Support NeoGAF

[eXistor]

The literally doubled the price here (€69,98). It's ridiculous. Was this even forshadowed or did it come out of the blue? I can understand maybe a 10 or 15% markup like they did with Minecraft, but this seems criminal.

/edit: steam price seems about the same actually, but on PSN it went from €35 to €70. Weird.

 

[Ascheroth]

They know that they will lose some from the herd but they are certain the big fat cows will not escape so they ll continue with their milking and offset this loss.

I keep reading their responses on their appropriate forum thread, they do not seem to feel anything.

I dunno about that. Summer sale will show if it works out or not.
I can say that an 'Overwhelmingly/Mostly Negative' rating in Steam Reviews is a huuuge red flag for me personally and I assume I'm not the only one.

 

[Rolf NB]

I find reviews based on price incredibly petty. If it's a good game, it's a good game. The price is prominent on the store anyway, so why does it have to factor into the review again?

Just like those doofus Amazon product reviews that talk about the seller, speed of shipping etc. Nobody reading a review cares about that shit.

 

[Eumi]

I find reviews based on price incredibly petty. If it's a good game, it's a good game. The price is prominent on the store anyway, so why does it have to factor into the review again?

Just like those doofus Amazon product reviews that talk about the seller, speed of shipping etc. Nobody reading a review cares about that shit.

Price is a part of the game. Trying to police exactly what parts a consumer can review seems kinda iffy.

 

[Aselith]

I think you guys are fucking crazy. Think of the number of hours of gaming your average paradox game provides and divide the price of all the dlc by it and I fucking dare you to find another game that comes even close to giving you that kind of value.

Stellaris is up there with skyrim for me already and it's only a year old.

This is a pretty dumb challenge in the era of free to play games. You have heard of games like Dota 2 which are entirely free and offer unlimited hours of gameplay right?

This makes no fucking sense. By that logic, all games should be free? Are you seriously positing that?

Dota is also a single map multiplayer game, not a rich, complex, single player strategy game.

Yeah, that's why you don't try to make those kinds of comparisons. Dota 2 has way more strategic depth than Stellaris tbh and offers way more value so by YOUR logic, all games should be free because the value is less than Dota 2.

That's obviously idiotic so let's just say that the value of the game is up to the individual and they will tell the company whether it's valuable or not by purchasing/not purchasing it or by leaving poor/positive reviews.

Companies charge what they think people will pay and consumers prove them wrong if need be.

If this is true then why have prices only increased? Shouldn't they decrease for poorer areas? Are they claiming they've been using the lowest price point up until now?

 

[m_dorian]

http://store.steampowered.com/bundle/3095/Europa_Universalis_IV_Collection/

EUIV Complete. 43 Items (Game + 6 expansions + units pack, events pack, music pack) on sale: € 121,09 from € 282,57.

I know there is a lot of content but still it feels expensive to me. I know that i can select what content i want to buy and i unserstand that very few DLCs can be deemed as necessary but that feels like i am not buying the complete game.
It almost feels like the game is broken to small pieces before it was sold. It just does not feel right.

 

[Not Drake]

Think of the number of hours of gaming your average paradox game provides and divide the price of all the dlc by it and I fucking dare you to find another game that comes even close to giving you that kind of value.

This makes no fucking sense. By that logic, all games should be free? Are you seriously positing that?

Why are you debating yourself? Calling people in this thread "fucking crazy" adds whole another level of hilarity to this.

 

[Rolf NB]

Price is a part of the game. Trying to police exactly what parts a consumer can review seems kinda iffy.

Game

10$

Review: it costs 10$


Who am I helping here exactly?

 

[Jimrpg]

The difference is that they jacked up prices on old games and the DLC policies with those prices are nuts. The way patches and expansions are rolled out of you want to play with the latter patches, which include bug fixes, you pretty much have to buy at least some of the DLCs.

Jacking up prices on old games is a bit nuts, but there isn't anything that says they can't do it, it's just not conventional wisdom or how past practice used to be. But it seems like Paradox has decided they've established some key games and obviously think they have more value than they did at launch. It's up to consumers to prove them wrong. But you just know that consumers are in it for themselves and if they can afford to pay it they don't care about the price increase. They'll probably even sound a little dismayed on web forums and such but they'll go buy the game anyway.

Ubi and Acti don't retroactively change their steam games prices IIRC.

True. But Paradox want what Ubi and Acti have been doing all along, going price parity or close to US dollar in all regions.

 

[Aselith]

Game

10$

Review: it costs 10$


Who am I helping here exactly?

