The first Stellaris looks like it's gonna be worth it.

[cosmeIII]

After years of intensive DLC policy by Paradox (see CK2 and EU4). I feel Stellaris is finally bringing a little more sense to their DLC objectives. I found that in EU4 and CK2, barely any of the DLCs were truly worth their prices, adding a few neat features here and there, with no real substantial change to the gameplay. Yet they usually cost more than 15€ which lead to CK2's price skyrocketing to the hundreds with all DLC included, it seemed ridiculous to me.

Yet, with Stellaris releasing a free patch and DLC of such a scale as this one, my hopes are being brought back. A complete overhaul of internal politics is exactly what Stellaris needed, along with steering a nation's path through the ascension perks, and finally buffing smaller empires with Habitats. And according to Wiz's recent tweets, this isn't even the best that update 1.5 and its DLC will offer.

Now, I'm not saying that a game and its DLC reaching the 100s is bad, less so when it means not jumping on the yearly game release bandwagon that many AAA companies seem to love. Just that they didn't have the "meat" necessary to make me feel good about my investment. With Stellaris' first big expansion, I feel like this is changing for the better.

Anyone agree, agrees to disagree?

 

[LordMagus]

Just that they didn't have the "meat" necessary to make me feel good about my investment. With Stellaris' first big expansion, I feel like this is changing for the better.

I'm excited for the new content, though at the same time I wonder how much of it should be paid, and for what price.

 

[cosmeIII]

I'm excited for the new content, though at the same time I wonder how much of it should be paid, and for what price.

They have been saying which features are paid content and which aren't in the dev diaries, I believe.

 

[LordMagus]

Sorry, by that I really mean how much of it SHOULD be paid, not what they're choosing. For instance, it could be considered that the game should have supported tall gameplay from the beginning. Habitats require the paid feature, so the only FREE way tall gameplay is supported is in the unity and traditions.

 

[Fourthspartan56]

Sorry, by that I really mean how much of it SHOULD be paid, not what they're choosing. For instance, it could be considered that the game should have supported tall gameplay from the beginning. Habitats require the paid feature, so the only FREE way tall gameplay is supported is in the unity and traditions.

Yes but ultimately any feature can be said to be a feature that should've been in the game at the start, that's why IMO that is a poor reason for something to be free. And as you said yourself they are already including methods of becoming more tall for free so more in paid content is simply for people who want even more tall in their life.

 

[LordMagus]

I disagree, a feature that should have been in from the start has to be considered "essential" for enjoyment of the game. For a lot of people, the lack of more victory conditions and only wide gameplay being viable has left a sour taste in a lot of mouths. I would consider those to be features that should have been in at launch. The expansion would be worth it at 15-20 dollars, personally.

 

[praftd]

I disagree, a feature that should have been in from the start has to be considered "essential" for enjoyment of the game. For a lot of people, the lack of more victory conditions and only wide gameplay being viable has left a sour taste in a lot of mouths. I would consider those to be features that should have been in at launch. The expansion would be worth it at 15-20 dollars, personally.

Habitats are not essential.

And the whole "it should have been in the game from the start" argument is a bad one. You could say that about anything added to the game.

Hindsight is 20-20 and game development is all about prioritization of features. Not everything can make it into release nor are all ideas thought of at the time.

You can still enjoy Stellaris without habitats. So no, they aren't "essential".

 

[General Retreat]

What is essential however, is additional revenue streams so the developers get paid and Paradox doesn't assign them to another project which isn't a financial black hole. So far all of the paywalled features have been intriguing but not game breakingly essential. That's fine by me.

 

[artemis667]

I disagree, a feature that should have been in from the start has to be considered "essential" for enjoyment of the game. For a lot of people, the lack of more victory conditions and only wide gameplay being viable has left a sour taste in a lot of mouths. I would consider those to be features that should have been in at launch. The expansion would be worth it at 15-20 dollars, personally.

These are all really subjective. If a player compulsively plays a game for many hours, substantially past the point where they were finding sufficient novelty to enjoy the game, it is not the developers' fault, nor is it the developer's responsibility to continually add free features to satisfy a demand for infinite replayability.

More stuff is great and I'm looking forward to many patches and expansions. But I don't take that for granted, and Paradox have a right to expect a return on further investment. I'll do my part to help provide that return, as I have with other games.

