Because let's not assume sales will be the same.
There is always a divide between those want immersion and have a high tolerance to complexity as a cost vs those appreciates immersion but prefers simplicity. Even if you wish to entertain the notion that we are all born similar in potential in some way, the divide is still fundamental. Because a major cause for the divide is how many games players have experienced and also how much history and other real life experience that provides inspirations for in-game performance. Experience varies among players with a general divide between new and old players in the genre.
Smooth UI bridges the divide. But there are always features and mechanics that for certainty adds immersion but for certainty deters players due to added complexity. Fuel is such an example. And I also have reservation about the rest of the resource system.
By immersion, I don't mean cosmetic flavor -- perhaps what one would first notice in the more diverse production lines as found in BICE which is closer to history. Although cosmetic flavor still matters. (And I would argue the cosmetic production diversity is the least important changes BICE brings to land combat but instead the production changes bring forth other changes in the game mechanics and game balance which in turns adds significant immersion.)
By immersion, I mean actually functioning gameplay that mirrors a theme of history among the strategic and military situations back in WWII. Up until recently (and I suspect 1.8/1.9 is no different), a French campaign is trivialized after the initial defense. A few versions ago, that defense was truly a challenge (and may be still). What was the player rewarded with after defeating the initial challenge? A trivialized rest of campaign because Germany would run out of manpower. Something in the game mechanics and AI caused the trivialization of French campaign. USSR campaigns faced the same issue. And of course, there is the well known case of trivialized German campaign in Operation Barbarossa. In the German case, mods takes advantage of the existing supply system to make the Operation Barbarossa more playable. The change though arguably makes those mods less approachable. And that illustrates the player divide already even when the same mechanics is tweaked differently -- much less the incorporation of new features and changes to new mechanics.
Yet another simple example is the 80+40 per flank combat width in vanilla HOI4 vs 75 + 25 per flank in BICE. 80 + 40 is probably simpler. The malformed gameplay it creates and the would-be immersion and balance it takes away goes without saying.
Having BICE and the like doesn't mean they are perfect either. They don't solve all cases where a playthrough is trivialized. For example, the current supply system means that by seiging Moscow but not taking it, all remaining USSR troops lose supply. Mods can't change that. The knowledge of that + the occasions when a player naturally finds themselves in a position to do so trivializes a portion of Operation Barbarossa. Trivialized gameplay = reduced immersion. Any improved supply system will bring more immersion if it is able to remedy the various current problems (on top of reflecting more themes of history). But in all likelihood, ready improvements are more complex and less approachable.
Another example of what mods don't fix is the resource system that I complained about here.
Let's not get loss on the point because examples are numerous and easy to find. The point is there are aspects of the game that are not working for players who have no issue quicktly understanding the existing mechanics -- in that they significantly diminish immersion; and because existing mechanics are insufficient in some way. A pre-requisite here is that the players are able to realize those flaws quickly and only afterwards get a diminished experience. However, the game as is already has too much for other players -- like those described in this thread that may be just ok without MTG ship design/refit system and without la Resistance's spy system.
Meanwhile, modding fixes some aspects but not all. Mods are restricted by the base game and by the design intentions of devs. They ofc also suffer from the lack of QA.
HENCE, the whole idea of dual track design from the get go. Design to the fullest. Offer a simplified version. For the designs that can't make into base game even with the "full" version, leave them as moddable features.
The premise is that this approach makes a better game -- thus creates a better experience for the devs, which PDX does care -- and it reaches a greater audience while helping to transition the unitiated players further into the niche, which in turn increases sales down the road.
Actually there are already multiple states to test inherent to the expansion scheme that PDX follows. That is the business model as a whole and will be difficult to change. In PDX games, devs will have their "main" version in mind and focus QA/testing towards that. (Main probably being that with all DLCs.)
They will probably try to make the underlying game as modularized as possible, especially with the AI. But there is a limit already: if an expansion involves a large amount of changes and concurrently they are unable to package all fundamental changes to the free half, they create a major branching point; and an expansion can ofc also be hard to separate from the game without it.
Currently with HOI4, we see a clear attempt to mitigate branching due to the above. That has resulted in DLCs that are more cosmetic than not. And it also probably contributed to how little improvements the game made to game balance and AI relatively speaking.
The point here is a dual track design from the get go does not changes the above. Not better. Not worse.
- 1
- 1
