Crusader Kings II - Steam and GG Versions - The Future

[bucaneer]

Not sure why the same patch file that's downloaded by Steam and run automatically couldn't be offered for manual download, it's just a matter of hosting them somewhere.

As I understand, Steam does not use discrete patch files. Instead, the developer makes a full working copy of a new a version of the game and provides it to Steam, which then figures out which bits need to be updated on each user's end. This means that both upgrades and downgrades are equally easy with Steam. For example, the Steam version of CK2 currently offers a choice between the most recent 2.0.1 version and the 1.111 version for mod compatibility and such. Switching between them is a matter of choosing the version in a dropdown list and letting Steam download 12-18MB of data.

In other words, offering a separate download option for patches would involve extra work for Paradox because the creation of a patch installer is not something they need to do for Steam.

 

[unmerged(133356)]

Why are you people still arguing? It's going to happened regardless what you think of it. Best just accept it and move on. ^^

Because every time I get interested in a game, something like this happens.

Dragon Age? Dragon Age 2 and Origin crapware.
Mass Effect? Mass Effect 3 and Origin crapware.
WH40K sequel? Went Steam DRM/account needed.
SI Games Football Manager series? Went Steam DRM/account needed.
Starcraft II? Requires constant internet connection to even play single-player.

Etc. Etc. Etc.


And now Paradox, the one company I hoped might be above that bull****, goes full-Monty for Steam.

As I understand, Steam does not use discrete patch files. Instead, the developer makes a full working copy of a new a version of the game and provides it to Steam, which then figures out which bits need to be updated on each user's end. This means that both upgrades and downgrades are equally easy with Steam. For example, the Steam version of CK2 currently offers a choice between the most recent 2.0.1 version and the 1.111 version for mod compatibility and such. Switching between them is a matter of choosing the version in a dropdown list and letting Steam download 12-18MB of data.

In other words, offering a separate download option for patches would involve extra work for Paradox because the creation of a patch installer is not something they need to do for Steam.

So in other words, it's Steam's insistence on having their own way of doing things, and "fixing" something that isn't broken, that creates the difficulty in having a non-Steam version available.

 

[bucaneer]

So in other words, it's Steam's insistence on having their own way of doing things, and "fixing" something that isn't broken, that creates the difficulty in having a non-Steam version available.

Judging by Johan's posts earlier, it was broken from the perspective of the developers. Presumably, when developers don't need to spend as much time and resources on matters of distribution, they can focus more on making and improving their games - something both developers and players can enjoy.

 

[unmerged(448336)]

The simplest way isn't the most accurate way, and I would argue that "privileges" and "things the service is doing properly" are one and the same.

I'm really not certain what you're arguing here; do you deny that, if Steam was suddenly to become terrible (sales drying up, download speeds slowing, etc.), customers and publishers would still feel it necessary to make use of Steam as a result of its widespread use?

That is all that I am asserting. I'm not saying that there's any reason to believe that such a degradation would occur; merely that its size ensures its widespread use as an industry standard, independent of other factors.

I disagree, given that Kickstarter is a thing and has empowered indie developers to set their own rules, and customers to support these varying distribution options as they appear. The fact that most Kickstarter users ask for a Steam option only suggests that Steam is offering something to these users that they don't want to miss out on. And that wouldn't be the case if their service was bad.

I don't believe I asserted that the quality of Steams services were poor, or that the majority of Steam's users felt forced into it; merely that there exist people who feel like they are being forced, as those here who express regret at PDS's decision attest. So long as that number is greater than one, it serves as proof of the effect that I described.

I guess we disagree as to the definition of rational. If it wouldn't work, I don't consider it to be rational.
Further reading: http://lesswrong.com/lw/nc/newcombs_problem_and_regret_of_rationality/

(Link not read, because I'm doing other things)

I'm using a fairly loose definition of "rational" as "things that could conceivably change an opinion given the right circumstances". It's certainly improbable that a well-reasoned argument on the forum would sway Johan's heart, who would go on to spread the word to the rest of the staff, changing everyone's minds and leading to the discontinuation of the Steam version tomorrow - but there at least exists a mechanism by which one could reasonably expect the cause (making a forum post) to lead to the desired effect (Maintaining a non-Steam alternative). "Steams features are terrible, and provide no benefit to me" is not an argument that would reasonably change anyone's opinion, however, and why I object to that line of argumentation as being irrational.

