Can we talk about the price on these extentions ?

[LFA]

Still a 30 bucks price points for fairly minor expensions that came out two years ago, really ?
Yeah no thanks.

I don't want to be out there spending over 100 ducats to feel like I'm playing the complete game on top of the full price I paid when the game was released 4 years ago.

I was pretty disapointed in the lack of feature when I bought the game day one and thought I'd return when the game had a couple of expension. And now I'm 12 DLCs behind with even the oldest ones still at 20-30 bucks.
Really, no thanks. Has paradox lost the plot ?

[Razorblade]

First Paradox game? This has been their DLC strategy for over a decade now. If they "lost the plot," they did so ages ago.

[LFA]

Originally posted by Razorblade:

First Paradox game? This has been their DLC strategy for over a decade now. If they "lost the plot," they did so ages ago.

I have many hours (over 1500) into CKII and all of the older DLCs I bought for under 5 euros when I wanted them. Sword of Islam and The Old Gods, pretty sure I paid like 2 or 3 euros on sales for them. CK3's DLC's are still 15-20 on sale after 2+ years
Even the newer ones were never above 20 on release in ck2

And they added significant content too most of the times

[Nats]

OP should have known what they were getting into buying a new Paradox game - they are well known for releasing shells that are gradually filled out over many years.

The best way to keep up to date is only buy dlc when it is a few years old and only in Steam Sales. Pretty easy to do as most of their dlc concentrates on one culture or feature so you are not going to want it until you want to play that culture. I have a lot of CK3 dlc I wont probably ever buy because I am not interested in the factions, such as the Vikings.

There's a pretty good sale on at the moment in fact. Alternatively do as I do sometimes and buy off-Steam elsewhere which is often much cheaper.

You cannot possibly keep fully up to date with all their games, so best just picking one or two to play and forgetting the rest.

[PostalGibbon]

Why would PDX sell DLC cheaper if it still sells well in "normal" price after all these years?

[LFA]

Originally posted by PostalGibbon:

Why would PDX sell DLC cheaper if it still sells well in "normal" price after all these years?

Because the majority of the player base will detach from them

Originally posted by Nats:

OP should have known what they were getting into buying a new Paradox game - they are well known for releasing shells that are gradually filled out over many years.

The best way to keep up to date is only buy dlc when it is a few years old and only in Steam Sales. Pretty easy to do as most of their dlc concentrates on one culture or feature so you are not going to want it until you want to play that culture. I have a lot of CK3 dlc I wont probably ever buy because I am not interested in the factions, such as the Vikings.

There's a pretty good sale on at the moment in fact. Alternatively do as I do sometimes and buy off-Steam elsewhere which is often much cheaper.

You cannot possibly keep fully up to date with all their games, so best just picking one or two to play and forgetting the rest.

Yeah you are totally right, I kinda knew it going into CK3 as well but it's how it is.
Best way to get those games is probably to wait 3-4 years (jesus) and get a bundle on sales for the base game + major DLCs and then purchase "regional" expansion on sale if you are interested.
Not a very pleasant business model for your average client though

At this point might as well just ignore the entire game and wait for the next one hoping it will be feature complete this time.

[Bordric]

Don't buy them. Play what you paid for. Not complicated.

[TehJumpingJawa]

Such a shame I've basically abandoned the CK franchise due to PI's ridiculous pricing.

I played CK2 to death, bought every DLC, until their prices rose.
Played CK3 for only a fraction of the time, and haven't bought a single DLC.

They've put the money into making the expansions, every sale after should be considered free revenue no matter how low the actual sale price.

It makes no sense shrinking their player base by refusing to sell copies to 'cheapskates' like me.

Seriously though, £25 for a DLC is complete insanity; for that I could get a whole new AAA game 6 months after release, or dozens of games from fanatical/humble bundles.

The entertainment/£ of PI DLC is completely uncompetitive.

[Razorblade]

Originally posted by TehJumpingJawa:

Such a shame I've basically abandoned the CK franchise due to PI's ridiculous pricing.

I played CK2 to death, bought every DLC, until their prices rose.
Played CK3 for only a fraction of the time, and haven't bought a single DLC.

They've put the money into making the expansions, every sale after should be considered free revenue no matter how low the actual sale price.

