No, what actually looks petty is someone leaving an off-topic review complaining that it was flagged as off-topic.
Paradox censoring negative reviews
- Thread starter Boogeyman
- 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.
- Status
No, what actually looks petty is someone leaving an off-topic review complaining that it was flagged as off-topic.
Notice how these statements are not mutually exclusive. Depending on the content, I would even agree on individual reviews.
Somebody leaving a negative review because he's critical of the value for money ratio is literally doing what he's supposed to. Answering the question "would you recommend"?
On the other hand, if it's just a bunch of expletives or some such, yeah, that'd probably be accurately flagged as abusive.
I just wish all the price-complaints could go away so I could read some actual reviews of the DLC itself. I'm the only one who knows anything about my monetary situation, and slogging through 150 people who complain that the price is too high without telling me jack about the actual gameplay is utterly pointless to me. They're not even turning me off from buying, they're just turning me off from THEM.
Not at all. They complement each other very well. In a review you get all the relevant information arrayed for you. You can read it in, say, fifteen minutes and decide if you want to know more or not. A youtube video is a guy playing the game as is, maybe throwing a comment every now and then. It takes time to understand what's going on and to get to the important parts of the game. You can read reviews for almost all of the games you're interested into, but you can't watch let's plays of them all unless you have a huge amount of free time to invest in the process of making purchase decisions.
You could put your money where your mouth is and buy some nay-sayers the DLC so they review it for you. Treat it as a 'Early preview' DLC. DLC within a DLC. We're getting meta, aren't we?
Why?
So because I'm not certain I wanna buy it, and can't find a review of the DLC without slogging through price-complaints, I should then buy it for others who one would expect already has it since they review the price of it? I mean... they surely MUST have played it since they claim the cost/value ratio is off.
.png){kind=avatar}
I think they should complain price problem in the forum. But I think most of them do not have forum accounts and are not very good at English. So they have no choice but posting negative reviews in the Steam Store page.
So you can get what you want by spending the money your financial situation allows you to spend.
Capitalism, mate. It's the same as defending the DLC. And your 'why' is exactly the reason us opposed to the DLC think the way we do.
*shrug* I don't think I've ever bought a game without seeing gameplay of it first. The information in reviews - unless they're very lengthy, just isn't sufficient for this medium imo.
Not to mention that I really don't trust reviews from people whom I don't know and whose taste in games I don't know.
The only useful metric of steam reviews that I've found I take into account is the overall recommendation quota. Which wouldn't be affected by anything we're talking about here.
But I do acknowledge that everybody got their own process of product evaluation, so this is just my take on it.
I was using Third Rome as an example. This is not the first time I have seen exactly this, reviews for the base game tanking because of peoples opinions on a DLC.
Shouldn't complaints about the price of a DLC be limited to the DLC page? What function is served by complaining about a DLC on the main game page?
Just projecting your feelings onto the broader situation. You dislike anti-DLC reviews and want to read a 'good' review; Anti-DLC people dislike features in a full-priced game being locked behind another paywall. So I'm proposing you double down on your defense of 'pay for what you want' and pay for a good review.
I'm not serious, by the way.
This rabbit hole of micro-payments goes deep. My statements are not aimed at you directly but at all the pro-DLC people, just to show how much deeper and worse it can get if there's no outcry and it's allowed to continue running unchecked as it does right now.
Needlessly aggressive...
I cannot afford to buy every game bit I'd like. Therefore I would like to know something about the things I consider buying. But here's the thing, what people think of the PRICE of the thing I want to buy is immaterial. If my budget is 100 Euro a month or if it is 5 Euro a month is known only to me. Therefore having someone tell me that the price/value consideration for a given product is too low doesn't HELP me.
The thing that would help me make a determination is if the PRODUCT is good AS a product. Then after I've gotten THAT info I can decide if it then works out for my budget. The reviews that are on Steam atm do nothing to tell me about the product itself, but tells me tons about the monetary situation of the reviewers.
I think the misconception that it has a high entry fee might scare off some people. The entry fee is the price of the base game. $10 right now where I live.
I played this game with no DLC and loved it enough to buy almost all the DLC that came after. I am living, walking, talking, typing proof that the game is playable without the DLC.
I have lived it. You cannot tell me this game is objectively unplayable or not fun.
What I haven't yet understood in the whole frigging debate is what the complainers want.
1) Cheaper DLCs?
2) Small DLCs replaced by bigger expansion packs with similar amount of content at similar total price?
3) Less DLCs and less content overall?
4) A pony?
Because really, you people are not making this clear.
1) Cheaper DLCs?
2) Small DLCs replaced by bigger expansion packs with similar amount of content at similar total price?
3) Less DLCs and less content overall?
4) A pony?
Because really, you people are not making this clear.
IMHO many reviewers are looking way to much on the total ammount of money they've used (Disregarding regular sales that goes fairly deep), and way to little on the ammount of time they've played
Every time a DLC is out people are whining about having used X dollars on the game while they've only played Y hours in the most recent build and feel that they're done for the time being ... That is not how it works.
I'm never going to believe someone with several hundred hours of playtime whining about a terrible price proposition conversion, Sure a single DLC might be bit too expensive (but that is devilishly hard to determine since they come out with massive Free patches, murking the waters), but that doesn't invalidate the worth you've gotten out of the game before that.
Every time a DLC is out people are whining about having used X dollars on the game while they've only played Y hours in the most recent build and feel that they're done for the time being ... That is not how it works.
I'm never going to believe someone with several hundred hours of playtime whining about a terrible price proposition conversion, Sure a single DLC might be bit too expensive (but that is devilishly hard to determine since they come out with massive Free patches, murking the waters), but that doesn't invalidate the worth you've gotten out of the game before that.
How about, less frequent expansions (1-2 a year TOPS), with MORE content inside each one (f. example the Ming one and the Russia one merged together), at a more reasonable price ($5-15), with more testing, and with less expansion-entanglement.
Also more patches with free minor / mandatory mechanics / fixes inbetween. I don't think anyone can reasonably agree that Art of War / Conquest of Paradise / Common Sense content shouldn't by now just be rolled into the base game. However, I wouldn't mind if they left stuff like mandate / russia-things / prussian monarchy a dlc feature. (while also doing something to keep those countries balanced if you don't own the DLC. Ming is literal godmode without the ming dlc.)
I would also very much like a free Pony from paradox!
That's a point of view I can agree with. Would be very nice. What we don't know is if it would be financially viable.
- Status