http://isthereanydeal.com/#/page:game/price?plain=europauniversalisiv
The very rare EUIV sales. At a casual glance I cannot see a month this year when it has not been 50-75% off somewhere.
- 5
- 1
Where do you want to go, Paradox?
- Thread starter WeissRaben
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
http://isthereanydeal.com/#/page:game/price?plain=europauniversalisiv
The very rare EUIV sales. At a casual glance I cannot see a month this year when it has not been 50-75% off somewhere.
I think it's quite interesting. When someone buys a product, say vanilla 1.0 EU4, it's because they are happy with that product as is, now that they have the option to play as that version, no matter how many patches are subsequently released, then really most complaints surely come down to the fact there are new features and elements to the game that are locked behind a Monetary barrier and for whatever reason people are unwilling or unable to overcome that barrier, so they find way of arguing around the issue that they want new features and additions to the game without paying for them.
- 1
I dont think you taking into account stuff like the gaming market being extremely thin, so quality choices are limited. Or people putting in money to buy dlc for the game that they feel "cost committed". I can say I loved total war games series, and havent bought one of their games in forever because of their constant admin abuse on their forums and aggressive fanboys screaming at everyone with a technical issue. I loved civ4 and did not buy civ5 because it looks like a child's game (dumbed down). I would love to get hearts of iron 4 but there is so much bullying on these forums that it really takes away the sense of community and god help you if you defend yourself.
Maybe Ill buy HOI4 once it been out for 2 years when it on sale, dirt cheap. But your right, this is a formula and the conclusion is that people will take whatever you serve them up. It explains the nerf of rebels when the forums go crazy over one of the previous patchs/dlc, and then turning rebels right back up after a month or two (I actually like rebel balance currently).
Well, that seems to be the awkward modus operandi paradox utilizes, overdoing balancing patches due to fixing the same thing twice.. Maybe also has to do with listening to the forum full of far too vocal people. I'd rather they tweak some variables more slowly than wildly changing them on every other patch.
The market for these games sadly is rather limited, indeed.
Could it be, perhaps, that the reason the market is limited, is because the devs have worked so hard to take away a proper sandbox experience? There are so many arbitrary rules and hidden mechanics that the curve isn't something that the average gamer would put up with, and much is perpetuated simply because, GASP!, reasons.
Maybe the dev hours could be better spent by giving us more materials to use the pickaxe on, instead of putting in new rocks and forcing us to buy another pickaxe. Do you know how long we've been putting up with dumb event popups? And yet, they just finally got around to making the choices more meaningful. They admitted that what we had to work with before was stupid, similar to how they now call the EU3 sliders a poor idea, but that won't stop their defense of monarch mana points. They will flip their position again in a few years without explanation, no doubt. If they can overhaul the development building system, then why not mana? How long were the terrain stat boxes overly complex and obtuse? They didn't do anything worthwhile, yet they spent their hours on it anyway. They let us argue back and forth about how this and that didn't make sense and finally revealed that the box was actively lying to us. How much longer are we going to have to put up with just because comets, a stigma based around 3 stability being taboo, coalitions, and unlawful territory debuffs?
Maybe the dev hours could be better spent by giving us more materials to use the pickaxe on, instead of putting in new rocks and forcing us to buy another pickaxe. Do you know how long we've been putting up with dumb event popups? And yet, they just finally got around to making the choices more meaningful. They admitted that what we had to work with before was stupid, similar to how they now call the EU3 sliders a poor idea, but that won't stop their defense of monarch mana points. They will flip their position again in a few years without explanation, no doubt. If they can overhaul the development building system, then why not mana? How long were the terrain stat boxes overly complex and obtuse? They didn't do anything worthwhile, yet they spent their hours on it anyway. They let us argue back and forth about how this and that didn't make sense and finally revealed that the box was actively lying to us. How much longer are we going to have to put up with just because comets, a stigma based around 3 stability being taboo, coalitions, and unlawful territory debuffs?
- 5
- 1
Wow that is a crapton of entitlement. You talk as if they did bad games on purpose...
While the game can and should indeed be better, what you are saying is no more than "cars that use less gas are better". Wow you a genius. Nobel Prize material even!