It makes no sense shrinking their player base by refusing to sell copies to 'cheapskates' like me.

Seriously though, £25 for a DLC is complete insanity; for that I could get a whole new AAA game 6 months after release, or dozens of games from fanatical/humble bundles.

The entertainment/£ of PI DLC is completely uncompetitive.

Publicly traded companies don't make decisions that are (intentionally) not in their economic interests. That's literally illegal; it's defrauding your shareholders. As such, your assertion that the company is making poor financial decisions in regards to DLC policy is likely wrong; they're certainly paying someone good money to crunch the numbers on pricing policy versus sales potential, and the result is clearly "cheapskates" are not an audience worth pursuing, insofar as you have to give everyone more or less the same price. Give a "cheapskate" a discount, and you have to give that to everyone else, who may be willing to pay more.

As for intended audience, it's seemingly employed people who enjoy the niche and under-served strategy genre. You may see a "$300 game" as unreasonable, but an employed person who likes the game may see "a $20 DLC for a game I enjoy." People have been paying $15 a month for World of Warcraft, as well an extra fee for expansions for 2 decades, and Blizzard hasn't collapsed yet. The Sims 4 is older than any Paradox game, and just had its sequel cancelled because EA realized they could just sell DLC forever instead. Paradox follows a similar strategy to both aforementioned examples, and has similarly not gone bankrupt. In fact, CK2 and EU4's aggressive DLC policy led to a vast expansion of the company; all of its "golden age" games follow more or less the same DLC policy (adjusted for inflation).

That is to say, the logic seems perfectly sound thus far. You may not like it, but trying to disprove it with "facts and logic" devoid of any evidence that your "cheapskate" money is more vital to Paradox's survival than fewer, more expensive sales is not going to work.

This is by no means a defense of Paradox's DLC policy, mind you, it is simply an explanation of why the "exodus of cheapskates" is not going to bankrupt Paradox anytime soon. If anything, it's their continued failed investments outside of their core (DLC-addicted) strategy audience that's going to accomplish that.

[LFA]

Originally posted by Razorblade:

Originally posted by TehJumpingJawa:

Such a shame I've basically abandoned the CK franchise due to PI's ridiculous pricing.

I played CK2 to death, bought every DLC, until their prices rose.
Played CK3 for only a fraction of the time, and haven't bought a single DLC.

They've put the money into making the expansions, every sale after should be considered free revenue no matter how low the actual sale price.

It makes no sense shrinking their player base by refusing to sell copies to 'cheapskates' like me.

Seriously though, £25 for a DLC is complete insanity; for that I could get a whole new AAA game 6 months after release, or dozens of games from fanatical/humble bundles.

The entertainment/£ of PI DLC is completely uncompetitive.

Publicly traded companies don't make decisions that are (intentionally) not in their economic interests. That's literally illegal; it's defrauding your shareholders. As such, your assertion that the company is making poor financial decisions in regards to DLC policy is likely wrong; they're certainly paying someone good money to crunch the numbers on pricing policy versus sales potential, and the result is clearly "cheapskates" are not an audience worth pursuing, insofar as you have to give everyone more or less the same price. Give a "cheapskate" a discount, and you have to give that to everyone else, who may be willing to pay more.

As for intended audience, it's seemingly employed people who enjoy the niche and under-served strategy genre. You may see a "$300 game" as unreasonable, but an employed person who likes the game may see "a $20 DLC for a game I enjoy." People have been paying $15 a month for World of Warcraft, as well an extra fee for expansions for 2 decades, and Blizzard hasn't collapsed yet. The Sims 4 is older than any Paradox game, and just had its sequel cancelled because EA realized they could just sell DLC forever instead. Paradox follows a similar strategy to both aforementioned examples, and has similarly not gone bankrupt. In fact, CK2 and EU4's aggressive DLC policy led to a vast expansion of the company; all of its "golden age" games follow more or less the same DLC policy (adjusted for inflation).

That is to say, the logic seems perfectly sound thus far. You may not like it, but trying to disprove it with "facts and logic" devoid of any evidence that your "cheapskate" money is more vital to Paradox's survival than fewer, more expensive sales is not going to work.

