EU 5 and a fresh start

[gurkoz]

Backstory: I never got into Crusader Kings 2 because of all the content presented in a dense way. That and the fact that there where loads of DLC's and i generally felt i was too late to the party. Crusader Kings 3 on the other hand i had a much better experience with. A much easier game to get into and understand from the get go. A compareable better UI and more focus on just the core game with no DLC's. Also an updated engine with better performance and it all just felt right.

Now, looking at EU 4 i get the same feeling as Crusader Kings 2. For me personally, a fresh start with EU 5 in the same way as Crusader King 3 was treated would be a great thing.

I did see the argument that there was no point in creating EU 5 since they would just create the same game again. But, that's more or less exactly what they did to Crusader Kings? And i do think they would take the opportunity to change some things for the better in a new iteration.

Instead of trying to get into this game i am more likely to just wait for a new fresh start with EU 5. (Also, the current state with the patch isn't really helping).

What do you think the chances are of this happening? Or should i just suck it up and learn EU 4. I do find it interesting with the focus on nations more than dynasties as in Crusader Kings.

[AdmiralPiett]

I wholeheartedly agree with you. I hated CK2, everything from stupid DLC policy to terrible tutorials and UI woes. I mean seriously, $20 for the "right" to play as a Muslim ruler or in a certain time period?

Then CK3 was like a breath of fresh air, especially the MASSIVELY SUPERIOR UI.

I believe what these people are thinking when they oppose an EU5 is that they are (either subconsciously or consciously) worried that all of their SIGNIFICANT financial investment into the endless DLC nightmare that is EU4 (like CK2) will be "wasted" or "not worth it" if they move onto EU5 (like CK3).

They're afraid of losing on an investment that many of us did not make in the first place, for good reason. In economics, the good investor knows when to quit. Opposing EU5 because you've sunk hundreds of dollars into countless EU4 DLCs is like refusing to cash out a crashing stock because you're afraid of losing your investment. The money is spent, moving on or not moving on doesn't change that...

They're totally free to keep playing the game they love and have sunk those huge sums into, but I hope they realize that they can't stop the rest of us from wanting EU5, just because they bent to marketing and sold out for endless DLC content that either adds overpriced gimmicks or features that should be in the base game for free, or at least not for $20 extra (but the bugs come FREE, how nice is that?).

Stepping back, I think the lasting impact of Leviathangate is CRYSTAL CLEAR:
it's time to move on, start fresh, and save the reputation of our beloved PDX Developers, if not PDX Management or PDX Community Relations.

[DMK]

Sincerely I'm tired to think about it, on how they will release a new game that will be almost identical with some graphical improvements and 3D models and call it EUV. In top of that to be planed in such a way to milk from it even harder via hundreds of DLCs and new subscription models that could be even more atrocious. So to respond on your thread I don't think would be a fresh start or a good idea, especially if you don't ignore the ridiculousness that they were doing with their last patch/expansion. Business wise will be a very bad timing for them especially with the justified "revolts" that are going right now, not unless this mess will be fixed. But to wait for a new version of the game that will have even a worse business model via hundreds dlcs or various subscriptions, it's preety depressing I must say.

Instead of an apology video with bullet points on how they should fix their broken mess, they made another one some days ago with the topic on how great they are, and how they became a public trade company, like nothing happened. That's the best perspective to see on how much they care about their costumers, most of the time they were talking about their shareholders. Hope their own stocks will tank harder, continuously like a boss...

[tonypa]

In general, developers and publishers (in case of Paradox, they manage both) do not work on anything that is not expected to be profitable. They could of course make mistakes, sometimes large investments fail, studios go bankrupt and so on, but it happens rarely. normally new project is only started once the projected profit has been cleared. This can involve money from Apple or Sony or Epic.

DLC model has worked well for Paradox for many-many years and I doubt they will abandon it for new games like CK3 or EU5. IR did not sell well so it probably gets no more DLCs. But games like Stellaris, CK3 and HoI4 will. I mean Paradox restructured the company so each of these games has separate studio to work on future DLCs.

As about EU4, we are probably stuck too much on current technical problems, but eventually these will be fixed Eventually, I expect new DLCs to arrive, and if they will not crash as much, people will still buy them.

I absolutely agree that completely new EU5 made with new shiny engine will perform and look better. I expect it to include features current EU4 just is not able to do. But it still has the problem of EU4 being bigger and having more features, so why start to invest in new game which at the start will feel barren and empty.

[IamLegend]

For me personally. I don`t care much about a better looking engine. I think eu4 is pretty much perfect as it is. Ill rather see paradox continue to improve eu4. While developing eu5 behind the scenes. I dont mind if eu5 takes a bit longer for announcement. If eu5 got announced today and released in the next year. I might just preorder eu5 but pretty much continued with eu4 for the first 2 years. As eu5 will be more in a vanilla state by its development life cycle.

Leviathan dlc did have a rough launch. I wish to play eu4 today. But waiting at least till vassallization bug has been squashed. I dont like the current hit on level 4 and 5 game speed. But would still play it if this remains for a bit. As long as vassalisation has been dealt with.

It never happened to me before at a new expansion. When my ironman savegame got lost (corrupted). I did enjoy it till 1543. Rip England.

[Rodi]

They should make Vicky 3 instead. That game actually needs a facelift

[At@At]

My problem with EU5 is that it will be 10 steps back (obviously, you shouldn't expect them to be equivalent in content), 2 very good steps lateral, and 3 major changes in another direction which you may or may not like. They will certainly make a decent platform for future additions. It will most importantly feel kinda lackluster compared to EU4 and will require a few years worth of expansions and patches to be more interesting. It doesn't help that we know how their dlc works and how they sometimes add interesting content that effect the whole world but basically leave placeholders in place everywhere else they're not regionally focused on.

