• 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.
In hindsight we might have been a little more open about this process
Yes, you should have. Trying to be secretive about info that will be clear from the files as soon as the patch goes out accomplishes nothing except making people trust you less. Open communication and proper expectation management are far more important for your long-term success than secret experiments.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Hi everyone! Pontus, team lead for EU4 marketing supporting Björn real quick. Since “the cat is out of the bag” me and the team wanted to clarify a few things before speculations are running to rampant and are established as truths:


- Yes, we want to test a subscription model for EU4.

We have heard for years from existing and potential new players that the cost of getting the game and all expansions all at once is quite expensive (and might be discouraging for completely new EU4 fans), it's been supported for almost 7 years after all. A subscription model has been suggested to us on many occasions, so we thought we'd run a test to see how popular such a service would be.


- No, we are NOT replacing the current model or changing how anything works now. We are simply adding another option.

Expansions and other DLC's, both existing and upcoming, will still be available for purchase as usual for those who prefer that. We will not remove any content from anyone or make future content exclusive to people with a subscription. Nobody will be forced to pay again for content they have already purchased, and you will get to choose if you want to subscribe to get future DLC or continue purchasing the items individually just as you’ve always done.


- The cost of such a service is one of the things we want to decide based on the test.

This will help us assess how the presentation has performed, and help us determine how we should value any subscription offer in the future (if it ends up being a desired feature). This, unfortunately, is why we were so cagey about this experiment.


In hindsight we might have been a little more open about this process -- we know, as our long-time fans, this model may not be aimed at you (again, none of your existing purchases are going to be charged again). We wanted to try and gather data from people who encountered this new idea without prior bias or discussion (makes for a better experiment). That’s why we were keeping things “on the DL,” as the kids say.


That's pretty much all there is to it at this point. A limited group of people will be receiving this offer, and it's entirely up to these people whether or not they want to jump on the offer or not.


Thanks for your keen interest on this topic. You are of course welcome to share your ideas on what you think of such a service with us.

I agree that a subscription model might be a very good option for newcomers and thus for the future health of the game, but only as long as single-purchase DLCs are priced fairly and fully available for everyone. Cosmetics included.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Sorry if what I'm going to say makes little to no sense but here it goes. Why not adopt the model wow has had for ages (about the expansions, not the monthly payment)? It might not be the best approach but here it goes.

Everyone that has vanilla game gets all Expansions (Not Unit Models and Music, but big DLC's you know what I mean) except the last one that has been released. If you want the last expansion then you have to buy it like we normally do, hell even if you want to go for a "premium" price to compensate for everyone that's getting free DLC's. I wouldn't mind it if that meant that the experience would improve vastly.

What I wouldn't understand is paying every month to not get content every month. Or even worse. Not knowing when content is going to come out. Paradox doesn't need to maintain game servers for eu4, neither a CDN for both game downloading nor Workshop content because Steam takes care of all those issues. So what are you paying for exactly each month?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
It's a bad time to try to be pricing this model. You haven't released a major expansion since september 2018, or any paid content since december 2018, and so if we evaluate the yearly cost based on this release schedule, I think a fair price is $0.00 :p You can't evaluate a fair price for this stuff until the development team gets things under control and knows how often *roughly* it will be able to release full expansions. One every 2 years? You can maybe charge $10 a year, at which point the subscription model really isn't even worth considering.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
You can't evaluate a fair price for this stuff until the development team gets things under control and knows how often *roughly* it will be able to release full expansions. One every 2 years? You can maybe charge $10 a year, at which point the subscription model really isn't even worth considering.
What I wouldn't understand is paying every month to not get content every month. Or even worse. Not knowing when content is going to come out. So what are you paying for exactly each month?

Exactly what I was trying to convey.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
We have heard for years from existing and potential new players that the cost of getting the game and all expansions all at once is quite expensive (and might be discouraging for completely new EU4 fans), it's been supported for almost 7 years after all. A subscription model has been suggested to us on many occasions, so we thought we'd run a test to see how popular such a service would be.
Or, you know, you could do what has been suggested to you 100x the amounts of times the subscription model has been, which is to gradually reduce the price of DLCs as time goes on; this not only would encourage the old-timers to buy old expansions too (I've been around for quite some years and refuse to buy the majority of DLCs due to their pricing), but also not have people fork out $PRICE$ dollars just to try out DLCs (which are usually broken at launch, let's face it, and require several months before they become enjoyable, or even plain usable).

