Wester Statement Appears To Question Intelligence Of Critics

[dstockydale]

I am a little concerned after reading Wester's statement regarding the price rollback. The tone of the statement seems to me to be a little misjudged and it most definitely appears to me to contain some rather adversarial statements - one of which appears to question the intelligence of critics.

The price rise, potential rollback and Wester's statement appear to me to show poor decision making and leadership on the part of Wester.

I feel bad for Paradox employees that their voice is being represented in such a way (although they may disagree with me!)

I love Paradox games and was planning to buy Stellaris, EUIV DLC and Cities: Skylines DLC but I have to say I can't bring myself to do so.

 

[SPAMbuca]

It has been discussed in other topics too.


I would however, like to say that Paradox is more than Wester or any other manager. There's a ton of employees that just want to make good games and take the effort to stream and promote it. Regardless of Paradox' policies, their games can still be enjoyable and you can still make a good purchase, even if the price has gone up. People can decide that for themselves.

 

[Susana]

Hi,

Some of the limitations of communicating on the internet is that tone and intention can be interpreted so differently depending on who reads it and might not always match what the senders intention when writing. That's one of the reasons we favour live streams as communicating in person adds a lot of context to the communication. Could you elaborate on which parts you felt were misjudged and why and I'll see if I can add some of that context.

Kind regards
Susana

 

[cestes]

Hi,

Some of the limitations of communicating on the internet is that tone and intention can be interpreted so differently depending on who reads it and might not always match what the senders intention when writing. That's one of the reasons we favour live streams as communicating in person adds a lot of context to the communication. Could you elaborate on which parts you felt were misjudged and why and I'll see if I can add some of that context.

Kind regards
Susana

Hi Susana,

I wasn't the original poster, but after reading the CEO statement, I felt a similar way. For me it was bullet point number three and -- at least based on my interpretation of what was being said -- equated people that were upset about this change to being part of an angry mob. That was inappropriate and disrespectful. Some context, I've been a customer since the original EU in 2001. I registered on the forum the following year and while I don't post often, I do read regularly. I'm in the US, so as far as I know the price change didn't even impact me, but the way this situation has been handled, raising prices on old games, the poor communication leading up to the kerfuffle, and the CEO statement have left me wondering about what exactly is going on at Paradox. I'm just a bit disappointed to see this happen at a company I have respect for and whose games I love. I strongly encourage the team to take a few days to think about what has happened and then do one of the live streams you mentioned and share with the community what lessons have been learned. I'm not one of the people that are out for "blood" so maybe I'm not part of the angry mob, I just want something positive to come from all this and I want Paradox to be able to get its focus back to making awesome games.

 

[dstockydale]

Thanks for your response Susana.

I get your point about the subjective nature of interpreting intent and tone when reading a written statement. It is however, the responsibility of the writer to minimise the possibility of misinterpretation by writing in a clear, succinct and factual manner.

I'll cite the quote and give my reason in each instance.

"this will sound a bit schizophrenic"
In my opinion, not really an appropriate use of the word schizophrenic (misjudged).

" In regards to the price changes you are absolutely right. You deserve more transparency and better communication from Paradox when it comes to changing of our prices and pricing policy."

I must ask if this question was raised prior to the backlash. If so, can a reason be given as to why the wrong decision was still taken? If the question had not previously been raised, could an explanation be given as to why such due diligence was neglected for something which clearly has caused a major PR issue?

"otherwise it would mean we have to take all Paradox products off the summer sale"

This suggests it is possible to remove the products from the sale in order to amend the price. Along with the gesture of attempting to refund customers after the fact (although not guaranteed), this suggests an acknowledgement the prices are currently falsely inflated and as such, the savings cited on the steam store are falsely represented. All the while, there is an option to immediately correct the error. This admission suggests Paradox are happy to take extra money from customers now with the 'hope' that refunds can be given -assuming technically possible after the fact.

