The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.
All this anger about a completely hypothetical situation.
Can't you guys channel this energy into a more worthy case? Like the end of the world or such?
There's been 19 pages of discussion as to why subscription isn't a good model for EU4 and several dozen suggestions on other methods to lower the price for entry. Alongside this, there's a humble bundle the sold exceptionally well and demonstrated exactly how well a price drop would be received.I have heard people who think a subscription might be a good model for them to enter the game at this late stage.
Who are you to deny them that option?
Making it for only a single game is awful, you get so little content and the development cycle is so longIt was stated that this whole subscription 'experiment' was specific for the EU bundle now that is has grown so large. It was not meant for long time players, so it would have relatively small impact on the one or two remaining future dlc.
There's been 19 pages of discussion as to why subscription isn't a good model for EU4 and several dozen suggestions on other methods to lower the price for entry. Alongside this, there's a humble bundle the sold exceptionally well and demonstrated exactly how well a price drop would be received.
You're not even trying to make an argument here, just flinging out fallacies.
Except that the 19 pages of discussion are not solely the community coming together and saying "subscription BAD". Some argue that the sky is indeed not falling, some are in favor of the option (myself included).
Boiling the discussion down to only your own side and the "wrong side" is a fallacy as well.
Disagree with the answers all you want, but dont drop into the thread and act like they were never given...
...especially dont use "who are you to say xxx" to attempt to silence criticism of a monitization practice. If the publisher wanted the thread closed, they would have done so already.
I have been in this thread on and off - am I suddenly disqualified for not responding at a regular pace?
He said that some people like the idea, so why does denying them the option take priority due to the fear of a "slippery slope". Your response was "see 19 pages of why this should never be an option". I commented on the fact that this thread is not 19 pages of that sole opinion - it is a discussion between people of multiple points of view, including those of us who would not mind the subscription model in some form.
Someone rebuking your argument and offering their own opinion is not "silencing criticism". Nor is it infringing on the freedom of the press, your first amendment rights or anything like that. It is merely someone disagreeing with you on how they would prefer to purchase a product and the perceived dangers of that preference.
Who are you to deny them that option?
Both of these are not responses to arguments, but attempts to completely shut down criticism. They're not even disagreements with the points given. They're attacks on the ability to even have that discussion in the first place. These are what I referred to when I said that they were attempting to silence criticism.Can't you guys channel this energy into a more worthy case?
If your starting point is that subscription as an option is only a prelude to subscription as the only option, that is one argument. If my starting point is that Paradox can be trusted when they say that normal purchase will always be an option (and the potential backlash will be sufficient deterrent), then the argument of a slippery slope does not outweigh the benefit to me of the added choice. We can have a discussion on whose point of view is more realistic, but having that discussion is not about silencing anything.
If people would be willing to go for a subscription instead of buying everything, why would we stop them?
I only hope that:
1) This won't evolve into the only way to be able to play Paradox games.
2) The cost of this won't get transferred to the ones buying the DLC.
3) I really hope that the potential has been studied well enough, as financial failure would mean very bad news for the continued development of eu4.
If someone is willing to put a gun to their head instead of living, why would we stop them?
Maybe I don't feel like playing the game all the time, and think the dlcs are awful value for money and shit business practice? Great, once a year or so when I feel like playing EU4 I can sub for, what, 5 Euro like someone posted on a screenshot earlier? And play for a whole month instead of buying multiple dlc? I'm game.
So instead of informing people of a better way, instead advicating for a better way, instead of holding a company responcable for their poor choices, instead of making them take responcability for over charging expencive DLCs which are broken on release and offer little content... Instead of all of that, you just want to reward them money. Less money, but still reward them... And you see absolutely nothing wrong with that picture long term, just cause you get to spend less money in the now?
A bit dramatic eh ?
The real point to my mind here is that it's not possible to maintain high quality new content once or twice a year on a 5+ year old game for free. No rentability.
So taking you want another system than DLCs, If i had to make a caricatural statement l would say they have the choice between subscricption or micro-transaction on one side, and no more content after 2 or 3 years of exploitation on the other side.
With that being said it's obvious you can't predict everything's gonna happen from a new sub system and i expressed my concerns earlier. I'm still convinced it's a mistake to think about it on a "one game" level. Should be considered at the "catalog" level.