Yes it is. Bu for some reason I always get the event that causes me to lose the trait.
Suggestion for Your Marketing/Sales Folks
- Thread starter Anthropoid
- 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 think you are missing the point that was being made by that statement.
It is not hard to see that Paradox has not done itself any public relations "favors" with its marketing strategy as exemplified in some of the Steam review quotes above.
I've now passed through the pipeline fully, and I'm not here to condemn nor to condone. The prices ARE too high (and for that matter on almost ALL games today . . . heck an on sale $15 price for a Indie Early Access [which I have paid multiple times and yielded many hours of play from] is frankly objectively too high). The strategy DOES NOT lead to a wholly satisfying end experience for the consumer. But at the same time, the products ARE good. I suffer neither buyers regret nor buyers elation. I got the whole game, so I can play it, but I sure as hell ain't raving about the good deal I got nor am I necessarily going to run out and recommend.
To use an analogy: they have adopted a marketing posture which ostensibly nets a +0 PR value. Mojang never had that problem . . . I'm trying to think of any other publisher/studio which never had that problem . . . cannot. ADDIT: ah I actually did think of another one: Epic. But there ARE lots of publishers/studios who have similar problems if not much worse (*cough*Burthusdh!* *RukStur!*). Just because the marketing/sales President of nearly every other outfit in the industry is adopting the same strategy and leaving consumers with a bad taste in their mouth doesn't mean it is the "smart" business strategy. It does appear that, for now, many firms can "get away with it," but how long will that last? If the last 6 months of drama in the gaming sub-culture suggest anything it is that the end is nigh for this kind of unfriendliness to consumers.
I'm just trying to help anyone in any position of influence on decision making in PDS marketing/sales to stop and consider the points; that's all.
ADDIT: and it ain't like I'm trying "harm" developers nor even publishers or financiers! Large unit prices do NOT inherently lead to the best profit for any of those "upstream" in the consumer producer stream!
Can you imagine if Coca Cola decided that "Well, we have the most brand loyalty of any firm on the planet and we can probably 'get away with it,' so lets jack up the prices on all of our products by 300%! YEAH! It'll be like printing money!"
Pepsi and every other competitor would eat their lunch!
Last edited:
I would actually not have bought the bundle. That way you did not appriciate the content in it´s true context. Buying a DLC for CK2 is for me the yearly gaming- highlights, the full "unwrapping - spirit". In this "more is less" and would have ruined the spirit for me.
Why did you need them all at the same time? Unlike you want to start 3-4 paralell playthoughs, you will not benefit from all the 5 DLCs listed above in any single playthrough.
And in response to your pricing opinions: Games are expensive today. Buying a DLC or 2 each year that greatly expands a great game like CK is far less expensive than buying a new game with the same ratio. That would have been the alternative for me. An expensive one for sure and far less rewarding(for me). Looking at the pricetag for 10 of them at a time should be compared in this context.
Older DLCs should not become cheaper just because. The basegame could though, but they have been giving at away for free and might do that again
Game is old but very much improved. Even if game was released 2012, it´s a far more a new game than any other game released 2012 where no/a few improvements have been done.
Players still play World of Warcraft. it´s about 15 years old and cost yearly ~150€ just to play + any new expansion(another 30-50€ each). I don't blame them, I do activate my account at some times but playing CK2 is for more pricy
A couple points I wanted to respond to in this post . . . on the whole, you make great points. But for the prospective marketing/sales person, there are a couple of possible fallacies that deserve to be thought through fully . . .
Without doing a LOT of homework to pin down exactly which features and functionalities were "in" each dish of the DLC smorgasbord, how was I "supposed to know" which ones I did and did not need? When I look at how the features, content and functionality are distributed across each dish, it seems quite clear to me that the distribution favors an "own them all to get your best value" quality. This might have just been an accident of timing in development of various features. Or it might have been a very much intentional strategy. I cannot fault them for adopting such a strategy, but at the same time, consumers are not so stupid as to fail to perceive the strategy and like I've said, it clearly hasn't won them any "most consumer friendly publisher" awards.
Your point that "game is old but very much improved," is another good point for consideration. Now that I own the whole thing and can see at a glimpse the content, features and functionalities and make some quick appraisal of how they enhance the game (not to mention all the improvements just from patches to the base game), yep I agree! Game IS old but also IS very much improved!
As far as I can tell, you and I might be the only two people on the whole Internet who have stopped to make this point!
