Next DLC title leaked?

[unmerged(75409)]

I always assume that people with the "TAKE MY MONEY!!!11" opinion are those who get mummy or daddy to buy their games for them. One of the reasons I value Paradox as a business and makes them stand out as game developers is their commitment to fixing problems within their games through patches. The first game i bought was Vicky 2 when it was first released. Every patch felt like a new game they fixed a magnitude of problems and introduced many new features. It's concerning that they now seem to want to squeeze the customer for every last penny by releasing features which should have been in the game or included with major DLC. Mongol faces for example.

The "should have been in base game" argument has been debated about a million times already. I won't waste any more forum bandwidth on that.

It is true that as a paying customer you have a (customary) right to expect patches that fix problems with your product. Just like you have a (customary) right to walk into the store where you bought a suit, and ask them fix any faulty seams that might be coming apart after a week of use. However to keep up the suit analogy, you seem to think that while they fix the faulty seam, you also have a right to ask that they also add a new pocket to your suit. And that they should also exchange the grey buttons for golden ones for free, because you saw them make another suit with golden buttons and you liked that.

Patching is primarily there to fix problems with existing features, not add new ones. Patches 1.03-1.05 fixed a bunch of problems AND were also chock full of new features (de jure drift, revamped crusades, etc), that was nice - but it's not something they are obliged in any way to keep up.

 

[Mikebloke]

YEESSSS

Its Rome 2 as a CKII mod.

 

[Manic Eskimo]

I'm sorry, but the base CK2 is a great game that lives straight up to its name - Crusader Kings. The fact that Paradox is offering DLC doesn't mean anything negative about them. Now, if they tried to kill the modding community, that would be much different.

They have a right to make money. Honestly, I want them to make tons because I love their games. SoI was a great DLC, even if it makes Muslims a bit scary at times. But so long as the base game is enjoyable and complete, that's great. But if they start working on adding features after the release of the base game, they deserve to be paid for that work. Now, if they have it done and put it out as day-one DLC, that's a different issue altogether.

I also want Paradox to do well as a company, as long as they don't lose what makes them special. Delivering a top quality product. Muslims should have been playable in the base game, there is no excuse for that. Mongol faces should have been included in the base game there is no excuse for that. African faces should have been included with SoI. I'm not complaining about DLC in general, in fact I want more DLC but I only want major improvements and when those major improvements come I don't want to purchase them to find out that I have to fork out for extras if I want the full experience. So yes I want Paradox to do well but I also want to protect my own interests as a consumer. I can't understand the logic or motivation of people who WANT to pay MORE for something. It's like going in to a supermarket and saying "oh sorry I want to pay more for my groceries as I think your supermarket is a great company". That's why I assume that those with this view are not talking about their own money when they are begging for it to be taken.

either that or you all are share holders or something

 

[unmerged(26764)]

I find this "I feel cheated if I don't get this and that feature in a free patch" attitude fairly repulsive. At what point did they entitle you to regular content patches for free?

I couldn't agree more. It's like thinking that buying the ticket for the first movie in a franchise entitles you to watch ever sequel every developed. "When I bought this ticket for the first Lord of the Rings movie, I was entitled to get the whole story!"

People deserve to be paid for their work. If they couldn't get paid for future DLC, they wouldn't be able to spend their time developing it. If they can't charge for DLC that updates existing game mechanics, that means they can't ever improve those mechanics. I want the game to keep getting better. So I know that means I'll have to keep paying for the work. I'm happy to do so, because if I didn't that work would never be done. Folks have to eat, so they have to be paid.

 

[Ciccillo Rre]

I also want Paradox to do well as a company, as long as they don't lose what makes them special. Delivering a top quality product. Muslims should have been playable in the base game, there is no excuse for that. Mongol faces should have been included in the base game there is no excuse for that. African faces should have been included with SoI. I'm not complaining about DLC in general, in fact I want more DLC but I only want major improvements and when those major improvements come I don't want to purchase them to find out that I have to fork out for extras if I want the full experience. So yes I want Paradox to do well but I also want to protect my own interests as a consumer. I can't understand the logic or motivation of people who WANT to pay MORE for something. It's like going in to a supermarket and saying "oh sorry I want to pay more for my groceries as I think your supermarket is a great company". That's why I assume that those with this view are not talking about their own money when they are begging for it to be taken.

either that or you all are share holders or something

You are losing the most important piece of the picture: the analysis of the development cycle for a game, especially of a very complex one like a Paradox game only can be. If all you mention had to be available for the initial release of the game it would not have been likely ready by the end of this year.

