Stellaris 2 - Would you...

[Feomathar]

So, "Stellaris 2" often put into question recently. And so far, nothing explicit came from Paradox (Please correct me, if I missed something).
Instead, new DLC are comming out/were announced.

Now, I think Paradox won't be making a Stellaris 2, because it wouldn't get them more money, than making DLC's on an already existing Engine/Game.
But "Total War: Warhammer 1-3" kinda shown a Semi-Success in that area.
My Question now is, to all the Stellaris-Gamers out there:
- Would you buy a 50-60$ Game, that is an improvement over the previous Version, but lacks most DLC-Additions from the first one, that you would have to buy additional later on?

[Garatgh Deloi]

Originally posted by Feomathar:

But "Total War: Warhammer 1-3" kinda shown a Semi-Success in that area.

Weird example to use since all 3 of them use the same engine (just a tad updated) and the content from previous games (including DLC) can be used in the later games.

Originally posted by Feomathar:

My Question now is, to all the Stellaris-Gamers out there:
- Would you buy a 50-60$ Game, that is an improvement over the previous Version, but lacks most DLC-Additions from the first one, that you would have to buy additional later on?

That is quite literately how a sequel would work. Its not economically feasible to have as much content as has been added for game 1 over the years in game 2 when its released, it would start all over again.

[Immortalis]

Paradox does in fact create new versions of previous games.
Both Hearts of Iron and Europa Universalis are at their fourth iteration; Crusader Kings and Victoria are at the third title and so forth.

However, creating a game on a different engine is not something trivial or that can be accomplished in a few weeks because the only thing you can realistically "port over" are your ideas and concept as to how the game or certain mechanics should work.
Anything else you need to recreate from the ground up.

As to "would people buy it?" the answer is yes.
It used to be a "yes" followed by "and then they will play the game while patiently waiting for features from previous versions as well as completely new ones to appear in game over years of development".
I'd say since 2017 it is still a "yes" but it is now followed by "but they will complain both before and after doing it that the game is barebone compared to previous versions, that the game should have come with all the features already present in the serie as well as new mechanics *and* it should have been much, much cheaper".

I see no reason why either of this pattern should change when Paradox eventually decides to develop Stellaris 2

[EJR]

Would I buy a Stellaris 2? Yes.

But only if it included all the DLC from the original and even a few mods (UI Overhaul Dynamic and Ethics and Civics Classic, for example).

Otherwise, I can stick with Stellaris for another decade.

[Geoff]

Originally posted by Feomathar:

- Would you buy a 50-60$ Game, that is an improvement over the previous Version, but lacks most DLC-Additions from the first one, that you would have to buy additional later on?

I think the window is shut for me to waste money on Paradox products again. If I heard of an indie project being developed by the original team behind Stellaris, that would pique my interest and could possibly pick my pocket. But after watching them run this title into the ground, I wouldn't want to invest my hope or faith in this company another time. Once-bitten, twice-shy and all that.

[Johnny Stokino]

That's the model right now. The companies who don't do that are the exception. The best you can hope for is that when they actually make the new game, there are real innovations that justify the price and the new release.

There are companies out there successfully reselling an almost identical version of the same game each year with marginal changes. The trick is to have a unique niche and a loyal fan base.

The great thing about all the great paradox games is that (like Bethesda) they make them highly moddable. It means that the modders will cover any failings a new release might have.

Case in point, for me personally, I play Stellaris because of the STNH mod, and I would buy a new one if and only if STNH decides to move to that platform.

[Targonis]

People always complain when the sequel doesn't have as much as the previous game plus expansions had, so the way around that is to make the base engine be so much more compelling, people don't mind there being less content.

Now, an obvious example of this is The Sims. The first game plus expansions vs. the second base game....the engine was so much better in the second game, people saw that as a big improvement to the engine. Sims 2 to 3, the same thing. 3 to 4 was a bit more meh, but there were some clear things that made it better at heart.

You have Cities Skylines vs. Skylines 2, and yep, people are complaining, because the second game doesn't have a significant amount of new stuff just yet, but the base game definitely brings a lot to the table that wasn't in the first game, so long term it will probably do well.

There are other games out there where the same issue comes up, so, what sort of depth would there have to be right in the base game from the start to be an obvious improvement? Stories and discoveries that were added later could be there in the base game, different types of alien species, but the tech tree and how technology evolves might be a big draw, because the tech tree could be redone from scratch, how technologies are developed, leaders in different areas could replace the, "one main of each type" that we have now, etc. There's no reason why development in 10 different areas isn't going on, but putting a weight on the focus for some of them would make sense.

The idea of ascending to a new type of life form could really be expanded on if evolving your species is a part of what you enjoy. But, leaders, and a bit more detail on, "this is what I plan to focus on", and then, how well you manage to live up to it during the election cycle might help. It's not simple, trying to come up with a better DESIGN for lots of different elements of the game takes a lot of effort, and then, how well does it come together in practice?

