Will there be patch 1.4?

[DrSorrow]

Or Tetris. That being said, I would put most Paradox games in the category of not needing an expansion - HoI II, EU III, and Victoria are/were all great games in my opinion and don't NEED expansions. That doesn't mean that I didn't buy Doomsday, Armagedon, Revolutions, or Nappy - they just add that much more to what was already a great game.

I agree with expantions but, not the way it was done from EU3 to NA... Also, there is space for much more expantions for EU3 (it's easy to understand that by just looking to the mods created).

Didn't see yet any official announcement from Paradox stating that there won't be more patchs for a game released in less than a year, with many known issues and with a strong comunity. The only thing that i saw was a post in this thread stating such with the special coment to "Feel free to start hating us for it". Is this the respect that Paradox has with they're clients?!

 

[dharper]

Didn't see yet any official announcement from Paradox stating that there won't be more patchs for a game released in less than a year, with many known issues and with a strong comunity. The only thing that i saw was a post in this thread stating such with the special coment to "Feel free to start hating us for it". Is this the respect that Paradox has with they're clients?!

Not an official announcement, no, but Johan has come out at least twice to say that 1.3 would be the last patch for EU3. It is company policy to stop supporting a game when a newer version exists - they stopped supporting EU2 when EU3 came out, and EU3 when NA came out.

But it's not as if they're leaving you without support - you can still get technical support, and patch 1.3 fixes all known bugs for the game. Everything else is purely personal preference or features. Say what you will about game balance, EU3 1.3 is stable and has no serious bugs. You can play and enjoy a 400-year game without it crashing or running into a weird error. Weird situations? Sure. But Paradox never promised (or wanted) a game that had historical outcomes.

If I recall correctly, Johan wrote his 'feel free to start hating us' comment in reply to a poster who commented that he _would_ hate Paradox if they stopped supporting EU3.

 

[jdrou]

they stopped supporting EU2 when EU3 came out, and EU3 when NA came out.

And perhaps more relevant, they stopped patching HoI2 when Doomsday was released and Victoria when Revolutions was released (and Revolutions, like NA, requires you to also have the base game).

 

[DrSorrow]

Not an official announcement, no, but Johan has come out at least twice to say that 1.3 would be the last patch for EU3. It is company policy to stop supporting a game when a newer version exists - they stopped supporting EU2 when EU3 came out, and EU3 when NA came out.

EU2 had no released patch months before EU3 came out. In a way i understand the policy when aplyed to major releases, though i cannot understand for EU3 and NA, as NA is an expantion and not a release.

But it's not as if they're leaving you without support - you can still get technical support, and patch 1.3 fixes all known bugs for the game. Everything else is purely personal preference or features. Say what you will about game balance, EU3 1.3 is stable and has no serious bugs. You can play and enjoy a 400-year game without it crashing or running into a weird error. Weird situations? Sure. But Paradox never promised (or wanted) a game that had historical outcomes.

If you take a look at the game bug list there's more than just a wish to have, there are real functional bugs (bugs aren't only: "the game does not crash").
In the patch 1.3 there was a major change that completly screwed the game play! A merchant does not last more than 3-4 months in a COT. Yes, it's easier to compete other's but, it's even more easy to be competed out.

If I recall correctly, Johan wrote his 'feel free to start hating us' comment in reply to a poster who commented that he _would_ hate Paradox if they stopped supporting EU3.

What would you do/feel if a representative of a store told you the same? Would you be happy? The custumer isn't always right but, he's the one that gives you the money.

 

[DrSorrow]

And perhaps more relevant, they stopped patching HoI2 when Doomsday was released and Victoria when Revolutions was released (and Revolutions, like NA, requires you to also have the base game).

That means that Paradox didn't yet learned the lesson... Repeating always the same old mistake...

And perhaps more relevant, the players feed that mistakes.

 

[coreymas]

That means that Paradox didn't yet learned the lesson... Repeating always the same old mistake...

And perhaps more relevant, the players feed that mistakes.

I think that someone is expecting too much from a game that is almost 3 years old (i am referring to HOI2 not EU3) .....

Corey

 

[dharper]

If you take a look at the game bug list there's more than just a wish to have, there are real functional bugs (bugs aren't only: "the game does not crash").
In the patch 1.3 there was a major change that completly screwed the game play! A merchant does not last more than 3-4 months in a COT. Yes, it's easier to compete other's but, it's even more easy to be competed out.

I'm not sure that's a bug - it's perfectly possible to keep merchants in COTs by taking the right NIs, joining the Hanseatic League or gaining one of the many bonuses to compete chance or trade efficiency out there. To me this sounds like a deliberate stylistic change on Paradox's part, akin to raising or lowering attrition rates on land. I wouldn't call EU3 buggy because of it. I'd say that it makes countries more specialized and now it's harder to play a casual trader...but is that bad? As long as it's open to debate, it's not a bug.

What would you do/feel if a representative of a store told you the same? Would you be happy? The custumer isn't always right but, he's the one that gives you the money.

If I had just gone and told a clerk "I'm never going to shop here again if you don't have a Wii in stock!" then I'd expect him to smile and tell me "Then I'll never see you again!" Johan had good reason to be impatient, and it's not as if he hasn't been polite and clear the first couple times people demanded changes that Paradox wouldn't give.

 

[coreymas]

Some effort should always be into "unprofitable development time", for multiple reasons, but there are limits since most employees tend to want salaries to pay for food and rent with in the long run.

This is the real bottom line for all software development companies.

Why spend time and resources on something that will not return anything to you.... and myself being a developer my family comes first and I would want a paycheck over a "good deed but freebee" effort.

And since they have NA and it is their current latest and greatest i would expect any "unprofitable development" to be spent there where there is a small hope of more sales.

Corey

 

[Sunfighter]

I bought EU 3 over the internet as well as doomsday, im actually curious to see how it goes and gonna use gamersgate as a test for maybe buying future games online.

I like how it can potentially cut costs of games overall but i am nervous like everybody else that bought online that I dont physically have a copy of the game on me. There is a lot of what-ifs.

Its a boon for the publisher and company that makes the game for sure though. They dont have to spend money churning out CDs, boxes, and manuals...but it makes owners nervous that someday they could lose access to something they paid for. Cause hardcore gamers sometimes get nostoglic, and go play games they used to play years ago...and itd suck finding out i couldnt DL a game a bought online years ago.

I loved the fact that most the AI coding in HOI2 was out in the open so you could modify it yourself. Kinda sucks EU3 isnt as accessible, but other parts of it are...thats the number 1 reason why I still perfer PC games over console, because PC games you can get into the guts of the code now and then and modify the game to your tastes.

 

[jmschaub]

NA and EU3 cannot be compared to EU2 and EU1; last time I checked, you didn't have to have EU1 in order to play EU2. As someone coming late to the EU3 scene (ie after the release of NA), I feel cheated in that am required to purchase the unsupported game before being able to buy and play the supported, completed version.

Think of the coding end of it. How hard it would be to track all the changes you made in the new version and only implement the ones that were paid for in the old version. It's not realistically possible. You would need people dedicated to each version. I know I wouldn't do it... and it's not a realistic expectation. Think of the worst case scenario of HOI 2. There are 2 or 3 expansion packs I believe. That means Beta testers have to have 2 or 3 versions of the same code to test, coders have to make sure all changes are done to all versions..etc. Please think before you speak

 

[unmerged(54611)]

Think of the coding end of it. How hard it would be to track all the changes you made in the new version and only implement the ones that were paid for in the old version. It's not realistically possible. ... Please think before you speak

You describe a standard problem of the software industry: You have different revisions of a single software, and you have to fix bugs in all of these, and you also want to add different features for the various revisions. There is lot of support for this in in modern IDEs and version control systems. So, it is sometimes hard, but perfectly doable.

 

[Rocco]

My guess here is that some people are surprised that the support ended so soon? I don't remember when the expansion was released (unleashed?) but it seems less than a year had passed?

Then people hear the expansion had been worked on for a year. So, the whole idea was, release the game now, get money for it now. Finish the game you wanted to make, release that, and get more money.

My timeline may be off, correct me if I am. I can't seem to find any information on this board about Nappy's Ambition (sue Don Imus, not me).

Me, I don't care either way. I like EU 2 WAY better, and I don't think an expansion pack will change that.

Another thought, maybe people are just mad because of the support EU 2 received. It was supported a long time. It was, some would say, the developer's "baby" and it grew up to be great. EU 3 seems like the bastard red-headed step child in comparison.

Just trying to help some people understand where some of these folks frustration is coming from...

Rocco

 

[Tux the Penguin]

My guess here is that some people are surprised that the support ended so soon? I don't remember when the expansion was released (unleashed?) but it seems less than a year had passed?

Then people hear the expansion had been worked on for a year. So, the whole idea was, release the game now, get money for it now. Finish the game you wanted to make, release that, and get more money.

My timeline may be off, correct me if I am. I can't seem to find any information on this board about Nappy's Ambition (sue Don Imus, not me).

Me, I don't care either way. I like EU 2 WAY better, and I don't think an expansion pack will change that.

