The DLC vs EXPANSION dilemma now shows its core problem...

[rcbricker33]

so expectations of a working WW2 game are just projection now. interesting. we're this far down the rabbit hole are we. am i just projecting the AI issues too, because after all, podcat never promised the AI would not send its entire army to the sahara. this is a great catch all reason. all criticism is just projecting when you get down to it

rabbit hole lol.

No you are projecting your thoughts of what you think was said as opposed to what was said. I am not saying that your believes that the BP is not working correctly. I am saying the Blitz was never stated as part of the BP. You seem to have trouble comprehending what you are reading.

 

[Number 7]

I am actually beginning to see that conversing with you is hopeless. I am not arguing that I agree with PODCAT or not. I am stating that the blitz was never part of the BP and as such is a new feature. Your comments have shown that you believe that it should not be a paid for feature (I neither agree nor disagree with you cause I don't care) based on the fact that it was promised as part of the BP at release. You are incorrect on that assumption.

I hope PODCAT gets the Blitz to be part of the free content of the expansion mainly because I believe this will help make the game more playable and as such should be available to everyone. If however he can not then no biggie.

Its a dark day in the game industry where you have to pay to make troops move in a straight line through a plan. also please don't project what you thought podcat said

 

[Number 7]

rabbit hole lol.

No you are projecting your thoughts of what you think was said as opposed to what was said. I am not saying that your believes that the BP is not working correctly. I am saying the Blitz was never stated as part of the BP. You seem to have trouble comprehending what you are reading.

whoa whoa whoa don't project reading comprehension difficulties on me

 

[rcbricker33]

Its a dark day in the game industry where you have to pay to make troops move in a straight line through a plan. also please don't project what you thought podcat said

I am not. I have been quoting what he said.

 

[Roytje]

but price shouldnt be an issue.

Do not agree. Would you buy DLC if the price was €1000? Would people complain if the price was €0.00? Price is everything.

Like you said "value for money". Do I buy DLC for €20 if it adds some stuff to the game, or do I pay €15 or €20 extra and get Shadow Warrior 2 or Mafia 3, completely new games. Maybe I'll pay €40 more and get CIV6, a game which you can also play for hundreds of hours.

especially if you dont actually understand how companies work and in particular how games are made

I do not need to know this. I am a consumer. I see X for €20 and Y for €40 and then I make a decision based on that comparison. If X is just a fraction of Y, but costs 50% of Y, than it is not worth it.

the cost is so minimal as to be trivial for anyone over the age of 20 / who has a job as to be entirely irrelevant to the conversation about DLC, and yet people bring it up as though $20 is some how going to ruin their live if they spend it on a game.

Except when you are over 20 and do not have a job. Or you have job, that does not pay much. Or have huge debts. €20 is a lot of money for some people.

Or maybe you wait a few years and suddenly you have to pay €200, because there are lots of DLC's. Currently the price of DLC on Steam is €152,94 for EU4 (this is with heavy discount) and €259,40 for CK2. Still not much money? Does not even include the base game, which is €40. Would you pay €300 to pay CK2 if you were new to the series? I would not even though I can easily afford it. (That might be why Paradox games are always on sale on Steam, to get new customers by selling the games cheap.)

And then when you buy this, you have to learn all the new features. It's just not €, it's also time.

 

[No idea]

The current DLC model is superior to the old expansion one. In the past, the "base game" was essentially abandoned when the expansion was released, often with serious issues still needing fixing (HoI3 for example)

That said, the frequency of DLC released and patching can be a problem too. With CK2 major patches seemed to coincide with new DLC releases. However, the new DLCs seemed to introduce new issues, so we seemed to be in a never ending spiral of lingering issues and need for patches.

The reason why The Reapers Due for Crusader Kings is a success is that it fixed long lingering problems with the CK2 base game, and it seems to be a stable release. IMO, the game should be properly patched and stable before a new DLC with potential issues is released. So I certainly see the OPs concern when it comes to frequency of DLC releases. Make DLCs less frequent, but larger in scope perhaps?

Yes, I think that is the only problem with many DLCs instead of a few expansions: the DLCs SOMETIMES generate problems of their own that need to be fixed and wreack havoc in the whole game, no matter wheter you got the dlc or not. However, in general terms, I think the current system is better.

