Need help from logic experts: "Paradox should incorporate alternate history because that is what people buy"

[billcorr]

Systematic errors in measuring customer preference might distort the potential market for HoI4.

They're a lot of restorationist stuff because it sells a lot according to telemetry.

@Dlin369, I'm not picking on you. Your observation helps by starting the conversation about "what is the potential market for HoI4?"

It could well be that the market for an alternate history WW2 game is greater than the market for a non-alternate history WW2 games.

The tricky part is determining how big (or small) the market is for non-alternate history WW2 games.

What, if any, logical fallacies apply to this idea "Paradox game designers design HoI4 to include alternate history because the alt-hx sells"

Some folks may conclude, "It's obvious that people want alternate history games because that is what sells"

Here are some systematic errors that may or may not apply to the "it is what sells" logic:

1. "Volunteer bias"
2. "Self fulfilling prophecy"
3. "Self selection bias"
4. "Survivor bias"
5. "Bandwagon fallacy"

What systematic errors could be applied evaluating the thesis "Paradox should include alternate history to HoI4 because the alt-hx sells" ?

 

[Eh up me duck]

Paradox do a lot of alt-history stuff because there's infinitely more alt-history options than there are historical options. There's only ever one historical route, but there's any number of ways things could have gone.

I struggle to think of reasons to be against alt-history, given that the historical path already exists. How could you possibly want less player choice when your own preferred option is already catered to?

 

[Crispin]

Because it could potentially take away from the historical option. I like hoi4 fine, but it probably never will reach the ww2 immersion I get from hoi2/dh or even hoi3, which for me is a damn shame.

Yeah you could argue including alt history increases revenue which potentially increases historical content. Regardless I'll always prefer an immersive ww2 focused game, like the older ones.

 

[billcorr]

How could you possibly want less player choice when your own preferred option is already catered to?

That could very well be.

If I understand correctly, the idea is that

"Paradox will increase sales by providing more alt history"

... as opposed to the idea

"Paradox will increase sales by not providing alt history scenarios"

The tricky part is sorting all of this out, given the potential logic errors.

 

[billcorr]

Here's an attempt to examine a potential systematic error in the thesis, "Paradox should include alternate history to HoI4 because the alt-hx sells"

(Anyone, feel free to help me out...I don't get to talk about logic much)

"Self selection bias"

It could be that the reason why alt-hx sells is that the customers who enjoy alt-hx have gravitated towards HoI4.
The word on the street is, "Hey! You like alt-history. Check out HoI4. It's chock-full of alternate history."
"Cool! I'll buy it."
And so do 500,000 other alt-history enthusiasts.
These 500,000 customers self-select themselves to participate in HoI4.

Here's a possible predicament...

500,000 customers in the world will buy an alt-history themed WW2 game.
2,000,000 potential customers would buy a non-alt history themed ww2 game.

But the thing is, the 2 million potential customers (who may or may not exist) don't buy the game. They self-select themselves *not* to participate. Thus, (theoretically), HoI4 sales are 75% less than what they possibly could be.

 

[Magnificent Genius]

Here's an attempt to examine a potential systematic error in the thesis, "Paradox should include alternate history to HoI4 because the alt-hx sells"

(Anyone, feel free to help me out...I don't get to talk about logic much)



It could be that the reason why alt-hx sells is that the customers who enjoy alt-hx have gravitated towards HoI4.
The word on the street is, "Hey! You like alt-history. Check out HoI4. It's chock-full of alternate history."
"Cool! I'll buy it."
And so do 500,000 other alt-history enthusiasts.
These 500,000 customers self-select themselves to participate in HoI4.

Here's a possible predicament...

500,000 customers in the world will buy an alt-history themed WW2 game.
2,000,000 potential customers would buy a non-alt history themed ww2 game.

But the thing is, the 2 million potential customers (who may or may not exist) don't buy the game. They self-select themselves *not* to participate. Thus, (theoretically), HoI4 sales are 75% less than what they possibly could be.