If you're uninterested in approptioning blame, then there's nothing that can be said about this. It's happening, and the options available are "go with the flow" or stay stubborn and miss out.

Well, like I said, it was never my argument to begin with. I was merely providing my best understanding of the shape of it.

That decision is made by the community, not Valve. Steam has a feature called "Greenlight" in which developers present their projects directly to the community, and the community votes on whether or not they want to see this game on Steam. It's a win-win-win. Developers can make their case directly to the people who need to hear it, Users get the game they want on the platform they use, and Valve gets happy customers who want to buy the products they sell. It's worth noting that I've NEVER heard of a project being denied a place in the Steam store. If people will buy it, Valve will sell it. They'd be stupid not to, and Valve aren't stupid.

Greenlight would be why I criticize the tastes of the community, and not simply the company. I would also point out that fans of that pinball game had to whine for years before it was finally put on the store; its absence was something of a sore point for people for quite a while.

I should also point out that the Greenlight process has numerous issues of its own; it relies on a voting process of a nonrepresentative sample of the userbase, has an irreparable bias towards games whose concept can be explained in a paragraph or less (with associated pictures), forces developers to spend development time advertising their games rather than working on it, and traps games in an endless limbo if they're not rapidly approved.

For reference, my favorite series would be the Princess Maker series, which involves raising a child to adulthood, at which point she'd become any number of different things based on how well you'd raised her - however, I have little doubt that the greenlight process would pass it over in favor of the next Slenderman clone. Its appeal differs rather significantly from the games previously greenlit.

All of that said, however, I do acknowledge that Greelight has been an interesting experiment which offer benefits of its own. I would not, however, wish for it to become the only way (other than being accepted by Valve directly) a game can be sold in the market, as that would be detrimental to me, personally.

 

[Vokasak]

So in other words, it's Steam's insistence on having their own way of doing things, and "fixing" something that isn't broken, that creates the difficulty in having a non-Steam version available.

Earlier in this thread, you said:

The ability to switch patches on and off, rather than having to back up an entire game, or go back and install from scratch if a patch is broken or invalidated an important save, is the very first thing that someone's implied Steam can do that has even the tiniest bit of appeal for me.

That's the feature being talked about. Rather than patching over every file a patch modifies, Steam has the ability to compare the differences between two versions and only make those changes. This lets you downgrade seamlessly, as well as upgrade.

You seemed to like this bit of news the first time you heard it. Now you seem to be trying to treat it like another imagine tyrannical imposition by Valve. Which of the two is it?

Once and for all: The difficulty in having a non-steam version available is that it's too much work for next to nothing in return. That's it.

 

[unmerged(133356)]

Earlier in this thread, you said:


That's the feature being talked about. Rather than patching over every file a patch modifies, Steam has the ability to compare the differences between two versions and only make those changes. This lets you downgrade seamlessly, as well as upgrade.

You seemed to like this bit of news the first time you heard it. Now you seem to be trying to treat it like another imagine tyrannical imposition by Valve. Which of the two is it?

Once and for all: The difficulty in having a non-steam version available is that it's too much work for next to nothing in return. That's it.

I thought it would have two versions of the affected files and that it would switch version numbers, not have to constantly swap out the files in the install via an online process.

 

[unmerged(133356)]

Greenlight would be why I criticize the tastes of the community, and not simply the company. I would also point out that fans of that pinball game had to whine for years before it was finally put on the store; its absence was something of a sore point for people for quite a while.

I should also point out that the Greenlight process has numerous issues of its own; it relies on a voting process of a nonrepresentative sample of the userbase, has an irreparable bias towards games whose concept can be explained in a paragraph or less (with associated pictures), forces developers to spend development time advertising their games rather than working on it, and traps games in an endless limbo if they're not rapidly approved.

For reference, my favorite series would be the Princess Maker series, which involves raising a child to adulthood, at which point she'd become any number of different things based on how well you'd raised her - however, I have little doubt that the greenlight process would pass it over in favor of the next Slenderman clone. Its appeal differs rather significantly from the games previously greenlit.

All of that said, however, I do acknowledge that Greelight has been an interesting experiment which offer benefits of its own. I would not, however, wish for it to become the only way (other than being accepted by Valve directly) a game can be sold in the market, as that would be detrimental to me, personally.

