Why did PDX decide to sell Expansion passes?

[Koramei]

If Paradox is gonna be doing expansion passes, could we in the future get details, even vague ones (the first expansion will be about China, the second expansion will be about Scandinavia, something like that) of what will be on them? It's been mentioned in the past that for most of the games you have DLC ideas planned way in advance, and it'd definitely put my mind at ease to know I'm not just buying into a $25 Expanded Glitterhoof Mechanics expansion.

 

[Gamer_1745]

If Paradox is gonna be doing expansion passes, could we in the future get details, even vague ones (the first expansion will be about China, the second expansion will be about Scandinavia, something like that) of what will be on them? It's been mentioned in the past that for most of the games you have DLC ideas planned way in advance, and it'd definitely put my mind at ease to know I'm not just buying into a $25 Expanded Glitterhoof Mechanics expansion.

Well we saw in the last WWW on modding that they are working on a Zombie Attack Dog DLC. Not sure if it is for their next major expansion or not. Would that be something you are interested in?

 

[cKnoor]

? It's been mentioned in the past that for most of the games you have DLC ideas planned way in advance.

Edit: I am removing this as it's just going to be taken out of context or misquoted. I did not manage to get my point across properly.

What I wanted to say was: As soon as you mention anything, and sell a product you better be damn sure that the thing you mentioned is in said product. And when devs talk about ideas, that is what they are talking about. When they are ready to reveal their plans, plans will be revealed.

 

[Darkath]

Selling something that even the seller doesn't know what it will be about strikes me as a bit dishonest. It's like selling a mystery game : "Get the next game from paradox at 40$ but we don't know yet what it will be !"
Paradox generates a lot of goodwill by being awesome, but monetizing goodwill doesn't seem like a sound business proposition.

For instance, without going in details, the Witcher 3 expansion pass gave buyers an idea of what they'd be buying (new questline in the first and a whole new zone and storyline in the second), based on the rough plans CD projekt had, without revealing exactly what they were, so at least the customers had a rough idea of what they were buying. That's more honest.

 

[Koramei]

Having ideas for DLC is very different from having a concrete plan for several expansions ahead. When I talk to the devs on stream it's almost always in the context of ideas for expansions rather than plans.

Not to sound too frank but I think that's really gotta change if you guys want to start doing expansion passes. I understand getting too precise with the details (like the Diets for EU4) can bite you in the ass if things need to change, but planning the vague outline a couple of expansions ahead can't be that constrictive, and it's kinda.. weird to ask people to buy something when they don't have much of an idea of what it will be.

 

[cKnoor]

Selling something that even the seller doesn't know what it will be about strikes me as a bit dishonest.

Don't straw man, I am specifically talking about claims about _many_ expansions being planned way in advance. A lot is, but we also listen to community feedback after games have been launched.

 

[Darkath]

Don't straw man, I am specifically talking about claims about _many_ expansions being planned way in advance. A lot is, but we also listen to community feedback after games have been launched.

I'm sorry but i don't think i was straw manning, the post you quoted specifically asked about dlc contained in the expansion pass, not every DLC that will ever be released.

My point is that if you're selling something, you should at least, as the seller, have a rough idea of what you are selling, and it would be more honest to give the buyer a rough idea of what he is buying.

Now i don't want to make a fuss out of this, i was just voicing an honest opinion.

edit : i removed the quote of the bit you removed.

 

[cKnoor]

My point is that if you're selling something, you should at least, as the seller, have a rough idea of what you are selling, and it would be more honest to give the buyer a rough idea of what he is buying.

Of course they do, my point is that as soon as you mention anything, and sell a product you better be damn sure that the thing you mentioned is in said product. And when devs talk about ideas, that is what they are talking about. When they are ready to reveal their plans, plans will be revealed.
If you look at the recent Stellaris launch for example the first dev diary after launch talked about plans for future patches.

 

[Darkath]

Of course they do, my point is that as soon as you mention anything, and sell a product you better be damn sure that the thing you mentioned is in said product. And when devs talk about ideas, that is what they are talking about. When they are ready to reveal their plans, plans will be revealed.
If you look at the recent Stellaris launch for example the first dev diary after launch talked about plans for future patches.

Yes and we're grateful for it ! This kind of things help generate the goodwill i was talking about.

 

[Peter Wass]

Dishonest was a very bad choice of word. The absence of information means that it would be very difficult for it to be dishonest, provided that they don't do something scuzzy like redefine expansion to mean a set of snazzy uniforms representing the Guard of the Rock (what do you mean San Marino isn't playable?)

You might well think that the lack of information constitutes too great a risk for you to be wiling to take, which is a perfectly reasonable position, but that does not mean that there is any dishonesty or indeed any other type of immorality on Paradox's part in offering it.

 

[Gauge]

this is where you and i differ i would gladly pay for paradox to make season pass or expansion credit i guess is how they state it, because i trust them. and at the end of the day

now when it comes to Activision, or Ubisoft ill pass on anything they make usually till it is on sale as i don't trust the companies after rome 2, and last few assassin creeds.

ea on the other hand is kinda mixed blessing i know eventually they fix whatever people hated with the game, its just frustrating that on release no one enjoys the game because of either bugs or bad game mechanics.

You let one do it, but don't like that the other does. This is the definition of fanboy just so you know. Cognitive dissonance on display folks.

Having said that, I did purchase the game. So I'm a hypocrite, take that for what it's worth. I guess we both have issues.

 

[Cardus]

Don't straw man, I am specifically talking about claims about _many_ expansions being planned way in advance. A lot is, but we also listen to community feedback after games have been launched.

Even though there were a couple of design choices that I didn't like (e.g. teleporting planes, fuel and supply issues, no names for provinces, no unit leaders, no brigades, etc.) I like this behavior and I must admit that Paradox developers are quite open and they take their time to listen and answer the community. One may criticize some choice but this attitude deserves respect.