Think I'm done with paradox

[Gauge]

I'm an old paradox fan, and I mean REALLY OLD. I've been around for a long time. I think with CK3, I'm pretty much done. They have lived long enough to see themselves become the thing that we hated. The game releases in september, and there is already paid DLC. Not only that, the DLC has a name and content defined. This many months in advance of release they are already working on a DLC. Why wouldn't you put that into the actual game you haven't released yet.

For me personally, they are trending more and more towards the AAA microtransaction heaven with each and every release. I'm done. I won't be buying this. This is sad too, because I own a lot of their titles and have been a fan of their work for a long time. Guess it's inevitable for studios to continue growing endlessly and expanding revenue streams endlessly. I look forward to the new paradox coming.

[The Former]

KANE Maizel a écrit :

World's Coolest Old Guy a écrit :

You'll find that Hearts of Iron 4 in its entirety costs 140€ (tax notwithstanding). Not even half what you're railing against. Conversely, AC Odyssey's Ultimate Edition costs around 106€ and offers the tiniest fraction of the potential play time that HOI4 does.

You can play any game for infinite hours. I understand that hours played is a flawed, but decent metric for 'getting one's money's worth' but that does not mean the product is worth the money.

CK2 is my Fave game of all time. I Have 1500 hours on it. But I don't think it is worth the 350 euros Ive paid for it over 7 years, even though, Ive gotten my money's worth when you count the hours, One does not tend to quible about the few times one dropped 20 bucks on a game one already owned, 7, 5 or 3 years ago. And that is ofcourse what they are going for. I have had as much fun with games literally 10% of the cost. But then again, that is still a big chunk of money when compared to a 350 buck game.

Why as a gamer, do you champion to pay more for less? You seem really ♥♥♥♥♥whipped by paradox. If anything you should want more for less. I cannot fathom when people tell me 350€ games gamers are a good development, lol.

Please forgive me if I don't take anything you said seriously after I read that your "fave game of all time" isn't worth 4.16 euros per month to you.

[Maizel]

World's Coolest Old Guy a écrit :

KANE Maizel a écrit :

You can play any game for infinite hours. I understand that hours played is a flawed, but decent metric for 'getting one's money's worth' but that does not mean the product is worth the money.

CK2 is my Fave game of all time. I Have 1500 hours on it. But I don't think it is worth the 350 euros Ive paid for it over 7 years, even though, Ive gotten my money's worth when you count the hours, One does not tend to quible about the few times one dropped 20 bucks on a game one already owned, 7, 5 or 3 years ago. And that is ofcourse what they are going for. I have had as much fun with games literally 10% of the cost. But then again, that is still a big chunk of money when compared to a 350 buck game.

Why as a gamer, do you champion to pay more for less? You seem really ♥♥♥♥♥whipped by paradox. If anything you should want more for less. I cannot fathom when people tell me 350€ games gamers are a good development, lol.

Please forgive me if I don't take anything you said seriously after I read that your "fave game of all time" isn't worth 4.16 euros per month to you.

Well, I understand when dumb people react like that, so I forgive you.

I will make it simple for you. I have had 30€ games, not plagued by endless DLC, but enjoying yearslong support last me a 1000 hours as well. 350 euros for a game is a lot..

You are reductive because you are deep in Pdox's behind.

[The Former]

KANE Maizel a écrit :

World's Coolest Old Guy a écrit :

Please forgive me if I don't take anything you said seriously after I read that your "fave game of all time" isn't worth 4.16 euros per month to you.

Well, I understand when dumb people react like that, so I forgive you.

I will make it simple for you. I have had 30€ games, not plagues by endless DLC., last me a 1000 hours as well.

You are reductive because you are deep in Pdox's behind.

I'd almost accuse you have being an alt with a comment like that, but... No, that fellow wouldn't have used the term "behind".

Okay. You want smart? Promise me you'll read the whole thing and I'll tell you exactly why I accept something short of more for less. Smart answers require explanation, and explanation requires typing I don't wish to undertake unless you intend to read it.

[Maizel]

World's Coolest Old Guy a écrit :

KANE Maizel a écrit :

Well, I understand when dumb people react like that, so I forgive you.

I will make it simple for you. I have had 30€ games, not plagues by endless DLC., last me a 1000 hours as well.

You are reductive because you are deep in Pdox's behind.