Sounds liike Greenlight is American Idol for developers.

 

[Vokasak]

I'm really not certain what you're arguing here; do you deny that, if Steam was suddenly to become terrible (sales drying up, download speeds slowing, etc.), customers and publishers would still feel it necessary to make use of Steam as a result of its widespread use?

That is all that I am asserting. I'm not saying that there's any reason to believe that such a degradation would occur; merely that its size ensures its widespread use as an industry standard, independent of other factors.

I don't disagree that if something like that were to happen, there would still be pressure on both users and developers to continue using Steam. But at the same time I don't think they would have the same dominant, unassailable position that they do now.

To be honest, I'm not sure what your arguing here. That Steam have established some kind of unbeatable monopoly?

I don't believe I asserted that the quality of Steams services were poor, or that the majority of Steam's users felt forced into it; merely that there exist people who feel like they are being forced, as those here who express regret at PDS's decision attest. So long as that number is greater than one, it serves as proof of the effect that I described.

I would agree with the claim that the number of people who "feel forced" is greater than one. But both of us lack any evidence as to what the actual number is, and given that by and large the Steam userbase seems anywhere from content to happy with it's service, I think it's safe to assume that the people who "feel forced" are small minority. But they exist, I grant that.

(Link not read, because I'm doing other things)

I'm using a fairly loose definition of "rational" as "things that could conceivably change an opinion given the right circumstances". It's certainly improbable that a well-reasoned argument on the forum would sway Johan's heart, who would go on to spread the word to the rest of the staff, changing everyone's minds and leading to the discontinuation of the Steam version tomorrow - but there at least exists a mechanism by which one could reasonably expect the cause (making a forum post) to lead to the desired effect (Maintaining a non-Steam alternative). "Steams features are terrible, and provide no benefit to me" is not a line of argument that would reasonably change anyone's opinion, however, and why I object to that line of argumentation as being irrational.

When you have the time, you really should read the article/check out the site. It has some pretty neat materials.

The article's main point is a bit involved and technical to reproduce here in shorterned form, but I'll try. Cutting out all the setup and such, the most relevent part reads:

Spoiler

Rational agents should WIN.

Don't mistake me, and think that I'm talking about the Hollywood Rationality stereotype that rationalists should be selfish or shortsighted. If your utility function has a term in it for others, then win their happiness. If your utility function has a term in it for a million years hence, then win the eon.

But at any rate, WIN. Don't lose reasonably, WIN.

I would call doing something which you yourself say "wouldn't work" to be a losing strategy, and I can't agree with calling that "rational".

Greenlight would be why I criticize the tastes of the community, and not simply the company. I would also point out that fans of that pinball game had to whine for years before it was finally put on the store; its absence was something of a sore point for people for quite a while.

I should also point out that the Greenlight process has numerous issues of its own; it relies on a voting process of a nonrepresentative sample of the userbase, has an irreparable bias towards games whose concept can be explained in a paragraph or less (with associated pictures), forces developers to spend development time advertising their games rather than working on it, and traps games in an endless limbo if they're not rapidly approved.

For reference, my favorite series would be the Princess Maker series, which involves raising a child to adulthood, at which point she'd become any number of different things based on how well you'd raised her - however, I have little doubt that the greenlight process would pass it over in favor of the next Slenderman clone. Its appeal differs rather significantly from the games previously greenlit.

All of that said, however, I do acknowledge that Greelight has been an interesting experiment which offer benefits of its own. I would not, however, wish for it to become the only way (other than being accepted by Valve directly) a game can be sold in the market, as that would be detrimental to me, personally.

I'm not sure which game "that pinball game" is. But Greenlight is relatively new, not even a year old. I think it's fair to say that Greenlight came about as a result of whatever whine Valve receives daily about all sorts of different games.

The voting process is just whoever is interested enough in the project to make their voice heard, and I've seen many Kickstarter projects give links to their project's Greenlight page. It isn't just whoever happens to stumble into the voting booth. I would argue that the bias doesn't so much favor games with a simple concept as it does favor developers who are good at marketing and explaining their product. This may still be unfair, but it's an unfortunate fact of life in many things outside game design, like landing a job interview. I don't like it either, but success requires marketing yourself.

