Steam options Pre-order and Season Pass

[Evie HJ]

And the idea that business argument should only be considered when a business is in trouble is incredibly lacking in foresight.

You keep business issues in mind all the tim eto *avoid* being in trouble in the first place. You don't wait to be in trouble to take sound financial decisions.

Also, in my opinion, the biggest risk with Steam is to my wallet. all those specials tempting me to buy games I don't need...

 

[Svip]

Also, in my opinion, the biggest risk with Steam is to my wallet. all those specials tempting me to buy games I don't need...

I always thought Canadians were good at resisting temptation.

 

[leggbros]

Sad to read this, although it's not entirely unforeseen given the trends of both the industry and Paradox in particular (very disappointingly, I'll add). Unless it's the best preorder I've ever seen by a huge margin, I won't be buying until the eventual 75% off or more sale comes up on Gamersgate. Sad times for us lowly 5%.

 

[Svip]

Sad to read this, although it's not entirely unforeseen given the trends of both the industry and Paradox in particular (very disappointingly, I'll add). Unless it's the best preorder I've ever seen by a huge margin, I won't be buying until the eventual 75% off or more sale comes up on Gamersgate. Sad times for us lowly 5%.

The needs of the many... outweighs the needs of the few.

 

[RobRoy3]

Spending 50% of our QA time on something that stands for 5% of sales is just not very good business.

Nonsense. I sincerely hope Paradox has done a more sophisticated analysis than that!

Generally, anything that expands distribution is good for business, as long as it's not actually money losing. It depends on a number of things: what are the actual QA costs, relative to that 5% of sales; are those cost truly variable or are some fixed; how much cost savings would you actually realize by closing a distribution channel; how much of that 5% revenue is likely to be lost if you close that channel; how real is that 5% number; what has the number been for different games; how constant has that 5% number been over time, for what period, with what trajectory; how constant is the 5% number likely to be in the future, or for other games that might be less popular or appeal to a different audience.

The key is whether you'd open up or lose a critical mass of customers by opening/shutting off a particular channel. Will customers comply with a push toward the higher margin channel? I'm sure Paradox lost some revenue by shutting down physical/retail distribution, but presumably the cost savings and higher margins of the online channel(s) justified that, (especially since the online presence probably expanded exposure and total revenue, anyway). Perhaps the costs truly justify this. But a less profitable channel does not equate to money losing. If Paradox could generate more revenue by restoring the physical/retail channel, and those would cover the additional costs, it would be in their interests to do so (again, unless it would enable/encourage many customers to migrate from higher margin channels to lower margin channels).

Frankly, though, the analogy to retail increases my skepticism. I know some retail distribution costs can be substantial. But I'm wondering how Paradox' QA and online distribution costs can be so high, and how the difference in margin can be sufficiently significant, that it'd make sense to risk even a small portion of that 5% revenue.

 

[nitroholic]

Since CK II is so successful I'm assuming it's going to be supported/expanded on for quite a long time. Are you guys contemplating switching over to steam-only as well for CK II?

 

[Matt714]

Since CK II is so successful I'm assuming it's going to be supported/expanded on for quite a long time. Are you guys contemplating switching over to steam-only as well for CK II?

They won't do this because it's mostly too late...

 

[EUnderhill]

And the idea that business argument should only be considered when a business is in trouble is incredibly lacking in foresight.

You keep business issues in mind all the tim eto *avoid* being in trouble in the first place. You don't wait to be in trouble to take sound financial decisions.

Also, in my opinion, the biggest risk with Steam is to my wallet. all those specials tempting me to buy games I don't need...

Had Paradox greater heft it would make sense to make sure GG survived in order to keep a competitive marketplace, as did United and American Airlines by splitting orders between Boeing and McDonnell/Douglas to make sure both stayed viable...methinks this is a job for a bigger studio, however.

 

[nitroholic]

They won't do this because it's mostly too late...

I meant more along the lines of for future updates. I guess i'm just a bit unnerved at the dev's saying how inconvenient it is to work with 2 systems.

 

[Jaol]

In addition to being impractical, a season pass seems to work at cross-purposes with how Paradox is using DLC. In CK2, some DLC are major (new systems opened to play), some are merely cosmetic (music, sprites, etc.), and others are what I can only call speculative (Aztecs!?!). It seems like Paradox is taking advantage of the flexibility of the DLC model to experiment with some very off-the-wall/out-of-the-box ideas.

Given how much rage there was over the Aztec DLC when people didn't have any obligation to buy it, I can't imagine Paradox would ever want to be in a situation where people had prepaid for something like that sight unseen.

 

[James The 1st]

Nonsense. I sincerely hope Paradox has done a more sophisticated analysis than that!

Generally, anything that expands distribution is good for business, as long as it's not actually money losing. It depends on a number of things: what are the actual QA costs, relative to that 5% of sales; are those cost truly variable or are some fixed; how much cost savings would you actually realize by closing a distribution channel; how much of that 5% revenue is likely to be lost if you close that channel; how real is that 5% number; what has the number been for different games; how constant has that 5% number been over time, for what period, with what trajectory; how constant is the 5% number likely to be in the future, or for other games that might be less popular or appeal to a different audience.