That said, I think charging for such an obvious thing to be in the battleplanner frmo thvery begining as a "blitz" button is not a good move. I feel a bit cheated. After all the battleplanner is a feature that came with the game. That, and the fact that the game SEEMS to have lacked some love during the first, after release months, makes me think PDS has made a Public relations mistake with this issue.

 

[Tacticus101]

hey look, someone made an exact image of the issue. SO tell me, how does this replicate that image from the developer diary, is that following the narrow green path of selected provinces? oh no, it isn't.

but i eagerly look forward to whatever fanboy justification you come up with. its like watching a cult member try to explain themselves to people

Strawman.

This is that the prediction for the attack in your screenshot is:

Not remotely similar to the dev diary. That order is supposed to spread out like that, it tells you it will spread out like that, it IS following the narrow green path of selected provinces. Useless example.


This is what it looks like when you draw an order similar to the one in the Dev Diary, notice the green selected provinces.

This is what it looks like upon completion:

It has fulfilled the order as predicted and as it was intended to.

If I want a more complicated set of orders for encircling, then this would be the set up:

Resulting in this:

Seems to me like the feature works exactly as advertised.


Note: for all examples I did no manual movement, no editing of orders and no adjusting at all. I set up the orders, declared war and then clicked activate (with a brief period to prepare).

 

[Kadanz]

fanboys will go through any level of mental gymnastics to justify paradox's terrible decisions however

I love it how people can't win an argument, they start to throw the word fanboy around.

 

[sturnado]

I'm not getting milked endlessly for DLC that adds things that frankly should be in the base-game, such as a battle planner that doesn't require constant microing to work. What's next, the Pacific aspect of the game remains broken unless I buy some more DLC to fix it? No sir.

 

[Careful Plum]

Here's my "fanboy explanation": You disagree on what "high level planning" means. What you understand it to mean is the actual, real life high level planning with army groups, areas of operation, planned encirclements etc. etc. Basically, you make a plan, hit go and you change it only when the situation changes/evolves differently than expected.

What podcat meant is that you don't need to constantly give orders to every division to do "obvious" things, such as to generally advance as the situation allows. It means you can concentrate on those areas where actual decisions need to be made, to give orders to those divisions that do things OTHER than generally advance.

As to the need to constantly adjust the frontline... you can't seriously claim that it's more micro intensive to adjust that frontline (although I do think that doing so is more fiddly than it should be) than to give orders to every division along that frontline...

 

[jju_57]

I'm not getting milked endlessly for DLC that adds things that frankly should be in the base-game, such as a battle planner that doesn't require constant microing to work. What's next, the Pacific aspect of the game remains broken unless I buy some more DLC to fix it? No sir.

Good news. No one is forcing you to do it. You have total control on if you want to buy the DLC or not.

 

[Mabs]

Do not agree. Would you buy DLC if the price was €1000? Would people complain if the price was €0.00? Price is everything.

reducto ad absurdum

the price is set, as it has been for.. ooh YEARS, by industry norms, and various other things. "expansions" and "DLC" have almost always been between 10-20 -insert currency here- depending on publisher.

Like you said "value for money". Do I buy DLC for €20 if it adds some stuff to the game, or do I pay €15 or €20 extra and get Shadow Warrior 2 or Mafia 3, completely new games. Maybe I'll pay €40 more and get CIV6, a game which you can also play for hundreds of hours.

wierd, im pretty sure ive already covered this

"its too expensive".. no, wrong, end of story.

"i dont think its worth the price".. thats your decision, but crying wont change it, vote with your wallet, dont buy it, buy something else, plenty of people are happy to pay the price its set at, see previous point. . .

Except when you are over 20 and do not have a job. Or you have job, that does not pay much. Or have huge debts. €20 is a lot of money for some people.

if you dont have spare cash for what is, at the end of the day, a reasonably expensive hobby thats fair enough, however

WAA WAA I CANT AFFORD IT ITS NOT FAIR is not a sensible argument, ever.

 

[Kriegsspieler]

Yes, I think that is the only problem with many DLCs instead of a few expansions: the DLCs SOMETIMES generate problems of their own that need to be fixed and wreack havoc in the whole game, no matter wheter you got the dlc or not. However, in general terms, I think the current system is better.

That said, I think charging for such an obvious thing to be in the battleplanner frmo thvery begining as a "blitz" button is not a good move. I feel a bit cheated. After all the battleplanner is a feature that came with the game. That, and the fact that the game SEEMS to have lacked some love during the first, after release months, makes me think PDS has made a Public relations mistake with this issue.