[echoes222]

Would I buy? Yes
Do I accept their DLC practices? Also yes.

[Razorblade]

Scaling back on content and refocusing isn't always a bad thing. Stellaris is already incredibly bloated; I'm not interested in a bloated sequel.

Just look at Astral Planes; would anyone miss it if it was gone? It's a parallel archeology system that, quite frankly, does not need to exist. Would it be such a bad thing if Paradox rolled some of those improvements into Archeology, like the branching paths, and dropped Astral Actions / Astral Threads in the sequel? Are you really going to miss your Unbidden mercenaries, which should have probably just been part of a better Integrated mercenary system and not a whole parallel system, that badly?

I don't understand people who want a sequel to come out the door bloated, just because its prequel was. CK2 had more governments, for example, but they were half-assed. I was fine with CK3 dropping the other governments in order to refocus on putting the fun in feudalism.

There are some obvious cases where this is unacceptable, like all four Sims games having a paid weather expansion, but I wouldn't say Paradox has really crossed such lines with their DLC / sequel policy.

There haven't been any CK3 expansion that were just straight-up reselling CK2 content, for example. CK2 had a pagan expansion, which was largely covered by CK3's base game. CK3 then had a Viking-focused DLC, which may sound derivative of CK2's pagan DLC, but was actually all new stuff that CK2 didn't explore. And that's the closest Paradox has ever gotten to "reselling old content" thus far, to my knowledge.

And, of course, if you want to play the design-hell that is Stellaris 1 for the next decade becuase "the old days were so much better," you're more than welcome to do so. It'll still be there; a few thousand people still play CK2 while everyone else enjoys its prettier younger sibling.

[HappySack]

Originally posted by EJR:

Would I buy a Stellaris 2? Yes.

But only if it included all the DLC from the original...

Yeah totally what happened with CK3 and Victoria 3, when they both released with absolutely no content, same if Stellaris 2 ever came out as well.

[Feomathar]

Yes, the premise of my question (thanks to those who *answered* it) would be, that Stellaris 2 had improved visuals, UI, etc. and some Additions like RPG-Immersion, a "Story/Campaign" and more ways to create unique races/planets.

BUT! It would still lack DLC stuff like Stellaris Vanilla (Machines, Cloking, New portraits, etc.)

- Would you buy it still?

[Max Wax]

It takes years to create a game like Stellaris. Stellaris 2 would follow the same development path with DLCs. We'd complain for years about different features missing.

I started playing Stellaris only 6 months ago because I noticed its unique phenomenon: 8 years on the market and still supported, diverse and complex, with a massive - for a game of this age - player base. Stellaris gets over 12 thousand players on average; on weekends it gets close to 18 thousand; I'm sure it will be above 20 thousand players with the new DLC release - I have not seen something like this before and wanted to become a part of it.

It's hard to get into Stellaris with this much complexity and content I admit. However I follow Crusader Kings 3 development and observe how the allegedly "new, improved, simplified, polished" game is actually a hit and miss in its current incarnation (see for instance its latest DLC overwhelmingly negative reviews "Crusader Kings III: Legends of the Dead", which brings back certain CK II mechanics).

I'm not looking forward to Stellaris 2. I'm happy to see the continuous development of Stellaris 1. The new Machine Age looks very exciting and promising. Long live Stellaris 1!

[Spirit]

what the game need is not a successor but a complete code rework , endgame is still a diashow because of the broken code that only uses 2 of the max possible cpu cores

[Feomathar]

Originally posted by Spirit:

what the game need is not a successor but a complete code rework , endgame is still a diashow because of the broken code that only uses 2 of the max possible cpu cores

Actually, this was already adressed by Paradox.
*Because* of the many DLC's that were added, it would be nearly impossible to change small things or even Core-codes and that many Bugs are believed to stay in the Game for eternity.

[Alt]

During the last couple of dev diaries with the developer response feature on the official forums had said currently there is no plans for a second game. They have also stated there will be at least seven more years of Stellaris 1 before considering moving to a possible sequel.

[Malaficus Shaikan]

Originally posted by Feomathar:

So, "Stellaris 2" often put into question recently. And so far, nothing explicit came from Paradox (Please correct me, if I missed something).
Instead, new DLC are comming out/were announced.

Now, I think Paradox won't be making a Stellaris 2, because it wouldn't get them more money, than making DLC's on an already existing Engine/Game.
But "Total War: Warhammer 1-3" kinda shown a Semi-Success in that area.
My Question now is, to all the Stellaris-Gamers out there:
- Would you buy a 50-60$ Game, that is an improvement over the previous Version, but lacks most DLC-Additions from the first one, that you would have to buy additional later on?

No.
A new game woudnt have the features stellaris many dlc offer.
Warhammer total war could get away with it because it is warhammer.
Warhammer fans are very milkable.