Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Of which you could say the new updates are intentionally left bad to get community feed back (helps save cost on their end) for the next 'free' update.
If you dislike them, the simple and easy answer is to use the Steam Beta Feature to play with whatever version you think was the best. It's not perfect since these older versions will likely have some annoying bugs in them, but the option is there.
Updates (stuff like bugfixing and minor additions) have been free since the conception of computer games (more or less, to my knowledge). It should remain that way.
Other developers are pumping out great content updates, so this is a specific Paradox issue.
Yes, I've addressed this matter in my original post. You did read it right?
Exactly, bugfixing and minor additions are industry standard and I would say are, if not outright stated in a contractually binding way, tacitly acknowledged by expectation an essential part of gaming. If a dev doesn't provide this service as part of the package, customers aren't going to stick around long. We all can name games or franchises that died not long after the last patch, a 1.2 release that soon withered away and disappears into the back alleys of our steam libraries.
I think there is room to argue that these content expansions should be bundled with the DLC. Which there is a good consensus are overpriced for the quality and size of their content anyway. It would pad out the DLC's quality while allowing players the chance to weigh in on the implemented features via reviews and decide if they want them or not through market forces.
By the same token as the argument the Orion makes, Why should he be restricted by the things I want in the game? Why should the game I bought be relegated to development exile for the benefit of pleasing people who want constant content expansions? Why must my experience be restricted?
Surely the answer is to allow people to CHOOSE.
You do have the ability to choose. The choice you're specifically asking for is entirely unfeasible.
How is the choice I'm asking for, entirely unfeasible exactly?
They are releasing content in DLC already, why not restrict game changing content updates (which coincide with DLC release anyway) to being behind the DLC Paywall, thereby letting those that do not want to opt in, not opt in. While those that do, can. That doesn't deprive you of anything, You were going to buy the DLC anyway.
Patches should focus on bugfixing and stability, balancing and the like. Let people DECIDE if they want to take on new features.
in that way, my deciding NOT to, doesn't prevent you from deciding to. But under the current system I get no choice and you tell me to be content with that lack of freedom and agency over a product I have paid money for, just as you have.
Yes, I did read your OP. Your solution is unfeasible, as Ryika said.
Lets not forget that many of these new and "free" feature and content updates that accompany DLC, often arrive in a reduced or entirely deactivated state. Unless you buy the DLC.
Take the spy and espionage system in Stellaris for example. It's hardly a great addition to the base game without the DLC that "unlocks" the feature.
In the instance of EU4 when one of the DLC released province improvement, I didn't get the DLC that "activated" the content. So I couldn't invest monarch points to raise province development. But the AI sure could... lovely. Very balanced. I was forced to go and buy the DLC in order to keep up with the AI's province development. Awesome.
Just two examples.
The reason I put it in quotation marks is that you've framed the thread as a general discussion about the topic, but then you responded to my post by telling me that these things don't work for you specifically. You haven't really addressed anything, you've just given your reasons for why you dislike a perfectly fine option.
Because then you'd be in the situation where each DLC needs to account for other DLC potentially being active or not being active.
Imagine the FTL overhaul being a DLC as an obvious example, from that point on any content that's related to starbases, war, or travel would need to be developed for both environments at the same time.
Now imagine 10 of those situations existing side by side.
It's nonsensical and completely unfeasible if they want to do meaningful reworks instead of small, low-impact additions.
Nah. I will say one thing though, I would prefer if they put more time into fixing bug before moving on to the next DLC. Playing with older versions would be a lot more enjoyable that way. Not a dealbreaker for me personally though.
Nah, you have the freedom to continue using the product as you bought it, by rolling back to whatever version you want. You do not have the freedom to get free, endless support on top.
If you think the product was not polished enough when you got it, vote with your wallet by not purchasing products from them until they've changed their approach to something you find acceptable.
Paradox has a history of adding some unpopular ideas into their content, but as it stands right now, there is no way of knowing what Paradox's intentions are around this current issue of the appearance of a human avatar in the game. We will find out in due course.
So while some ideas are wildly unpopular in some free updates, there is no reason to stop free content either over small details that are very much part of the game, like it or not.
It is a general discussion. But as instigator of the discussion I thought it valuable to illustrate my position. Seemed more honest that way. People know where I'm coming from, I'm not just here to stir up trouble but maybe a little debate.
Each DLC already needs to account for the additions in other DLC, which may or may not be active. These are things that need to be taken into consideration, as you can see from the game files. that's plenty of coding time there. They don't seem to have much problem accounting for these things already.
This plays directly into my question. Is the development policy over at PDX going in the wrong direction? I'm arguing that yes it is. You talk about major content reworks, as if they are inherently good things. I generally regard such reworks in any other game as evidence of sloppy design approach and philosophy and so would a good number of other people. Why is it different with PDX titles?
Surely, having a clear and well developed vision from the outset would result in a better product than trying to throw some vague ideas at the wall and seeing which ones work and which ones don't and then try chasing a moving target to develop those things that work and fix those things that don't.
The current culture of PDX overhauling fundamental game mechanics isn't the sign of progressive and organised development, or clear vision for their products. It's the sign of disorganised, unclear development goals and objectives.
We'll have to agree to disagree here.
I have already done so. I no longer purchase DLC for PDX titles. I've found I play the base games less and less.
I'm not alone. Maybe PDX can persist with the revenue from just their fans and newcomers. But if a good proportion of potential players are put off as I am. That doesn't really bode well in the future for PDX. Johann already had to take corrective action (with little appreciable effect) following the mess that was Leviathan for EU4.
I see more and more negative discussions about PDX and their titles in other gaming forums. Ignoring that is going to be bad for business for PDX. Or atleast I hope so, because it seems that's the only thing that might affect a positive change in culture there.