V3 before CK3

[Arthrodira]

I really thought we’d see V3 before CK3. That’s all. Just wanted to vent my disappointment.

I am looking forward to CK3 though, and obviously it’s the smarter financial move (it’s what I would have done). But I do want to see V3 next.

 

[hkrommel]

Given that V2 was very successful compared to other Paradox games at the time, I think V3 would be financially smart as well. They're worried so much about hype but if they just deliver an updated version of V2 and build on that in their usual way, that would satisfy most people. They don't need to go out on a limb.

 

[Arthrodira]

No game was more successful for them than CK2 though. It launched PDX from a niche company to an international brand. I simply meant if there is any take to sequel, I could see why it was CK2. The hope is that V3 is at least in the works by now though

 

[Arthrodira]

Also I just noticed the flaw in the title. I meant CK3 obviously

 

[hkrommel]

No game was more successful for them than CK2 though. It launched PDX from a niche company to an international brand. I simply meant if there is any take to sequel, I could see why it was CK2. The hope is that V3 is at least in the works by now though

I could be wrong but I don't think it was 0-100 as much as the building up of a dedicated fanbase over many years, combined with the proliferation of streamers. Still I agree with your point overall though.

 

[Sirveri]

Honestly CK3 before V3 doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Venting Rant... Now;

So lets see, we last had a DLC for CK2 in Nov 2018 (less than a year ago), for a IP that (when not on sale) has around 300$ worth of DLC for it. In their infinite wisdom they decide to instead of giving CK2 time to cool down a bit, launch something that will have to be worse than the existing IP (We all know they won't roll those features into 3), all while they have an IP that hasn't seen an update since Sep 2013 (and that was graphical). This without any announcement of a new engine to prompt a need for a change over. So what I see happening is they launch ck3, and everyone says meh, why, I've got this thing that is only a year or two old and your titles at release blow. Which will blow a hole in their sales numbers all for a product no one really asked for, that most of the more vocal and reactive gamers will scream is just a cash grab for more DLC money. Or they could have released Vic3, which people have been asking for, that has tons of room for DLC expansion that would have given time for CK2 to cool down and draw requests for an update.

Are they working on Vick3? Maybe, probably, but I don't get this move at all.

 

[CrazyMe]

My guess is that developing V3 is much more difficult due to a lot higher complexity of economy, politics, population, tech, wars, etc. in that time period. V2 was good, but games standards and players expectations are much higher now, and there is a greater risk of failure (PDX could not even launch a good enough I:R, though it is improving now). So they probably started to develop V3 but I guess it is a much harder title.
At the same time, it is probably easier to achieve superior V3 vs V2 as compared to achieving superior CK3 vs CK2 because CK2 is still very popular and loved. With all features/DLCs of CK2, CK3 may feel a barebones game at launch.

 

[Gurkhal]

I don't think that only an updated version of V2 would be enough. That would be enough for a DLC or something but to justify for the company and customers to spend potentially lots of money on this more drastic stuff than some updates would be required.

You guys did see the Imperator experience, right? The changes that's been making people more positive about Imperator, somewhat, has not been slimming down and getting it closer to the OG in EU:Rome but rather expand it as a game on its own.

So Victoria III would in my eyes need, new, expanded and new features and stuff to justify its existance and development.

 

[hkrommel]

I don't think that only an updated version of V2 would be enough. That would be enough for a DLC or something but to justify for the company and customers to spend potentially lots of money on this more drastic stuff than some updates would be required.

You guys did see the Imperator experience, right? The changes that's been making people more positive about Imperator, somewhat, has not been slimming down and getting it closer to the OG in EU:Rome but rather expand it as a game on its own.

So Victoria III would in my eyes need, new, expanded and new features and stuff to justify its existance and development.

But V2 is a much better and different game than EU: Rome. You're comparing apples and oranges. Just redoing it with adding some more flavor/features, tooltips, fixing lategame world market weirdness, revamping the UI, etc. is enough for me. I'd rather that than they screw it up.

