Sub model: A question to naysayers.

[Cri11e]

Genuine question:
If the old way of buying DLC will still be available-- Why do you NOT want the subscription model to exist alongside it for players who would not play otherwise?

Do Agree if you think its okay to have two payment ways.
Do Disagree if you want only the present payment way.
Do Helpful if don't care or is interested in what others say.


No strong emotions allowed here only curiosity.

 

[dukespooky]

subscription model creates the wrong financial incentives for paradox; would expect rushed content over droughts so that long-term subscribers stay happy with the service, and low-quality content because a person would have to subscribe to get access to all the good additions anyways

 

[ImAdrian]

subscription model creates the wrong financial incentives for paradox; would expect rushed content over droughts so that long-term subscribers stay happy with the service, and low-quality content because a person would have to subscribe to get access to all the good additions anyways

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...

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.

 

[Cpt.Cross]

It would be difficult to please both parties.

Subscription people will want more regular content to mach their regular cash injections.

People buying outright want content of sufficient quality and scale to match the often quite high costs for DLC.

 

[love sweden]

What the first reply says. Subscription encourages low effort shovelware content while the current model "encourages" high quality dlc even if this applies to less then half of the DLCs we have.

 

[Siddy00]

Instead of writing a saga, I'll keep it brief: I support adding a subscription model at/near the end of its development cycle to allow new players to experience the full width/depth of gameplay without having to spend 150-300 euros on the game and all its DLCs. There are all kinds of nuances, but that's the gist of it.

Edit: read some more comments, I'm on the fence so I'll change my vote to 'Helpful' instead.

 

[treb]

Genuine question:
If the old way of buying DLC will still be available-- Why do you NOT want the subscription model to exist alongside it for players who would not play otherwise?

Do Agree if you think its okay to have two payment ways.
Do Disagree if you want only the present payment way.
Do Helpful if don't care or is interested in what others say.


No strong emotions allowed here only curiosity.

Strong Disagree

paradox games at the moment seem to be pushing a lifespan of 10+ years and accruing hundreds of (insert denomination here) worth of dlc. going off eu4 a game that is pushing 8 years old and still getting dlc the current price is £275 to buy into as is. That works out to about 2.87 a month over the lifetime of EU4. which in hindsight looks quite decent. But how do you calculate that in advance?

 

[EarlKonrad]

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...

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.

That's exactly what the poster you were replying to said. Subscription model encourages a constant influx of content, quality be damned. They know that people will sub, experience the content, unsub and sub again when the next content patch hits. Yours is the average player experience under a subscription model.

 

[EarlKonrad]

Strong Disagree

paradox games at the moment seem to be pushing a lifespan of 10+ years and accruing hundreds of (insert denomination here) worth of dlc. going off eu4 a game that is pushing 8 years old and still getting dlc the current price is £275 to buy into as is. That works out to about 2.87 a month over the lifetime of EU4. which in hindsight looks quite decent. But how do you calculate that in advance?

I wouldn't be surprised if they try a new business model for Eau IV this year, at maximum next year. With CK II having a weird free to play model and EU IV testing the subscription model, I think it is clear as day that PDX is trying to adapt their business model going forward.

 

[The Lifetamer]

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?

Isn't it a fact that as long as the game is funded by DLCs the team needs to focus on creating new content to get paid? Have you considered that this might be the reason that bug fixes and already established mechanic improvements are receiving lower priority? That this is the reason of the ever growing bloating of half satisfying mechanics that almost never get updated? Or do you really think the team just doesn't care?

Correct me if I am wrong but the subscription model on the other hand simply guarantees that the team has a strong incentive to keep the game good, fresh and relevant. In any way they see fit. No forced new content, no forced priorities, no forced dlc development cycles that gut the most ambitious of changes (like the population that Johan wanted to implement).

To all of you that have had a legitimately negative experience with a subscription funded game I ask this: Do you really believe that if said game was instead funded by dlc its quality would improve?

 

[Cpt.Cross]

If we have subscriptions then you never really own your product and I dont think we should encourage this. Gaming in general is getting ruined by greedy companies attempts to kill the single player experience and have "games as a service." Quality and innovativeness has taken a back seat to Monetization.

Paradox games are very expensive in terms of DLC but nobody should be buying them all outright day one. These games are a marathon not a sprint. Buy on sale. Having subscriptions would also disincentive sales because they would want to encourage more subscriptions.

 

[Battlex]

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?

Isn't it a fact that as long as the game is funded by DLCs the team needs to focus on creating new content to get paid? Have you considered that this might be the reason that bug fixes and already established mechanic improvements are receiving lower priority? That this is the reason of the ever growing bloating of half satisfying mechanics that almost never get updated? Or do you really think the team just doesn't care?

