both, because without the mandate of heaven DLC, Ming can be even more ridiculous.
EU4's recent Steam reviews are now at Mixed with 48% rating. Discuss?
- Thread starter fr0nt1er
- Start date
-
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.
Sorry, although I don't agree with many of these Steam reviews, suggesting the above is more reliable is laughable. I remembered when Civilization 6 & Sim City 5 were released to glowing reviews, but after playing players realised they had been sold a turd, although at least the former has improved a lot since release. Less said about Sim City 5 the better.
Whether it's games or Newegg or Amazon products I always read to get an idea for how many morons are skewing reviews with nonsense.
Sadly everyone doesn't do this but I tend to think the kind of person who just looks at recent reviews on a game this old isn't really the kind of person who would like the game. Certainly possibly not one I'd want in the community. Paradox ofc wants money so anyone who buys the game is good for them.
Sadly everyone doesn't do this but I tend to think the kind of person who just looks at recent reviews on a game this old isn't really the kind of person who would like the game. Certainly possibly not one I'd want in the community. Paradox ofc wants money so anyone who buys the game is good for them.
and i'm sorry too, but then you have been assuming your magazines and websites as independent, while they actually get paid to review a game as good, BEFORE it gets released.
the real independent guys only review release code, and usually are publishing their reviews AFTER a game release due to using only release code and not "gold" or "alpha" code just to publish their review "first". Its those companies that make the others look bad, just by publishing reviews that are in fact just ads.
some magazines and websites are still *really* independent, and dare to write what others don't want to write due to fear of advertisement income loss.
just to give example: my magazine actually predicted no man sky as hype and pinpointed its demise at launch a year before the hyped launch. and they also dare to say virtual reality or kinect would fail, or dare to say a console got released at high price only to see no real good games are published for it in he next two years after.
I have never assumed magazines & websites are independent. I have been playing games since the beginning of the 1980's, and they never have been. The problem has always been most of them are either reliant on advertising revenue, free products to review, & in awe on occasions to the bigger concerns.
The rest of your post I agree with. Yes, you are right there are many people who have always held their independence and values higher than other rewards, but they are in the minority unfortunately, or rather smaller & not so well known.
My answer wasn't directed at you personally or similar individuals, and wish people like you well, but at the mainstream review sites & magazines.
Well, for what it's worth I read negative reviews exclusively. My point is, to even read a review I have to be interested in game, as in consider buying it, so I don't need hype, just what people think is wrong. 
As such positive reviews are kind of useless.
As such positive reviews are kind of useless.
older DLCs need to be merged and price must be reduced or that rating score will be keep getting down. They increased the price of the game recently, they could at least put some of the dlcs in to the base game to justify that.
They could start putting in every changelog since the last DLC came through.
I only dipped in a bit today and there are tons of improvements to be found already.
I only dipped in a bit today and there are tons of improvements to be found already.
For what it's worth, I bought the base game + Star and Crescent DLC when it was on sale(think I paid €20, full price is €45), and I've got over 200 hours on record and nowhere near running out of things to do. I've never felt I needed the other DLCs to make the game playable. Plus even without the DLCs, you get some of the features as free updates. Like Institutions being added in a free patch.
I dont understand the complaining about DLC. Nobody is forcing you to buy them. I dont see any thing wrong with Paradox earning money. Paradox is not a charity organisation.
Have you tried to understand? At all? Because plenty of people have offered explanations for why they are complaining about DLC, so if you still don't understand, that communicates more about you than about the complainers
Yeah, it's no secret that game sites are horrendously un-objective. Most of them rely on advertising revenue from the very games they review, and getting the sort of exclusive early/behind the scenes info they crave is usually tied to giving the game positive coverage.
Personally, I would say that the best way to decide if you want a game is to just check out some Let's Plays on Youtube.
Yeah, the massive DLC price hike is almost certainly a big part of why their review score has gone down so much due to dissatisfaction with their DLC policy.