People who want to know how much the game costs

 

[BaasRed]

Oh no. I'll have to check if my region's been effected. Raising prices now when I just got back into CK 2 is such a bummer. Even their reasoning is nonsense to me. Summer sales are gonna be a train wreck for them at this rate.

Edit: thankfully my region wasn't effected but man the price increases I read looked crazy.

 

[Red Arremer]

I've seen Stellaris on a bunch of sales. I got it for $12 with a bunch of other games in the last Humble Monthly Bundle, it was their showcase game for that month, so it wasn't like it was a surprise or anything. Seems like the last major DLC for it also added a bunch of features to the base game as well. Civ V vanilla vs Civ V with Gods and Kings are basically different games.

Stellaris' DLC isn't even remotely comparable to Civ 5's Gods & Kings. G&K added a whole slew of new mechanics, 2 of which were absolutely massive (Religion and Espionage) and additionally also added new civs, units, buildings, wonders, etc.

Meanwhile Utopia, although costing a little less (20€ to G&K's 30), added, if we're using Civ 5 terminology here, a couple of wonders, a few policy options, and a handful of additional options for handling population and civ traits.

Compared to Gods & Kings, Utopia's content is absolutely laughable.

I find reviews based on price incredibly petty. If it's a good game, it's a good game. The price is prominent on the store anyway, so why does it have to factor into the review again?

Just like those doofus Amazon product reviews that talk about the seller, speed of shipping etc. Nobody reading a review cares about that shit.

As I mentioned before in the thread, the Steam reviews are comparable to restaurant reviews on Yelp.
If the burger joint I just went to has good food, but the staff is rude and the burgers are insanely expensive, why is it "incredibly petty" if I mention that in my review and, in fact, judge the entire dining experience as opposed to just how delicious the burger is?

To roll it back into games - even if the game is fantastic, if the company behind it is utilizing extremely shitty practices and already charges outrageously much for very little substance, how is it "petty" to express that in a review?

I've played hundreds of hours of EU4, but with this recent change, and the continuing onslaught of extremely pricy DLC that doesn't add much substantial content (and if it does add substantial content, it's so substantial that you're basically forced to buy the DLC or get fucked) honestly makes me extremely reluctant to recommend the game.

 

[Red Arremer]

Double post, sorry.

 

[Budi]

I absolutely disagree. In this case they would give a new player a good headsup about Paradox's terrible DLC shenanigans.

The only bad thing about the whole debacle is that Obsidian is getting hit due to their Punlisher's shortsighted policies.

Yeah that's the thing, I feel that devs are taking a hit for this too. And you really aren't reviewing THE GAME when you put thumbs down for overpriced dlc. Those DLC:s have their own reviews, review them if you don't feel they aren't worth the price. Common sense is encouraged. Or are we saying that PoE isn't worth it's asking price without "overpriced" expansion?

"Paradox raised the price of their games to profit off the Steam Summer Sale. Do not support this practice." How is this helpful for me to know what kind of game I might be jumping into, it's from Pillars of Eternity reviews. The sudden price increase is something worth to criticize, but it's really dumb to pin it to the games that are actually great and deserve the praise they get. Just like I'm not blaming you for the price increase, why blame Obsidian? Silly right? People should come up with better ways to show their concern and criticism than spamming user reviews with pointless shit. And this goes beyond this current debacle.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Yeah that's the thing, I feel that devs are taking a hit for this too. And you really aren't reviewing THE GAME when you put thumbs down for overpriced dlc. Those DLC:s have their own reviews, review them if you don't feel they aren't worth the price. Common sense is encouraged. Or are we saying that PoE isn't worth it's asking price without "overpriced" expansion?

I can't speak for PoE, but one of the games affected by this rise, Victoria 2, is actually close to unplayable without both DLC. Even in their more modern games, changes to support DLC have sometimes lead to a reduction in what is available in the base game - e.g., the use of buildings in EU4, which effectively got paywalled post-release. So, given Paradox's current practice, it seems entirely fair that people are forewarned.

 

[Budi]

I can't speak for PoE, but one of the games affected by this rise, Victoria 2, is actually close to unplayable without both DLC. Even in their more modern games, changes to support DLC have sometimes lead to a reduction in what is available in the base game - e.g., the use of buildings in EU4, which effectively got paywalled post-release. So, given Paradox's current practice, it seems entirely fair that people are forewarned.

All right, then it's fair to review it negatively for lack of content ofcourse.

But this isn't what's widely happening. Should we start spamming negative reviews to games by any publisher that does something anti-consumer. Sony blocking crossplay, so all of their in house games deserve a negative review now, so people get their voices heard?