That's pretty much all there is to it at this point. A limited group of people will be receiving this offer, and it's entirely up to these people whether or not they want to jump on the offer or not.
Yeah no, you're conveniently avoiding the subscription exclusive content. Mind spending a few words on it?
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
In hindsight we might have been a little more open about this process

What is up with the insistence on being cryptic as of late? It never works, someone always sniffs the changes in the files. Unless the "test" included gauging reactions, but we all know that a terrible reception to it still wouldn't change Paradox's mind. The amount of community outcry it takes to (partially!) revert a marketing decision on Paradox is huge, lest it all gets ignored. Look no further than a whole day of drama for Stellaris mobile recently, or a few years back when Fred West had to personally intervene after a stealth price hike in all games in multiple regions.

Besides, there's a bullet you've been dodging: what's up with the exclusive cosmetic content? Why would players who already own part (or all) of the DLCs ever bother taking the deal if a discount isn't present based on percentage owned on their end?

And, most importantly, why pay monthly fees on content if not only there isn't monthly content, but we're hardly ever told WHEN we're going to get content to begin with?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
It's a bad time to try to be pricing this model. You haven't released a major expansion since september 2018, or any paid content since december 2018, and so if we evaluate the yearly cost based on this release schedule, I think a fair price is $0.00 :p You can't evaluate a fair price for this stuff until the development team gets things under control and knows how often *roughly* it will be able to release full expansions. One every 2 years? You can maybe charge $10 a year, at which point the subscription model really isn't even worth considering.

Actually I would say the opposite. The responses now are probably more representative of what ongoing interest would be rather than spikes at the time of release. And you can keep the test running through the Empire release and see how the data changes.

Also, for people interested in this they presumably don’t have the latest and (not so) greatest, whether it is a week old or a year old doesn’t change that.

As was mentioned, it probably isn’t aimed at the large majority of people on this forum.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Hi everyone! Pontus, team lead for EU4 marketing supporting Björn real quick. Since “the cat is out of the bag” me and the team wanted to clarify a few things before speculations are running to rampant and are established as truths:


- Yes, we want to test a subscription model for EU4.

We have heard for years from existing and potential new players that the cost of getting the game and all expansions all at once is quite expensive (and might be discouraging for completely new EU4 fans), it's been supported for almost 7 years after all. A subscription model has been suggested to us on many occasions, so we thought we'd run a test to see how popular such a service would be.


- No, we are NOT replacing the current model or changing how anything works now. We are simply adding another option.

Expansions and other DLC's, both existing and upcoming, will still be available for purchase as usual for those who prefer that. We will not remove any content from anyone or make future content exclusive to people with a subscription. Nobody will be forced to pay again for content they have already purchased, and you will get to choose if you want to subscribe to get future DLC or continue purchasing the items individually just as you’ve always done.


- The cost of such a service is one of the things we want to decide based on the test.

This will help us assess how the presentation has performed, and help us determine how we should value any subscription offer in the future (if it ends up being a desired feature). This, unfortunately, is why we were so cagey about this experiment.


In hindsight we might have been a little more open about this process -- we know, as our long-time fans, this model may not be aimed at you (again, none of your existing purchases are going to be charged again). We wanted to try and gather data from people who encountered this new idea without prior bias or discussion (makes for a better experiment). That’s why we were keeping things “on the DL,” as the kids say.


That's pretty much all there is to it at this point. A limited group of people will be receiving this offer, and it's entirely up to these people whether or not they want to jump on the offer or not.


Thanks for your keen interest on this topic. You are of course welcome to share your ideas on what you think of such a service with us.

So the idea is that if you wanna see all a game has to offer you can just pay say 20USD and try it out for a month and see if you like it instead of dropping 225USD and find out you are not really into it?

Sounds like a decent compromise between pirating the game to try it and not playing it at all because you can't afford it. I think it would work well as a sort of paid trial period, letting people get a full experience for a time without the need to gut the code to programs a time trial or use a severely out of date demo.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
- Yes, we want to test a subscription model for EU4.

We have heard for years from existing and potential new players that the cost of getting the game and all expansions all at once is quite expensive (and might be discouraging for completely new EU4 fans), it's been supported for almost 7 years after all. A subscription model has been suggested to us on many occasions, so we thought we'd run a test to see how popular such a service would be.

- No, we are NOT replacing the current model or changing how anything works now. We are simply adding another option.

Expansions and other DLC's, both existing and upcoming, will still be available for purchase as usual for those who prefer that. We will not remove any content from anyone or make future content exclusive to people with a subscription. Nobody will be forced to pay again for content they have already purchased, and you will get to choose if you want to subscribe to get future DLC or continue purchasing the items individually just as you’ve always done.

