|
YF-23 posted:My point is that a development cycle for a future release that uses a subscription model from the beginning would have to be different from what we've already seen because having the same sub cost for 1 piece of DLC and 20 pieces of DLC is asinine. Like PittTheElder and someone else pointed out, that if you were paying $5/month for EU4 over its whole entire lifecycle, you will have paid the exact same amount as if you had paid full price for all of the DLC, so the idea is that if you sub to a brand-spanking-new EU4/Vicky3/whatever, you're paying the sub for them to continue to provide you regular updates.
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 17:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 02:54 |
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I disagree that it is asinine because thats what you get subbing to a game that is new compared to a game that is old. The whole reason they are thinking of this/trying this is because the barrier to entering EU4 is so staggering that many people do not bother (despite common sales on things like Humble Bundle that make the whole shebang (95% of the shebang?) cost less than the standing price of the base game), so being able to subscribe to it for $8/month to play the full game would let them get some money for people playing the game, rather than no money because they never touch it. If they like it/want to play it more, they would continue to pay the subscription and if not, they arent nearly as put off by spending a ton of money on a game that they did not end up liking. i dont think that last part is true. £5 a month for 7 years is £420, but the empire bundle on steam at full price is half that, and from a quick google of a few of the oldest dlcs the non-sale price is still the same as the price they launched at.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 17:50
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:(despite common sales on things like Humble Bundle that make the whole shebang (95% of the shebang?) cost less than the standing price of the base game) https://store.steampowered.com/bundle/3095/Europa_Universalis_IV_Collection/
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 18:04
|
|
|
Stux posted:i dont think that last part is true. £5 a month for 7 years is £420, but the empire bundle on steam at full price is half that, and from a quick google of a few of the oldest dlcs the non-sale price is still the same as the price they launched at. AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:you will have paid the exact same amount as if you had paid full price for all of the DLC Fintilgin posted:Thinking about pricing, I bought all EUIV DLC on release, which according to Steam is $40 for base game and around another $340 for DLC, so $380 on EUIV. Yikes! Stux you're the same guy that bitched at someone else in another thread to learn to read so you should listen to your own advice there buddy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 18:48
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Okay but: but i literally just went and looked at the prices. all the dlc is at full launch price still when its not on sale, i went back and looked up old reviews and stuff to double check it. the cost for it all is £201.74. £5 a month for 7 years is £420. i... i dont know really what else to say? edit: this is not logged in, on the browser page, so its not the price for me to get the rest (which would be like £10 cos i dont have rome and brittania iirc) 
Stux fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Jan 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 18:54
|
|
|
Stux posted:but i literally just went and looked at the prices. all the dlc is at full launch price still when its not on sale, i went back and looked up old reviews and stuff to double check it. the cost for it all is £201.74. £5 a month for 7 years is £420. i... i dont know really what else to say?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 19:11
|
|
|
Hopefully this teaches you all to develop class consciousness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 19:22
|
|
|
Presumably subscribing would include not paying full price for the base game? Otherwise there's no way in hell anyone would choose that for a brand new title.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 19:24
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Huh, yeah, you're right, I just looked at it not logged in, too. I guess Fintilgin's math was off. Thats what I get for trying to get a dig in on you, sorry. oh i guess they mightve been including all the other stuff, like the cosmetic packs? that would probably explain it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 19:25
|
|
|
I like the idea of a subscription for all paradox games - maybe it could be tiered so you could have all games in their current state for $15/mo, all games a year behind for $10/month, and all games 18 months behind for $5/month. I am suspicious of subscriptions though because they exploit psychological blind spots to take more money from people than they would normally agree to, so there would have to be good value in a subscription for me to support it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 19:40
|
|
|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:
This is exactly the reason they are moving in this direction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 19:46
|
|
|
A subscription price should somehow include the fact that many players play the game on and off. There have been years that I didn't play EU IV, followed by months of intensive play. So if I would have subscribed only for the months that I actually played, their per month fee would need to be rather high to get the same revenue as for my full purchase. I assume this is similar for the majority of players. Paradox stated on their forum that subscription is not meant for the full fans that keep playing the game; they would be better off just buying everything. Which is logical: if a permanent subscription would be attractive for the continuous player, it would be far too cheap for the less regular player. So I wouldn't expect a subscription to be only a few quid per month. That way they won't make enough money, because the market for their complex games is limited to nerds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 19:46
|
|
|
Are there any other companies that make paradox type games? I suspect the people predicting the subscription will be a rip off are correct - this combined with the thrust into garbage bin f2p mobile gaming has me concerned.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 19:58
|
|
|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:Are there any other companies that make paradox type games? I suspect the people predicting the subscription will be a rip off are correct - this combined with the thrust into garbage bin f2p mobile gaming has me concerned. there's matrix games but uhhhhh they make hoi3 look simple
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 20:00
