It's time to kill EUIV

[Arrowkill]

If you add up the totals of all the DLC, which is where they continue making their revenue, then it's $115 for full price which is more than double the original price of the game. It's a horrid value for consumers, but an awesome value for the developers. Those that are content with the game often don't want drastic free changes. I won't download the new patch because I am tired of expansion being nerfed. I remember when as Norway (before forts), I was capable of conquering all of Russia, all of England, most of North America, most all of the HRE to include Austria, Some of France, large portions of Italy if not all of it, and still have time to bite into Turkey. My biggest disappointment was not enough time to finish off France, Spain, and work into Asia. Since forts, I tried one play through as Norway and was only able to conquer about 3/4 of that. Granted, I don't like constant micromanagement, so some of that is "player error." If I made myself the most efficient as possible, I could have got a lot more. But the simple fact is that expansion is constantly being nerfed (the exception being The Art of War), and I am tired of it and I'd venture to guess many others are as well.

It really depends on what do you consider to be the challenge of the game. Creating the biggest empire and getting the highest possible score? Or is the challenge having "fair" fights with the AI for a longer period of time? Honestly, in every game I play, I could not stand up to a mass coalition alone until maybe the last 50-100 years (and this varies depending on nation). I need allies up until that point and so long as alliances are necessary to survive, the game still has challenge because those alliances can be broken if not careful. And if you really want more challenge, then you break them on your own.

The answer to your question is dependent upon your viewpoint of how EU4 should play. I personally think achieving the best possible empire, while having fair fights with the AI is the most optimally challenging. In terms of DLC vs. EU5, I pay 15 bucks every few months for an expansion that drives my interest in this game. I would pay 50 dollars for a slightly upgraded version of EU4 engine-wise and some new basic mechanics and redesign on the old system. The point there being is slightly better engine though. The engine update is the primary reason for any sequel or redesign of a game, ESPECIALLY one like EU4. Don't get me wrong, I am sure Eu5 would be awesome, but unless there is a better engine at the forefront, I wouldn't consider it worth my money and would rather them keep releasing DLC to EU4.

 

[Beagá]

All of this comes back to the response Johan gave us basically saying, why would they ever kill a game that shows improvement and increases in income. Most people would not want to spend yet another $50 give or take for EU5 when we are perfectly content with EU4. Ultimately, one thread with 5 pages worth of conflicting responses does not form a large enough group to warrant action on part of Paradox.

We who? I buy stuff from them to see Victoria 3 one day and for Hearts of Iron 4 to be great. EU4 is a mess of features, it´s literally The Blob of games.

I did have good fun with it, but as time went by, specially by Art of War, it was clear the game had one goal: be a DLC source.

Compare this to XCOM 2. In XCOM every single number is interesting and valuable. Here? Well the numbers exist, but they are just... there. Now we have one more, Corruption. And after some extra 3 DLC we will have what?

In other words the increase in complexity (including the number of provinces, which I HATE) isn´t really followed by that much depth, or even strategic purpose or sense of interaction. It alienates players. Despite being not a game about aliens.

 

[Arrowkill]

We who? I buy stuff from them to see Victoria 3 one day and for Hearts of Iron 4 to be great. EU4 is a mess of features, it´s literally The Blob of games.

I did have good fun with it, but as time went by, specially by Art of War, it was clear the game had one goal: be a DLC source.

Compare this to XCOM 2. In XCOM every single number is interesting and valuable. Here? Well the numbers exist, but they are just... there. Now we have one more, Corruption. And after some extra 3 DLC we will have what?

In other words the increase in complexity (including the number of provinces, which I HATE) isn´t really followed by that much depth, or even strategic purpose or sense of interaction. It alienates players. Despite being not a game about aliens.

On average, and I speak across multiple forums despite the fact yesterday Johan on a seperate thread titled (I believe) "The only purpose of alliances in EU4 is to troll the player!!!" about 3-5% of the player base actually uses the forums. That doesn't mean they are all happy, however it does stand to reason that a greater portion of them are. As many have stated before me, this forum is the vocal minority while the silent majority spends their time either playing or not caring enough to wade through a forum.

As for me, I enjoy EU4 as it is, and like I stated above, unless there is enough of an upgrade to their current engine, making EU5 would honestly be a waste of their resources in my opinion. I would honestly have a difficult time justifying the purchase from them simply because, again like I said above, the engine is the driving force to kill a game that is still being developed in lieu of a sequel. That is not to say profit isn't to be taken into account, because at the end of the day, they need to make money to make games and ending a development for a game like EU4 would be a huge hit to their bottom line until EU5 hit the shelf.

The point to be made here is that despite what anybody thinks, including myself, the decision is up to them and they have already stated the game is far to successful and profitable to consider making a new version. Even the engine hasn't really been upgraded all that much since HoI4 is being made off of the same engine. It would by far be the stupidest business decision to make if they were to terminate the development and start on EU5.