I wouldn't give up hope on your hopes of the Princess Maker series being Greenlit. A pretty wide variety of different games have been Greenlit so far, including games like "The Stanley Parable" that seems to defy explanation (Many people dispute it being labeled as a "game" at all). The only unifying factor is that every game that has been Greenlit has had a lot of passionate people who want the game to be Greenlit. As far as I can tell, that's the only barrier to entry.

I thought it would have two versions of the affected files and that it would switch version numbers, not have to constantly swap out the files in the install via an online process.

For some larger, mostly Valve projects this is the case. Dota 2, Team Fortress 2, and Counter-Strike all have seperate "beta clients" which are entirely independent of the main client.

This functionality can be replicated for Paradox games, it's just a longer process and isn't done automatically for you (You should like it, then!). Given that Paradox games don't use Steam's DRM and don't need to be run through Steam, you could elect to downgrade, copy the version elsewhere, upgrade, and then add the downgraded copy into your library as a "Non Steam Game" and still have both launch through Steam. The downgraded version would miss out on things like Multiplayer, but it would already miss out on those on the virtue of being an outdated version of the game.

In any case, I actually prefer the online-process way rather than the two-client way. Swapping out a few MB takes less than 30 seconds of time.

Sounds liike Greenlight is American Idol for developers.

On paper, mechanically? Sure. With the difference that there's no application process, so literally anybody can "compete" and attract a fanbase.
In practice, this means it's quite different in that Greenlight is dominated by indie titles. It's more like American Idol if American Idol only had the Susan Boyles of the world, and the community gets to pick which they like best.

 

[Abominus]

Would you please stop complaining about or advocating Steam or the new Paradox policy on not supporting gamersgateversion of Crusader Kings II and tell me, when do we get those keys for steam?

 

[unmerged(133356)]

Would you please stop complaining about or advocating Steam or the new Paradox policy on not supporting gamersgateversion of Crusader Kings II and tell me, when do we get those keys for steam?

Asked and answered, and you'll get the same damn answer from the other side. Read the first post in the thread.

 

[unmerged(448336)]

I don't disagree that if something like that were to happen, there would still be pressure on both users and developers to continue using Steam. But at the same time I don't think they would have the same dominant, unassailable position that they do now.

To be honest, I'm not sure what your arguing here. That Steam have established some kind of unbeatable monopoly?

Well, the quote that started this tangent asserted that the functions that Steam provides the end user with were unrelated to the reasons that companies elect to go Steam exclusive. That was pretty much the only point I was making, though; that the tools Steam provides developers with, combined with the limited marketshare of Steam's competitors, made it an attractive option.

I could argue that Steam has established an unbreakable monopoly position if you'd like, though? I wasn't arguing that, but given the way the conversation has developed, it would be a natural direction to go in.

I would agree with the claim that the number of people who "feel forced" is greater than one. But both of us lack any evidence as to what the actual number is, and given that by and large the Steam userbase seems anywhere from content to happy with it's service, I think it's safe to assume that the people who "feel forced" are small minority. But they exist, I grant that.

I shall in return grant that it is, in all probability, a small minority .

When you have the time, you really should read the article/check out the site. It has some pretty neat materials.

The article's main point is a bit involved and technical to reproduce here in shorterned form, but I'll try. Cutting out all the setup and such, the most relevent part reads:

I would call doing something which you yourself say "wouldn't work" to be a losing strategy, and I can't agree with calling that "rational".

Well, I was simply attempting to differentiate methods with a low probability of success from those with no probability of success in a concise manner. If you'd prefer to use a different word for it, that's perfectly fine.

I'm not sure which game "that pinball game" is. But Greenlight is relatively new, not even a year old. I think it's fair to say that Greenlight came about as a result of whatever whine Valve receives daily about all sorts of different games.

The voting process is just whoever is interested enough in the project to make their voice heard, and I've seen many Kickstarter projects give links to their project's Greenlight page. It isn't just whoever happens to stumble into the voting booth. I would argue that the bias doesn't so much favor games with a simple concept as it does favor developers who are good at marketing and explaining their product. This may still be unfair, but it's an unfortunate fact of life in many things outside game design, like landing a job interview. I don't like it either, but success requires marketing yourself.