Not.
When EU 4 was released it had the same dumb rebel system as EU3. With some good threads and rational discussion... it was changed to a system that is light years better.
Why don´t you use your brain to propose.. instead of criticize? Quite more difficult amirite?
While the game can and should indeed be better, what you are saying is no more than "cars that use less gas are better". Wow you a genius. Nobel Prize material even!
Not.
When EU 4 was released it had the same dumb rebel system as EU3. With some good threads and rational discussion... it was changed to a system that is light years better.
Why don´t you use your brain to propose.. instead of criticize? Quite more difficult amirite?
I simply think that a sandbox experience is an overall better experience and is more inviting than arbitrary rulesets. I'm the kind of player that believes that maybe if the espionage tech is so unused, then, maybe, they should work on fixing that. I think maybe there is no real point to defender of the faith if you can't be the war leader. I think there's no point to force religion if it's too expensive to be viable. I really don't think the Ottoman Empire would care about the Hre Emperor being displeased with unlawful territory.
So you see, I can propose reason, and make suggestions. It's certainly no harder than you mashing a dislike button, but we both do what we can, don't we? Grow up.
EDIT
There's always a lot of talk about entitlement, but I also paid for all the expansions the same as others. I have a right to my opinion. I don't see what's wrong with wondering why 2 stability is okay, but not 3. I do question things, such as separate peace in coalition wars. That's not entitlement. I agree, the rebel system is well ahead of what it was, but the event system is a big clue of just how much they copy pasted from EU3. The game has been out for years now. Generally speaking, the devs do have a history of holding on to mechanics that don't work, rather than looking for actual solutions. They know no one plays with espionage, for example.
So you see, I can propose reason, and make suggestions. It's certainly no harder than you mashing a dislike button, but we both do what we can, don't we? Grow up.
EDIT
There's always a lot of talk about entitlement, but I also paid for all the expansions the same as others. I have a right to my opinion. I don't see what's wrong with wondering why 2 stability is okay, but not 3. I do question things, such as separate peace in coalition wars. That's not entitlement. I agree, the rebel system is well ahead of what it was, but the event system is a big clue of just how much they copy pasted from EU3. The game has been out for years now. Generally speaking, the devs do have a history of holding on to mechanics that don't work, rather than looking for actual solutions. They know no one plays with espionage, for example.
Last edited:
- 2
Fleshing those out takes time and money while the game isn't earning any money which is not the greatest business proposition.
I have seen it much cheaper than that before, down to $10 for the base game IIRC and I have often seen the DLC for sale at 50%+ off.
Actually they can, the long term customers buy into it at the beginning and buy some DLCs as they come, but over time they get tired of it. It intimidates the new customers once the game has been out for a couple years as then it has a million different DLCs.
I personally don't agree with his idea.
No, this is Paradox adapting to the fact that expansions are no longer done on disc and instead pushed via web, they are using that to push more frequent updates to the game and it means they can do it in a more modular way so that you don't need to acquire the expansions in sequential order.
I think if you made this comment and you were critical of the game, you would be warned in your inbox. You are being "aggressive and we want a welcoming experience on our forums" etc etc.
The devs dont make any long term decisions based on forum "proposals", in fact I think there was a dev post in this forum about "game suggestions" will be automatically moved to another sub forum lol. When there is a problem, rational people blame the leaders, not the foot soldiers.
I can only agree on some points, like for me, "neutral attitude -1000" modifier is a pretty crazy sized modifier, but its there because the devs have made it so a country either loves you, hates you, or could care less about you.
Civ4 really did things well, cultural victory, conquest victory, points/time victory, diplomatic victory... any way you want to play, they will give you a victory to provide that awesome feeling of completing a game well done. So I guess I am into "partial sandbox".
The thing is, unlike Civ4, the point in Paradox games is to set your own goals. Just surviving can be a victory with some nations, for some players. Others aren't happy until they can conquer the world with some shockingly weak OPM.
Your only complaint - that fueled labeling paradox as "extortionists", "parasites", and "brain-washers" - is that they didn't spend the time and effort to have the game remove a few UI elements when the DLC isn't loaded?
Hyperbole is alive and well in 2015 folks.
- 3
If you look carefully, you will see that Wiz has explicitly stated that he does read the Suggestions subforum (and has even told us how to tell whether he has read our posts there; when he reads the OP of a new Suggestion thread, he rates it "Helpful"). Suggestion posts get moved from the main forum to the Suggestions subforum because that is where they belong.
And, y'know, Paradox do in fact listen to suggestions about how to improve the game. Things have been done sooner, or at all, because of suggestions on these forums.
They do read suggestions. I know the taller empire mechanics was at least inspired by a certain thread and other ideas suggested have been implemented too. Paradox is doing a lot of updating of their game for free which is very respectable and they have even added more features than they needed to the vanilla game. And the developers are very open to suggestions, provide free entertainment in their multiplayer game etc. etc. Paradox is doing a lot of thing generously and well.
When that is said, it is a thin line to walk between having vanilla be fun after updates and making changes that synergize with the DLCs. Paradox have generally been good at that and even kept the DLCs less important for the gameplay changes like Art of War where the vanilla game was massively improved. When that is said, I would argue that particularly Wealth of Nations and Common Sense have had some controversial divergence between vanilla and fully DLC'ed version of the game. Don't get me wrong: Vanilla is still good after the updates, but some of the larger divergences in gameplay like removing pirates, inland steering, trading companies, government ranks and development may be too powerful and integral enhancements of the game to leave as separate features from the rest of the game. The worry is that the DLC-portion will start to change other DLCs and you get the fun DLC-enhanced game only if you have them all and a vanilla game that has changed to accomodate the DLCs and generally become worse as a separate game.
Rome wasn't build in a day: Some players start in latest vanilla and may then add DLCs later. If latest vanilla has eroded too much to accomodate DLC-features, it isn't going to create happy customers since they will either see the game as "pay to win" or simply write it off as boring. Finding the right "previous version" of vanilla is futile in that case...
I know the subject is controversial and some will say "stop the whine and pay up you leech", to anyone arguing against status quo, but the philosophy of how to do DLCs is important to constantly revisit since it is still a young business-model and the changes in the area are large and fast.
Edit: Comments on other posts:
afair. Wiz has acknowledged that both the ship-ideas and the espionage ideas aren't that appealing generally, but the changes needed would basically require two separate DLCs. Thus, both issues are potentially on their list for the last, about 3, DLCs, but if there is time/room/urgency for both is another question entirely.
When that is said, it is a thin line to walk between having vanilla be fun after updates and making changes that synergize with the DLCs. Paradox have generally been good at that and even kept the DLCs less important for the gameplay changes like Art of War where the vanilla game was massively improved. When that is said, I would argue that particularly Wealth of Nations and Common Sense have had some controversial divergence between vanilla and fully DLC'ed version of the game. Don't get me wrong: Vanilla is still good after the updates, but some of the larger divergences in gameplay like removing pirates, inland steering, trading companies, government ranks and development may be too powerful and integral enhancements of the game to leave as separate features from the rest of the game. The worry is that the DLC-portion will start to change other DLCs and you get the fun DLC-enhanced game only if you have them all and a vanilla game that has changed to accomodate the DLCs and generally become worse as a separate game.
Rome wasn't build in a day: Some players start in latest vanilla and may then add DLCs later. If latest vanilla has eroded too much to accomodate DLC-features, it isn't going to create happy customers since they will either see the game as "pay to win" or simply write it off as boring. Finding the right "previous version" of vanilla is futile in that case...
I know the subject is controversial and some will say "stop the whine and pay up you leech", to anyone arguing against status quo, but the philosophy of how to do DLCs is important to constantly revisit since it is still a young business-model and the changes in the area are large and fast.
Edit: Comments on other posts:
afair. Wiz has acknowledged that both the ship-ideas and the espionage ideas aren't that appealing generally, but the changes needed would basically require two separate DLCs. Thus, both issues are potentially on their list for the last, about 3, DLCs, but if there is time/room/urgency for both is another question entirely.
Last edited:
Nobody forced y'all to buy EU4. If you hadn't, you wouldn't have this problem.
So, think about that the next time you decide to buy a game.
So, think about that the next time you decide to buy a game.
- 1