Sub model: A question to naysayers.

[Cri11e]

That is my stance as well.

So far, that makes OP Question difficult to answer:
I do generally Agree, because I think its generally okay, or even prefferable to have two payment ways - but subscription not being one of them!
I would Disagree, since I see no reason to keep only the present payment way - I just would love better alternatives than sub.
And I would also do Helpful, because the reasoning of others is quite interesting as well

He makes a valid point. However, it really depends on who your target audience is with payment option nr2 and which flies you want to hit.
A subscription model that gives the latest content just seems less intimidating for new and returning players than the alternatives mentioned.

I don't feel inclined to return if I have to climb a huge paywall even with 75% sale on the latest expansion it will still be more than a month worth of subscription fee, not to mention if I can't try the latest content thats pretty anti climatic from my point of view.

 

[Nyrael]

As long as both options are there, I don't have problems with it. Regular players will want to buy DLC separately (as paying every month will cost you more), while irregular players will pay only for months they play the game.

The main purpose of this model is to save you from having to pay enormous amounts of money if you join the game late or don't play regularly, aka to not discourage new and irregular players away. As long as it isn't the primary mans of financing, the whole "release regular shovelware" won't be a problem. That "Shovelware" model, if you want to call it that, has been active during DDRJake's regime, and it worked so well that PDS abandoned it for all their games (now DLC take longer to make again) so I don't see it making a comeback.

 

[Oglesby]

I do not like the subscription model. If Paradox goes sub only I will not be a subscriber. I also cannot see how they can coexist well. I will probably be repeating what others have said but I feel it bears repeating.

I think that these two models (sub and dls) are at odds with each other. With a subscription model you want a constant stream of little updates. You need to show that you are still getting added value for the subscription. The current DLC model talks about larger updates but less often. I am hard pressed to see how you can reach both of these goals. To me that means that you will not satisfy either group.

Personally I feel that fewer-but-larger updates would be better as you would have more time to actually finish a campaign before the rules change again with the next update.

I sort of understand what you mean, but if people don't like the direction the game is taking or they are getting bored / fed up with the lack or quality of new content, they will probably simply cancel their subscription, at least until better content is added. So the incentive for paradox is still there...

The problem occurs when I like the current game but not the latest subscription installment, I cannot stop my subscription and play what I already had.

Another negative for subscription is that is negates the opportunity for offline play (or at least complicates it by needing periodic connections). And Paradox can pull the plug and remove your ability to play. Currently if Paradox disappeared tomorrow I could still play my current catalogue, with a subscription model I wouldn't be able to.

I do pretty much the same thing with World of Warcraft. When a new expansion gets added, I buy the subscription and play for a couple of months to explore it. Then I get bored, cancel the subscription, and stop playing. When a new expansion gets added again, I repeat the cycle.

With an MMO subscription you are getting the value of the game server with all the other people, that is the service it is providing. Since this is primarily a single person game that you run on your own hardware that value is missing, they do not provide a service. So we are back to what do we get for our $x per month that we are spending? The only other option that I see is content. Then if there is a 'pause' in content people will complain (you see that right now on the CK3 forums and there isn't a subscription model yet). Which leads me to the conclusion for subscription model, without a service provided, the best answer is small updates often.

(Another thing that you will note with WoW is that you are actually paying for the new content, the expansion, and then subbing for the game server access.)

As long as both options are there, I don't have problems with it. Regular players will want to buy DLC separately (as paying every month will cost you more), while irregular players will pay only for months they play the game.

And then the irregular player looks back and realizes they spent twice as much as what they would have if they just bought it. This becomes a new player trap if they like the product. If they don't like the product sure they are ahead but that leads me to believe they need a better way to test the product. I think at least a "rent-to-own" methodology of some sort would have to exist to have sub and dlc coexist.

The biggest benefit of a subscription model, in my mind, is that the game can assume you have all the DLC so you can build on the earlier dlc content easier. That doesn't work if subscription isn't the only model. (My cynical side thinks the best benefit for sub provider is the knowledge that subscribers will forget to stop there subscription when not playing so they still get money for no benefit provided. How many people here have some subscription that they haven't used in the last few months that they are still paying as it is on autopay?)

Paradox, please do not try to pretend your product is a service. Paradox, please don't ask me to rent your product.

 

[EarlKonrad]

As long as both options are there, I don't have problems with it. Regular players will want to buy DLC separately (as paying every month will cost you more), while irregular players will pay only for months they play the game.

The main purpose of this model is to save you from having to pay enormous amounts of money if you join the game late or don't play regularly, aka to not discourage new and irregular players away. As long as it isn't the primary mans of financing, the whole "release regular shovelware" won't be a problem. That "Shovelware" model, if you want to call it that, has been active during DDRJake's regime, and it worked so well that PDS abandoned it for all their games (now DLC take longer to make again) so I don't see it making a comeback.

There is a third way: roll some of the oldest DLCs into the main game.

I'm willing to bet that the number of players that go out of their way to buy Res-publica, CoP, and other very old DLCs is minimal in comparison to how many players but the newer ones and those considered must have. By doing so, there will be less stuff to buy in the steam page, making the game less scary to newer players and will also better support these old mechanics.