Correct me if I am wrong but the subscription model on the other hand simply guarantees that the team has a strong incentive to keep the game good, fresh and relevant. In any way they see fit. No forced new content, no forced priorities, no forced dlc development cycles that gut the most ambitious of changes (like the population that Johan wanted to implement).

To all of you that have had a legitimately negative experience with a subscription funded game I ask this: Do you really believe that if said game was instead funded by dlc its quality would improve?

The profits from a dlc should go into multiple projects, not just paying for the next one and its own development

 

[Tolomeidb2]

Imagine subscribing for 2-3 years, paying c.100€ total and not even be allowed to launch the base game if you don't renew your subscription.
That's a big no for me.

 

[Battlex]

Imagine subscribing for 2-3 years, paying c.100€ total and not even be allowed to launch the base game if you don't renew your subscription.
That's a big no for me.

And you can't give it to your kids, or let your friend play using steam share

 

[Meglok]

I am completely fine with a two tier payment system. For those who already own most or all DLC releases, allow them to continue purchasing new releases. For customers just finding EU4, allow them the option to go on a subscription plan if they wish.

I would be vehemently against forcing new customers into a subscription plan only. But I do agree that the cost of buying the entire EU4 system can be prohibitively expensive for most of the Paradox customer base. I am sure that discourages many people from getting into EU4. A subscription plan would allow new customers to enjoy EU4 while bringing more revenue into the coffers of PDS.

And I am certain existing players will not be forced onto a subscription system. That would an idiotic move from a customer service standpoint and would cause an absolute meltdown here.

 

[Doldenberg]

I'm just generally opposed to subcription services that work on a "you stop paying, you can't access your stuff"-basis for games. Like I'm fine with something like Humble Monthly were I subscribe and then I get a monthly delivery of game keys. Im even somewhat okay with say, a premium account system giving you some benefits (even though I'd never buy something like that). I'm completely opposed to a pay to play model like in WoW. I think it's an inherently predatory practice based on a sunk cost fallacy.

The real issue though isn't the subscription in itself, if people want to use that, fine. What annoys me is that this subscription was evidently the ONLY solution Paradox saw for the problem of people having to buy all those DLCs.
They could have reintroduced the 75% off we once got on really old DLC during sales?
They could have set up new cheaper packages containing all the very old DLC at a good price?
They could have consolidated that whole ridiulous system where we still need to pay for some unit graphics separately from accompanying DLCs?
They could have simply said okay after x years DLCs become part of the base game for free? Like how much income do they actually still make from El Dorado?
But no, obviously the option they went with was a subscription service.

Total War: Warhammer is slowly falling into the same trap where it becomes very hard to tell people what to buy and I think it was a mistake they are doing a trilogy of games rather than just selling a "base" of TW:W and then adding everything afterwards as addons to that. But I still think their whole model and pricing is still significantly fairer.
And once again: Paradox is not the publisher of some weird super-niche tiny grand strategy games - all of their titles and DLCs are regular topsellers. They are actually comparable to Creative Assembly, which is just doing a much much better job in terms of DLC and has honestly been doing so for quite some time.

 

[Nokori]

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?

I don't think the new DLCs badly produced. I like the new features and QoL changes.

Isn't it a fact that as long as the game is funded by DLCs the team needs to focus on creating new content to get paid? Have you considered that this might be the reason that bug fixes and already established mechanic improvements are receiving lower priority? That this is the reason of the ever growing bloating of half satisfying mechanics that almost never get updated? Or do you really think the team just doesn't care?

I don't feel bugfixes and established mechanics receiving low priority. The mission system is used in every DLC up today. They use the governement system now a lot and even made a couple of pay for features free so they could expand on it. Bugfixing is difficult becouse a lot of this code is ancient and there is a lot of code. The original programmers are propably all gone.

And you can't give it to your kids, or let your friend play using steam share

Funny enought for us who grew up before steam existed this was the point we made to not install steam becouse you can't give the cd. Funny how times change.

But I believe subsription to be a moral desaster. I prefere to own stuff instead of paying for just using it. Practibility wise its ok and doable but I believe it a red line i don't like to cross. My steam library is full and I own all curent paradox mayor titles. But I just can't play them all at once. e.g. I havn't touched I:R for month prior to the Mauricius update. Sub and unsubbing it every other month is a micro I hoped I left behind when porting to steam.

 

[Arrianus]

...
The real issue though isn't the subscription in itself, if people want to use that, fine. What annoys me is that this subscription was evidently the ONLY solution Paradox saw for the problem of people having to buy all those DLCs.
...

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

 

[-DI- RivalET]

I wouldn't be surprised if they try a new business model for Eau IV this year, at maximum next year. With CK II having a weird free to play model and EU IV testing the subscription model, I think it is clear as day that PDX is trying to adapt their business model going forward.

Making old base games free to play isn't a new practice though.

 

[EarlKonrad]

Making old base games free to play isn't a new practice though.

Not for the industry, no, but it is new for PDX.