Well, as to that last bit, HoI4 is PDX's best selling GSG ever(CK3 isn't a GSG). I know that my default is "unequally rational and emotional" when it comes to logic but I think in this specific case the sales numbers do speak for themselves. Unless you truly do believe that there is some sort of phantom horde of WW2 GSG players who didn't buy any of the previous HoI's that would be drawn in by a fairly rigourous simulation.

Even though I binned CK3 earlier, it further proves the point. They kinda went for a less strict, more life simish type of game and sales blew off the charts.

NOTE: I personally would be okay with a tuning up of mechanics, focus timings and stuff like that for a better WW2 experience. My personal pet peeve is amphibious landings, which are both way too easy and land too many troops.

 

[Dlin369]

Systematic errors in measuring customer preference might distort the potential market for HoI4.



@Dlin369, I'm not picking on you. Your observation helps by starting the conversation about "what is the potential market for HoI4?"

It could well be that the market for an alternate history WW2 game is greater than the market for a non-alternate history WW2 games.

The tricky part is determining how big (or small) the market is for non-alternate history WW2 games.

What, if any, logical fallacies apply to this idea "Paradox game designers design HoI4 to include alternate history because the alt-hx sells"

Some folks may conclude, "It's obvious that people want alternate history games because that is what sells"

Here are some systematic errors that may or may not apply to the "it is what sells" logic:

1. "Volunteer bias"
2. "Self fulfilling prophecy"
3. "Self selection bias"
4. "Survivor bias"
5. "Bandwagon fallacy"

What systematic errors could be applied evaluating the thesis "Paradox should include alternate history to HoI4 because the alt-hx sells" ?

It's true that there is a self-perpetuating cycle where them catering to alt-history grows their alt-history fan audience, however I'd argue that this process was a gradual process where early experiments in alt-history led to a big crowd of alt-history fans that PDX tries to tap into for a profit

1.) Focus trees -> The first focus trees don't have many alt-history focuses, and I believe that alt history, at least to the extent it is here today wasn't planned. Granted, the focus trees at release were barebones, but alt history didn't see a huge amount of attention or focus. Germany had several options for how to expand, but no ability to change ideology. USSR could swap Trotsky with Stalin. The only main alt history at the time was making your own faction and France could change ideology.

2.) Modding - However, focus trees allow for an easy way to tell "HOI4 stories", and I think it naturally appealed to the modding community. Looking at the big mods, a lot of the biggest ones on the HOI4 workshop have alt-history content. Most famously there is Kaiserreich, even some of the mods about WW2 incorporate alt-history elements because there is a significant appeal to it. In addition, the relative ease of learning how to mod HOI4's focus trees and events (modding is a lot of work no doubt but arguably learning the fundamentals are pretty easy) means HOI4 created a very vibrant Steam-workshop that the devs frequently compliment and take note of

3.) Telemetry - the first large scale use of alt-history in my opinion is Death or Dishonor. Together for Victory had the ability for countries to shift ideologies, but their countries were fairly isolated and only South Africa had the ability to combine alt-history with fun HOI4 gameplay (conquer and war thanks to their anti-colonialist crusade). DoD had 4 countries in close proximity able to play off one another, and get into local alt-history regional wars.

4.) Hungary was the big turning point with regards to the original conversation about reactionary/restorationist movements. Austria-Hungary was very popular from what I remember (I'd have to search back for the telemetry data they released), it restored a popular and iconic empire and gave them a bunch of wargoals and an achivement to more or less war with all factions in the world.

5.) After alt-history paths became increasingly prominent, particularly non-aligned (Monarchist Germany, Qing China, the Japan alt-history paths), we see the community start to divide more and more about what the "core" of HOI4 should be. Some believe alt-history freshens the game, some believe that it detracts from the historical conflict. I think PDX now tries to appeal to both, and it works because it gives them the biggest audience possible and increases their sales

 

[Zauberelefant]

I Roll with with magnificent genius here.
Actually, we cannot know about the Potential of a strictly historic hoi4, but since it's the most succesful installment of the series and after 4 years people are still buying DLC by the million, conventional Marketing wisdom tells you that works, financially.