As an example of two DLCs that no one goes out of their way to buy are American Dream and Sword of Islam (purple phoenix to a lesser extent). These DLCs are minute and their content is barely supported by the game as is. By removing them from the store you are both making the overall product cheaper and the content they offer easier for the Devs to patch.

Lastly, it isn't as if important DLC locked features haven't been ripped from DLCs and packed into the main game before, so why not go all the way?

 

[Cpt.Cross]

There is a third way: roll some of the oldest DLCs into the main game.

I'm willing to bet that the number of players that go out of their way to buy Res-publica, CoP, and other very old DLCs is minimal in comparison to how many players but the newer ones and those considered must have. By doing so, there will be less stuff to buy in the steam page, making the game less scary to newer players and will also better support these old mechanics.

As an example of two DLCs that no one goes out of their way to buy are American Dream and Sword of Islam (purple phoenix to a lesser extent). These DLCs are minute and their content is barely supported by the game as is. By removing them from the store you are both making the overall product cheaper and the content they offer easier for the Devs to patch.

Lastly, it isn't as if important DLC locked features haven't been ripped from DLCs and packed into the main game before, so why not go all the way?

Money, dear boy!

 

[EarlKonrad]

Money, dear boy!

Smart businesmen know that asking for more money isn't necessarily the best way of making more money. Case in point steam sales.

 

[ImAdrian]

The problem occurs when I like the current game but not the latest subscription installment, I cannot stop my subscription and play what I already had.

You can disable the latest expansion and continue playing the rest of the game, as long as you still feel that the 5$ a month you're paying is worth the enjoyment that you are getting out of the game. It would take you years of paying the subscription to buy the expansions up until today (assuming the price of a subscription is 5$) and you can pause it when you're not playing, so I see it as very advantageous for new comers. Of course, the option of buying should still remain available.

 

[CzechKronner]

Subscription is not good for those who spend a lot of time with the game. You never own anything. Stop paying and bam, all your stuff is gone.

Also, given the quality (or lack thereof) of PDX recent releases, I don't think I want to give them any money upfront.

 

[Cpt.Cross]

Subscription is not good for those who spend a lot of time with the game. You never own anything. Stop paying and bam, all your stuff is gone.

Also, given the quality (or lack thereof) of PDX recent releases, I don't think I want to give them any money upfront.

This is it. By buying the product outright you get more value for your money over time and these games are nothing if not time syncs, Subscribers are actually losing out by the time you've got to grips with the game.

 

[Oglesby]

You can disable the latest expansion and continue playing the rest of the game, as long as you still feel that the 5$ a month you're paying is worth the enjoyment that you are getting out of the game.

So the only way I can 'vote with my wallet' if to completely stop playing completely?

It would take you years of paying the subscription to buy the expansions up until today (assuming the price of a subscription is 5$)...

Less if you buy the old material during sales. I started EUIV late, I got a big chunk 75% to 50% off.

... and you can pause it when you're not playing, so I see it as very advantageous for new comers. Of course, the option of buying should still remain available.

If that newcomer takes x months to figure out they like it they are now that much money behind on owning the product. They are that much closer to the point where they would be spending more on subs that the value of the product. Subscription is a trap when there is no service provided and you have the option to own the product instead.

Companies prefer a subscription model. It is a guaranteed money stream that people forget to turn off. Subscription models work for service providers and consumable products. This is neither of those.

Paradox, please do not try to pretend your product is a service. Paradox, please don't ask me to rent your product.

 

[Nikoleis]

Same answer I gave back when they presented it: I'd rather have only one way to pay than have them decide they should go subscription only. I replay a lot of old game, if we get to the point where you can only rent it when it is available and then it is over, well I guess the Victoria players would be quite sad

 

[Nyrael]

And then the irregular player looks back and realizes they spent twice as much as what they would have if they just bought it. This becomes a new player trap if they like the product. If they don't like the product sure they are ahead but that leads me to believe they need a better way to test the product. I think at least a "rent-to-own" methodology of some sort would have to exist to have sub and dlc coexist.

How could they spend more? A irregular player cancels the subscription when he doesn't play. He only buys it for months he does intend to play. So if an irregular player spends four months a year playing the game, he will pay for four months, which will maybe cover one expansion worth of money.
A regular player will buy it all. At most, they will use a month of the sub to try out expansions.

I am not sure who would even bother buying a permanent sub, other than maybe those who have way too much money.

There is a third way: roll some of the oldest DLCs into the main game.

It's an old and simple idea that PDS is no doubt aware of it and, for whichever reason, decided they won't go for it. While I do think it would be fine, around a decade has gone with them deciding to not implement it.

 

[Oglesby]

How could they spend more? A irregular player cancels the subscription when he doesn't play. He only buys it for months he does intend to play. So if an irregular player spends four months a year playing the game, he will pay for four months, which will maybe cover one expansion worth of money.

When they forget to turn if off? How many people here can say they do not have a subscription for something currently that they don't use?
(I am also coming from people asking about it in the CK3 forums and also see this as a test run for EU5, once they have a profitable subscription model the company will continue using that model.)