I'm afraid I can't recall the name of the pinball game (totally not my area of interest), but I can't imagine there are many on there, given how much of a hassle it was to get this one on there. But I agree that Greenlight was likely instituted both to resolve situations like this, and to get new games approved in a timely manner as, if I recall correctly, their previous approval process for people they hadn't dealt with before was basically "have a staff member see if anyone sent us anything interesting, when we have time". This was particularly problematic given their (lack of a) corporate structure, as they couldn't just hire a bunch of interns to filter through things like a more traditional distributor could, making a bit of a bottleneck.

Anyways, background aside, what I'm saying is that in more diverse market, it wouldn't matter if Quirky Game #5 could catch the community's eye and be greenlit; in a market of, say, ten distributors of equal size, it wouldn't matter if a few of them overlooked the game - those that did would see people buy the game, and based on their results (or lack thereof), they'd have an actual record with which to seek admission to other marketplaces. Even if they were a total flop, the ten people who did enjoy it could still buy it and tell others where they could get it. With only a single market like this, however, it's functionally life or death for the participants - if they can't get on, that's the end of their career... And if you were one of the minority who thought a game sounded interesting to you, but it couldn't get approved, well... Tough luck. Guess you can never buy it.

To expound on my earlier statements regarding Greenlight, however, I should mention that the self-selecting nature of the voters is part of what makes it problematic to me; people involved in the Greenlight process are basically either those there for a single campaign (among them the kickstarter campaigns you mentioned), or those who have the time and interest to wade through a thousand randomized applications every few months. The first category of voters reward the best marketer rather than the best concept, a trend I consider problematic in the AAA market and don't wish to see spread to smaller ones, while the second category tends to have strong opinions that diverge from the market as a whole. And, well, let's be honest here. After you see your hundredth sprite-based platformer, you tend to stop caring about what it does differently, and start saying "Eh, we have enough of those, pass".

But to reiterate: Greenlight is an interesting approval process that does have many benefits. I just don't want it (or Steam's old approval process) to be the sole means by which games can be sold.

I wouldn't give up hope on your hopes of the Princess Maker series being Greenlit. A pretty wide variety of different games have been Greenlit so far, including games like "The Stanley Parable" that seems to defy explanation (Many people dispute it being labeled as a "game" at all). The only unifying factor is that every game that has been Greenlit has had a lot of passionate people who want the game to be Greenlit. As far as I can tell, that's the only barrier to entry.

Oh, no, Princess Maker is definitely never going to be greenlit; the only one of them translated into English was Princess Maker 2, released way back when computers were making the transition from DOS to Windows. The company handling the translation went into bankruptcy, however, and the rights to the English version ended up in a nasty snarl between three different companies; a beta copy of the translation has made the rounds of the internet since, and is the only exposure most fans have had to the series.

The series pretty much ended with Princess Maker 5, back in... Gosh, 2006, was it? 2004? Something in that range. Whatever the specific date, they never announced another sequel, and the head developer of the game resigned from Gainax after some loud dispute with 2chan over unrelated matters. I can't imagine they have any interest in releasing such an old series on Steam, but even if they were, I don't believe Gainax would need to go through the Greenlight process.

I was just using it as an example of a series that I adore that would unlikely be appreciated in substantial enough numbers to pass the approval system.

On paper, mechanically? Sure. With the difference that there's no application process, so literally anybody can "compete" and attract a fanbase.
In practice, this means it's quite different in that Greenlight is dominated by indie titles. It's more like American Idol if American Idol only had the Susan Boyles of the world, and the community gets to pick which they like best.

Unrelatedly, and I'm not certain what I'm about to say is actually true, I hear that many of the people who placed second or third in American Idol went on to be more commercially successful than the actual winners did.

This doesn't really have any (intentional) relation to the comparison, though. I just thought it an interesting bit of trivia.

 

[Wonco]

Actually a game i've been told is basically princess maker was greenlit just recently.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=142369710

 

[phillosopher]

I know I'm a lazy arse for not just reading the thread to see if it is in here, but is there anything that us GG buyers have to do in order to get the knew code at all or have you even worked that out yet?

 

[Comm Cody]

I know I'm a lazy arse for not just reading the thread to see if it is in here, but is there anything that us GG buyers have to do in order to get the knew code at all or have you even worked that out yet?

They are working on it.

If they made an announcement in this thread, you wouldn't see it due to the bickering between everyone.

 

[Orinsul]

They are working on it.