"I have promised myself never to give in to mob mentality"

This term suggests to me a widespread backlash in some way equates to a "mob". Something that suggests those engaged in the backlash have not formed cogent and salient arguments. This essentially seems to me he sees unhappy customers who are willing to voice concerns as a "mob". I think this points back to the subjective nature of interpreting his intent. I do however feel his poor choice of language has left his statement open to such interpretation.

"I have probably from time to time been more prone to say "no" than "yes" when people gang up on me/us to make us change our minds - I guess partly by principle not to cave in due to pressure."

This suggests to me a lack of pragmatism. Pressure in-and-of-itself can take many forms and be exceedingly positive. To not "cave in to pressure" based on principle seems to me quite alarming. I'm not sure what principle he is alluding to here. It seems to me he is saying "alot of people want this, so I'm not doing it based on the principle that alot of people want it". Once again, just seems misjudged to me.

"Finally - as much as I love a good conspiracy theory; to be frank, the whole "Tencent bought 5% of Paradox and now they're all greedy" and "They're now a publicly traded company and therefore do things the market wish for" is below the level of intelligence of this community."

This, to me, is the most worrying part of the statement. To suggest there is a "level of intelligence" of the community seems very strange. Is this a finite level that can be measured? Could he give us the actual figure? Also, the quotes he is citing are quite inflammatory. Are these quotes specific to an individual who said those exact words or is it more of a questioning of those who feel it is a possible scenario. Would he apply the same "intelligence level" to someone who questioned a transition of priority based on a change of ownership using slightly different language? Because to me, this is a question that should be asked without ones intelligence being questioned.


I am admittedly being very critical of his statement and I don't expect you to explain away every aspect. I accept that prices change, mistakes occur and corrections are made. My point is that - in my opinion - some of the content of the statement seems poorly conceived, and as such, has led me to question my support of a company where the CEO has communicated in such a way.

 

[Susana]

Dear both,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, as with all other feedback we've received it will be a part of our extensive review process moving forward. I don't want to dissect Fred's post nor do I have insight in every aspect of what we can/can't do currently but I will certainly be a part of what happens next once we are all back in the office next week. But I will touch on a few points.

The intention of the statement was to try and be as clear as possible while assuming responsibility for the current situation. Most of us who have been with Paradox for a long time (Fred 14 years and I myself 13 years) are extremely invested in the company, in the people who work for Paradox and the gamers that make up our community. That emotional attachment is sometimes a blessing and sometimes a curse. I’ve seen many that have responded very positively to Fred’s post - perhaps it’s a matter context and having had previous interactions with him? I don't know but something I find worth exploring for sure.

When it comes to the mob mentality - that was more of a general reference to the mob mentality that can occur on the internet of which we have been on the receiving end many times. Fred does mention in his post speaking to a large volume of players and reading up himself on a lot of the feedback before ultimately making the roll-back post. As I explained in another thread, part of how we work is spend a lot of time reading up on and communicating with the members in here, and in various others channels and I can confirm that we do read and analyse Steam reviews regularly. We wouldn't spend our time doing so if we didn't value that interaction and consider it important.

I’ll also touch on the point about the intelligence of the community. We often reference, in the community and outside, that we have one of the most intelligent communities on the internet. And we do it because it’s true. And while I’m sure not everyone is well versed in the ownership structure of Paradox, he wanted to make it absolutely crystal clear that he is still in charge and that any speculations of Tencent coming aboard and changing us have no merit. Could he have chosen a more polished way of expressing that? Probably, but it was direct and honest as to how he felt about it.

I'm sure there are many points that can be picked apart in my post. I chose to just write what I was thinking right now as that is really the only way I know how to communicate with this community.

Sorry this became a bit lengthy. Thanks for your time.

