CK3 came too early

[Tomaster]

Development of CK3 apparently started in 2016. CK2 came out in 2012. Four years into CK2's lifespan, they were already at work on the sequel.

Let's put this into perspective. Someone else posted a list of CK2 dlc that came out while CK3 was under development:
Conclave
Reaper's Due
Monks and Mystics
Jade Dragon
Holy Fury

Personally after Holy Fury came out (Nov 2018, less than a year ago), despite some people saying it felt like a last hurrah, I thought it was a good sign that CK2 had a lot of mileage left in it. Especially seeing how successful it was critically and sales-wise.

Also for perspective. EU4 came out in 2013. If they follow the same pattern years-wise, that means EU5 is under development right now, and has been since 2017. I'm not an avid EU player myself, so I'm asking genuinely here to people who are: does EU4 feel like it needs a sequel already? Is EU5 really something that should be considered right now, or is EU4 still healthy after 6 years of development and expansion?

This sets a worrying trend, in my eyes, when it comes to the lifespan of the games they release, their dlc model, and their scheduling of new releases.

 

[Zhetone]

I will give a countering opinion:

There were a lot of features people desperately wished for, for example cadet branches, which couldn't be added in a satisfactory way within the foundation that was CK2. I would imagine that by 2016 the CK2 devs had realized that they were limited by the game's engine in terms of what they could add and what could be revised, and maybe felt locked into certain design choices by previous DLC or choices that had been made.

CK3 will allow a lot of big changes, and from the sound of what devs have said, it will have a lot of what CK2 had added by DLCs. CK2 will be 8 years old when CK3 is out, or nine, if CK3 comes out in 2021 instead. That's a long lifespan for a game. I don't know what you mean by it setting a bad precedent either because I can't remember other paradox games that lasted longer before a sequel, unless you count EU Rome

 

[Despotism]

CK2 has been out for 7 years, and the additions people want for that game exceed what it can reasonably achieve with it's engine and mechanics.

 

[Zhetone]

CK2 has been out for 7 years, and the additions people want for that game exceed what it can reasonably achieve with it's engine and mechanics.

also if they added more DLC the amount of DLC the game has would become even more overwhelmingly expensive to actually have. the game was getting way too bloated and something had to be done. I still think they should roll previous DLCs into the new free to play model or at least bundle them a bit

 

[Brynjar]

It has been fairly obvious that Paradox have been working on EU5 since atleast early 2019.

 

[Tomaster]

There are plenty of additions I've seen proposed for CK2 that by no means require a revamp of the entire engine. Dynamic heresies could use a similar system to Holy Fury's pagan reformation, for instance. Another look and sprucing up the mechanics and flavor of Islam in the game too, since Sword of Islam was so long ago.

Sure. Cadet branches, playable theocracies/inland republics, and a China/East Asia expansion would require CK3. I'm not saying CK2 had an infinite lifespan. I just think they jumped the gun on beginning development. It would have been better to give CK2 another year or two's work and release CK3 around 2022.

 

[Zhetone]

It has been fairly obvious that Paradox have been working on EU5 since atleast early 2019.

yeah actually. EU4 team is basically a skeleton crew now like CK2's has been for a couple of years, and the DLC is getting sparser with fewer features as well. this last big DLC will probably be like Holy Fury was for CK2 and we'll see EU5 announced next PDXCon

 

[CrowSky]

The devs began saying that the engine was limiting their ability to do the things they wanted right after Rajas (the India DLC) which was 2014. So I think the fact that they started in 2016 is surprising.

 

[Zhetone]

The devs began saying that the engine was limiting their ability to do the things they wanted right after Rajas (the India DLC) which was 2014. So I think the fact that they started in 2016 is surprising.

well if they started 2 years after it was out, when DLC was still selling so well, it would have been a bad idea I think. Not sure how DLC sales were in 2016 and after but they probably planned like a business in that respect. I do remember though with Rajas it was really when people were talking about engine limitations (because it made the game so slow)

 

[Alliegorical]

CK2 is now free, dlc is discounted, CK3 is coming next year, and this is somehow a "worrying trend"?

People will complain about literally anything.