I'd almost accuse you have being an alt with a comment like that, but... No, that fellow wouldn't have used the term "behind".

Okay. You want smart? Promise me you'll read the whole thing and I'll tell you exactly why I accept something short of more for less. Smart answers require explanation, and explanation requires typing I don't wish to undertake unless you intend to read it.

Hey, it's all good. You can be okay, paying 350 euros for a game and thanking Paradox for the privilege.

I tend to defending my own interests.

[The Former]

KANE Maizel a écrit :

World's Coolest Old Guy a écrit :

I'd almost accuse you have being an alt with a comment like that, but... No, that fellow wouldn't have used the term "behind".

Okay. You want smart? Promise me you'll read the whole thing and I'll tell you exactly why I accept something short of more for less. Smart answers require explanation, and explanation requires typing I don't wish to undertake unless you intend to read it.

Hey, it's all good. You can be okay, paying 350 euros for a game and thanking Paradox for the privilege.

I tend to defending my own interests.

I suppose I'll take that as a "maybe". Oh hell, it's a comfortable afternoon, I may as well bite.

Do I want more for less? Of course. What consumer wouldn't want more for their money? The reason I accept more for more is because I'm a realist. I've been around the block a few times. I've interacted with people on all sides of the spectrum. Consumers, workers, salarymen, business owners. I understand how and why production works for everyone from the top to the bottom.

I don't know PDX's financial specifics. I can find their revenue accounts on their website, but I don't know how they budget their games or what they pay their employees. I can, however, tell you that "$10,000 per month per employee" is the rough estimate the majority of game developers provide for their development costs.

Now in 2015, the last report I can find on team size, Paradox Development Studio employed 80 people. There are likely more today, but going by that number, this means it costs them around $800,000 per month to develop software.

CK3 has been in development for six years, last I read. This means that as of now, the company has spent arount $57.6 million dollars developing CK3, and has earned nothing back for their investment. They've simply been bleeding $9.6 million every year funding this project.

Now consider that in the year of 2018, the net income of Paradox Interactive was equivalent to $38.4 million dollars. This is all income from all subsidiaries, not just PDS, after taxes and interest. With this as the average (and there's no way to confirm this is a good average, 2018 was quite a profitable year for them if I remember), Paradox will have made around $230 million.

This means that CK3 has cost them a full quarter of their revenue in the last six years.

Now, I know you likely think all this money goes straight into the bank account of the CEO, but it doesn't work that way. The CEO is paid a salary. The vast majority of the money a business earns goes back into the business.

For Paradox, this means developing games.

In other words, the more money Paradox is making, the higher their budget can be for future games. The less money Paradox is making, the lower their budget is going to be. Additionally, because Paradox engages in a profit sharing model, Paradox employees are directly paid a portion of the company's earnings each year. This means that the better the company is doing, the better the morale of their workers... And the better supported their families are, if you want to turn it into a moral issue.

But I'm not here to talk morals, I'm here to talk bread and butter. Let's assume Paradox intends to give us around $115 worth of DLC content, as has been put into Stellaris and HOI4 by this point. Let's also assume it takes them about the same four year span to develop as those DLCs have. We'll leave out the cost of the micro-DLC in these figures and focus on the big boys: The expansions.

Over four years, these expansions would cost the company another $38.4 million to develop.

Let's say that they sell these expansions as DLC. If CK3 chargest $30 for expansions and sells four of them in four years, and assume a million people buy their game and all the DLC by the end of the 4 year span. Likewise, the core game will sell 250,000 copies per year to keep up. Honestly this is a low ball number, as most Paradox games these days sell a million copies after the first year. But we're keeping it simple.

After the first year, this leaves $8.8 million in earnings from CK3 after Steam's cut, and another $5.2 million from the first DLC this year. This makes a total of $10.5 million, meaning CK2 is still a $53.2 million loss (account for the cost to develop the first DLC) after the first year.

After the second year, 250,000 more people buy CK3, and all those people buy both DLCs. This means $9.3 million more from CK2, $5.5 million from the rapidly selling first DLC, plus a total of $10.7 million from the second DLC. CK2 is now a $37.3 million loss.

Another year, another 250,000 buyers, another DLC release. Another $9.3 million for Paradox, and $5.6 million for both DLCs. The third DLC earns. $16.3 million because in this model, EVERY customer (there are currently 750,000) buys all the DLC as soon as they buy CK3. CK3 is still a $10.1 million net loss, but at least the company has started earning some of its money back.

Finally, year 4. All DLC is out, and all million CK3 sales are made. +$5.6 million for each of the first three DLC. $29.9 million for the final DLC. CK3 core makes another $9.3 million. This means that after four years, CK3 is finally a $9.4 million net profit.

NOW let's say we use the more for less model. All DLC is packaged into the core game, sold for the same price as it's asking now ($49.99), and it isn't released until all the content is in the base game. Such a game would cost Paradox $96.6 million to develop ($800,000 per year over 10 years). Assuming the same model as before, that one million players buy it over the course of four years, here are the financial figures that follow the model (for this one, we'll simply compound earnings as a running total, as we can do that when we don't have to add the DLC to the mix):

Year #1: $8.8 million in earnings; $87.8 million net deficit
Year #2: $18.2 million in earnings; $78.4 million net deficit
Year #3: $27.6 million in earnings; $69 million net deficit
Year #4: $36.9 million in earnings; $59.7 million net deficit

Now realistically, again, Paradox is going to make a lot more money than this. The game will likely sell a million copies within the first two years, if not the first year. But still, do you see how much more slowly they make their money back in this scenario? Even if they did sell a million copies in the first year, they'd still be running almost $60 million in the hole because of the project.

What I'm trying to say here is that using the proposed "more for less" model would doom the company to one, a far smaller profit margin overall, and two, a much longer period of deficit.

This in turn would doom you, the consumer to one, far less feature-rich and polished games, and two, a much longer period between game releases. Set aside the longer development time of the base game. Whether it's DLC or not, you still need to make the content to put it into the game.

In summary, business isn't an entity. It's not an adversary. It's not a creature. It's an element of society of which you and I are naturally a part, and which businesses are also a part. When businesses make money, they grow. When businesses grow, they provide more and/or better products. Products you and I buy. The key for any business is to find the right balance between making a quality product in a reasonably inexpensive amount of time, sold at a price that starts turning a profit quickly without turning away so many customers that it doesn't make a profit at all. Unfortunate though it is, businesses can't afford to simply give "more for less" in every situation. The gaming industry is one of the most expensive production industries in the world, so it can afford this least of all.

[Maizel]

World's Coolest Old Guy a écrit :

KANE Maizel a écrit :

Hey, it's all good. You can be okay, paying 350 euros for a game and thanking Paradox for the privilege.

I tend to defending my own interests.

I suppose I'll take that as a "maybe". Oh hell, it's a comfortable afternoon, I may as well bite.

Do I want more for less? Of course. What consumer wouldn't want more for their money? The reason I accept more for more is because I'm a realist. I've been around the block a few times. I've interacted with people on all sides of the spectrum. Consumers, workers, salarymen, business owners. I understand how and why production works for everyone from the top to the bottom.

I don't know PDX's financial specifics. I can find their revenue accounts on their website, but I don't know how they budget their games or what they pay their employees. I can, however, tell you that "$10,000 per month per employee" is the rough estimate the majority of game developers provide for their development costs.

Now in 2015, the last report I can find on team size, Paradox Development Studio employed 80 people. There are likely more today, but going by that number, this means it costs them around $800,000 per month to develop software.

CK3 has been in development for six years, last I read. This means that as of now, the company has spent arount $57.6 million dollars developing CK3, and has earned nothing back for their investment. They've simply been bleeding $9.6 million every year funding this project.

Now consider that in the year of 2018, the net income of Paradox Interactive was equivalent to $38.4 million dollars. This is all income from all subsidiaries, not just PDS, after taxes and interest. With this as the average (and there's no way to confirm this is a good average, 2018 was quite a profitable year for them if I remember), Paradox will have made around $230 million.

This means that CK3 has cost them a full quarter of their revenue in the last six years.

Now, I know you likely think all this money goes straight into the bank account of the CEO, but it doesn't work that way. The CEO is paid a salary. The vast majority of the money a business earns goes back into the business.

For Paradox, this means developing games.

In other words, the more money Paradox is making, the higher their budget can be for future games. The less money Paradox is making, the lower their budget is going to be. Additionally, because Paradox engages in a profit sharing model, Paradox employees are directly paid a portion of the company's earnings each year. This means that the better the company is doing, the better the morale of their workers... And the better supported their families are, if you want to turn it into a moral issue.

