The cause of the outrage and what to do now.

[Ixal]

Seeing as Leviathan is now the worst rated product on Steam of all times I think its time to step back and take a look at what is happening here.

I do not want to defend the state of Leviathan. It was very obviously buggy and should have never been released the way it way (which btw. is as far as I understand corporate structures not the decision Johan or the Tinto team makes) and it has to be investigated internally what factors caused the DLC to be released in its current state. And there are certainly many factors like, I guess, the Tinto team not getting all its position filled and trained as fast as expected, lower performance thanks to Corona and that somewhere the reporting chain had a problem which meant the decision for release was made despite its state instead of considering alternate options like a delay or clearly communicated early access release.

But the cause for the outrage we see now is more than just Leviathan. The problem is, in my opinion, the age of EU4 and all the problems that come with it. It has already been said in the past that it becomes harder and harder to find things to add to EU4 in DLCs. And I think most players can attest that many things introduced in the last year(s) are less than useful, to be diplomatic.
And its not as if a release of a bugged DLC is a unique event. Rather it is the norm for Paradox.
Part of the reason for that is, in my opinion, the way Paradox structures its DLC. The idea is that you always have combinations of a free patch and paid DLC. All sweeping changes which affect larger parts of the game are in the patch so that the playerbase is not split while the DLC contains optional things that are not strictly necessary to play the game.
And for new games that makes sense. You are not splitting the playerbase as all important changes are made available for free to everyone and there are usually enough things you can add into DLCs.

But for old games this system does not work anymore. There are no more interesting mechanics to be added as DLC and EU4 has grown so much that fixing bugs becomes ever more complicated, meaning more and more time has to be spend on the free patch than on the DLC. That alone wouln't be strictly a problem, but then you have to realize that the DLC finances the patch. Without something to sell at the same time there won't be bugfixes apart from small patches addressing the biggest issues. And with how much work fixing bugs is, you have to sell a lot to get them fixed. But as I wrote above, finding things to sell gets harder and harder.

So what to do now? A change in how patches and DLCs are produced is needed, at least for old titles. The subscription model introduced recently could help as it would assume a steady income not directly tied to the creation of a new DLC which would allow more time for bugfixing or rework patches which alone might be enough to keep people interested in subscribing. Or you could finally wind down the EU4 lifespan like it was done with CK2 and have one or two final bugfix only patches.
If this is possible I do not know. I am not aware of the current politics inside Paradox. I always had the impression that EU4 is kind of a cash cow for them and of course people resist any changes to their cash cow, at least as it can still be milked. This possibly also ties into the question of why Leviathan was released in its current state.
But I think that at least the level of outrage experienced now is a sign that the current model can't be sustained anymore.

 

[lordgoof]

If monuments were done well and to a greater degree they would be fine for paid content. Not for $(insert local curreny here) they charged but for $10-$15 with an SEA rework would have been fine. Monuments were half arsed majorly now that most of them are pretty worthless instead of I will take that if its convenient.

 

[StasLatGTTT]

That's an expansive representation of my own thoughts. I've been wanting new EU since at least Imperator announcement, with how awesome screenshots looked. And since then a lot of EU4 problems became even more noticeable and harder to resolve.

I guess, Tinto was made with EU5 development in mind. Right now they are gathering team ane experience needed by working on couple more EU4 DLCs, and Paradox do not want to split fanbase attention between different Grand Strategy titles, so there will be no new game in EU series until unannounced PDXCON surprise is released.

And by then we might expect a new EU, which is already the oldest supported and decently approachable Grand Strategy series. Vic2 is not supported and niche even among PDX fanbase.

 

[JaxElite]

Frankly if any dev would talk to us BEFORE a disaster this entire thibg would have been avoided. Be open about code lock and deadlines. Tell us that it will be unstable due to a release date you have no control over. Discuss mechanics in dev diaries before they are locked in and dont say "we don't want to spoil the surprise".
Everyone can check that during emperor development a sharp decline in developer activity on the forums occured. Just check the suggestions subforum, go back two years and check the average dev comments per month there. Now we can be happy with one or two in half a year. Some dev diaries have active devs for two or three hours and that is mostly it.