 

[Carmichael]

Also CK2 dev team was largely reduced as soon as 2017 (when I talked to the Dev at the first PDXCon of 2017 they said they were only 8 working on it for around 200 employees at the time) so I agree with the others, what they added as DLC were things they could do and would eaqily be replicated in CK3.

 

[CrowSky]

well if they started 2 years after it was out, when DLC was still selling so well, it would have been a bad idea I think. Not sure how DLC sales were in 2016 and after but they probably planned like a business in that respect. I do remember though with Rajas it was really when people were talking about engine limitations (because it made the game so slow)

Sure, I was just responding to the OP's question about whether it felt "needed."

On the business side, I think a lot of fans will be upset by the product for the simple reason that Paradox is likely aiming the product at not only a more casual PC audience but also consoles (and maybe even mobile eventually). They aren't making this game to sell updated graphics to CKII players, they are making this game to sell a CK-style experience to completely new (and much larger) markets.

 

[Thrake]

Development of CK3 apparently started in 2016. CK2 came out in 2012. Four years into CK2's lifespan, they were already at work on the sequel.

Let's put this into perspective. Someone else posted a list of CK2 dlc that came out while CK3 was under development:
Conclave
Reaper's Due
Monks and Mystics
Jade Dragon
Holy Fury

Personally after Holy Fury came out (Nov 2018, less than a year ago), despite some people saying it felt like a last hurrah, I thought it was a good sign that CK2 had a lot of mileage left in it. Especially seeing how successful it was critically and sales-wise.

Also for perspective. EU4 came out in 2013. If they follow the same pattern years-wise, that means EU5 is under development right now, and has been since 2017. I'm not an avid EU player myself, so I'm asking genuinely here to people who are: does EU4 feel like it needs a sequel already? Is EU5 really something that should be considered right now, or is EU4 still healthy after 6 years of development and expansion?

This sets a worrying trend, in my eyes, when it comes to the lifespan of the games they release, their dlc model, and their scheduling of new releases.

lol... 7 years beetween two iterations is too short?

I stopped playing EU4 years ago. The expansions failed to renew the draw of the game like CK expansions did to me.

 

[EU3NOOB]

Personally after Holy Fury came out (Nov 2018, less than a year ago), despite some people saying it felt like a last hurrah, I thought it was a good sign that CK2 had a lot of mileage left in it. Especially seeing how successful it was critically and sales-wise.

Sales doesn't tell the whole story. If the underlying code and engine are creaking at the seams, which is what was said at the CKIII keynote, then it is very obviously time for an overall upgrade and cleaning of the code, which a sequel would offer.

 

[ernst_earnest]

If ck3 has a clear path set out from the beginning instead of how it went with ck2 (not meant negatively but it certainly wasn't easy for the devs) then I guess this a good way to go.

 

[Zhetone]

Sure, I was just responding to the OP's question about whether it felt "needed."

On the business side, I think a lot of fans will be upset by the product for the simple reason that Paradox is likely aiming the product at not only a more casual PC audience but also consoles (and maybe even mobile eventually). They aren't making this game to sell updated graphics to CKII players, they are making this game to sell a CK-style experience to completely new (and much larger) markets.

I really don't agree with your assessment. there is no indication of it going to consoles, especially not mobile. the UI doesn't hint at consoles either because it's quite small. if you are referring to the XBox game pass, that is for PC, not console. Imperator is also on game pass and has no console version.

I'm not sure where the idea that it's aimed at "new markets" comes from. CK2, as far as Paradox titles go, was fairly mainstream anyway.

 

[Heiliges Thüringens Reich]

No, it has been too long. CK3 could arrive January 1st 2020 and I wouldn't complain.

I hope EU5 isn't too far as well.

 

[Buke]

Seven years is plenty of time between games. The problem I see is that ck2 still feels fresh with all the recent patches/dlc. At this point ck3 looks like an overall feature downgrade from ck2 as it stands today (no merchant republics, tribal nomads, still no naval combat...ect). It might be a bit early in that respect. Need to see more dev diaries honestly. A vicky 3 followed by a ck3 in a few years might have been a better course.

 

[Monkbel]

It has been fairly obvious that Paradox have been working on EU5 since atleast early 2019.

how is it obvious?

 

[Kingsleydale]

We have to wait and see. We can't truly know what is in the game or not until we've seen the dev diaries.