-
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
Again, acting like this is all about money and has nothing to do with design methodologies, industry standards, and just a basic understanding of software engineering and the SDLC is naive and just plain wrong. Sure there's money involved but its also about how a company operates. You could make a very serious argument that there actually losing money by not following these practices. It's also insulting to alot of the people posting on here who know exactly what their talking about in terms of software engineering and testing.
Every manager has said I don't want to spend that extra week and 10k on that tool in order to do QA on the product. 6 extra weeks post release in redesign, cancelled contracts, lawsuits, etc some of them start to actually learn the value of QA. Your argument is practically as bad as that novice project manager who really has no understanding of software engineering.
I don't blame Johan or anyone at PI for doing anything maliciously. What I think is going on is a culture of software development that is outmoded and a normal resitance to change that you see at any company who has been doing something the same way for 10-15 years.
GM couldn't change over to Japanese manufacturing models even after implementing NUMMI and proving to themselves it cost less and produced a higher quality product. 20 years later we bailed them out for 50 billion all because their corporate culture was practically immune to change.
Last edited:
Ironically, I'm not the first one to go to a movie or buy a new anything. I usually, prefer to find out if its as good as advertised from friends before I put my money on the counter. In the past, PI fixed things up. So knowing that it was rough around the edges I purchased HOI3 anyway.
What's more my disappointment with EU3 kept me from buying Rome despite being absolutely in love with the time frame. I remembered how great the final Hoi2 product was and so gave HOI3 another shot thinking to myself a sandbox can work if they can atleast get the war started right. Its not new ground being the third rendition so how bad could it be......Well if a sandbox means switzerland taking sides, the US joining the war in 1938 before the war even started, or Mao and Zhang allied at the game start then I was wrong! Gross oversimplification on all accounts. Really surprised to see the HOI series regress on diplomacy of all things.
Really, people, I haven't read all the posts, and I don't know if someone said this before.But I think paradox are doing more than they actually can, and should.You think that HoI3 is or ever will be a popular game?We can say that this game is really a relic.You won't see many games like this cause they won't give money like some damn FPS game like COD4 or some MMORPG game.You should thank for these games, and if you want, you can always change the game by changing its scripts, and you don't have to be a programmer to do it, as it is quite simple.
Well, i am fairly sure PI assembled all marketing brain power they have available. I also think that the 'sell the alpha and finish later policy' is kind of a deliberate business decision.
The idea behind is simple: Set a high goal to get a good game in the end. So far, so good.
Since there's not enough financial backing to realise an ambitious plan with assets at hand, the lifecycle of the product gets artificially lengthened. It needs PI several years and addons to get a released product into a state of being looked at as a 'finalised project'. The total effort certainly isn't any lower than a full effort before release. On the contrary. They try to make up via cash for addons but they lose so much for selling games at 9,99 [enter currency of your choice] over the course of years to get any revenue for staying in business. For those alphas/betas it's absolutely impossible to set any higher price.
Those special offers would not be that devastating if the game were good all the while and much higher a price would be justified - and acceptable to customers.
My criticism is not that PI made a dumb decision but a debatable one:
If PI concentrated on fewer projects at a given time, they could use their manpower (women, too
) to get things done within a set timeframe. They could cut costs short on support because the product they sold does actually work.As it is now, PI could not survive without the support they (have to) offer. Many customers would abandon the brand.
PI has become highly dependent on customers like some of my friends:
They buy every pile of scrap PI ever publishes to keep PI in business. The genre is a niche, PI is a niche developer/publisher and based on their policy - they will ever stay so.
My friends then put the games onto the shelf and only start playing after 1-2 years and several patches (and addons they purchase, too). They know that the games are dirty, untested, unbalanced, unstable alphas not worth a minute of their lifetime.
They accept that and invest money and patience to get a playable game in the further future. A kind of games actually, they do like a lot as soon as they become finalised projects.
It's dudes like my friends who have kept PI in business. Each of them spent several hundreds of euros on games of which they have only played a few.
I simply ask: How many unfinished projects does PI actually sell at this very moment? 3? 9? How many of them already sell as a 'special offer' a few weeks/months after release? I don't know. But it's a bunch of them.
