Is it going to be published by Paradox Interactive?

[JerekKruger]

You know, it doesn't have to be one extreme or the other. I am sure that cosmetic DLCs do indeed increase profits for the companies that use them, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do help ensure artists stay employed. The world isn't black and white: it would be a lot easier if it were, but it's not.

[Katarack21]

I guarantee you Paradox Interactive is *not* deciding it's DLC policy based on whether or not it's artists are able to remain working and getting paid. The idea that they are is literally ridiculous. That's a justification, period. It's not something that in any way explains or rationally applies to the industry-wide adaption of small cosmetic microtransactions/DLC's.

It's a business model. They teach it to people in classes. Restructuring companies that are hired to 'save' failing divisions literally push it as a method to increase profits.

I can't believe people seriously entertain the idea that this is some kind of warm-hearted plan from kind, benevolent global multinationals to make sure their harid-working employees get a paycheck when no major work is going on. That's not how it works; when there's no work going on, *you let go of the artists*. Hell, even Obsidian discussed this in the video about how they almost went bankrupt--when there's no work, you don't make work for your contracted employees, etc. You shift in-house employees to other projects and let go of your contracted labor. Eventually you start sending people home while you try to find projects for the company to work on. You protect the company, because if the company survives, it can eventually re-employ the people who have been let go.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Katarack21

[Wormerine]

You know, it doesn't have to be one extreme or the other. I am sure that cosmetic DLCs do indeed increase profits for the companies that use them, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do help ensure artists stay employed. The world isn't black and white: it would be a lot easier if it were, but it's not.

Obviously, those cometic DLCs are there to generate money with little workforce. Isn't there a time in late development, where no new art is created and the game is just rebalanced and polished? If they use this spare time (inbetween expansions, or release, or whatever) to create additional cosmetic items to sell I really don't have an issue with that. 

 

I don't care, if the publisher tempts me with extra (often skippable) content as long as the base product stands on its own. And for me Tyranny felt like a tight, complete experience. My biggest concert is that I might not feel like replaying it is enough times to experience all the new content, so I will wait a while and see if anything else comes out on a later date.

 

Price change is dodgy, though somehow it doesn't offend me as maybe it should... You buy the game for whatever it is worth for you. Yeah psychological trick of giving you a discount while it costs the same as it did before (from what I understand it is what they did? I learned about the problem from these forums) is dirty but doesn't really do anything for you if you purchased it already or if you are planning to purchase it, unlike annoying always online DRM, badly balancing games with microtransactions in mind, chopping games into bits and selling them in pieces etc.

 

If Obsidian doesn't want to, or can't afford, to spend time on marketing&distribution they need someone to pubish and I can't think of a better choice than Paradox. I would love to see CDProject Red take charge of all RPGs in the world, but I doubt they would be interested in publishing 3rd party games.

[JerekKruger]

I can see there's no convincing you Katarack, so I won't bother trying.

 

@Wormerine: with their grand strategy games Paradox has, I think, gone too far with their non-cosmetic DLC. Often these DLCs add new features to the game which, if you don't buy them, you don't have access to. This in itself isn't a problem per se, after all I don't think anyone would complain about the fact that people who didn't buy the White March expansions didn't get the extra content. The problem is that many of these extra features are still present in the game even if you don't buy the DLC but the player can't interact with them, and given these features often change the way the game plays this essentially means that a player who doesn't buy them is playing a now incomplete product. I think this is going too far.

 

I don't, however, see this as an issue if Paradox publish Deadfire, since Obsidian would be in charge of their own DLC policy. As far as I can tell, the only issue with Paradox publishing Deadfire is if they pull another price hike pre-sales.

[Katarack21]

I can see there's no convincing you Katarack, so I won't bother trying.

 

@Wormerine: with their grand strategy games Paradox has, I think, gone too far with their non-cosmetic DLC. Often these DLCs add new features to the game which, if you don't buy them, you don't have access to. This in itself isn't a problem per se, after all I don't think anyone would complain about the fact that people who didn't buy the White March expansions didn't get the extra content. The problem is that many of these extra features are still present in the game even if you don't buy the DLC but the player can't interact with them, and given these features often change the way the game plays this essentially means that a player who doesn't buy them is playing a now incomplete product. I think this is going too far.

