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
1 
Report this post
Nothing is going to happen.
I'd like Paradox to stop their garbage DLC policy, they've broken Stellaris far too much instead of making sequels like it used to work for games. We should have already a Stellaris 3 or 4 instead of what we have.
And since I:R was a financial disaster, there won't be any I:R 2.
I don't think that there ever will be any more DLC for I:R, as well, but that, at least, would be something that - potentially - could happen. A second (or rather 3rd, due to EU:Rome being the 1st one) game won't ever happen.
I don't care if it's more expensive, dozens of DLCs are far more expensive than a game within the Paradox model.
It's just what it is.
And in contrast to EU:Rome the financial disaster of I:R was huge. No one sane would dare to risk another major f-up.
The game didn't do well because it was released with bugs, instability, and messy content. Until an update fixed some issues, it was already too late; the game's image was tarnished.
The game didn't achieve the expected success not because the gameplay or the period were uninteresting, but because it was a bit messy.
I:R didn't - there are several reasons for why that is but all can be subsumed into: It was a marketing-problem. It was advertised as a multiplayer game (by any dev-streams); it was advertised as EU 4 in roman clothing (by any dev streams), it was advertised by hyping things outside of the game, etc.
EU:Rome had some of the same problems (but not to this extend) - and yet it failed to garner attraction as a whole, as well.
I like this game, don't get me wrong, but I can see the problems with what it offers and that it's neither fish nor meat and failed to advertise this as a strength, rather than a weakness.
It failed to create a target audience by not knowing what that target audience should be in the first place and therefore misjudging heavily.
Paradox only makes things worse and worse the more they touch it. An abandoned game at least is an stable platform for modders to their magic.
If anything that main problem was that Pdx took a while to accept that they had got things wrong. I remember when CK2 came out and I was regularly hunting down an internet connection so I could download the latest patch as things were being fixed up at a rapid rate. The playerbase was willing to forgive the issues with the game because they were excited for its potential and Pdx was willing to respond to those issues. From what I can tell it took far longer for that to happen in the case of IR, and by that point the playerbase had mostly fled (especially after having received so much hype pre-release).
Ultimately there are only two future options:
1) The IP is dead (80% probability)
2) There will be an IR2 (20% prob.)
If they're not willing to invest in a new game (where most of the RoI comes from), they won't put any money into more DLC.
IR2 is a possibility simply because IR is fine now and has some popularity now. They just have to learn from their mistakes.
If you think that would be popularity and would carry a company financially...well...
And yes, all of those games were messy launches, as well. Either you forgot this or you're disingenuous, right now.
Either way - won't happen as I:R already flopped twice and it would flop a third time, as well. Insanity would be to repeat the same thing over and over and expect a different outcome or to put it in other words: "Fool me once, your fault - fool me twice, my fault - fool me a third time and I don't need to evaluate anymore if my IQ would be below room temperature."
Huh?
If you would compare the revenue of a DLC and an actual game based on the initial release date, you will be correct, but that would draw a pretty distorted picture. Most of the revenue for pdx comes from their DLC.
It's like all those microtransactions in other games. You might think that microtransactions would be micro and therefore just a little addition to the revenue out of a 70/90$ game, but did you know that 3/4 of game companies revenue stems from microtransactions?
The longer a game exists the bigger this discrepancy (revenue from base game compared to DLC) is.
That aside:
Developing a game costs money. A lot of money.
Developing a DLC costs money. Just a tiny fraction of what a new game would cost.
You now may look at I:R and say "20 percent chance to get a new game."
I look at I:R and see "This already flopped. Twice. And there is no company (currently or in the past) in any industry who had or would have tried a thrid disaster when it's already clear that this product won't ever help to even break even."
But you do you.