Kind regards
Susana

 

[Kayden_II]

The comment was a big "bla bla bla" since the "outcome" matters aka ...
1. Increase the prices right before the steam-summer-sale = A bad decision in regards to your reputation ...
2. Not be "able" to decrease the prices during the steam-summer-sale, so that we miss good discounts = Tastes like a subterfuge ...
3. Overall - Not a single 75%-discount for your huge number of overpriced and unbalanced/buggy/unpolished DLC(s), so that we have still to pay hundreds of Euros/Dollars etc. for a complete, but still unbalanced/buggy/unpolished game = Feels like the attempt to "milk the dumb mob".

 

[Persipnei]

I really think the militancy of your customers is NOT getting raised because of Mr. Wester's post or even the price raise.

I can only speak for myself, but as a Paradox fanboy since EU3, my trust in Paradox is steadily declining because of the following:

- DLC's are coming too fast
- Content quality is going down: not well thought out, broken or buggy features, sometimes fixed in patches, but loads of them are not addressed
- Content quantity is going down: as an example: Monks & Mystics could have been marvelous if more societies would have been added, but no, we got even a society that was uncomplete (hermetics) until weeks after the release

These things combined give us, the customers, a feeling that we are getting milked, that we don't get value for our money... Please, create less DLC, but of a higher quality. To use M&M again as an example: if it would have had more societies who felt different to each other, two times as fleshed out as they are now with way less bugs and better balance (I mean, I haven't seen a Christian France by 1400 in months), people would have actually liked the DLC and would buy it for even 5 or 10 € more (I know I would).

Yes, that would mean less profit short term, I can count, but you are losing customers and that means less profit in the long term.

I bought every DLC for years, but have passed on the HOI4 ones and the latest EU4 one because I lost the trust I got in PI, and I won't buy anything else until I get it back. I know I'm only one little fish in a big sea, but fish tend to flock together...

 

[dstockydale]

Dear both,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, as with all other feedback we've received it will be a part of our extensive review process moving forward. I don't want to dissect Fred's post nor do I have insight in every aspect of what we can/can't do currently but I will certainly be a part of what happens next once we are all back in the office next week. But I will touch on a few points.

The intention of the statement was to try and be as clear as possible while assuming responsibility for the current situation. Most of us who have been with Paradox for a long time (Fred 14 years and I myself 13 years) are extremely invested in the company, in the people who work for Paradox and the gamers that make up our community. That emotional attachment is sometimes a blessing and sometimes a curse. I’ve seen many that have responded very positively to Fred’s post - perhaps it’s a matter context and having had previous interactions with him? I don't know but something I find worth exploring for sure.

When it comes to the mob mentality - that was more of a general reference to the mob mentality that can occur on the internet of which we have been on the receiving end many times. Fred does mention in his post speaking to a large volume of players and reading up himself on a lot of the feedback before ultimately making the roll-back post. As I explained in another thread, part of how we work is spend a lot of time reading up on and communicating with the members in here, and in various others channels and I can confirm that we do read and analyse Steam reviews regularly. We wouldn't spend our time doing so if we didn't value that interaction and consider it important.

I’ll also touch on the point about the intelligence of the community. We often reference, in the community and outside, that we have one of the most intelligent communities on the internet. And we do it because it’s true. And while I’m sure not everyone is well versed in the ownership structure of Paradox, he wanted to make it absolutely crystal clear that he is still in charge and that any speculations of Tencent coming aboard and changing us have no merit. Could he have chosen a more polished way of expressing that? Probably, but it was direct and honest as to how he felt about it.

I'm sure there are many points that can be picked apart in my post. I chose to just write what I was thinking right now as that is really the only way I know how to communicate with this community.

Sorry this became a bit lengthy. Thanks for your time.

Kind regards
Susana

Thanks for taking the time to respond. My feelings remain largely the same, but I do take the points you made on board.

 

[gianlucad]

"make our prices match the purchasing power of those areas, as well as create a more equal price point for our products across the globe."

*doubles the price for paradox games in the Brazilian market*

It's nice how EU4 (base game) now costs 1/8th minimum wage and how even the shittiest DLC """expansion""" now costs 1/15th minimum wage.