 

[Beagá]

I don´t think OP really ordered Johan to stop EU 4 now. The point is more that they should stop and polish what they have, and stop putting more stuff in this Frankenstein.

If the Frankenstein is beyond hope, then... make... make

Victoria 3

 

[Dayledose]

I think the biggest argument against them fixing past features is their DLC policy in itself, DLC's are optional, so why fix part of one DLC that maybe only 1/3 to 1/4 of the players own? PI has caught themselves in a catch 22 with their development policy, yes we get new patches and dlc all the time, but at the same time they keep adding new systems and features. So when something overlaps or cancels out another system in another DLC I'm sure they have to look at how many people actually have the dlc.

So many updates and DLC increases the chance that there will be conflict and things not working right if you don't have everything. It's not cost effective for a company to come back and make sure everything they've implemented works with all combinations of features that might be possible. So while some things may work ( or be worked around) if you have all the DLC some things don't if you're missing say Common Sense or Cossacks.

This leads to the "quality" of features issue that has been voiced on the forums. Yes it would seem if they concentrated more on making things work properly instead of giving new features every 3-6 months, we might have a better game, we might also not get another DLC as the revenue dries up and they can't justify the cost of development. Yet another clamoring for more features ( hence more revenue) would be made and so from a purely business standpoint, why would they do anything other than put out more DLC? Why go back and fix it if it's working (within certain constraints) and you cannot make anymore money off of it?

 

[klingonadmiral]

The time for EU5 is the time the engine can no longer perform well, its that simple.

Then EU4 should be killed the moment Paradox decided they couldn't do return to main menu without restarting the entire game.

 

[Arrowkill]

Then EU4 should be killed the moment Paradox decided they couldn't do return to main menu without restarting the entire game.

That was less of an engine error and more of an optimization to avoid problems that could occur otherwise. From a coding perspective, and from anybody who actively works at fixing computers or similar technology, turning off and on again is the simplest way to reset the state of the OS or in this game, the gamestate, to fix any problems that may have occurred.

 

[Arrowkill]

I don´t think OP really ordered Johan to stop EU 4 now. The point is more that they should stop and polish what they have, and stop putting more stuff in this Frankenstein.

If the Frankenstein is beyond hope, then... make... make

Victoria 3

Now this is something I can get behind. I am perfectly willing to support a patch/DLC/Other that will more cohesively solve the overall problem in the game which could be argued is a lack of cohesion. But if we are going to discuss this, we need to ask some questions to determine how best to go about this.

1. What defines cohesion in the sense of EU4?
2. What in the current game does not cohesively exist with everything else and why does it seem this way?
3. What could be implemented to fix this problem, and would that implementation cause anything else to become less cohesive?
4. Would this implementation be feasible both financially for Paradox, and implementable in the current game? (This would require more of a inward look from a EU4 developer)

I think these are some good questions to get the ball rolling, because if we want to transform this discussion into how can DLC be better implemented to coexist with the current game, then we need to think about what doesn't work, why it doesn't, and how we can fix it so that everything works together.

If you think I have left something out, please feel free to point it out and/or change/add to my list. Let's talk about something productive instead of just yelling back and forth whether EU4 should be killed or not. We have our answer that it won't, so instead let's focus on what the problem is to everybody, and how it could be fixed. Johan has said they look at player feedback. So let's give him something productive to solve what everybody thinks is a problem that is both plausible and reasonable.

Furthermore, if we are going to change the direction of this thread, let's kill this one and start a new one to better define what we are proposing. There is no reason to waste good discussion in a thread that is off topic. It becomes diluted by the title and pages lost in the depths of the forum.

 

[mursolini]

But what if you don't want 100% warscore?

Don`t take 100% warscore.

Or rather, many of the options in the peace deal hurt the other nation but don't add to AE.

So in other words, not only do you take the province or two you want, but you also make them revoke cores, give you 10% of their income, have them transfer their trade power (doubt anyone would want to do that to Bavaria, but you could), force them to give you extra ducats they have lying around, or even force your religion on them if it's different.

Most of those options are temporary. In case of releasing nations, they do hurt them. but it doesn`t make you stronger, since you still have to get vassalage or conquer the new state. And you already paid for war.

Which does make me wonder, why doesn't forcing religion have a negative AE effect on you for nations of that religion? For example, if Austria is Catholic and Bavaria is Protestant and Austria forces Catholicism on Bavaria, shouldn't that upset the entire Protestant world? At the same time, shouldn't it improve your opinion among the Catholic world? I love forcing religion on nations before fully annexing them. Makes it easier in the future when I take them.

While the state may implode, you still have to pick the pieces, which will generate AE, while you must wait for peace treaty, while, again, your resources were already committed, but there is no guarantee you will benefit.

 

[GoguRomania]

I think the current technology and engine wouldn't justify a new Europa Universalis. You'd only have a glorified EU4 with some new features added. Not worth the time and the money. However, a Victoria 3 on this improved Clausewitz - godlike mana!

