DLC Nightmare

[mburke78]

I posted a similar question on Europa IV but I already have Crusader Kings 2. Is the vanilla game ok to play on it's own or again do I need DLC. Paradox games are really hard to understand with all the DLC and updates to the basic game. I have read that updates to the base game then need DLC to fix. Is this the case and what DLC do I need.

Note to Paradox your DLC policy is really bad and confusing to new players. I really think you need to revisit your policy going forward.

 

[klopkr]

You don't need any dlc unless you want to unlock something already in the game.

 

[Tapio]

Yes the base game is playable, but has less stuff going on.

 

[Nyrael]

The vanilla game is perfectly fine. If you end up liking it enough, you can freely buy the DLC to enhance your gameplay.
DLC being essential is only for games that sucked at release, but CK2 was great at release and even then was already far superior to its prequel (which by itself was a very good game).

 

[anbory]

Well, the base game is sort of playable, but without dlc you will see only about 20-30% of game content.

 

[Evan05]

Their DLC policy is great.

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

I have read that updates to the base game then need DLC to fix. Is this the case and what DLC do I need.

If with fix you men bug fixes, these come in free patches, that get released with the DLC.
You don't require the DLC to get a bug fix.

Patches also include feature changes.

You might confuse this with another game, like Victoria II, which requires the expansions to get the patches which include bug fixes etc.

 

[mburke78]

Their DLC policy is great.

Slightly disagree with that. I've never come across a series of games with so much DLC. Who sells DLC incomplete. Buy the DLC BUT you also need the graphics with that in a content pack. Sorry but a lot of the DLC should of been free like the portraits and units or at least bundled in with proper DLC. It's overpriced and confuses newbies. At present it's £165 for everything which is crazy.

 

[mburke78]

If with fix you men bug fixes, these come in free patches, that get released with the DLC.
You don't require the DLC to get a bug fix.

Patches also include feature changes.

You might confuse this with another game, like Victoria II, which requires the expansions to get the patches which include bug fixes etc.

What I read is that the patches add features to the game that break it and need DLC to sort of balance the game again.

 

[Evan05]

Slightly disagree with that. I've never come across a series of games with so much DLC. Who sells DLC incomplete. Buy the DLC BUT you also need the graphics with that in a content pack. Sorry but a lot of the DLC should of been free like the portraits and units or at least bundled in with proper DLC. It's overpriced and confuses newbies. At present it's £165 for everything which is crazy.

All that optional DLC allows them to continue to put out free patches and updates.

That DLC also allows them to further expand their current game, unlike mindlessly pumping out sequels with minor graphical improvements and no gameplay improvements.

 

[King Anund]

Well, the base game is sort of playable, but without dlc you will see only about 20-30% of game content.

Well you have what you can do in much every game. DLCs only unlock some events, mechanics, and religions taht do not really play that much different to christians. It has all the intrigue, plots and sexual deviation typical of Crusader Kings.
The base game is very good. Even though I have all expansions I sometimes untick them only for the nostalgia of when i started playing CK2 and there were no DLCs. I can tell you that without expansions is very fun, I don't say you really need them unless you want a special mechanic or religion to play with.

 

[mburke78]

All that optional DLC allows them to continue to put out free patches and updates.

That DLC also allows them to further expand their current, unlike mindlessly pumping out sequels with minor graphical improvements and no gameplay improvements.

The game has over 60 bits of DLC. Whilst I agree it's optional and nobody is holding a gun to their head to buy it newbies will be put off. The graphics packs should be bundled with bigger DLC or free. It's like playing Total War game and all the units are the same unless you pay for the sprites or Civilization and have a generic army for everything unless you get the optional cavalry pack. To me it's like buying an unfinished game and being charged to add the graphics back into the game. I can't think of any other developer who does this.

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

What I read is that the patches add features to the game that break it and need DLC to sort of balance the game again.

In short, nothing gets broken, but there are changes that are questionable and maybe were encouraged by the idea to incentivise folks to buy a DLC, but features don't
get broken without a DLC. That's a bit exaggerated and you really shouldn't argue about it if you don't have the game nor know what you talk about.
Just saying.

If you are unhappy that the game is so expensive, even if on sale (66% the last), then say so.
That's okay with me, but then there is nothing for me to discuss in this thread.
I agree the game seems to be a little like a "Horse armour DLC"- nightmare, but it is as it is.
Solution would be to buy the game when it's done and patching is over.

There is no point in discussing this with players of the game when you are not one and i have to suspect this to be a troll/bait thread.
So far bye from my part, cheers.

 

[SolSys]

What I read is that the patches add features to the game that break it and need DLC to sort of balance the game again.

In general, the games are being balanced with all content in mind. That being said, the disparity between additional content and lack thereof is minute.

The game has over 60 bits of DLC. Whilst I agree it's optional and nobody is holding a gun to their head to buy it newbies will be put off. The graphics packs should be bundled with bigger DLC or free. It's like playing Total War game and all the units are the same unless you pay for the sprites or Civilization and have a generic army for everything unless you get the optional cavalry pack. To me it's like buying an unfinished game and being charged to add the graphics back into the game. I can't think of any other developer who does this.

Really? You can't think of another developer who does it even though you just gave an example of another game which does it?

As for your general complain about the wall of DLCs, it was done originally done to reduce prices of expansions and allow those who wish for it to also have some graphical enhancements [BTW, since it never was part of the original game you aren't "adding it back"]. The problem has been acknowledged and since then the expansions are being released with one big "cosmetic" DLC [instead of several small ones]. Unfortunately, the list will remain big due to old DLCs unless PDX will move to the new Steam bundling scheme.

