Where do you want to go, Paradox?

[TheChronoMaster]

1. just because a boycott doesn't last forever doesn't mean it isn't a boycott
2. that decision will depend on how they respond to this current issue, hence the whole good will and trust thing.
3. when there are literal months between each release, they have no way of telling the difference between someone who is boycotting them and someone who is merely not buying this one product. Because not buying that one product is effectively boycotting them. this is just the nature of the gaming industry, where it differs from things like a grocery store where there is a clear difference between the two.

1) Obviously. But also irrelevant. It's not about the duration of time, it's about whether or not you have a specific intent behind not purchasing the product other than "I do not want this product."
2) So you are saying you could potentially move from being a blind purchasing consumer into a more discerning consumer. Good for you?
3) Again, irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you purchase it the day it comes out or a month later, it goes into the metrics. If more people buy a product, that indicates a greater level of support for that product, and the company will attempt to model future products on that one's success. If less people buy a product, the company will attempt to analyse why they did not succeed as much, taking into account criticisms from those who purchased or those who didn't.

Also, again: Are you boycotting the Victoria series? You don't own any games from it. Or maybe you're just not interested in the style of gameplay it offers, so you chose not to purchase it.

 

[TheChronoMaster]

Sure it is, you are boycotting them because you believe they consistently are an inferior place to buy stuff as you explicitly said, and are willing to remove the boycott if they improve it. Just because the boycott is not forever doesn't mean it isn't a boycott.
And again, they have no way to tell the difference

That's such an ass backwards bit of flawed logic that I don't even know where to start with it.

I don't usually buy my groceries at Target, I buy them at Publix. Would I buy them at Target? I might. But the fact I am not does not mean I am 'boycotting' Target. It means that Publix is more convenient for me, or offers lower prices, or something like that. These are NOT 'social or political reasons' that I am exerting pressure on Target for. I am not choosing actively not to buy at Target because they carry a product that is offensive to me, or because they support blood diamond mining, or because they skirt ethical rules for employees I am uncomfortable with, or whatever. This is an ECONOMIC issue, not a SOCIAL OR POLITICAL one.

A boycott is a SPECIFIC MOVE designed to exert pressure on a company for a SPECIFIC REASON, which may or may not be related to products they offer. Not purchasing from somewhere, or not buying something, is a GENERAL thing, which happens every day.

If you don't go into literally every store you pass on your drive home, are you boycotting those stores?

 

[taltamir]

2) So you are saying you could potentially move from being a blind purchasing consumer into a more discerning consumer. Good for you?

I am already a very discerning consumer, there are very very few companies that have my trust for any length of time.
Furthermore, by its very nature, this DLC purchase is entirely made based on trust as we have no way to play test it. I figured 15$ was not too big a wad of cash to risk.

That's such an ass backwards bit of flawed logic that I don't even know where to start with it.

I don't usually buy my groceries at Target, I buy them at Publix. Would I buy them at Target? I might. But the fact I am not does not mean I am 'boycotting' Target. It means that Publix is more convenient for me, or offers lower prices, or something like that.

start by actually reading the definition of boycott, seriously.

A boycott is an act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with a person, organization, or country as an expression of protest, usually for social or political reasons.

you are boycotting target, your reasons for boycotting target are:
1. it is inconvenient.
2. it is too expensive.
You are willing to end your boycott if target changes to meet your demands by lowering its prices and increasing convenience. This is completely standard in boycotts

 

[TheChronoMaster]

start by actually reading the definition of boycott, seriously.

I'm starting to think you haven't.


If I buy pizza tonight from Dominos (for whatever reason, probably due to temporary insanity), does that mean I am boycotting every other pizza place I could have bought from?

I am not 'protesting' anything by not purchasing from a company. I am not 'boycotting' a company if I wait for a sale to purchase their products. I am not 'boycotting' a store if I go to a different store because it's closer to me. That is not what that word means. Stop using it like that. It's pissing me off.

 

[taltamir]

If I buy pizza tonight from Dominos (for whatever reason, probably due to temporary insanity), does that mean I am boycotting every other pizza place I could have bought from?

Nice reframing, but its not about a single night.
You explicitly claimed you regularly don't shop at target (implied to be never), you explicitly said you haven't bought at good man games for 18 whole months because they are never to your liking.

 

[TheChronoMaster]

Nice reframing, but its not about a single night.
You explicitly claimed you regularly don't shop at target (implied to be never), you explicitly said you haven't bought at good man games for 18 whole months because they are never to your liking.

Fine, sure. Let's say that I go out of my frigging mind and buy Taco Bell for lunch for 6 months straight. McDonalds is right next door, and the prices and food quality are very similar, but I don't buy from them. I then decide one day I will eat lunch at McDonalds. Does that mean, in your mind, that I was boycotting McDonalds for 6 months, and ended that boycott despite nothing changing at either company or location?