Previously it was stated that devs don't want to engage in the forum because of the negativity but frankly the tone was friendly and almost all exchanges with the devs resulted in happy and excited fans. But obviously mood and tone will be different if the devs only engage with the community directly after a disastrous release (like the last three ones), instead of before that. The fact that we pour hundreds of euros and forum posts as well as thousands of hours into this game means that we are a loyal conaumwr base. We can understand if things dont work out, if delays need to happen, if sime things can't be imolemented as planned. What we cant understand is how the update csn just be released on an early beta build with almost all the feedback we told you for months in dev diaries and feature streams, on twitter and reddit not implemented.

We heard "yeah this isn't working yet, we told the devs" so many times during the feature streams and nothing was implemented. And one day after release there comes a patch fixing a small but significant amount of stuff that was obviously not done in one day. Everyone here knows that that build wasn't the release only due to code lock and noone understands why that works the way it does.

And one last thing Tinto, stop throwing your community managers under the bus (poor @BjornB trying to handle this outrage). While he is not in a comfortable position and the flame he gets likely isn't warranted @Johan needs to step up and tell us what on earth actually happened here. And i don't mean an apology, we know that you are sorry. No developer is comfortable releasing something like this. We need to know how this could happen and what exactly was chenged to prevent it from happen. Because when all the rsge is gone there is only disappointment and confusion left. We just don't understand. Talk with us.

 

[TheAtreides84]

Honestly, I think they just need to playtest their stuff, like normal devs do. This is not about uninspired features and bad design, they broke things that had worked fine for years. I had more corrupted saves since installing Leviathan than in my whole playtime with EU4. I got bugs totally unrelated to the DLC content, random stab hits, eras not changing... Stuff like this cannot evade testing. They didn't play the whole thing, no other explanation.

 

[MrMcQue]

That's an expansive representation of my own thoughts. I've been wanting new EU since at least Imperator announcement, with how awesome screenshots looked. And since then a lot of EU4 problems became even more noticeable and harder to resolve.

I guess, Tinto was made with EU5 development in mind. Right now they are gathering team ane experience needed by working on couple more EU4 DLCs, and Paradox do not want to split fanbase attention between different Grand Strategy titles, so there will be no new game in EU series until unannounced PDXCON surprise is released.

And by then we might expect a new EU, which is already the oldest supported and decently approachable Grand Strategy series. Vic2 is not supported and niche even among PDX fanbase.

Johan in charge of EU5?

God help us...

 

[HeyIAmInfinity]

I disagree, eu4 has a lot of space for more development.

The issue is that development is focused on new features instead of improving old ones, why? Probably marketing related.

It would be extremely fast and cheap to add new estate, more privileges, more government reforms and so on.

But every patch only a few of the old mechanics get additions and most of the development is focused on new buttons that don’t improve the game.

I wonder if paradox really thinks that adding 50 more privileges and 2 new estates is worth less then concentrate development to the players.

The issue has been the focus for years, old dynamic missions? Let’s scrap them for new shiny trees we can charge 10$ for.

thats what really disappoint me, wasted resources that ends up causing more problem then the ones solved.

 

[Fitzgerald93]

Frankly if any dev would talk to us BEFORE a disaster this entire thibg would have been avoided. Be open about code lock and deadlines. Tell us that it will be unstable due to a release date you have no control over. Discuss mechanics in dev diaries before they are locked in and dont say "we don't want to spoil the surprise".
Everyone can check that during emperor development a sharp decline in developer activity on the forums occured. Just check the suggestions subforum, go back two years and check the average dev comments per month there. Now we can be happy with one or two in half a year. Some dev diaries have active devs for two or three hours and that is mostly it.

Previously it was stated that devs don't want to engage in the forum because of the negativity but frankly the tone was friendly and almost all exchanges with the devs resulted in happy and excited fans. But obviously mood and tone will be different if the devs only engage with the community directly after a disastrous release (like the last three ones), instead of before that. The fact that we pour hundreds of euros and forum posts as well as thousands of hours into this game means that we are a loyal conaumwr base. We can understand if things dont work out, if delays need to happen, if sime things can't be imolemented as planned. What we cant understand is how the update csn just be released on an early beta build with almost all the feedback we told you for months in dev diaries and feature streams, on twitter and reddit not implemented.

We heard "yeah this isn't working yet, we told the devs" so many times during the feature streams and nothing was implemented. And one day after release there comes a patch fixing a small but significant amount of stuff that was obviously not done in one day. Everyone here knows that that build wasn't the release only due to code lock and noone understands why that works the way it does.

