|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:More money doesn’t mean worsening things for their core demographic, just suckering in new guys. If this lowers the bar to entry for folks to try the game with the DLC? Good! If it is the same thing but is net cheaper, some backend concerns but still cool. dang would love to live in the fairy tale land u live in sounds nice
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 18:28 |
|
|
Getting more money by attracting new customers: good Getting more money by grabbing more from existing customers: bad Happy to clear that up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 02:38
|
|
|
They're literally not taking anything from established customers
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 02:47
|
|
|
Sampatrick posted:They're literally not taking anything from established customers Yet. So often this kind of stuff signals the beginning of the circling of the drain. I'd be willing to bet ck3 is where they are aiming to implement this, and I'm a cynic. I think once they have the subscription model, they will be incentivized to increase the buy price on all future content as a way of pushing people towards the subscription and milking the stubborn grognards who don't want to switch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 03:05
|
|
|
Nationalize Paradox and make their games a public utility.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 03:32
|
|
|
never in the history of anything has a game moving to a service model been a benefit to anyone at all. eu4 will probably just roll it out alongside but ck3? eu5? whatever else? lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 03:40
|
|
|
Didn't Paradox just kill the market for subscriptions with the Humble bundle where you get everything for €17? Even when this offer ends, there will be the expectation that such a deal will return. Or maybe some people will take a temporary subscription while waiting for the next bundle offer, when they really want to start playing? By the way, I think most gamers on the internet are terrible wankers complaining about the horrible companies that make their games and have the impertinence to earn money doing so. If you think a game is too expensive, don't buy it, but don't be a crybaby. Paradox games are for hardcore players that save lots of money by buying everything and playing 1000's of hour not spending it in the pub.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 03:59
|
|
|
Lotti Fuehrscheim posted:Didn't Paradox just kill the market for subscriptions with the Humble bundle where you get everything for €17? go back to reddit
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 04:02
|
|
|
Stux posted:go back to reddit Why? I am not 'on' reddit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 04:09
|
|
|
couldve fooled me
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 04:27
|
|
|
I wouldn't mess with a hardcore player like Lotti, if I were you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 04:34
|
|
|
sick burn
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 04:34
|
|
|
Lotti Fuehrscheim posted:Why? I am not 'on' reddit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 04:35
|
|
|
Dramicus posted:I wouldn't mess with a hardcore player like Lotti, if I were you. im so hardcore that the idea of even forming an opinion over monetisation models never enters my galaxy sized brain
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 05:05
|
|
|
S T U X
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 05:10
|
|
|
just, in big burning poop letters in the sky S T U X big ol danger sign you only miss once
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 05:10
|
|
|
I'd happily pay a subscription for paradox games if I knew it was all going to the employees of the company.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 05:43
|
|
|
i mean this just means that dlc parasitism for multiplayer will go away in the next generation which isn't anything for ck3 but will kill hoi5 and eu5 dead in terms of community and player count
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 06:07
|
|
|
Lotti Fuehrscheim posted:Paradox games are for hardcore players that save lots of money by buying everything and playing 1000's of hour not spending it in the pub. Source your quotes
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 06:32
|
|
|
I would love to know how many people have spent more than say, 40 hours on EU4 multiplayer. I mean I love it but I cannot imagine it is a significant fraction of the user base.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 06:39
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
I suspect that just about everyone who has more than 40 hours on eu4 multiplayer has a lot more than 40 hours on it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 06:49
|
|
|
eu4 multiplayer is a good time and how i learnt the game originally in my first few games with a friend teaching me
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 07:20
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I personally think the current model is okay because it lets me speak with my wallet. I did not like the direction EU4 was going, with "Innovativeness", Trade Company bullcrap, and other new mana bars or whatever, so I stopped buying DLC. Just like communism it woul work great in a world of rational people. But we're living in a world where the most profitable games have almost no gameplay and gambling mechanics. I'm part of the problem. I can't get me enough EU4 so I got all gameplay expansions and even some cosmetics. My lips say no to their DLC model but my body says yes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 08:54
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I just got into fairly recently, and the DLC model that they have moved to has been new Legendary Lords for existing factions, usually in a "new lord vs new lord" fashion. Each update has come with updates/improvements/additions to the two factions that the Legendary Lords are a part of. Additionally, each DLC has come with an associated "FLC" (for free DLC) Legendary Lord that is additional content for free, I guess? The DLC have been $10 and you get a buck off for pre-ordering it. Its nice because it is optional if you dont like the faction(s) that are part of the DLC you dont have to buy it, but its $10 a quarter for making the game better, usually in many ways. The most important thing about TW model is, I think, that it does what Paradox claims to be doing but much better. E.g. in Paradox DLCs you either get superficial new systems that don't interact with others (e.g. EU4 estates and parliaments/revolutionary factions/other country factions are in different DLCs so they don't affect each other even when those are literally the same entities, e.g. Russian Boyar Estate and Russian Boyar Power) or game system removed from the game with a patch and replaced with paid mechanic (the most obvious is EU4 buildings that were replaced with much simpler and less powerful system in a patch compensated by Development in DLC). Or sometimes it feels just like a joke, like when limitations (devastation, trade republics size limit) come in patches and compensating buffs (prosperity, trade republic special abilities, just plain bonus for having spy network - I'm not joking, it's not some new mechanic behind a paywall, it's just a scaling bonus). In Total War starting with Rome 2 every mechanical change comes in a patch. Expansions give you new units to play with or unlock new factions. Moreover, if you don't get expansion those unlocked factions are still there in the game and use their unique mechanics. So your TWW2 with no expansions has exactly the same balancing as other players games. Each expansion also comes with a free new unlocked faction, so you still have a lot of unique playable characters, I think it's a couple of dozens in TWW2+TWW1 now. And the factions are really different, even the ones based on the same race get special mechanics, units, events, voiceovers. They still do shifty stuff like selling blood as a DLC but they do deliver on a promise of long support for most of their games now. Buy the base game and never feel forced to buy any new DLC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 09:09
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:The most important thing about TW model is, I think, that it does what Paradox claims to be doing but much better. Quick PDX EU5 team, release full price EU5 where you can only play 5 countries and then sell the rest as DLC, it’s Better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 09:19
|
|
|
Fellblade posted:Quick PDX EU5 team, release full price EU5 where you can only play 5 countries and then sell the rest as DLC, it’s Better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 09:27
|
|
|
CK3 DLC: Catholic: Included Heresies: $10 Islam: $10 Orthodoxy: $10 Norse: $15 Other pagans: $10 Hellenic: $200
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 09:30
|
|
|
Fellblade posted:Quick PDX EU5 team, release full price EU5 where you can only play 5 countries and then sell the rest as DLC, it’s Better. I'd be surprised if release version of EU5 would have as many diverse playstyles as 10 (I think) release legendary lords had in TWW. Edit: OK, it's not fair cause with EU4 mechanic you can point at any country or randomize the world and get somewhat unique challenge based on geography, development and starting relations. But the point is each and every faction in TWW is an unique experience. They could clone any of those factions 200 times and throw them around on the map and roughly get the same level of diversity as release EU4 had. ilitarist fucked around with this message at 09:50 on Jan 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 09:33
|
|
|
Sampatrick posted:They're literally not taking anything from established customers The EU4 thing sets up expectations for future releases too, ones that won't be burdered with an established player base. Will EU5 be subscription only? Will the DLC for it be subscription only with the base game being F2P? Doing some simple mental arithmetic a subscription model might come cheaper than the current DLC model, but there's always going to be ethical concerns with it, as well as questions about how it will affect the development cycle which people have already pointed out. Surely over a game's lifespan, as more development time is put into a game and more content is added behind the subscription paywall, the value of the subscription should go up? Imagine if EU4 released with this model. Would you pay 4EU/mo for Conquest of Paradise only? Would Paradox maintain the same pricing as more expansions are added? Surely they couldn't charge the same for just CoP as they would with every expansion from CoP to Dharma. And by the time you get to this point of the development cycle EU4 with the DLC subscription vs EU4 without the DLC subscription runs into largely the same problems as the typical DLC model; the base game feels bare, and the game with the DLC feels bloated. A new player getting into EU4 now might not have to pay 200 Euros to get all the DLC, but they'll still be hopelessly lost in a sea of DLC mechanics as they learn how to play the game. For a subscription model to make sense the nature of the development cycle and the content cycle would have to change radically.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 12:59
|
|
|
