Bi-Yearly Reminder that EU4 DLC policy has been terrible

  • 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.
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?

Subscription is active and available at least for all steam users than own at least the base game, I know because I am an active subscriber. It's 5 euro / month in my country (eu), you can cancel it / reactivate it at any month and you get access to all dlcs, including cosmetic ones, for as long as you are subscribed. You handle your subsctription from the ingame main menu, see pic attached.

I don't think it's a perfect model, but I believe it's superior to the dlc model if only because it doesn't hinder game development.
 

Attachments

  • Subscription.jpg
    Subscription.jpg
    349,6 KB · Views: 0
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
EU4's DLC policy has been amazing. I keep revisiting the game as they release new DLC's that keeps the game fresh. Its the same with any paradox game. I have skipped all the content packs as i hardly see the unit models, but i have all the expansion packs and immersion packs and all of them were money well spent.

I have long since stopped caring about steam reviews as the steam community is awful and the reviews are rarely about the actual game content.

I truly dont understand why people still whine about the DLC's. Pretty much every game has DLC's now, and games are cheap. The DLC policy has also made sure a lot of content is released for free. Maybe paradox should stop adding free stuff in patches and just release separate free and paid DLCs to make it more visible.
 
  • 6
  • 5Haha
  • 5
  • 2
Reactions:
It's a difficult question to answer. Even for Paradox, since they're experimenting with pricing (see subscription model).

You have to balance between two things:
1) For a new player, EU4 is completely overwhelming. What kind of game requires you to research what you need beforehand? You're already scaring away your customer before they even looked at the price. And then they look at the price. Without any sale going on, the complete price for the game is way over the top. And then your new player needs to know that there are sales to begin with. It's just quite unreasonable.
2) For the experienced player, I'd argue EU4 is fairly priced. Cheap even. There are almost no games that have this continued support from the game developers years after they're released. Sure, it's in the form of DLC and costs some money, but it's not that much all things combined. Emperor is the next expansion, selling for 20$/EUR. This is with a load of features, new things to do and overall changes. It'll give me at least a few 100 hours of new stuff to try and play. So, I'm happy to pay 20EUR for that. Why would I expect continues support and additions to be free?

Honestly, the subscription model is a fair way to go at things regarding new players. They pay 5EUR once and they get all features. If they like the game, they can keep on spending, if they don't then it's only 5EUR lost.

That, or selling the complete package for one fixed price. For example 99$/EUR for this game and EVERYTHING (released to that point) included. No research required. No hidden agenda or things that aren't included.

I've tried playing EU4 with a friend once. He put all the DLC in his basket in Steam. Saw the game was over 250$ at that point and never wanted to talk with me about EU4 again. It sucks, and could be better. Should be better.
 
  • 4
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Subscription is active and available at least for all steam users than own at least the base game, I know because I am an active subscriber. It's 5 euro / month in my country (eu), you can cancel it / reactivate it at any month and you get access to all dlcs, including cosmetic ones, for as long as you are subscribed. You handle your subsctription from the ingame main menu, see pic attached.

I don't think it's a perfect model, but I believe it's superior to the dlc model if only because it doesn't hinder game development.
The subscription model is currently being experimented in EU4 and as such is only available to a subset of users.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I truly dont understand why people still whine about the DLC's. Pretty much every game has DLC's now, and games are cheap. The DLC policy has also made sure a lot of content is released for free. Maybe paradox should stop adding free stuff in patches and just release separate free and paid DLCs to make it more visible.
When I buy a game, or DLCs, I want to be satisfied with the purchase, not simply be able to say "okay, now I can play the game I already own more efficiently." I can not see myself feeling satisfied that I paid in the neighborhood of $100 to update UI features, especially when I could spend that same amount of money and buy about three new retail strategy games with hundreds of hours of content. Nor would I be happy spending that amount for features that many say actively make the game worse, like AI colonial nations. Or features that I know don't work well and are a hindrance, like exploration missions.

CK2 does release their new core gameplay features for free. The newer EU4 DLC mostly follow that model. EU4 does sometimes reincorporate quality of life (QOL) features from older DLC into the base game; and QOL features make up most of the reason to buy DLC before Mandate of Heaven... So it's not such a leap in logic that the remaining pay-walled QOL features be released. It's not like I'm asking for the immersion packs or any of the actually cool DLC to be put in the base game, just the features that make playing the game more playable. And, again, they've already given away most of the features I'm talking about for practically free during the Humble Bundle sales.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
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.
How much money is Art of War and other old DLCs making them right now?
Is it worth it sacrificing those old DLCs that probably don't even sell much (if at all) when not on sale in exchange of getting more and more new players to get your game?
My whole point here is: PDX shouldn't do this for the goodness of their hearts, they should do it because it's costing them many, many potential customers.
It's hard to put a number to anything "potential", but the matter of fact is, each person who doesn't spend $100 upfront (on sale) could be one that would spend $40 initially, and over time as he becomes invested in the game and starts buying DLCs as they come (as many of us do), would end up spending perhaps even double that.
It is very likely that this policy is actually hurting their bottom line in the long run.