 

[Gurkhal]

But V2 is a much better and different game than EU: Rome. You're comparing apples and oranges. Just redoing it with adding some more flavor/features, tooltips, fixing lategame world market weirdness, revamping the UI, etc. is enough for me. I'd rather that than they screw it up.

But thing is, that's more like a patch or a DLC and a patch to Victoria II. How many are willing to pay some 40 euro or something for a fix like that? I sure wouldn't.

So yes, while the core Victoria II players may just want a patch to Victoria II and a re-branding of the game to Victoria III. I don't think that there's enough of these guys to make it worthwhile for Paradox.

 

[hkrommel]

But thing is, that's more like a patch or a DLC and a patch to Victoria II. How many are willing to pay some 40 euro or something for a fix like that? I sure wouldn't.

So yes, while the core Victoria II players may just want a patch to Victoria II and a re-branding of the game to Victoria III. I don't think that there's enough of these guys to make it worthwhile for Paradox.

People are willing to pay $20 for remasters all the time. Add on a DLC and that can be $40.

And the sales numbers of V2 beg to differ on whether it's worth it for Paradox, considering that most of their money comes from DLCs after the fact. Releasing vanilla V3 as a remaster with some moderate changes, then adding onto it, is right in their usual business strategy.

 

[Gurkhal]

People are willing to pay $20 for remasters all the time. Add on a DLC and that can be $40.

And the sales numbers of V2 beg to differ on whether it's worth it for Paradox, considering that most of their money comes from DLCs after the fact. Releasing vanilla V3 as a remaster with some moderate changes, then adding onto it, is right in their usual business strategy.

I'll be totally honesy about not knowing much about the gaming industry and such. But I do know that Imperator wasn't well recieved and so Paradox may be a bit shy about taking on a title with as much investment as Victoria II has accumulated with its fans.

But then again I do not work for Paradox so I can be entirely wrong.

 

[hkrommel]

I'll be totally honesy about not knowing much about the gaming industry and such. But I do know that Imperator wasn't well recieved and so Paradox may be a bit shy about taking on a title with as much investment as Victoria II has accumulated with its fans.

But then again I do not work for Paradox so I can be entirely wrong.

The main problem with Imperator was that it was an empty map painter. V2 is anything but that, so a modest rework would not fall into the same problem as Imperator. So long as Paradox is up-front about what they're doing, I don't think it's a problem necessarily. You could argue they were up-front in Imperator but everything they said was couched in PR and marketing terms to hide what was really going on with the development of that game.

 

[RELee]

I meant CK3 obviously

Obviously.

 

[Arthrodira]

People are willing to pay $20 for remasters all the time. Add on a DLC and that can be $40.

And the sales numbers of V2 beg to differ on whether it's worth it for Paradox, considering that most of their money comes from DLCs after the fact. Releasing vanilla V3 as a remaster with some moderate changes, then adding onto it, is right in their usual business strategy.

While some people may just want cosmetic and UI updates, I think that there would be an enormous fan backlash if they did a remastered V2 instead of V3. The game isn’t perfect as is - it needs a lot of work to be in line with CK2 or EU4 standards. A revamp could signal hesitance to commit to a proper sequel.

 

[hkrommel]

While some people may just want cosmetic and UI updates, I think that there would be an enormous fan backlash if they did a remastered V2 instead of V3. The game isn’t perfect as is - it needs a lot of work to be in line with CK2 or EU4 standards. A revamp could signal hesitance to commit to a proper sequel.

I think we’re all on the same page about wanting a proper sequel. I just think a proper sequel, with the current devs (aren’t all the V2 devs gone?), is more likely to happen if they start mostly with a modern version of V2 with modest changes, and build from there.

 

[Ethanol]

I really thought we’d see V3 before CK3. That’s all. Just wanted to vent my disappointment.

I am looking forward to CK3 though, and obviously it’s the smarter financial move (it’s what I would have done). But I do want to see V3 next.

From what I've followed over the past few years Victoria III started developement in 2016 with the return of Chris King to paradox.

My estimation at the time was that considering a 3 year developement period and the fact that after the HOI4 situation (announced in 2013, to be released in 2015 and finally a year late) they would not announce a game if it wasn't in beta or nearly meant that we probably would'nt hear from it before pdxcon 2018/2019.

