That's because games lately are rather bad so they'd rather try to grab purchases unwittingly than let people try it and realize that it's not what they were expecting from the overdone ads and paid off reviews.
:wacko:
Several issues or "why the demo convinced me to not buy the game"
- Thread starter fafinir
- 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.
That's because games lately are rather bad so they'd rather try to grab purchases unwittingly than let people try it and realize that it's not what they were expecting from the overdone ads and paid off reviews.
:wacko:
Reading this thread has made me remember one of my favorite quotes;
'Its been said that the quest for knowledge is the noblest occupation of man, but on the way there be dragons lurking in the dark forests of ignorance. And the name of these dragons are "incompetence", "political bias", "deliberate distortion" and "sheer wrong headed stupidity".'
'Its been said that the quest for knowledge is the noblest occupation of man, but on the way there be dragons lurking in the dark forests of ignorance. And the name of these dragons are "incompetence", "political bias", "deliberate distortion" and "sheer wrong headed stupidity".'
I'm not discussing your first point because I don't know enough to do it, but as for the second, upgrading the monarch, aren't you missing something? The very point of the monarchy is the fact that some tool inherit the kingdom because who was his alleged father! You want to be able to chooce every once in a while between a selection of leaders? Play a republic or transform your government in one. Being able to upgrade a king would just be gamey, not historical at all.
I find it hard to disagree with the thread starter and those are my concerns as well. But most of all maybe, I'm starting to get so cynical and the writing on the walls seems to indicate - this will be another title that needs serious patching(which we are used to from paradox so it's not the end of the world) but mainly it will get a bunch of dlc's to flesh out and fix the game. Making the whole ordeal painfully expensive.
But there's little alternative so most of us will accept it, and buy it regardless, and paradox will continue to get away with this abysmal dlc practice. And please don't insult my intelligence by saying but you don't have to buy it?!?!
Hopefully I am wrong.
But there's little alternative so most of us will accept it, and buy it regardless, and paradox will continue to get away with this abysmal dlc practice. And please don't insult my intelligence by saying but you don't have to buy it?!?!
Hopefully I am wrong.
One might say that late 17th-century Spain went into decline partly because it had an inbred puppet as a ruler. And indeed, perhaps there was more than historical opportunism to the actions of Hitler. They are not as important as you think, but to say that the quality of a ruler has nothing to do with the outcome is a little dismissive. We know that Hitler made some important decisions as Fuhrer, such as ignoring the advice of his best generals. The leader doesn't decide the cards they're dealt, but they do decide how to use them - some rulers make better decisions than others.
And we might say the importance of one individual varies depending on their power. Take Muscovy/Russia under Ivan the Terrible for example. The sheer amount of tyrannical power he wielded might just have changed a lot. In an age of autocracy and absolute monarchy, of course there should be some simulation of powerful leaders.
So yes, I think rulers' stats should matter, a lot.
As for the whole DLC thing, I don't care. I would pay out a few quid more for the evidently greater quality content Paradox is providing. Most of it for the price of peanuts.
Last edited:
If I remember correctly, 3-4 years ago, this wasn't how it worked. When EU3 came out it didn't have a dozen different DLCs one could get by pre-ordering. The price of the game shouldn't and wouldn't go up. The release (day) DLC is already made, so why not put in the game with the same price. DLC is a just another way a company can make more money from a product that is already there. It is just an excuse to get consumers to dish out more money. And as can be seen, it works, fools many into thinking they are getting more for their money.
In fact you are paying more for content that should be in the game to begin with, especially if it is available on release day.
I hate to be contrary, but because of the CK2 and EU4 dlc method, I was actually resigned to not buying it. Playing the demo actually convinced me that it's a good game regardless of their business methods. And if it goes the way of CK2 and EU3, I can only expect it to get better.
3-4 years ago everything on release was a broken mess that required Paradox's underdeveloped Q and A team to rush out a patch that broke more things than it fixed. I like the new system much more.
Not only that with eu3 you HAD to buy the expansions to even get patches, the new method is so much nicer.
In truth I am confused why anybody would prefer the old system? I can't even comprehend the reasons for it.
In addition to what Sepulcher about back then, EU3 at release also didn't have extra music, or extra graphics, or extra events at all. There was no time when stuff that's DLC these days was in the game already, because it wasn't made at all.
Last edited:
Oh it had extra graphics, you just had to buy the bug ridden badly concived peice of softwear known as "divine wind" to get them. Quite nice graphics that I would eagerly have paid for seperately without the rest of divine wind. Of course, because of the "amazing" old expansion system I could not.
Oh it had extra graphics, you just had to buy the bug ridden badly concived peice of softwear known as "divine wind" to get them. Quite nice graphics that I would eagerly have paid for seperately without the rest of divine wind. Of course, because of the "amazing" old expansion system I could not.
Divine Wind being bad was not the fault of the expansion system, don't be silly.
No, but it is the fault of the expansion system that I am forced to get a bad expansion just to get patches, which are free with the current system. It is also its fault that I cannot simply buy the graphics seperately, which is far better imo.
Here is my take on Paradox's approach to DLCs and why I don't mind it.
I stopped buying paradox game for two main reasons. Disclaimer these reasons are relative to me only, while these things are factually true my dislike of them is subjective. EU3 was the last game I bought and I bought it twice (Physical Collectors and then a physical copy of EUIII complete.) Yet While I bought Victoria, HOI, EU, EUII, HOII. I stopped buying other games.
1) Digital downloads only.
2) EU3 approach to support. (Main reason)
In EU3 there was a rather major problem with China getting past the urals as they gobbled up the steppe nomads. We got three patches that all failed to solve the problem but attempts were made, they just weren't effective. Then Nappy's Ambition came out and all support for EUIII stopped. Don't get me wrong you could get support for EUIII+Nappy's Ambition but you were shit out of luck for getting any bugs fixed for EUIII alone. So if you wanted flaws fixed you had to further invest in the game. This to me felt like paradox was holding me hostage for fixing their game.
Along comes the DLC approach we saw with CK2. Lots of DLCs but now I truly DONT have to buy any and I can still get my game improved, tweaked and bugs fixed. This DLC approach means that CK2 is still patched not just CK2+all the expansions getting patches. I have no problem with the DLC system because I stated I still get support for just the base game and I can cherry pick those DLCs that have content I find interesting. The Aztec invasion DLC has little interest to me but I can see why other players would love it. Those players that want it can get it and those players who don't want it suffer no ill effects for opting out.
This new approach has made me a customer again. Enough that I can ignore the digital download version as my only option. Companies don't always get it right with their business models but when they make changes for the better I feel its not out of line for me the customer to change my stance on the company. When I see the other approaches to the whole expansion/DLC issue I have to say paradox has improved.
Also one of the things I like was that the difference between the deluxe/standard edition was only $5 and they did not make it exclusive. I am of the opinion that in the DLC era of games you shouldn't make things exclusive but if you advertise that an item is exclusive to me you damn well better make sure it stays exclusive because it paid for this exclusivity. This allows people the (likely) ability to get the DLCs at a late date. This is a great option for the player and the company. I did not find the paradox day one DLC egregious not compared to mass effect's 3 day one DLC which was a main bloody character/companion to the story so perspective is needed I think.
I stopped buying paradox game for two main reasons. Disclaimer these reasons are relative to me only, while these things are factually true my dislike of them is subjective. EU3 was the last game I bought and I bought it twice (Physical Collectors and then a physical copy of EUIII complete.) Yet While I bought Victoria, HOI, EU, EUII, HOII. I stopped buying other games.
1) Digital downloads only.
2) EU3 approach to support. (Main reason)
In EU3 there was a rather major problem with China getting past the urals as they gobbled up the steppe nomads. We got three patches that all failed to solve the problem but attempts were made, they just weren't effective. Then Nappy's Ambition came out and all support for EUIII stopped. Don't get me wrong you could get support for EUIII+Nappy's Ambition but you were shit out of luck for getting any bugs fixed for EUIII alone. So if you wanted flaws fixed you had to further invest in the game. This to me felt like paradox was holding me hostage for fixing their game.
Along comes the DLC approach we saw with CK2. Lots of DLCs but now I truly DONT have to buy any and I can still get my game improved, tweaked and bugs fixed. This DLC approach means that CK2 is still patched not just CK2+all the expansions getting patches. I have no problem with the DLC system because I stated I still get support for just the base game and I can cherry pick those DLCs that have content I find interesting. The Aztec invasion DLC has little interest to me but I can see why other players would love it. Those players that want it can get it and those players who don't want it suffer no ill effects for opting out.
This new approach has made me a customer again. Enough that I can ignore the digital download version as my only option. Companies don't always get it right with their business models but when they make changes for the better I feel its not out of line for me the customer to change my stance on the company. When I see the other approaches to the whole expansion/DLC issue I have to say paradox has improved.
Also one of the things I like was that the difference between the deluxe/standard edition was only $5 and they did not make it exclusive. I am of the opinion that in the DLC era of games you shouldn't make things exclusive but if you advertise that an item is exclusive to me you damn well better make sure it stays exclusive because it paid for this exclusivity. This allows people the (likely) ability to get the DLCs at a late date. This is a great option for the player and the company. I did not find the paradox day one DLC egregious not compared to mass effect's 3 day one DLC which was a main bloody character/companion to the story so perspective is needed I think.
Agreed on several points, however charging people more money for contents that's essentially build and already present is not right. Patches can still be released like DLC, free of charge. Something is broken and needs fixing, they do so and release a patch. That's different than DLC.
Even when HOI3 was released, along with it came release day DLC. Sprites and special units for certain nations. Why is that released as DLC and not part of the game out right, and why charge for it? Obviously it is already available so why not put in the game. It's just a rip-off.
Not as smaller countries. Even as larger ones though, they're not as big an impact as the rulers which have too much of an impact for being completely RNG. I'm still going to buy it but I wouldn't be surprised if they tweaked the RNG or ruler significant some.
So what you're saying is that instead of having to buy the bad patches (that's what an expansion is after all, with more features you apparently didn't like) you'll get them for free instead but there is some imaginary choice to not have them at all?
This is getting sillier by the moment.
Why does it matter when something is made? If we continue your train of thought, then the whole game should be free because it's made already.
True but this isn't the approach paradox is taking anymore. CK2 base game uses the current patch. You don't need all the DLCs to get support with paradox anymore.
As far as I know, and I have obviously missed discounts and such, you can get the full game pre launch for 44.99 or whatever. That's less than many games now, few of which offer the replayability of EU. However, I do agree on the constant stream of DLC for like Crusader Kings, but I hear the arguments on both sides and I wallow.
In this case though, if you never play, like Byzantium, then you don't need that bonus (I think it was pre order).
I do agree on many of the OPs points, but the gameplay trumps realism in many more cases here I think. I do prefer the way tech worked in EU3 so far, but I will give this game some time to convince me otherwise, once I can play a nation I actually like, which is why I didn't play much of the demo.
In this case though, if you never play, like Byzantium, then you don't need that bonus (I think it was pre order).
I do agree on many of the OPs points, but the gameplay trumps realism in many more cases here I think. I do prefer the way tech worked in EU3 so far, but I will give this game some time to convince me otherwise, once I can play a nation I actually like, which is why I didn't play much of the demo.
Wrong. Even paradox realised the error of their ways.
An expansion is NOT a patch that is BS. In EUIII there were major bugs that they refuse to address in the base game they made you buy the expansion to get support thus holding you hostage to get support. This was wrong and paradox realized this. Fast forward to CK2 and the DLC system; now you can get all the DLCs, none of the DLCs or cherry pick the DLCs and you still use the same patch for the game. This means as a player you get fixes to the game regardless of what other content you buy which is a fairer way to support your game.
You are the one being silly because you are blindly supporting paradox when they themselves saw a flaw to the system and changed the system. Companies don't need this kind of blind support, they need people to say "Hey this is wrong and this is why its wrong." Paradox's change has directly resulted in me buying EUIV. This is evidence that making changes on negative impute helps the company. But your Paradox is always right attitude doesn't help anyone.