I have nothing against the fact that Paradox makes profits. I wish them the best. But I thought their communication about it was odd, like if as players and customers we are suppose to rejoice because of the profits of Paradox stakeholders.
For people that like Paradox and their products, why wouldn't they be happy that Paradox is successful? Heck, I wish their continued success even if I lose interest in their games. They seem largely like a decent group of people as companies go.
Plus, the more money Paradox makes, the more money they can reinvest into their core products. I certainly would at least take cautious interest in an eventual Rome 2 and Victoria 3.
As for the future of Paradox, I think it is great if they attract new players with their new streamlining game design, but, at the end of the day, they will never reach out the candy crush playerbase, no matter how hard they try to casualize their games.
It is a fairly ludicrous assertion to say they are trying to reach the fanbase of simple facebook-based games.
But here's an assertion that isn't ludicrous:
CKII sold more than all the harder, more complicated Paradox games that preceded it. EUIV sold more than CK2. Ergo, there is in fact a broader audience who might play Paradox games and Paradox did in fact tap into that audience successfully.
So why shouldn't they continue to do that? If the only reason is "A small minority of your fanbase on some internet forums don't like what you're doing", then that obviously might as well be no reason at all.
People who play strategy games in an historical settings want depth, complexity and attention to detail. If Paradox move away from this they will lose their fanbase, have bad publicity and could see competition rise.
There are many, many, many, many, MANY strategy games in historical settings that have been successful without having anywhere near the depth, complexity and attention to detail of EUIV. There is no way I can take your prediction seriously, and I doubt those at Paradox would either (not least of which because I doubt they would agree with the fundamental premise that they're "moving away" from that in the first place).
The Dlc's milking is another problem, I have given up EU4 because of them, the free updates coming with them break the game each time and I have higher standard of quality.
I've barely played CK2 and haven't bought any Paradox DLCs since the Rajas of India DLC I eagerly bought with great anticipation rendered the game unable to play on my and many other computers, in addition to containing many problems that should have been spotted almost instantly by any playtesters and others which were not instantly obvious but I felt should and would have been found with any adequate testing. That was three DLCs in a row I consider to have been released in a state that made me feel like an idiot for buying them at release instead of waiting a few months for patches and 75% off sales, and three was my limit (particularly as I've seen nothing from Paradox that indicates they feel there was even a problem, or that they plan to do anything to prevent it happening in future).
So just to make things clear, I am far from unsympathetic to your and others' viewpoints here (although I don't agree with all of it either).
But I also feel that facts are facts and opinions are opinions, and the facts are that apparently a large majority of the playbase doesn't have any of these problems with the games (including my own, since apparently numbers jump huge with each new DLC and there's no obvious sign Paradox's playtesting procedures or lack thereof have damaged their brand or enthusiasm overall). So saying that the company's going to lose its fanbase by doing this that or the other thing, or saying something as silly and obviously untrue as "Paradox games are like facebook puzzle games that Grandma plays", aren't going to convince anyone of anything.
.png){kind=avatar}