Another thought, maybe people are just mad because of the support EU 2 received. It was supported a long time. It was, some would say, the developer's "baby" and it grew up to be great. EU 3 seems like the bastard red-headed step child in comparison.

Just trying to help some people understand where some of these folks frustration is coming from...

Like it or not, we are quickly entering an era were the end-players are serving as a sort of playtesters to find additional bugs and such that would normally be found during extensive betas. But when you can update nearly any game with a patch (even consoles through XBox Live and whatever PS has), why spend months testing a game when you can be selling it, making money, and having your players do some of that work? From an economics sense, that makes sense.

However, you will lose some players because of this process, but so far the extra money earned by early releases has been greater than that lost to leaving players.

That's the sad truth. And I think EU3 fell into this category. It has the capacity to be a truly outstanding game. MM and many other mods show this. But it seems rushed, even NA.

 

[Amob_m_s]

Speaking as someone who has never played EU2, I must say Rocco's points seem very true: as a newcomer, (having only owned HoI before buying EU3) I think Paradox has been remarkably supportive of users in general. I also like the fact that their patches are major events; RTW didn't really change much with each patch, it just got a few minor changes, whereas EU3 1.3 is drastically different (in some ways better and some worse in my opinion) than 1.0, 1.1, or 1.2. This is a good thing: Paradox is willing to actually change gameplay to meet the more common demands of their users. However, from what I know of EU2, I can see where someone who experienced its long, long tenure as the crown jewel of Paradox would feel that EU3 has been rushed. But, like I said, compared to almost any other gaming company, Paradox has been much better about support, and I'm perfectly happy waiting till Christmas to get NA.

 

[KAding]

My guess here is that some people are surprised that the support ended so soon? I don't remember when the expansion was released (unleashed?) but it seems less than a year had passed?

Then people hear the expansion had been worked on for a year. So, the whole idea was, release the game now, get money for it now. Finish the game you wanted to make, release that, and get more money.

My timeline may be off, correct me if I am. I can't seem to find any information on this board about Nappy's Ambition (sue Don Imus, not me).

Me, I don't care either way. I like EU 2 WAY better, and I don't think an expansion pack will change that.

Another thought, maybe people are just mad because of the support EU 2 received. It was supported a long time. It was, some would say, the developer's "baby" and it grew up to be great. EU 3 seems like the bastard red-headed step child in comparison.

Just trying to help some people understand where some of these folks frustration is coming from...

Rocco

So essentially a lot of people are waiting for that patch that will turn EU3 into EU2! As long as that hasn't happened EU3 will never be 'ready' and will require patching!

 

[Rocco]

KAding,

Sorry about that, that's not what I meant at all. I shouldn't have mentioned that my personal preference was EU 2. This thread was about support, not a comparison, and support was what I was trying to shed light on. I never should have mentioned what I like better in my post.

Rocco

 

[jmschaub]

You describe a standard problem of the software industry: You have different revisions of a single software, and you have to fix bugs in all of these, and you also want to add different features for the various revisions. There is lot of support for this in in modern IDEs and version control systems. So, it is sometimes hard, but perfectly doable.

But since they only lose money on this effort, since patches aren't funded. It doesn't make any business sense to do, due to the complexity.

 

[Josephus I]

You know, at the end of the day, be grateful that EU games are put out by Paradox and not by Electronic Arts. You think P'dox has patching and support issues? Try playing any of the FIFA games and see all the bugs that never get patched.

Just yesterday, for instance, Microsoft issued a new security update for IE7. Well guess what? EA games conflict with this update and you can't play online.

On the EA forums, the only help you get is one of the forum administrators saying..."Don't install the update." :wacko:

 

[Amob_m_s]

You know, at the end of the day, be grateful that EU games are put out by Paradox and not by Electronic Arts. You think P'dox has patching and support issues? Try playing any of the FIFA games and see all the bugs that never get patched.

Just yesterday, for instance, Microsoft issued a new security update for IE7. Well guess what? EA games conflict with this update and you can't play online.

On the EA forums, the only help you get is one of the forum administrators saying..."Don't install the update." :wacko:

Ouch. This is why I still play... lets see...

Madden 2000
FIFA 2001
NHL 2000
Triple Play 2000 (This series isn't even around any more)



--------------
Rocco, don't sweat it, we know what you meant with the rest of the post, and I doubt anyone has any real issues with you preferring EU2.

 

[MJAnderson]

But since they only lose money on this effort, since patches aren't funded. It doesn't make any business sense to do, due to the complexity.

But because Paradox is known for patching they are 'allowed' to put out spotty games because the community knows they will actively look to improve it. Most Paradox games are 'beta' at time of release and the people who have been with Paradox for a long time accept getting the game early and being part of the process of finishing the game.