Yes I understand their reasoning but I dont buy it. They sound like they think Paradox owes them some thing.Have you tried to understand? At all? Because plenty of people have offered explanations for why they are complaining about DLC, so if you still don't understand, that communicates more about you than about the complainers
So when I said I dont understand the I might have worded it wrong.
Some of them do, indeed, just sound like they think Paradox owes them something.
Others have quite valid points about problems with how new content has been apportioned between the DLCs and the accompanying free patches, and about how subsequent free patches have, in some cases, made certain older DLCs basically essential.
For example: The introduction of Institutions in 1.18 provided a fix for the degenerate family of strategies typified by the "Tentacle of Knowledge"... but only if you pay for the Common Sense DLC.
Frankly, people should just stop whining. If you want four years of beneficial extra development, then buy some DLCs cheap on sale. Otherwise, get another EU game every year
well I mean this isn't shocking. You'll see the same thing for apartments, grocery stores, restaurants, etc. where "bang for your buck" factors in. And I think it's perfectly fair to factor in cost for reviewing something, and not just quality in a vacuum.
EU4 in itself is a pretty damn good game. Paradox's game quality is not lacking imo. It's just that the cost barrier and flooding of DLC is irritating a lot of people. At first, I kind of ignored the rumblings. But after having recently purchased Mandate of Heaven, and suddenly wham, Third Rome is on its way, I might just have to wait this stuff out for a while and maybe try to nab a package deal on Steam or Paradox in the future. This is coming from someone who plays Muscovy almost every game too, but the DLC fatigue is starting to kick in.
this doesn't just go for EU4. I'm still on HOI4 vanilla and I might as well keep do likewise on digging in and not purchase fresh DLC until some packaged deals come about.
EU4 in itself is a pretty damn good game. Paradox's game quality is not lacking imo. It's just that the cost barrier and flooding of DLC is irritating a lot of people. At first, I kind of ignored the rumblings. But after having recently purchased Mandate of Heaven, and suddenly wham, Third Rome is on its way, I might just have to wait this stuff out for a while and maybe try to nab a package deal on Steam or Paradox in the future. This is coming from someone who plays Muscovy almost every game too, but the DLC fatigue is starting to kick in.
this doesn't just go for EU4. I'm still on HOI4 vanilla and I might as well keep do likewise on digging in and not purchase fresh DLC until some packaged deals come about.
It wouldn't be as big of a deal if they didn't raise 2-4 years old work that has not been updated a single time a price raise of 50% on many countries. It was basically a massive "screw you" without warning to many players, combined with the fact that it was a few weeks off from a sale - the sale said players were waiting for to buy the DLC "cheap". Turns out the sale prices are now as high as the non-sale original prices, so yay me for having to pay an absurd amount of money for the Immersion Pack...
Just the normal "EU4 DLC policy REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" reviews. Because clearly people being upset with a business strategy affects the overall quality of the game itself.
I'm really beginning to think that Steam needs to nix user reviews, or at least implement VERY HEAVY moderation. I have seen a negative review where the reason given was "No purple clothing." Now, I love purple, it's my favorite color, but that is just insane.
The abuse of user reviews is one of my gaming pet peeves, and I really wish user reviews had to meet minimum standards in order to be accepted.
The abuse of user reviews is one of my gaming pet peeves, and I really wish user reviews had to meet minimum standards in order to be accepted.
The solution is clearly to stop making DLCs and instead release a 60$/€ new version of EU every year. Oh, and also rename it to Call of Europa Universalis. Isn't that what the customers want when you look at the Steam reviews?
Another solution would be to make EU4 FtP and start selling ruler packs. 20$ for a 5/5/5 ruler. 10$ for getting bodyguards for your heir on hunting trips.
Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.
Another solution would be to make EU4 FtP and start selling ruler packs. 20$ for a 5/5/5 ruler. 10$ for getting bodyguards for your heir on hunting trips.
Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.