Experimentation

[springel]

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?

 

[Dagda]

Except the criticism is warranted. Subscription model for 1 non-mmo game is a bit on the scummy side and is a clear indicator for whats on the horizon.

And the problem they're claiming to combat with this 'experiment' was caused by them price gouging EU4's content lack luster DLCs in the first place.

 

[Xdevo]

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?

Can you stop trying to silence criticism with lazy fallacies?
Do you even understand the hypocrisy of posting something like this? If you take such offense to people's criticism, maybe you've got to take your own advice.

 

[springel]

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?

 

[Xdevo]

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?

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.

 

[MrNewVegas]

It 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.

Making it for only a single game is awful, you get so little content and the development cycle is so long

 

[Atalvyr]

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.

 

[Xdevo]

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.

Except that's not what I did. I was responding to them asking why there shouldnt be a subscription service with a "read the thread" response, because we're 19 pages in and that question has been asked and answered several times.

Disagree with the answers all you want, but dont drop into the thread and act like they were never given, and 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.

 

[Lavilledieu]

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.

 

[Konsum]

I bought this game back in 2015 on patch 1.13, and have since bought all DLC up to "Rights of Man" inclusive, on various sales. That is already more money than i have ever spent on any other game. I don't plan on getting all the DLC that i'm missing right now, no matter if by subscribing or on sales (like the humble bundle), because i don't think they are good. But I still enjoy the game, look forward to new patches and I would probably buy EU5 if it came out.
Now i don't think this subscription model is meant to be just for EU4. If Paradox only wanted to make EU4 more accessible to new players (maybe to increase potential EU5 client base), they would have done something else like lowering old dlc prices or integrating them into the base game. If this gets intruduced, it will probably also be there in future games, and the way it was announced i think it might become the "prefered payment method" by means of something like subscription-exclusive content. Otherwise they would have clearly stated the opposite by now, seeing as so many people were pointing that out. And that would be a problem.
I like to pick which DLC I pay for (the ones that i like) and I want to keep those even after I stop paying (i stopped paying because DLC were getting worse, but i still play the game). If in any future games I can't have that because subscription becomes the main payment method, then for me that's a big reason to not pay for these games.

 

[TheChrisD]

Can't you guys channel this energy into a more worthy case? Like the end of the world or such?

Hi there Ooblets developer.

 

[Atalvyr]

Disagree with the answers all you want, but dont drop into the thread and act like they were never given...

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.

...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.

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.

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.

 

[Beagá]

If I´m being experimented upon, then I´d like chocolate as the reward.

 

[hillcf]

The question with subscriptions is at what point does it become cost-effective. That would be very dependent on the nature and age of the game.

Stellaris has a few DLCs, but is heading in the same direction as EU4 and CK2.

HOI4 took a slight difference in making it possible to buy the first few DLCs up front in purchase, but is now in the normal purchase for new DLCs.

Imperator, so far, has been providing free DLCs.

EU4 and CK2 both have a large number of DLCs, some of which relate to the game play and others provide a visual/audio wraparound. CK2 is now at the end of its development and CK3 is coming.

For any of them you have to compare the costs of acquisition vs the length of time you will use it. I have just looked at the costs for EU4 with all of the DLCs. As purchases, that works out £200, with none of the content packs. Of those i have spent £56 and there are another £90 that I have not taken. But I have spread that cost over the last 6 years, and some were bought discounted. If I was a new user wanting to play the game, and guessing that it was likely to be replaced in the next 2-3 years, would I be prepared to pay £200 to £350 up front, or would I prefer a subscription which could give me all of them immediately.

At which point does a subscription become more expensive than acquisition? My guess, if EU5 appears in 3 years time, then a subscription should be, for that length of time, lower than acquisition. From a Paradox view, it is better to get a lower income rather than no income. That could suggest a subscription rate of about £40 to £70 per year, on a basis that Paradox will recover the purchase costs after 5 years, but by which time they will be selling the new game and DLCs.

For new games there is a different view. Paradox would prefer to sell the DLCs and get the money immediately, or have a higher subscription rate. But a customer would want the subscription rate to be lower, so that it would be more cost effective over time. If we assume that games are replaced every 8-10 years, then a subscription rate, from the start, should be higher, in total, than the cost of purchase, but as the game is developed and more DLCs are added then that rate should increase since there will be a shorter period within which it will be valid.

