DLC policy of paradox is kinda sad.

[LeKaiser]

thing is that you and people like you can stick the whole *trolling* concept up your you know what. the fact that i hate paying for things which should have been in game in the first place makes me live under the bridge and eat humans?

It certainly doesn't make you a troll by any means.

There's also no reason for any side to be arguing about whether or not an EA comparison is valid here.

What this comes down to is a difference in whether we expect this stuff to be in the core game or not. Those of us who don't expect or care about the presence of (for example) individual unit sprites in the core game likewise are okay with them being paid DLC. What I don't quite understand is why people think this stuff should have already been in the game in the first place. Traditionally, Paradox games didn't have a great variety of different unit sprites. I remember in HOI2 there was one sprite for all infantry ever - be they motorized, mechanized, or just plain infantry - and then four (five?) different sprites for armor depending on the country. There were like two bombers and one fighter. This seemed to be pretty much okay because we weren't really playing the game to look at the pretty sprites. People who wanted more modded it in.

Then HOI3, CK2 and EU4 come along and Paradox releases additional sprites as paid DLC and all of a sudden there are complaints that Paradox should have included this stuff in the core game and is extorting its fans by not doing so. I am sure that if Paradox had stuck to its previous ways and just not made additional sprites at all, people would not be making threads demanding that Paradox patch in extra sprites. The dissatisfaction, and the expectation of having this content only exists as a result of Paradox having produced this extra content in the first place. So this stuff all really is extra content beyond what we've come to expect from Paradox in its grand strategy games. It's there if you want it, and to those people to whom some nice music or cool sprites are worth a few extra bucks, go buy it. For everyone else, it's hard to argue the game on its own, without bonus sprites, is not worth $40, at least to those of us that have dumped 50, 100, or more hours into it (and many have spent much much more). I know that personally at least, I get far more hours of enjoyment out of a Paradox game per dollar I spend than any other developer out there and if I want some cosmetic improvements I'm willing to pay a few extra bucks to a company I value.

 

[unmerged(465279)]

Okay, 4 years then. Look up the history of Vicky 2 and HoI3, and their DLCs. Read some dev diaries. You're still wrong.

They weren't unplayably bad. Not worse than EU4 since release. This only makes things worse, as now we have the same quality of Paradox releases but with the focus shifted towards making money rather than fixing the game, because they know people will buy it anyway. The last patch of CK2 broke the game for me, I can't have fun with it anymore due to the oversight of not having fixed event troop numbers after lowering retinues. EU4 is average, but instead of it becoming better we are getting expansions. It's pay up first, enjoy the rest of your game later.

 

[TheChronoMaster]

They weren't unplayably bad. Not worse than EU4 since release. This only makes things worse, as now we have the same quality of Paradox releases but with the focus shifted towards making money rather than fixing the game, because they know people will buy it anyway. The last patch of CK2 broke the game for me, I can't have fun with it anymore due to the oversight of not having fixed event troop numbers after lowering retinues. EU4 is average, but instead of it becoming better we are getting expansions. It's pay up first, enjoy the rest of your game later.

HOI3 was 100% worse than EU4 at and since release, as was Vicky 2. To say otherwise is delusional -- Vicky 2 didn't actually have a means in place for anyone other than the majors to really expand, and god forbid you tried to play an unciv. Also the economy was FUBAR.

Also, they fixed Event Troop Numbers in the patch right after that. Check the forum more often -- it was less than a month later.

- Significantly reduced the amount of event-spawned troops across the board to better reflect the rebalanced levies

Also, I would argue that EU3 was kind of dumb until HTTT, but that's personal opinion more than anything -- and that was 3 expansions in.

 

[TheBloke]

It seems like kind of a win-win, no?

Only if you insist at looking at it logically.

 

[S0ny B1ack]

They weren't unplayably bad. Not worse than EU4 since release. This only makes things worse, as now we have the same quality of Paradox releases but with the focus shifted towards making money rather than fixing the game, because they know people will buy it anyway. The last patch of CK2 broke the game for me, I can't have fun with it anymore due to the oversight of not having fixed event troop numbers after lowering retinues. EU4 is average, but instead of it becoming better we are getting expansions. It's pay up first, enjoy the rest of your game later.

