Quoting: EhvisI don't entirely agree with you here. When I see something like Stellaris having a DLC list that totals 7 times the price of the game, I just don't believe that what they added is worth that much. It just seems that they abuse the DLC method to try and sell content for an inflated price. Which may not be the traditional cash-grab, but it's still related.

They price the base game, which is the entry point, relatively low so that:
1) upfront cost to get started isn't too high, you don't need to put a lot of money before you even know if you'll like it.
2) most of the cost is optional, only the most hardcore completionists will pay the full cost, most people will pay a lot less. I am a super fan of the game but even so I don't have all the stuff.
3) more casual players can get great cost-benefit with the base game (which improves constantly with free updates), while people that really love the game can pay for content that for them is worth a lot because they put hundreds or thousands of hours into the game.

As for "inflated price", for any game DLC has a higher margin than the base game - meaning the same amount of "content" or "work" sells for a higher price. It is unavoidable, because by definition it will only sell a fraction of the copies of the base game, and naturally it won't re-make all the basics (that would be dumb, more work but not more value). The point is that for many people, improving the game they like is better than buying a new game they like less.

I think that big strategy games are a very natural fit for additional content, because you play many matches from start to end - so you don't have to replay the entire story or redo some puzzles, but it can still work together with stuff from the old game instead of being a separate story or something. Plus they benefit from complexity, are mostly singleplayer so no pay to win issues, they have a long learning curve and good replayability so you stick with the same game for quite a while...

Paradox keep adding DLC because they keep working on the game for years, and we can see it as it happens. It is not like they are holding content back (day-0 DLC) or making a game without enough content - their games are huge and they keep even reworking the basics. Not that their DLC is always good, much less worth its price... but they are upfront and honest about what they are doing, and it does not usually detract from the (cheap and excellent) base game. I'll take Paradox' DLC over microtransactions that make the game worse to try and manipulate me into paying.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Wow, I admit that it looks like a terrible launch but taking all of one week to throw it all away is shocking. AAA development is wild.

I'll say that I hadn't noticed the game was out (was thinking maybe next year or something), and I was looking forward to it. Well, more like curious than "anxiously waiting", but I am quite dedicated in following tactical games, Paradox and HBS, so missing a release like that looks like a big marketing fail.

People seem to be complaining of technical problems with the game (bugs, performance issues). Combined with not a lot of marketing and with the mass firings, to me it speaks of very troubled development. I'd guess that the bad release was less of a surprise to Paradox than it was a last chance that HBS didn't hit.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I really liked this coverage of events: https://hard-drive.net/hd/video-games/ceo-who-only-had-bad-ideas-totally-leaving-company-of-his-own-volition/

The Hard Drive is supposedly a satire site, but boy does it sometimes give the most accurate version of things.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: WorMzyGenuinely disappointed with this one. Do they go into any detail anywhere about why they're not doing a Linux release?

3rd party studios under Paradox as the publisher almost never do Native Linux. Quite different to Paradox Development Studios, so this is actually pretty normal. They also publish games from Iceflake Studios, Triumph Studios, Romero Games, Squeaky Wheel Studio Inc and so on all that don't do Native Linux.

Yeah, but still--they start from a base that supports native Linux; seems like it must have almost taken deliberate effort to make it stop working.

Yeah, I wouldn't say it took effort but it certainly took a "we don't want it, not even for free" attitude. But it was almost certainly up to the dev studio whether to do it, and unlike PDS it is quite possible they would have that attitude. And Paradox Interactive (the publisher) already made it clear they don't care either way.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I can already see it, the beginning of their line of gaming bath toys: the Steam Duck!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Ah, stardew valley pokemon ghibli mashup, sounds lovely. :P

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: anewsonI wonder at what point they made this decision... seems so strange to close up shop right after a good release. Maybe they didn't think the launch was as successful as it needed to be? or maybe they decided to close up a long time ago but wanted to push out this last game. I also wonder if it's related to them self-publishing instead of using the ill-fated Daedalic (of Gollum fame)

Well, if they were going to close up, then after a release is the only time - because the alternative is starting something new and spending several years on it...

I assume it was not a decision made quickly either, so it wasn't about the commercial success of the latest game that just released. Maybe about the development of it, regardless of success, or maybe it has been going for longer still.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Damn it, what a shame. I would really have expected that their commercial success, coupled with independence and all, would make them more sustainable on the long term. Seems like they were still pushing themselves too hard to get those big games out... gamedev is truly a hellish industry. I hope all the workers can have better luck in other, presumably smaller, projects.

Quoting: scaineThat's a massive shame. I admit that I've had Shadow Tactics on my wishlist for years now. I like the sound of the gameplay, but don't really like the setting (ancient Japan, or whatever). And I swear I'm not making this up, but I honestly can't stand Wild West themed stuff either. If Red Dead Redemption isn't going to break that dislike, I guess Desperados was on a beating to nothing.

Give me fantasy or sci-fi any day.

Yeah same, the previous games didn't really pick my interest - the new one, with lots of undead pirates, was looking more interesting.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I believe that the only way to obtain data ethically from software is to not automate it. Users should always be aware and explicitly choose what they share. Thus, if you want usage data, make it as easy and convenient as possible for people to go and answer a survey or post their reports, and encourage them (the simple goodwill of FOSS users posting bug reports and contributing solutions is a great example or "encouragement"). Anything the user can't measure and understand himself should not be shared, as they can't evaluate what sharing that data would mean. Yes, all this means a lot less data and a self-selected sample, and I think that is unavoidable. Simply put: asking for a blank check from users is objectionable even if you don't plan to do anything wrong with it. You should not even ask people for that much trust.

Now, if it is opt-in I don't care as much. The status quo is so bad in various respects that I'm willing to settle for this compromise (even though I still think it is far from ideal)... especially for FOSS projects, where we have more transparency and more assurances. In particular, it is more likely that the interests of users and devs align. When you give data to a proprietary developer to "improve the software", their idea of improvement is likely to be ways to manipulate you and squeeze more money out of you; it is not in your best interest to give them whatever data they want, because your goals are not necessarily theirs.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: RaabenI wonder how some companies cared enough to go for making a port in the first place but at the same time not care to try and keep them remotely in sync, especially for multiplayer. You'd think they'd want to keep a third party porting studio close and in the loop for releases but then again, I spend my day stuck in IT at BigCorp so out of touch things like that shouldn't be surprising.

Eh, the equation is pretty easy. They are more than breaking even from the ports, so they have no reason to not do it. But they value it so, so much less than the Windows version that they aren't willing to make the tiniest change to their process to help the port.

This could be rational, as in "it would cost us more to spend dev time on it than the net value of the port". But most likely there is some big manager that just can't be arsed to do anything else, and the only reason he even allows the port is because he doesn't have to move a finger, just let the contractors do their thing and get paid. (Or something equivalent - a sales department that isn't willing to compromise on dates, some bureaucratic requirement mandated from above, a legal team that doesn't sign the correct papers on time, a company policy. Someone that isn't willing to let things change, and doesn't care about this weird port for a couple of people.)

View this comment - View article - View full comments