And what is the problem with the alt-history they? It doesn't affect the historical players cause they give equal attention to both. You can have your cake and the other people can have their cake too. Everyone gets the equal slices.
- 5
- 3
- 1
Need help from logic experts: "Paradox should incorporate alternate history because that is what people buy"
- Thread starter billcorr
- 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.
I agree. Until this thread I did not give much thought to how PDX was reading the tea leaves. Now I cannot help but wonder if they have the right leaves to begin with. As the game drifts away from WW2 sensibilities and toward generic units and map painting, it takes larger leaps of faith to see WW2 in the game. For clarity, to see WW2 in the game I am referring to combat, AI, production, logistics, research, and all the things that made WW2 warfare so interesting that books, movies, and games are still being made about it. Minor countries doing crazy things do not bother me as much as not getting the WW2 physical world in order.
Like @hkrommel said so well,
To me, there is a perception that PDX lacks the resources to produce alt-history and improve the WW2 game world at the same time. Producing both should be possible and preferable. Unfortunately, the perception is that WW2 is losing the fight for PDX's limited resources.
- 4
- 1
I think everyone interested in playing the successor of hoi3 got on the Bandwagon in 2016 already.
Any increase in popularity since is down to alt history and I would wager the WW2 crowd was already in on release.
We can disagree on this, but where are the ww2 buffs that never bought hoi4? Anyone has an idea?
Any increase in popularity since is down to alt history and I would wager the WW2 crowd was already in on release.
We can disagree on this, but where are the ww2 buffs that never bought hoi4? Anyone has an idea?
A lot of the ww2 buffs who are into strategy games but never bought hoi4 are probably playing games with a different focus, like Unity of Command.
- 1
I'm not sure this is the only relevant consideration though. Paradox's business model relies a lot on DLC. If WW2 buffs buy the base game, but don't buy DLC because they are disgruntled, then that's bad for Paradox.
Just buying the original game doesn't mean as much as it used to. Plus, you can bet a lot of those who are dissatisfied are going to think long and hard before purchasing HOI5.
- 1
- 1
I mean, they have limited resources regardless of their decisions. They are doing both historical and non historical for every DLC. Every DLC has done both historical and non historical. They do it based on regions. Spain, France and Portgual for La Resistance.
Its just HOW they do DLC's is that they do regions. So they do both historical and non historical in their work. I dont really see the issue?
You are correct that they do both historical and non historical, but I was trying to emphasize that I meant updating land combat, air combat, naval combat, logistics, movement, terrain, weather, etc... so it feels like WW2 warfare. Minor nations doing plausible to crazy alternatives do not bother me as much as playing the game and feeling like I am using a lot of buttons and decisions just to build two or three generic division types that can ignore much of the physical world as they paint the map.
It seems that such fixes to the game should have been a large part of every DLC. Instead it feels like they have to choose between fixing and improving the game or adding historical and non historical decisions, stories, and focuses. If they had the resources it seems they would do both since making the game better and fixing known issues can increase the life of the game, just like adding the other stuff.
I mean they've done the naval thing, they just haven't done mechanics in a very long time. Spies came out before Land... which was honestly a really odd decision. Thing is, the way they do DLC's just doesn't help much with the mechanics. They like to do things in groups. USA and Japan got better trees along side naval combat. Im hoping Land((Tanks and such)) get an upgrade with Soviet Union, finland and im really hoping Poland.
Then Italy should get the air upgrade((Hopefully))
It sounds like if PDX could address the biggest items that are lacking WWII feel, leave room for the modders to get the little stuff (like naming and localizations), and add alt-history stuff that's purely opt-in or customizable through rules, that most people would be happy.
As for the actual title, and question posed, I have to agree with others who have already chimed in about what happens once the game un-pauses. If you're looking to play an Axis power, chances are you looking for an alt-history outcome/end. The game has to be open to and allow alt-history to unfold to some degree or you're just doing WW2 paint by the numbers or watching a pre-determined game play out. With that perspective, the game mechanics should be designed and implemented to push for the War and the events that happened during the War while modeling the necessary simulation details. At least, in my humble 200 hr experience.
As for the actual title, and question posed, I have to agree with others who have already chimed in about what happens once the game un-pauses. If you're looking to play an Axis power, chances are you looking for an alt-history outcome/end. The game has to be open to and allow alt-history to unfold to some degree or you're just doing WW2 paint by the numbers or watching a pre-determined game play out. With that perspective, the game mechanics should be designed and implemented to push for the War and the events that happened during the War while modeling the necessary simulation details. At least, in my humble 200 hr experience.
- 3
Hahaha, this is true. The AI is bad enough without alt-history, it just goes bone-headed when things don't line up
Hoi games made me a ww2-buff. Many people come in from other Paradox GSG as I did. I think WW2 content can appeal to a lot of people who never showed an interest before.