And one last thing Tinto, stop throwing your community managers under the bus (poor @BjornB trying to handle this outrage). While he is not in a comfortable position and the flame he gets likely isn't warranted @Johan needs to step up and tell us what on earth actually happened here. And i don't mean an apology, we know that you are sorry. No developer is comfortable releasing something like this. We need to know how this could happen and what exactly was chenged to prevent it from happen. Because when all the rsge is gone there is only disappointment and confusion left. We just don't understand. Talk with us.

Especially not an apology with corporate speak. We all know the filler language many corporate entities use and i think pdx needs to acknowledge that most of its playerbase are grown adults therefore employing such a way to speak is just belittleling and outright disrespectful.

 

[KanzlerMaxVonBaden]

Imo they should just focus on flavor packs now, unique missions and mechanics for as of rn empty regions/religions, to be on par with europe (Africa, the Muslim world, Mesoamerica and Judaism come to mind) and then round up the game.

 

[Ixal]

Honestly, I think they just need to playtest their stuff, like normal devs do. This is not about uninspired features and bad design, they broke things that had worked fine for years. I had more corrupted saves since installing Leviathan than in my whole playtime with EU4. I got bugs totally unrelated to the DLC content, random stab hits, eras not changing... Stuff like this cannot evade testing. They didn't play the whole thing, no other explanation.

I doubt that playtest is the problem. The team certainly knew about the errors, they were after all not that hard to find. The problem is having time to fix them. I know that from my own workplace that just because an error was found it doesn't mean it will be fixed soon or even at all. As long as something else seem to be more important, or it gets decided by people further up the chain to be more important, bugs will remain.
You can read Johans last DD when he talks about the size of their Jira (a software used for tracking bugs).

I disagree, eu4 has a lot of space for more development.

The issue is that development is focused on new features instead of improving old ones, why? Probably marketing related.

It would be extremely fast and cheap to add new estate, more privileges, more government reforms and so on.

But every patch only a few of the old mechanics get additions and most of the development is focused on new buttons that don’t improve the game.

I wonder if paradox really thinks that adding 50 more privileges and 2 new estates is worth less then concentrate development to the players.

The issue has been the focus for years, old dynamic missions? Let’s scrap them for new shiny trees we can charge 10$ for.

thats what really disappoint me, wasted resources that ends up causing more problem then the ones solved.

As I said, that does not work under the current model.
You can't rework a mechanic, especially the ones that matter, and sell them as DLC. Take trade for example. When Paradox reworks trade then it has to be made available in the patch so that all players use the new trade system.
Otherwise you would now have players who play two different, incompatible versions of the game. You also have to fix bugs for both the old and the new trade system and every future change has to be tested against both trade system. So that is not a good idea.
When you want to rework trade, you need to also create a new feature you can sell as DLC to finance the trade rework.

 

[HeyIAmInfinity]

As I said, that does not work under the current model.
You can't rework a mechanic, especially the ones that matter, and sell them as DLC. Take trade for example. When Paradox reworks trade then it has to be made available in the patch so that all players use the new trade system.
Otherwise you would now have players who play two different, incompatible versions of the game. You also have to fix bugs for both the old and the new trade system and every future change has to be tested against both trade system. So that is not a good idea.
When you want to rework trade, you need to also create a new feature you can sell as DLC to finance the trade rework.

It’s not a rework, it would be adding, there is a big difference.

Think for example, if the clergy estate was split into the Curia and the monastic order, you can double the privileges.

Nobility split between officers and the court, you could have special privileges to nobility that allow ottoman like pick heir, but block abdication and disinheritance.

There are a lot of openings for simple additions to the game that would, all together, have a bigger impact than all the buttons added in leviathan.

Even more dynamic events would make the game better and the cost in both resources and performance is very low.

 

[JBolt]

If monuments were done well and to a greater degree they would be fine for paid content. Not for $(insert local curreny here) they charged but for $10-$15 with an SEA rework would have been fine. Monuments were half arsed majorly now that most of them are pretty worthless instead of I will take that if its convenient.

This DLC with the content it focused really shouldn’t have been more than $12-15 USD thinking about it. There just wasn’t enough important features to warrant a $20 price tag. Stardew Valley is less, so many games are less, and, they even function!