 

I don't, however, see this as an issue if Paradox publish Deadfire, since Obsidian would be in charge of their own DLC policy. As far as I can tell, the only issue with Paradox publishing Deadfire is if they pull another price hike pre-sales.

You're language is inaccurate and reflects marketing lies, not reality. If these extra features are present in the base game but not accessible, then the DLC's don't "add new features to the game". The features are *already there*. They aren't added; they're just unlocked. Made accessible. Nothing is actually added in these DLC's; they make the game, lock features, and then unlock them for extra money.

 

That's why it pisses me off. They aren't adding value to the game; they're subtracting value from the game and then making you pay extra to get it back. This is a marketing strategy they developed recently to increase profits, not something that benefits you or is done to help anybody.

 

And yeah, Obsidian isn't at fault here. Obsidians DLC policy is *fantastic*; I got the DLC season pass addon for a reason. Paradox had a different deal with Tyranny, clearly, and are controlling the expansion and DLC for that game. Paradox is the problem; nothing negative that I've said here applies to Obsidian.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Katarack21

[Sakai]

You're language is inaccurate and reflects marketing lies, not reality. If these extra features are present in the base game but not accessible, then the DLC's don't "add new features to the game". The features are *already there*. They aren't added; they're just unlocked. Made accessible. Nothing is actually added in these DLC's; they make the game, lock features, and then unlock them for extra money.

 

Any features that are added in DLC's are not present in the base game. Locked or unlocked. The way Paradox DLC's work is with every update you get some of the features for free (mostly minor one and bug fixes and such), and the rest you have to pay for. So you are raging over a misunderstanding. Unless you're trying to suggest that they develop all the features for their DLC's before the actual release of the game and then cut most of them to sell later... Which would be quite the claim. 

 

from what I understand it is what they did?

 

Not really. They changed prices like a month or so ago. It had nothing to do with Steam sale. And recently they released a statement that they are going to change them back, but couldn't do it before the sale because the only way to do it at this point would be to take their games off Steam completely. 

Edited June 29, 2017 by Sakai

[Katarack21]

 

You're language is inaccurate and reflects marketing lies, not reality. If these extra features are present in the base game but not accessible, then the DLC's don't "add new features to the game". The features are *already there*. They aren't added; they're just unlocked. Made accessible. Nothing is actually added in these DLC's; they make the game, lock features, and then unlock them for extra money.

 

Any features that are added in DLC's are not present in the base game. Locked or unlocked. The way Paradox DLC's work is with every update you get some of the features for free (mostly minor one and bug fixes and such), and the rest you have to pay for. So you are raging over a misunderstanding. Unless you're trying to suggest that they develop all the features for their DLC's before the actual release of the game and then cut most of them to sell later... Which would be quite the claim.

 

No, what I'm claiming is exactly what I said: That they lock out features of the base game and then re-enable them for DLC content. This isn't new, by the way. Companies do this *all the time*. It's literally a prominent business model in the game industry. It shouldn't be a shocker that a game publication studio is doing this...literally tons of studios do this all the time. It's a common feature, a known quantity, a typical and normal thing within the video game industry...and one that I despise.

 

That's *not* how DLC's work. Not at all. They released an update, a DLC (as used colloquially to refer to relatively small packages of features and updates, separate from an expansion), and are working on an expansion. The update contains a bunch of unlocked features. That's fine. The DLC *ALSO* contains a bunch of unlocked features, but these are bigger features with more impact...and cost money. The *expansion* is all-new content.

 

Three separate releases, only one of which is a "DLC", and that DLC specifically contains features that already in the base game--some of which are simply being unlocked and some of which required minor completion (ie, a few lines of code to make it functional). Nothing is *ADDED* in that DLC. Things are only *ADDED* in the expansion, which is all-new content (IE, not in the base game). You do not get any of the features of the DLC for free; there is a completely separate free update which contains some "new" features.

Edited June 30, 2017 by Katarack21

[Sakai]

No, what I'm claiming is exactly what I said: That they lock out features of the base game and then re-enable them for DLC content. This isn't new, by the way. Companies do this *all the time*. It's literally a prominent business model in the game industry. It shouldn't be a shocker that a game publication studio is doing this...literally tons of studios do this all the time. It's a common feature, a known quantity, a typical and normal thing within the video game industry...and one that I despise.