That is quite a relief, as I think the one-time purchase model as currently utilized ought to remain as an option. One of the biggest downsides with subscription model is the fact that some people may not be able to afford adding more monthly bills (something that CBS failed to appreciate in their All-Access subscription thing...). This is especially true for some of us who are unfortunate to have Comcast as our ISP that continually raise the rates and for which we have little good alternatives to (satellite ISP is not exactly reliable when it comes to weather...) in the area.

Additionally, but importantly, the average wages in the U.S., which I imagine is the largest Western market for Paradox, has not really kept up much with the inflation and has been generally stagnant since 1970's if I remember correctly.

All of this means that subscription model is not for everyone. However, if the subscription rate is below $10 per month, then it might be OK. I dunno, depends on whom you ask. At any rate, I think offering the consumers more than one options is a best policy.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Actually I would say the opposite. The responses now are probably more representative of what ongoing interest would be rather than spikes at the time of release. And you can keep the test running through the Empire release and see how the data changes.

Also, for people interested in this they presumably don’t have the latest and (not so) greatest, whether it is a week old or a year old doesn’t change that.

As was mentioned, it probably isn’t aimed at the large majority of people on this forum.
You want to release the subscription model at a "typical" moment in eu4's release cycle if you want to use it to gauge interest, but more importantly you cannot judge how much people will be willing to pay for this model until people know how often releases are going to be coming.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I dont really get why people are so upset over this. Most of us, including me, pay rent for their place, others, including me, also pay for the lease of a car. Why wouldnt i want to pay a subscription for my favorite game? Its the same concept, the world is subscription based, get over it.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
..... it's getting better and better with every new DD published..... :rolleyes:

do I see iceberg on the horizon? :cool: nah, people are people, so why should it be
 
  • 1
Reactions:
It's a bad time to try to be pricing this model. You haven't released a major expansion since september 2018, or any paid content since december 2018, and so if we evaluate the yearly cost based on this release schedule, I think a fair price is $0.00 :p You can't evaluate a fair price for this stuff until the development team gets things under control and knows how often *roughly* it will be able to release full expansions. One every 2 years? You can maybe charge $10 a year, at which point the subscription model really isn't even worth considering.

Hey now! 0$ is unfair! That new laucher totally is worth 120$ a year!
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Wow, when is the BattlePass coming?

A subscription will only work with an active game that receive constant update, or a service that offers a lot of different choice.
With monthly Dev diaries, a series of terrible decision in the last few patches and DLC, now really seems the right time to finally introduce a Gold sink for EU4.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Since they are keeping the classic way DLCs work, I think a way to reconcile it with a subscription-based model could be to make the players progressively "buy" the DLCs they don't own the longer the are in the subscription scheme.

For example, after 3 to 5 months of subscription at, let's say, 10$, a player would own permanently the next expansion on the list. So if he then stops paying the subscription, he could still play with that expansion. And even if he doesn't subscribe, he could still buy the expansion and eventually return to the subscription model.

It would apply to future expansions, so even long-time players could safely switch to the new model, reassured that our subscription money wouldn't be "lost".
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Literally why did this need to be kept under wraps? "Hi guys we're going to try suggesting a subscription model for new players. Don't worry, it's gonna be optional" would have solved everything.

The dev team changed yet the shitty communication skills didn't. Really reliable there, guys.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
Literally why did this need to be kept under wraps? "Hi guys we're going to try suggesting a subscription model for new players. Don't worry, it's gonna be optional" would have solved everything.

The dev team changed yet the shitty communication skills didn't. Really reliable there, guys.

I find it unhelpful to demand clairvoyance/perfection from people. They did a test that required players who didn't know they were being tested. They screwed up said test. They communicated what they were trying to do, what went wrong and gave us the complete information we wanted. All within the same day.

Calling that "bad communication" is just ...wrong. This is a textbook example on how devs should resolve an "upsie".
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I find it unhelpful to demand clairvoyance/perfection from people. They did a test that required players who didn't know they were being tested. They screwed up said test. They communicated what they were trying to do, what went wrong and gave us the complete information we wanted. All within the same day.

Calling that "bad communication" is just ...wrong. This is a textbook example on how devs should resolve an "upsie".
the value of the data was going to be questionable at best anyway, so there really was no need to keep us in the dark. As I've pointed out in my messages, this isn't a typical point in eu4's release cycle (at least, I assume releases will speed up again once the european update is out of the way if they're considering this model) which already throws off both the number of active players and how players will perceive the value of the subscription.

to make things worse, the eu4 twitter account literally tweeted out this at 7pm UTC, before quickly deleting it
upload_2020-1-21_19-23-22.png

I assume this means we'll see the bundle in the next few days, if the deal has already been negotiated, and that they just scheduled the tweet for the wrong day. This will, again, massively throw off any data that they could possible hope to collect.
 
  • 1
Reactions: