Per the "Ask Paradox Anything"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=BWsCobcGtCk#t=238s
I have money to pledge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=BWsCobcGtCk#t=238s
I have money to pledge.
-
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.
I support a Rome 2 aswell, and wouldn't mind preordering it. But what is our guarantee that it won't end up like Rome 1?
I can't help but think that, although I'd support this if it led to Rome 2, the point of Kickstarter is that it is meant to create capital for new or fledgeling companies and ideas.
A well established and financed company attempting to "Kickstart" something like this is just perverse. Seems like a massive case of "making it the fans' problem" and teasing us with corporate indecisiveness.
Not only have they not taken full responsibility for finishing Rome 1, but they're trying to abrogate as much responsibility away from themselves with the possibility of the sequel.
Clearly they see that there is "potential" there, but for some reason are not prepared to take any risk.
I think you guys might have convinced me, i was being naive. This is Paradox's black sheep and they really dropped the ball on it.
The idea of this Kickstarter and the patronizing way they suggested it in the video is offensive to fans, when Rome 1 still languishes with unfinished patches.
They should act as a company and either commit to developing the potential there is there or flatly say "We failed with Rome 1, and we believe we will fail likewise with Rome 2". Because it is flat-out moronic to assume that it is "lack of interest" in a PARADOX GAME BASED ON THE ROMAN REPUBLIC (seriously) rather than their screwups which are responsible.
They aren't a bunch of kids developing out of their parents basement. It's time to grow up.
EDIT: Even if Rome 2 doesn't happen, I think what is necessary is for someone from Paradox to be honest and say "It was the way we handled Rome 1 and he stink around that that led to us not making the sequel, not the community's fault" which is a hard truth they need to acknowledge.
A well established and financed company attempting to "Kickstart" something like this is just perverse. Seems like a massive case of "making it the fans' problem" and teasing us with corporate indecisiveness.
Not only have they not taken full responsibility for finishing Rome 1, but they're trying to abrogate as much responsibility away from themselves with the possibility of the sequel.
Clearly they see that there is "potential" there, but for some reason are not prepared to take any risk.
I think you guys might have convinced me, i was being naive. This is Paradox's black sheep and they really dropped the ball on it.
The idea of this Kickstarter and the patronizing way they suggested it in the video is offensive to fans, when Rome 1 still languishes with unfinished patches.
They should act as a company and either commit to developing the potential there is there or flatly say "We failed with Rome 1, and we believe we will fail likewise with Rome 2". Because it is flat-out moronic to assume that it is "lack of interest" in a PARADOX GAME BASED ON THE ROMAN REPUBLIC (seriously) rather than their screwups which are responsible.
They aren't a bunch of kids developing out of their parents basement. It's time to grow up.
EDIT: Even if Rome 2 doesn't happen, I think what is necessary is for someone from Paradox to be honest and say "It was the way we handled Rome 1 and he stink around that that led to us not making the sequel, not the community's fault" which is a hard truth they need to acknowledge.
they need to show what they are going to do with the money though, I am not giving out money blindly...
I am not giving out money period. Create the game, launch it, sell it. You are not a startup, Paradox, you do not need Kickstarter to create games. I don't mind waiting for patches, and I don't mind paying for DLCs... this though... is rather funny.
On a separate note, I wouldn't mind a smaller company launching a campaign on Kickstarter about Rome... just to create some diversity and competition.
On a separate note, I wouldn't mind a smaller company launching a campaign on Kickstarter about Rome... just to create some diversity and competition.
Per the video, Paradox feels they would lose money on a Rome 2. So they won't make it.
The kickstarter isn't about raising funding, but instead ensuring a minimum level of revenue. Think of it as a massive-unrefundable-pre-order
Personally, I think you all need to realize that ultimately, a kickstarter is going to be a lose-lose deal here for any of you who try to invest in one.
I love Paradox games as much as you all, and I would love to see Rome 2, but I think it is the wrong message to from Shams to suggest a kickstarter, and its a wrong message to paradox to start one.
First of all, you forget the fact that this is a company with years under their belt, if they wanted to make the game they could. While they are not a big company, they have the money, all they need to do is put the game on their production timeline. A kickstarter makes no sense here when all they are really looking for is more voices of interest calling rather than louder voices.
Secondly, I really think that before everyone throws money at a second rome game, you need to note that they never finished the first. It is still in beta patch, with still too many issues. That in my opinion puts the onerous on developers for the first game not selling. Afterall, would you buy a car with the part missing under the hood, or a book with a bunch of pages missing, if you are given only the word of the seller that they will mail you the rest eventually at an undetermined date. Now the CK2 model of patches and DLC has worked very well, and would work for Rome 2, but until the first Rome game is patched and they at least say they are finished supporting it, you should be calling them to give you what you paid for in the first place, not give them more money for more unfinished projects.
Thirdly, I think people need to realize that Paradox devs aren't really serious about this, or, honestly, I hope they weren't. If they were, you should not be doing it, you should be insulted. They are a company, and they should not be stringing along customers into funding projects they never intend on finishing, or even starting. This is not a charity, its a business, and in business, and people pay for products, not empty promises. In fact, investing money into empty promises, while thinking you will get a real return is usually called a ponzi scheme, which I am sure Paradox is not into the habit of doing. So I suggest you all calm down, and wait and see if they develop the game on their own, for your own sakes.
I love Paradox games as much as you all, and I would love to see Rome 2, but I think it is the wrong message to from Shams to suggest a kickstarter, and its a wrong message to paradox to start one.
First of all, you forget the fact that this is a company with years under their belt, if they wanted to make the game they could. While they are not a big company, they have the money, all they need to do is put the game on their production timeline. A kickstarter makes no sense here when all they are really looking for is more voices of interest calling rather than louder voices.
Secondly, I really think that before everyone throws money at a second rome game, you need to note that they never finished the first. It is still in beta patch, with still too many issues. That in my opinion puts the onerous on developers for the first game not selling. Afterall, would you buy a car with the part missing under the hood, or a book with a bunch of pages missing, if you are given only the word of the seller that they will mail you the rest eventually at an undetermined date. Now the CK2 model of patches and DLC has worked very well, and would work for Rome 2, but until the first Rome game is patched and they at least say they are finished supporting it, you should be calling them to give you what you paid for in the first place, not give them more money for more unfinished projects.
Thirdly, I think people need to realize that Paradox devs aren't really serious about this, or, honestly, I hope they weren't. If they were, you should not be doing it, you should be insulted. They are a company, and they should not be stringing along customers into funding projects they never intend on finishing, or even starting. This is not a charity, its a business, and in business, and people pay for products, not empty promises. In fact, investing money into empty promises, while thinking you will get a real return is usually called a ponzi scheme, which I am sure Paradox is not into the habit of doing. So I suggest you all calm down, and wait and see if they develop the game on their own, for your own sakes.
http://www.kickstarter.com
Its crowd sourced funding so you can get a large number of small investors rather than need 1 or 2 large investors to start a company or a project.
I like the part where Shams says that we are making sure that our voice is heard all around.. 
He has a reason to be annoyed already, I mean, how long it's been that people have cried for Rome 2? At least a year or more?
I'd be more interested about an idea where Paradox would give the source of Rome to the community like they did with HoI that allowed the Darkest Hour project (if I haven't totally misunderstood).. Community built game on a working platform or even just a massive mod like Magna Mundi for Rome would be better than giving money somewhere or waiting for Paradox to finally patch Rome 1..
He has a reason to be annoyed already, I mean, how long it's been that people have cried for Rome 2? At least a year or more?I'd be more interested about an idea where Paradox would give the source of Rome to the community like they did with HoI that allowed the Darkest Hour project (if I haven't totally misunderstood).. Community built game on a working platform or even just a massive mod like Magna Mundi for Rome would be better than giving money somewhere or waiting for Paradox to finally patch Rome 1..
IGN gave the original game a very solid 87% score, with similar scores coming from Strategy Informer and a few others. Metacritic gave it a "not bad" score of 73%. Johan once stated that initial EUR sales were comparable to those from EU3, and yet the game received significantly less support. Why?
The fact is that PDS is far bigger and stronger than Paradox Interactive was when EUR was first released (hell, this was before there was any distinction between PI and PDS). I don't believe they could focus on anything other than their flagship for longer than was necessary, so Rome, like the city itself, just crumbled from neglect.
It feels like PDS is viewing Rome II through the lens of how the EUR community stands today, rather than how it could be with a more modern team sporting more modern gaming ideas and more modern release model (with DLC, etc). Remember how CK2 came about? As I recall, PDS created a CK2 Facebook page to see how many people would actually be interested in a sequel, promising a sequel if they reached a certain number of likes. Here's the kicker: they didn't even reach their target. (Again, this is from memory - please correct me if I am wrong.) From everything I can see, CK2 and its billions of DLC turned out to be a major hit for PDS.
So, this is my message to PDS: your forums and your social networking information really cannot be used as reliable sales forecasts. What you see as the "vocal minority" are not the only people who would buy the game; we are the visible tip of the proverbial iceberg. If you make a Rome II, and it is as well-designed and engaging as CK2, then you will bring in new customers, not just the "vocal minority". How well do you think EU4 will go? If EUR did reasonably well compared to EU3, then could a well-designed Rome II not do similarly well against EU4?
Or are you worried that you're going to end up with another Sengoku?
In the end, I don't believe it matters what time period you make a game for. For every person turned away from a game because they actively hate the time period, you'll get just as many people picking it up because they love it. All that matters is that the game has relatable content (European historical games work well for a largely European audience, for example), is fun, engaging, and encourages people to come back for more content when the expansions/DLC comes out. If you make Rome II tick all of these boxes, then it won't matter that it was a sequel for a game that was held together by a "vocal minority" community. After all, that's exactly where CK2 came from.
The fact is that PDS is far bigger and stronger than Paradox Interactive was when EUR was first released (hell, this was before there was any distinction between PI and PDS). I don't believe they could focus on anything other than their flagship for longer than was necessary, so Rome, like the city itself, just crumbled from neglect.
It feels like PDS is viewing Rome II through the lens of how the EUR community stands today, rather than how it could be with a more modern team sporting more modern gaming ideas and more modern release model (with DLC, etc). Remember how CK2 came about? As I recall, PDS created a CK2 Facebook page to see how many people would actually be interested in a sequel, promising a sequel if they reached a certain number of likes. Here's the kicker: they didn't even reach their target. (Again, this is from memory - please correct me if I am wrong.) From everything I can see, CK2 and its billions of DLC turned out to be a major hit for PDS.
So, this is my message to PDS: your forums and your social networking information really cannot be used as reliable sales forecasts. What you see as the "vocal minority" are not the only people who would buy the game; we are the visible tip of the proverbial iceberg. If you make a Rome II, and it is as well-designed and engaging as CK2, then you will bring in new customers, not just the "vocal minority". How well do you think EU4 will go? If EUR did reasonably well compared to EU3, then could a well-designed Rome II not do similarly well against EU4?
Or are you worried that you're going to end up with another Sengoku?
In the end, I don't believe it matters what time period you make a game for. For every person turned away from a game because they actively hate the time period, you'll get just as many people picking it up because they love it. All that matters is that the game has relatable content (European historical games work well for a largely European audience, for example), is fun, engaging, and encourages people to come back for more content when the expansions/DLC comes out. If you make Rome II tick all of these boxes, then it won't matter that it was a sequel for a game that was held together by a "vocal minority" community. After all, that's exactly where CK2 came from.
What really bothers me more than anything else is the absolute silent treatment that has been given by paradox on this game. The last post by a developer for Rome as far as I see was from doomdark back in June of last year, and since then, absolutely nothing to respond to people's concerns or questions, nothing. They continue to keep Rome in the current section, and yet treat everyone like they shouldn't be playing the game anymore. Would it hurt for one post to come into the forum from a developer, just one, to officially say what is going on with this game?
I agree, I realise they have to finish EU4, but they could at least release a final patch and fix the CTD issues of the latest beta, they managed ot find the time for EU3! Also, they said they'd make a kickstarter, it costs them 5m of time to make a page, so put your marketting department where your mouth is!
They actually never said they'd make a kickstarter. Actually, Shams stated later that was only speculation. As I said earlier in this thread, participating in a kickstarter here is not a good idea. This is not an upstart indie company, this is a running business that has the money if they wanted to do this, they just don't, and should not be stringing along fans with talks of a kickstarter to prove they want the game.
I wouldn't give up on EU: Rome 2 just yet. We Crusader Kings fans went through a very long period of silence between CK1 to deus vult and then to CK2's announcement. Unfortunately, I don't see Rome being at the forefront of their priorities. One would think that maybe HoI 4 would be next up after EU IV is released.
I don't think it's so much that they don't want to do it, but that they don't think they'll make their money back as we're a vocal minority. Using Kickstarter really is a no brainer then for them, because they explicitly said that from a purely business decision standpoint at the moment Rome just isn't going to happen because of lack of popularity. However, if they can get the funding to pay for its development before hand they no longer have to worry about this.
The use of Kickstarter isn't about sticking us for our cash, it's an opportunity for us to put it where our mouths are (and of course discover how many of us there actually are)! Simply put without it they can't justify making it... It's essentially an opportunity for us fans to commission Paradox into creating a game for us that they would not otherwise attempt, or at least that's my take on it.
I don't think it would give an accurate number of potential buyers. I for one would buy the game, I would preorder the game, but I would never participate in this kickstarter. I just find it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when customers are being led to put money into projects that don't even yet exist. Just me.
To be honest, I think Rome 2 should be a CK game, and it could make them money. However, it might be smart of them to wait on this one. Fans tend to have a lot of overlap - many CK2 players also play Vick2 and EU3 - so it might make perfect sense to delay a Rome game for a while. As of September of 2012, PDS has only 23 employees; while they may have hired more people with the success of CK2, they still aren't very large. I'd wager a lot of their employees are putting the finishing touches on EU4. Plus, developing DLC for CK2 must take up some of their resources, and that's basically a sure thing.
Oh, I totally agree that it should be based on the CK2 platform, After all, if you look at Rome 1, it very much derives some elements from CK1, while hybriding with EU3, very experimental, but my guess is that it helped them to think about what to do as they went forward to CK2. So, this talk of kickstarter seems a little odd, since the basis is there in CK2, seems to me that it would be the natural eventual (2 years from now) progression to CK2. I for one am patient, I'm willing to see what CK2 brings before seeing Rome 2. I know others are not always as patient though, which is why this kickstarter talk, I assume.