• 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.
I'm genuinely interested in what the plethora of reasons for this to be an atrocious option is.

Also, you (pluralis, not only you Glob) are derailing into flaming. Please respect each others opinions and do not resort to personal attacks. I will start deleting any such posts.
1) DLCs and patches accompanying them have a tendency to have problems lasting for months, meaning that unless there is some very accurate timing with the length of the "allowance period", you may end up with having to renew said period (and hence the payment) for multiple times before you have a functional experience. This is especially true in proximity of vacations.
2) There have been long periods of "content drought", especially for EU4, meaning that, again, you may activate a period only to find that the content needs work which will arrive farther in the future (see point one).
3) The time constraint may force crunches on the developers themselves, resulting in rushed content (typos and balance issues on release are a constant subject of joke among the community, now imagine having to try ironing them out with customers breathing on your necks).
4) Problems external to the dev team; just look at the recent debacle for the new PDX launcher. People have been locked out of their games for weeks, even months, and some still have problems with mods and other annoyances. Said debacle was enough to have a launcher developer publically blow on the community. Now imagine shit you'd be facing if said community was also on a time limit to play the game.
5) It removes product ownership, as oblique as it is through Steam, which is really bad with videogames (you are at the mercy of the company being able to provide the service)
There are surely other reasons others have put out in this thread, but this were the ones which came to mind to me on the spot.
This sounds as a mechanic which could work for people who, as others said, come for a new update/DLC, play a couple games and then leave until the next one. Not so much for the normal clientele, neither the new blood nor the old guard.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't really like the idea of having subscription system for a game that doesn't have monthly fees itself like server hosting. (And I don't want to have this things in EUIV)
But I also agree that the full price of EUIV is something hard to deal with, so why not consider doing something in the midle :
You subscribe to it for a certain price per month, and once you've paid up to the full game price, you own it and your subscription end automatically.
I don't know what to say in case of cancellation but you get the idea :)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
1) DLCs and patches accompanying them have a tendency to have problems lasting for months, meaning that unless there is some very accurate timing with the length of the "allowance period", you may end up with having to renew said period (and hence the payment) for multiple times before you have a functional experience. This is especially true in proximity of vacations.
2) There have been long periods of "content drought", especially for EU4, meaning that, again, you may activate a period only to find that the content needs work which will arrive farther in the future (see point one).
3) The time constraint may force crunches on the developers themselves, resulting in rushed content (typos and balance issues on release are a constant subject of joke among the community, now imagine having to try ironing them out with customers breathing on your necks).
4) Problems external to the dev team; just look at the recent debacle for the new PDX launcher. People have been locked out of their games for weeks, even months, and some still have problems with mods and other annoyances. Said debacle was enough to have a launcher developer publically blow on the community. Now imagine shit you'd be facing if said community was also on a time limit to play the game.
5) It removes product ownership, as oblique as it is through Steam, which is really bad with videogames (you are at the mercy of the company being able to provide the service)
There are surely other reasons others have put out in this thread, but this were the ones which came to mind to me on the spot.
This sounds as a mechanic which could work for people who, as others said, come for a new update/DLC, play a couple games and then leave until the next one. Not so much for the normal clientele, neither the new blood nor the old guard.

As mentioned: The purpose of this is mainly to allow for newer players to be able to get the entire game without having to spay the cost of all expansions at once. Not so much to increase sales of future expansions (although that would of course be a welcome bonus). But I can see your concern. Maybe there needs to be some sort of ability to "freeze" your subscription in eventualities like the ones you describe? Would that improve the situation you think?

I'm feel quite confident saying that the subscription will not cause any extra crunches or time constraints on the developers. If people feel that the subscription is not worth it because new content isn't coming out quickly enough, they should cancel the sub for the time being. Or if my hypothetical example would become a reality: freeze it.

The sad truth is that with digital distribution kind of already means that same level of ownership.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I don't really like the idea of having subscription system for a game that doesn't have monthly fees itself like server hosting. (And I don't want to have this things in EUIV)
But I also agree that the full price of EUIV is something hard to deal with, so why not consider doing something in the midle :
You subscribe to it for a certain price per month, and once you've paid up to the full game price, you own it and your subscription end automatically.
I don't know what to say in case of cancellation but you get the idea :)

An interesting idea. I can't say that we would do that, but interesting nonetheless. I want to point out that this is an initial test to see how a thing like this could work. We are open to adjusting it in a way that we feel works for the environment in which we operate (and is allowed by tech)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
If you think that adding another option to players to obtain the game is a poor idea. Please let us know why.
If you add cosmetic content exclusively available to those who subscribe (which the text in the game files imply), then that is a poor idea. I don't feel I should have to explain why.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
If you add cosmetic content exclusively available to those who subscribe (which the text in the game files imply), then that is a poor idea. I don't feel I should have to explain why.

Opinion noted, thanks for the feedback
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Whats the point of subscription now when you just released Humble Bundle eu4 pack for 17e, that way better way to get in for the new players.

The subscription test has not yet started. We haven't said we are starting a subscription service, only that we are running some tests to see how people react to it. One could argue that showing people a bigger selection would give more data on what people like.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Thanks for the clarification! Please tell me its PDX titles subscription and not just EU4?!

Yeah I dont buy it, we've seen time and time and time again that once a bussiness model is introduced into a game, the game has to be balanced and designed around it, you dont solve an issue by adding ANOTHER set of issues into a game, particularly if its a new monetization scheme.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Yeah I dont buy it, we've seen time and time and time again that once a bussiness model is introduced into a game, the game has to be balanced and designed around it, you dont solve an issue by adding ANOTHER set of issues into a game, particularly if its a new monetization scheme.

Do you mean a new business model? Because I can assure you that pretty much all commercial games have a business model from the start.

And I'm not sure this is such a pivot in our business model. My sincere conviction is that it won't have any effect on either balance or design of the game.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Maybe there needs to be some sort of ability to "freeze" your subscription in eventualities like the ones you describe? Would that improve the situation you think?
The only thing that comes to mind is to count the cumulative amount of time played, but that is so smoky and, frankly, user unfriendly that it would cause even more problems in terms of reception.

As mentioned: The purpose of this is mainly to allow for newer players to be able to get the entire game without having to spay the cost of all expansions at once. Not so much to increase sales of future expansions (although that would of course be a welcome bonus)
The fix for that is the same as it was all those years ago: make DLCs less pricey for every [PERIOD] of time that passes. Someone proposed a 25% slash in price during special sales for every 6 months the content was out, and I think this is a good compromise.

The sad truth is that with digital distribution kind of already means that same level of ownership.
This is still adding another level. If you go around on Steam there are numerous games which people refuse to buy the game due to other DRMs being applied, like need to create an account for the game other than the Steam profile, other intermediate third-party launchers, etc.
And even if the missed sales were not a problem for you, you've just implemented a measure that it's actively turning away people from your game. Sure in this case it would be another option, but A) I don't think "at least you can avoid it" is a good selling point for a mechanic, B) The subscription exclusive content already kind of puts a wrench in that line of reasoning.
I'm fairly certain this would never happen in this case, but don't ever underestimate the level of damage an added level of separation can cause on a game.

I'm feel quite confident saying that the subscription will not cause any extra crunches or time constraints on the developers.
With all due respect, that's not a call they get to make. Again, just look at the launcher debacle, or the "calls for fix" which followed some botched patches launches (the Conclave one is the first that comes to mind). That's not something that depends on the skill of the developer, and sometimes it's something not regarding the game altogether.

If people feel that the subscription is not worth it because new content isn't coming out quickly enough, they should cancel the sub for the time being. Or if my hypothetical example would become a reality: freeze it.
As you said, these problems can be almost fixed with a freezing mechanic, but since I have not seen one suggested so far, and I'm the first one unable to find a solution as well, I can't really consider this a good system on a promise of "I'll talk with the team", sorry.

Also, there is always the looming spectre of this model becoming exclusive rather than optional, which is why there are people who do not like the sound of it.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
cannot launch game after yer patch, experiment seems failed :rolleyes:

That is strange as the changes (that were so nicely presented in this thread too) should really not be able to have that effect on the game. Please visit our support forum or submit a ticket through support.paradoxplaza.com for more help.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
@BjornB @pdx_pdawg FWIW I'm not sure a pure subscription model is the correct approach for a game that doesn't require maintaining a whole bunch of servers like MMORPG.

Assuming you're seeking to address a lack of recurring revenue while also addressing the criticism that buying the game as things stands costs an arm and a leg, simply provide access to new DLCs on a subscription basis.

Make it work so that there's a one-off price for the game itself + one-off price to access existing DLCs + a yearly subscription for DLCs in the coming 12 months. Further, consider making the one-off for DLCs 2x the price of the yearly subscription. That way, there's a strong incentive to subscribe and stay subscribed for as long as you're playing; and if someone decides to interrupt their subscription for a year or longer, that's fine too. FWIW I'd probably buy that in a heart-beat at the right price point (perhaps €10/year?) in spite of owning most DLCs already and not playing that much of late.