 

[Nyrael]

Slightly disagree with that. I've never come across a series of games with so much DLC. Who sells DLC incomplete. Buy the DLC BUT you also need the graphics with that in a content pack. Sorry but a lot of the DLC should of been free like the portraits and units or at least bundled in with proper DLC. It's overpriced and confuses newbies. At present it's £165 for everything which is crazy.

Almost every artist in the world now wants to smack you. Only an idiot would work for free and PDS isn't a rich enough company to pay in the place of the players. So no, you can't get this for free.
And if newbies can get confused by something as stupid as the number of DLC, then they have nothing to do playing Grand Strategies.

 

[Czert]

while you can view graphic - faces - dlc as something that should be free, i agree to some part, or that that they should create faces superpack with discount, but hey, face have no effect on gameplay, it just visual, same as in tw if all warriors will have same face.
but it is completly different to tw strategy in which in dlc you simply unlock existing nations/factions with totaly same mechanic. (and can be unlocked easily as some mods show).
or civ one in which pay a lot for added each new one civilization, while in ck you pay to unlock all specific goverments (moslims - sword of islam, merchats republicks . the republic).
and to be honest - you can easily play without all music/faces dlc in ck2 (just immersion will be little smaler), but for mentioned feature dlcs , like sword of islam, od gods....etc you will get way more new gameplay mechanicks than in mentioned ciw/tw series.

 

[mburke78]

In short, nothing gets broken, but there are changes that are questionable and maybe were encouraged by the idea to incentivise folks to buy a DLC, but features don't
get broken without a DLC. That's a bit exaggerated and you really shouldn't argue about it if you don't have the game nor know what you talk about.
Just saying.

If you are unhappy that the game is so expensive, even if on sale (66% the last), then say so.
That's okay with me, but then there is nothing for me to discuss in this thread.
I agree the game seems to be a little like a "Horse armour DLC"- nightmare, but it is as it is.
Solution would be to buy the game when it's done and patching is over.

There is no point in discussing this with players of the game when you are not one and i have to suspect this to be a troll/bait thread.
So far bye from my part, cheers.

If you read my first post you will see I have the game. I'm not baiting anyone and you really need to stop living up to your handle. I wanted to get into this game as I have played other paradox games and I'm not here to slate the company but I can have a respectful opinion.

Yes possibly bad choice with total war as people have complained about the DLC for the new game but it is nowhere are bad as crusader kings. I'm not the only person who thinks this on their latest games. I think it's bonkers for any game to have this much DLC. Look at a newbie wanting to get into the game and having to sift through all that DLC.

Anyway I think my question has been answered so I'm off to sit under my bridge. Thanks everyone for your answers.

 

[mburke78]

while you can view graphic - faces - dlc as something that should be free, i agree to some part, or that that they should create faces superpack with discount, but hey, face have no effect on gameplay, it just visual, same as in tw if all warriors will have same face.
but it is completly different to tw strategy in which in dlc you simply unlock existing nations/factions with totaly same mechanic. (and can be unlocked easily as some mods show).
or civ one in which pay a lot for added each new one civilization, while in ck you pay to unlock all specific goverments (moslims - sword of islam, merchats republicks . the republic).
and to be honest - you can easily play without all music/faces dlc in ck2 (just immersion will be little smaler), but for mentioned feature dlcs , like sword of islam, od gods....etc you will get way more new gameplay mechanicks than in mentioned ciw/tw series.

That was sort of what I wanted is if any of the feature DLC Is needed. I was going to buy Europa IV but read a few things like an update messed up parts of the game and you had to buy some DLC to fix it or balance the game again. I was reading various things on the same line about crusader kings. Again I am not wanting to get into a arguementwith anyone so I think I will stick to the base game and possibly wait and buy a complete edition if one comes out.

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

If you read my first post you will see I have the game.

I didn't and i don't and you neither say nor hint at this.

"Paradox games are really hard to understand with all the DLC and updates to the basic game" does not do, if that is what you are refering too.
Good to know that you have the game.

You actualy asked
"Is the vanilla game ok to play on it's own or again do I need DLC"

That's implying that you don't have it.

I'm not baiting anyone and you really need to stop living up to your handle.

"Living up to my handle". I didn't know that one. Sounds american to me.
Another phrase for my dictionary.

If it appeases you, i would probably also now wait unil development is finished, but i bought it on pre-release and followed since then, despite all.

But you say you have the base game ?
Well then maybe be more clear, say which DLC you think does what and thus breaks the game for you without it.
The opening post suggests to me you can't, because you haven't realy played the game yet.
If that's not the case, more details are needed, so we can actualy argue.

 

[SolSys]

That was sort of what I wanted is if any of the feature DLC Is needed. I was going to buy Europa IV but read a few things like an update messed up parts of the game and you had to buy some DLC to fix it or balance the game again. I was reading various things on the same line about crusader kings. Again I am not wanting to get into a arguementwith anyone so I think I will stick to the base game and possibly wait and buy a complete edition if one comes out.

There were some times when an expansion caused problems in the base game but it was due to bugs and was fixed in the next patch [there is the expansion patch and the balance patch].

As someone who owns [currently] all the EU4 expansions I can tell you I played the game a lot without any expansions and it wasn't any less entertaining. You'll only notice things if you go the other way around because you get used to expansion stuff.

I'm afraid there won't be a "complete" edition for EU4 in the coming years; maybe with luck they'll update there EU4 07/2014 package to 03/2015 [a couple more expansions].
Aside from that, don't be put off by the price. Unless you're one of those who "must" get things on day 1 you can wait for a frequent sale and get all the expansion 67%-75% off [cosmetic and music you can get by using mods].