 

[ThePHD]

You can't really prove that an historical HOI would be more successful than what we have now. I personally can't see how a purely historical game would ever be more successful simply due to it having less replayability. People would just get bored faster due to less options. Sticking a bunch of crazy alt history paths into the game adds countless scenarios which can play out in the game. The bottom line is that HOI4 is Paradox's most popular game with an average player count that continues to rise every month. All while their other games fall off over time. The HOI4 team is clearly doing something right. The game is a clear success and that's really what matters. They aren't going to change a winning formula based on maybes.

 

[billcorr]

Bandwagon Fallacy

The bandwagon fallacy assumes something is true (or right, or good) because other people agree with it. A couple different fallacies can be included under this label, since they are often indistinguishable in practice. The ad populum fallacy (Lat., “to the populous/popularity”) is when something is accepted because it’s popular. The concensus gentium (Lat., “consensus of the people”) is when something is accepted because the relevant authorities or people all agree on it. The status appeal fallacy is when something is considered true, right, or good because it has the reputation of lending status, making you look “popular,” “important,” or “successful.”


https: //thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/

 

[billcorr]

It's true that there is a self-perpetuating cycle where them catering to alt-history grows their alt-history fan audience, however I'd argue that this process was a gradual process where early experiments in alt-history led to a big crowd of alt-history fans that PDX tries to tap into for a profit

Good explanation.

It calls to mind a focus tree that the HoI4 designers might very well be following:

Root focus: Decide to make a WW2 themed game

First fork in the game design focus tree =​

Left branch: Choose to emphasize alternative history
Right branch: Choose not to emphasize alternative history


Paradox chose to go Left Branch. ​

 

[Zauberelefant]

Thanks, Bill, but the evident success of hoi4 is not an example of that fallacy. People arguing that, because public opinion here is favourable of alt history, it follows that alt history is the way to go, would be an example.
Basically getting into sect mentality.
But there is a line of reasoning that acknowledges the game's popularity outside of this Community and argues that this would not be expected for the strict history alternative.

 

[Harin]

I suspect that WW2 games draw immediate attention from an audience that has followed the war over years and many games. I doubt that there is an equally large or immersed audience following alternative WW2 history. If that is true, I would assume that HOI4, built and advertised as a WW2 grand strategy game is going to sell much better than a HOI4 built and advertised as a Kasierreich. I think this can be safely assumed as the whole of the WW2 audience is obviously larger than its component slices that would enjoy any of the differentiated alt-history slices.

Even so, there is a limit to how long the WW2 audience will continue to play any WW2 game, before they burn out. Prolonging that burn would require making something new. HOI4 did that with the ability to play many nations. The sheer number of playable nations meant that almost every player had at least a handful they might be interested in playing. What is more, it can be argued that alt-history begins on January 2nd, 1936 of almost every game played, increasing the burn even more.

If most of the above is true, specifically the idea that the whole audience is the sum of all alt-history slices, plus those who do not like alt-history, then no alt-history slice should be able to outsell the WW2 'historical' game.

A step further, if the above is true, completely ignoring the alt-history slices simply because each is to small to compete with the whole would be a mistake if the goal is to prolong the burn. Instead of seeing alt-history slices as smaller or inferior to the whole, it might be beneficial to see the slices as opportunities to prolong the time the game stays viable. If each slice is part of the whole, then each slice should enjoy the historical or light-alt-history version as much as anyone else in the whole. After this enjoyment that slice, along with all others, would burn out. Offering alt-histories may entice specific slices of the whole to continue their enjoyment, thus prolong the burn. It may even be possible to have those who thought they did not like alt-history to experiment and find unexpected enjoyment, thus prolonging the burn even more.

The success of alt-history to prolong the burn could distract or even blind the developers to the danger of eventually modifying the game to the point that it is no longer seen as a WW2 game by the whole. This could lead to the game burning itself out as first those who do not like alt-history stop playing and spreads to other slices as they do not "feel" the WW2 vibe anymore.

If the whole shares much in common with all the slices, then it should be of paramount importance that the game maintain its WW2 roots. This one characteristic is what attracted the whole and all its slices in the first place. It should be protected to get the longest burn. Defining what the WW2 roots are, will be a battle of opinion among developers and players alike.