Moreover, there have been LOTS of loudmouths out to make the exact opposite point: game is old and prices are too high and your 'nickel and dime us' strategy is repulsive!Stop and consider a game that has a "rabid" fan base; I'm sure we can all think of one. I'll think of . . . uh, whats that Zombie game set in Kentucky? Holy Toledo will you look at that! More Zombie games that you can shake a stick at! Sheeze . . . I own the damn thing and it isn't a "bad game," in fact it has quite a few neat features, and the poor developers have had a rough road to get where they are. But they, IMHO, also have some very poorly conceived product/design visions. Like most notably, NO actual NPCs in their game! But try to go in any online community where their fan base dwells and tell them about that, maybe suggest that it is a real deficiency that sets them back. You'll see what I'm talkin' about!
Point being: it isn't actually "THAT HARD" to become BELOVED by an at least outspokenly zealous base of users (or so it seems) and Paradox is comprised of clearly a LOT of delightful, lovable, virtuous, and meritorious people! And yet, "beloved" is the last thing which this "DLC Swarm" strategy seems to have evoked.
Maybe so, I´m not a sales- person!
I don't know where on the "Supersuccess ------ Disaster" - scale to place CK2 in economic terms. I guess quite well though - they should have stopped abit before 15 grand DLCs othervice, shouldn't they? Are they where they deserve? Well.. I´m a fan-boy and should not judge that, I guess As far as I can tell, you and I might be the only two people on the whole Internet who have stopped to make this point!
Maybe and that´s ofc due do what you expect. Per feature, I can fully understund people could say 15€ for a DLC to a 6 year old game is expensive. It´s ~35% of the base game cost but only adding a small bunch of often isolated feautres comparing to a decent random new game for ~39€.
But ... and this is my subjective opinion ... the possibilities and replay-abilities more or less all DLCs has given this game is much more value than most new games I have ever bought. Without the DLCs, CK2 would have been dead to me ages ago, with the DLCs, it´s my grand number 1. I have played alot of good games. With a simelar DLC policy as CK2 they might have beaten CK2. But they don't even correct bugs in some cases. In CK2, you post a bug and some days later you have a dev response. Increadable! Dev Diaries weekly when a DLC is anounced untill... beyond... it´s release. A lively forum where I could spend all my day if I had the chanse... I gladly pay for that
"Beloved" .... Maybe I have never thought of Paradox as "beloved" company. Are companies there to be beloved? I respect them. Probably abit more than any other game developer. But I´m not an all -in Paradox fanguy. I own EU4 and Skylines as well as CK. But should probably not touch Stellaris, Victoria or Hart or Iron.
It´s my conclusion maybe for me only, I know others have opposite conclusions and I fully respect that.
Last edited:
I too have great respect for Paradox, and have enjoyed their creations thoroughly. I wouldn't bother to create a thread like this if I didn't.
I've said it before, I think that after a certain period of time (say, 2-3 years?), the DLC should just become free. Get more people interested in the game and buying the new DLC when it comes out at $15 or $20 as opposed to nickle-and-diming people for 7 year old DLC. It would also mean that the developers could finally work things like Retinues in to the main game as opposed to trying to figure out how to keep the game balanced between the base game and those who purchased the DLC.
Heck, they could even make free after 5 years, and that would still include everything up through Sons of Abraham, bringing things like borrowing money from the Jews to anyone who has the base game. No, my salary isn't dependent on people buying 5+ year old DLC, but I can't help but think that I'm not alone in how I got in to this game. I bought the base game in April 2013 (for $10), then LoR several months later. Then ToG on sale, and several months after that SoI and MR also on a Steam sale. And after that, I was hooked to the point that every DLC afterwards has been a day-one purchase.
Wouldn't that be a better option? Get people hooked on the game, and have them buy new DLC at full price, as opposed to hoping that they don't get scared off by the $100+ purchase price of the game (and DLC)?
Heck, they could even make free after 5 years, and that would still include everything up through Sons of Abraham, bringing things like borrowing money from the Jews to anyone who has the base game. No, my salary isn't dependent on people buying 5+ year old DLC, but I can't help but think that I'm not alone in how I got in to this game. I bought the base game in April 2013 (for $10), then LoR several months later. Then ToG on sale, and several months after that SoI and MR also on a Steam sale. And after that, I was hooked to the point that every DLC afterwards has been a day-one purchase.
Wouldn't that be a better option? Get people hooked on the game, and have them buy new DLC at full price, as opposed to hoping that they don't get scared off by the $100+ purchase price of the game (and DLC)?
Also,the advantage to enroll essential features such as retinues in the base game is that Paradox can also rework and improve them to make it more deeper and better.This also allows to interconnect the features to make the game better.Stellaris and EU4 have clearly shown the potential for that.
Cordially.