This is by no means a defense of Paradox's DLC policy, mind you, it is simply an explanation of why the "exodus of cheapskates" is not going to bankrupt Paradox anytime soon. If anything, it's their continued failed investments outside of their core (DLC-addicted) strategy audience that's going to accomplish that.

If I exagerate a little it's basically the "lowest possible effort for the shortest path to money" which in the end devolves further into simply whale chasing.
This strategy works in the short term if you have a loyal and large consumer base to start with, as it was the case during the CK2, EU3 period.
It's probably not that great in the long run.

Also I don't really buy into your "shareholder gotta have money" as a supreme explanation to everything. Even publically traded companies can decide their development plans and aren't forced to go for the quickest possible buck if they want to build long term.

I assume CK3 is still somewhat popular, but even without being a "cheapskate" the average video game player will eventually leave if they feel like the products are overpriced.
I guess you are right in that pdox basically has a monopoly on this type of games. But outside of that niche, this strategy is not competitive at all.
I couldn't believe it when I saw DLC that were over 2 years old were still priced at 30 euros.
I guess we'll see how this works in the long run, as far as I'm concerned they've lost me.

[Jean-Maurice Nya]

Did you have a look at the recent EUIV discount? The whole bundle was like 50-60 bucks. This game will have it too when they'll move on.
You don't want to pay the full price something unnecessary to enjoy the game, feel free to wait the good discount. I won't spend a cent on DLCs until I can get a 70-80% discount on the price. I never spend more than 30€ for a game, and rarely go above 50€ for a game and its DLCs. I'm a "late tester", there's no point in paying full price things that'll be discounted months after release. I'm no addict so I don't need to play new games at release, and they still make margins when it's discounted. And when you reach 50-80% discount it's because the game has already covered expenses and they move on a volume commercial strategy from there.

Again, the game is fine without DLCs.

[Mansen]

If you want it, buy it. If you don't want to buy it at the price it is at, you didn't want it enough. Wait for a sale.

[TehJumpingJawa]

Originally posted by Mansen:

If you want it, buy it. If you don't want to buy it at the price it is at, you didn't want it enough. Wait for a sale.

That doesn't address the objective observation that the DLC are exceedingly poor value, both from the perspective of the gameplay you get out of them, and the man-hours of work you're paying for.

Nor does it address the fact that it wasn't always this way; when PI became a publicly traded company the quality & quantity of their products plummeted.

[Nats]

I think it will be interesting over the next few years seeing if Paradox manages to survive when few people have the spare cash these days to afford to buy their dlc.

Certainly I am buying a lot less of their stuff than I used to and I wont be buying any more of their new games after Victoria 3 which was really dire.

People are wising up about their business model, and realising how much investment their new games require, and how they require such a long time, several years, before they are fully enjoyable.

[LFA]

Originally posted by Nats:

I think it will be interesting over the next few years seeing if Paradox manages to survive when few people have the spare cash these days to afford to buy their dlc.

Certainly I am buying a lot less of their stuff than I used to and I wont be buying any more of their new games after Victoria 3 which was really dire.

People are wising up about their business model, and realising how much investment their new games require, and how they require such a long time, several years, before they are fully enjoyable.

Oh that's for sure.
I'm not that short on cash I'd refuse to buy a 20 buck DLC, maybe even 30 if it's for a full blown expansion half the size of the a game.
But in the case of CK3's DLC I'm just not seeing enough value to spend almost the price of a full game for nice flavor content.
At this point I feel like it's almost better to completely jump the boat until things change or it just gets discounted enough because it feels like some foot-in-door trap.

In CK2's time, I'd eventually pay a few coins here and there for portraits and musics because the model was pretty reasonable and I really enjoyed my time with the game. In CK3 I feel it's getting close to predatory practices and I'd just rather stay away.

I have no doubt that some of these DLCs bring some nice content to the table, but the price is just not reasonable

[KingKickAss]

Its weird. The first DLCs were overpriced, and even had their prices increased further to "better reflect their value", then they ended up making some actual nice DLCs that satisfied people before circling back to making DLCs of stuff that should have already been in the game or a part of the previous DLC.
Its like they were conscious that people were liking the way things were going to they had to crush that a bit lol.