And these were games that were also heavily worked on for a year plus, just like Leviathan was. If they can be under $20, a DLC can be under $20

 

[Vandicus]

I doubt that playtest is the problem. The team certainly knew about the errors, they were after all not that hard to find. The problem is having time to fix them. I know that from my own workplace that just because an error was found it doesn't mean it will be fixed soon or even at all. As long as something else seem to be more important, or it gets decided by people further up the chain to be more important, bugs will remain.
You can read Johans last DD when he talks about the size of their Jira (a software used for tracking bugs).

As I said, that does not work under the current model.
You can't rework a mechanic, especially the ones that matter, and sell them as DLC. Take trade for example. When Paradox reworks trade then it has to be made available in the patch so that all players use the new trade system.
Otherwise you would now have players who play two different, incompatible versions of the game. You also have to fix bugs for both the old and the new trade system and every future change has to be tested against both trade system. So that is not a good idea.
When you want to rework trade, you need to also create a new feature you can sell as DLC to finance the trade rework.

Dharma reworked trade companies as a paid feature buffing them so much that they went from insignificant to pretty important.
Emperor reworked the HRE to a modest degree. Arguably this was mostly more of a flavor pack.
Other than monuments, most of Leviathan is reworks of old stuff or unnecessary additions (like concentrate development and pillage capital).

We're getting to the point though where it feels like we're adding buttons for the sake of having new buttons. Regional reworks are most of what we get out of these patches, though I would've liked to see monuments be well done (shouldn't be upgraded/construction for the most part, not too many nationwide bonuses, just collect them with occasional special powers for weaker/fringe religions and countries).

Some things also at this point really don't need an overhaul. Overhauling trade companies in Dharma turned out to be a mistake in many ways. Messing around with how natives work is inherently more bug-prone than adding mission trees and custom national ideas. Adding Polynesian stuff basically adds new content that people can play. There have been so many attempts to rework naval combat it feels silly at this point. We don't need a constantly shifting meta or perfect balance. More variety in interesting starts/countries and missions is what makes singleplayer better. Multiplayer-oriented balancing only needs to focus on a much smaller list of nations for the most part.

 

[Godd_Howard]

Naaah, the model works fine and dandy they just need more time and people to make, test and fix things. But sadly I think the $_$ sings in the eyse of the investors are what's wrong. We buy and they deliver. We buy because we want to, nobody is forcing us to do it. But when the higher ups see even broken updates and DLC's selling like hot cakes they just push the devs to work harder and faster which lovers the quality of their work and we get what we have now.


The managment of Paradox need to get their priorities straight. Do they want easy quick short term money right now with 0 flying ducks to give about in what shape the games end up OR do they want long term playerbase trust and to not loose their customers at a later date?

 

[Jayavarman]

Naaah, the model works fine and dandy they just need more time and people to make, test and fix things. But sadly I think the $_$ sings in the eyse of the investors are what's wrong. We buy and they deliver. We buy because we want to, nobody is forcing us to do it. But when the higher ups see even broken updates and DLC's selling like hot cakes they just push the devs to work harder and faster which lovers the quality of their work and we get what we have now.


The managment of Paradox need to get their priorities straight. Do they want easy quick short term money right now with 0 flying ducks to give about in what shape the games end up OR do they want long term playerbase trust and to not loose their customers at a later date?

Paradox hired a new CEO from the online gambling industry in 2018.

Paradox’s new CEO Ebba Ljungerud on fans, growing, and karaoke

New Paradox Interactive CEO Ebba Ljungerud processes the differences between making grand strategy games and Las Vegas-style casino gaming.

venturebeat.com

 

[Godd_Howard]

Paradox hired a new CEO from the online gambling industry in 2018.

Paradox’s new CEO Ebba Ljungerud on fans, growing, and karaoke

New Paradox Interactive CEO Ebba Ljungerud processes the differences between making grand strategy games and Las Vegas-style casino gaming.

venturebeat.com

Why yes braindead money laundering gambling and playing a map game for fun - completely interchangeable concepts. They are both games amiright?

I actually have no tangible words to describe this kind of thing without going on a rage rant that will most likely get me banned.

 

[scriptkiddy]

Why yes braindead money laundering gambling and playing a map game for fun - completely interchangeable concepts. They are both games amiright?

I actually have no tangible words to describe this kind of thing without going on a rage rant that will most likely get me banned.

Said interchangeable concepts in practice: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/pa...poor-treatment-low-pay-and-mismanaged-layoffs