Besides the ethical and monetary concerns from a player perspective, the real problem is this solves neither of PDX's problems with DLC, which are 1) the complexity of developing a bunch of things which have to interact but also be capable of being separate because you don't know what player will have what, and 2) the daunting price entry point later in the game's lifetime. If it's subscription as an alternative then you'll still have a lot who won't choose it and they'll still have all the same development challenges. And while the people who currently buy DLC and are heavy users of the game may consider subscribing instead, that's just shuffling the same money around. I'm not sure many new users, those scared off by hundreds of dollars of DLC, are going to be enticed by a subscription model. I guess the thinking is "the DLC is really worth that price, these new users just don't know it, but with a subscription they'll try it out and understand it totally is so they'll either subscribe indefinitely or buy in." But given the general feeling towards the DLC is "this may or may not be cool but it isn't worth the price and/or should be in the base game" I'm not sure that's a successful idea because the hypothetical new player is more likely to say "yes this feels like a cool game, but not a $300 game and I don't know if I want to subscribe indefinitely to this." Reducing DLC pricing over time and/or making it free eventually seems like an easier economic model that doesn't meaningfully impact the money coming in on the front end and helps the tail but I guess they're afraid people will then just wait out the price reduction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 13:53
|
|
|
just go back to the big expansion pack model
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 13:55
|
|
|
I mean their model of business has them literally incapable of going back to fix up the HoI dlc because the work hours for the current dlc don't fit I don't think they're going back to that ever
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 13:59
|
|
|
Fellblade posted:Quick PDX EU5 team, release full price EU5 where you can only play 5 countries and then sell the rest as DLC, it’s Better. It'd be more like EU with only european monarchies playable. And that's being generous to Paradox on release because it's true for every release that there are a handful of fun core countries, a decent amount of playable but barebones ones, and then a cast of punching bags that no one but the best players will ever touch. Is the average player ever choosing Haiti or Zapotec, even in the games' current states? A single Warhammer race adds vastly more, and everything besides brand-new playables comes in free patches. Also the DLC comes with the music and gfx for the faction instead of that being more money 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 14:03
|
|
|
Give me the drat victoria 3 already
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 16:03
|
|
|
ThatBasqueGuy posted:Give me the drat victoria 3 already That'll require a 27.99€ Subscription with a Premium (tm) deluxe edition, only 19.99 US$ extra.* *Only valid in certain regions, terms and conditions apply, gently caress you!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 16:08
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:Will EU5 be subscription only? YF-23 posted:Imagine if EU4 released with this model. Would you pay 4EU/mo for Conquest of Paradise only? Would Paradox maintain the same pricing as more expansions are added? Surely they couldn't charge the same for just CoP as they would with every expansion from CoP to Dharma. And by the time you get to this point of the development cycle EU4 with the DLC subscription vs EU4 without the DLC subscription runs into largely the same problems as the typical DLC model; the base game feels bare, and the game with the DLC feels bloated. A new player getting into EU4 now might not have to pay 200 Euros to get all the DLC, but they'll still be hopelessly lost in a sea of DLC mechanics as they learn how to play the game. For a subscription model to make sense the nature of the development cycle and the content cycle would have to change radically.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 16:12
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:They said that the subscription would be an alternate method and you could still just buy DLC. i think their point here is whatever price the sub is at for eu4, will be for quite a lot of dlc at this point. when eu5 eventually comes out, if they do the same model for dlc and put it on a sub, would whatever you pay for all the eu4 dlc still seem acceptable once you are paying for the equivilant of eu4s first dlc and nothing else? and iirc theyve only said its alternate for eu4, theres not been confirmation for future games.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 16:15
|
|
|
At one point, CoP was the only DLC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 16:17
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:They said that the subscription would be an alternate method and you could still just buy DLC. AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:What are you even going on about here? The whole idea of a subscription is you pay a static X/month or whatever to get the game at its best state. EVE: Online and other subscription based games do not change the cost of a player's subscription after the developer releases a patch/DLC/Expansion and it would make no sense to ever do so. No one offers a lesser version of their game for less subscription price per month, either, because that would mean alternate code bases or at least a ton of extra work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 17:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 18:28 |
|
|
YF-23 posted:having the same sub cost for 1 piece of DLC and 20 pieces of DLC uh isn't that exactly how it would work? you pay the same sub price the whole time and get regular updates.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 17:14
|
|