For the record, if you answer Yes to this question, there's nothing further to discuss, and I will go and take a few headache pills as I wonder why people insist on trying to cripple the meanings of words.

 

[taltamir]

Fine, sure. Let's say that I go out of my frigging mind and buy Taco Bell for lunch for 6 months straight. McDonalds is right next door, and the prices and food quality are very similar, but I don't buy from them. I then decide one day I will eat lunch at McDonalds. Does that mean, in your mind, that I was boycotting McDonalds for 6 months, and ended that boycott despite nothing changing at either company or location?

Why were you not buying mcdonnalds for 6 months if you believed that their prices and food quality (taste?) are identical?

You explicitly stated that you never shop at target because their prices are higher, and they are less convenient. You claimed you haven't used good man games in 18 months because their shopping experience is always inferior when you compare them to their competition.

And can mcdonnalds tell the difference between someone who is boycotting them, and someone who thinks they are perfectly identical to the competition but is always choosing said identical competition over them for no reason whatsoever?

 

[TheChronoMaster]

Why were you not buying mcdonnalds for 6 months if you believed that their prices and food quality (taste?) are identical?

Because every day for 6 months I felt like tacos instead of chicken nuggets.

Also, the fact that the company can't tell the difference is _besides the point_. You are using words incorrectly. It's pissing me off. What I have been trying to do, quite unsuccessfully, is show you that there is a difference between a BOYCOTT and NOT PURCHASING SOMETHING. A BOYCOTT has a very specific definition and connotation attached to it, and is an important tool for consumer groups. NOT PURCHASING SOMETHING is something human beings do every day, for whatever stupid whim they have, regardless of the product or company.

 

[taltamir]

Because every day for 6 months I felt like tacos instead of chicken nuggets.

So, in actuality their food is not identical. you personally find tacos more enjoyable to eat than chicken nuggets. You are boycotting mcdonnalds because you don't like their food as much as their competition, and if mcdonnalds changed their menu or your taste will change you will start shopping there again.

You might not know it, but a whole lot of people don't eat at mcdonnalds ever because they don't like their food.

 

[TheChronoMaster]

So, in actuality their food is not identical. you personally find tacos more enjoyable to eat than chicken nuggets. You are boycotting mcdonnalds because you don't like their food as much as their competition, and if mcdonnalds changed their menu or your taste will change you will start shopping there again.

I'm going to go lay down and die now, because there's clearly no hope left.

I've never eaten at Pizza Hut, so I am boycotting pizza hut. I've never flown to Bermuda, so I am boycotting the Bermuda tourist industry. I've never purchased a scuba tank, so I am boycotting scuba. I've never bought a Rolex, so I am boycotting Rolex watches. I've never watched Pro Wrestling, so I am boycotting the WWE. I've never bought a Call of Duty game, so I am boycotting Call of Duty. Let's use words however we want, destroy all their meaning in any context, and laugh forever!

 

[Frederick_Will]

I'll just leave some thoughts here.

I am glad that someone from Paradox finally responded to this thread. As I felt this is something that needed addressed. However, it took about 2 weeks for a response to this, or similar complaints. That is bad. I'll explain why.

The first dev diary after the release of the patch/dlc was a disappointment for me. You release a fairly large DLC and patch, and the first dev diary was about funny looking lakes, a RNW that doesn't work as good as you want, and hot join being broken or not working well enough. Basically old issues. Nothing at all in the OP about the more recent stuff. Nothing addressing any issues people had.(not counting the hotfix to fix a few technical problems)

To me, and few others I know,(i know not everyone) this seemed like an intentional dodge. It felt like if you ignored the issues, and hoped the issues and the people bringing them up would go away. This may not of been your goal. but when you stay silent on an issue(s), and talk about very low end issues rather than the more recent larger issues in the "official" thread, this is how it comes across. It shouldn't have taken 2 weeks to give the above response imo.

and after reading johans response, I cant tell if he understands where some people are coming from in regards to buildings and development. I would hope he does, as if he doesn't after reading all of this, I am worried about the future of EU4.

Rob Roy said it pretty well. and there are others.

"Some people, including myself, bought the DLC on day 1, but still felt putting Development behind the paywall was inappropriate (not because of building slots but because CS removed the traditional means of improving provinces' manpower and base_tax values while restricting access to the most analogous replacement system)."

You can now only do some of the things that the buildings use to do, unless you own the DLC. You redesigned the whole game around this new development system with no way to manipulate it outside of events.(which buildings use to) Not only that, you removed all of the unique buildings, and are only now getting the embassy replaced.(partially) the building slots is another problem in some parts of the world. not to mention a good way to sink access MP points before CS.(which you are bound to have in. more in some parts of the world compared to others)

I am someone who thinks this should of been in the patch, or have all of the new buildings/dev system in the DLC(in a way like the older expansions), and let those without it have the older buildings. You replaced a working older system with a half of one given out, the other requiring money.

I know there are a lot of people who both like and dislike the new system being put in a dlc. I don't expect a lot of people to agree with my views, but i felt it must be said. Now it would be nice if Paradox came out sooner explaining their thoughts/reasoning behind their change. Even if i disagreed with it, at least I would know. at least I could tell my friends about your reasoning. up until today, all i could say is they are ignoring people's concerns on the subject. and while i know it is unreasonable to expect an answer for every concern, the major ones like the above should be acknowledged.

I would also hope that he knows that not everyone who buys a DLC likes/agrees with it. Unless that is the only thing that matters. I would hope not.


I have some thoughts about the patch as well, but i'll save those for another time and thread.

 

[eon47]

An important question that should be asked is whether or not this game would be worth whatever you paid for it if it had no DLCs or additional features through patches, just bug fixes. Personally, I think vanilla EU4 with a convenient option to choose whichever patch I favor and an unnaturally long period of support (If CK2 is any indicator, EU4 patches will continue to be produced well after any other developer would have stopped) is very much worth it. Even in a world without Art of War or even just Conquest of Paradise, I would say that EU4 is an exceptional game, albeit not quite as good as the version I get to play outside of this hypothetical situation.

That only increases when you add in patch features. Not only do I get great support for a great game, but I also get what amounts to free expansions that I can toggle on and off at will with the game version. And then on top of that, I can pay for what are essentially expansions to those expansions based on my personal preference. That's simply fantastic. Amazing. Almost no other company does that, not Bethesda, not Bioware, not Blizzard. The only similar game I know of is Minecraft, and that one raises a fair bit more revenue than EU4. I still have my problems with Paradox's handling of hordes, and Wiz's one word answers can be infuriating, but when it comes to the big picture and actual business practices, Paradox is unrivaled. And you can call me a fanboy if you want, but I think you'll be hard-pressed to name a better company.

Now I'm not referring to anyone in particular in this thread (actually, I've read so many threads like this, the comments all kind of blend together), but when I hear people talk about how greedy Paradox is, or how the game is unplayable without CS despite many other people finding it not only playable but enjoyable, or how an expansion specifically designed to address longstanding player complaints is a sign that Bethesda doesn't care about its customers, I can't take it seriously. I am left to wonder if there is perhaps some terrible EA Games knockoff out there that people looking to buy EU4 are finding instead and becoming terribly bitter over.

 

[Searry]

Common Sense makes me worry about HoI4.
Do I really wanna buy stuff if I will be forced behind a paywall? What if they change the game totally like they did in 1.12 EUIV and I don't like it? Now I like Common Sense a lot(best DLC), but I have to take stuff like this into consideration. With the newest DLC stuff for CK2 being very buggy and unenjoyable, I'm not sure if I can trust the quality of future releases(which of course can affect patches), so this adds to the worries about HoI4. I don't certainly like the prospect of Paradox returning to the old policy of making gameplay better through overpriced expansions(like Victoria: Revolutions). Everyone knows HoI3 was very bad on release and the only way they made it better and "fun" was through expensive expansions, which has always felt a bit like a consumer "hating" decision(if you can pardon my meta-entitlement).
Now I see most of you will see my opinion as a just another annoying one demanding too much, but I just don't like the idea of going back to the old way of dealing with gameplay issues and bugs with paid expansions or "DLC".

 

[LastSalian]

Good job, you can copy/paste! I'm so proud of you. I'm sure you thought that was relevant to something I said, but since it wasn't, I have to believe that comprehension is next on the list of things you're learning. I know you can do it. [/condescending mockery]

In all seriousness, the fact that you don't appreciate the nature of a product is not a social or political reason.

Are you kidding?

 

[BFTeixeira]

Seriously this is still going on? It isn't that much money, less then two hours working at minimum wage, if you have a somewhat descent job you earn this in an hour and even if you're a kid it'll be max 6 hours of working and most people pay kids more then the €2,60 minimum wage...

For all the hours I put in this game that's practically nothing, I spend at least twice as much within three hours on a Saturday, so I don't know what everybody's being so angry about. If you like the features that much then just buy it, it's just €15,- and you'll probably be able to get it even cheaper on one of the many sales...

Is that the minimun wage anywhere in the world?

 

[grommile]

Is that the minimun wage anywhere in the world?

