Dear Paradox

[Gucky]

You produce so many awsome niche games, but most (all?) need 2-6 weeks of polish at the release day. I know that you dont have infinite money but to take your latest published game Sword of the Stars 2 as an example - image what wonders 2-4 weeks more time would have brought for this game. Instead of complaining customers ( demanding refund ) you would have happy customers spreading the word how awsome the game is resulting in much much much more money for both you and the developing studio. There is a gem under all this bugs in Sots 2. I will continue to buy your games since not many others make such games any more but i hope in future you will delay releases that are not ready for at least a couple of weeks.

 

[s1234567890m]

And where do you propose they get the extra month of wages from?

 

[unmerged(53301)]

And where do you propose they get the extra month of wages from?

So it's OK that they released an unfinished game? I know they might be having trouble, but just because Paradox published it doesn't mean that it's gold. Why can't people on this forum call a spade a spade?

 

[s1234567890m]

So it's OK that they released an unfinished game? I know they might be having trouble, but just because Paradox published it doesn't mean that it's gold. Why can't people on this forum call a spade a spade?

AFAIK it was either release or terminate the project

 

[enkhuush]

I think they should use agile methods when developing game and need a quality manager. I know it's hard to make a game. But please at least release game that doesn't crash. They are not many people who can bear it.

 

[Ordo Impavidus]

from?

That statement put forward by the lady at Kerberos tells a lot about [her] leadership character more than anything. I won't go into why I say this, but what we don't need is a statement asking for sympathy. And that is what that statement does. It is pathetic. That statement angered me. I hate to say it but it did.

And Paradox now has to suffer for this? I don't think that is fair.

Paradox had good intentions (they ALWAYS do) but now its just a shame how they are left standing taking the blame. But keep in mind, contracts are signed and when a third party gets involved (Steam in this case) I'd imagine even LESS leeway becomes available....not to mention other entities (debtors) that get involved as well.

So yes. The RIGHT decision was made and that was to release it as it stood. So I'll continue supporting Paradox as well. As for Kerberos, I hope they reorganize their outfit to the best possible combination of people even if that includes replacing a certain 'key' individual.

 

[ashbery76]

The Paradox CEO needs to have a look at his producers on their external products.Pride of Nations and now SOTS2 were released early beta standard.A complex game like SOTS2 was released without even having a complete PDF manual finished.

Amateurs.

 

[Sam L]

These games are better than 99.9% of what else is out there. I don't know but I'm assuming they don't get it right because the games are so complex, it's hard to get it right. But the end product is fantastic. It also takes weeks, if not months to polish my ability at playing these games so it works out well. Whereas, with others by that stage, you'd probably never want to look at them again.

 

[artfox]

You have to see the difference between inhouse productions and co-operations with other developers (Paradox interactive is both developer and publisher). I am managing the QA process for all internal productions. These games has been improved A LOT quality wise. Try Sengoku for example. I also dare to say that Crusader Kings 2 will have very few severe bugs on release.

Every developer team is responsible to make the game as bug-free as possible. We (publishing QA team) have pointed out the bugs in SOTS2, and will continue to find and point out bugs in the future projects, but it is up to developers to actually do something about it. As you pointed out: There is a gem under all bugs in Sots 2. Because of that we wanted the game to be published.

We are also working HARD on improving our bug testing routines, beta tester selection, bug reporting and efficiency. This goes not only for internal QA team but the Paradox Interactive as a company. If you have some more suggestions about how to do it, I am all ears. Feel free to send me notifications.

 

[Mivo]

Since this is a bit of a recurring situation, I feel it may be worthwhile to explore alternative release models. For example, the Minecraft and Natural Selection 2 model seems to be working well, at least from the user's perspective. Whether this is equally desirable for the publisher, I don't know, but it would completely remove the risk of initially poor reviews, refund cries and reputation blows. It's also not yet widely done, so there is some marketing potential.

Personally, I am fine with pre-ordering a game and getting into a semi-public "paid" beta test. I prefer this over delays and having to wait longer, since I quite enjoy being part of the "emerging" of a new game. So for me, the SotS2 situation wasn't a big deal, but this view isn't shared by everyone.