 

[Red Arremer]

All right, then it's fair to review it negatively for lack of content ofcourse. But this isn't what's widely happening. Should we start spamming negative reviews to games by any publisher that does something anti-consumer. Sony blocking crossplay, so all of their in house games deserve a negative review now, so people get their voices heard?

PoE and Tyranny got affected by the price hike as well though, which is why people are dropping negative reviews onto them.
Sony blocking cross-play doesn't affect all of the games they publish. And if Sony did something like inflating their prices up to nearly 100% in some regions, I'm sure they too would receive immense backlash from their community.

Does it suck for Obsidian? Yeah, but the game still is a package, and even if the software itself is great, the price and the publisher's practices are tied to it.

 

[Budi]

PoE and Tyranny got affected by the price hike as well though, which is why people are dropping negative reviews onto them.
Sony blocking cross-play doesn't affect all of the games they publish. And if Sony did something like inflating their prices up to nearly 100% in some regions, I'm sure they too would receive immense backlash from their community.

Does it suck for Obsidian? Yeah, but the game still is a package, and even if the software itself is great, the price and the publisher's practices are tied to it.

Sure, but what I'm trying to get across that there are ways to be heard without this kind of collateral damage. You are using game reviews that have more to do with the dev than the publisher as a platform to vent your frustration on price of a game. It's a hissy fit, not constructive feedback. I also doubt that most people would go back to adjust their review when/if the prices were lowered back.

 

[TheVoidDragon]

Yeah that's the thing, I feel that devs are taking a hit for this too. And you really aren't reviewing THE GAME when you put thumbs down for overpriced dlc. Those DLC:s have their own reviews, review them if you don't feel they aren't worth the price. Common sense is encouraged. Or are we saying that PoE isn't worth it's asking price without "overpriced" expansion?

"Paradox raised the price of their games to profit off the Steam Summer Sale. Do not support this practice." How is this helpful for me to know what kind of game I might be jumping into, it's from Pillars of Eternity reviews. The sudden price increase is something worth to criticize, but it's really dumb to pin it to the games that are actually great and deserve the praise they get. Just like I'm not blaming you for the price increase, why blame Obsidian? Silly right? People should come up with better ways to show their concern and criticism than spamming user reviews with pointless shit. And this goes beyond this current debacle.

It depends on if you consider reviews should just be "What do i think of the game itself?" or more "Do i think you should buy this?". With the latter than the price, business practices, update schedule/support frequency etc all factor into it as well, but with the former view than it's a much more limited view. A lot of people take the latter approach when it comes to reviews, which is what is going on here; people are giving the games poor reviews, because they don't think you should support a negative decision by buying the game.

They aren't blaming Obsidian by giving PoE negative reviews, that doesn't have anything to do with it. There are two parties involved with the game on Steam, like with all the others, so the feedback goes to both. The game deserves praise, but that doesn't mean people should just put up with a poor decision made by the publisher of the game because they don't want to say something bad about them in the one place meant for you putting your thoughts about a product as a whole including any relevant parties.

Negative reviews on all Paradox products is a way to draw attention to the issue in hopes that something will be done about it.

 

[Rei dos Vermes]

"The reason for this is to make our prices match the purchasing power of those areas".

What a load of BS. My purchasing power only decreased in the past few months. My country is amidst a political and economic crisis, where politicians rob the people blind and we have no hope for a better future. And yet, Paradox wants me to pay almost twice the price for their games. Unbelievable!

 

[Red Arremer]

Sure, but what I'm trying to get across that there are ways to be heard without this kind of collateral damage. You are using game reviews that have more to do with the dev than the publisher as a platform to vent your frustration on price of a game. It's a hissy fit, not constructive feedback. I also doubt that most people would go back to adjust their review when/if the prices were lowered back.

Are there really better platforms though?
It seems that Steam reviews at the very least are more likely to get the publisher's attention than forum threads or angry tweets.

Most people who post negative reviews based on some poor decision made by the publisher (or dev in some cases) will retract or alter them if and when that issue is addressed. Because the vast majority of people who review bomb a game whose publisher/dev fucks up are people who actively play it.
And if it isn't addressed, then I would argue that the judgment of the game based on the entire package that is offered is perfectly fair.

Because the question posed by the Steam review system is "Do you recommend this game?"
And if I post "No, I do not recommend this game because of the publisher's shitty marketing decisions", then that's just as valid of an argument against the game as a flaw that is inherent within the software. In this case, the flaw is in basically the delivery.

Again, to bring up the Yelp analogy: If I go to a restaurant, order food, and get told in the middle of my meal that the burger I ordered isn't going to cost 5$ any longer, but now costs 10$, and that also each french fry is going to cost 2$ extra, and the soda is another 10$ - would it really be "petty" or "unfair" if I post about this on Yelp and base my judgment of the service I received on it?

