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

[GrandVezir]

That's not what a logical premise is. At all. "Systematic errors in measuring customer preference might distort the potential market for HoI4" is the initial argument, but there are multiple premises underlying that argument.

A logical argument necessarily includes the definitions of terms. If I claim that "lend-lease was insignificant to the outcome of World War Two," and then use a definition of "lend-lease" that excludes trucks, trains, food, and fuel, my logical conclusions will be flawed by the assumptions of my premise.

...OP didn't do that though? OP clarified and, since OP is human and as prone to miscommunication and imperfect wording as the rest of us, OP has the ability to do that. It's a rather annoying feature of modern society where people refuse to accept clarification. In academic circles and professions where people "do" logic for a living, clarification of an initial argument is welcomed, not held over someone like Damocles' Sword. I suggest you follow that example.

Me: "Okay, fine. My premise is that lend-lease was insignificant. Stop quibbling whether trucks &c. should count, and just address whether the logic of my thesis is sound."

 

[hkrommel]

A logical argument necessarily includes the definitions of terms. If I claim that "lend-lease was insignificant to the outcome of World War Two," and then use a definition of "lend-lease" that excludes trucks, trains, food, and fuel, my logical conclusions will be flawed by the assumptions of my premise.

It depends, but central terms generally need to be defined, yes.

Me: "Okay, fine. My premise is that lend-lease was insignificant. Stop quibbling whether trucks &c. should count, and just address whether the logic of my thesis is sound."

First, and again, that statement is not a premise. That's a claim. The logical premises underlying it would be assumptions as to the nature of significance and similar conceptual matters.

Second, this comparison is incongruous. You've maintained the use of the term "lend-lease" in the argument which must be defined. OP, on the other hand, has not maintained the use of "alternate history" or its variations. If you have an issue with the definition of terms such as "systematic errors," "consumer preference," "potential market," or others, then I would agree that those are on topic.

If you must argue by analogy, make sure it's actually analogous.

 

[BeauNiddle]

That's not what a logical premise is. At all. "Systematic errors in measuring customer preference might distort the potential market for HoI4" is the initial argument, but there are multiple premises underlying that argument.



...OP didn't do that though? OP clarified and, since OP is human and as prone to miscommunication and imperfect wording as the rest of us, OP has the ability to do that. It's a rather annoying feature of modern society where people refuse to accept clarification. In academic circles and professions where people "do" logic for a living, clarification of an initial argument is welcomed, not held over someone like Damocles' Sword. I suggest you follow that example.

The problem is since we don't know how Paradox collect data, what data they have collected, nor how they use it, or any conclusions they have drawn from it the OPs initial argument is as valid as me requesting we debate "how to work out if the invisible pink unicorns in my garden like coconut chocolate?"

Yes there could be thousands of systematic errors in Paradox's plan but since we have basically no information but a few hearsay titbits there is nothing to discuss. The only possible discussion is on what the current DLC release lists means about what Paradox 'supports' and that's the discussion you're trying to cut down.

 

[hkrommel]

The problem is since we don't know how Paradox collect data, what data they have collected, nor how they use it, or any conclusions they have drawn from it the OPs initial argument is as valid as me requesting we debate "how to work out if the invisible pink unicorns in my garden like coconut chocolate?"

Yes there could be thousands of systematic errors in Paradox's plan but since we have basically no information but a few hearsay titbits there is nothing to discuss. The only possible discussion is on what the current DLC release lists means about what Paradox 'supports' and that's the discussion you're trying to cut down.

We know how that data has been repeatedly (and consistently) presented to the players, and that's enough to theorize. Nobody here is pretending to have objective answers, we're just spinning our wheels and theorizing. Some people enjoy that.

As for the second part, if you feel the thread is limited, start your own. OP has invited people to do that if they want to discuss something else.

 

[jumbi]

Might I suggest that this thread be closed and re-opened in the PDS general subforum? It is sounding more like the amended thesis is concerned with how PDS can have systematic errors in measuring consumer preference in general across their games rather than factors specific to HoI4 (alt-history or otherwise), and so it may be of great benefit to discussion of the OP's thesis to have it there without the baggage of the original HoI-centred alt-history formulation of the question. I suggest closing and re-opening rather than moving the thread so that the original thesis and existing posts concerned with HoI4 are not transplanted so as to avoid confusion, though it may still be worthwhile to link to this thread for posterity.

 

[GrandVezir]

If you must argue by analogy, make sure it's actually analogous.

Fair enough.

The thesis of my example is:
"Lend-lease might have been insignificant to the outcome of World War Two."

The implied antithesis is:
"Lend-lease might not have been insignificant to the outcome of World War Two."