 

[Ratanka]

paying 15 to improve a game i love where i hav 2k hours in and i cna easy play 2k more seem superior to going the risk with a new game
i totaly disagree
also focus on battle would need an so much improved ai they simply dont have and that isnt easy to develop if it is at all
also not being patient enouhg you should work on this or change genre xD

 

[Ethanol]

Honestly the current system DLC is great even if the prices do seem a bit high sometimes but personally I have 900+ hours so I don't really mind, especially if each DLC adds another 100 hours on average. However I do have trouble getting friends to buy the game because of the long list of dlcs which makes it look really expensive, I would advocate for a permanent price reduction of the base game since it is nearly three years old and maybe one or two of the first DLC's as well.

But the system in itself is great, personally I see it as a gem that get's more polished with each expansion, of course the longer time passes the more difficult it is to get the balance right but still it feels like the game is really becoming complete. And the base game was already really good in itself.

 

[John Locke]

I like the fact that this game is evolving, that instead of forgetting it, developers are making DLCs and patches. Of course the downside is that people who played the vanilla game sometimes do not recognize the baby or dislike some specific changes.

The changes have been numerous but, like many others, I wonder is this fact alone can justify making EUV. Maybe it is more a problem of "what do we put in the patches, what do we offer in the DLCs". Because buying a DLC is a choice, it's an optional content. But patches are not really optional, they are a part of the core game, and EU4 patches have changed the game a lot.

On the other hand, if there is less content in the patches and more in the DLCs, i'm quite sure people will heavily complain. So, it's a conundrum.

It is true that the DLCs are expensive and I know many people (myself included, yeah I know myself) who will wait before getting them. They also seem expensive because a lot of the content that could be DLC material is in fact included in the free patches. We saw that with Mare Nostrum.

Also, it may be a perfectionist thing to want a new game ; some people may overall dislike major patches and DLCs bc they make them feel like the vanilla game they have / had was an unfinished, imperfect, unpolished work. It is again a problem of "what do we put in the patches, what do we put in the DLCs" more than a problem of making a new game or not.

 

[anomanderus]

EUIV has only been around 2.5 years at this point in time, by comparison EU3 was around for 6 years and Victoria 2 has been around since 2010- also 6 years.

There is no good reason to "kill" EUIV at this point.

 

[Beagá]

EUIV has only been around 2.5 years at this point in time, by comparison EU3 was around for 6 years and Victoria 2 has been around since 2010- also 6 years.

There is no good reason to "kill" EUIV at this point.

Not really relevant dates as technically both EU3 and Vicky 2 are "dead" for some years (the bonus patch Vicky 2 got this year doesn´t really count). Their development cycle ended long ago. The question is how much this one deserves.

 

[Amadís de Gaula]

Problem is that watching what you have brought to HOI IV suddenly EU IV seems like 50 years old. I´m really in awe: national Focus, research, politics...
Anyway congrats- as and old time customer and fan I´m really happy sales are going well.
Next time I go to Sweden I might as well bring some spanish wine to celebrate!

 

[UpperLorraine]

I don't see a reason for EU5 just yet but I understand how discouraging it is for people to see a metric ton of DLC and think that most of the game's features are behind a massive, disjointed paywall. Paradox should look into combining some of them for the people who, unlike myself, did not or could not get them upon release; it would be less expensive for those buying them but might encourage more people to buy them, potentially making Paradox more money.

That's just the thing; I simply can't afford to keep up anymore. I've probably dumped a collective $3-400 between CK2 and EUIV and they just keep coming. It's too much, and I don't want to see features greyed out, taunting me for not getting the latest $20 DLC.

 

[Grand Historian]

That's just the thing; I simply can't afford to keep up anymore. I've probably dumped a collective $3-400 between CK2 and EUIV and they just keep coming. It's too much, and I don't want to see features greyed out, taunting me for not getting the latest $20 DLC.

It would be the same with EU5, too. And there's always steam sales, a bit of patience never hurt.

 

[Mann42]

If they're still making money, then obviously they're going to keep doing what they're doing.

I do know that I'm personally so fatigued by the speed and severity of the game updates that I locked my version half a year ago and I have no intention of updating or buying expansions until I hear the game is finally done. Almost every update is filled with side grades that increase complexity without increasing quality, or double dip maluses that pile on second and third layers of negative modifiers on existing negative modifiers.

The game isn't really getting better, it's just changing. If it's the only game you play, and you need something to keep it fresh constantly, then it works. I just play too many different games and don't have the time to relearn a game at a rate faster than I finish one.

That's just my opinion and perspective, though. There are plenty here that play enough that the current "pay like a subscription for side-grade complexity layers" is a functional business model.

 

[UpperLorraine]

It would be the same with EU5, too. And there's always steam sales, a bit of patience never hurt.

But you do agree that their DLC model has gotten out of hand. They don't seem to appreciate that while the gold is rolling in now, a lot of people are getting really burnt out on the continuous cost of their games. Eventually, people (like me) are going to reach points where we're simply not willing to pay $20 for a DLC anymore.