Victoria 2 - 3.04 BETA PATCH - Merry Christmas!

[LiberiusX]

You can't know that.

I can infer it from the fact that when an expansion is announced, only a handful of the 100s of people that comment on its announcement thread complain about “another DLC”.

I can also look around and see that a rather large number of people don’t mind buying many of the available DLC.

Also, as has been stated, the current system allows you to benefit, even if you never buy a single DLC, through the free patches. In the 90s and early naughts, the notion of getting a large upgrade to current systems in a patch was unheard of. The best you could hope for was some bug fixes and MAYBE some GUI improvements.

In those dark times, you had to buy expansions, in sequence, to get significant improvements to the game.

PDS’s model allows them to provide the above, and new content, and new mechanics without a player dropping a dime on anything more than the base game, financed by those of us who eventually buy the DLC, a fine compromise imho. Even better, you dont have to buy DLC in sequence, which give players a lot of power to pick and choose what content they want more of.

Most people understand this, and thus don’t complain about it too much, if at all, but there are a few who just really loved the “old model” of getting nothing if you pay nothing. I don’t see what was so good about it.

Caveat*: I think the business model makes sense. However, I question the pricing of some of the DLC, and usually wait for it to go on sale.

EDIT: Also, the complaints about cost don't make much sense to me either for a couple of the above stated reasons. Many of the people that whine about DLC, are happy to pay a subscription for their favorite MMO, which makes absolutely 0 sense.

They are also happy to blow $15 on a pizza/beer/movie etc. but come here to complain about PDS's DLC model. give me a break.

 

[TheExecuter]

Of course, most game developers don't let users mod the content anymore because it isn't supported by the patches or DLC.

Most users were free to use any version of the game they chose...rather than being forced onto the latest patch.

Most users actually owned the game in question and couldnt lose access to it for seller defined reasons.

Sellers hadn't changed from a 'game as product' to 'game as service' model...which means DLC or loot boxes are necessary to provide the required profit.

It was a different time...with different advantages and disadvantages. There are things I like about the current business model, and things I don't like...just like 'back in the day'...

It's different.

 

[General WVPM]

I get an allowance of $40 per month, which covers my tea, snacks, work lunch (when I don't take leftovers), and any other personal purchases. The rest goes to my wife and child.

I don't have free cash floating around to buy DLC...and when I do have cash, I end up buying a more interesting game...like a cycling manager or an indie naval warfare game.

I have CK2 without any DLC (it was a gift)...but I have no interest in trying to catch up to the current state of the game. It would just cost too much and I have other games I'm interested in that aren't so expensive.

 

[FOARP]

I wonder how many of the people would really be happy going back to the days when developers released “sequels” to games using exactly the same game engines, graphics, etc.

Doom 2 was basically Doom with a few new bad guys, weapons, and new levels.

X-Com: Terror from the Deep was basically UFO: Enemy Unknown with tweaked gameplay and a paper-thin under-water environment.

Allied General and Pacific General were just Panzer General with new units and maps.

Steel Panthers 2 was just Steel Panthers 1 with a Cold War Units pack.

Each of the above games cost as much to buy as its base-game, despite most of them being what nowadays would be a low-cost DLC in terms of content.

 

[TheExecuter]

I wonder how many of the people would really be happy going back to the days when developers released “sequels” to games using exactly the same game engines, graphics, etc.

Doom 2 was basically Doom with a few new bad guys, weapons, and new levels.

X-Com: Terror from the Deep was basically UFO: Enemy Unknown with tweaked gameplay and a paper-thin under-water environment.

Allied General and Pacific General were just Panzer General with new units and maps.

Steel Panthers 2 was just Steel Panthers 1 with a Cold War Units pack.

Each of the above games cost as much to buy as its base-game, despite most of them being what nowadays would be a low-cost DLC in terms of content.

I enjoyed that time...spent more then on games than I do now.

Of course, there may be other variables at play...

...you don't need to defend the game industry. They have enough money and power to defend themselves.

 

[deanwebb]

DLC is here, it's how things work, I have money, so give me stuff!

 

[FOARP]

I enjoyed that time...spent more then on games than I do now.

Of course, there may be other variables at play...

...you don't need to defend the game industry. They have enough money and power to defend themselves.

This isn't me defending the games industry. This is me pointing out that the "golden era" that people keep referring to wasn't that great in terms of value for money.

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

This isn't me defending the games industry. This is me pointing out that the "golden era" that people keep referring to wasn't that great in terms of value for money.

Can you just stop this argument that you started and that doesn't even belong into this thread. Thanks

 

[Darkspysrival]

Can you just stop this argument that you started

Why? It's a fairly cordial exchange of ideas regarding the industry's policies on monetization, not a flame war.

 

[TheExecuter]

This isn't me defending the games industry. This is me pointing out that the "golden era" that people keep referring to wasn't that great in terms of value for money.

I think some of us would like to see some of the bygone consumer advantages return in the more modern context...but I agree, the tendency to devolve to luddism is strong.

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

Why? It's a fairly cordial exchange of ideas regarding the industry's policies on monetization, not a flame war.

At least for the argument that this is the wrong thread for that... (and has been discussed a gazillion times, but not recently admittedly).

 

[deanwebb]

In the meantime, it's 2018, and that patch still works! Yay!

 

[RELee]

In the meantime, it's 2018, and that patch still works! Yay!

Hmm. A fact.

 

[FOARP]

Can you just stop this argument that you started and that doesn't even belong into this thread. Thanks

I didn't start this argument about why this patch only works for fully-expanded versions of Vicky 2 and not for people who haven't bought all the expansions. It began with the below comment.

I'm also not capable of stopping people discussing this subject on this thread here - contact a mod if you want to stop people discussing a specific topic here.

This is not like later Paradox releases, without the expansions you're version is far behind on patches. So yeah again you're gonna need them.
I'd try a smaller rez and press on, cause this is the greatest Paradox game and without the expansions it does not shine as much.

 

[RELee]

And this is a thread about the wonderful gift of a patch no one was even expecting, not a discussion thread regarding Paradox expansion policies, so let's all get back on topic.