 

[Pete0714]

Agreed. Personally, I have always argued this point, that publishers should do the work before release. The funny part for me is that the army of fanboys (and girls) comes out attacking whenever that is stated. The idea that you pay full price for a product that is half baked, that somehow this is an honorable sacrifice in this economy to be a part of the "team" to help give feed back and fix the issue after release, is ridiculous. The other level of fanboydom- that player made mods will fix a broken game- is utterly foolish, as it basically says that you are willing to pay someone who doesn't do their job, but let the person who does the job in their place work for free. If the free mod is better than the game for sale, than reduce the price of the game at least.
I love paradox games too, but I am not so a bought into this matrix that I will fall for this idea that you buy a buggy game so that they can afford to make the fully functional game. I refuse at this point to buy any game until I know it is playable, and its a shame that I have to wait that long, all the while spending money elsewhere.
Supply and demand, folks. Supply what people demand. Leave charity fundraisers for other areas.

 

[AussieVesti]

Obviously the vibes from Kerberos after the release blunder suggested that they were aware that the game wouldn't be as well-received as planned. Do you guys reckon it would have been better if they expressed the true state of the game prior to the release warning of the potential for bugs? Obviously the number of units sold would have been lower, but they wouldn't have damaged their reputation on the flipside. Of course this doesn't excuse the failure to properly manage the project, but if they weren't oblivious to the state of the game, what should Kerberos done differently provided they HAD to release on that specific date?

 

[artfox]

Since this is a bit of a recurring situation, I feel it may be worthwhile to explore alternative release models. For example, the Minecraft and Natural Selection 2 model seems to be working well, at least from the user's perspective. Whether this is equally desirable for the publisher, I don't know, but it would completely remove the risk of initially poor reviews, refund cries and reputation blows. It's also not yet widely done, so there is some marketing potential.

I am all for experimenting with different business models. We have already started with free to play Hearts of Irons card game (which isn't buggy btw). It's not the model that you described, but trust me, we (Paradox) are willing to try new stuff. Perhaps in the future?

Obviously the vibes from Kerberos after the release blunder suggested that they were aware that the game wouldn't be as well-received as planned. Do you guys reckon it would have been better if they expressed the true state of the game prior to the release warning of the potential for bugs? Obviously the number of units sold would have been lower, but they wouldn't have damaged their reputation on the flipside. Of course this doesn't excuse the failure to properly manage the project, but if they weren't oblivious to the state of the game, what should Kerberos done differently provided they HAD to release on that specific date?

I have to mention that I wasn't involved in the SoTS2 at all. I don't know anything more about the communication between Kerberos and Paradox than you guys. And that... is a VERY tricky question to answer. My answer is about the gaming industry and not about this specific case:

If you have a set deadline that you have to follow, you can only really do 4 different things: More people, better planning, crunch or cutting features.

All of the solutions creates some new problems: Doubling the staff does not equal double production time. Sometimes quite the opposite. Outsourcing might be a solution. Better planning... Well, yes, but do you ever try to plan badly? The publisher might help out with the planning though. Obviously we have done it before... Crunch (working overtime): Short term solution. People that are crunching during longer periods are much less effective. I have seen cases when people needed to crunch 4 hours/day to come up to the same efficiency as they used to have during regular 8 hours. And cutting features: Obviously not a very good solution for gamers.

 

[unmerged(53301)]

Agreed. Personally, I have always argued this point, that publishers should do the work before release. The funny part for me is that the army of fanboys (and girls) comes out attacking whenever that is stated. The idea that you pay full price for a product that is half baked, that somehow this is an honorable sacrifice in this economy to be a part of the "team" to help give feed back and fix the issue after release, is ridiculous. The other level of fanboydom- that player made mods will fix a broken game- is utterly foolish, as it basically says that you are willing to pay someone who doesn't do their job, but let the person who does the job in their place work for free. If the free mod is better than the game for sale, than reduce the price of the game at least.
I love paradox games too, but I am not so a bought into this matrix that I will fall for this idea that you buy a buggy game so that they can afford to make the fully functional game. I refuse at this point to buy any game until I know it is playable, and its a shame that I have to wait that long, all the while spending money elsewhere.
Supply and demand, folks. Supply what people demand. Leave charity fundraisers for other areas.