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:there's matrix games but uhhhhh they make hoi3 look simple Matrix doesn't have anything that scratches the "Paradox-esque" grand strategy itch for me. Everything even resembling a Paradox game that they've published feels like a broken, incomplete, amateur mess in comparison. Granted, I have not tried Field of Glory: Empires yet, but that would probably be the only title in their catalog that comes close. Battlegoat *almost* got there with their Supreme Ruler series. The underpinnings of a good grand strategy title are there, they just forgot to make it fun. Paradox more or less has the monopoly on this particular niche of games, for better or worse. Kibbles n Shits fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Jan 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 20:14
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:there's matrix games but uhhhhh they make hoi3 look simple Matrix has a few games similar to EUIV but none are on par, or even close, to the quality. Matrix is also just a publisher, for example AGEOD makes the Thirty Years War and Wars of Succession. WarfareSims makes CMO. They've got a few winners, CMO, WitX, Distant Worlds. But I'd much rather play Imperator over Alea Jacta Est or EUIV over Thirty Years War. Even the wonky niche games like Revolution Under Siege (Post WW1 Russian Revolution) is a pile of hot turds when it could be really engaging.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 20:24
|
|
|
The more I think about it, the more keeping the current DLC setup makes sense but slowly decrease the price over 2 years, and then make it free/roll it into the base game after that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 20:54
|
|
|
Stux posted:oh i guess they mightve been including all the other stuff, like the cosmetic packs? that would probably explain it. I literally just took the max DLC price at the bottom, yeah, which was $340 for -everything-, plus $40 for the base game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 21:11
|
|
|
Lotti Fuehrscheim posted:A subscription price should somehow include the fact that many players play the game on and off. There have been years that I didn't play EU IV, followed by months of intensive play. I've played EU4 and CK2 in several year intervals, usually when there's a big sale like now, I'll scoop up all the DLC I missed, play intensely for a few months, and then quit. A subscription model would probably make more sense for me, and I might actually play more often, since I might actually dip whenever new content comes out instead of just when there's a big sale. The most important thing to me is that they need to move away from the modular DLC model. I think it's been a total mess, it restricts what they can actually do in DLC, and it encourages a bunch of really bad design decisions, like how they can't/won't build on or revisit exclusive features from old DLC, because they can't count on everyone having it (and because they're probably not gonna increase sales on old DLC after the fact!) These games have long development processes, and they need to make money somehow. I don't really care how, but my god they need to treat it like just one game in it's entirety in continuous development, instead of haphazardly bolting on a bunch of extraneous optional stuff
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 21:30
|
|
|
Depending on the price I'd be into a sub model just because while I kept up with ck2, EU4 released so much poo poo I just don't understand I'm so far behind that I'd pay 5$ to try out all the DLC, rather than the full priced game it'd cost if I bought it all on sale to get caught up. The problem becomes if they move to just a sub going forward, and that the sub should just cover paradox in general.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 21:40
|
|
|
super fart shooter posted:I've played EU4 and CK2 in several year intervals, usually when there's a big sale like now, I'll scoop up all the DLC I missed, play intensely for a few months, and then quit. A subscription model would probably make more sense for me, and I might actually play more often, since I might actually dip whenever new content comes out instead of just when there's a big sale. I agree this has been a big issue. I feel like rolling the DLC into the game 2 years in could fix this though while keeping the pricing structure the same. If you’re releasing a DLC twice a year, you can have 3 DLC’s in different areas and then revisit what you previously did. I’m also a fan of slowly lowering the price point. At launch make the DLC $20, 6 months later it’s $15, a year later it’s $10, 18 months later it’s $5, and 24 months later it becomes part of the base game. Without a sale a new player would come in and spend $40 base game and $30 for all but the newest dlc for a $70 outlay, and probably closer to $40 or $50 if they bought during a sale, which sounds about right based on my decade plus of playing paradox games.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 21:57
|
|
|
Kibbles n Shits posted:Granted, I have not tried Field of Glory: Empires yet, but that would probably be the only title in their catalog that comes close. Ageod also previously made Pride of Natiins - interesting but broken game about 1850-1918 era. It was turn-based like FoGE and very detailed. FoGE is actually great cause it's like Paradox but with a sense of moderation. You get 10 times fewer provinces than in Imperator and there are fewer stats and so on. But each number and province feel important, and in general it's very boardgamish. You still get a feeling of history happening.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 22:02
|
|
|
To be honest I expected better hot takes in here. It's an experiment, that is testing another pricing model for a very specific game, why would we apply that to a totally unrelated game that does not have the same amount of DLC? That seems very counter-productive to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 00:00
|
|
|
Declare yourself a consumer cooperative and offer stock with every base game, with free dlc for every % of stock you own cowards
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 00:08
|
|
|
cKnoor posted:To be honest I expected better hot takes in here. Yes, it's an experiment, which means its viability is tested for future products. Of course we are going to speculate as to its potential use in new releases.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 00:11
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:Declare yourself a consumer cooperative and offer stock with every base game, with free dlc for every % of stock you own cowards Give me your money, coward.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 00:22
|
|
|
considering the amount of labor word of mouth did to improve the popularity of grand strategy games paying us to post is the only logical next step for pdx
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 00:32