About the whole historical vs alternate: I think the main issue is that Paradox is artificially increasing the lifespan of the game to sell more DLC, by deliberately holding back content on highly desired and important historical countries (ie Italy, Soviet, Finland, focus on the eastern front or the desert campaign in North Africa as examples).
So the reason Paradox is holding back real history and doing alt-history instead is not a matter of limited ressources, but rather an effort to prolong the DLC lifespan of the game.
- 4
- 1
That is a good question..."how to make an interesting historical strategy game?" The topic deserves a thread of its own to do it justice.
The purpose of this thread is to explore the idea:
"Systematic errors in measuring customer preference might distort the potential market for HoI4."
Just a reminder to the viewers of this thread that the subject is:
"Systematic errors in measuring customer preference might distort the potential market for HoI4."
A discussion about alt-history is an important discussion. It is a topic that would be successful as its own thread.
There appears to be a misunderstanding that this is a thread about the merits of alt-history versus historical game play.
"Systematic errors in measuring customer preference might distort the potential market for HoI4."
A discussion about alt-history is an important discussion. It is a topic that would be successful as its own thread.
There appears to be a misunderstanding that this is a thread about the merits of alt-history versus historical game play.
- 1
We don't have enough hard data on who is buying hoi4, how that data is being collected, or how it's being interpreted to have a reasonable discussion about that topic. It's frankly impossible to discuss if there's errors in how paradox is measuring its market without either being a paradox employee or a psychic. So talking about alt history is both more fun and a better use of our time.
- 7
- 1
Yeah, I agree, without inside information talking about Paradox's decision process is little more than guesswork
- 2
Thanks for getting us back on subject. It is a good subject. I think I am guilty of getting close to the ditches, myself. Sorry.
Previously you brought up "Survivor Bias". This concept opens up a train of thought, for me.
- June 6, 2016 HOI4 vanilla comes out and PDX advertises to the WW2 crowd. In first year,
- attracts 75% WW2 crowd 25% other, mostly grand strategy (GS) genre. I totally made up the percentages.
- many in both groups stop playing because the learning curve is to much.
- December 15th, 2016 TfV comes out.
- June 14th, 2017 DoD come out.
- March 8th, 2018 WtT comes out.
- February 28th, 2019 MtG comes out.
- February 25th, 2020 LR comes out.
- October 15th, 2020 BftB comes out.
In the following six subsequent expansions it might be assumed:
- That many previous purchasers will start playing again, but fewer with each new DLC. It would not be reasonable to assume 100% of previous owners would buy the next DLC and play again.
- That new players, mostly non-WW2 crowd, will notice the advertising and Steam directed nudging in their direction and purchase.
- That in each of the seven market events above that some players cannot get past the learning curve and quit.
- That the number of people sufficiently satisfied with each DLC is not 100%, resulting in a growing number of people with some dissatisfaction with the game. Assuming 90% of the people are happy with each DLC would mean that (90% raised to the sixth power) 47% of people who actually bought the DLCs would have some dissatisfaction. Since 90% is unrealistic, it gives us some evidence that the vast majority of previous players have growing dissatisfaction with the game. This can be assumed because 100% or the previous players did not buy 100% of the DLCs and that they did not have 90% satisfaction each time.
- In the years covered above, new games attract some previous players away from HOI4.
- After four years with the same game, even with DLCs, some previous players burn out and quit playing.
- YouTube memes and YouTube help videos attract new players outside the original targeted audience and do it much later in the game life cycle.
- The original crowd of June 6th, 2016, was the primary targeted audience.
- This audience, decreases over time due to natural causes above.
- Some, maybe many, of the original audience lost interest due to learning curve, lack of help, etc...
- Dissatisfaction sets in over time over changes, lack of changes, burn out, competition, etc.. with previous audiences. This dissatisfaction would be strongest in the earliest groups as they have experienced the most changes that would effect satisfaction. For example the audience who bought vanilla would have their experience raised to the sixth or seventh power, if they purchased all DLCs, versus those who came in later and enjoyed themselves and experienced fewer changes.
I know I made a lot of assumptions, but they are made only to identify a process that may be occurring. The exact drivers and effects may not be as important as realizing that there may be reason to believe that the original audience is under represented in current trend lines, for natural reasons.
If that is important is another question. My wall is full of words, so maybe someone else can write on theirs.
- 4
- 1
Possibly also worth noting:
June 6, 2016 HOI4 vanilla comes out - after a delay of a year (and many years of development)
February 28th, 2019 MtG comes out - and is given away 'free' to people who bought the mega pack pre-purchase to make up for the weakness of TfV & DoD
February 25th, 2020 LR comes out - and is the first time some of the initial wave of WW2 gamers paid more money for the game (ignoring music & sprite packs)
I still kick myself for missing out on that deal, I had no idea at the time they would expand it to such great value.
