I would assume that most people don't want DLC changing game mechanics, as then patching, multiplayer and modding will be total pain.-
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.
- Status
I would assume that most people don't want DLC changing game mechanics, as then patching, multiplayer and modding will be total pain.
Then they are just to be fluff for graphics?
A DLC that added to gameplay I could see justification for, but just sprites that the community makes seem rather pointless.
Hey, what about making random booster packs and the sprites tradeable? 'I got all the US ones, except for the medium tank, damnit! Sprites, catch 'em all!'
Graphics, music, scenarios...
Also, as Paradox used commercial libraries to make their sprites, modders could have some trouble with sprite modding.
We've sure done pretty well in the past. EUII had what, nine(?) patches, that I believe changed the checksum with all the different patches and heped make EUII a superb game. And we've still managed to play quite a bit of MP with EUII over the years. I still prefer that compared to having some fluff such as a graphics added as DLC :wacko:
That is rather a retrograde step then, considering the modding community is so strong in Paradox.
I was talking about commercial DLC, things that you pay for. Patches don't count as DLC... wait that sounds stupid. :wacko:
What I meant was that if there is for example couple different DLC that all change game-mechanics in different ways, people who don't share same combination cannot play with each other. Patches don't have this problem as you don't have to pay, meaning that no-one has any reason not to install the newest.
My apologies then, I only pop in here occasionally and have missed the ongoing discussion.
I don't understand what point you are trying to make. It's very easy to match up checksums when all you have to do is make sure you have the latest, free, patch. It's very difficult if there are a dozen optional purchased DLCs with different checksums. Hence Johan won't sell code in a DLC.
All those EU2 updates were a lot of work for which Johan didn't get paid, and Paradox has since changed their patch policy (bug fixes only, no features, essentially). But I agree with your statement in isolation, in that I'd rather buy an expansion than micro-purchase fluff.
I didn't even think about that, another reaosn why DLCs is a bad idea. Scrap it.
I sure as hell did pay for EUII. And I expect to get a full game with patches if those are needed. It's called customer care and is a service that should be provided to people that actually buy Paradox games instead of pirating them.
(1): It has been said one hundred and one times that DLC aren't going to make gameplay changes.
(2): Paradox will still patch their games. DLC is completely optional and doesn't replace patches.
Just because it has been said, does not mean that it is a good idea, or that everyone will approve.
Wait, what?
Are you trying to say that DLC changing game mechanics is good idea?
And with DLC I am not meaning patches or expansions.
I would think that DLC changing gameplay would be preferrable to DLC adding tank porn and the Red Army Choir to the game, but to be honest, I want neither.
You're like a broken record. I can repeat myself again: DLCs is a stupid idea only meant to milk the fans out of more money. I don't want them, be it changing gameplay to adding colours on a country shield. I'm good, thanks.
So I will just have to buy two expansions (Like EU3) and a bunch of DLCs in order to get a fully enjoyable game? This development to what mostly seems like Paradox only want to milk their fan base for money is dissapointing. When I go out there and I pay full price, right after release, for a game like EU3 I expect it to be close to complete. And if it's not complete I expect the company behind it to release patches in order to make it so, especially when you have such a dedicated fan base such as Paradox Interactive.
EUII was pretty much fine by 1.04/5. After that Johan continued to support the game in his spare time adding new features, new functionality, events, improving game rules etc. All the policy is saying is that you pay for the game and as many patches as is needed to fix bugs.
EU3 pretty much sucked before IN, but they didn't do it deliberately, to make you buy the expansions.
Under the old business model you would have just had to put up with it. Maybe Johan would have eventually had time to add some of the features from NA into it over the course of a year or two, as in EU2.
Last edited:
I would prefer a game bugfree then some shiny sprites. I voted 3 even if I like good expensions, to show I am against such (useless) download stuff...
- Status