 

That's *not* how DLC's work. Not at all. They released an update, a DLC (as used colloquially to refer to relatively small packages of features and updates, separate from an expansion), and are working on an expansion. The update contains a bunch of unlocked features. That's fine. The DLC *ALSO* contains a bunch of unlocked features, but these are bigger features with more impact...and cost money. The *expansion* is all-new content.

 

Three separate releases, only one of which is a "DLC", and that DLC specifically contains features that already in the base game--some of which are simply being unlocked and some of which required minor completion (ie, a few lines of code to make it functional). Nothing is *ADDED* in that DLC. Things are only *ADDED* in the expansion, which is all-new content (IE, not in the base game). You do not get any of the features of the DLC for free; there is a completely separate free update which contains some "new" features.

 

None of the features that Paradox DLC's add are in the base game before the release of said DLC. 

[JerekKruger]

@Katarack Europa Universalis 4 was released in 2013 and has had at least two non-cosmetic expansions this year so no, my language isn't inaccurate at all: these are features.

 

I am sure you'll claim that these features were secretly in the game all along, but if you do so you'd simply be demonstrating your ignorance of their games.

 

Is Paradox's DLC policy good? Not particularly. But they aren't as bad as the worst offenders in the industry and you do your cause* no good by acting like they do.

 

*A cause I share I might add.

[Archaven]

I hope Obsidian won't affiliate itself with Paradox. But wild guess they probably will go with Paradox again. 

[Katarack21]

 

No, what I'm claiming is exactly what I said: That they lock out features of the base game and then re-enable them for DLC content. This isn't new, by the way. Companies do this *all the time*. It's literally a prominent business model in the game industry. It shouldn't be a shocker that a game publication studio is doing this...literally tons of studios do this all the time. It's a common feature, a known quantity, a typical and normal thing within the video game industry...and one that I despise.

 

That's *not* how DLC's work. Not at all. They released an update, a DLC (as used colloquially to refer to relatively small packages of features and updates, separate from an expansion), and are working on an expansion. The update contains a bunch of unlocked features. That's fine. The DLC *ALSO* contains a bunch of unlocked features, but these are bigger features with more impact...and cost money. The *expansion* is all-new content.

 

Three separate releases, only one of which is a "DLC", and that DLC specifically contains features that already in the base game--some of which are simply being unlocked and some of which required minor completion (ie, a few lines of code to make it functional). Nothing is *ADDED* in that DLC. Things are only *ADDED* in the expansion, which is all-new content (IE, not in the base game). You do not get any of the features of the DLC for free; there is a completely separate free update which contains some "new" features.

 

None of the features that Paradox DLC's add are in the base game before the release of said DLC. 

 

That's simply not accurate. Maybe it used to be, but "Tales of the Tiers" specifically contains stuff that's already in the base game, but unlocked or "completed functionality".

[Katarack21]

@Katarack Europa Universalis 4 was released in 2013 and has had at least two non-cosmetic expansions this year so no, my language isn't inaccurate at all: these are features.

 

I am sure you'll claim that these features were secretly in the game all along, but if you do so you'd simply be demonstrating your ignorance of their games.

 

Is Paradox's DLC policy good? Not particularly. But they aren't as bad as the worst offenders in the industry and you do your cause* no good by acting like they do.

 

*A cause I share I might add.

No, I won't, because I don't know that game and you can't force me to have opinions just so you can make a false point. I'm talking about a Tyranny DLC. That's *all* I've talked about.

[Sakai]

No, I won't, because I don't know that game and you can't force me to have opinions just so you can make a false point. I'm talking about a Tyranny DLC. That's *all* I've talked about.

Do you have any proof of that? Because some files present in the base game means nothing by itself. They could've started develpmont on the feature before the release and couldn't finish it in time. In fact, i'm pretty sure that's probably what happened since to claim otherwise is just insane. But even if that was the case, how do you know that it's Paradox's fault and not Obsidians? You don't, you just do a whole lot of assuming. 

 

Yeah, so this whole rant was about a single piece of DLC, and you don't know anything else about Paradox... Good to know. 

[Katarack21]

 

No, I won't, because I don't know that game and you can't force me to have opinions just so you can make a false point. I'm talking about a Tyranny DLC. That's *all* I've talked about.

