[OPINION] After 2.2, development should slow down

[methegrate]

I agree with he OP that polish is required. But if you have a vision for a project that rewrites much of the stuff that you'd be polishing anyway, can you justify the time and expense?

I work with project managers on business improvement initiatives and the reality is that working to improve a flawed system vs a rework is rarely worth it unless it renders operations impossible.

This admittedly is a difficult question.

Stellaris was not ready for launch when it shipped, and it seems clear that the current development team has a very (if not radically) different vision for the game than its original designers.

It's well worth asking, at what point are you just trying to paint stripes on a horse and call it a zebra? When is it worth fixing Stellaris, and when should they simply cut their losses and announce plans for Stellaris 2? I don't have the answer, but it's a good question.

 

[Dmitrius]

This admittedly is a difficult question.

Stellaris was not ready for launch when it shipped, and it seems clear that the current development team has a very (if not radically) different vision for the game than its original designers.

It's well worth asking, at what point are you just trying to paint stripes on a horse and call it a zebra? When is it worth fixing Stellaris, and when should they simply cut their losses and announce plans for Stellaris 2? I don't have the answer, but it's a good question.

I don't think Stellaris is unpolished to anywhere neat the point at which abandonment makes sense.

All Paradox games launch with a wide scope of loose simple systems. This allows for continuous overhaul and additional layers if complexity. It's the reason CK2 and EU4 can be as deep and involved as they are. I would argue that creating a Paradox game initially at project end phase would be prohibitively expensive and time consuming.

To mitigate the costs and remain fair to a consumer paying for a 40 bucks game originally, most key features are made available for free with enhanced implementations and fluffy aesthetics sold to support development and produce a profit making the effort worthwhile for shareholders.

For some this strategy is annoying as in the past games were released as finished products. Which is fine. It just doesn't make sense to want the results only possible from a very specific methodology whilst not allowing for the method to take place.

Even when they eventually make Stellaris 2 ( which is unlikely in the next 5 years at least) it will likely also be relatively simple compared to finished stellaris 1.

 

[Hype]

It's well worth asking, at what point are you just trying to paint stripes on a horse and call it a zebra? When is it worth fixing Stellaris, and when should they simply cut their losses and announce plans for Stellaris 2? I don't have the answer, but it's a good question.

I think they should have already done that with 2.0. Giving 1.x a last bugfix pass to make it reasonably playable and then moving on to the new (current) game.

 

[Spyhawk]

This admittedly is a difficult question.

Stellaris was not ready for launch when it shipped, and it seems clear that the current development team has a very (if not radically) different vision for the game than its original designers.

It's well worth asking, at what point are you just trying to paint stripes on a horse and call it a zebra? When is it worth fixing Stellaris, and when should they simply cut their losses and announce plans for Stellaris 2? I don't have the answer, but it's a good question.

Or rather, not a difficult question if taken from a business perspective. What is "losses" here? Quality, the idea of a beautifully executed game, or simply money? Does the game sales still increase significantly at each DLCs/patches, or is the game at the end of its business cycle? I understand that comment could be somewhat taken with disdain by players, but one has to remember Paradox is in the game to make money. They have to pay salaries, they have to bring cash in to be able to invest it as development cost of their next game - which might be completely unrelated to a Stellaris sequel, and that can also be written as a write off before being even released. And from the last hints we could read from the devs, Stellaris has becoming a best selling game for PDX, with the team being expanded.

One aspect of Paradox I like the most is that they have a great podcast series given from a business perspective (The business of video game on YT). It's a subject that is usually hardly well known or discussed about, and I'm personally grateful PDX share their insight here. And yes, it is sometimes really blunt: I remember an episode where they discussed quality vs the constant changes demanded by their development model. The bottom line was something like "players have to adjust to the quality of the game, not the opposite" (don't quote me on that, I can't find the right episode right now but that was the gist of it). I was kinda feeling a bit offended by that comment in some way , but then I realised that this is the reality of business.

From this, I think it is fair to assume a focus on polishing of Stellaris won't happen as long as features bring in significantly more sales. Small DLCs like portraits are good from time to time, but I guess PDS can't exclusively count on them on the long term either. And a costly focus on polish won't happen if they can work on a better planned sequel in a few years. After all, if the game sold well and players play it with the current quality, then that quality is good enough. The bait of the development model is the promise of a "better game" in the long run - and in many ways it is true - but not necessarily one of better quality. It might not become a zebra at all, but at least the horse got some stripes - and a big pool of money for future development.