 

[Budi]

It depends on if you consider reviews should just be "What do i think of the game itself?" or more "Do i think you should buy this?". With the latter than the price, business practices, update schedule/support frequency etc all factor into it as well, but with the former view than it's a much more limited view. A lot of people take the latter approach when it comes to reviews, which is what is going on here; people are giving the games poor reviews, because they don't think you should support a negative decision by buying the game.

They aren't blaming Obsidian by giving PoE negative reviews, that doesn't have anything to do with it. There are two parties involved with the game on Steam, like with all the others, so the feedback goes to both. The game deserves praise, but that doesn't mean people should just put up with a poor decision made by the publisher of the game because they don't want to say something bad about them in the one place meant for you putting your thoughts about a product as a whole including any relevant parties.

Negative reviews on all Paradox products is a way to draw attention to the issue in hopes that something will be done about it.

Yeah I'm definitely in the camp of "what do I think about the game" when it comes to reviews. And I really hate any kind of user review that is "0/10 has progressive devs", "thumbs down too expensive for indie game" "4/10 has microtransactions", "2/10 I got disconnected" "not recommended, uses Uplay", "game is shit, I got bad loot" Those are not good reviews, they are knee-jerk reactions and ignoring most of the game and it's possible merits.

Are there really better platforms though?
It seems that Steam reviews at the very least are more likely to get the publisher's attention than forum threads or angry tweets.

Most people who post negative reviews based on some poor decision made by the publisher (or dev in some cases) will retract or alter them if and when that issue is addressed. If it isn't, then I would argue that the judgment of the game based on the entire package that is offered is perfectly fair.

Because the question posed by the Steam review system is "Do you recommend this game?"
And if I post "No, I do not recommend this game because of the publisher's shitty marketing decisions", then that's just as valid of an argument against the game as a flaw that is inherent within the software. In this case, the flaw is in basically the delivery.

Again, to bring up the Yelp analogy: If I go to a restaurant, order food, and get told in the middle of my meal that the burger I ordered isn't going to cost 5$ any longer, but now costs 10$, and that also each french fry is going to cost 2$ extra, and the soda is another 10$ - would it really be "petty" or "unfair" if I post about this on Yelp and base my judgment of the service I received on it?

Is this game worth of your time, is better question to ask when making a review of a game than is it worth your money. Since we all have our own limits what we are willing and able to spend, the prices are changing and there's the regional pricing too. The question is indeed do you recommend this game, not should you support the publisher.

And yes you are correct that this is an effective way for the publisher to take notice, but I still feel that people could raise concerns and give criticism more directly without putting a big weight on the developers and the games they created.

For your Yelp comparison, I guess you wouldn't go that restaurant next time if you feel their price is too much. But you still paid the lower price for your meal right? Like people have bought the games in question with the old price. Next time they are buying a game from the publisher, it will be more expensive sure. Nobody is being forced to pay more after they already ordered.

And apparently Bethesda has lowered their prices in Brazil to match with other pubs? I just recently heard about the pricing differences and didn't like it. But did people in Steam/metacritic user reviews make this change happen?

 

[Freeman76]

A game that was 5/10 full price, does it become 8/10 if its on sale at 80% off?

 

[Red Arremer]

Is this game worth of your time, is better question to ask when making a review of a game than is it worth your money. Since we all have our own limits what we are willing and able to spend, the prices are changing and there's the regional pricing too. The question is indeed do you recommend this game, not should you support the publisher.

I would argue that time and money both are equally as important factors when purchasing a game. Price definitely matters. Or would you buy an extra DLC character for 50$ as opposed to 5? I definitely wouldn't recommend a DLC character for 50$, but for 5$ I could see myself making an argument for it.

Assuming we follow your argument, and everyone is singing only praises for how amazing all the Paradox games are, never bringing up a single bad word about their awful DLC practices and pricing policies.
So what happens now? People buy the games and come to realize that they actually are in for quite a treat: Having to spend a LOT more money in order to get all the content, with there being the 2 extremes of DLCs either being extremely substantial and downright required to make the game playable, or not being of any substance but still extremely costly, and not only that, but that content might or might not become even more pricey due to "purchasing power adjustments", even if the content is several years old!!

How is this fair to customers? Do you really think these things do not matter at all when purchasing a game?

And yes you are correct that this is an effective way for the publisher to take notice, but I still feel that people could raise concerns and give criticism more directly without putting a big weight on the developers and the games they created.