Do you have any proof of that? Because some files present in the base game means nothing by itself. They could've started develpmont on the feature before the release and couldn't finish it in time. In fact, i'm pretty sure that's probably what happened since to claim otherwise is just insane. But even if that was the case, how do you know that it's Paradox's fault and not Obsidians? You don't, you just do a whole lot of assuming. 

 

Yeah, so this whole rant was about a single piece of DLC, and you don't know anything else about Paradox... Good to know. 

 

Or, alternatively, this discussion was about a single piece of DLC and I'm not allowing other people to put statements about other games into my mouth.

[JerekKruger]

No, I won't, because I don't know that game and you can't force me to have opinions just so you can make a false point. I'm talking about a Tyranny DLC. That's *all* I've talked about.

 

You replied to my post which was specifically talking about DLC for Paradox's grand strategy games. It is not my fault if I imagined you were talking about the DLCs for those games. If you know nothing about those games, then don't reply to a post about DLC for them saying that my "language is inaccurate and reflects marketing lies, not reality."

[Katarack21]

 

No, I won't, because I don't know that game and you can't force me to have opinions just so you can make a false point. I'm talking about a Tyranny DLC. That's *all* I've talked about.

 

You replied to my post which was specifically talking about DLC for Paradox's grand strategy games. It is not my fault if I imagined you were talking about the DLCs for those games. If you know nothing about those games, then don't reply to a post about DLC for them saying that my "language is inaccurate and reflects marketing lies, not reality."

 

Yes, but your post wasn't about that specific game. I can talk about Paradox's DLC policies regardless of which branch of their games your discussing because their largely the same in broad strokes company-wide; I can't talk about any specific issues with any specific DLC that I haven't played.

 

What you did was talk about the DLC in broad terms so that I would respond, and then try to norrow into a specific game in order to force a statement into my mouth so you could refute it and make me look like an idiot. It doesn't work like that.

 

Even in one of your own posts at one point you said "The problem is that many of these extra features are still present in the game even if you don't buy the DLC but the player can't interact with them"...when talking about Paradox's strategy game DLC's.

[JerekKruger]

Yes, but your post wasn't about that specific game. I can talk about Paradox's DLC policies regardless of which branch of their games your discussing because their largely the same in broad strokes company-wide; I can't talk about any specific issues with any specific DLC that I haven't played.

 

Here is my post, quoted in full:

 

I can see there's no convincing you Katarack, so I won't bother trying.

 

@Wormerine: with their grand strategy games Paradox has, I think, gone too far with their non-cosmetic DLC. Often these DLCs add new features to the game which, if you don't buy them, you don't have access to. This in itself isn't a problem per se, after all I don't think anyone would complain about the fact that people who didn't buy the White March expansions didn't get the extra content. The problem is that many of these extra features are still present in the game even if you don't buy the DLC but the player can't interact with them, and given these features often change the way the game plays this essentially means that a player who doesn't buy them is playing a now incomplete product. I think this is going too far.

 

I don't, however, see this as an issue if Paradox publish Deadfire, since Obsidian would be in charge of their own DLC policy. As far as I can tell, the only issue with Paradox publishing Deadfire is if they pull another price hike pre-sales.

 

 

Notice that I said "with their grand strategy games": that means I am referring to their grand strategy games i.e. Crusader Kings 2, Europa Universalis 4 and Hearts of Iron 4. I am not referring to Tyranny, since it is not a grand strategy game, nor indeed any other games that Paradox has developed or published*.

 

Europa Universalis 4 is their most successful grand strategy game, and has the largest amount of DLC, hence why I used it as an example. It is, however, entirely representative of their DLC policy for all their current grand strategy games. You could switch anything I said about EU4 with CK2 or HoI4 and the statements would remain true.

 

What you did was talk about the DLC in broad terms so that I would respond, and then try to norrow into a specific game in order to force a statement into my mouth so you could refute it and make me look like an idiot. It doesn't work like that.

 

 

No I didn't. You'll notice the first line of my post, and the fact that the main contents of the post followed "@Wormerine": I wasn't addressing you at all. I have zero interest in making you look like an idiot.