AFAIK HOI3 was unplayable - at least for me until the second patch, whenevr the USSR would join the war the game became extremely slow (a ingame day took almost half an hour (I measured it once...))

 

[unmerged(465279)]

HOI3 was 100% worse than EU4 at and since release, as was Vicky 2. To say otherwise is delusional -- Vicky 2 didn't actually have a means in place for anyone other than the majors to really expand, and god forbid you tried to play an unciv. Also the economy was FUBAR.

Also, they fixed Event Troop Numbers in the patch right after that. Check the forum more often -- it was less than a month later.

- Significantly reduced the amount of event-spawned troops across the board to better reflect the rebalanced levies

Little under a month after the expansion hit. First they want my money, then they will look if they can't fix the game they broke.

Expansion came out nov 18, it wasn't fixed until dec 16.

That's an awful long time for an issue that should have been picked up during QA.

 

[LeKaiser]

Only if you insist at looking at it logically.

My bad.

 

[TheChronoMaster]

Little under a month after the expansion hit. First they want my money, then they will look if they can't fix the game they broke.

Expansion came out nov 18, it wasn't fixed until dec 16.

That's an awful long time for an issue that should have been picked up during QA.

You do know the previous patch was available the whole time, right? Even for steam users?

 

[Vishaing]

how long did it took to make them? few days at most?

As someone who has worked professionally as a Graphic Designer I want to take a few moments to respond to this statement.

I Despise You.

Your comment is simultaneously one of the most laughably ignorant and hideously entitled statements I have ever read on this forum. It reeks of total ignorance of the amount of work that goes into both the actual graphical elements of the portrait system, and the underlying code work. It shows no regard for how difficult it is to make sure the various graphical elements play well together without simple issues like clipping elements, nor the amount of time that needs to be spent ensuring that the elements do not suffer from more subtle aesthetic issues while simultaneously avoiding the Uncanny Valley. It displays a breathtaking lack of understanding of how difficult it is to then chop that portrait system into pieces so that it can work well in a genetic system that allows for familial traits to be preserved while also allowing radical departures as distant matches are made.

But more fundamentally, it is soaked in the entitlement of someone who doesn't realize, or does not want to accept, that Artists are People who Create a Product that requires skill, talent and time just like any other trade or profession. Just because you know absolutely nothing whatsoever about how they work does not mean you are entitled to their work for free.

Good Day Sir.

 

[unmerged(465279)]

You do know the previous patch was available the whole time, right? Even for steam users?

Now you're just nitpicking and deviating from the original discussion.

 

[tenshi]

As someone who has worked professionally as a Graphic Designer I want to take a few moments to respond to this statement.

I Despise You.

Your comment is simultaneously one of the most laughably ignorant and hideously entitled statements I have ever read on this forum. It reeks of total ignorance of the amount of work that goes into both the actual graphical elements of the portrait system, and the underlying code work. It shows no regard for how difficult it is to make sure the various graphical elements play well together without simple issues like clipping elements, nor the amount of time that needs to be spent ensuring that the elements do not suffer from more subtle aesthetic issues while simultaneously avoiding the Uncanny Valley. It displays a breathtaking lack of understanding of how difficult it is to then chop that portrait system into pieces so that it can work well in a genetic system that allows for familial traits to be preserved while also allowing radical departures as distant matches are made.

But more fundamentally, it is soaked in the entitlement of someone who doesn't realize, or does not want to accept, that Artists are People who Create a Product that requires skill, talent and time just like any other trade or profession. Just because you know absolutely nothing whatsoever about how they work does not mean you are entitled to their work for free.

Good Day Sir.

i will take a few moments to remind you that we are not talking 3D models here, but simple 2D potrait.
But im not here to discuss what is art and what is not.


Good Day to you too sir.

 

[TheBloke]

i will take a few moments to remind you that we are not talking 3D models here, but simple 2D potrait.

Or, "Despite myself not being a graphic designer, I do however feel confident that I know more about the process of creating and selling that product than you, who are a Graphic Designer. I've read the Wikipedia page on Photoshop several times, and I hope one day my parents will buy it for me. In the meantime, I've used MS Paint and it was really easy. I therefore feel confident in my position."

But im not here to discuss what is art and what is not.

Or, "Whoops, I didn't realise when I made statements that I might have to justify them. I will withdraw now, for my parents have promised to buy me a book on debating and as soon as I've read it I'll come back to tell you why you're wrong."

