Dream way of earning money, huh?
Not really. Rigorously testing software is an incredibly boring activity...
I guess I have a concern (Victoria 2 's release)
- Thread starter Duuk
- 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.
Not really. Rigorously testing software is an incredibly boring activity...
To you they seemed integral. Unless they were specific features that were promised by developers before release they were expansion material. If the game was working as the designers intended then it was complete and any additional non-bugfix content in patches is a bonus. Same is true of things like auto-send merchants added in the first expansion to EU3; some people apparently thought it was a major lacking feature compared to EU2 but others hadn't used them in EU2, including Johan.
This isn't really how game development works. The game is complete when the developer adds all the features they think are appropriate for the game. Sometimes, after this, they come up with additional features they think could improve the game, but that doesn't automatically make the previously complete game incomplete. I don't think Paradox was holding back features from Rome, for example. A valid complaint you could make was that the game simply wasn't good enough out of the box, and having to pay more to actually make the game fun wasn't preferable. I don't like the word "incomplete" being thrown around, however. Rome was complete when it was shipped.
One thing I DON'T like about Paradox's expansion policy is that they often contain a ton of bug fixes that never get back-ported to the original game. What ends up happening is that games like Crusader Kings is really buggy without the expansion, and to fix these bugs you have to buy Deus Vult. Now, DV adds lots of other features that make the purchase worth it, but if somebody decided they didn't want the expansion they'd have to deal with some pretty bad bugs that would otherwise be fixed.
Personally, I like the "mini expansions" that Paradox has been doing. I know I'm one of the people that during EU2 said we'd be willing to pay for extra patches IF they added new toys and content.
After all, once the "bug fixing" is done, the game is Complete, whether you think so or not.
Example:
Stuff added in CK's DV expansion and Vicky's Revolution expansion greatly ALTERED gameplay for the better. The game was "complete" at 1.05d and 1.04, with everything "functional". But the expansions made the game better.
What you're alluding to sounds more like Sunflower's 1503 "multiplayer patch" that was promised (including having a GameSpy logo on the box!) but was never released. IE: An integral part of the game (1602 was a great multiplayer game) which was promised, featured on the box and website as a selling point for the game, and never delivered. Paradox has never promised features that don't exist, and features which don't work have always been patched later.
After all, once the "bug fixing" is done, the game is Complete, whether you think so or not.
Example:
Stuff added in CK's DV expansion and Vicky's Revolution expansion greatly ALTERED gameplay for the better. The game was "complete" at 1.05d and 1.04, with everything "functional". But the expansions made the game better.
What you're alluding to sounds more like Sunflower's 1503 "multiplayer patch" that was promised (including having a GameSpy logo on the box!) but was never released. IE: An integral part of the game (1602 was a great multiplayer game) which was promised, featured on the box and website as a selling point for the game, and never delivered. Paradox has never promised features that don't exist, and features which don't work have always been patched later.
You shouldn't charge for features that should have been in the original game.
If you went and bought a Blu Ray DVD player and they didn't include the laser that reads the disc, you'd expect them to fix it for you. If they tried to charge you for it three months later, you'd go ballistic.
Name the missing feature in Rome or EU3 that was that serious. Also, what do you consider the most serious bug in EU3 1.0?
The original Europa Universalis was playable and enjoyable upon release.
The original Europa Universalis was playable and enjoyable upon release.
You know what? I didn't buy EU1 until patch 1.09 or 1.10 with the IGC, so I can't actually comment on that.
I remember EU2...
...and Vicky ( :sob: )
...and CK...
HOI I was a terrible beta for.
Who decides what should have been in the original game, you or the developers?
Are you saying that once they "complete" a game they should never go back and ever add any feature, ever?
Probably whatever they advertise as features in the first place would be those things which are expected to be in the original game, so I guess that means the developers.
I don't think anyone would suggest they can never add new features. Surely they aren't obligated to, but they need to have a finished game working as advertised first.
It would CTD all the time, for one. It's much more stable now, of course. As a matter of fact, I'm playing it at this moment.
Exactly. If you advertise it, put it in there. Don't release it and say "OK, we'll put it in the first patch." To me, if you're working on the first patch before the game is released, you KNOW there's a problem with it.
I understand that there are deadlines from publishers and distributers; but if that's the case, make 1.01 available the day it's released.
Like I said, I don't mean this as a dig at Paradox, but just constructive criticism. That's why I didn't pre-order EU 3 or EU:Rome. I will be ordering Vicky 2, though. I loved the original.
You original statement was about charging for features that "should have been included". Has Paradox ever done that, or was your comment more general than that?
The original Europa Universalis was playable and enjoyable upon release.
The original Europa Universails had some of the most cryptic rules in a thoroughly unidiomatic French-to-English translation requiring more "gentlemen's agreements" than most wargames, but was a lot of fun until someone spilled "beer" on the ROTW map and the cat jumped the table and "unstrategicly redeployed" most of the pieces.
Oddly, I picked EU1 (video game) up because it looked like a port of Empires in Arms, a game I've never managed to play in real life
I played plenty of EU3 1.1 and don't recall any significant number of crashes. There were a few crashbugs fixed in the first couple patches but they were hardly gamebreaking unless you refused to autosave. Of course Johan was exaggerating when saying 'bug-free' since virtually no non-trivial software is bug-free on release; 'bug-free' really means 'bug-free compared to similar software' which I'm pretty sure EU3 was. If it was literally bug-free there would have been no need for patches.
You also haven't given an example of a missing feature that completely broke the games ('DVD player that didn't include the laser') or was advertised and not delivered.
You can't tell me that you thought all of Paradox's games were exactly what was advertised the first time you played them. Some were better than others(EU I, despite the crashes, Victoria, and even EU II), but I was greatly disappoitnted in the HOI series and even EU III at first. EU: Rome was fairly problem free, but it wasn't really playable (outside of Italy) until the user mods came out. You spent most of your time waiting for a colony to grow so that you could colonize the next province.