Keep in mind that the best Beta testers for the game are us with our feedbacks on the forum. These are games in need of constant improvement through patches over a long time span, and this has to be financed somewhat. If at PI they got no return for it, they simply would not do it, and I hardly doubt it would be the most socially efficient outcome.

 

[Tufto]

Here's hoping they finally deal with the OP Byzantium. It should be crushed by the Seljuks every time, yet I have never seen it lose the initial war.

 

[Prime624]

The "should have been in base game" argument has been debated about a million times already. I won't waste any more forum bandwidth on that.

It is true that as a paying customer you have a (customary) right to expect patches that fix problems with your product. Just like you have a (customary) right to walk into the store where you bought a suit, and ask them fix any faulty seams that might be coming apart after a week of use. However to keep up the suit analogy, you seem to think that while they fix the faulty seam, you also have a right to ask that they also add a new pocket to your suit. And that they should also exchange the grey buttons for golden ones for free, because you saw them make another suit with golden buttons and you liked that.

Patching is primarily there to fix problems with existing features, not add new ones. Patches 1.03-1.05 fixed a bunch of problems AND were also chock full of new features (de jure drift, revamped crusades, etc), that was nice - but it's not something they are obliged in any way to keep up.

To ^ and OP: Software is nothing like suits or movies. It is information, and as such, different things should be expected of the suppliers.

 

[s1234567890m]

's like going in to a supermarket and saying "oh sorry I want to pay more for my groceries as I think your supermarket is a great company".

No you go "I got these biscuits hmm, this cheese dip would make them even better for only $0.99"

 

[Tux the Penguin]

Here's hoping they finally deal with the OP Byzantium. It should be crushed by the Seljuks every time, yet I have never seen it lose the initial war.

They might win the initial war, but usually by 1150 the Byzantines are pushed out of Asia Minor. Although in one stange game I saw Byzantium out of Asia Minor but holding Jerusalem almost down to Egypt... a bisected empire.

 

[Gedierond]

Please, not again the DLC policy discussion. There was already a huuuuuge thread about this, let´s not bring it up again. People for and against the policy will never agree, since it´s more of a philosophical discussion than anything else.
Let´s just keep this to the topic of trying to guess if "Legacy of Rome" is actually a new DLC and what it would be about.

 

[Comradebot]

Well, I was hoping for Pagans... but improved Byzantine/Orthodox gameplay would be welcome as well. Guess I'll hold off on starting my random Russian count->Ruthenia game.

 

[Ciccillo Rre]

Here's hoping they finally deal with the OP Byzantium. It should be crushed by the Seljuks every time, yet I have never seen it lose the initial war.

I disagree. They should lose the initial war under extreme circumstances only, like the Byzantine Emperor is captured in battle (hence, immediate -100% warscore). I see this in game from time to time, which is fair. After all, Mantzikert and the war thereafter were an exceptional circumstance. This said, the struggle for Anatolia and Armenia should continue in a balanced way after the initial war as it had been for centuries.

The Byzantines have been already nerfed enough; Anatolia has too few holdings for being among the richest areas in the planet at that time. I would re-buff them (Varangian Guard included) a little bit, as well as symmetrically I would give more power to the Seljuks, to make them both able to crush the then decaying Fatimids.

 

[Manic Eskimo]

You are losing the most important piece of the picture: the analysis of the development cycle for a game, especially of a very complex one like a Paradox game only can be. If all you mention had to be available for the initial release of the game it would not have been likely ready by the end of this year.

Keep in mind that the best Beta testers for the game are us with our feedbacks on the forum. These are games in need of constant improvement through patches over a long time span, and this has to be financed somewhat. If at PI they got no return for it, they simply would not do it, and I hardly doubt it would be the most socially efficient outcome.

I don't pretend to have good technical knowledge of programming. But isn't making muslims playable only the result of changing one line of text? It certainly didn't take long for modders to make them playable. And with faces they already made two sets of faces why not just ask for another set of faces to be made for Mongols at the same time? that would take what? a couple of weeks at most.