 

[tenshi]

Or, "Despite myself not being a graphic designer, I do however feel confident that I know more about the process of creating and selling that product than you, who are a Graphic Designer. I've read the Wikipedia page on Photoshop several times, and I hope one day my parents will buy it for me. In the meantime, I've used MS Paint and it was really easy. I therefore feel confident in my position."



Or, "Whoops, I didn't realise when I made statements that I might have to justify them. I will withdraw now, for my parents have promised to buy me a book on debating and as soon as I've read it I'll come back to tell you why you're wrong."

You assume you know me. You think of yourself as superior being over those *kids* like me on the internet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLrpBLDWyCI

 

[mcmanusaur]

I don't think the OP is trolling, but his post is useless. On a theoretical, collective ground, I think he's right. I despise this consumistic approach as well. On a practical, individualistic ground, his complaint is useless because every single perosn is free to choose and buy what he wants to. Seeing as individualism dominates, one cannot but adapt to it, buying the DLCs he likes and just be content with what he's got.

I think this is generally accurate. Since this thread is pretty one-sided at the moment, I'll try to offer a slightly different perspective.

Hating DLC has definitely been the bandwagon attitude for a while, but now it seems we have a wave of reactionary "DLC is actually objectively good for all parties involved" sentiment. If the DLC model works for you, then good for you, but don't expect that everyone should appreciate it. I guess my thing is that the DLC model would never fly to such an extent with other media, and hypothetically speaking I don't see how games should be different. That said, I can see how it works better from a limited budget to release a game in pieces, but I think some developers/publishers could be more forthright about that (and certainly BF4's model is inexcusable IMHO).

Personally I can't see myself ever individually buying the cosmetic DLC's, and at the moment I'd prefer more global system improvements than the apparent emphasis on regional flavor, so I'm not entirely crazy about Paradox's DLC philosophy, but that's just me.

 

[James The 1st]

Waldetoft is a very good composer, I want to give him money.
The guy has to be paid, he can't just work for nothing.

 

[Pornek]

I like it, saved me money and Im listening to different music anyways. Also im never zoomed in enough to see a difference in the units anyways.

 

[Beamed]

so having additional portraits which should have been in game in first place at the cost of almost 20$ is okay? how long did it took to make them? few days at most?

This is weird. Did you prefer when you would have to pay $30 every few months to be able to get new patches? Paradox's current DLC policy is what every gamer should praise; whatever you want, you can get, but you only have to buy what you want to play. What... what are you arguing with?

 

[Fryslan0109]

I'm with all the others who ask for more DLCs. More, Paradox! Always more!
(if only poor abandoned Vicky 2 could get some love as well)

 

[Beamed]

I'm with all the others who ask for more DLCs. More, Paradox! Always more!
(if only poor abandoned Vicky 2 could get some love as well)

If we can get one more patch to fix the broken combat system I'll be pleased. Maybe tone down some of the lategame rebellions too.

 

[grommile]

This is weird. Did you prefer when you would have to pay $30 every few months to be able to get new patches? Paradox's current DLC policy is what every gamer should praise; whatever you want, you can get, but you only have to buy what you want to play. What... what are you arguing with?

tenshi seems to live in a remarkably fortunate parallel universe, where games were almost always all three of bug-free, feature-complete, and well-balanced at release.

Having been around for most of the history of home computer gaming, I can honestly say that I cannot remember a time when that was the case. The model Paradox have arrived at (pay for the base game; pay for content-expansion DLCs; pay for enhanced cosmetic elements; get balance patches, bug fixes, and partial content-expansion as free-of-charge downloads) is the most desirable commercial video game sales model I believe one can reasonably expect.

It certainly beats the pre-widespread-broadband model of "chuck it over the wall; what, you want bug fixes? buy the expansion. you want bug fixes for that? buy the next expansion. What, you don't like the expansions and just want a bugfixed base game? Tough." and occasional "if enough people write sufficiently angry letters to the publishers a patched version will be released, for which you have to mail off your original install media and wait six weeks for delivery" development models.

So, yes. Granting as an assumption the validity of making money writing video games at all, I see nothing in Paradox's DLC model for EU4 and CK2 that is inferior to what went before.