The following European countries (not counting microstates) with explicit statutory minimum wages (some European countries have other mechanisms for regulating the wages of the low-paid and do not rely on a single explicit statutory minimum wage) have a minimum hourly wage for adults (with threshold ages ranging from 18 to 25) greater than EUR 7.50:

• Luxemburg: EUR 11.11/hour for adults
• France: EUR 9.61/hour
• Belgium: EUR 9.12/hour
• Netherlands: EUR 8.66/hour
• Ireland: EUR 8.65/hour
• Germany: EUR 8.50/hour
• United Kingdom: GBP 6.50/hour (EUR 9.17/hour at the exchange rate I checked a couple of minutes ago)

 

[wergy]

I'm actually sick of this argument. I live in a third world country and $15 dollars is not a lot of money. I know I could, theoretically, buy half a month 's supply of coffee with it (I'm a heavy coffee drinker) or roughly 3 packs of cigarettes. Now those are things that are important for me, and I wouldn't forsake them for a game, but the thing is: I don't have to, because I have a paying job, not a very high-paying one, I'll add, but enough to allow me to spare $15 every four months to buy a product that'll give me hours of entertainment.

For anyone who condescendingly thinks that living in an unfortunate part of the world means earning $1 a day, well, it does for some people, just not the kind that play EUIV because: a) they probably don't own a computer (yes, that's actually a thing) or even electrical lighting, and b) even if they did, they most likely wouldn't be playing PDox games, considering the whole "supporting a whole family on an inhuman wage" situation, as well as the fact that they most likely lack the formal education to understand such a game or even to operate a computer.

This in turn leads me to think that the only people who would theoretically want the dlc and can't (won't?) pay for it are bratty middle-class teenagers who live with their parents and can't be bothered to get a summer job to complement their weekly allowance, because, after all they are entitled to get everything for free and refuse to acknowledge a reality not living up to such childish expectations...

Ok dude, so imagine for a split second that you don't live alone, that you have to raise your children, help your mom whose pension worth next to nothing, still pay your studies debt or repay the loan you had to pick up because the storm teared the roof down. And you don't have to get too far, to the West, it is enough to cross the Eastern border of Germany, Austria, or Slovenia and these problems become very real. Go further to the East and it becomes worse.

 

[NightKev]

Ok dude, so imagine for a split second that you don't live alone, that you have to raise your children, help your mom whose pension worth next to nothing, still pay your studies debt or repay the loan you had to pick up because the storm teared the roof down. And you don't have to get too far, to the West, it is enough to cross the Eastern border of Germany, Austria, or Slovenia and these problems become very real. Go further to the East and it becomes worse.

Okay, what's your point? You said things, but they don't lead to any sort of conclusion...

 

[Zak Preston]

The following European countries (not counting microstates) with explicit statutory minimum wages (some European countries have other mechanisms for regulating the wages of the low-paid and do not rely on a single explicit statutory minimum wage) have a minimum hourly wage for adults (with threshold ages ranging from 18 to 25) greater than EUR 7.50:

• Luxemburg: EUR 11.11/hour for adults
• France: EUR 9.61/hour
• Belgium: EUR 9.12/hour
• Netherlands: EUR 8.66/hour
• Ireland: EUR 8.65/hour
• Germany: EUR 8.50/hour
• United Kingdom: GBP 6.50/hour (EUR 9.17/hour at the exchange rate I checked a couple of minutes ago)

Ukraine: minimum allowed monthly salary currently is around 150 USD. Most students and pensioners get around 100-120 USD/month. I remember that were tough times when I had to pay for my eduction in university, pay for a room and spend some money on girlfriend while having monthly income around 300 USD. Sorry, but I had no option but to use "pirated" or freeware software back then. Hopefully those times are long time gone for me, but for lots of people in my country it's a harsh reality.

 

[DanubianCossak]

I am someone who thinks this should of been in the patch, or have all of the new buildings/dev system in the DLC(in a way like the older expansions), and let those without it have the older buildings. You replaced a working older system with a half of one given out, the other requiring money.

This is simply not true.
In the old system you could build every single building in every single province (well within some parameters).
In the new system without CS you cant do it. With CS you can THEORETICALLY do it, but not in practical sense.

Yes, with CS you can develop provinces, but no, you will not be able to develop many provinces to the level where you can build all buildings in each one. It simply costs too much, and if you go for it, you will fail.

Also lets not forget that now there are fewer but more powerful buildings in game. The fact that you cant build each one of them doesnt mean that the new system doesnt work, it just means that you need to change your strategy/the way you play the game. If you have fewer construction slots, use them more intelligently. Its not like the game is unplayable if youre unable to develop each province you own 45 times.