have long paid for themselves, and those who have bought them have already extracted any worth out of them.

The point of DLC isn't to pay for themselves, it's to maximize profits for Paradox. I don't really think incorporating DLC into the base game will do that. That said, older DLCs need to have cheaper base prices to get more people on board with the game. No one wants to buy a six year old DLC for $20 and the $10 it's on sale for right now isn't exactly a thrilling deal unless you're into the game and those people already own it.

 

[sinisalo]

I quit playing in July 0f 2017 over this. I had bought all expansions through Rights of Man, and a couple immersion packs like American Dream. But the DLC pricing, and conflicts arising from a non-complete DLC soup soured me and I quit. I was a very vocal Paradox proponent, and then I wasn't, even dissuading others from buying EU IV, despite it being my favorite grand strategy game ever.

In the back of my mind I always wondered what EU IV was up to these days and missed playing the game, and when I saw the Steam sale last week I decided to catch up, buying Mandate of Heaven, Cradle of Civilization and Rule Britannia. At half price I felt they were reasonably priced, but for me this should be the normal price and a sale at half of that again. It's all subjective but that's my view.

I skipped Dharma as it's like the poster child of overpriced Paradox DLC to my eyes.

 

[RichardOlcese]

I totally disagree. For a little, small, tiny fee, you get great improvements to the greatest game ever published. And! if it's so pricey, well, you could do some research regarding what feature is in which DLC. It's not that the info isn't available anywhere... go to the wiki, ask the community, etc. I am really looking forward to Emperor DLC and I am absolutely grateful for its amazingly low price of 19.99 USD. I think it would be fair to charge at least 199.99 USD for a DLC that required 2 years of hard work (100 bucks per year would be totally fair).

 

[Cancerofthehead]

Correct me if I am wrong, but would not that make the folks who bought it one by one really really angry?
Mixing all the paid patches minor DLCs together at a less greedy price would be nice, however.

If it does Make them mad, then they are idiots. They got years of access for what they paid and in practice it is no different than the very normal reduction in price of games over time. If you bought everything a few weeks before the change, it might be a tadannoying. But that always happens with sales, should be a minimal number, and can be managed.

Beyond that, I didn’t see any complaints about integrating key features (Developing provinces, estates, etc) into the base game a year and a half ago, nor did I see anything more than a “well that was shitty timing for me” from people who had recently bought stuff when they did the humble bundle.

But if you really don’t like that, you could also reduce the cost of the base game and older DLCs. Drop the base game cost by $10 and the firstten DLC to $1 each and you are in the same spot, but better for players that don’t want it all.

 

[Cancerofthehead]

I totally disagree. For a little, small, tiny fee, you get great improvements to the greatest game ever published. And! if it's so pricey, well, you could do some research regarding what feature is in which DLC. It's not that the info isn't available anywhere... go to the wiki, ask the community, etc. I am really looking forward to Emperor DLC and I am absolutely grateful for its amazingly low price of 19.99 USD. I think it would be fair to charge at least 199.99 USD for a DLC that required 2 years of hard work (100 bucks per year would be totally fair).

I don’t think many people object to current DLC cost (although quality may be another matter, GC). But six year old DLC that is so poor they wouldn’t even give it to players recently still costing $15 is pretty ridiculous. And that pushes people away from the game.

 

[PostTenebrasLux]

Beyond that, I didn’t see any complaints about integrating key features (Developing provinces, estates, etc) into the base game a year and a half ago, nor did I see anything more than a “well that was shitty timing for me” from people who had recently bought stuff when they did the humble bundle.

I just don't see it as a very worthwhile endeavor to demand something for free unless the game is legitimately broken and they need to fix it to honor their informal relationship with the players, which is the case with some of the older DLC stuff that has gotten added into the base game over the years. Even though it might not be many people, anyone who buys an old DLC is pure profit for Paradox and it would be an irresponsible business decision to drop it unless they could make more money by doing so. I do think reduced prices over time would make them more long run profit by allowing more people to enter the market for Paradox games (which are basically their own genre).

 

[Cancerofthehead]

I just don't see it as a very worthwhile endeavor to demand something for free unless the game is legitimately broken and they need to fix it to honor their informal relationship with the players, which is the case with some of the older DLC stuff that has gotten added into the base game over the years. Even though it might not be many people, anyone who buys an old DLC is pure profit for Paradox and it would be an irresponsible business decision to drop it unless they could make more money by doing so. I do think reduced prices over time would make them more long run profit by allowing more people to enter the market for Paradox games (which are basically their own genre).

I was responding to one specific comment, not giving an opinion on whether they should.

if I were to give my opinion, I would only say that cost of entry should reduce over time. That can be by just reducing prices on older items or by packaging items together or rolling DLC into the base game or some combination of these and other methods.

 

[Dalos]

I just don't see it as a very worthwhile endeavor to demand something for free unless the game is legitimately broken and they need to fix it to honor their informal relationship with the players, which is the case with some of the older DLC stuff that has gotten added into the base game over the years. Even though it might not be many people, anyone who buys an old DLC is pure profit for Paradox and it would be an irresponsible business decision to drop it unless they could make more money by doing so. I do think reduced prices over time would make them more long run profit by allowing more people to enter the market for Paradox games (which are basically their own genre).

Unless it would make it easier for team to design and develop new or extend old features with those DLCs integrated. Cost reduction won't help with those.

Easier life for QA as well.

So better product that is developed faster.

But will it get more money to the company? I think none of us know.