 

[koestritzer]

Seeing that they are implementing features that are already available as mods and then asking us to pay for it, I feel like the opposite is the case. I played with habitats 4 months ago, developed by a single person in their spare team. Paradox has a dedicated dev team that is getting paid to do it, yet takes it time to bring us these additions.

 

[Jorlem]

For a lot of people, the lack of more victory conditions and only wide gameplay being viable has left a sour taste in a lot of mouths.

And for some, the presence of victory conditions leaves a sour taste. You aren't going to be able to get a unified group saying X should be in the game.

 

[General Retreat]

Seeing that they are implementing features that are already available as mods and then asking us to pay for it, I feel like the opposite is the case. I played with habitats 4 months ago, developed by a single person in their spare team. Paradox has a dedicated dev team that is getting paid to do it, yet takes it time to bring us these additions.

I get that argument (particularly as I'm using the same mod as you), and it does add an additional factor to your decision whether to purchase or not. That's a personal consumer choice.

Something to consider though - the mod implementation for habitats (and many other things) is currently cobbled together through edicts and events - basically the elements the developers left exposed for modders. What the DLC features do is integrate the mechanics more organically into the game, through new menus/interfaces/art assets.

Basically, there's a whole new tier of stuff for modders to build on top of. Likely any mod using those features as a resource will also require the user to have those same assets installed. I'm happy to buy expansion packs while also being a staunch AlphaMod fan. I guess that puts me on a rather strange venn diagram.

 

[stumason]

Basically, there's a whole new tier of stuff for modders to build on top of. Likely any mod using those features as a resource will also require the user to have those same assets installed. I'm happy to buy expansion packs while also being a staunch AlphaMod fan. I guess that puts me on a rather strange venn diagram.

Indeed!

I am also an Alphamod fanboy and cannot play the game without - after the last patch+DLC, even though I bought the DLC as a pre-order, I waited until Alhpamod was updated to actually play properly (I had a quick whir on vanilla but it's not the same)

The same will happen with 1.5 - I will buy the DLC etc and probably play a bit of vanilla, but ultimately I will be awaiting Alphamods update for the new DLC.

 

[Rubidium]

I think a lot of the DLC policy was shaped by CK2 being the first one to use it. Unlike most games, CK2 started with a huge chunk of the world being unplayable (everyone who wasn't a feudal Christian), which made the initial DLCs fairly easy to target. Many of the DLCs for CK2 were essentially unlocks, with the actual mechanics for e.g. Merchant Republics or Muslim rulers coming in the associated free patches (so that AI Muslims or republics used them even without the DLC), and the DLC merely allowing the player to play as one of the unlocked characters. That's a clear, reasonable dividing line, and worked well.

EUIV, on the other hand, already had all nations as playable. There was no clear dividing line, which meant that the divide between DLC and free content was much less clear cut, both to the players and probably to the devs. As such, a lot of the DLC/free content policy had to be redesigned essentially from scratch, which caused quite a few hiccups. I remember that one of the first expansions had a minor improvement to the then-Curia interface originally slated to be part of the DLC; this led to much forum outrage and eventually swapping it with a different feature that was originally slated to be free (ironically, the Curia has been completely reworked since). It's gotten better, but you still have issues like the Institutions system (a free feature) making the Common Sense DLC a virtual requirement.

Later CK2 DLC (e.g. Conclave or Reaper's Due) have mostly run out of new map areas to unlock, and thus have changed over to a more EUIV-flavored DLC model. It's probably not a coincidence that CK2 is nearing the end of its life. It's a bit early to say how Stellaris or HOI4 will shape up DLC-wise; one of the issues that only became clear later on is how early DLC choices (specifically what is free vs. what is DLC-gated) affect later development. I mentioned the example of the Curia overhaul in EUIV above; it would have been much less likely to happen if it was replacing what had been a DLC-exclusive feature. Likewise, the retinue system in CK2 was introduced in a DLC, and devs have noted that it makes balance a bit trickier, as they have to balance separately for people with and without the DLC (and there was great gnashing of teeth on the forum when they nerfed retinues a few patches back).

TL/DR: we'll see.

