Im afraid this will go down the route of HOI4 where they will sell low effort uninspired mission trees as DLCs, something that even the most amateur modder can do instead of new mechanics or government types.
- 4
- 1
I think the worst and best part of the DLC is the free updates. The free updates are great because we get some new content for free. The bad part is that they cause some confusion on whats free and whats paid. If the free updates where part of the existing paid DLC it would make them seem more worth the money we paid for them.
(Not saying the free updates should stop but just that if we never had them and they where part of the existing DLC I think people would just complain more about how many there are and less about how much content they provide.)
The issue isn't really the real value of the DLCs, I myself have bought many on release and I regret nothing, I think they are a great value (with some exceptions).All the DLC isn't worth less based on how long ago it was released though; the mechanics they add in don't become obsolete over time so there seems to be little reason to hand them out for free just because they are older?
HoI4 (and Stellaris apparently) seems to have reached an ideal compromise.Paradox is generally in a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of position for DLC. When they keep all the coolest mechanics in the DLC everyone complains that those mechanics have to be paid for, but if they release more "non-consequential" DLC that adds Mission Trees into the game everyone complains that it is a waste of money getting the DLC when "a modder could have added the same thing". If Paradox completely did away with DLC the only other way they could make money is to sell half-finished games for AAA price every two years. Somehow Paradox has to make the DLC super cool and game-changing, but at the same time not make it game-changing so that others aren't missing out on mechanics.
If a new-comer does want to play with all the DLC features then the packs are available with most of the DLC on sale for the price of a AAA game. I personally agree that HOI4 and Stellaris are really good with their DLC, but one step onto the HOI4 forums and all I hear is people pointing out that the DLC is a waste of money because you can just mod the National Focuses of countries and all the other mechanics in the DLC are considered quite non-game-changing (adding Naval Mines or Airforce Volunteers etc.). If I watch any YT video about HOI4 they are almost all saying the DLC are bad for those reasons. I don't believe Paradox can have a DLC policy that a majority of people will be happy with.The issue isn't really the real value of the DLCs, I myself have bought many on release and I regret nothing, I think they are a great value (with some exceptions).
The issue is that, as time goes on, the game gets more and more inaccessible to newcomers, as DLCs pile on.
So we have to ask, from a pure pragmatic and business point of view, do old DLCs still make enough money to warrant gating off potential customers like that?
For all the UI advancements they have done in this past decade to make the game more accessible, their business model does the exact opposite.
HoI4 (and Stellaris apparently) seems to have reached an ideal compromise.
Basic mechanics go into the patch, flavor or a deeper dive into that mechanic go into the DLC.
I don't think any DLC for HoI4 is absolutely necessary, pretty much all you need to enjoy the game as the great powers of WW2 is there in the base game.
But if you feel invested in another minor powers, or perhaps China, or in espionage, or even go deeper into naval warfare, the DLCs are there for you.
Paradox have had six years of profits from selling Art of War, it has long paid for the expenses on making it. This is my point.The point of DLC isn't to pay for themselves, it's to maximize profits for Paradox.
That's very alienating to the average consumer.If a new-comer does want to play with all the DLC features then the packs are available with most of the DLC on sale for the price of a AAA game.
I see no such widespread complaint in the HoI4 forum.I personally agree that HOI4 and Stellaris are really good with their DLC, but one step onto the HOI4 forums and all I hear is people pointing out that the DLC is a waste of money because you can just mod the National Focuses of countries and all the other mechanics in the DLC are considered quite non-game-changing (adding Naval Mines or Airforce Volunteers etc.). If I watch any YT video about HOI4 they are almost all saying the DLC are bad for those reasons. I don't believe Paradox can have a DLC policy that a majority of people will be happy with.
They have been developing EU4 for about 11 years now, working on it and improving it every day of those years (except for holidays). I don't believe $30 would be able to afford that. Most other game studios make money by charging you $80 for a game they worked on for 2 years, without any further updates to the game and a sequel the very next year.The Paradox DLC policy, in general, is obnoxious. Don't get me wrong, I love EUIV, CK2, Victoria II, and Stellaris, but the DLCs really add up. It isn't like EUIV is a free mobile game where you expect most of the features to be hidden behind a paywall. It's a $30 game (except when it's $10). That isn't at all unreasonable for non-AA game. I wish they would just release the game normally and add-in free updates as time went on. They could also release one or two DLCs along the way that added unique content but not 20. Buying every DLC for CK2, for example, is like a $300 dollar ordeal. It's ridiculous.