My very first post in this thread mentions this as the first point. I do think you are right, but have you ever heard the phrase that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush? The point being that whatever alternative exists, it has to be easily translatable into revenue or significantly reduced costs. That's why the idea of just incorporating older DLC into the base probably doesn't make much business sense. Those DLC sales are there. New customers may or may not come: Especially for Paradox games, which had a pre-existing reputation for being a bit obscure.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
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

This is why I don’t play CK and stellaris. One PDX game is expensive enough for me :’D
 
  • 1
Reactions:
My very first post in this thread mentions this as the first point. I do think you are right, but have you ever heard the phrase that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush? The point being that whatever alternative exists, it has to be easily translatable into revenue or significantly reduced costs. That's why the idea of just incorporating older DLC into the base probably doesn't make much business sense. Those DLC sales are there. New customers may or may not come: Especially for Paradox games, which had a pre-existing reputation for being a bit obscure.
This is really the thing, it isn't an equation where you cut by X and get Y in return.
However, that's exactly why I'm talking about the older DLCs, not the newer ones and asking: just how much is AoW or common sense actually making them right now?
I'm willing to bet they don't even sell at all outside of sales, and probably barely do even then, so it'd be quite sensible to give up this barely profitable product in favor of attracting new customers.
I don't think they have much to lose at all here.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
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.
If you didn't buy Napoleon's Ambition, you didn't get any more bug fixes, because they were all folded into the expansion pack along with the actual feature changes.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
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.

Maybe they can not, but the current one is not that far away from EA shoving pay-to-win garbage down your throat or Zenimax-Bethesda tricking you into buying Skyrim again, and again, and again, and again.
Not that the afore mentioned is not a good game, but there is a very clear distinction between improving your game and milking your consumers away, which how it feels when a minor DLC adds new cosmetics to cannos and that is it. Many a thing they sell as DLCs should be patches, if not to the core game at least to said DLCs.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Maybe they can not, but the current one is not that far away from EA shoving pay-to-win garbage down your throat or Zenimax-Bethesda tricking you into buying Skyrim again, and again, and again, and again.
Not that the afore mentioned is not a good game, but there is a very clear distinction between improving your game and milking your consumers away, which how it feels when a minor DLC adds new cosmetics to cannos and that is it. Many a thing they sell as DLCs should be patches, if not to the core game at least to said DLCs.

This seems contradictory. If it's wrong to add functional DLC, and it's milking your customers to add cosmetic DLC, what exactly is an appropriate DLC?

This is why I don't think Paradox (or any game company for that matter) can really appease everyone with their DLC policy. For Paradox, they've actually done a lot with this game over the years and have undeniably improved it. The same can't be said for a lot AAA titles who release countless DLC that do nothing but add pay-to-win features or God items or create cosmetic packs and then constantly push them on you.

The system can be improved, but let's just recognize what the system has done to improve this game to be as excellent as it is and that it really isn't comparable to Bethesda's disastrous Fallout 76 and the like.
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
This is really the thing, it isn't an equation where you cut by X and get Y in return.
However, that's exactly why I'm talking about the older DLCs, not the newer ones and asking: just how much is AoW or common sense actually making them right now?
I'm willing to bet they don't even sell at all outside of sales, and probably barely do even then, so it'd be quite sensible to give up this barely profitable product in favor of attracting new customers.
I don't think they have much to lose at all here.
Do you really think that Paradox hasn't done this calculation? This is their business.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
Do you really think that Paradox hasn't done this calculation? This is their business.
This isn't my first time discussing this, including with PDX staff, and so far I have never been led to believe they have given a serious thought about this.
It's not an easy sell to higher ups and share holders, definitely, but if PDX wants to put this topic to rest, all they can do is be transparent about it and disclose if they have indeed done a study on this case, or reveal sales numbers for old DLCs showing that they still sell very well.
Of course, PDX doesn't actually own us any transparency, but if they want trust on this issue, that's what they should offer.
So with all that said, I now ask you, what makes you think they have done this calculation? Is it because "it's their business", and so you trust them to uphold it?
Well then, that's up to you, but I'm not willing to give my trust without a counterpart, in this case, transparency.
PDX devs are very transparent and accessible, that's why I'm almost always willing to trust them fully, and think they are a role model in this industry, but the business side is another deal altogether, not even composed by the same people.