 

[LordPavel]

I dont see a huge difference betwin CK2 (end life, not beginning, Rubidium explain very wells) or EUIV and Stellaris.
After the first full DLC, the full game with all DLC = 55$ (nova) + 9$ (Plantoid) + 11$ (Levi) + 20? (Bank) = 95$ after one year. It is a little expensive for have the ''full'' game. And in 2 or 3 years, the full game will be at around 200 $ too.

When you think about a DLC from EUIV or CK2, there is not a lot inside. But we had a free update and we ''forget'' they come with the DLC (now the free part is a part of the game and not a part of the DLC).
Remove the free part of the Bank update, and I am not sure this DLC will be really big as you explain. One space structure ? Few specific orders for purge/eat xeno ? One big unknow feature ? Not really huge for 20$. But with the free part, it is ok (and ''rich'' players paid for ''poor'' player for the free part).
I think in your mind you separate for CK2 or EUIV the free part and the expensive part, but you dont do same for Stellaris. The only ''big'' difference I see is we dont have 2-3 small DLC with a big DLC. I am happy about that, but it is not a big change in the policie.

 

[Ezumiyr]

I disagree so much with OP.

First, what where Stellaris' DLCs so far? Plantoids (comparable to CK2 portrait packs, but worse, since there's less inner variation) ; Leviathans (which add cool creatures but isn't really worth more than those fancy Aztecs or Random New World) and we're awaiting a DLC with Banks. That DLC will feature Ascension Perks, orbital stations (which are clearly overhyped - they are nothing more than buildable "planets", guys... It's nice to have them, but really they are not game-changers). And this DLC isn't even out. My guess is that it will bring content in a similar way that CK2's and EU4's DLCs do - some shiny new features

Second, what's your problem with CK2 and EU4 DLCs? Did you just forgot what they brought to their respective games? You know you can't play anyone else than christians without DLCs in CK2, right? Someone who tells me that CK2 hasn't been through deep changes in gameplay through the years just doesn't know what he's talking about, or has a very short-termed memory.

Also, do you remember how Stellaris was hyped before its release, and how disappointed people were? Stellaris is at the beginning of its developpement. Compare with the situation of CK2 at the same stage, you'll find a very similar situation. You're just hyped because Wiz is very good at hyping people, and because you're a fan of Stellaris. Stellaris is a new franchise, Stellaris is beautiful, and we're still all waiting for that game to release its full potential. It's a travel to the unknown, and we know that's how Paradox works. That's why we're inclined to think that Stellaris is great and maybe different from other games. But let's not take the brilliance of the stars for a promise of greatness.

 

[Atlantians]

I disagree, a feature that should have been in from the start has to be considered "essential" for enjoyment of the game. For a lot of people, the lack of more victory conditions and only wide gameplay being viable has left a sour taste in a lot of mouths. I would consider those to be features that should have been in at launch. The expansion would be worth it at 15-20 dollars, personally.

That is a very myopic viewpoint.

"Victory Conditions" are foreign to paradox games and insisting that all new games follow particular restrictive paradigms is a good way to kill creativity.

One thing I personally hate in most 4x titles are victory conditions.

 

[Robotkiller]

That is a very myopic viewpoint.

"Victory Conditions" are foreign to paradox games and insisting that all new games follow particular restrictive paradigms is a good way to kill creativity.

One thing I personally hate in most 4x titles are victory conditions.

Why do they bother you so much? Just ignore them, and you could pretend that the game ends at a certain date, like the EU or Victoria franchises. I don't mind the conditions being there; I just haven't reached them in any of my games so far.

 

[cosmeIII]

TL/DR: we'll see.

I wholeheartedly agree, that is why I said "looks like". We can't know the future after all.

I dont see a huge difference betwin CK2 (end life, not beginning, Rubidium explain very wells) or EUIV and Stellaris.
After the first full DLC, the full game with all DLC = 55$ (nova) + 9$ (Plantoid) + 11$ (Levi) + 20? (Bank) = 95$ after one year. It is a little expensive for have the ''full'' game. And in 2 or 3 years, the full game will be at around 200 $ too.

