Please reconsider the current DLC model

[Ornlu Wolfjarl]

I'd be happy to pay 20 euros a year for a single expansion pack that contains the content of 3-4 DLCs. It'd be a lot more user-friendly on Paradox's part and I'd feel a lot more comfortable giving my money. Right now, I essentially pay the same amount, because I will usually wait for a big sale before I catch up on DLCs (and I'm always at least 1 DLC behind because of it). From what I understand this is what most players do, and this is always the most popular recommendation to new players popping up on the subreddit. If you offered it all in 1 expansion pack, then it would just make things a lot more convenient for everyone. You could keep cosmetic stuff separate and keep making a good profit from the separate sales of those, from those who want to give a little extra for something that doesn't affect gameplay at all.

The complaint isn't just that gameplay gets locked behind a steep price tag, it also screws up the development of gameplay, since there's very minimal interaction (if at all) between features of different DLCs. Recently, efforts have been made to remedy this, but they amount to very little compared to the potential. Instead of having building blocks relying on each other and creating something beautiful and functional, the current model just spreads them all over the place, arranged in neat geometric shapes that are pretty at first, but can get stale after a while.

 

[Sanny]

Same discussion is happening in the OT forum right now, check it out.

 

[kal56]

If I understand you correctly you're saying that paradox should release the dlcs less frequently and at the sale price? Why wouldn't people who are currently waiting for sales just keep waiting for sales and pay even less?

 

[Nikolai]

Please don't listen to him.

 

[TinyWiking]

If we released a single expansion per game with the same content as 3 or 4 DLCs we'd have to charge you 3 or 4 times as much, it's quite simple really. Pricing is set depending on content, time in development, man hours etc. If we spent 10 months developing a single DLC the price would ofc reflect this.

 

[gigau]

Also, the clear advantage for both player, and in a way modders, of the DLC system is that you have the liberty to chose not to by it. With the expansion system, if you didn't by it, you lost all support, as patches when with the expansion, not so with DLCs.

 

[Gungy]

In the same respect there are titles out there where DLC has just got out of hand, there has to be a balance. I just hope that is something paradox never forget.

 

[Reysai]

I think strategic games are not that popular in this age of such titans as CS:GO, or Dota. So im ok with giving them some extra money for dls

 

[Premu]

In the same respect there are titles out there where DLC has just got out of hand, there has to be a balance. I just hope that is something paradox never forget.

Yeah, a few major DLCs are fine, but at some point the changes to the core game become too large.

I liked EU4 at the beginning, but after the upteenth DLC and the changes to the base game which meant I had to relearn the whole game I didn't have any motivation to continue.

 

[gigau]

I liked EU4 at the beginning, but after the upteenth DLC and the changes to the base game which meant I had to relearn the whole game I didn't have any motivation to continue.

That's the neat thing about DLCs…if you prefer the base game without DLCs, just play the base game without DLCs.

 

[Castellon]

... but after the upteenth DLC and the changes to the base game which meant I had to relearn the whole game ...

Maybe I am missing something but is that not the whole point of introducing new content? HGS is not like FPS where you can just create new maps and missions, ie extend the game with no changes to mechanics of the game. To add to HGS games you need to add new mechanics,some will work better than others with your established style of play, some will make you come up with new strategies and encounter new dilemmas ... (ie "relearn the whole game)

 

[Sanny]

Maybe I am missing something but is that not the whole point of introducing new content? HGS is not like FPS where you can just create new maps and missions, ie extend the game with no changes to mechanics of the game. To add to HGS games you need to add new mechanics,some will work better than others with your established style of play, some will make you come up with new strategies and encounter new dilemmas ... (ie "relearn the whole game)

I think what Premu meant is that in the case of EU4 though the game now is completely different to what it was on release. It's been improved and reworked so much that it feels like EU5 with all the expansions. I feel PDS have over-done themselves with EU4, of course most fans love this but it does leave the people who do not play EU4 regularly and new players left behind trying to learn this completely new game.

Personally I left EU4 alone for about a year (still bought the expansions as they came out), I then came back to it and felt completely overwhelmed by how different the game was. It really was like a whole new game, and it required a lot of motivation to play it. The game is punishing and difficult now (great for veterans) but it can put new players off the game.

 

[kal56]

I think what Premu meant is that in the case of EU4 though the game now is completely different to what it was on release. It's been improved and reworked so much that it feels like EU5 with all the expansions. I feel PDS have over-done themselves with EU4, of course most fans love this but it does leave the people who do not play EU4 regularly and new players left behind trying to learn this completely new game.

Personally I left EU4 alone for about a year (still bought the expansions as they came out), I then came back to it and felt completely overwhelmed by how different the game was. It really was like a whole new game, and it required a lot of motivation to play it. The game is punishing and difficult now (great for veterans) but it can put new players off the game.

As somebody who has tried to introduce a new player to a DLC complete version of CK2 I can sympathize with the idea that the DLC's can add a lot of moving parts to games that already have a bit of a learning curve. But I don't really see how paradox can do any different, designing the DLC's for people who don't play much or new customers probably isn't going to generate a lot of sales this long after release. The people who play regularly are their biggest DLC customers and they probably aren't going to keep buying DLCs that make a few minor changes to the game.

I know it seems counter-intuitive because people always like to have the "best" version of something, but if you like where the game is at the solution might be to not buy the DLCs or disable them. What I ended up doing when trying to teach the new guy the mechanics was turn off most of the DLCs and while he got comfortable then introduced the DLC stuff later. The free patch still makes some changes but normally nothing as drastic as the DLCs.