Negative reviews impact a publisher's revenue.
Loss of revenue is the only language that publishers understand. Companies are not your buddies. And even if their response to your concerns as a customer is super friendly, your concerns will still land in the bin. Your actual input means nothing to a publisher, unless it's monetary input (or lack thereof).

The most damning thing about this situation is that mere weeks ago, Paradox held a questionnaire for a bunch of their userbase asking what their opinion on Paradox's pricing is. The vast majority said they thought the games and their DLC were too costly, and that they waited for sales before purchasing them.

And the result of that is that Paradox "adjusted their prices for purchasing power" a mere week before the Steam sale.

 

[Budi]

I would argue that time and money both are equally as important factors when purchasing a game. Price definitely matters. Or would you buy an extra DLC character for 50$ as opposed to 5? I definitely wouldn't recommend a DLC character for 50$, but for 5$ I could see myself making an argument for it.

Assuming we follow your argument, and everyone is singing only praises for how amazing all the Paradox games are, never bringing up a single bad word about their awful DLC practices and pricing policies.
So what happens now? People buy the games and come to realize that they actually are in for quite a treat: Having to spend a LOT more money in order to get all the content, with there being the 2 extremes of DLCs either being extremely substantial and downright required to make the game playable, or not being of any substance but still extremely costly, and not only that, but that content might or might not become even more pricey due to "purchasing power adjustments", even if the content is several years old!!

How is this fair to customers? Do you really think these things do not matter at all when purchasing a game?

All right, then it's fair to review it negatively for lack of content ofcourse.

Those DLC:s have their own reviews, review them if you don't feel they aren't worth the price

The bolded isn't what I've been saying.

No I wouldn't pay 50 bucks for DLC character. I wouldn't feel ripped off paying 60 bucks for PoE even though It's priced 45 here. It's the content of the game and how much you enjoy it that defines how much it's worth to you in money. There's no "game prices should be exactly like this, or otherwise it's wrong". And if the base game really is lacking in content in a way that it's clearly incomplete and unplayable, I'm pretty sure this has been brought up in the reviews even before the price increase? Should we give a pass to unfinished and broken games if they happen to be on the cheaper side?

Publishers aren't my friends, but developers aren't my enemies either. They aren't munching on cigars and counting stacks of hundred dollar bills.

 

[Tamanator]

There's a reason why I never buy a Paradox game unless it is on sale.

 

[texhnolyze]

Yeah I'm definitely in the camp of "what do I think about the game" when it comes to reviews. And I really hate any kind of user review that is "0/10 has progressive devs", "thumbs down too expensive for indie game" "4/10 has microtransactions", "2/10 I got disconnected" "not recommended, uses Uplay", "game is shit, I got bad loot" Those are not good reviews, they are knee-jerk reactions and ignoring most of the game and it's possible merits.

But this is the only way to give the message to the publisher that this kind of business practice is unacceptable. Why are you keep defending this? Would you be fine if other publishers see that this is acceptable and follow it for their games as well? Would you be fine if older games on Steam could get a price hike when they usually get a price drop instead? What's your benefit, as a customer, in this? Do you have a better idea to prevent that grim future?

 

[Budi]

But this is the only way to give the message to the publisher that this kind of business practice is unacceptable. Why are you keep defending this? Would you be fine if other publishers see that this is acceptable and follow it for their games as well? Would you be fine if older games on Steam could get a price hike when they usually get a price drop instead? What's your benefit, as a customer, in this? Do you have a better idea to prevent that grim future?

No I don't defend the price increase. I'm criticizing the fact that devs and their games are directly pulled into middle of this. Not a fan of the collateral damage. Did we have this kind of user review "campaign" to make Bethesda lower their pricing in Brazil for example, or did it happen without it? And it's up to the buyer in what price point they are feeling comfortable buying the game. Some people don't buy full priced games at all, doesn't mean the games are bad. Giving a negative review not based on the game's own merits is misleading the customer. Ofcourse it's clear very fast why the scores are so low if people check out those reviews more closely. But the average score doesn't reflect what people think about the game itself anymore.

(Atleast from the info in this thread, I assume Bethesda tuned their prices. Didn't find any news on it on a quick search.)

 

[Chairmanchuck]

ITT: Fuck you, got mine.

 

[Red Arremer]

The bolded isn't what I've been saying.

No I wouldn't pay 50 bucks for DLC character. I wouldn't feel ripped off paying 60 bucks for PoE even though It's priced 45 here. It's the content of the game and how much you enjoy it that defines how much it's worth to you in money. There's no "game prices should be exactly like this, or otherwise it's wrong".