I only think that fewer of them at a time, which are competetive on a larger market and which justify (and are charged for) a full price could help the company to fare better with the same effort and the same manpower. Meanwhile, they could play in the same league as other publishers do. The QA-aspect of PI games simply is a A to Z calamity that ensures only one thing: PI will stay in the niche they did start in so many years ago...
Bottom line: The problems are homemade, not selfishness on the part of customers.
It's an issue of complexity: The ratio of features vs developers that Paradox has leads to this kinds of problems, and it's very hard to go around it. As games get more complicated, as HOI3 is, it's pretty hard to build the game right, much less get it right the first time. The sanest thing a company like Paradox can do is leverage the dedicated modder community, and set it up so that they can fix the game.
The problem in HOI3's case is that the things that we have the most trouble with are not moddable. Personally, the only things that I'd consider backbreaking in 1.4 are strategic problems: The US does nothing, and the UK little. The Soviets fold in seconds. The first two are not something a modder can fix AFAIK. The last is hard to do without at least an event that forces the soviets to mobilize 3 or 4 months before they are invaded. Every other problem left, bad as it might be, is not something that makes the game not fulfill the basis of its promise.
Yes Johan, the current pricing schemes are terrible for early adopters, and are getting worse. Look at, say, Fallout 3: An early adopter pays more to start has to pay for extra content at what I consider crazy rates. As time goes by, the game itself goes down in price, and the addons are built into it. But if you bought it when it came out, you still have to fork $40+ to get the content that the new version brings for free, and that one costs $40 anyway. The end result is that this DLC scheme that they have makes me want to not just wait for the store to put the game on sale, but to wait a whole year until a complete edition of the game is released. Yuck.
The problem in HOI3's case is that the things that we have the most trouble with are not moddable. Personally, the only things that I'd consider backbreaking in 1.4 are strategic problems: The US does nothing, and the UK little. The Soviets fold in seconds. The first two are not something a modder can fix AFAIK. The last is hard to do without at least an event that forces the soviets to mobilize 3 or 4 months before they are invaded. Every other problem left, bad as it might be, is not something that makes the game not fulfill the basis of its promise.
Yes Johan, the current pricing schemes are terrible for early adopters, and are getting worse. Look at, say, Fallout 3: An early adopter pays more to start has to pay for extra content at what I consider crazy rates. As time goes by, the game itself goes down in price, and the addons are built into it. But if you bought it when it came out, you still have to fork $40+ to get the content that the new version brings for free, and that one costs $40 anyway. The end result is that this DLC scheme that they have makes me want to not just wait for the store to put the game on sale, but to wait a whole year until a complete edition of the game is released. Yuck.
Word. These days we work less, achieve more. I'll spare you the rant
& limit myself to a few buzzwords you can either google or use for a game of bullshit bingo: lean, agile, SCRUM, kaizen, andon, sustainable pace. Und please stop telling us you can make a bigger mound of earth by shoveling for 80 hrs than by using a bulldozer for 1 hr.
What argument have I made? I made a statement saying it's asinine for people to think they have a better understanding on how Paradox works and how best to improve the company then Paradox themselves and people are saying to spend money that's not there's to spend. I'm not claiming Paradox's model is right, I'm stating Paradox has a better understanding of how to run their company then me, you, or any other consumer here.
Well, all decisions are debatable and this certainly isn't an exception. On the flip side of that wouldn't putting out fewer products seriously hamper revenue which in term limits resources which then forces you to, as is now, rush out products to get the bills paid since less revenue overall is coming in? You didn't really correct the problem, you just made it occur less frequently.
Become? They've always been dependent on those types. The genre is extremely narrow and Paradox, whether you accept their strategy or not, is a great company that at the end of the day produces great series. But they're ambitious people, and they usually bite off more then they should on their projects and due to limited resources and manpower they usually fall short. To make up for this short coming they do everything in their power to polish it up and make the series something their proud of. We went through this dance when HoI 2 came out, we'll be going through this dance when HoI 4 comes out. Shoddy initial product riddled with bugs yet once the next installment is out people are complaining it's not up to the level the last product was.
Well, I've gotten plenty of enjoyment out of HoI3 since 1.4 and mods have rolled out. But yes it's understandable, though that's over exaggeration. No Paradox game released has been a "dirty, untested, unbalanced, unstable Alpha." I can show you some games that meet that qualification.
