Paradox censoring negative reviews

[Saberstrike]

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.

Somehow that model was financially viable for 2 decades, and it's only in the past 4 or so years that this abuse of DLC begun to strangle core games under the excuse of 'financial viability'. I just don't buy that as an excuse, when companies like Cd Projekt and pre-2015 Bethesda could survive on a game + 2 expansions per 3-5 years.

Also, I don't care for minor DLC that add portraits / unit models / music, they can sell one (visual) prussia unit for $200 for all I care, Just as long as it doesn't affect game balance.

 

[Isaios]

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.

I'm not sure I'd like fewer per year, every time there's something new I get revitalized and start playing the game again, so this'd probably make me play less EUIV overall.

What do you mean less expansion-entanglement?

 

[Saberstrike]

What do you mean less expansion-entanglement?

Like how they added development in common sense and later institutions in another one, and you need common sense to develop your provinces for institutions. It feels kind of backwards to lock a DLC feature behind another DLC feature.

 

[Isaios]

Like how they added development in common sense and later institutions in another one, and you need common sense to develop your provinces for institutions. It feels kind of backwards to lock a DLC feature behind another DLC feature.

Oh right! Yes definitely this. I'm overall pretty much in favor of the DLC system (as used by PDox) but this is the most significant weakness. Ofc... there's another solution to this particular problem other than adding Developing into the base game They could instead remove using Development to get Institutions for everyone

 

[Saberstrike]

I'd wager that the DLC system wouldn't be so irritating to those of us who're against it if the base game had mechanics to substitute / work-around limitations brought fourth by the DLC. The easiest way to do that is -- as I said -- to just roll some 'global' mechanics like development into the base game, though you -could- in theory create another system to take it's place if you don't have the DLC, to give people without it an option of some kind. Like bringing back the pre-common sense gold-based building system, that is removed when you patch the game to post-common sense version.

 

[Mortmal]

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!

This wont happen cause they have to publish financial results every quarter, that's why since the IPO we now have sales of "immersion" DLC s .I bet the poor devs are pressured to rush them very fast. You have to gain shareholder trust, for that you need extraordinary results.
Its more likely than EU5 will be on phone and include microtransactions with the possibility to buy gold online. Once its big enough i bet the guys in charge will sell it all without a second thought.

 

[TheAtreides84]

Somehow that model was financially viable for 2 decades, and it's only in the past 4 or so years that this abuse of DLC begun to strangle core games under the excuse of 'financial viability'.

That's not true. Older games had much, much less content than they have now. Just look at the progress EU2-EU3-EU4. I'm non talking quality here, just sheer amount of features.

I just don't buy that as an excuse, when companies like Cd Projekt and pre-2015 Bethesda could survive on a game + 2 expansions per 3-5 years.

Bad comparison. They sell multiplatform AAA games. Skyrim may be one game, but its development probably costed as much as the whole PDX lineup, with an income scaled accordingly.

 

[qer]

Considering that they have 4 games in active development, it would probably best to focus on bigger DLC's at a lower rate. I'm sure that releasing two minor dlc's the same day is less effective that if they release then with a time margin between then

 

[Escher]

Hey folks! Just a heads-up that I may lock this thread soonish. We read you loud and clear as far as the thoughts and feedback we've received so far. If we think of a group of people that are willing to cut the crap and say how they feel, it's our Community, and although sometimes it may be not what we want to hear, it helps us grow! We love you all for that!

The reason I'm thinking of closing the thread is that this is fast becoming less about the OP and more about arguments between our "supporters" and "detractors", again, we are touched by the enthusiasm, but the last thing we want is for you to be arguing amongst yourselves.

At the same time, I don't want to stifle discussion! Although I feel you've been clear in your thoughts and your message has been received, you are of course allowed to continue talking about the topic. I just don't like this circular arguing that's going on, we don't want to cause a divide between people who have a shared love of the same game! At the end of the day, we're all here for the same reason.

In perhaps an hour from now I'll lock the thread, please do feel free to write any closing comments you want to. There will be no penalisation for opening a new thread on this topic, I just feel it can be healthy to "reset" things. Again, we don't want to be the cause of arguments.

Have a great weekend all, and again, thanks for always being true to us!


/Escher

 

[Lord Canterbury]

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.

A couple of side points:
- Calling other people "the complainers" is about as helpful as others throwing around "fanboy" etc.
- "you people" are a range of diverse people with diverse opinion. There isn't "one view" or "sides", much as interweb forum may try to generate that arrangement.

But to try to answer the question:
- Most people (I think) would simply be happier with better value DLC. The view of those many of the displeased is that the DLC is now heavily overpriced. To get it all you are looking at hundreds of dollars. But choose to not get it and you are missing out of a good chuck of the game.
- Also worth noting that the recent price hike has reduced trust in Paradox significantly for many... and made them view the DLC policy with much less rose tinted glasses that previous.

 

[Denkt]

That's not true. Older games had much, much less content than they have now. Just look at the progress EU2-EU3-EU4. I'm non talking quality here, just sheer amount of features.

A game don't need much content to be good but yes EU4 in my opinion is the best out of the EU series.

But choose to not get it and you are missing out of a good chuck of the game.

Maybe we should return to good old expansions which took care about that problem by not providing any free content at all which ment the base game would never change if you did not purchase the expansions?

The problem with the type of game paradox and others make is that they are like very big and complicated clockworks (the dlcs don't help here). If any cog stops working the whole thing falls apart. Simpler game tend to have much less of those problems for a very good reason because they have less cogs and thus less things that can go wrong.

 

[szmik]

Am I the only one to wonder whether any devs flag positive reviews as OT? I might have missed such a post.

As for review in question, I don't mind. If I was dev I wouldn't touch any reviews. People are just like that, who cares? Anyone with brain will see for what it is.

And Steam reviews are not reviews in the first place. Maybe a handful is. They are just opinions, and you can't tell they're right or wrong, can only agree or not. I, for one, like to see what people think is wrong with product. I ignore irrelevant opinions anyway.

 

[klopkr]

Are puns and jokes in reviews alright? I don't really get your off topic example, unless you're saying it's because it's a ck2 joke rather than an eu4 joke.

 

[atwix]

If I leave a review saying the product in question is overpriced and underdelivers that *is* useful.

erhm really?

so, everybody that reads your review should think like you think huh?

what about letting customers decide for themselves if a dlc his good money for its buck?

customers can try the dlc for an hour even after reading bad reviews, and most don't refund.

I can understand WHY people write bad reviews, due to their 'concerns' with bad dlc policy

Oh well, why do I even bother still

if people want to base their dlc buy on commentaries written on steam review pages.. then they likely believe tabloid stories also.

always 100% truth right?

this is a CYNICAL post by the way, please read it as such.

anyhow, all of this will die away within the week, only to resurge next dlc, due to the nature of the game.

and paradox will likely publish tomorrow that dlc has sold great, playerbase has grown, and game will continue to be patched freely, while dlc is still OPTIONAL.

they will thank community for the support in the last 4 years, and add that they hope they will support them for 6 years more, working on a great game.

and the socialist leftish haters will mutter in their corner, probing on the next hate campaign to stop the capitalist swines at Paradox.

you can decide for yourself if that is meant cynical, or not.

Spoiler

hint: nothing is black and white in this world. up to paradox if its worth to find a middle ground in this conflict. if they even perceive it as such. Contrary to what you might think, i also think dlc are overpriced. to prove i don't think black or white. at least i know how to use rationalism

Think I'm done for this resurgence, points of both parties have been discussed enough for this dlc I think

 

[Ericus1]

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.

25 million in profit on a gross of 70 means their profit margins are about 58% of their operating costs. They sure as hell can afford to do better; they choose not to. They could easily deliver a better product and make smaller profits, but why would they when they know they don't have to.

They can make all the excuses they want but the fact is this was an attempt at censorship of a legitimate review someone didn't like. That they have a policy of trying to interfere with user reviews at all is troubling - regardless of whether it was a rogue flag as abusive or a mistaken off-topic; both are bad. It's not their job to decide what is relevant/'off-topic' in a review, that's MY fucking decision as a consumer. It's just more signs of how much Paradox is continuing the slow slide downhill towards EAhood.

 

[atwix]

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.

hahaha, i know the feeling.

you are proving my point exactly.

do like me, and try to find some underground old skool websites rating games and dlc unbiased, using review code. read said ratings that come out 2 weeks AFTER release, as they are objective.

you will NOT find said reviews on steam, unless you start rummaging through the trash.

i use an independent magazine from benelux, who has built a good if not excellent reputation since its first release in early nineties.

it still exists, which is due to point made above.

if you want a review, the smart guys don't go to steam ratings.

god knows most (paradox) game reviews there are heavily biased.

 

[virre]

Imo you are making it worse. You are just making excuses for trying to silence bad reviews. Would love to see an example of an off topic positive review getting flagged. Doubt that.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

Hey folks! Just a heads-up that I may lock this thread soonish. We read you loud and clear as far as the thoughts and feedback we've received so far. If we think of a group of people that are willing to cut the crap and say how they feel, it's our Community, and although sometimes it may be not what we want to hear, it helps us grow! We love you all for that!

The reason I'm thinking of closing the thread is that this is fast becoming less about the OP and more about arguments between our "supporters" and "detractors", again, we are touched by the enthusiasm, but the last thing we want is for you to be arguing amongst yourselves.

At the same time, I don't want to stifle discussion! Although I feel you've been clear in your thoughts and your message has been received, you are of course allowed to continue talking about the topic. I just don't like this circular arguing that's going on, we don't want to cause a divide between people who have a shared love of the same game! At the end of the day, we're all here for the same reason.

In perhaps an hour from now I'll lock the thread, please do feel free to write any closing comments you want to. There will be no penalisation for opening a new thread on this topic, I just feel it can be healthy to "reset" things. Again, we don't want to be the cause of arguments.

Have a great weekend all, and again, thanks for always being true to us!

/Escher

Proooobably not a good idea to do something that could be construed as censoring a thread complaining about censorship.

 

[hagen_hase]

Proooobably not a good idea to do something that could be construed as censoring a thread complaining about censorship.

Well some people are activly derailing the discussion. this is much to important of a topic to be a playground for cry babies.
this isnt about to much 20$ dlc or a price hike, its about PI censoring critique

 

[Chengar Qordath]

Well some people are activly derailing the discussion. this is much to important of a topic to be a playground for cry babies.
this isnt about to much 20$ dlc or a price hike, its about PI censoring critique

Not saying this thread isn't a bit problematic, just pointing out the potential for some really bad optics.