Just to clarify, I'm not advocating for this because I want "free stuff".
I'm the type of consumer far more likely to buy stuff not too long after launch, very likely within a year or so on normal circumstances, so this proposal would have no impact on me whatsoever.
In fact, I love how the continued support allows these games to reach heights they could never do otherwise, and am more than happy to keep supporting them myself.
However, given how many people I've tried and failed to get into these games, I'm fairly certain PDX is ultimately hurting themselves with this model, and it's very frustrating to me the difficulty I find to spread the word about these games I enjoy so much.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
This isn't my first time discussing this, including with PDX staff, and so far I have never been led to believe they have given a serious thought about this.
It's not an easy sell to higher ups and share holders, definitely, but if PDX wants to put this topic to rest, all they can do is be transparent about it and disclose if they have indeed done a study on this case, or reveal sales numbers for old DLCs showing that they still sell very well.
Of course, PDX doesn't actually own us any transparency, but if they want trust on this issue, that's what they should offer.
So with all that said, I now ask you, what makes you think they have done this calculation? Is it because "it's their business", and so you trust them to uphold it?
Well then, that's up to you, but I'm not willing to give my trust without a counterpart, in this case, transparency.
PDX devs are very transparent and accessible, that's why I'm almost always willing to trust them fully, and think they are a role model in this industry, but the business side is another deal altogether, not even composed by the same people.

Just to clarify, I'm not advocating for this because I want "free stuff".
I'm the type of consumer far more likely to buy stuff not too long after launch, very likely within a year or so on normal circumstances, so this proposal would have no impact on me whatsoever.
In fact, I love how the continued support allows these games to reach heights they could never do otherwise, and am more than happy to keep supporting them myself.
However, given how many people I've tried and failed to get into these games, I'm fairly certain PDX is ultimately hurting themselves with this model, and it's very frustrating to me the difficulty I find to spread the word about these games I enjoy so much.

"...but if PDX wants to put this topic to rest, all they can do is be transparent about it and disclose if they have indeed done a study on this case, ..."
So you are telling me you truly would put this to rest if Paradox came out and stated "trust us, we did a study"? and you feel that the everyone else will also consider the case closed? Really?
Personally I think they would gain nothing. I think people would doubt it and press for the study to be released and for them to "reveal sales numbers for old DLCs showing that they still sell very well". If they did that people would still second guess the study, try to poke holes in it. In the end I think they will still have people complaining with the only difference is now their data is out there.

I don't think that any of the Dev's did this particular calculus, they may have but I don't know. Nor any of the community managers. I do think that their business staff would have done it, the people whose job it is to handle pricing.

You do know that for the cost of the base game you could invite your friends to a multiplayer game to try it out with all the DLC that you own. I wonder if you could set yourself to observer. And since you already know about the sales and bundles if they enjoy it you can gently remind them to not but the whole thing at retail prices. Not the most convenient but an available solution.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Honestly, the subscription model is a fair way to go at things regarding new players. They pay 5EUR once and they get all features. If they like the game, they can keep on spending, if they don't then it's only 5EUR lost.

As long as it won’t be the ONLY way I‘m fine with it.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't really care about this whole discussion, but I did want to leave a video I found last night here. It's a talk that was given at GDC 2018 about the Paradox DLC model and why they like what they've got. It's long but I think it's better than shouting into the void about this every couple of months like these forums tend to do.

 
  • 1Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I think we just have to concede that no matter how many times a forum thread is made about Paradox's DLC policy, or how many times Paradox changes their DLC policy, that there is always going to be a vocal amount of people that will be displeased with the model. Some people will want a subscription model, some people will want purely cosmetic DLC, some people will want meaningful mechanics in their DLC, some people will just want a new game to be released etc. All these options are essentially contradictory, and there has been at least one person on this thread for and against each of these four options.

Personally I believe as long as the base game is being updated with new mechanics and is mostly bug free (which EU4 is) then any DLC policy is fair. I have quite liked HOI4 and Stellaris DLC policy, but I must admit that is essentially because I get free stuff and only have to pay if I want cosmetics, but that does mean I will generally not purchase their DLC as I prefer to get DLC that adds big new mechanics into the game (Emperor is the first DLC I have pre-ordered just because of how hyped I am for all the new mechanics).

Whilst the paying of money is involved there are always going to be conflicting opinions and feelings of unfairness or displeasure with the game in general, but games are always going to have to involve the paying of money somehow.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
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.
I musr be getting really old, because i remember a time where a game (any as in every single one) would not get ANY content update and patches were only bugfixes, like the name "patch" actually suggests. I honestly don't get the entitlement with which some people cry about the DLC policy when in truth they should be happy that they get yearly free content for a years old game with the OPTION to buy more.

Comparing that to the fabled horse armor or paid mods is not just unfair, it is an insult

We can argue about DLC pricings or presentation, sure but the truth is PDX gives the players not free flavour updates (poland/manchu etc) a lot of free features whenever a DLC comes out and rework older features.
It would even be fine if there was no free updates at all but only payed exrra content. Like basically any old game did. But we even get way more than that.
 
  • 5
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions: