Imperator: Rome - Status Update (Apr 2021)
- Thread starter Dnote
- 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.
- Status
SteamPunk:
Dishonored (FPS)
Bioshock Infinite (FPS)
Rise of Legends (RTS)
Syberia (Adventure)
- 1
Maybe because they aren't planning to definitively kill it?
- 4
- 2
Thank you, someone had to say this. No matter how many people on this thread talk about how this is there best or best long-term game, that's simply not how it is widely viewed and we have to accept this. Honestly, they would have been justified just dropping the game after release. As I said before, paradox is a company, not a charity to hand out games. IR has less players than CK2 atm and is comparable to Vic II, it's good that they made the game decent, but we should not feel that they are obligated to continue it.
- 8
- 7
- 2
- 1
Wait, so... you just fixed it and got it going well... so you're going to take all the people that did the work and remove them for other projects? ....right, ok. Sure. I mean, I get it but... huh.
- 1
Yes, definitely.
I am a fn of the ancient era, but i hve to, sadly, admit that Vicky3 is and was always a better idea than Rome 2.
- 6
- 1
- 1
- 1
You are correct. I don't. Just a judgement call of an IR fan based on the cadence of what I saw in the changing dynamic of player base and spin around the game. IMO there are a lot of EU4 players who don't want to abandon ship as they are comfortable and happy playing the single core CPU compatible 2013 release game that has a large player base and rich history. Just recently a well known EU4 player, Lambdaxx, did a 2.0 WC.
Then there is the Rome thing, which seems to work for everyone else except Paradox. Which is paradoxical.
There's an old US country song from the 70's called the Gambler that says, "You've got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, & know when to walk away." While there is data involved in making judgement calls in professional gambling, much of it is judgement as well. This is mine: Shuddering IR was a mistake.
This is my rationale as best I can explain it.
Edit 5/10/21: Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but I wonder if they had "known when to fold 'em" & announced EU4 was being allowed to pass peaceably (ie. die a natural death) would the player base have gravitated toward IR (increasing the daily player STEAM metrics) thus allowing them to "hold 'em" (ie. continue development).
Last edited:
- 3
- 3
- 1
Only my asumption about I:R definitely earning PDX money is baseless, the rest is not. Even if I:R isnt makimg money, is breaking even or if PDX is actually loosing money on it, it does not matter if they want to build fanbases and francises. All other games are making lost of money and can easily cover small much less popular projects until they break even. Its just corporate short-sightedness.
- 5
- 5
- 2
- 1
Verdun and Tannenberg (both by the same developer) might scratch that itch, if the Great War is early enough for you. Both on the more realistic side of things, so if you want a pretty good representation of the full scope of Great War warfare, from the misery of the trenches to the chaotic battles on open plains, then they might be for you.
- 2
- 1
It is not always just profit that makes a company great and consumers fell attached to it. Reputation counts also and PDX has done a lot to lose its repuation as a good and reliable game developer. As for me IR would have been a sign that PDX can and will make good games even it is not the cash cow in its portfolio.
- 12
- 1
Incorrect. There is a cutoff point for all types of profit attempts. As a business owner you must judge how much money to invest before it becomes clear you won't achieve positive cashflow no matter WHAT you do. This is what you are missing in the equation. Sorry.. you're wrong.
- 5
- 3
- 2
You're welcome. It is just basic business sense here.. I used to run a business so I get the realities. And as a gamer, I always am VERY aware that the programmers/artists/producers must EAT. And that means making a profit so the company doesn't go under.
- 4
- 2
- 2
Props for your honesty here. Whether shuttering IR is a mistake is very difficult to tell (and I don't think we'll ever know). We just don't have access to their financial statements and sales numbers to make an informed judgement. Good will is something to be chased by any company.. so using some of your companies money in this pursuit is never a bad thing. But the flip side is that day to day profit still wins. That is the cold/hard reality in play here.
My take on all this is: perceptions are rarely equal to reality.. since they are typically driven by assumptions that are unverifiable given current circumstance (or just flat unverifiable). We live in a world where it is super typical for folks to make pronouncements and take actions based on exactly what I'm talking about.. unverifiable assumptions. It is why the world tend to be super-messed up. Something to consider.
- 6
- 3
Amazon, Tesla, et al have a business model that rely in future cashflows to get financed even if they have losses for many years.
It is true that as an owner you should cut losses asap you are convinced that you will not have a positive effect but the business case is not always as clearcut as you presented.
There are intangibles that need to be assessed. Sometimes projects are carried out at a loss because the company thinks It will have a future benefit, as a publicity or to gain a dominant market position, e.g. UBER.
- 6
- 1
What do you think is more profitable, milking customers, being vague and cutting your losses as soon as something doesn't seem to be generating loads of cash in the short term, or being honest with your fans and doing things in good faith, even if it's not always the most profitable route?
- 7
- 3
Running a 2 billion dollar company is very different from running your local mom-and-pop store. You start caring a lot less about the cashflows from individual projects and instead care about how those projects fit into your overall corporate strategy.
I work in business development, and if IR had an expansion of every eternally non-profitable project that I have seen, then it would be more bloated then EU4.
And this is of course the reason why Dnote insists development on Imperator will continue when they find additional devs to work on it. (Whether that will actually happen is another question - "temporarily shelved" project all to often turn into "that ting we'll get to around eventually".)
Edit: Just to be clear, since some people still seem to be struggling with it: IR did NOT get canceled because it wasn't making money. Lack of profits only landed it at the bottom of the priority list. IR got canceled because of a lack of (human) development resources.
- 10
- 3
- 1
- 1
- Status