 

As I stated above, I was specifically talking about their grand strategy games, of which EU4 is the biggest. You then claimed that my language was inaccurate and reflected marketing lies, which is demonstrably false when it comes to Paradox's grand strategy games. I pointed this out to you, with the example of EU4 (but both CK2 and HoI4 have similar examples) and you claimed you were talking about a Tyranny DLC, which might very well be the case but you were replying to my post which was about their grand strategy games.

 

Even in one of your own posts at one point you said "The problem is that many of these extra features are still present in the game even if you don't buy the DLC but the player can't interact with them"...when talking about Paradox's strategy game DLC's.

 

 

Yes, I know. I wasn't saying their policy was good. However these features are new features. They are present in the base game after the patch that goes with the DLC is released. They aren't features that were cut from the original product during development.

 

Anyway, feel free to reply, but don't expect a response. I don't see any purpose to further conversation with you on this topic.

 

*Technically I could be referring to their older grand strategy games, but those all came out before the age of DLC.

[Katarack21]

 

Yes, but your post wasn't about that specific game. I can talk about Paradox's DLC policies regardless of which branch of their games your discussing because their largely the same in broad strokes company-wide; I can't talk about any specific issues with any specific DLC that I haven't played.

 

Here is my post, quoted in full:

 

I can see there's no convincing you Katarack, so I won't bother trying.

 

@Wormerine: with their grand strategy games Paradox has, I think, gone too far with their non-cosmetic DLC. Often these DLCs add new features to the game which, if you don't buy them, you don't have access to. This in itself isn't a problem per se, after all I don't think anyone would complain about the fact that people who didn't buy the White March expansions didn't get the extra content. The problem is that many of these extra features are still present in the game even if you don't buy the DLC but the player can't interact with them, and given these features often change the way the game plays this essentially means that a player who doesn't buy them is playing a now incomplete product. I think this is going too far.

 

I don't, however, see this as an issue if Paradox publish Deadfire, since Obsidian would be in charge of their own DLC policy. As far as I can tell, the only issue with Paradox publishing Deadfire is if they pull another price hike pre-sales.

 

 

Notice that I said "with their grand strategy games": that means I am referring to their grand strategy games i.e. Crusader Kings 2, Europa Universalis 4 and Hearts of Iron 4. I am not referring to Tyranny, since it is not a grand strategy game, nor indeed any other games that Paradox has developed or published*.

 

Europa Universalis 4 is their most successful grand strategy game, and has the largest amount of DLC, hence why I used it as an example. It is, however, entirely representative of their DLC policy for all their current grand strategy games. You could switch anything I said about EU4 with CK2 or HoI4 and the statements would remain true.

 

What you did was talk about the DLC in broad terms so that I would respond, and then try to norrow into a specific game in order to force a statement into my mouth so you could refute it and make me look like an idiot. It doesn't work like that.

 

 

No I didn't. You'll notice the first line of my post, and the fact that the main contents of the post followed "@Wormerine": I wasn't addressing you at all. I have zero interest in making you look like an idiot.

 

As I stated above, I was specifically talking about their grand strategy games, of which EU4 is the biggest. You then claimed that my language was inaccurate and reflected marketing lies, which is demonstrably false when it comes to Paradox's grand strategy games. I pointed this out to you, with the example of EU4 (but both CK2 and HoI4 have similar examples) and you claimed you were talking about a Tyranny DLC, which might very well be the case but you were replying to my post which was about their grand strategy games.

 

Even in one of your own posts at one point you said "The problem is that many of these extra features are still present in the game even if you don't buy the DLC but the player can't interact with them"...when talking about Paradox's strategy game DLC's.

 

 

Yes, I know. I wasn't saying their policy was good. However these features are new features. They are present in the base game after the patch that goes with the DLC is released. They aren't features that were cut from the original product during development.

 

Anyway, feel free to reply, but don't expect a response. I don't see any purpose to further conversation with you on this topic.

 

*Technically I could be referring to their older grand strategy games, but those all came out before the age of DLC.

 

 

Talking about "their grand strategy games..." and talking about "Europa Universalis 4" are not interchangeable...one is very general and broad category, one is a specific game with it's own very specific issues. You can't generalize between the two. I can discuss Paradox's DLC's all I want; I won't discuss the specifics of a game I haven't played. This is called "not talking about **** I don't know". It's pretty basic. You should try it.