An additional element to support this is the fact that Chris King is no longer listed in the pdx employee list (I don't know if he left or if he just assumed another role) and the fact that Wiz became director of a secret project in december 2018 (it is well known he is a big victoria supporter, and personally i'd put my money on him being the GD for V3, especially since he's good with devising systems and god knows that's what's going to make or break V3 at launch).

Personnally I abandoned any hope of seeing V3 announced at pdxcon 2019 when I saw the imperator launch situation. Even if they were pretty sure of their design decisions I bet the whole affair probably made them think a bit and extend the dev of V3 another year in order to get things right (and since CK3 started dev in 2015, it's logical it should be announced before).

 

[Son Of Perdition]

I have a cynical and a hopeful theory about Vicky 3.

So, my hope is that Paradox is building up a difficulty curve in it's line up of sequels that will culminate in Victoria 3.

So if you think of it as paradox making games for a new generation of players it would make sense for them to slowly build up the complexity of their titles letting newer players ride the curve into seasoned fans. This difficulty... well not really difficult, complexity... yes... this complexity curve is evident in the titles since stellaris.

Stellaris is a casual take on grand strategy, with HoI4 elevating the complexity, and then EU4 and Imperator (which Imperator is really an outlier but I'd put it here, plus I get a feeling Imperator was really someone's quick passion project that didn't pan out with the announcement it started development after CK3 had.). Now ideally CK3 will increase the complexity yet again paving the way for what comes next to be even more complex.

This way Victoria can retain it's complex system of pops and economic simulation and be appealing to the new fans who have been slowly learning the ropes of grand strategy.

 

[Son Of Perdition]

Cynically, however, I fear that that paradox is avoiding Vicky 3 for several reasons not the least of which is I don't think any of the game leads at Paradox want to make Vicky. Which is a shame. But I can't think that we would have to have waited this long if someone really wanted to make it.

Of course this is where I have to agree I think for some the anticipation has elevated expectations so high that Paradox can't do but fail in meeting them. And there's always the rumor that no one knows how they coded the economy and it's legacy code.

But my most cynical theory for a lack of Vicky 3 is a political one. The Victorian era is a time of some pretty outrageous politics. A lot more outrageous than the God Wills it controversy of CK3. Social darwinism, slavery, colonization, imperialism, it's the antithesis of modern identitypolitick and I can't imagine paradox designing a game in the era and going unscathed by the type of people who get upset over video game subject matter. And while I like my games to cater to the male fantasy of oppressing the natives, getting the Chinese hooked on opium, and open this Japan stop having it be closed, I can see the caution that Paradox would have to proceed with less they get lambasted by a bunch of.... moralist ideologues that the industry seems so fond of making reporters despite likely never playing a paradox game for any length of time.

I don't what that last part to seem like a rant against muh progressives. It's not, I'm quite progressive in reality myself. It is my thinking that the same forces that force developers to censor a sacred symbol of Hinduism and black out the portrait of a man with a square mustache, or say that censoring D E U S V U L T is refreshing, might play a roll in keeping anyone from developing anything more that junky steam punk oh look they added tesla games in the era.

 

[hkrommel]

But my most cynical theory for a lack of Vicky 3 is a political one. The Victorian era is a time of some pretty outrageous politics. A lot more outrageous than the God Wills it controversy of CK3. Social darwinism, slavery, colonization, imperialism, it's the antithesis of modern identitypolitick and I can't imagine paradox designing a game in the era and going unscathed by the type of people who get upset over video game subject matter. And while I like my games to cater to the male fantasy of oppressing the natives, getting the Chinese hooked on opium, and open this Japan stop having it be closed, I can see the caution that Paradox would have to proceed with less they get lambasted by a bunch of.... moralist ideologues that the industry seems so fond of making reporters despite likely never playing a paradox game for any length of time.

Which is hilarious considering the crap you're able to do in CK2 and presumably CK3 is absolutely heinous and gets zero attention from "journalists". I have never been able to bring myself to do half of the stuff you're able to in CK2.

Edit: Not saying it should be removed, just pointing out the lack of logical consistency