Bi-Yearly Reminder that EU4 DLC policy has been terrible

[PostTenebrasLux]

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.

I misread your statement and we are in general agreement, then. There are many people who suggest older DLCs be incorporated for free and I just don't think that's a viable general proposal. I do think the big flaw is that base game/dlc price doesn't go down over time like for many games.

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.

You have a good point concerning QA, especially over time. That's less of a tangible benefit, though.

 

[Radiobiology]

Maybe they could make yearly season passes.

 

[MadDoctorScientist]

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.

Well, thank you for the compliment. But that aside, if they actually end doing something like that, it would be nice that the paid patches minor DLCs stop being a tool to milk money away. That really is some Todd Howard levels of greed and does not cause a very good impression, to put it mildly.

 

[MadDoctorScientist]

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.

Unless someone got them just recently, in which case they would be entitled to reparations. It is not fair to a 14 year old who saved for it and what not. That is my concern here.

 

[Dalos]

Unless someone got them just recently, in which case they would be entitled to reparations. It is not fair to a 14 year old who saved for it and what not. That is my concern here.

Of course it should be made in a predictable way.

Something like "everything older than X years will be integrated..." or "only X newest DLCs aren't free"

 

[Cancerofthehead]

Unless someone got them just recently, in which case they would be entitled to reparations. It is not fair to a 14 year old who saved for it and what not. That is my concern here.

How is that different than people that bought a game (or anything else) shortly before any sale or price reduction?

 

[The Lifetamer]

Just Subscribe.

 

[dw70676]

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.

To be honest, that would probably just change my habit to never buying new DLC's and just looking forward to the old one being made free whenever they release one. I already wait for the DLC's to go on sale before I buy them and if I knew that they would eventually be made free anyway if I just waited a little while longer, I probably wouldn't even bother with that.

 

[Big Bad France]

The DLC policy sucks if you come to the game late. It's great if you start out at launch and play often, though. There is no way I would still be playing this game if it wasn't regularly updated.

 

[grommile]

Just Subscribe.

Subscription is a terrible pricing model for any game that isn't a centrally-served MMO.

 

[threetypesofcorn]

It's not set in stone that Paradox continues to work on a product and make new, free content. They could have released it and let it be, which would leave it at 39€ with twice the replayability of any Call of Duty game for 59€. Producing a video game isn't something people do because they're idealistic, it's a business.

 

[PostTenebrasLux]

Subscription is a terrible pricing model for any game that isn't a centrally-served MMO.

I think it could work for Paradox because of how dedicated their core fan base is and how a lot of people play multiple titles. It really shouldn't be their only model, but it would really please their best fans and offer a cheap way for players to test their games.

 

[Antihero97]

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.)

 

[Vohen]

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.

I'd see absolutely no problem whatsoever if they do it based on time.
Like having the DLC become free after two years, or perhaps slashing the price by half every year (until it reaches <$5, then make it free), or something of the sort.
Anyone who bought it early would've enjoyed it at launch and for a long time by then, probably to the point of exhaustion, and is much more concerned about the newest features for the current DLC.
Not to mention, DLC features being incorporated into the base game means devs now have the liberty of working more deeply with them and truly integrating them to core game mechanics, like what's happening with estates now (and is precisely the reason why it hadn't happened before).

This come from someone who buys them at launch without issue, but who had a very hard time trying to recommend this game to friends exactly because of the DLC list.
All they see when they go to the steam page is an endless list of DLC with an egregious tag at the bottom, it can't possibly get any unfriendlier.
Having old DLCs become free would have the opposite effect, they would look at that list and think "hey, look at all this free stuff I'm getting" (even if the base game were to be more expensive), and then bam, PDX got a new customer on their market to buy their newest DLCs.
A subscription service isn't really the answer I think, as it gives the feeling that you're signing up for a long term commitment, even if that's not the case, and might scare some people off.

In the end, I'd really like to see the sales chart for these DLCs through time, just how much money would PDX be losing if they made 2 year old content free?
It is a known fact for games that the vast majority of a game's overall sales are done within the release week, how much of that is true to PDX DLCs?
How much is Rule Britannia and previous DLCs making them right now?
Is that value worth gating off so many potential customers?
I don't have this data, so I can't answer for sure, but those are questions that should be asked.

 

[MadDoctorScientist]

How is that different than people that bought a game (or anything else) shortly before any sale or price reduction?

Because in this instance you paid full price for something that is absolutely free. A 100% loss, and none of those are exactly cheap.

 

[MadDoctorScientist]

I'd see absolutely no problem whatsoever if they do it based on time.
Like having the DLC become free after two years, or perhaps slashing the price by half every year (until it reaches <$5, then make it free), or something of the sort.
Anyone who bought it early would've enjoyed it at launch and for a long time by then, probably to the point of exhaustion, and is much more concerned about the newest features for the current DLC.
Not to mention, DLC features being incorporated into the base game means devs now have the liberty of working more deeply with them and truly integrating them to core game mechanics, like what's happening with estates now (and is precisely the reason why it hadn't happened before).

This come from someone who buys them at launch without issue, but who had a very hard time trying to recommend this game to friends exactly because of the DLC list.
All they see when they go to the steam page is an endless list of DLC with an egregious tag at the bottom, it can't possibly get any unfriendlier.
Having old DLCs become free would have the opposite effect, they would look at that list and think "hey, look at all this free stuff I'm getting" (even if the base game were to be more expensive), and then bam, PDX got a new customer on their market to buy their newest DLCs.
A subscription service isn't really the answer I think, as it gives the feeling that you're signing up for a long term commitment, even if that's not the case, and might scare some people off.

In the end, I'd really like to see the sales chart for these DLCs through time, just how much money would PDX be losing if they made 2 year old content free?
It is a known fact for games that the vast majority of a game's overall sales are done within the release week, how much of that is true to PDX DLCs?
How much is Rule Britannia and previous DLCs making them right now?
Is that value worth gating off so many potential customers?
I don't have this data, so I can't answer for sure, but those are questions that should be asked.

I ended agreeing with the people who said they should add a schedule for it and warn new buyers in advance that and when they would be free(ish).
But I have a feeling they will not give up their "cash cow" easily, if they have not in seven years thus far. Kind of Bethesda and Skyrim.

 

[Cancerofthehead]

Because in this instance you paid full price for something that is absolutely free. A 100% loss, and none of those are exactly cheap.

As opposed to someone getting the base game and virtually all the DLC for $17 vs someone spending $200 on it?

 

[MadDoctorScientist]

As opposed to someone getting the base game and virtually all the DLC for $17 vs someone spending $200 on it?

IF done on schedule with full disclosure, it could work, but it would still depend on their honesty.

 

[Cancerofthehead]

IF done on schedule with full disclosure, it could work, but it would still depend on their honesty.

Again, why? They literally gave a $200 plus discount with no warning a few months ago, was that wrong? Decreasing the cost of a DLC from $15 to $0 isn’t fundamentally any different.

 

[MadDoctorScientist]

Again, why? They literally gave a $200 plus discount with no warning a few months ago, was that wrong? Decreasing the cost of a DLC from $15 to $0 isn’t fundamentally any different.

On what currency, chap? We are talking worldwide here.