 

[ggsimmonds]

I don't see why there is fuss over that part of his statement.

He wasn't questioning the intelligence of his critics, he was pointing out the absurdity of one of the speculated reasons for the price change.

 

[Dauth]

@Susana @dstockydale raised a point that I raised in the other thread and still hasn't been answered.

Original thread:

Hello all and thanks for your feedback, Following up from yesterday, this will sound a bit schizophrenic but I have really appreciated the reactions from this forum. I have spent the last 24 hours reading your comments and feedback and replying to email

Mentioned here:

"this will sound a bit schizophrenic"
In my opinion, not really an appropriate use of the word schizophrenic (misjudged).

I didn't get an official response in the other thread but @Dodge also commented and agreed.

Doing some very quick and simple googling Schizophrenia affects 0.3-0.7% of the population (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60995-8/fulltext) which means there is a very good chance that someone on these forums has or will suffer. The symptoms of Schizophrenia are detailed in this BMJ article (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1914490/).

As I said before Schizophrenia is a serious condition and is not a joke to be used when reverting a policy decision.

 

[bippukt]

Great reply from the COO, Susana. It is refreshing to read genuine replies instead of canned PR responses that I am used to in today's gaming industry.

Which brings me to the OP's assertion. And my thought on that is pretty clear - would you prefer that Paradox communicates with us via PR professionals and using the politically correct but meaningless corporate-talk, like most other gaming companies do? Or would you prefer that they, including the CEO/COO, talk to us directly and tell what they are thinking, instead of having to run their language by PR professionals a dozen times before publishing it? When people are communicating from their heart, sometimes their language may not be the most diplomatic. But isn't that what we want?

 

[Pile_O_Gunz]

His comment seemed pretty fair to me. Acknowledged the mistake and is trying rectify it. There certainly is an undertone of defiance in the post which isn't exactly surprising considering the mob is bullying them into reverting the decision.

He mentioned mob mentality and he is correct. There is an angry mob review-bombing and voteing down any positive reviews theres no point denying the bleeding obviouse or feeling insulted just because you are part of it.

 

[Susana]

@Dauth

Agreed, he could have used other wording, I also know he meant no harm. As you say mental illness in more serious and less serious forms are all around us (in my case very close to home as it's in my family). Noted.

Kind regards
Susana

 

[Dodge]

well I am a doctor, trained to deal with diseases, not mental diseases in particular but trained to recognise them all the same

 

[ThatFuzzyTiger]

Dear both,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, as with all other feedback we've received it will be a part of our extensive review process moving forward. I don't want to dissect Fred's post nor do I have insight in every aspect of what we can/can't do currently but I will certainly be a part of what happens next once we are all back in the office next week. But I will touch on a few points.

The intention of the statement was to try and be as clear as possible while assuming responsibility for the current situation. Most of us who have been with Paradox for a long time (Fred 14 years and I myself 13 years) are extremely invested in the company, in the people who work for Paradox and the gamers that make up our community. That emotional attachment is sometimes a blessing and sometimes a curse. I’ve seen many that have responded very positively to Fred’s post - perhaps it’s a matter context and having had previous interactions with him? I don't know but something I find worth exploring for sure.

When it comes to the mob mentality - that was more of a general reference to the mob mentality that can occur on the internet of which we have been on the receiving end many times. Fred does mention in his post speaking to a large volume of players and reading up himself on a lot of the feedback before ultimately making the roll-back post. As I explained in another thread, part of how we work is spend a lot of time reading up on and communicating with the members in here, and in various others channels and I can confirm that we do read and analyse Steam reviews regularly. We wouldn't spend our time doing so if we didn't value that interaction and consider it important.

I’ll also touch on the point about the intelligence of the community. We often reference, in the community and outside, that we have one of the most intelligent communities on the internet. And we do it because it’s true. And while I’m sure not everyone is well versed in the ownership structure of Paradox, he wanted to make it absolutely crystal clear that he is still in charge and that any speculations of Tencent coming aboard and changing us have no merit. Could he have chosen a more polished way of expressing that? Probably, but it was direct and honest as to how he felt about it.