 

[Xdevo]

I have been in this thread on and off - am I suddenly disqualified for not responding at a regular pace?

Are you asking basic questions that have been answered dozens of times in the thread? Reading the thread before you post is basic forum etiquette. If you refuse to read the thread, don't be surprised if someone is annoyed that they've had to answer the same question for the 15th time.

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.

You're putting words in my mouth here. I said there was 19 pages of discussion. Discussing an issue, by definition, requires more than one viewpoint. I never said nor even implied it was solely of just one opinion.

Regarding the slippery slope 'fallacy', the issue was already addressed well by another forum user.

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?

Can't you guys channel this energy into a more worthy case?

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.

Paradox is a big boy and can take criticism; if they didn't think we had the 'right' to disagree with a subscription service, they would have closed the thread already.

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.

I'm fine with having the discussion as to why one should or shouldn't trust a company. But, the person I was responding to was not having that discussion at all. You've changed his point to something very different than what it was.

 

[JiroDyne129]

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?

The answer being that there is a better, more cost efficient, and consumer friendly way and we should educate them to that. And usually when people are too stupid and only effect themselves, we let it go. Only this will NOT just effect them. If the ignorant just pay the Subscription blindly, Paradox will be overjoyed at the idiots and start catering to the stupid wasting their money, instead of to the people actually willing to use their brains and push for more Consumer friendly options.

The people that will just blindly go for $15 a month to play a single player game will actively hurt every other player except those few blind fools like them. Isn't it in our best interest to educate them or actively prevent them from harming everyone else?

^ This is the biggest issue we're having. Having a Subscription is far more damaging than any other option, but people don't understand that and those that do can't make the blind understand how damaging it is. Especially when some of the people KNOW it's damaging, but don't care cause it's simple and easy.

 

[Alerion]

If someone is willing to put a gun to their head instead of living, why would we stop them?

Jesus Christ, get off your high horse and stop acting like everyone who has a different view of the value of subscription services in general, or this specific instance, is some poor uneducated fool you need to save. You "know" it's damaging, perhaps you should employ those far reaching skills as an omniscient oracle to more worthy causes?

The truth is for a lot of people this would be a great value/money proposition depending on the price. 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. And I'm not even a new player, I just despise the dlc policy.

Am I in the minority? Sure. That's why this is an alternative payment option, let the customer decide what they prefer, instead of you "benevolently" choosing for them. Would this become the only option I'd be all for rising a pitchfork and burning some stakes, but as it stands all it is is customer friendly, especially if they considered the ESO model.

 

[JiroDyne129]

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?

 

[Belryuminus]

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.

 

[JiroDyne129]

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.

They can't even do that with overpriced DLC that rare ever goes on sale and never changes price even 5+ years later! It's stupid comment like this that makes me question if you buy DLCs blindly and have no actual idea what Content is in them. It takes 6 months, and hundreds of people buying a $20 DLC, just to make 5 Buttons and a few passive buffs, which are broken for the first 3 months?! Modders make even more content then that, with very few bugs they fix in hours, for free! How can Modders do BETTER for FREE than what actual Devs are doing for a JOB with most likely much higher than Minimum Wage pay 5 days a week for months at a time.

This is why a Subscription won't work, cause they will get steady income, and not have to actually change anything! They won't improve DLCs, they won't come out with them more often, they won't lower the prices! They are just sticking on a Sub, they never mentioned actually CHANGING anything or IMPROVING anything cause there is a Sub. We'll still be getting over priced, shitty DLCs with little content.

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.

What I want, is better Quality DLCs. I would pay Full Priced $20 DLCs, if it was WORTH the $20s. THAT is the biggest Negative about it. Not that the DLCs are expencive, but that they should NOT be that expencive. As people have pointed out, look at the Humble Bundle sale that just happened. Hundreds of people buying the game now, myself included, now that the DLC prices are actually worth the content they have, which is just a few bucks.

As for Prediction, you can make a very highly educated guess, by looking at History, by following logic, and understanding that ultimate, the Company does not give a shit about it's players at all, and hasn't for years, and this 'test' is just to see how much hate and pushback they will get from the Community before forcing the system in place as the only way to play any of their games, old and new, and yes that includes updating the games to force them to play through the Launcher you have to Sign in to continue playing and then restricting access to accounts that don't have a Subscription.

And it wouldn't even be hard for them to set it up.