 

 

"The problem is that many of these extra features are still present in the game even if you don't buy the DLC but the player can't interact with them"

 

"However these features are new features. They are present in the base game after the patch that goes with the DLC is released."

 

Those two statements directly contradict each other. Either they are there in the base game regardless of whether you buy the DLC but not accessible, or they are added when you by the DLC. It literally *can't* be both. It is either already there, or it is not already there. It's present, or it is not present and get's added. It definitively, objectively, *literally* cannot be both.

[Lotti Fuehrscheim]

"The problem is that many of these extra features are still present in the game even if you don't buy the DLC but the player can't interact with them"

 

"However these features are new features. They are present in the base game after the patch that goes with the DLC is released."

 

Those two statements directly contradict each other. Either they are there in the base game regardless of whether you buy the DLC but not accessible, or they are added when you by the DLC. It literally *can't* be both. It is either already there, or it is not already there. It's present, or it is not present and get's added. It definitively, objectively, *literally* cannot be both.

Usually a DLC is accompanied by a general patch that adds the DLC features to the code, while the DLC purchase unlocks the content.

 

This has the very large advantage that there is only one code base for all DLC combinations.

 

So the base game before the new release doesn't contain the new features, after the release it does, but is not activated.

 

You shouldn't be so certain in your assertions when you don't know how it works. That doesn't give a smart impression.

 

Edited July 2, 2017 by Lotti Fuehrscheim

[kierun]

 

…

[Katarack21]

 

"The problem is that many of these extra features are still present in the game even if you don't buy the DLC but the player can't interact with them"

 

"However these features are new features. They are present in the base game after the patch that goes with the DLC is released."

 

Those two statements directly contradict each other. Either they are there in the base game regardless of whether you buy the DLC but not accessible, or they are added when you by the DLC. It literally *can't* be both. It is either already there, or it is not already there. It's present, or it is not present and get's added. It definitively, objectively, *literally* cannot be both.

Usually a DLC is accompanied by a general patch that adds the DLC features to the code, while the DLC purchase unlocks the content.

 

This has the very large advantage that there is only one code base for all DLC combinations.

 

So the base game before the new release doesn't contain the new features, after the release it does, but is not activated.

 

You shouldn't be so certain in your assertions when you don't know how it works. That doesn't give a smart impression.

 

 

That literally does not impact anything that I said in any way at all. You shouldn't be such a pretentious snob when nothing you say impacts the debate. It's completely immaterial.

 

The base game contains the features which are simply being unlocked. The DLC doesn't add anything, neither does the update. It's all features that are already in the game. So despite already knowing how DLC's work, it doesn't change the fact that *none of the DLC's add new content because this DLC doesn't involve any new content*. Only the expansion is adding new content. That being the case, you pointing out how DLC's operate is pretty meaningless. It's like explaining how gas engines operate to explain fuel to somebody whose driving a diesel engine---good information but not applicable.

Edited August 5, 2017 by Katarack21

[JerekKruger]

We get it Katarack, you hate DLC, did you really need to bring this thread back after a month of inactivity to tell us this again?

[Quillon]

So apparently Obs won't participate in gamescom according to rpgwatch. Which is disappointing as well as a sign that european based Pdx won't publish the game, I think.

[Katarack21]

We get it Katarack, you hate DLC, did you really need to bring this thread back after a month of inactivity to tell us this again?

That's what we call a "strawman". I never said I hate DLC; I said I hate certain specific practices of companies.

 

And I didn't resurrect the thread, keirun posted on Jul 2nd, and a few people have "liked" my comments over the last couple days. I saw it at the top of the page, is all. Then clicked my notifications, clicked into the thread to see what had happened, and saw the response to me which I hadn't noticed at the time. All I did was respond to something that had been said to me directly and which I hadn't noticed until the thread was brought back. And I did so with a substantive post making actual points; it was a legitimate response to a statement made directly to me.

 

There's nobody here forcing you to care, to respond, to make statements, or to interact with the thread at all. If you don't like it, don't care about it, or otherwise aren't engaged in it, there's a really simple solution: don't post.

 

It's really easy. There's dozens of threads I don't read and don't post in. Give it a try.

Edited August 5, 2017 by Katarack21

[daven]

Angriest guy ever!