I'm sure there are many points that can be picked apart in my post. I chose to just write what I was thinking right now as that is really the only way I know how to communicate with this community.

Sorry this became a bit lengthy. Thanks for your time.

Kind regards
Susana

I decided to pick this up since I've been watching this whole mess unfold from a distance and there's a number of questions I feel are unaddressed as of yet.

1. Who, if anyone outside of Paradox was consulted or focus tested on the concept of a price increase, in some case on some fairly old games (relative to current releases)?

2. Games, much like any other good, regardless of their digital status, depreciate over time, was this not considered when discussing prices?

3. Was the fact that in several cases - Paradox products featuring key DLC to be enjoyable are the norm - are such elements considered in the base price? If not why not?

4. What formula was used to determine which currencies would be increased by what quantity? Was there a set of rules involved that adhered to local purchasing power?

5. Knowing that there was a sale upcoming (Valve always signposts these well in advance), was the price increase made with the full knowledge that it would "offset" any discount applied? And if so, did they take any advice concerning violating any consumer protections where false advertising is deemed either a civil or criminal violation?

So far the statements have been a little less than crystalline, where in reality the community deserves the transparency you're claiming you will offer.

 

[MiniVera]

5. Knowing that there was a sale upcoming (Valve always signposts these well in advance), was the price increase made with the full knowledge that it would "offset" any discount applied? And if so, did they take any advice concerning violating any consumer protections where false advertising is deemed either a civil or criminal violation?

I think the prince increase was timed with the quarterly report rather than the steam sales. Yes, the prices where close to the supposed sales, but if you loom at when the first reports hits and when they actually changed the price, it lines up with their shareholder's meeting. They are not allowed to increase the prices during or right before the sale due to false advertisement, but you had more than enough time to notice in this case.

Currency exchange can ruin profits for companies depending on their country of origin, my guess is that they saw how much it hurt them in some regions and the board decided to do something about it to increase the share's value or reduce the unnecessary losses.

 

[bippukt]

I think the prince increase was timed with the quarterly report rather than the steam sales. Yes, the prices where close to the supposed sales, but if you loom at when the first reports hits and when they actually changed the price, it lines up with their shareholder's meeting. They are not allowed to increase the prices during or right before the sale due to false advertisement, but you had more than enough time to notice in this case.

Currency exchange can ruin profits for companies depending on their country of origin, my guess is that they saw how much it hurt them in some regions and the board decided to do something about it to increase the share's value or reduce the unnecessary losses.

That doesn't explain the 100% price increase in India, for example. The currency here has been quite stable vs the dollar for years. Of course, the number of units sold here may not even be 1000 per year, so they may not care at all.

I think they want to reduce the 'regional discount'. They will end up killing the market here, although admittedly it is very small currently.

 

[ThatFuzzyTiger]

I think the prince increase was timed with the quarterly report rather than the steam sales. Yes, the prices where close to the supposed sales, but if you loom at when the first reports hits and when they actually changed the price, it lines up with their shareholder's meeting. They are not allowed to increase the prices during or right before the sale due to false advertisement, but you had more than enough time to notice in this case.

Currency exchange can ruin profits for companies depending on their country of origin, my guess is that they saw how much it hurt them in some regions and the board decided to do something about it to increase the share's value or reduce the unnecessary losses.

Or indeed the close to 20% increases in the UK, which has a strong currency (though devalued against the dollar, it's still one of the investment tier currencies and would consequently be expected to be treated like the Euro, and unlikely to see major shifts. Interestingly, after doing further research on your point, the price shifts happened -exactly 30 days- before the sale, why is this important? Glad you asked. 30 days is the minimum legal time window companies are required when changing prices before applying discounts in order to avoid any legal ramifications concerning "False discounts", in other words, this price rise was set at the last possible day they could legally apply it before the Steam Summer sales happened.