But I'm not here to talk morals, I'm here to talk bread and butter. Let's assume Paradox intends to give us around $115 worth of DLC content, as has been put into Stellaris and HOI4 by this point. Let's also assume it takes them about the same four year span to develop as those DLCs have. We'll leave out the cost of the micro-DLC in these figures and focus on the big boys: The expansions.

Over four years, these expansions would cost the company another $38.4 million to develop.

Let's say that they sell these expansions as DLC. If CK3 chargest $30 for expansions and sells four of them in four years, and assume a million people buy their game and all the DLC by the end of the 4 year span. Likewise, the core game will sell 250,000 copies per year to keep up. Honestly this is a low ball number, as most Paradox games these days sell a million copies after the first year. But we're keeping it simple.

After the first year, this leaves $8.8 million in earnings from CK3 after Steam's cut, and another $5.2 million from the first DLC this year. This makes a total of $10.5 million, meaning CK2 is still a $53.2 million loss (account for the cost to develop the first DLC) after the first year.

After the second year, 250,000 more people buy CK3, and all those people buy both DLCs. This means $9.3 million more from CK2, $5.5 million from the rapidly selling first DLC, plus a total of $10.7 million from the second DLC. CK2 is now a $37.3 million loss.

Another year, another 250,000 buyers, another DLC release. Another $9.3 million for Paradox, and $5.6 million for both DLCs. The third DLC earns. $16.3 million because in this model, EVERY customer (there are currently 750,000) buys all the DLC as soon as they buy CK3. CK3 is still a $10.1 million net loss, but at least the company has started earning some of its money back.

Finally, year 4. All DLC is out, and all million CK3 sales are made. +$5.6 million for each of the first three DLC. $29.9 million for the final DLC. CK3 core makes another $9.3 million. This means that after four years, CK3 is finally a $9.4 million net profit.

NOW let's say we use the more for less model. All DLC is packaged into the core game, sold for the same price as it's asking now ($49.99), and it isn't released until all the content is in the base game. Such a game would cost Paradox $96.6 million to develop ($800,000 per year over 10 years). Assuming the same model as before, that one million players buy it over the course of four years, here are the financial figures that follow the model (for this one, we'll simply compound earnings as a running total, as we can do that when we don't have to add the DLC to the mix):

Year #1: $8.8 million in earnings; $87.8 million net deficit
Year #2: $18.2 million in earnings; $78.4 million net deficit
Year #3: $27.6 million in earnings; $69 million net deficit
Year #4: $36.9 million in earnings; $59.7 million net deficit

Now realistically, again, Paradox is going to make a lot more money than this. The game will likely sell a million copies within the first two years, if not the first year. But still, do you see how much more slowly they make their money back in this scenario? Even if they did sell a million copies in the first year, they'd still be running almost $60 million in the hole because of the project.

What I'm trying to say here is that using the proposed "more for less" model would doom the company to one, a far smaller profit margin overall, and two, a much longer period of deficit.

This in turn would doom you, the consumer to one, far less feature-rich and polished games, and two, a much longer period between game releases. Set aside the longer development time of the base game. Whether it's DLC or not, you still need to make the content to put it into the game.

In summary, business isn't an entity. It's not an adversary. It's not a creature. It's an element of society of which you and I are naturally a part, and which businesses are also a part. When businesses make money, they grow. When businesses grow, they provide more and/or better products. Products you and I buy. The key for any business is to find the right balance between making a quality product in a reasonably inexpensive amount of time, sold at a price that starts turning a profit quickly without turning away so many customers that it doesn't make a profit at all. Unfortunate though it is, businesses can't afford to simply give "more for less" in every situation. The gaming industry is one of the most expensive production industries in the world, so it can afford this least of all.

Man, I'm just glad to get you to type all this. But it seems to mean nothing. I DID NOT ask you for more of your page long posts. I ended the conversation with signaling my willingness to let you spend whatever money you want. You couldn't take it. Either you have an OCD for having the last word with people who don't agree with you or, because you are whiteknighting this game so hard that , again, I hope you get paid. With all these essays you put out. I hope it's copy paste.

But Now that you pulled me back in, you said something interesting, Do you still buy into the 'Games are so expensive, we need all the DLC we put out, and maybe more to make ends meet'? You are the wet dream of all companies. xD

To me, you just look silly. Defending one's own wallet should be so much easier than shiling for a multimilion dollar company.