 

[billcorr]

"Survivor bias"

Here's an attempt to show how "survivor bias" can potentially cause the HoI4 marketing team to [illogically (?)] conclude that "alternative history is popular. Paradox needs to provide even more alternative history in order to increase sales."

Survivor bias: the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that made it past some selection process and overlooking those that did not, typically because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to false conclusions in several different ways. It is a form of selection bias. -- Wikipedia "Survivorship Bias"


Let's say that 100 people bought HoI4.

A percentage -- let's say 45% -- of the customers really like the alternative history aspect of the game. 45 customers continue to play the game. They participate in the forums highlighting the joys of the alt-history features of the game. The other "survivors" agree.

Meanwhile, the other 55 original customers prefer non-alternative history game design. They have moved on to other games such as Strategic Command WW2: World at War and no longer play HoI4. The Paradox marketing team no longer "hears" this population's preferences.

How could "survivor bias" be better explained as a potential systemic error in evaluating customer's preferences for alt-hx (or non-alt-hx) HoI4 game design?

 

[billcorr]

If each slice is part of the whole, then each slice should enjoy the historical or light-alt-history version as much as anyone else in the whole. After this enjoyment that slice, along with all others, would burn out. Offering alt-histories may entice specific slices of the whole to continue their enjoyment, thus prolong the burn. It may even be possible to have those who thought they did not like alt-history to experiment and find unexpected enjoyment, thus prolonging the burn even more.

From a revenue point of view, the above analysis speaks to continued sales and might get shared among the Paradox front office.

Substitute the words "the burn" with "sales"...that'd get Paradox's attention.

paramount importance that the game maintain its WW2 roots. This one characteristic is what attracted the whole and all its slices in the first place. It should be protected to get the longest burn. Defining what the WW2 roots are, will be a battle of opinion among developers and players alike.

Well said.

 

[kimidf]

I agree with the concept of inserting credible alternative routes but I think lately they are falling into danger for wanting to resemble the Kaissereich too much with quite fantastic alternative routes such as recreating byzantium something is totally an implausible madness to the detriment of looking for more credible only to please the fanservice for free without any credible historical basis

 

[TalyonUngol]

I'm an avid Alt-history fanboy. There's no shame in saying that. I think alt-history adds life and replayability to the game while historical gameplay tends to not have such reliability. With most minors not being able to do much of anything, even as a support, it really boils down to a select few nations that do anything.

Once you see it all, you've seen it all and you just move on to the next game. Alt-history and the alt-history focus selector for AI, adds for a ton more. Since they made Germany go Oppose Hitler more often now, that just rapidly boosts up potiential gameplay. They just need to give 3 different options when doing oppose hitler. So if the game selects oppose hitler, then a secondary thing triggers and Germany has to select Holy Roman Empire, Normal Kaiser, and Democracy. That would add for a ton of time. Same thing for America. If they gave America higher chances of going communist or facist, that would add even more.

Where as if you just have every country doing the same thing, every, single, game... it just gets stale after a while. Thats not to say a historical game is boring as I've had a WOrld Conquest historical run just recently as Germany, with doing Plan Z... and it was fun as hell. Of course, thats alt-history right there but I followed everything historically.

Alt-history and history can co-exist. They dont just put in Alt-history and ignore history. Both sides get equal treatment but you have to keep in mind. Historical can only go one way... alt history has more paths... its why Alt-history paths, if you combine them, tend to be longer tthan historical paths.


And theres this arguement about believable Alt-history and fantasy alt-history.

All alt-history is fantasy. Sorry. Germany, unless America and Soviet Union didn't enter the war, would have lost. And thats just trying to stretch how things just to make that arguement work. Its fantasy in every measure.

 

[kimidf]

I'm an avid Alt-history fanboy. There's no shame in saying that. I think alt-history adds life and replayability to the game while historical gameplay tends to not have such reliability. With most minors not being able to do much of anything, even as a support, it really boils down to a select few nations that do anything.