 

[Mav12]

I think what Premu meant is that in the case of EU4 though the game now is completely different to what it was on release. It's been improved and reworked so much that it feels like EU5 with all the expansions. I feel PDS have over-done themselves with EU4, of course most fans love this but it does leave the people who do not play EU4 regularly and new players left behind trying to learn this completely new game.

Personally I left EU4 alone for about a year (still bought the expansions as they came out), I then came back to it and felt completely overwhelmed by how different the game was. It really was like a whole new game, and it required a lot of motivation to play it. The game is punishing and difficult now (great for veterans) but it can put new players off the game.

A Primary example of this is Youtuber/Twitch streamer Shenryyr, after 4000 hours in the game since its release he feels that many new features dont add anything good or change the game to much for his liking, Every time he tries to get back in the game something new/diffrent for him usually happens that upsets him to a point of ragequit

(example: One time he tried a new game he ragequit after learning the AI with certain traits will now sell random provinces, when Portugal once sold one of its mainland high dev provinces to Castile)

 

[Ornlu Wolfjarl]

If we released a single expansion per game with the same content as 3 or 4 DLCs we'd have to charge you 3 or 4 times as much, it's quite simple really. Pricing is set depending on content, time in development, man hours etc. If we spent 10 months developing a single DLC the price would ofc reflect this.

Understandable, but consider this from a logistics point of view:

For a new player (which I'm not, but it's the biggest obstacle I find to convince friends who would otherwise love EU4 to get into the game): You have to buy the base game for a modest price, along with a bunch of expansions in order to get the full experience, which brings the price to about 100-150 euros.

For a current player, the cost might not be an issue, but the content has very little overlap with its individual parts. Most of it feels shallow and added mechanics are novel at first but can quickly degrade to boring, useless or downright annoying. So chances are that we won't buy the newest expansion or we will just wait for a sale to pick it up. In some cases the cost can indeed be an issue, but the expectation for the value is not met.

I know of at least 4 different people who pirate the game and another 6 who don't want to even bother, because of these issues. My comment here might get a lot of "Disagreements", but consider that this place is not at all representative of the overall market out there.

As such, I believe you lose a big chunk of customers who would otherwise love your games AND the added content. You feel like you need to increase the price if you condense releases? That's fine, as long as it feels like it's worth it. Currently I think it doesn't. I am a big fan of your games, but as time passes I feel that Paradox is deteriorating. Perhaps I'm wrong, but as a customer, I feel you should understand this and take it into consideration.

 

[sauced]

I do think that their current DLC model could be more profitable.

It's always better to sell a little than nothing at all, most people who is not deprived of their common sense is going to hold back on 262€ for Crusader Kings 2, sale or not.

The question they should be asking is not wether or not they should stop making DLC, but how they intend to reach out to all their fans.

I've personally never embraced the concept of having paid content on the side and still refuse to do so today, even though the market is swimming in it.

 

[Tvarog]

I liked EU4 at the beginning, but after the upteenth DLC and the changes to the base game which meant I had to relearn the whole game I didn't have any motivation to continue.

I have completely opposite.
That's the only reason i still want to play this. New mechanics, new things to learn, new to discover, isn't that all the point of GSG?
And i assume you can always reload to older version if there is such desire.

 

[Had a dad]

I have completely opposite.
That's the only reason i still want to play this. New mechanics, new things to learn, new to discover, isn't that all the point of GSG?
And i assume you can always reload to older version if there is such desire.

More or less this is how I feel. In the old expansion version, after a month of playing the only thing that was left to do was look for mods and typically I could only find one that I really liked per game, and so it was another month, then waiting for the modder to release a newer version, until the next expansion. Now... Not only do they have 4 major games in development at once, I'm getting new content for each, 2-3 times a year.... tis GSG nirvana for me

 

[mewzle]

I don't care that I'll inevitably get flak for this post. You know how people are getting Marvel fatigue and losing interest because of too much content? Well, that's sort of what I'm starting to get with Paradox games.

I, for one, am indeed tired of DLC after DLC after DLC, and you can look to your left for evidence that I have subscribed to it. The expansion model was more preferable for me, if solely for the sake of letting me play the game for more than a few months before it changes all over again. I have tried to get friends into these games who are dismayed by the fact that they also have to essentially "re-learn" the game every few months: they are, after all, already complicated games as it stands. I love them so much that it doesn't bother me, but I can't get other people into them this way. I don't care if it's the equivalent of 3-4 DLCs for the price of 3-4 DLCs. I'm willing to pay that; that isn't the point people like me are trying to make.

Additionally, it allows more time for the modders to catch up. Half the reason mods end up dying is because once they finally get a release for the current version, the next DLC has already been released and they're screwed by the new patch which supports it.

So in summation, yeah, charge me $40-50 once a year rather than $10-15 three to four times a year.

 

[romothecus]

If we released a single expansion per game with the same content as 3 or 4 DLCs we'd have to charge you 3 or 4 times as much, it's quite simple really. Pricing is set depending on content, time in development, man hours etc. If we spent 10 months developing a single DLC the price would ofc reflect this.

This is true to an extent, but you're making it sound like the price is entirely dependent on the inputs.

Let's be real. You sell the DLCs for what you think you can get for them. Sunset Invasion costs $4.99 but that doesn't mean it took 1/3 the resources to create and support that CK2: Monks and Mystics took at $14.99.

Besides making more money with smaller cheaper DLCs, you guys also need to make smaller, more frequent DLCs to show a more regular cash flow for investors. It's not some bizarre coincidence that you happened to have more outside investors around the same time that your DLC model changed.