And barely anyone would have complained had PoE come out for 60 bucks instead of 45.
How would you feel if you have wanted to purchase PoE for 45 units of your regional currency, and from one day to the next, it costs 90 units of your regional currency? How would you feel if you weren't very well off and couldn't afford 45 units spent on a video game and were waiting for a sale for it to go down to a price you could afford, but then mere days before the sale, the base price increases to 90 units?

And if the base game really is lacking in content in a way that it's clearly incomplete and unplayable, I'm pretty sure this has been brought up in the reviews even before the price increase? Should we give a pass to unfinished and broken games if they happen to be on the cheaper side?

Players of Paradox titles have been expressing their opinions and concerns about the games and the DLC practices for years now. You can see how far our twitter and forum posts got us - we got the exact opposite. That questionnaire was just the icing on the shitcake.
But many of us also realize that money doesn't print itself, especially when it comes to more niche genres such as grand strategy. We gave our money for DLCs and let them get away with comparably lackluster content in the DLC in exchange for them supporting the base game further.

But this relationship was grudging already and has begun to crack especially with the HoI4 and Stellaris DLCs, and the fact they increased the price for all of their stuff a week before the summer sale is the proverbial straw breaking the camel's back.

Paradox abused the standing and trust their fanbase had. With a few strokes in the last year or so, all the goodwill Paradox had has been gambled away for a couple more bucks out of DLCs.

Publishers aren't my friends, but developers aren't my enemies either. They aren't munching on cigars and counting stacks of hundred dollar bills.

And consumers aren't all stingy assholes who just want to shit on the devs' carpets and throw a tantrum because of there being a few cents in price change due to inflation, either. We're talking about price hikes that are about doubled here. For countries that definitely did not increase their "purchasing power".

Giving a negative review not based on the game's own merits is misleading the customer.

And giving a positive review without bringing up the shitty business model of the publisher is not misleading the customer?

 

[Budi]

And barely anyone would have complained had PoE come out for 60 bucks instead of 45.
How would you feel if you have wanted to purchase PoE for 45 units of your regional currency, and from one day to the next, it costs 90 units of your regional currency? How would you feel if you weren't very well off and couldn't afford 45 units spent on a video game and were waiting for a sale for it to go down to a price you could afford, but then mere days before the sale, the base price increases to 90 units?.

That would suck for me and probably would vote with my wallet and not buy it. I wouldn't go back and edit my reviews to be negative for earlier games I've bought.

Players of Paradox titles have been expressing their opinions and concerns about the games and the DLC practices for years now. You can see how far our twitter and forum posts got us - we got the exact opposite. That questionnaire was just the icing on the shitcake.
But many of us also realize that money doesn't print itself, especially when it comes to more niche genres such as grand strategy. We gave our money for DLCs and let them get away with comparably lackluster content in the DLC in exchange for them supporting the base game further.

I've never bought any additional DLC for Paradox games unless it was included in the package. I feel they are overpriced, but games tend to be great.

And consumers aren't all stingy assholes who just want to shit on the devs' carpets and throw a tantrum because of there being a few cents in price change due to inflation, either. We're talking about price hikes that are about doubled here. For countries that definitely did not increase their "purchasing power"

Consumers very often are assholes, not just stingy. But yes that's not what is happening here.

And giving a positive review without bringing up the shitty business model of the publisher is not misleading the customer?

By all means, bring that up in your review text. But is the business model all that the game offers, did this define your opinion on if you liked the game or not? The sudden and big increase in prices is fucked up, but is the game any good? I want people to criticize it, I just don't like how they are doing it.

 

[dh4niel]

I'm sure there was a Paradox games sale on Steam not so long ago. Publishers have be upping the price on games before a Steam Sale to make the discounts look more attractive for awhile now. I remember the uproar when Take Two did it for GTA V one year.

 

[Red Arremer]

That would suck for me and probably would vote with my wallet and not buy it. I wouldn't go back and edit my reviews to be negative for earlier games I've bought.

I've never bought any additional DLC for Paradox games unless it was included in the package. I feel they are overpriced, but games tend to be great.

Consumers very often are assholes, not just stingy. But yes that's not what is happening here.

By all means, bring that up in your review text. But is the business model all that the game offers, did this define your opinion on if you liked the game or not?

Of course the business model isn't all that the game offers, but if the business model becomes increasingly worse or outright changes the playing field, then yes. It's very possible that it will change my opinion of the game.

Take as an example Payday 2. Granted, this is not a game I personally played, but I observed the shitshow that happened with it. The game was released with the developer's promise to never have microtransactions, yet, a couple years and a big amount of DLC down the line, they introduced microtransactions, and it caused massive backlash, and rightfully so.