Once you see it all, you've seen it all and you just move on to the next game. Alt-history and the alt-history focus selector for AI, adds for a ton more. Since they made Germany go Oppose Hitler more often now, that just rapidly boosts up potiential gameplay. They just need to give 3 different options when doing oppose hitler. So if the game selects oppose hitler, then a secondary thing triggers and Germany has to select Holy Roman Empire, Normal Kaiser, and Democracy. That would add for a ton of time. Same thing for America. If they gave America higher chances of going communist or facist, that would add even more.

Where as if you just have every country doing the same thing, every, single, game... it just gets stale after a while. Thats not to say a historical game is boring as I've had a WOrld Conquest historical run just recently as Germany, with doing Plan Z... and it was fun as hell. Of course, thats alt-history right there but I followed everything historically.

Alt-history and history can co-exist. They dont just put in Alt-history and ignore history. Both sides get equal treatment but you have to keep in mind. Historical can only go one way... alt history has more paths... its why Alt-history paths, if you combine them, tend to be longer tthan historical paths.


And theres this arguement about believable Alt-history and fantasy alt-history.

All alt-history is fantasy. Sorry. Germany, unless America and Soviet Union didn't enter the war, would have lost. And thats just trying to stretch how things just to make that arguement work. Its fantasy in every measure.

I believe that the plausible alternative history is not the same as the totally fantastic history, for example recreating a new Byzantine empire in which the Greeks or Bulgarians of the mid-30s never or if raised in any way aPolitically plausible concept but a free fanservice that would be historical anachronisms without any sentimental value for these countries. that for example certain chaoists that had a certain likelihood or were very close to actually happen, for example possible German support for an anti-Bolshevik Russian state or support for the creation of semi-independent states in someof those territories like Ukraine.

 

[Roland Traveler]

Good explanation.

It calls to mind a focus tree that the HoI4 designers might very well be following:

Root focus: Decide to make a WW2 themed game​

​

First fork in the game design focus tree =​

​

Left branch: Choose to emphasize alternative history​

Right branch: Choose not to emphasize alternative history​

​

​

Paradox chose to go Left Branch. ​

Do you have any proof for this other than “Paradox has put in AH paths”? Because in practically every nation, the country mechanics (Congress, power struggles, purges, trade control, naval treaties, etc) are based around staying historical, with going ahistorical typically being overcoming mechanics in the short term then abandoning them in the long term. The AH is treated as supplemental, with them mainly being locked behind DLC instead of in the base game. The new game mechanics (fuel, espionage, navy) are based around replicating actual WWII and typically have less care for their AH effects (fuel, for instance, was partially a way to nerf Germany, but Alliance with the Shade Kaiserreich is going to have far less problems with it due to not being at war with the Allies). Even just letting the AI go AH is a setting you have to opt in to, as Historical Focus is the default setting. There is overwhelming evidence that the devs consider the core WWII experience to be the paramount experience with AH being a fun side gig. Saying their inclusion is proof that the devs are focusing more on AH than historical is like saying someone is out to poison you because they have a pet snake.

And by the way, for a supposed “logic expert,” you’re obviously falling for confirmation bias. You want there to be logical errors with “Paradox does AH because it sells more”, so you interpret everything you can to support that. Sales figures? Obviously not taking into account the fan base not buying it because of AH. A lot of people play AH? Obviously the people who favor history moved onto other things. Your determination to interpret everything as “Paradox is wrong” fundamentally undermines any attempt to be logical about this because your argument starts with the premise that it’s right to and therefore cannot be wrong.

 

[Magnificent Genius]

And by the way, for a supposed “logic expert,” you’re obviously falling for confirmation bias. You want there to be logical errors with “Paradox does AH because it sells more”, so you interpret everything you can to support that. Sales figures? Obviously not taking into account the fan base not buying it because of AH. A lot of people play AH? Obviously the people who favor history moved onto other things. Your determination to interpret everything as “Paradox is wrong” fundamentally undermines any attempt to be logical about this because your argument starts with the premise that it’s right to and therefore cannot be wrong.

I had spent ten minutes trying to find the words to say this had written ten paragraphs. Thanks for saying it much more concisely than I was going to.