I bought the full game because I like Paradox, I don't care for things like flavour anyway.
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.
I like the decision points the new system requires - a far superior system to the sliders we could once exploit - and I have been exploiting those sliders from the time before time when EU I was first released 
Those two statements are fine. No amount of closed beta testing will reveal all (all being the key word here) of the bugs and balance issues in a game as complex as EU4, but once you get many thousands of people playing it previously undiscovered bugs and balance issues have a tendency of showing themselves.
What I don't understand about some gamers is that they somehow seem to feel entitled to get a game that is exactly how they want it.
Maybe it's just me, but when I see a movie or read I book I don't like, I don't expect the movie studio or author to "fix" it to something I like. I feel the same about games: I have many games in my Steam library that I dislike; I just won't play these games ever again. Perhaps if the OP has problems with the game, maybe then you shouldn't buy it? The game is what Paradox Interactive wants it to be, and perhaps that's not a game for you. Speak with your wallet.
And can we, please, just stop whining about the DLC? If you don't want it, don't buy it. The developers have stated that they release small content patches that players can pay for, and not include it in the base game because it would raise the cost of the game. If you can't afford them: gaming is an expensive hobby (it IS a hobby, not some guaranteed "right").
Maybe it's just me, but when I see a movie or read I book I don't like, I don't expect the movie studio or author to "fix" it to something I like. I feel the same about games: I have many games in my Steam library that I dislike; I just won't play these games ever again. Perhaps if the OP has problems with the game, maybe then you shouldn't buy it? The game is what Paradox Interactive wants it to be, and perhaps that's not a game for you. Speak with your wallet.
And can we, please, just stop whining about the DLC? If you don't want it, don't buy it. The developers have stated that they release small content patches that players can pay for, and not include it in the base game because it would raise the cost of the game. If you can't afford them: gaming is an expensive hobby (it IS a hobby, not some guaranteed "right").
I seriously hope to see Population factor back in the game, because as he clearly stated, it's retarded having an african empire or brazilian empire stronger than whole europe in just a few years because you dont have to wait for your population to grow, giving you more taxes, productions, etc as it grows.
I hope a patch brings this back or a DLC, even tho we've just preordered the game (in my case I spent 40€ for the Digital Extreme Edition) and we're already talking about DLCs and stuff.. money doesn't grow on trees, at least not where I live.
I hope a patch brings this back or a DLC, even tho we've just preordered the game (in my case I spent 40€ for the Digital Extreme Edition) and we're already talking about DLCs and stuff.. money doesn't grow on trees, at least not where I live.
Actually this isn't the problem. It's that to have the ideas to colonize, you have to deliberately not take the technology that allows you to colonize, meaning that your decision to be a colonizing nation is handicapped by the fact that you decided to be a colonizing nation.
Ideas and technology don't compliment each other, and it seems that in the early game they in fact exclude each other. And it seems that, for armies at least, tech is way more important early game then ideas. So to be a militaristic nation, you have to shun all military ideas until you have a commanding tech lead essentially. Which is a bit silly.
Because the people were employed and tasked with the purpose of actually making said DLC.
Now, hopefully had the DLC not existed it wouldn't have meant they'd be let go in some capacity, but stuff like this is done to help mitigate risk. It might be different in Europe, but over here EU4 is actually cheaper than most games ($40 instead of $50 or $60), so in this sense it seems like they have made the game somewhat modular. I can pay $45 and get the bonus sprite stuff (I could see it sliding to $10 after release though), or I can save myself some money and skip out on content that I don't care about (Thanks Paradox!)
I do like this, and the paradox dlc policy has never really bothered me. I tend to skip the artistic DLC, and waffle up the content dlc
Um, I never said in-house and betas were useless. How did you read that in my post? Both are very useful, or I wouldn't utilize both of them at my company. My point was that they don't catch everything, and never can.
I'M the one supporting Paradox? What? I hate their decision. I even just implied it was their fault DW had bad features (Which it was). I'm not sure you're responding to the right person? Are you talking about yourself? I thought it was silly to say that he hated the features of DW and wished he didn't have to have them then praise that say CK2 has free updates and the features are given to you for free. What if they didn't like those features? You wouldn't have a choice in their implementation. At least with EU3 you can not play DW. In CK2 features are added and you don't have a choice to have them in-game since it's straight into the patches, though you can't play as the relevant 'people' unless you buy the DLC. If you don't want those features then you have to roll back to an earlier patch.
Games do not need to be so modular that every little feature and object can be purchased extra if you so wish. Portraits and etc would be the worst offenders of this system. Why aren't they as good as they can be before? Why do I need to pay extra so that they can look good/unique? Why can't the game be polished and set, and if they want to make it better they can do so? Some artists who would be out of a job I guess since apparently the only thing they can do is work on one thing.
Last edited:
he was wrong though, the tax bases are fairly accurate, and population doesnt equal high tax anyway. Look at africa today, very poor, but massive populations. The tax bases and all that still grows, we just don't have a silly population indicator, which was really ugly in EU3. end up with chinese provinces with 999999 pop by mid game, and then other areas with 99999 pop by the end. It just looked stupid.
Yeah, it seems you can't prioritize trade over military or vice versa; you can't swap one type of MPs for another. A possible remedy would be to allow greater freedom in recruiting advisors: why not have more than one of one type within the maximum three?
It means that the artists would work on something else.
The unfortunately reality for people like you is that the DLC was created because they feel it's stand alone from the game and can help mitigate the risk for the project
Why shouldn't you pay extra for more bells and whistles?
Further, if you don't think it's worth the money, why can you not wait for the price to come down so that the game with the DLC is at a point that you DO feel it is worth it?
If you'd prefer to NOT have the content, however, that's
Guess the population number there was too damn high for EU to display.
The demo gained them a guaranteed sale here, as I'm now positive my computer will run it.
DLC's are the new master in gaming.
Get used to it.
I know it is good to speak about good old battleships, but its 1940ies and carriers will dominate the new era
Get used to it.
I know it is good to speak about good old battleships, but its 1940ies and carriers will dominate the new era
A better analogy for the DLC paradox uses would be something like DVD features. You can watch and enjoy the movie without them, but pay a bit extra and you get it all, deleted scenes, commentary, whatever the hell else is on those things. Except in this case its specific unit models and portrait art.
Now if they were selling essential patches that'd be a different story. A lot of people do that, thankfully paradox doesn't.
Now if they were selling essential patches that'd be a different story. A lot of people do that, thankfully paradox doesn't.
For AAA titles, that I might play for 40-50 hours, I pay $60+, with Paradox Games I often get 500+ hours out of Paradox Games (10x more play time) and they tend to be more enjoyable hours than the, say, 50 hours in the AAA titles. So, by my reckoning I'm getting a game worth $600 for $30-$40. I really don't seeing how giving you the opportunity to spend a few bucks more to improve a game you're already getting for 1/20th the cost of the value it gives can be construed as ripping you off? If anything, you're ripping them off.
After playing for a few days now and having some initial reservations, I have to say I'm very happy with the game. There are huge number of improvements from EU3 and the complaints I had initially have become minor irritants as opposed to major issues. The more I play the more I like it which is a really good sign.