Thank you for that. It's great to find another like-minded individual on here that doesn't blindly agree with everything paradox says just because paradox said it.

 

[Meanmanturbo]

I am all for experimenting with different business models. We have already started with free to play Hearts of Irons card game (which isn't buggy btw). It's not the model that you described, but trust me, we (Paradox) are willing to try new stuff. Perhaps in the future?



I have to mention that I wasn't involved in the SoTS2 at all. I don't know anything more about the communication between Kerberos and Paradox than you guys. And that... is a VERY tricky question to answer. My answer is about the gaming industry and not about this specific case:

If you have a set deadline that you have to follow, you can only really do 4 different things: More people, better planning, crunch or cutting features.

All of the solutions creates some new problems: Doubling the staff does not equal double production time. Sometimes quite the opposite. Outsourcing might be a solution. Better planning... Well, yes, but do you ever try to plan badly? The publisher might help out with the planning though. Obviously we have done it before... Crunch (working overtime): Short term solution. People that are crunching during longer periods are much less effective. I have seen cases when people needed to crunch 4 hours/day to come up to the same efficiency as they used to have during regular 8 hours. And cutting features: Obviously not a very good solution for gamers.

Now this pointing fingers really does not give a good vibe. I know the difference between P'dox internal and external development, but you still share the brand among other things, and it will reflect on the company as a whole. And this pointing fingers isn't pretty. I really appreciate the improvement in release quality of the internal titles, the work you have put in shows, but you need to realize that the published games reflect on the association of the brand name as well. So there needs to be work done on the quality and coordination with third party developers as well.

 

[Darkrenown]

There is literally no finger pointing in that quoted posted. The closest he got is saying he wasn't involved in SotS2, which is a simple statement of fact.

 

[liamgamer55]

The Paradox CEO needs to have a look at his producers on their external products.Pride of Nations and now SOTS2 were released early beta standard.A complex game like SOTS2 was released without even having a complete PDF manual finished.

Amateurs.

I don't really have an issue with paradox giving autonomy to out of house developers.

Maybe wait to read reviews and play the demo if you're that worried about bugs and such?

I'm not really alll that concerned if paradox funds a variety of developers (some of which release excessively buggy games). They'll just be ones I don't buy. Especially if it's some sortof mega niche game, where perhaps some people will be content with it not working properly for 6 months after release. It's definitely worth it to fund or develope innovative games which is what paradox is good at

One thing I'd love to see paradox encourage though is more demos(and a demo for an expansion once in a while ala httt is definitely a good idea)! Even if it's an excessively limited (one nation only playable for 10 years or something) filefront demo upload it's much better than nothing especially if people are worried about bugs. Sometimes a few forum posts just isn't comparable to how well it's going to work on your computer in the release week and just how crashy it really is. I mean currently I'm on the edge on whether to buy sengoku or not, but some more time with the demo will probably be the deciding factor.

 

[Pete0714]

Thank you for that. It's great to find another like-minded individual on here that doesn't blindly agree with everything paradox says just because paradox said it.

I will say it is not just paradox. So many other game companies have that mentality of "you need to buy the buggy version of the game for full price so that we can fix it, consider it an investment." Problem is that it goes counter to my understanding of economics (sorry I am from the US, we are a capitalist system). How about this, create a lower base price for the low quality initial game ($10) then start tacking on costs for the improvements to the game as you release them ($1-5 depending on the quality of the improvement), then by the time you are finished with the fixes it will cost the full price you intended for the game. That way, those who bought it early don't feel cheated and feel better about the early product, and those who wait for the final fixes won't get it cheaper than the "testers". Just a thought on fairness and economic sense.

 

[s1234567890m]

What is full price? $40,$50.$60?

 

[Pete0714]

What is full price? $40,$50.$60?

I am sure that paradox has a market value that they intended for the game. For the most part such games as these fall in that range of 40-60, yes. I fully understand that cost. However, when I purchase a game for that cost, I expect the finished product, not half that or less. I don't buy a gallon jug of milk with only a half gallon in it, with the hopes that someone will come along and fill it up. I may however, pay the price for a half gallon of milk, and then pay the same price later for another half gallon.