An example of a game that I personally played is Star Trek Online. I didn't mind paying a bit of money for cool ships or races to play in that game, but then STO started changing their business model and introduce gambling lootboxes that cost money to open. To make matters worse, whenever a lootbox event happened, the game just outright flooded your inventory with boxes. This caused me to quit the game. I never purchased anything ever again in STO.

You can enjoy a game a lot based on its merits and still change your opinion about it based on changes to the business model that the game receives. Sure, I might have gotten a lot of straight value out of it, but I would not recommend EU4 or Stellaris with an even more inflated price, when there's already a lot of cost involved for getting the full experience.

For me, whether I would recommend a game or not is not only based on if the game is good. A price creates a certain expectation. I definitely do not expect a 5$ game to have the same polish and quality as a 60$ AAA title, let alone a 150$ title.

I'm sure there was a Paradox games sale on Steam not so long ago. Publishers have be upping the price on games before a Steam Sale to make the discounts look more attractive for awhile now. I remember the uproar when Take Two did it for GTA V one year.

Just cause other publishers have done similar things doesn't make it any less scummy.

 

[ClosingADoor]

That is not how the market works...

When have you seen a new game go UP in retail price when it's like 5 years older? Games , like most massed produced goods, go down in value the older they get.

Would you expect games on gog.com, etc to sell for above their retail price when they were newly released???

But that is how the market works. Supply and demand and changing market situations have an impact on prices. We are just not used to it in games, for better or worse.

If the Canadian dollar loses a lot of value, then an European company like Paradox selling their games there is impacted by it. In about every other product this will be reflected in pricing over time. Not just for newly developed products, but also existing ones. Your food might get more expensive, your German imported car, lots of things.

As for the GOG question, that is a supply and demand thing. On the one hand you can have a lot of demand for the game, so the publisher might think: let's put it up for $40 and see if people buy it. Or the other way around even, if there is not enough demand but a small very dedicated community, a higher price might be justified to cover the costs of making it work on modern PCs for example.

If people are unhappy with a price increase, that is fair. But it is not some written rule that games can only go down in price the older they get.

I'm sure there was a Paradox games sale on Steam not so long ago. Publishers have be upping the price on games before a Steam Sale to make the discounts look more attractive for awhile now. I remember the uproar when Take Two did it for GTA V one year.

There is actually a weekend sale right this moment. -75% on EU4, -50% on HoI4.

 

[butzopower]

Stellaris' DLC isn't even remotely comparable to Civ 5's Gods & Kings. G&K added a whole slew of new mechanics, 2 of which were absolutely massive (Religion and Espionage) and additionally also added new civs, units, buildings, wonders, etc.

Meanwhile Utopia, although costing a little less (20€ to G&K's 30), added, if we're using Civ 5 terminology here, a couple of wonders, a few policy options, and a handful of additional options for handling population and civ traits.

Compared to Gods & Kings, Utopia's content is absolutely laughable.

Cool, so I won't buy it then. Kind of goes against the narrative that all the DLC is essential for a Paradox game.

My point was also that it seems like they back ported a lot of the Utopia features back to the base game (I've only just started playing Stellaris this week), which is more than I can say for Civ 5 (base game remains same without DLC).

 

[Red Arremer]

Cool, so I won't buy it then. Kind of goes against the narrative that all the DLC is essential for a Paradox game.

Never did anyone say all the DLC is essential (except for some games, like Vicky 2), but that there IS essential DLC. There's 2 extremes with Paradox content DLC. Either it's an essential expansion that has massive importance due to the changes in the base game (e.g. Common Sense in EU4), or it's extremely insubstantial (e.g. Utopia for Stellaris).

My point was also that it seems like they back ported a lot of the Utopia features back to the base game (I've only just started playing Stellaris this week), which is more than I can say for Civ 5 (base game remains same without DLC).

While fair enough, Civ 5 doesn't change the base game's mechanics so that it becomes virtually unplayable without certain DLCs, and additional content (free or paid) isn't also building further upon the substantial DLC mechanics, either. Brave New World, as in the expansion, not the patch coming with it, hasn't changed anything about Religion or Espionage as far as I remember

Spoiler

it's been a few years though so I may be wrong

.

If you play vanilla Civ 5, while you won't get the full experience, you also won't be completely gimped in your options and the mechanics aren't completely fucking you over because you simply don't have the DLC required to unlock aspects of those mechanics.

 

[Moff]

that is very disappointing, if my region has absurdly high prices I just buy on cdkeys.
if the prices are reasonable, meaning the same as everywhere in the world, I gladly buy directly from steam.