[The Ohio Question]

Eh, he did a very well and thought out breakdown actually, was a good read.

However, my counterpoint is, how is this the consumers problem? That sounds like the cost of doing business in this market.

Also, id be far more forgiving, far more understanding of how they need the cash for long term support. ..... if there games were not so BARREN AND SHALLOW at launch. It takes a year or 2 for these games to feel like how they should have at the get go.

We can go on about the actual $$$ of cost all day, but when the product itself feels like its worth 20 bucks, allot of consumers are gonna then be put off when asked for more dosh to finish the game they already bought. Sell a quality game at launch, then we can talk expansions and post launch support.

[The Former]

KANE Maizel a écrit :

Man, I'm just glad to get you to type all this. But it seems to mean nothing. I DID NOT ask you for more of your page long posts.

Allow me to point out the flaw in this statement.

KANE Maizel a écrit :

World's Coolest Old Guy a écrit :

Why as a gamer, do you champion to pay more for less? You seem really pusywhipped by paradox. The amount of DLC you just posted should say it all, lol xD If anything you should want more for less. I cannot fathom when people tell me 350€ games are a good development, lol.

KANE Maizel a écrit :

Please forgive me if I don't take anything you said seriously after I read that your "fave game of all time" isn't worth 4.16 euros per month to you.

Well, I understand when dumb people react like that, so I forgive you.

I will make it simple for you. I have had 30€ games, not plagued by endless DLC, but enjoying yearslong support last me a 1000 hours as well. 350 euros for a game is a lot..

You are reductive because you are deep in Pdox's behind.

You asked me a question. When I replied by pointing out the very clear lack of logic in what you said, you called me dumb.

So I gave you a smart, adult, figures-oriented answer. One you haven't rebutted, by the way. Your response was as follows, and I'll underline all the portions which contain absolutely no argument whatsoever, where you instead opt for empty personal attacks or baseless presumptions about my employ or character. (I'm a teacher, by the way.)

KANE Maizel a écrit :

Man, I'm just glad to get you to type all this. But it seems to mean nothing. I DID NOT ask you for more of your page long posts. I ended the conversation with signaling my willingness to let you spend whatever money you want. You couldn't take it. Either you have an OCD for having the last word with people who don't agree with you or, because you are whiteknighting this game so hard that , again, I hope you get paid. With all these essays you put out. I hope it's copy paste.

But Now that you pulled me back in, you said something interesting, Do you still buy into the 'Games are so expensive, we need all the DLC we put out, and maybe more to make ends meet'? You are the wet dream of all companies. xD

To me, you just look silly. Defending one's own wallet should be so much easier than shiling for a multimilion dollar company.

Who Needs Sleep a écrit :

Eh, he did a very well and thought out breakdown actually, was a good read.

However, my counterpoint is, how is this the consumers problem? That sounds like the cost of doing business in this market.

Also, id be far more forgiving, far more understanding of how they need the cash for long term support. ..... if there games were not so BARREN AND SHALLOW at launch. It takes a year or 2 for these games to feel like how they should have at the get go.

We can go on about the actual $$$ of cost all day, but when the product itself feels like its worth 20 bucks, allot of consumers are gonna then be put off when asked for more dosh to finish the game they already bought. Sell a quality game at launch, then we can talk expansions and post launch support.

You, on the other hand, gave a perfectly valid rebuttal. In that case, it really comes down to opinion. I don't find their games shallow, personally. If one does, however, I absolutely advise against buying any DLC.

The purpose of DLC is to enrich and already enjoyable experience, not to make a bland experience not bland. If you don't enjoy the core experience enough without DLC, I'd personally advise skipping the game altogether. It's what I'd do.

[Maizel]

Who Needs Sleep a écrit :

Eh, he did a very well and thought out breakdown actually, was a good read.

However, my counterpoint is, how is this the consumers problem? That sounds like the cost of doing business in this market.

Also, id be far more forgiving, far more understanding of how they need the cash for long term support. ..... if there games were not so BARREN AND SHALLOW at launch. It takes a year or 2 for these games to feel like how they should have at launch.

We can go on about the actual $$$ of cost all day, but when the product itself feels like its worth 20 bucks, allot of consumers are gonna then be put off when asked form more dosh to finish the game they already bought. Sell a quality game at launch, then we can talk expansions and post launch support.

I agree. When a 20$ purchase feels worthwhile. and I agree, MOST of the expansions for all the PDOX games I own *(since EU2) have been worthwhile. But if you, in the end, ask me EU4 and CK2 were worth a combined 500!!!! bucks, I will say no. They could have packed the content in 1/2 of the DLC, and still be fine. This is how they condition you. as I said. You will expect less, and pay more for that.

I feel like I have gotten my money's worth. But I CAN'T defend this DLC policy.


Vic2 is a great game. Looks pretty much the same as anything since, Pdox never had much graphics, and is deep as ♥♥♥♥. It didnt get 250 bucks worth of expansions.

They can make good games. On a smaller team, with less DLC. They choose not to, because when they churn out DLC, people will by it.

And coolest guy. As I said. Don't shill for companies. The only figures that should concern you is YOUR Wallet, not Pdox' , even though they pay you for your time.

Don't tell me they don;t churn out this much DLC because they know they can make alot of buck?

Personally I think it's because none of their fans have standards anymore. xD

[The Former]

KANE Maizel a écrit :

They can make good games. On a smaller team, with less DLC. They choose not to, because when they churn out DLC, people will by it.

They did this exact thing with Imperator and everyone complains about how watered down and simple-minded it is.

[Maizel]

World's Coolest Old Guy a écrit :

KANE Maizel a écrit :

They can make good games. On a smaller team, with less DLC. They choose not to, because when they churn out DLC, people will by it.

They did this exact thing with Imperator and everyone complains about how watered down and simple-minded it is.

Eu3 and Vic2 were pretty amazing at launch.


I:E proves my point.

They tried less with even the base game for that one., because they thought they could get away with it due to EU4, CK2, Stellaris and HOI4. Man, and I thought Stellaris was lacking at launch, Don't use a lacking 'base' game for an excuse to produce more DLC,

This is how they get you again.

[The Former]

KANE Maizel a écrit :

World's Coolest Old Guy a écrit :

They did this exact thing with Imperator and everyone complains about how watered down and simple-minded it is.

Eu3 and Vic2 were pretty amazing at launch.


I:E proves my point.

They tried less with even the base game for that one. Don't use a lacking 'base' game for an excuse to produce more DLC,

This is how they get you again.

EU3 and Victoria 2 were amazing in the moment. In hindsight, both are flawed and missing depth that the core game of EU4 added. EU3 and V2 were made on a smaller budget out of necessity. EU4 was made because EU3 sold well. Then EU4 sold well, so they decided to add more content.

On the topic, if you pay $350 for all the EU4 DLC, you're not paying $350 for a video game any more than having $10,000 worth of furniture and hardware in your $16,000 bungalow is paying $26,000 for your house. You're investing $350 into the game, if and only if the game is fun enough to justify doing so.

It's no different than buying Final Fantasy 14 for $30, then investing $1,440 into it because you were hooked enough on its content to play for 8 years straight.

[Maizel]

World's Coolest Old Guy a écrit :

KANE Maizel a écrit :

Eu3 and Vic2 were pretty amazing at launch.


I:E proves my point.

They tried less with even the base game for that one. Don't use a lacking 'base' game for an excuse to produce more DLC,

This is how they get you again.

EU3 and Victoria 2 were amazing in the moment. In hindsight, both are flawed and missing depth that the core game of EU4 added. EU3 and V2 were made on a smaller budget out of necessity. EU4 was made because EU3 sold well. Then EU4 sold well, so they decided to add more content.

On the topic, if you pay $350 for all the EU4 DLC, you're not paying $350 for a video game any more than having $10,000 worth of furniture and hardware in your $16,000 bungalow is paying $26,000 for your house. You're investing $350 into the game, if and only if the game is fun enough to justify doing so.

It's no different than buying Final Fantasy 14 for $30, then investing $1,440 into it because you were hooked enough on its content to play for 8 years straight.

Again, You can spend that kind of money with a smile. Maybe we just differ in means, and money is a different thing to us both. I will always put question marks at the busniness practices that has seen me spend 1000 dollars on 4 games,. And will always voice the opinion that i'd like to spend less on the next one for the full experience.

I guess we disagree on the poverty of Paradox. You think they are scraping pennies together, I think they really make bank.

I will always tend to think companies will nickle and dime you every step of the way unless proven differently.

Maybe I am wrong, despite 5 game and dozens of pieces of DLC, but it seems a safer course than to defend multimillion dollar companies, unless it was my job.

[The Former]

KANE Maizel a écrit :

World's Coolest Old Guy a écrit :

EU3 and Victoria 2 were amazing in the moment. In hindsight, both are flawed and missing depth that the core game of EU4 added. EU3 and V2 were made on a smaller budget out of necessity. EU4 was made because EU3 sold well. Then EU4 sold well, so they decided to add more content.

On the topic, if you pay $350 for all the EU4 DLC, you're not paying $350 for a video game any more than having $10,000 worth of furniture and hardware in your $16,000 bungalow is paying $26,000 for your house. You're investing $350 into the game, if and only if the game is fun enough to justify doing so.

It's no different than buying Final Fantasy 14 for $30, then investing $1,440 into it because you were hooked enough on its content to play for 8 years straight.

Again, You can spend that kind of money with a smile. I will always put wuestion marks at the busniness practices that has seen me spend 1000 dollars on 4 games.

I didn't, I played FF14 for about a year and quit because I'm not one to sit on repetitive content for very long. But there are literal millions of people worldwide who enjoy the game enough to put that much money into it.

Gaming is a hobby, after all. Investing in your hobby isn't foolish if you're enjoying yourself, unless you don't have the money to do it. I absolutely wouldn't suggest that anyone buy CK2 and all its DLC if they're living hand-to-mouth. In fact, I wouldn't suggest anyone buy anything. I'm not one to make remarks about the way others spend their money. I fully understand that everyone has different tastes and priorities, tastes are neither right nor wrong.

The point is that if you're buying DLC, you're investing into a game you enjoy. If you don't enjoy the game, don't buy the DLC. That would be foolish. If you're the type of person who believes that Paradox games require DLC to function, you shouldn't be wasting your time on them at all. They're not for you. They're beneath the bar of your taste. Those people should spend their precious time seeking something worth their while.

(After your edit:)

KANE Maizel a écrit :

I guess we disagree on the poverty of Paradox. You think they are scraping pennies together, I think they really make bank.

I never said they were poor. They're absolutely a profitable company, otherwise they wouldn't still be in business. They don't have a whole lot compared to their competitors, though. CD Projekt made more than them in 2018, and CD Projekt didn't even release anything that year. Square-Enix and Sega make exponentially more. Sega literally makes 1,176% more money than they do.

What I do disagree on, I reckon, is the definition of "making bank". I acknowledge that companies don't simply throw their earnings in a Scrooge McDuck vault so their CEOs can swim in it now and again. They invest it into other projects that, yes, make them more money, but only if their consumers get enjoyment out of those things (meaning if they're making money, it's because we're benefiting from their labors).

And when your competitors have more to invest than you do, you still have profit margins that need growing.

[The Ohio Question]

World's Coolest Old Guy a écrit :

KANE Maizel a écrit :

They can make good games. On a smaller team, with less DLC. They choose not to, because when they churn out DLC, people will by it.

They did this exact thing with Imperator and everyone complains about how watered down and simple-minded it is.

Imperator wasnt a good game though, (not gonna comment on how it is now, have not played it pretty much sense launch) AT LAUNCH, it had about 3 things to do, a rather dumb mana system you spammed to win, and sod all else. When confronted by this, the lead dev had a tantrum on pc gamer, contemplated retiring, and finally gave in to try to fix that barren mess of a demo.

They very much did not do that exact thing with imperator. Imperator was a platform to milk dlc dollars, not a game unto itself. It was so obvious, so absurdly shallow, and so in your face about what the company expected of its player base to do (lap up dlc to FINISH IT) that players flat out rejected it.

If Imperator was a good...no a DECENT game at launch, youd be right, but it wasnt even that.

It was bones that they set up to sell you the meat of. A car they wanted you to pay for a engine. A bloody hotdog stand that has no buns, mustard, or napkins and just slaps the dog in your hands like a ♥♥♥♥! Im sorry, maybe that game became something good after all this time, maybe they thought it was in a decent state to launch, MAYBE there was some grand plan to turn it into this big game with a huge tail end that would have been this mega classic..... But the game has to exist in a decent state first before you are entitled to more cash.

It was a joke, a big 60$ joke, that they expected you to pay another 20$ for and thank them for the privilege. I do hope CK3 is in a better state when it gos live (wont be bloody hard). I want this game to do well, i truly do. But I.R. naked greed and sheer gull makes any sensible person have hesitation going into CK3s launch.