When you think about a DLC from EUIV or CK2, there is not a lot inside. But we had a free update and we ''forget'' they come with the DLC (now the free part is a part of the game and not a part of the DLC).
Remove the free part of the Bank update, and I am not sure this DLC will be really big as you explain. One space structure ? Few specific orders for purge/eat xeno ? One big unknow feature ? Not really huge for 20$. But with the free part, it is ok (and ''rich'' players paid for ''poor'' player for the free part).
I think in your mind you separate for CK2 or EUIV the free part and the expensive part, but you dont do same for Stellaris. The only ''big'' difference I see is we dont have 2-3 small DLC with a big DLC. I am happy about that, but it is not a big change in the policie.

Now now, the DLCs themselves are not big per se, but the updates bring much needed depth to the game for free. Just for that work, I believe they deserve compensation, even if it only brings me a few more neat features and I already have the other game changing features in a free patch. It's sort of a donation or incentive to continue with their work, instead of buying a digital good for my own enjoyment per se.

I disagree so much with OP.

First, what where Stellaris' DLCs so far? Plantoids (comparable to CK2 portrait packs, but worse, since there's less inner variation) ; Leviathans (which add cool creatures but isn't really worth more than those fancy Aztecs or Random New World) and we're awaiting a DLC with Banks. That DLC will feature Ascension Perks, orbital stations (which are clearly overhyped - they are nothing more than buildable "planets", guys... It's nice to have them, but really they are not game-changers). And this DLC isn't even out. My guess is that it will bring content in a similar way that CK2's and EU4's DLCs do - some shiny new features

Second, what's your problem with CK2 and EU4 DLCs? Did you just forgot what they brought to their respective games? You know you can't play anyone else than christians without DLCs in CK2, right? Someone who tells me that CK2 hasn't been through deep changes in gameplay through the years just doesn't know what he's talking about, or has a very short-termed memory.

Also, do you remember how Stellaris was hyped before its release, and how disappointed people were? Stellaris is at the beginning of its developpement. Compare with the situation of CK2 at the same stage, you'll find a very similar situation. You're just hyped because Wiz is very good at hyping people, and because you're a fan of Stellaris. Stellaris is a new franchise, Stellaris is beautiful, and we're still all waiting for that game to release its full potential. It's a travel to the unknown, and we know that's how Paradox works. That's why we're inclined to think that Stellaris is great and maybe different from other games. But let's not take the brilliance of the stars for a promise of greatness.

First, as I mentioned above, my payment will be more of a donation or incentive to continue with this method of good, meaty FREE updates (a complete overhaul of internal factions is a great step forward). Letting players who don't want to or can't pay for the new DLC actually be able to ENJOY these new features.

Second, my problem with CK2 and EU4 DLCs is that there comes a time when you can not play the game without them. What do I care if you bring in some cool new features for the muslims in a free patch if I'm locked out of playing as them unless I buy the DLC? Stellaris is bringing in new content in the free patch, while keeping bits out of it. Stellaris MAY (not WILL) be going to the right direction according to what I've seen so far. But, as I said, the future is uncertain, I am just expressing my hopes and seeing if others agree with me or not, so maybe Paradox has a look at this thread and says "hey, people seem to like this and the policy is working out for us." and continue with this trend. I insist that CK2 has gone through some deep changes and is a whole other story from what it was years ago, but I don't believe the changes are offered to the players the way they should be AKA how Stellaris may be doing with this expansion.

And as a response to your also: Yes, all games are hyped. CK2 was hyped, EU4 was hyped, Fallout 4 was hyped, Fable 2 was hyped. Hype (marketing) is generated to reach the maximum amount of sales regardless of wether the consumer truly desires the good in question or not, ugly but true. But call me a blind fanboy, I've been anything but that for the past few years, I do believe in Wiz's desire to bring us a fully fleshed out game in the best of his capability. Stellaris is probably his work-related ambition which he wants to shine in his CV for years to come. This is all conjectures, maybe Wiz is an EA-president tier devil on Earth, but it is the opinion I have formed for myself after following Stellaris' development and his earlier work on CK2 and seeing his modding (and AAR) work with Victoria and EU:Rome.

And last, if we don't take the brilliance of the stars for a promise of greatness every once in a while, we may quickly fall down the rabbit hole of hopelessness.

 

[V3N0M1300]

I think the DLC is "overpriced" to pay for the development of the free patches but I'm def looking forward to 1.5