If they made an announcement in this thread, you wouldn't see it due to the bickering between everyone.

I'd assume if they made an announcement they'd edit the OP

or post a new thread, as this one hasnt been in the frontpage news and the actual changeover would need to be there as well not just in the CK2 forum.

 

[Yasko]

I payed via GG becouse i did not want that malware on my computer. Now ihear that GG wont be supported, despite that i payed for some DLCs. Nice way of screwing customers...

 

[Marshall18]

Although I am fine with steam, I think it is understandable that many GG clients complain.

They bought the product on GG and (as Yasko pointed out) bought some DLCs there to support the further development of the game.

Moving the game to Steam-only is a stab in the back to them. There is a difference between making a steam-only game (like EUIV) and changing the policy after release (like this).

I have CK2 on GG, but don't really care if it is moved to steam (as long as I get to run singleplayer without entering steam, and it improves multiplayer). But on the other side, all the rage towards this move makes sense from people that dislike Steam (no matter if their concerns are legit or not).

My biggest pain is that I won't be able to install newer paradox games on both my computers and invite my friends over to play it LAN (to try and hook them on Paradox games).

 

[Orinsul]

Although I am fine with steam, I think it is understandable that many GG clients complain.

They bought the product on GG and (as Yasko pointed out) bought some DLCs there to support the further development of the game.

Moving the game to Steam-only is a stab in the back to them. There is a difference between making a steam-only game (like EUIV) and changing the policy after release (like this).

I have CK2 on GG, but don't really care if it is moved to steam (as long as I get to run singleplayer without entering steam, and it improves multiplayer). But on the other side, all the rage towards this move makes sense from people that dislike Steam (no matter if their concerns are legit or not).

My biggest pain is that I won't be able to install newer paradox games on both my computers and invite my friends over to play it LAN (to try and hook them on Paradox games).

You should be able to copy and past the game from one computer to another?

As that was the suggested solution for if you can't use Steam on your computer in the EUIV forum, download it on someone else's computers and put it on a harddrive and shunt it across

And it works for EUIV so it'd probably work for CK2 post-change

 

[Magean]

Although I am fine with steam, I think it is understandable that many GG clients complain.

They bought the product on GG and (as Yasko pointed out) bought some DLCs there to support the further development of the game.

Moving the game to Steam-only is a stab in the back to them. There is a difference between making a steam-only game (like EUIV) and changing the policy after release (like this).

I have CK2 on GG, but don't really care if it is moved to steam (as long as I get to run singleplayer without entering steam, and it improves multiplayer). But on the other side, all the rage towards this move makes sense from people that dislike Steam (no matter if their concerns are legit or not).

My biggest pain is that I won't be able to install newer paradox games on both my computers and invite my friends over to play it LAN (to try and hook them on Paradox games).

I've been able to play LAN multiplayer of Civ V, which contrary to CK2 requires steam to be launched even for SP, with only one steam account. And it's not difficult.
Install the game on both computers and switch steam to off-line mode on one computer so that you can log to your account on the other. Then change your steam nickname on one side - not the account you're logged to, only the nickname (Steam -> options -> Friends, there you are), because otherwise MP won't work if two players (or more) share the same nickname. Launch the game, host and join. That's it.

And since Paradox games don't require the steam bloatware to be launched when playing, that should be even easier with CK2.

 

[ale__58]

Although I am fine with steam, I think it is understandable that many GG clients complain.

They bought the product on GG and (as Yasko pointed out) bought some DLCs there to support the further development of the game.

Moving the game to Steam-only is a stab in the back to them. There is a difference between making a steam-only game (like EUIV) and changing the policy after release (like this).
...

+1. That is exactly how I feel as a GG customer.
I have Steam too, due to other games I like being only available with it. But I don't like their policy, their monopoly; I want to have freedom as a paying customer to use the game as I like, instead of being baby-sitted by Steam and having to be extra careful not to allow automatic updates, never buy an expansion somewhere else, doing extra fuss to copy out of Steam repository or no mod works, and similar amenities. I don't want MP, don't chat, don't need spam about other Steam games, may easily do without achievements (what are they good for, anyway?).

I am waiting to see how this issue with the promised Steam keys will be solved. The moment I will receive them for CK2 + all the DLCs I have (everything but the "customizer" and SOA) I will make my opinion if it is worth to continue as a buyer of Paradox games.