It's interesting that you bring up CK3 because CK3 wasn't quite there gameplay-wise and system wise. That was one of the main complaints of the game. However, CK3 has a clear focus on RP and can easily be a fun time even if the gameplay element wasn't quite there. The fans know what to expect and the game has an easy direction to follow. EU5 won't really have that benefit and is far more at risk of alienating many of its fans (It WILL alienate fans. We have such a massive borg of fans who are into EU4 for different reasons. Whatever main direction they focus on in EU5 will not make ppl happy) or not making enough interesting changes so ppl just stick to EU4. EU4's and EU5's timeline is just way too weird to follow and insane to deal with across the world.

Regardless, EU4 needs to clear up a bunch of bugs, create more QoL features, improve neglected areas/regions, add more mod support, go back through all their old dlcs and improve every region with them (Ex: Events and mission trees need a major face lift, especially after Emperor and Leviathan where they actually added in interesting mission trees. Who cares about a bunch of 10-20 year modifiers from a tiny mission tree. Oh wow some yearly prestige.).

[gurkoz]

Wow i really appreciate all the in-depth answers you guys are posting, really interesting. There are a lot of things to consider for sure. I can only imagine the headache of trying to balance and continuously develop a game this long.

Personally, even with everything expressed here i'd still like to see a new game in the series. Like realistically, how long can a single game be built upon before it turns into a mess? (It seems to be kind of a mess right now to be frank). I would rather see PDX focus on fixing bugs, stop releasing DLC and then leave this game in the best shape possible to then focus on EU 5.

(BTW, did they leave Crusader Kings 2 in a good shape? Or did they even leave it at all? Wouldn't be surprised if DLC's are still being worked on?)

Then again, i don't have years of time and money invested into this game as some of you do so i get that side of the argument. Still, it's making potentially new players like me question if it's worth the time and money to invest into this game.

[Leo Atreides]

Just look what they did with eu4/leviathan and then you know how EU5 would look like. I really don't get why some people think that "just do EU5" is a solution to this situation.

I would prefer if they fix EU4 and let tinto do something competly new after that and never let them touch any of the existing titles again.

[Leo Atreides]

To clarify: i don't think tinto can't make a great game, but i think they showed that "eu4-like games" are not their cup of tea, and i don't think that the community has trust left for tinto after this situation.

[Zorg is Disappointed]

I don't get why you guys think that starting a new game will wipe away the issues this company has with EU4. They'll create a new game that has barely any features (al a Imperator) and take years for it to be good after many pricey DLCs that you seem to loathe. It's a grand strategy game, what's a new engine really going to do other than give them an excuse to hose us down for several more years. I'd be content to just improve EU4 forever, but Paradox really messed up this time with the Leviathan.

[tonypa]

Originally posted by gurkoz:

Like realistically, how long can a single game be built upon before it turns into a mess? (It seems to be kind of a mess right now to be frank). I would rather see PDX focus on fixing bugs, stop releasing DLC and then leave this game in the best shape possible to then focus on EU 5.

I do imagine trying to change something in such an old game like EU4 is truely complicated. Over the years hundreds of people have worked on it, changed the code, hacked in some workarounds, fixing something and breaking something else.

Thing is, fixing bugs and improving gameplay for free does not bring in money. And Paradox has kept working on the game for 8 years, if someone bought it on sale 2013 for $10 they have been fed with massive amount of changes over the years for free, many new features have been added for free, mechanics have been changed and improved for free. All these updates are free because they also offer optional DLC content. These DLCs pay for the free updates too, without extra DLCs the game would have been left untouched 5 years ago.

Nobody can deny the game is now much better, much more fun when compared to the version 1 EU4 in 2013. Even if you do not buy all the DLCs (personally, I do not) the game is still improved with each update.

Even more, you can play ANY older version of the game if you prefer to do so. If something in latest update really-really annoys you and makes the game worse for you, just don't update. This is not very common, most games insist you update to whatever the latest version is and prevent access to all the previous versions.

[SaD-82]

Originally posted by gurkoz:

(BTW, did they leave Crusader Kings 2 in a good shape? Or did they even leave it at all? Wouldn't be surprised if DLC's are still being worked on?)

Yes, they finished CK 2 and took their hands away from that game.
And frankly, it was their best decision in years to do that (as this made CK 2 into that what it is nowadays: A perfect game. With flaws, sure, but perfect in the sense that it is fulfilled what they wanted to do. Besides all the DLC it doesn't look or feel bloated. You know what you will get as soon as you buy it.). And exactly this they should do with EU 4. Problem is: I Don't think, they should do an EU 5. And this would lead to a "dead" franchise. Which will never happen - as everybody could understand, maybe.

[Ugles]

The only real issue EU4 has is the 10 years old engine, the DLC policy is not too bad compared to CK2 or early HOI4 DLC. If they were to do EU5, it would be significantly dumbed down to attract more (casual) audience. So, I hope EU5 is still 5 years away minimum.

[JBrown247]

Dont get me wrong... CK3 is great, but CK2 with all the DLCs is one of the best games of all time.

[JBrown247]

Originally posted by Ugles:

The only real issue EU4 has is the 10 years old engine, the DLC policy is not too bad compared to CK2 or early HOI4 DLC. If they were to do EU5, it would be significantly dumbed down to attract more (casual) audience. So, I hope EU5 is still 5 years away minimum.

EU5 is probably their next release unless they do Vicky