Thought I would jump in on this point: It's true that DLCs sometimes engender new problems, but I find in CK2 and EUIV that that happens quite rarely.

And going back to the more general issue: If I had had a chance to tell P'dox how to proceed, I would have advised one more patch based on improving basic gameplay - including AI - before heading off to DLC-land. The base game isn't quite where it should be, really, and like many people here I am waiting for it to get better before playing it again seriously. Having to wait until the end of the year is not appealing, but so be it.

On the issue of DLC's in general, I find the prospect of DLC's expanding HOI4 to be quite exciting over the long term. There are so many areas of the game where an adequate basis is in place, but so much more could be added. Moving the time scale a little further backwards (which I have long advocated) and, of course forward into the Cold War, are obvious possibilities. And responding to a couple of comments about CK2 and EUIV, I find the strategies in the two games to be strikingly different. EUIV DLC's really, really change the feel of the game, although the first couple of them didn't so much. (And let that be cause for patience for HOI4 players. Give these guys some time!) CK2 DLC's also change gameplay some, but a lot of them have added new cultures and parts of the world, expanding the globe and making the game run more slowly! I have bought every one of the EUIV DLC, except for the latest one (and I will eventually get that one too), but my record with CK2 is more spotty.

 

[LordGazer]

These days, our expansions are about 3-4 times as big as the ones with the previous models..

We also add bugfixes and features for free..


And you guys seem to like this model far more.. At least when it comes to actually paying for it, and playing it.

Dear Johan,

I'm going on a first name basis as your forum posts and games have been such a large part of my live. Please, be steadfast with your vision! Do not listen to the loud forum posters. There is an army of quiet single player fans like me out there that likes this model and understands that developing these games needs money. Value for money with your games is unbeatable even with the DLC system. New generations of your games always bring innovation to the old tittles. There is no innovation without risks and growing pains. DLC model complements this system and helps with the growing pains while giving us something new to freshen up the games we play on a more common pace than expansions/sequels. I would hate to see you go the way of the Total War series where biggest improvement is graphics.

However, while I love Stellaris to bits and understand the importance of new ip for your company long term, don't let its success eat too much Hoi4 development time. Fans like me like to play both and switch between games. The overall level of satisfaction is affected if one cannot keep up. The DLC model forces you to constantly produce entertainment for the fans to stay loyal.

Keep up the good work!

 

[Roytje]

the price is set, as it has been for.. ooh YEARS, by industry norms, and various other things. "expansions" and "DLC" have almost always been between 10-20 -insert currency here- depending on publisher.

"It's always been like this" is not a good argument and that does not mean the price is good for the consumer.

DLC is half the price of the base game. DLC does not add half the features of the base game and did certainly not take half the time to make. For the price of CK2 + all DLC you can get 5 AAA games. 5 x €60 AAA games(!). You can get games like Witcher 3, Civ6, Skyrim, GTA5, Mafia 3 for the same price.

If you purely look at what you are getting compared to the vanilla game or other games, than the price of DLC is not good value for money. You get way less, for half the price. Some people are willing to pay the price, because "it is just €20".

if you dont have spare cash for what is, at the end of the day, a reasonably expensive hobby thats fair enough, however

WAA WAA I CANT AFFORD IT ITS NOT FAIR is not a sensible argument, ever.

Nobody was saying they cannot afford the price, but you were saying that €20 is easy money for everyone above 20. It's not for some people.

vote with your wallet, dont buy it

I am and I hope my posts inspire more people to vote with their wallets, because DLC practices are getting way out of hand, for Paradox and the industry in general.

I certainly will not be buying HOI4 DLC when something like Blitz is a paid feature, something that should have been in the base game.

 

[rcbricker33]

I think I am more baffled by everyone's reaction because this latest DD only offered 2 features. there will be more. I believe that quite a number of people will end up buying this DLC for the other features and the blitz will get lost in the shuffle. That said, Podcat did say he was going to see if he could get that feature moved to the free section.

 

[Mevsrei]

Where do you live? I pay $18 per ticket in DC.

Not how pricing of products work by the way. there is actually a complex process which is called a break even analysis. this tells the company how many items it must sell at a give cost (determined by considering fixed and variable costs) before they reach a net profit of $0.00. So the more content that the studio kicks out (patches included) the more they will need to charge for the DLC. content which is programmer and support staff salaries are a variable cost. the more they do the more they cost.