|
|
|
cKnoor posted:To be honest I expected better hot takes in here. this guy gets scam emails and clicks them thinking hes about to get free toyota corolla from a raffle he never entered
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 00:59
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:Yes, it's an experiment, which means its viability is tested for future products. Of course we are going to speculate as to its potential use in new releases. It's testing pricing structure for a very specific type of game product, you can't really apply that experiment on new releases, as the content available is different. There is some speculation that's totally valid based on the information. But a lot of people really worried about poo poo we already mentioned won't change, which is a bit frustrating. Agean90 posted:Declare yourself a consumer cooperative and offer stock with every base game, with free dlc for every % of stock you own cowards Stux posted:this guy gets scam emails and clicks them thinking hes about to get free toyota corolla from a raffle he never entered This is a very odd defense of real bad hot takes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 01:47
|
|
|
cKnoor posted:It's testing pricing structure for a very specific type of game product, you can't really apply that experiment on new releases, as the content available is different. There is some speculation that's totally valid based on the information. But a lot of people really worried about poo poo we already mentioned won't change, which is a bit frustrating. the idea that this is testing a pricing structure for this product alone and surely wont be used to inform how future paradox monetisation models are designed is a level of naivete that i find unbelievable and i think you might be a bad google ai gone rogue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 01:59
|
|
|
They might be trying this new DLC model, but Hearts of Iron 2 is expansion based so I'm sure future Hearts of Iron games will use expansions instead of DLC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 02:04
|
|
|
tbf hoi4's DLCs are pretty much just expansions
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 02:24
|
|
|
not really
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 02:41
|
|
|
I don't have nostalgic memories for the expansion model seen in EU3 and Vicky 2. I would like an improvement on the EU4 model but let's not go crazy here
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 02:45
|
|
|
i mean i dont think anyones saying that either, i think the idea of rolling up dlcs into the base game over time was probably the most favorably recieved way to change things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 02:48
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Presumably subscribing would include not paying full price for the base game? Otherwise there's no way in hell anyone would choose that for a brand new title. Uh, why would you be subbing to DLC for a recently launched game. tbh the sub thing sounds great. For years the only real option was either buy each DLC for $15-$20 at release, or get the $40ish Season Pass if you got lucky beforehand. Otherwise you very quickly reach a point where 2-3 years later you look and you suddenly need to spend $80 to catch up, not even counting cosmetic poo poo. I hit this recently while trying to get a friend into HoI4, where he watched me play, got really into it, bought the base game, and then balked at the $60 he'd have to spend on DLC to catch up. For people who play Paradox games endlessly, they'll be fine grabbing the DLC as it launches. For people like me, I'll be able to decide to play CK3 or whatever again 2-3 years after launch, come back and drop $5/$10/$15, play for a month or so, then go back to other things. Keep it reasonably priced ( ie $5/$10 tops ), and use it to push people to buy the DLC they actually like on sale and it's a generally good deal for Paradox and consumers. Like people keep saying "oh yeah but just grab all the DLC for sale for $20 on Humble" not realizing the DLC only hit that point because the game is getting retired and it wasn't a deal for 90% of the games life. Imagine if instead of the usual hop back in every year and spend $15-$20 catching up, you spent $10ish and got everything rather then just the cherrypicked DLCs you heard were great. And then 8-9 years from now you could just grab the Humble Bundle DLC bundle for $20 to get all the DLC permanently. You'll have spent more money over the games life, but not per time played. Per time played you'll have only spent enough for the sub.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 02:53
|
|
|
this assumes it wont just replace buying the dlcs at any point, that the pricing is favorable, and ignores that the more logical solution to their dlc pricing is to actually cut the prices on old dlc instead of still selling in 2020 art of war for £15 and freaking conquest of paradise for £10. its a solution for a problem that exists on purpose and they want to use as the "solution" because it makes more money than just rolling the freaking dlc that just puts in a random new world no one uses into the base game 6 years after it came out. the actual solution is to just make the cost of entry lower overall instead of every now and again if you catch a bundle. edit: cop is £5 ON SALE lol, thats the entire issue and the solution is that it probably should be under £1 or just in the game now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 02:59
|
|
|
cKnoor posted:It's testing pricing structure for a very specific type of game product, you can't really apply that experiment on new releases, as the content available is different. There is some speculation that's totally valid based on the information. But a lot of people really worried about poo poo we already mentioned won't change, which is a bit frustrating. stux is being all stux but this strikes me as incredibly naive, especially when you've got paradox execs hitting social media and replying to people who want it to apply to all of paradox's games with "oh, good idea, we'll have to think about that" i know you're speaking for yourself and not the company and posting on your own time and all that, but paradox's ceo doesn't get the same degree of slack. this is the kind of poo poo that doesn't stop until it gets paradox too much vocal pushback or stops being profitable, and games-as-a-service has been a creeping kudzu everywhere else
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 04:02
|
|
|
I feel like a subscription thing would end with having less content for more money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 04:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 02:54 |
|
|
appropriatemetaphor posted:I feel like a subscription thing would end with having less content for more money. That is almost always the main objective of tech companies moving to a subscription model.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 05:16
|
|