I don't know why people think I'm criticizing Sword of Islam. I'm not. It's a good DLC and as I said I would like more MAJOR DLC, like SoI. What I don't want is for a major DLC to be broken up into little pieces at the expense of the consumer and the product as a whole.

 

[Olligarchy]

Here's hoping that paradox also gives some focus on the Russians. They did after all call themselves the Third Rome. This was quite a bit later than the game timeline, but a general buff to orthodox factions would be preferable to simple focus on a single empire, no matter how interesting.

 

[Comradebot]

Here's hoping that paradox also gives some focus on the Russians. They did after all call themselves the Third Rome. This was quite a bit later than the game timeline, but a general buff to orthodox factions would be preferable to simple focus on a single empire, no matter how interesting.

I'd like it if they'd just flesh out the Kievan Rus a bit more. Namely, the fact that at game start there's basically just a bunch of giant Rurikovich duchies and almost no other dynasties to play in the entire region. Maybe history draws a blank on other major nobles during this time period, or how it's presented is actually the case... or perhaps PI just really wants me to buy that Ruler Designer.

 

[s1234567890m]

I don't pretend to have good technical knowledge of programming. But isn't making muslims playable only the result of changing one line of text? It certainly didn't take long for modders to make them playable. And with faces they already made two sets of faces why not just ask for another set of faces to be made for Mongols at the same time? that would take what? a couple of weeks at most.

I don't know why people think I'm criticizing Sword of Islam. I'm not. It's a good DLC and as I said I would like more MAJOR DLC, like SoI. What I don't want is for a major DLC to be broken up into little pieces.

Ask the modder who did the faces how long they take to do.
To make them playable yes, to use there specific features no

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

............ What I don't want is for a major DLC to be broken up into little pieces at the expense of the consumer and the product as a whole.

Thats about where i'm with you, as thats one of the reasons i didnt buy EU3 or HOI (actually other RL reasons were more important, but still...).
Getting silly small this and that DLCs for stuff that should be packed altogether is upsetting me. Though argueing what belongs together and what doesnt ends in a million different views on that subject.
Younger people probably dont care and they'll get their market share. I will buy EU3, Vic and HOI in a sale probably once when i have the time and will to play them, but it still turned me off to buy them right away.
(edit) Probably i'm too sensitive. Still i wont argue with their decisions. They have to finance development and other developers often went bust trying to get everything in one go.
Not that it matters what i think, say or do.



PS: I guess the possible DLC will be a cosmetic one and we'll all bite our asses on wasted time and energy in another troll thread. :laugh:

 

[Ciccillo Rre]

I don't pretend to have good technical knowledge of programming. But isn't making muslims playable only the result of changing one line of text? It certainly didn't take long for modders to make them playable. And with faces they already made two sets of faces why not just ask for another set of faces to be made for Mongols at the same time? that would take what? a couple of weeks at most.

I don't know why people think I'm criticizing Sword of Islam. I'm not. It's a good DLC and as I said I would like more MAJOR DLC, like SoI. What I don't want is for a major DLC to be broken up into little pieces at the expense of the consumer and the product as a whole.

So you want the old set of expansions. But there are two major reasons for why they have changed their policy:

1) as the importance of multiplayer has increased in their games, they want all the people to share the same checksum - you buy the DLC only if you want it, that would not change your checksum;

2) the money they were getting from expansions were often not enough to finance the maturity phase of the long development cycle of their games - which is something that has more to do with balancing and testing than with changing one line of code.

This new policy has allowed them to deliver a very high quality product on release, to expand the knowledge of PI outside the usual niche (that means more money for awesome games like EUIV, Rome II and Vicky III in the future) and to get new actual content in patches for free. I am paying more? They deserve it. One can always wait for the next GG/Steam sale if not.

The focus on quality also means NOT to make muslims playable on start, as they would have looked like "empty" christians with nothing special, as they are in mods. I think PI is doing a good job.

 

[unmerged(200028)]

This isn't going to happen, but I would love a dice roll in combat so much.

 

[jordanjay29]

It will be funny when this turns out to be music

Funniest post in this thread!