Of course they will. Don’t they deserve to be paid for their work? They’re making a fairly niche product and constantly making improvements to it. What’s to complain about?
I always find this discussion interesting. I don’t personally tend to play Paradox games at all so I’ve no real horse in the race, but I don’t think there’s anything particularly wrong with the model. It’s designed around people being able to buy the specific parts they want, and those specific things having a good level of quality / depth to them.
Like, if you’re really into early 20th century Japanese architecture, would you rather have a single house thrown into a “kitchen sink” DLC pack that you can copy-paste over and over into your city with no options to customise or expand on that, or would you prefer an entire DLC dedicated to that style so you can build a full district or city in that style?
And conversely, if you’re not into early 20th century Japanese architecture, would you rather have a single house in that style thrown into your DLC pack that you don’t care about and won’t ever use, or would you prefer your DLC pack to contain things you are interested in?
Maybe the average consumer does look and think “wow, I really need to spend $404.40 to be able to play the game” and decide against it, I don’t know. But personally, if I see a game has DLCs like “specific niche cosmetic option pack #2” then I see them as not at all necessary, and figure I can play the base game first and just buy any additional packs I want later.
I do play Paradox games and I own most DLCs for Stellaris, I’ve spent way too much on it, and the DLC situation creates a barrier for me to get into the other games. I find it overwhelming and lose interest quickly, when there are plenty of other things I could be doing.
I agree in principle about the cosmetic options but the delivery leaves a lot to be desired
C:S1 is basically designed around most players not buying every DLC. You only buy the ones you want. Also, wait for a sale. $404 over the entire time the game has been out is also not that bad. Sure, buying it all at once it’s a lot, but the player buying every DLC has probably been playing since launch. Think of it as a subscription for new content. You can not subscribe and still get plenty of content (every DLC added stuff to vanilla for free), or you can pay the fee to get everything. If this is your genre, you want to give then money to keep making improvements. If they don’t make money you don’t get anything new.
I know, and I dont disagree necessarily but it still turns new players off
I’ve been on both sides. I’ve got most DLCs for Stellaris for example and sunk thousands of hours into it. But I missed the boat on CK2 and can’t be bothered dealing with the similar swathe of DLC ($358.76 at time of writing, for a game released 10 years ago)
I know you can pick and choose DLC but it is something I just can’t be arsed with, when I could just play something else instead.
I picked up I think literally every DLC for CK2 a few months before CK3 was announced. It’s was maybe $50. I think much less (although I already owned the base game and maybe a few DLCs). No one is expecting new players to purchase that at retail price. The sale price is the actual price for a new player. I don’t think it actually really scares anyone off. If you want a city builder, there’s only one option. You stick it on your wishlist for a sale and buy what you want.
$404 divided over 10 years is different than as a lump. But getting the whole bundle for 80% off because it’s been successfully developed for 10 years is value.
Of course they will. Don’t they deserve to be paid for their work? They’re making a fairly niche product and constantly making improvements to it. What’s to complain about?
Making games is always complicated. If you “release and forget” people complain. If you keep supporting a game for a decade people complain.
Currently on steam, the base game (c:s 1) with all DLC is $404.40
It discourages new players a lot
Edit: apparently downvote = disagree, for shame
I always find this discussion interesting. I don’t personally tend to play Paradox games at all so I’ve no real horse in the race, but I don’t think there’s anything particularly wrong with the model. It’s designed around people being able to buy the specific parts they want, and those specific things having a good level of quality / depth to them.
Like, if you’re really into early 20th century Japanese architecture, would you rather have a single house thrown into a “kitchen sink” DLC pack that you can copy-paste over and over into your city with no options to customise or expand on that, or would you prefer an entire DLC dedicated to that style so you can build a full district or city in that style?
And conversely, if you’re not into early 20th century Japanese architecture, would you rather have a single house in that style thrown into your DLC pack that you don’t care about and won’t ever use, or would you prefer your DLC pack to contain things you are interested in?
Maybe the average consumer does look and think “wow, I really need to spend $404.40 to be able to play the game” and decide against it, I don’t know. But personally, if I see a game has DLCs like “specific niche cosmetic option pack #2” then I see them as not at all necessary, and figure I can play the base game first and just buy any additional packs I want later.
I do play Paradox games and I own most DLCs for Stellaris, I’ve spent way too much on it, and the DLC situation creates a barrier for me to get into the other games. I find it overwhelming and lose interest quickly, when there are plenty of other things I could be doing.
I agree in principle about the cosmetic options but the delivery leaves a lot to be desired
C:S1 is basically designed around most players not buying every DLC. You only buy the ones you want. Also, wait for a sale. $404 over the entire time the game has been out is also not that bad. Sure, buying it all at once it’s a lot, but the player buying every DLC has probably been playing since launch. Think of it as a subscription for new content. You can not subscribe and still get plenty of content (every DLC added stuff to vanilla for free), or you can pay the fee to get everything. If this is your genre, you want to give then money to keep making improvements. If they don’t make money you don’t get anything new.
I know, and I dont disagree necessarily but it still turns new players off
I’ve been on both sides. I’ve got most DLCs for Stellaris for example and sunk thousands of hours into it. But I missed the boat on CK2 and can’t be bothered dealing with the similar swathe of DLC ($358.76 at time of writing, for a game released 10 years ago)
I know you can pick and choose DLC but it is something I just can’t be arsed with, when I could just play something else instead.
I picked up I think literally every DLC for CK2 a few months before CK3 was announced. It’s was maybe $50. I think much less (although I already owned the base game and maybe a few DLCs). No one is expecting new players to purchase that at retail price. The sale price is the actual price for a new player. I don’t think it actually really scares anyone off. If you want a city builder, there’s only one option. You stick it on your wishlist for a sale and buy what you want.
Buy only what you need at first and then go from there.
Also wait for sales.
$404 divided over 10 years is different than as a lump. But getting the whole bundle for 80% off because it’s been successfully developed for 10 years is value.
Absolutely you can wait for sales but that adds another barrier to entry
Did I say they don’t? Jeez. Paradox ain’t some guy in his basement, currently they employ 650 people and they are valued at around US$160-170 million
I even said obviously their strategy of infinite DLCs is working because they’re very successful.
Paradox is the publisher. The developers are Colossal Order with a total of 30 employees it seems.