HOI4 (like so many paradox games) was the skeletal structure around which more fleshed out DLC could be built. They are about half way through the road map they laid out back in 2017. I can think of no core mechanic that has been added for alt-history. EVERYTHING coded has been to make a WW2 game. The alt-history is just some quick window dressing the designers script onto the outside to make decent bullet points for DLC packs (since nearly everything of note is in the base patch)
And yet the only thing anybody ever talks about is alt-history and how Paradox are somehow doing them wrong.
June 6, 2016 HOI4 vanilla comes out - after a delay of a year (and many years of development)
February 28th, 2019 MtG comes out - and is given away 'free' to people who bought the mega pack pre-purchase to make up for the weakness of TfV & DoD
February 25th, 2020 LR comes out - and is the first time some of the initial wave of WW2 gamers paid more money for the game (ignoring music & sprite packs)
I still kick myself for missing out on that deal, I had no idea at the time they would expand it to such great value.
HOI4 (like so many paradox games) was the skeletal structure around which more fleshed out DLC could be built. They are about half way through the road map they laid out back in 2017. I can think of no core mechanic that has been added for alt-history. EVERYTHING coded has been to make a WW2 game. The alt-history is just some quick window dressing the designers script onto the outside to make decent bullet points for DLC packs (since nearly everything of note is in the base patch)
And yet the only thing anybody ever talks about is alt-history and how Paradox are somehow doing them wrong.
- 4
- 1
I second that. Two things to note:
As you said, mechanics are always ww2 relevant (Sometimes poorly implemented)
And content does not compete with AI, mechanics or other WW2 crunch.
- 3
I'm assuming you both saw OP's request that we stay on topic, so I'm further assuming that these are analyses based on market trends and such rather than on the merits of alt history itself. Regardless, neither of these arguments actually address the core of OP's question, or the more substantive posts that have followed. Further, I don't think these arguments are very strong.
First, mechanics are not WWII-specific so they don't weigh in any particular direction. Fuel would be a thing, WWII or not. Designing warships would be a thing, WWII or not. Espionage would be a thing, WWII or not. These mechanics fit as readily in a 1936-1948 sandbox as they do in a WWII game, so the development of those mechanics does not speak to which kind of game HOI4 is trying to be. As I discussed before, trying to be more of a sandbox is a mistake for HOI4 because then Kaiserreich and similar mods become substitutes in an economic sense, rather than complements, and HOI4 increasingly becomes a mod platform like Mount & Blade rather than a game unto itself. Instead it would seem wiser to offer a distinct experience, but the mechanics don't do that for the most part because they serve their purpose in any game set during this time period.
Second, content absolutely does compete at some level with other aspects of game development. Every unit of currency spent on content design is not spent on something else, so that argument is simply false at a basic level. Yes, there are issues of diminishing returns but none of us here on the forums have the slightest idea of where that line is, so making the bald assertion that "content does not compete" is absurd without greater insight.
In addition, focus trees and alt history are not so simply set aside as "content design." Focus trees are the primary mechanic of the game. They give direction to all other mechanics, the AI, and the player. They're the lynchpin that ties the whole game together. On the AI front specifically, each new alt history branch multiplies the amount of possible world states the AI needs to know how to react to. An AI democratic France facing a reunited Central Powers will need to prioritize different things than an AI democratic France facing a Kaiser-ruled Germany allied with Britain, and so on for each country that would interact with these countries. In turn, each country that interacts with France will need to take into account France's new direction, and so on. It is clearly not as simple as compartmentalizing each aspect of the game's design.
- 6
- 1
While you make sound points, they are not self evident and can be criticized:
That mechanics are like they are, is ww2 specific. I see neither mechanics for Zeppelin or flying saucer aircraft nor power armoured infantry fueled with unobtainium, psychic powers employed by nation leaders ("Führermana"), cyberwar techs or anything else. Sandbox or not, the mechanics fit WW2. They are, as outlined, historically fit and not alt history.
The Argument that content costs money:
First, pdx Invest, they don't spend. And they expect that expenditure on content pays for itself, plus interest.
Second: your reasoning implies that Just throwing enough money at, say, AI issues solves the problems we see with it.
Two things here: the actual bottleneck might be the availability of skilled and fitting staff, for as successful as hoi4 is, why would they not hire available staff? It's an Investment. ROI. I see nothing that suggests they don't have the 100k necessary to hire one.
Then, maybe more staff in that side isn't going to do as much good as we imagine. This is speculative, but perhaps only once the main features are in can AI programming begin in earnest?
I'd bet on the former, through.
- 3