The "might have beens" are too wishy-washy. For the sake of the dialectic, replace 'em with "was/was not".

If you have an issue with the definition of terms such as "systematic errors," "consumer preference," "potential market," or others, then I would agree that those are on topic.

Since the "consumer preference" in question is whether or not consumers prefer all the alt-history stuff, my newly revised analogy is now fully analogous.

 

[CMDR_HERNE]

Good to see HOI4 is deferent from HOI3 and I liked HOI3.

 

[Telenil]

Is this thread solely an exercice in logic, or is it connected to the actual choices made by the game developpers regarding alt-history?

If it's the latter, I should mention that Paradox has real data about which branch is picked by the players and how far down the branch they go. The first thing this data told them was that alt-history branches were hugely popular, and that 50% of the games are started with historical focuses off. The devs don't simply "think that alt-history sells" (though there is some evidence of that), they know that players play alt-history a lot - so they give more of that. This is also consistent with the most popular mods in the Workshop: Kaiserreich, Millenium Dawn and the like are filled with sprawling focus trees that have little to no connection to WW2. As opposed to, say, mods that would add more types of historical equipment to produce, or customize equipment stats for individual nations.

 

[Vityviktor]

If only the Alt History content made sense...

 

[Haresus]

Considering HOI4 is probably the most successful Paradox game ever, with the largest active player base (and one that is constantly growing), I think it's hard to criticise the current direction of HOI4 for not being profitable enough or for not attracting a large enough audience.

Sure, there's stuff I don't like (the AI and bugs, mostly), and I don't want Paradox to move away from historical content, but the current balance of historical and alternate history seems to work well for them. No one can prove that Paradox wouldn't make millions more if they made more historical content (or focused on improving core mechanics over adding alternate history content), but we can see with some certainty that the current direction is working. As long as the game is growing and selling, there's very little incentive for Paradox to go in a different direction with HOI4.

We can compare HOI4's popularity with more historical games to get an idea of what customers Paradox is missing out on. The OP used Strategic Command WWII: World at War as an example of a more historical game, but that game has an concurrent player base of about 90 people. Unity of Command was also mentioned, and that is in a similar position when it comes to active numbers. There's the various Gary Grigsby titles, but they're even smaller. Obviously these aren't perfect examples: These are much smaller games made by smaller companies with a smaller following, they don't have the same resources or the ability to market their games to hundreds of thousands of interested buyers (see: the new launcher), but if that's the biggest competition on the historical side of things I don't think Paradox has anything to worry about.

Where is this hypothetical large audience of history-lovers who like grand strategy WW2 games but refuse to buy HOI4 due to its alternate history content?

 

[PARAfel]

I dont understand why some guys here talk about hoi4 being an ''sandbox'' or something like that.

Man you just have one decade (1936-48) to do things, and the game forces you to engage in global war, soo you are locked in these lines, idk but an game that it is locked in this scenario and being forced to do an global war not feels soo sandbox for me...idk maybe i just naive for feel the other way...

 

[billcorr]

Where is this hypothetical large audience of history-lovers who like grand strategy WW2 games but refuse to buy HOI4 due to its alternate history content?

Point taken.

Comparing sales (or daily player count) of HoI4 with other WW2 themed game provides a comparison.

Identifying a control group can help determine if systematic errors in measuring customer preference might [or might not] distort the potential market for HoI4.

 

[Harin]

Where is this hypothetical large audience of history-lovers who like grand strategy WW2 games but refuse to buy HOI4 due to its alternate history content?

I agree with @billcore, this is a good point, but it may be better to take this point with a time line in mind.

"History-lovers who like grand strategy WW2 games" most likely DID buy HOI4. Forgive me, but I am assuming @billcorr and @Haresus are saying the same thing. The WW2 crowd was the audience the game was primarily built for and advertised to. It would be reasonable to assume that this audience were a very large part of the sales HOI4 generated in the beginning. I doubt there is a good argument that the WW2 crowd dodged HOI4.

Even so, this point can dull over time. Those who bought in early, by now have had four years to burn out or become dissatisfied from many hours of play. After four years, some of those who bought in early, may be looking for specific fixes/changes to bring satisfaction to a level that motivates playing again.

PDX probably has a decent idea of how large that crowd is and what it might take to bring them back. "When is it worth it?" may be the bigger question for PDX. This crowd of enthusiasts may have a higher chance of immediately paying full price for a new WW2 grand strategy game than other groups. It is much cheaper to keep customers than to make new ones. Eventually, PDX will want this group of buyers back in the fold to give HOI5 a higher chance of initial success. Letting this group burn out and remain unsatisfied to long does not seem to have many upsides for future sales.