 

[nikkythegreat]

• The contingency almost always fires
• The AI doesn't work right with the new war system, it can't move transports around, can't capture planets and therefore drags wars out indefinitely because it also won't peace out until everyone is at 100% war exhaustion. This messes a lot of stuff up.
• I've never seen an AI empire synthetically ascend.

• 
  
  

Yes!! I've noticed this as well, 9 of my last 10 games its always contingency. Hell, it gets too repetitive. I know it was tied to the number of robot pops in the game, but since Synthetic Dawn DLC, its almost a given that there would be a lot of robo pops due to the addition of machine empires, Paradox please fix this people like me dont want to see contingency all the time.

 

[brifbates]

This isn't just a Stellaris issue. EU IV and CK 2 both similarly have long-standing issues that have just been exacerbated due to the current "release DLC+patch that breaks more than it fixes, release mini-patch that fixes the most outrageous bugs from the last release, start on the next DLC patch, rinse, repeat" process.

Building on a cracked foundation is generally not a good idea...

 

[Aotrs Commander]

This again - You're not in charge for PDS since you're a customer, nothing more, nothing less, so that it's not your concern, that PDS makes money since I'm pretty sure, that PDS has enough people to develop strategies in regards to this ...

On the one hand, yes.

On the other, you have to remember that the devs are doing this because its their job, not their hobby - and there comes a point at which it become a case of "if the customers aren't going to pay for this, the product is simply not going to be done, because we need to be doing something so that our staff get payed."

My day job is CAD modelling for 3D printing and I am semi-regularly asked "can you scale this to such and such a scale?" And I always say "it can be done, but its not a simple job [explanation], so you will need to pay me for the time." (Because essentially, I'm not going to spend a couple of hours of work doing something on which I will get, like 50p on sales on or something from the one dude that wants it.)

So while you have a customer don't have to care whether the business makes money or not or how they do it; but by the same token, if it doesn't, they don't have to make the thing you want.

You are not going to get long-term support on a project without (someone) paying for it (hell, it is increasingly becoming the case in stuff that you USED to get relatively free, e.g. image hosting). Unless a dev turns up who is independantly wealthy (or maybe retired) and does so because they want to, you're going to get either DLC-funded-support (like Paradox), microtransactions/lootboxes (*shudder*), subscription or support for a bit after the last expansion and then nothing as the company and the team move on to the next game.

 

[Spyhawk]

Sure, but in the case of Stellaris, the game has become a money making machine (as in "very successful in a financial way"). They could easily allocate more money into stabilisation, but that budget seems independent from the revenues generated by the game.

From a business point of view, sure, they don't have to allocate more to a model that seem to works, but I don't think it's fair to say they can't.

 

[Zetesofos]

On the one hand, yes.

On the other, you have to remember that the devs are doing this because its their job, not their hobby - and there comes a point at which it become a case of "if the customers aren't going to pay for this, the product is simply not going to be done, because we need to be doing something so that our staff get payed."

My day job is CAD modelling for 3D printing and I am semi-regularly asked "can you scale this to such and such a scale?" And I always say "it can be done, but its not a simple job [explanation], so you will need to pay me for the time." (Because essentially, I'm not going to spend a couple of hours of work doing something on which I will get, like 50p on sales on or something from the one dude that wants it.)

So while you have a customer don't have to care whether the business makes money or not or how they do it; but by the same token, if it doesn't, they don't have to make the thing you want.

You are not going to get long-term support on a project without (someone) paying for it (hell, it is increasingly becoming the case in stuff that you USED to get relatively free, e.g. image hosting). Unless a dev turns up who is independantly wealthy (or maybe retired) and does so because they want to, you're going to get either DLC-funded-support (like Paradox), microtransactions/lootboxes (*shudder*), subscription or support for a bit after the last expansion and then nothing as the company and the team move on to the next game.

Its why, when you put it like that, that Paradox's style is the best. There are gamers who want to go back to the days where you could plop 50.00 on a game, and have it be there, done. finished. The simple truth of the matter is that those days are just gone. Games are not movies, their not books, and their not 'strictly' art. This is because games are something customers interact with consistently, and often allow customers to modify and tinker with to their base build.