Companies don't suddenly owe a product for free once they have made their profits off the product.Paradox have had six years of profits from selling Art of War, it has long paid for the expenses on making it. This is my point.
But the average consumer will buy the base game and play for awhile before they want to buy DLC and then they usually get the DLC that seems coolest for the way they like to play the game (i.e. "Conquest of Paradise" for players that enjoy colonialism). I do believe that one way of finding a happier middle could be having more spaced-out, larger DLC, but they would have to incease the price of these DLC to compensate and people would complain about paying $40 for a DLC.That's very alienating to the average consumer.
If you have to watch several videos with instructions on which DLCs to buy, with many using terms you'll have absolutely no clue what they mean like "development" or "estates", all on top of a steam page with a gigantic list of DLCs and an egregious price tag at the bottom (yes, I know that tag includes even cosmetics, but someone visiting the page for the first time will not know that), you're basically asking people to not buy your game.
I see no such widespread complaint in the HoI4 forum.
To me it seems devs are showing good will by putting the base mechanics in the patch, and players are showing good will by buying the DLCs (HoI4 DLCs do sell pretty well iirc), so it's win-win.
And as times goes on, with newcomers not having to buy a wall of DLC, instead the only instruction being "just get the base game, if you like it start looking into DLCs", the player base and consumer base only tends to grow.
Paradox have had six years of profits from selling Art of War, it has long paid for the expenses on making it. This is my point.
They don’t even have to make actual games, they could just make apps that just throw out splashes with maps and fans would still buy that.Paradox is a business that exists to make money on top of expenses. If it just met expenses, then we wouldn’t have these games. Paradox doesn’t owe us anything other than the game we purchased. They didn’t have to patch the game all these years or release any DLC. My point continues to be: I don’t see them changing policies without some kind of viable alternative plan that will make the same amount of money or more.
My experience in trying to get people to play these games begs to differ.But the average consumer will buy the base game and play for awhile before they want to buy DLC and then they usually get the DLC that seems coolest for the way they like to play the game (i.e. "Conquest of Paradise" for players that enjoy colonialism). I do believe that one way of finding a happier middle could be having more spaced-out, larger DLC, but they would have to incease the price of these DLC to compensate and people would complain about paying $40 for a DLC.
Imagine if, in the situation I described above, I managed to get not all, but at least most of the people I tried recommending this to did buy it.My point continues to be: I don’t see them changing policies without some kind of viable alternative plan that will make the same amount of money or more.
And despite that, HoI4 and its DLCs are still selling very well.Honestly I can't click on anything related to HOI4 DLC without someone saying "it is useless, save your money and don't think twice about getting this DLC" or "if you are interested in this DLC, just play National Focuses Reworked mod instead". I was considering getting "Man the Guns" over the weekend, so I thought to read the reviews, and it nearly turned me off from getting it because I couldn't find anyone talking positively about it
Instead, there would be criticism of the fact that you have to pay money to keep receiving bug fixes.1. There would be no criticism of worthless DLCs (that does not take into account the stuff that has been included in free patches)
When I said "no free patches that contain new features" I meant that patches wouldn't include new features. There of course should be bugfixing patches. I (perhaps naively) assume that it might actually be easier to make the base game more or less bug free if you refrain from adding anything new.Instead, there would be criticism of the fact that you have to pay money to keep receiving bug fixes.
I googled it and checked the website and store page. I searched for it on the forums, and as far as I can tell it hasn't been so much as mentioned in two months. As far as I can tell the subscription model isn't released yet and the price point hasn't been announced. Is that right?There's a lack of comment on the subscription feature we now have, which is quite reasonably priced.
I see this argument a lot. But would it be reasonable to complain when the game goes on sale? Did you complain when they made estates a base game feature? Will you complain when EU5 comes out and the game comes stocked with colonial nations, the ability to make custom vassals, and so on? You'll probably be very glad you don't have to buy the same features over again. When you pay for a game when it comes out, you aren't paying to secure that price point for the future generations, you are paying that price because that's what you were willing to pay at that moment. Games devalue after they get older, and new and better things come along . In Paradox DLC they get better at making them as time goes on: There's a big discrepancy in value between, say, Mare Nostrum and Rule Britannia.Correct me if I am wrong, but would not that make the folks who bought it one by one really really angry?
Mixing all thepaid patchesminor DLCs together at a less greedy price would be nice, however.