As do I. I'm well aware of what I'm getting myself into, but I purchase the product usually within the first week despite the fact I know it won't be up to par. I'd rather pay the $40 near release to help the company out then save it and buy the game in a few years for $20. In my opinion they've earned it from me, but I certainly don't expect anyone else to feel the same way.
One? Hearts of Iron 3 is really the only "unfinished" product I'm aware. Unless your standards really that high that you don't consider the EU3, HoI2, EU: Rome, Victoria, ect. series to be finished. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying here?
And I assume you have some evidence to support this claim, or are you speculating and simply going against Paradox's strategy because you personally don't approve? Cutting revenue is not the direction you ever want to take a company as that forces you to reshape your entire company.
Indeed they are homemade, but it is selfishness for a consumer to expect the company to change simply because you want it to benefit yourself and not necessarily because it benefits the company.
We could argue and probably would do so for ages. Your stance apparently is similar to the one of my friends. Just pay and let the publisher do as he likes to.
My point is not an order to meet my ends but to give suggestion to rethink on how to approach managing a major project like HoI 3 apparently is one. I would gladly see PI expand and become an important player in the business. Well, the road there is a little more stoney.
My reception is that PI underestimated the necessary effort - and as a consequence there is so much disappointment and unsolved issues around.
And hear, hear - some PI employee told that the company would pay professional playtesters in the future. That's what i call 'lesson learned' and that is also the reason why i am sure that the idea of the generic PI-approach to develop and publish games in the past is subject to immediate change. Not the worst of decisions if you ask me - one step into the right direction.
Still, everyone of us is selfish - and naturally inclined to do so. You might feel better to know that some dev can drink beer with the money you spent on their proucts. But you did that only to get something you want - and not increase welfare in Sweden (drinks are horribly expensive over there).
PI make their decisions and i do mine. I won't buy any game before it got into playing shape in the future. This is the lesson i learned. I have the money they want - i decide on what to spend it. That's why markets in the modern world are customer oriented.
The lesson continues: I wait, save a lot of money and time on playtesting. This is a consequence of PI's business philosophy they - according to you - do not intend to change.
For as long as they keep that up - i and many others will keep much money spare to spend on different things. Thus basically you are right. Everything's fine.
Last edited:
I can't help reading threads like this one, and my reaction is always the same: I like HoI3 (though it's not my Paradox favourite game), and I don't know why people who think that they've wasted they're money waste either their time complaining. They just have to wait to read the reaction of 'first adopters' of SemperFi to have an idea about if it worths the money.
I don't need them. I will preorder it.
I don't need them. I will preorder it.
Now i know this game is not up to industry standards and what not, but can someone please point out a game that was complete when it was released, because the only ones that come to mind for me are the orginal c&c games. And i mean any game made by anyone, that was actually for sale, and wasn't some little game made by some indie developer.
Indeed, I believe it's been said they're going to hire an external QA team for Vicky 2 which is a good step into improving their products upon release. And as I said before the publishing arm of Paradox has made quite a few investments so hopefully if those ventures prove successful we'll also some more funding pumped into the development arm.
I just think people are ultimately making a big scene over nothing, it's the same knee jerk reaction we see with every Paradox release and it gets kind of tiring after a while. Contrary to popular belief Paradox is taking steps to improve themselves with product releases and support, as we see with the hiring of the QA team for Vicky 2. Was HoI3 flawed when released, hell yeah. But as always Paradox busted their butts and got 4 large patches out for it and left it in decent shape in preparation for Semper Fi which will no doubt bring it to the next level.
I understand people dislike the fact it takes so long for a Paradox product to reach that level we usually associate Paradox with, but for now it's just a reality until they're able to secure more financing and expand their operations a bit to allow them the time and tools needed to tackle such ambitious products.
You made the argument that in order to test their software they would have to layout a whole bunch of money they didn't have.
And also yes sometimes outsiders have a much better view of how a company should be run, exactly like in my GM example above. How many people here knew for the past 30 years GM and the American car company in general was losing to Japan? I can tell you from reading a bit on the subject that Toyota absolutly knew and that GM was deluding themselves, as well as the 60% of americans who bought foreign cars. GM lost 22% market share in less than 10 years and still thought they weren't doing anything wrong.