1st - It's not "complex".
2nd - Saleries are mostly fixed not variable.
3rd - Why the hell should DLC get more expansive if they produce more? The fixed costs stay the same overall so more dlc means each dlc needs to cover less of them.

If my shop costs 10€ a month (fixed) and a apple costs me 1€ (variable) than I need to sell one apple at 11€ to break even. 10€+1x1€=1x11€
Or I sell 10 apples for 2€ to break even. 10€+10x1€=10x2€
The more apples I sell, the less I need to charge to break even.

 

[Mabs]

"It's always been like this" is not a good argument and that does not mean the price is good for the consumer.

DLC is half the price of the base game. DLC does not add half the features of the base game and did certainly not take half the time to make. For the price of CK2 + all DLC you can get 5 AAA games. 5 x €60 AAA games(!). You can get games like Witcher 3, Civ6, Skyrim, GTA5, Mafia 3 for the same price.

If you purely look at what you are getting compared to the vanilla game or other games, than the price of DLC is not good value for money. You get way less, for half the price. Some people are willing to pay the price, because "it is just €20".

Nobody was saying they cannot afford the price, but you were saying that €20 is easy money for everyone above 20. It's not for some people.

I am and I hope my posts inspire more people to vote with their wallets, because DLC practices are getting way out of hand, for Paradox and the industry in general.

I certainly will not be buying HOI4 DLC when something like Blitz is a paid feature, something that should have been in the base game.

if the price wasnt good for consumer, they wouldnt "consume" and the price would change or the design/delivery system for gaming/dlc would change

stop confusing the fact that -YOU- dont want to pay the standard with the concept that you speak for thousands who are equally aggrieved

and as you have decided you arent going to buy it (rather than more sensibly waiting for it to actually be fully fleshed out with a full feature list of the usual "free patch / paid DLC" split) and continue to complain about it, your martyr complex is showing

 

[rcbricker33]

1st - It's not "complex".
2nd - Saleries are mostly fixed not variable.
3rd - Why the hell should DLC get more expansive if they produce more? The fixed costs stay the same overall so more dlc means each dlc needs to cover less of them.

If my shop costs 10€ a month (fixed) and a apple costs me 1€ (variable) than I need to sell one apple at 11€ to break even. 10€+1x1€=1x11€
Or I sell 10 apples for 2€ to break even. 10€+10x1€=10x2€
The more apples I sell, the less I need to charge to break even.

You assume all positions in a design house are purely dedicated. there is a core team, but for a DLC I would expect that they use members for shared services (such as art or music). If that is true then the salaries become variable to the overhead of the project.

Also part of the variable cost would be continued support rather than a particular member moving on to a new project. So not purely variable as in your apple example or the variable cost of adding a manual or physical CD for a game. However, projects pay for services of the salaried employee based on time spent on project. I code for a number of contracts, My time is billed as I am used. I am a variable cost to a project.

 

[Xaelyn]

Strawman.

This is that the prediction for the attack in your screenshot is:

Not remotely similar to the dev diary. That order is supposed to spread out like that, it tells you it will spread out like that, it IS following the narrow green path of selected provinces. Useless example.


This is what it looks like when you draw an order similar to the one in the Dev Diary, notice the green selected provinces.

This is what it looks like upon completion:

It has fulfilled the order as predicted and as it was intended to.

If I want a more complicated set of orders for encircling, then this would be the set up:

Resulting in this:

Seems to me like the feature works exactly as advertised.


Note: for all examples I did no manual movement, no editing of orders and no adjusting at all. I set up the orders, declared war and then clicked activate (with a brief period to prepare).

I'm the initial poster of the images.

After some testing the green/red advancement indicators still seem to be totally divorced from what actually happens, however I was at fault for the retarded behavior of my spearhead. I was (and usually am) utilising the aggressive stance on my army, which apparently causes it to ignore the battleplan completely and advance in any and all directions
Switching the army to the regular stance causes it to push more aggressively for the actual plan objectives and not spread out completely, at least as far as small scale spearheads in poland go.
I have now revised my opinion on the blitz feature, from bug fix that shouldn't need to be payed for, to pointless additional button that isn't worth paying for. (slight hyperbole, it still awaits further testing)

Thanks for forcing me to investigate this further and opening my eyes to the truth.