A regular player will buy it all. At most, they will use a month of the sub to try out expansions.

At what point does someone become a regular player? At what point do they know they are a regular player?

I am not sure who would even bother buying a permanent sub, other than maybe those who have way too much money.

I don't think anyone intends of buying a permanent sub. People unintentionally spend more to 'rent' something than it would have cost to own it. (With the only 'service' being provided is spreading out the cost.)

It's an old and simple idea that PDS is no doubt aware of it and, for whichever reason, decided they won't go for it. While I do think it would be fine, around a decade has gone with them deciding to not implement it.

They have gone down the paths of bundles and sales. Those willing to wait can get things at a discount but they still catch a whale or two that need everything now.

 

[Guibou]

As someone mentioned, once the game is no longer in development (like CK2 atm) it's a good idea to have subscription. You join late, no problem here's a way to test everything and if you like it really well you can buy it. Or just play it 1-3month and be done with it.

With an ongoing game, with no EU5 confirmed, I don't think it's good. Many good reasons were mentioned already, for me i'm mostly concern about quality of content and predatory pratices of compagnies.

Subscriptions are montly based. I'm sure many of us don't actually play every day, or like me every week. I play a run, last 50-150hours. then stop for a week or two, play something else or watch movies, then come back. Subscription have a subliminal effect of forcing you to do something to get the value out of it. To return to it. The two weeks of the month that you don't play, but that you paid for, will make you either feel bad about it or even forces you to play even if you would do something else to not lose on the value.

I want to watch a movie, there might be something good on TV, mhe i paid for Netflix i'll log on to see something there.
I want to play a game, there might be something in sale in the store, mhe i paid for PDX Pass i'll log on to play that.

All these subscription model we have for our divertisement mediums reduce our opening to new discovery. And it's easy to understand becasue you want to profit to a maximum of what you paid for... but they are profiting on your time not exploring something else. You lose a choice of actions, slowly. And they feed you crappy content just to keep you hooked.

It's only 5$ anyway. Another 5$ won't hurt. And another one.

 

[csward53]

While it does create the incentive to pursue short term gain, I believe the sub model is a good thing. When I first got into EU4 I had no idea what expansions to buy and just bought them all (on sale) to alleviate the headache. If I hated the game after a few hours, Steam would have said "too bad sucka" and I would be out $200 (or whatever I spent then). Thankfully I liked the game, but it's a huge barrier for new players, and tbh idiotic for the developers because they have to support people playing on however many different possible combinations of expansions, which could have unique bugs. The costs to maintain this system is probably higher than they would like.

At the end of the day, we vote with our wallets and since these are very niche games, our votes are more powerful.

 

[Don_Quigleone]

I think the current dlc model is a de facto subscription model anyway, except it encourages adding features over polishing the game over all.

I actually think the best thing would be to switch back to more frequent numbered iterations, say a 4 year cycle, with perhaps 2-4 dlc in the middle. I think CA has done this better with their more recent titles.

 

[ImAdrian]

Companies prefer a subscription model. It is a guaranteed money stream that people forget to turn off. Subscription models work for service providers and consumable products. This is neither of those.

Paradox, please do not try to pretend your product is a service. Paradox, please don't ask me to rent your product.

I disagree. I don't think player retention rate is that big. It's probably better to have all players buy the game, cause a large percentage of them will quit early, but they will have already purchased the game. With a subscription, they pay less if they quit early.

 

[frolix42]

In general I don't like the "pay to play" model. If I want to play EU4 only every other month, as its been out for almost 7 years now, a subscription is pretty terrible. And if I want to play the game years after its no longer supported?

Am I the only one that thinks that the DLCs and updates of this game are getting worse despite the best efforts of the team? What do you think, that the team is getting washed up or is the DLC model difficult to work with after 7.5 years of development?

Its not "washed up". PDS has 4 (at least) other Clausewitz games its producing content for. EU4 simply can't have the resources that they did in 2014.

I actually think the best thing would be to switch back to more frequent numbered iterations, say a 4 year cycle, with perhaps 2-4 dlc in the middle. I think CA has done this better with their more recent titles.

I really don't like this. I own a lot of PDS products, but not CK3 because I don't want to start another collection from scratch. (I'm waiting for CK3 to be more complete) If I had my way, "EU5" would be a paid total overhaul of EU4 that they could continue to expand upon.

 

[Rashie]

The subscription model is better for people who hasn't been playing for years already, because for only an extra 5 bucks new players get to experience what the full package plays like straight away.

You need to stick with the game for several years for the financial calculation to come out in favour of buying the packs with that, and for someone just trying the game out, well, that's not a guarantee.

 

[Oglesby]

I disagree. I don't think player retention rate is that big. It's probably better to have all players buy the game, cause a large percentage of them will quit early, but they will have already purchased the game. With a subscription, they pay less if they quit early.

Sure. People never forget to turn off their subscriptions. Sure companies don't bank on that fact.

That is why there are now apps to scour your statements to remind you what subscriptions you have... which they themselves are subscriptions services.

Paradox, please do not try to pretend your product is a service. Paradox, please don't ask me to rent your product.