I have been desiging software long enough and have been educated well enough in software engineering practices that I can tell you their model is just plain wrong. Not only from the standpoint of the consumers getting poorly QA'd software but from a financial point as well. Even in the gaming industry each dollar spent on QA should save you about $6 dollars in redesign and patch work. And im talking hard core testing algorithms that have been peer reviewed across hundereds of universities that is wide spread in the industry among any software developer worth their salt.
are you seriously comparing the later paradox games with games with 1 or 2 patches that correct 10 small bugs or so? This is getting more and more ridiculous
this whole "you have to buy paradox games otherwise there are only shitty mainstream games" aurgument is so, so wrong. There a lot of good, and sometimes great, strategy games and wargames (and I'm not talking about RTSs) that are actually decent at release.
Right now I'm much more confident in "Paradox the publisher" than in "Paradox the developer" and I won't change my mind unless they actually release something (read: Victoria 2) that has both good design and reasonable polish without having to wait a year or more and buy the inevitable expansion.
Guys please!
There is only so and so much you can do with the money you have to develop such a product. It's true that they wanted to give us more that they could at the time.
But the game would not have the scope if it would have been more polished. It might take another 20$ for the game to be polished from each of us. Is that so bad?
I mean would you really trade that for a game with less features?
I just paid 10$ to get to the airport via public transportation, another 15 for a magazin and a book to read while traveling.
The discount you are asking for Semper Fi would be about equal to a Starbucks coffee, while the additional effort for Paradox to check if or if not someone qualifies for the discount would probably be twice that.
This is just not going to happen.
There is only so and so much you can do with the money you have to develop such a product. It's true that they wanted to give us more that they could at the time.
But the game would not have the scope if it would have been more polished. It might take another 20$ for the game to be polished from each of us. Is that so bad?
I mean would you really trade that for a game with less features?
I just paid 10$ to get to the airport via public transportation, another 15 for a magazin and a book to read while traveling.
The discount you are asking for Semper Fi would be about equal to a Starbucks coffee, while the additional effort for Paradox to check if or if not someone qualifies for the discount would probably be twice that.
This is just not going to happen.
Then why don't you go play these games and stop wasting your time here?
If you are coming here to complain, it seems that you like the game, and it has nothing to do about the money you spend with the game.How many times we spend money with things we rarely or never use?Also, you problaby spend 3 times 20 dollars you used to buy HoI3 in a day.
If Paradox were not realeasing changes, then ok, everyone would be right.But please, they released a patch recently and they have way more games than HoI3 to take care of.
You complain because I'm almost certain that NONE of you are or knows the problems of a programmer.There's always a problem, and while you fix something, you automatically create another problem.It is a never ending cicle, so there isn't and there will never be a balanced game, at least not some game as complex as HoI3 (HoI3 is complex, but to change it, it is not).
I can't feel any compassion on this matter. Seriously. This is in no way a problem of the customer, who is charged a full price for a product that is sold under the label to be working as designed.
So, i can get along with things that are design flaws in my opinion, but if Paradox made the game like this, i have to accept that. It's like watching a movie at the cinema. You can't just get your money back because you disliked the plot.
But if there are problems, may they be gamebreaking errors or annoying bugs,
which are clearly programming mistakes or something like that, then it has to be adressed and fixed by the developer.
At least that is my opinion.
I have bought every Paradox game since EUII aside from minor titles like Rome and Diplomacy. HOI3 was the end of that for me. I simply cannot imagine a company with any self-respect releasing such a broken abomination. This trend has been building for some time, so I can't really dismiss it as a fluke.
I still intend to be a customer and Vicky 2 does look to be shaping up good, but this in the end of me pay full price a release date for a Paradox game.
Honestly, I don't think it's fully set in at PI just how badly they've screwed themselves with EU3 and HOI3. Many of their loyal customers are gone and will never pay $50 for their games again. I'll only pay 1/5th that price out of the bargain bin once the game is finally decent. And I'm not the only one...
I still intend to be a customer and Vicky 2 does look to be shaping up good, but this in the end of me pay full price a release date for a Paradox game.
Honestly, I don't think it's fully set in at PI just how badly they've screwed themselves with EU3 and HOI3. Many of their loyal customers are gone and will never pay $50 for their games again. I'll only pay 1/5th that price out of the bargain bin once the game is finally decent. And I'm not the only one...
- Status