More importantly, not only have the scope of games grown, but so has the customers expectations. So much that most developers simply cannot staff the devs necessary to put out the desired product in one go, unless you have one of the following:

A reliable financial transaction system to recoup costs down the line (micro-transactions).
A generous gift and or loss leader developer
A staggered development cycle (this is pdx).

Overall, from those option, I prefer the last. I get something useful and fun and a reasonable cost, and I know that my money is going specifically to the game I want, not to support some other project I have no interest in.

 

[stumason]

This again - You're not in charge for PDS since you're a customer, nothing more, nothing less, so that it's not your concern, that PDS makes money since I'm pretty sure, that PDS has enough people to develop strategies in regards to this ...

It seems, that you believe, that you have to endure a flawed game in the presence, so that you have to "invest" money in this presence to (hopefully) get a better game in the future, but actually, it should be the other way around ...
PDS has to invest money in the past to offer a flawless game in the presence to (hopefully) sell it to the customers to fund a better game in the future ...

The business-factor of risk is passed onto you and that's not in your favour.

Jesus man, you really need to know how to use a comma - it makes it difficult to make much sense out of what you're writing.

Anyhoo, none of that has any bearing on what I said. I was responding to comments about the DLC's and Steam reviews, not on the state of the game or it being "flawed" - it is not, I have 2225 hours out of a game I have probably spent about £100 on, which works out as 4 pence an hour. That's a bargain in my book.

Just because you think it is "flawed" doesn't make it so (albeit, it has got better and looks to get even better with the next update), which is the point I was making and you failed miserably to grasp - if it was such a flawed game and badly thought of, why the continued development and support - there's no profit to be had in developing and supporting a game that is a flop, is there? The only logical conclusion is that you're wrong, it is a good seller and continues to be so.

 

[methegrate]

Its why, when you put it like that, that Paradox's style is the best. There are gamers who want to go back to the days where you could plop 50.00 on a game, and have it be there, done. finished. The simple truth of the matter is that those days are just gone. Games are not movies, their not books, and their not 'strictly' art. This is because games are something customers interact with consistently, and often allow customers to modify and tinker with to their base build.

More importantly, not only have the scope of games grown, but so has the customers expectations. So much that most developers simply cannot staff the devs necessary to put out the desired product in one go, unless you have one of the following:

A reliable financial transaction system to recoup costs down the line (micro-transactions).
A generous gift and or loss leader developer
A staggered development cycle (this is pdx).

Overall, from those option, I prefer the last. I get something useful and fun and a reasonable cost, and I know that my money is going specifically to the game I want, not to support some other project I have no interest in.

Not to mention that the price of games hasn't changed in... what, 20 years? Ever?

Just to use U.S. dollars, a big studio game in 1998 cost about the same thing it does today: $45 - $60. Those prices haven't changed, and customers have gotten used to it. Today if you saw a game advertised for $75 you'd either flip out or expect one hell of an experience for that price.

Today that unadjusted $60 is worth just about $39. The sticker price of computer games hasn't changed, but the studio's effective income has dropped by a full third because salaries, rent, software and all the other costs of doing business keep getting more expensive. If games had kept pace with inflation, that same title would cost about $92 today. But no one would buy a $90 game.

So a studio's costs keep going up while its product remains stubbornly resistant to inflation. It seems like they need something to fill that gap.

 

[Kayden_II]

albeit, it has got better and looks to get even better with the next update

Just because you think it is "flawed" doesn't make it so

Dito ...

which is the point I was making and you failed miserably to grasp

Yeah Yeah, the point I've missed, which was based on your opinion ...

if it was such a flawed game and badly thought of, why the continued development and support

there's no profit to be had in developing and supporting a game that is a flop, is there?

it is a good seller and continues to be so.

01. If you program and release some basic (insert a not so sweet term) then the development wasn't that expensive, so that 01. it's not that difficult to earn profit and 02. it's not that difficult to make the game better with a zillion of following reworks and DLCs ...
02. Whether a product is a flop or not doesn't necessarily has something to do with its quality since PDS has (for example) customers like you, marketing and a (yet good) reputation.