@omfgBlondie - is Sham's breathing really that bad?
@Shams @danielg0ldberg - I still think you guys underestimate the hassle factor of multiple launchers for people whose time for gaming is at more of a premium. I mean, both of you are wholly encased in the videogame industry. For someone like me, rapidly approaching forty, when I get home and am ready to play a game, anything that makes the decision of what to play harder is a bad thing. The great thing about Steam, from my perpsective, is that almost everything I want to play is there. I do have other launchers downloaded, but I always end up forgetting about them because those launchers only have drips and drabs. Whereas on Steam I will sometimes notice a game in my library and think "Actually, I want to take that game out for another spin". My games on GoG.com, for example, rarely get that visibility.
Context, of course, is everything. I have only ever been a pc gamer, and I am at the age where people generally start to become less adaptable. I imagine someone with greater familiarity of consoles, where exclusivity has been the norm pretty much since inception, might get mystified at anyone having a problem with it.
On the age front - whilst there are certainly gamers older than me, folks around my age and a bit older seem to be the first generation who largely didn't always give up their gaming in their 20s. I think this greying of the gaming audience is going to be one of the great challenges/opportunities for the gaming industry over the next twenty years. Perhaps a topic for another video?
On DLC, whilst listening to this week's episode I had a thought. The first pieces of Paradox DLC were Victoria Revolutions and Crusader Kings: Deuv Vult. Deus Vult in particular, but also Revolutions in its way, very much felt like DLCs aiming to complete games which, for whatever reasons, had development issues. Doomsday and Armageddon, in contrast and in hindsight, feel like they started the second generation of Paradox DLC by deepening and broadening the game. That DLC model continued through to EU3, Vic2, HoI3, and EU Rome. Then with CK2 you got the modular DLC model of the current games, that some people seem to find really objectionable.
And I got to thinking, in regards to some of the reactions to Imperator, that people are forgotten that the case CK2 game isn't a feature complete 7 year old game - it is a game that has an additional 7 years of development funded by the DLCs, beyond what most other games get. The Imperator base game may seem empty to some - but is it really so different from base CK2/HoI4/Stellaris/EU4? Not really.
And I got to thinking further. Most of the industry still uses the second-generation Paradox DLC model, where a game usually gets 1-3 additions sometimes unlocking new areas or new mechanics, but then it is done. There are really only two other parts of the video-game industry where I feel they have a DLC model (for want of another term) at all like the Paradox mode.
The first is the MOBA. If one looks at the Wargamining.net games (World of Tanks/Warships) you get premium products - particuarly premium tanks/ships/items that come directly from the store. In effect, these premium items are DLCs. But you can still play seamlessly with people who don't have that particular piece of DLC. The companies need the money to keep the game open, and in return for doing that people who buy premium stuff get a reward (benefits from "cool stuff" or premium time, etc).
The second are MMOs. Not all MMOs, but in most (again, especially the FTP MMOs) you don't have to buy all the DLCs or stuff. You can buy extra content or extra classes/races when you desire. Unless the content you wish to do is specifically blocked, you can play with someone who may have a different set of DLC that you do. Now depending on the setup of each individual MMO this happens more or less naturally, but the basic outline seems to exist across the genre. Effectively again, the reward for giving the company money to keep the servers open is something cool for the player.
Paradox implicitly makes the same bargain. In return for buying Holy Fury (for example) we agree to keep support up for CK2, and you get these nice new features you entertain those of you who do buy that DLC. But, of course, the vast vast majority of games don't have that ongoing support as a model, apart from MOBAs and MMOs. Therefore it jars people expectations.
I almost wonder therefore if the solution is for Paradox to give out a version of the base game for free, but in that case game be restricted in various ways. In the current day CK2 would be easy - just give the current base game for free. However, for a more recently released game that wouldn't do. Taking the example of Imperator Rome, perhaps if you had it free to play you could only play countries within an initial starting area, and also of only limited government types. So perhaps Republics in Italia, for example. For HoI4 a restricted list of countries, maybe even just 2 or 3 (Germany, UK, USSR, for example). For Stellaris a greatly reduced set of potential civics, and perhaps no traits.
I mean essentially, after the purchase of the base game that is essentially what ends up happening.
But I do wonder if that is partly where alot of the aggro comes from because "single-player" games - which despite a very vocal community PDS games are single-player, as you yourselves note - are essentially not done under this business model. But PDS has proven this essential business model can work for single-player games, with the right kind of games. But when you are still charging full-price for the base game it continues to condition players (especially players with less history with Paradox) into one set of expectations about what they are purchasing that is actually incorrect.
This has gotten very long-winded. I hope it makes sense.
