I found the article by searching for it: https://www.pcgamer.com/crusader-kings-3-accidentally-breaks-same-sex-concubine-mods/
There's also one up at Rock Paper Shotgun: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/crusader-kings-3s-latest-update-blocks-same-sex-relationship-mods
The RPS article also has a quote from an email response Paradox gave to them, which doesn't seem very satisfying. It cites the changes made in 1.3 to have made same-sex relationships 'difficult to mod in without breaking a lot of stuff.' Shouldn't that be the sort of thing modders have to worry about, not the devs? If a mod breaks something, the modder will either go in and fix it, or accept a buggy mod. It doesn't reflect on the dev team at all. But if we accept they're being entirely forthright and honest there (which is still up in the air for me), then they're basically playing gatekeeper on what kind of mods we can even try to make out of a sort of exaggerated concern for... what? Our 'safety,' maybe? Not wanting us to suffer the disappointment of bad mods? It's a very insufficient reason, if you ask me.
There have been times when modders have shown great ingenuity in working around limitations and problems that the devs thought were insurmountable, or at least would take too much time. I don't know if that would be the case here, but I'm definitely not satisfied with the devs preemptively not even giving us the chance. Especially on such a significant issue as this.
There's also one up at Rock Paper Shotgun: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/crusader-kings-3s-latest-update-blocks-same-sex-relationship-mods
The RPS article also has a quote from an email response Paradox gave to them, which doesn't seem very satisfying. It cites the changes made in 1.3 to have made same-sex relationships 'difficult to mod in without breaking a lot of stuff.' Shouldn't that be the sort of thing modders have to worry about, not the devs? If a mod breaks something, the modder will either go in and fix it, or accept a buggy mod. It doesn't reflect on the dev team at all. But if we accept they're being entirely forthright and honest there (which is still up in the air for me), then they're basically playing gatekeeper on what kind of mods we can even try to make out of a sort of exaggerated concern for... what? Our 'safety,' maybe? Not wanting us to suffer the disappointment of bad mods? It's a very insufficient reason, if you ask me.
There have been times when modders have shown great ingenuity in working around limitations and problems that the devs thought were insurmountable, or at least would take too much time. I don't know if that would be the case here, but I'm definitely not satisfied with the devs preemptively not even giving us the chance. Especially on such a significant issue as this.
- 18
- 1
- 1