The key is whether you'd open up or lose a critical mass of customers by opening/shutting off a particular channel. Will customers comply with a push toward the higher margin channel? I'm sure Paradox lost some revenue by shutting down physical/retail distribution, but presumably the cost savings and higher margins of the online channel(s) justified that, (especially since the online presence probably expanded exposure and total revenue, anyway). Perhaps the costs truly justify this. But a less profitable channel does not equate to money losing. If Paradox could generate more revenue by restoring the physical/retail channel, and those would cover the additional costs, it would be in their interests to do so (again, unless it would enable/encourage many customers to migrate from higher margin channels to lower margin channels).

Frankly, though, the analogy to retail increases my skepticism. I know some retail distribution costs can be substantial. But I'm wondering how Paradox' QA and online distribution costs can be so high, and how the difference in margin can be sufficiently significant, that it'd make sense to risk even a small portion of that 5% revenue.

Time is just as valuable as money

 

[RobRoy3]

Time is just as valuable as money

Did someone suggest otherwise?

If you're implying Paradox is unable to quantify time value, and/or unable to distinguish fixed and variable costs (and how to migrated them), I'd be surprised. If so, they have bigger problems and really shouldn't be making distribution channel decisions with such limited information.

 

[Svip]

Did someone suggest otherwise?

If you're implying Paradox is unable to quantify time value, and/or unable to distinguish fixed and variable costs (and how to migrated them), I'd be surprised. If so, they have bigger problems and really shouldn't be making distribution channel decisions with such limited information.

You make it sound like Paradox just made this decision on a whim. Projects like Paradox Connect and GamersGate always seemed to indicate that Paradox wanted to go its own way, and compete against Steam.

Whatever the reason for Paradox Connect's failure or GamersGate's inability to do any remarkable dent in Steam's marketshare, the fact of the matter is that Paradox have spent a decent amount of time seemingly fighting a Steam subjugation.

I don't know their own reasoning for these projects, but they always seemed like Steam alternatives to me. And it has essentially become 'we've tried and failed' and now they are going full-on Steam, so they don't have to bother writing certain APIs that they are not capable of writing anyway (*cough* network API *cough*).

This transition to Steam has taken years, and Crusader Kings II shows Paradox's last attempt at doing something Steam can do for them, but GamersGate cannot. The previous workflow of Paradox was good enough for traditional expansions, but it is not very handy for DLCs. And Paradox have decided that DLCs are more interesting way to go about it than the old way.

It must bother any developer, having to reinvent the wheel, which can be avoided simply by changing service provider.

 

[John Forseti]

They are not arguments. They are explanations.

That's a waste of a post. They are arguments given in favour of a course of action, that those arguments have swayed those in charge is the explanation of the course of action.

 

[Svip]

That's a waste of a post. They are arguments given in favour of a course of action, that those arguments have swayed those in charge is the explanation of the course of action.

You said you were not swayed by these 'arguments', but they are not meant to sway you, they are meant to explain a decision that has already been made to you. I doubt Paradox developers are keen on wasting their time swaying individuals.

 

[John Forseti]

You said you were not swayed by these 'arguments', but they are not meant to sway you, they are meant to explain a decision that has already been made to you. I doubt Paradox developers are keen on wasting their time swaying individuals.

I'm under no illusion that the decision is going to be changed any time soon or that it's going to be changed by forum posts, but you're still wasting posts(though we all are really ). It's also a bit silly to say we're not being swayed though, if the developpers had absolutely no interest in convincing us this wasn't a bad thing, why would they bother telling us EUIV and future products will end up getting more QA time and therefore be better?

 

[Svip]

I'm under no illusion that the decision is going to be changed any time soon or that it's going to be changed by forum posts, but you're still wasting posts(though we all are really ). It's also a bit silly to say we're not being swayed though, if the developpers had absolutely no interest in convincing us this wasn't a bad thing, why would they bother telling us EUIV and future products will end up getting more QA time and therefore be better?

People are asking for explanations. Developers are giving them. But some will be persuasions to sweep a larger group of people (not individuals) that EU4 will be better than CK2 because of its additional QA time.

 

[Grombeard]

Reading all this makes me kinda sad, although i understand the decision from a companys point of view.

Especially being able to decide which patch (many pdox patches bring radical gameplay changes with them!) i wanna play on and what patch to skip and not having to actively do something to NOT have patches installed were pretty nice and one of the main reasons for buying GG versions of Pdox games. I don't hate steam and use it for many other games but with this pdox-kind of games i like to have some kind of control and the ability to rollback to previous game versions...

But whatever... as i said i can understand the decision, but that must not mean i have to like it. And of course i will at least continue to buy the steam keys over at GG, if just for nostalgia reasons (and blue coins of course! )...

- A slightly shocked and sad, but understanding Dwarf

 

[dorimi]

Top five potential pre-order incentives...:ninja:

1. 10% off
2. Special forum badge/icon
3. Exclusive DLC (Pony sprites)
4. Free Paradox game (99.8% chance of it being Europa Universalis III)
5. Soundtrack

nice especially 2 and 4.

 

[TheRevanchist]

nice especially 2 and 4.

Don't forget the obligatory TF2 item!