Lastly, you absolutely want to keep track of ownership. It should be so that you get to play games and DLCs you've paid for as much as you'd like. This is key IMO if you intend to roll out a successful subscription model. And if you'd like to incentivize existing users to get onboard with subscribing, the Europe release would be a good time to offer anyone with (enough?) prior DLCs a massive discount on the one-off DLC price for having kept the EU4 boat afloat enough for you to figure out how to acquire more new players. If you play this right you can get most if not all old-timers onboard and convert lots of newer players that until now couldn't or didn't want to afford DLCs.

Anyway, my $.02 as a marketer myself. (Feel free to reach out by email if you'd like to discuss this further.)
 
  • 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.
To actually answer your question, because when you're renting a car, no one else can use it. When you're renting a place, no one else can live there (aside from the people you allow).
When you rent a game... you just get a copy of it. Temporarily. It doesn't prevent others from playing it.

This post provides more valid concerns about the subscription model: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/experimentation.1311555/page-6#post-26184143
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The only thing that comes to mind is to count the cumulative amount of time played, but that is so smoky and, frankly, user unfriendly that it would cause even more problems in terms of reception.


The fix for that is the same as it was all those years ago: make DLCs less pricey for every [PERIOD] of time that passes. Someone proposed a 25% slash in price during special sales for every 6 months the content was out, and I think this is a good compromise.


This is still adding another level. If you go around on Steam there are numerous games which people refuse to buy the game due to other DRMs being applied, like need to create an account for the game other than the Steam profile, other intermediate third-party launchers, etc.
And even if the missed sales were not a problem for you, you've just implemented a measure that it's actively turning away people from your game. Sure in this case it would be another option, but A) I don't think "at least you can avoid it" is a good selling point for a mechanic, B) The subscription exclusive content already kind of puts a wrench in that line of reasoning.
I'm fairly certain this would never happen in this case, but don't ever underestimate the level of damage an added level of separation can cause on a game.


With all due respect, that's not a call they get to make. Again, just look at the launcher debacle, or the "calls for fix" which followed some botched patches launches (the Conclave one is the first that comes to mind). That's not something that depends on the skill of the developer, and sometimes it's something not regarding the game altogether.


As you said, these problems can be almost fixed with a freezing mechanic, but since I have not seen one suggested so far, and I'm the first one unable to find a solution as well, I can't really consider this a good system on a promise of "I'll talk with the team", sorry.

Also, there is always the looming spectre of this model becoming exclusive rather than optional, which is why there are people who do not like the sound of it.

I'm not quite sure how to respond to most of this for several reasons, one of which is that I really need to go to bed. Your opinions are noted nonetheless. But I will address the last point at least because it's an easy one. We've said over and over that we have no intention whatsoever to make this anything but optional. I'm not sure how many times more I can say it. If you already own most content there is not any real reason for you to consider this option.


And with this I will end this impromptu Q&A session and head to bed. Hopefully I haven't given you all any reasons to let me wake up to 20+ pages of outrage in the morning. I've been trying to answer your questions to the best of my ability, and I hope that it will be enough for you to be patient for a while and see where it all ends up.

Good night folks. Please feel free to post any constructive feedback you may be having.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
We hope that these experiments do not negatively impact your game experience, but, since updates have the potential to cause unforeseen effects, it is important that you know what is happening.

The negative effect is that the ironman savegame is no longer ani ronman savegame. And you can only switch back to Version 1.28.X and not to 1.29.3

Tomorrow’s patch changes nothing that should affect mod compatibility. Mods that worked on 1.29.3 should work with no problems on 1.29.4.

Nice to know that mods are more importand than ironman runs...
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Do you mean a new business model? Because I can assure you that pretty much all commercial games have a business model from the start.

And I'm not sure this is such a pivot in our business model. My sincere conviction is that it won't have any effect on either balance or design of the game.


BjornB, I hope you can understand with what consumers have experienced in the game industry over recent years why people are very hesitant about any new monetization structure being introduced.

I think Paradox has taken some steps to alleviate issues with their business model recently. Moving Developing provinces and transferring occupations to the base game is one example. Although I really think they should go further (government reforms being a big one that seems to create issues by not being in the base game with how many other mechanics it ties into throughout the game) seeing any improvement with any company right now is good.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I am making this comment to say that I love EUIV and want it to be profitable for PI and fun for people to play. As long as it does not negatively impact the quality of the game, adding new payment methods which some people will prefer, seems like a pure win and I support PI doing what they need to do to keep making great games.
 
  • 1
Reactions: