Not a fan, but as long as it doesn't replace the option to buy individual DLC's that are of interest the no problems.
-
Crusader Kings III Available Now!
The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.
One way is to make it so that subscription add the paid Money to a wallet that can be used to purchase games from paradox store. This mean you can subscribe and get access to all paradox games with all dlcs and be able to purchase a paradox game/dlc at base price every two-three months, Assuming 9.99$ subscription.
I think that would be quite fair model, the developers gains Money but the subscribers eventually get to own games just like they would have purchased them normally.
I think that would be quite fair model, the developers gains Money but the subscribers eventually get to own games just like they would have purchased them normally.
Absolutely not. I would not play a game under a subscription model. It might make sense if you have lots of time, but for people with busy and/or odd schedules, and for people like me who play games on and off, it just doesn't make sense.
Dear God no. I'd rather pay for DLC once a year than a subscription what the f*k kind of suggestion is that. This made me feel sick.
No... subscriptions are awful. If DLC is bad we won't buy it but we can play the game without it and yell at devs to make next DLC better. Just no way to subscription crap... next you know we'll be flooded with cosmetics and actual good content will nowhere be seen.
This is the model I like the most. It has no downside to the consumer and only upside. If you play all the new paradox games and dlc all the time you pay the same as now and you still get to own the individual games/dlc. If you are just beginning or coming back you only pay 10$ for the whole experience instead of 1-200$ that scares you off. If after a month you feel like you only want a 10$ dlc and nothing more to your base game then you can cancel the subscription, use 10$ credit and be content with that.
You could probably even have a 20$ tier for the whale kind of people that even includes any new game with preorder/special edition stuff and you could just let it run and you get everything paradox makes and you will always know you have everything up to date.
Current dlc model isnt that good and a pure subscription model isnt either but you can actually combined the best of the 2 and have that as an additional option to the current model.
There are a few other services I use that use this kind of model. You pay a subscription and you get lots of stuff and each $ you pay turns into equal value of credit you can use to buy the thing you sunscribed for.
I pay 5-20$ a month for ad free reading and supporting a site I like and its content. I also get free book vouchers at equal value and credits to support and get extra content from specific sources. It works great.
And then I come back to EU4 and see that I have missed over 100$ worth of dlc and not to mention stellaris and HoI4 and my interest in playing just drops. If I could just pay 10$ a month running and build up credit I might even keep it going through periods im not playing since im not actually loosing anything but instead helping me manage my gaming budget. I have been playing these games since the old Svea Rike games in the 90s so im coming back all the time but each time lately its a bit harder and harder when I see the backlog of dlc im missing.
I don't think I should have even posted it because I don't want to encourage a switch in business model but it would be dishonest not to post it. Best to keep the model that have worked so far.
Apart from not seeing a monthly fee as practical, I see nothing wrong with the DLC system per se.
What I dislike is the approach. I don't like the idea to buy a game that to have the level of content you would expect from games like these, has to wait for 4 DLCs (not necessarily worthy of its money) to be released. I would expect to have something more than a sandbox like Imperator is. I bought it and I will wait for the cheapest offer for all the DLCs that are already coming.
Point is: I don't want the DLC to be mandatory.
What I dislike is the approach. I don't like the idea to buy a game that to have the level of content you would expect from games like these, has to wait for 4 DLCs (not necessarily worthy of its money) to be released. I would expect to have something more than a sandbox like Imperator is. I bought it and I will wait for the cheapest offer for all the DLCs that are already coming.
Point is: I don't want the DLC to be mandatory.
That is absolutely the right thing to do, TESO does that and it works really well ! As you said, both parts win in this model. The consumer has more value for its money and the developers have the ability to let the player test the full game for a low price and so attracts new players to the game.
This is actually a fair idea, given that we can have like a credit card rewards model, enticing more people to subscribe, while still getting the option to purchase the DLC and games afterwards with the point system
Aside that we also have the ongoing option to pay for the DLC upfront
With both system in place, it should favor everyone, and still manage paradox to continue developing
I prefer the DLC model to subscription but if subscription helps keep the lights on and the games coming, I'm down for it.
I don't play a ton of games any longer so the ones I do play, I really play the heck out of and most of them are Paradox or free.
I don't play a ton of games any longer so the ones I do play, I really play the heck out of and most of them are Paradox or free.
But that's the allure of a subscription model for me, precisely because I don't have infinite time playing, say, EU4, and often take long breaks from the PDX games, it'd be nice to just "rent" the game and all its DLC for a fortnight, or a month, and then put it aside again. That's... what subscription and rental models are for. If you need a power tool for a weekend, you don't buy it, you rent it.
Also, because I'm not made of money, I'll never buy all the DLCs for CK2 or EU4 to begin with, but having the whole experience for, say, two weeks at a time could be big fun.
Also, to everyone gettkng their panties in a twist, I don't think anyone is suggesting PDX switch to a subscription model, forcing that model onto everyone.
If you have a predictable schedule and only play one game at a given time and can consistently play a single game for a month, then sure. I thought it was obvious from my post that this is not the case for me.
To use your analogy, if you need a tool once in a while over the years, it makes more sense to buy it. With the amount you spend on renting it over and over again you might spend enough to buy it several times over. It'll be cheaper to buy it and have it sit in the garage/shed until you need it again.
This is true for games as well. Say something is $15-20 for a month and you subscribe 5 times over 2 years. 2 years is enough for, say, 2 DLC, let's say median price $15. If you buy all of it, that's $40-ish for the game, then $30-ish for the DLC, for $70 total. If you subscribe, even assuming the price stays the same with DLC, then that's $75-100 for the same period of time. The more you subscribe, the more the cost difference is in favor of buying outright. And all that's assuming the "buyer" buys everything full price, on release. I almost never do. I'm usually 1-3 DLC behind in Paradox games and pick them up on sale for 33 to 50% off.
Now if you only play the game in question once a year for a month straight, then sure, subscription makes sense so long as the hypothetical yearly DLC costs more than the subscription price. I don't do that.
Last edited:
Subscription models provide less incentive to make strong content updates, and more incentive to limpidly extend the life of old games than to develop new iterations.
That's because subscribers need to be nudged to opt out, and DLC buyers need to be nudged to buy. If you feel better about subscribing, congrats, the behavioral economists who came up with the model were literally targeting you as a person the company could get more money out of for less effort.
Subscription models make sense for MMOs precisely because they have high operational costs and because it's a pain to get the player base to switch to a sequel. If Paradox ever switches to a subscription model, they are literally only doing it because they bet you'll forget to cancel your sub even if they make crap updates for 12 months, or stop altogether. We should riot at the slightest hint this is happening.
The DLC model is fine. It might be annoying to convince your mom to buy each new one, but it's actually saving her money over the subscription. For every working person, it's far superior.
That's because subscribers need to be nudged to opt out, and DLC buyers need to be nudged to buy. If you feel better about subscribing, congrats, the behavioral economists who came up with the model were literally targeting you as a person the company could get more money out of for less effort.
Subscription models make sense for MMOs precisely because they have high operational costs and because it's a pain to get the player base to switch to a sequel. If Paradox ever switches to a subscription model, they are literally only doing it because they bet you'll forget to cancel your sub even if they make crap updates for 12 months, or stop altogether. We should riot at the slightest hint this is happening.
The DLC model is fine. It might be annoying to convince your mom to buy each new one, but it's actually saving her money over the subscription. For every working person, it's far superior.
I love how you rant for several paragraphs before you finally address, and agree with, what I said at the end of your post
. Better late than never.
Reading comprehension apparently isn't your strong suit.I love how you rant for several paragraphs before you finally address, and agree with, what I said at the end of your post
STOP! COOKIE TIME