 

[butzopower]

If you play vanilla Civ 5, while you won't get the full experience, you also won't be completely gimped in your options and the mechanics aren't completely fucking you over because you simply don't have the DLC required to unlock aspects of those mechanics.

Ya, I think that's fair to say. I can see where you are coming from a bit, it is almost like by giving me 1/4th of the new features in the base game, they are giving me a carrot on the end of a stick to buy the DLC. Like, it's cool I have Slavery options... but now I really want the one that let's turn my slaves into livestock

Spoiler

what weird games we play...

 

[Red Arremer]

Ya, I think that's fair to say. I can see where you are coming from a bit, it is almost like by giving me 1/4th of the new features in the base game, they are giving me a carrot on the end of a stick to buy the DLC. Like, it's cool I have Slavery options... but now I really want the one that let's turn my slaves into livestock

Spoiler

what weird games we play...

Yeah, though that is still pretty minor.

I'll try to roll over what Common Sense did to EU4 onto what an equivalent in Civ 5 would look like.

Imagine that instead of regular tile yields, 2K introduced a free mechanic that would give your city tiles yield that depended on the quality of the tile.
So let's say that a desert tile always gives you 1 each food/hammer/gold, while a plains tile next to a river gives you 3 of each. And there's another new and free mechanic, where the game enacts global policies based on your tile quality. The better your tile yields, the more likely you are going to attract the policy getting enacted in your civ. And if your opponents have that policy, but you do not, you get a penalty to your tech cost.

Accompanying this mechanic and the patch adding it is a DLC that gives the player the option to put resources into improving the tile quality.

 

[Rolf NB]

People who want to know how much the game costs

Steam reviews are embedded near the bottom of the product page. How can you even get there while still missing the part of the page, further up, with color highlights, where the price is displayed?

 

[Megasoum]

Looking at the DLCs right now... What is the difference between Expansions and Content Packs are are the CP included into the more expensive Expansion packs?

 

[Basileus777]

Steam reviews are embedded near the bottom of the product page.

No they're not. It's right at the top and one of the most visible things on the page. A mixed or poor recent review score tells you that the community is having a strong reaction to the present state of development. It's useful information. And Paradox has long been flirting with this sort of response with how they monetize their games. They sell games as a service at a high premium price, and they finally crossed a line that has their fans in arms.

 

[-Amon-]

I'm ok with that.

If you increase the price of a given good without increasing it's quality, then it's value goes down, no ?

 

[Daffy Duck]

Yeah this is why I would never support them.

I was interested in EU4 but saw the amount of DLC etc and just clicked back, no thanks.

 

[reckless]

Looking at the DLCs right now... What is the difference between Expansions and Content Packs are are the CP included into the more expensive Expansion packs?

Content packs are just graphics and music. Expansion packs are the actual game play mechanics.Not included togther.

 

[Stiler]

But that is how the market works. Supply and demand and changing market situations have an impact on prices. We are just not used to it in games, for better or worse.

If the Canadian dollar loses a lot of value, then an European company like Paradox selling their games there is impacted by it. In about every other product this will be reflected in pricing over time. Not just for newly developed products, but also existing ones. Your food might get more expensive, your German imported car, lots of things.

As for the GOG question, that is a supply and demand thing. On the one hand you can have a lot of demand for the game, so the publisher might think: let's put it up for $40 and see if people buy it. Or the other way around even, if there is not enough demand but a small very dedicated community, a higher price might be justified to cover the costs of making it work on modern PCs for example.

If people are unhappy with a price increase, that is fair. But it is not some written rule that games can only go down in price the older they get.


There is actually a weekend sale right this moment. -75% on EU4, -50% on HoI4.

I understand how changing values of currencies and supply/demand affect things on say, physical goods.

1. This market refers to games specifically
2. Digital games have no supply issues (they are infinite).

My point is that isn't how the gaming market works, which you said yourself we aren't used to because publishers don't do that.

Name me one single game you've ever seen go from full retail price to 5 years later going ABOVE it's brand-new retail price? (not counting special/limited editions, but plain mass-produced digital games).

I have never heard of a game releasing at like 49.99 on steam, and then 5 years later that same base game getting it's price increased to like 79.99.

As games get older they decrease in value, that's how the [market works, just like in other markets if you buy an older product (aside from rarity ones) the price tends to devalue over time.

 

[Condom]

Why is Paradox confounding purchasing power and foreign currency value? I'm sure Brazil's purchasing power has not increased by 100% lmao. It's all well and good if you want to get the same USD profit from everyone in the world, but don't expect people from foreign markets to play ball when a game paid in USD equivalent is a much bigger part of their peycheck than your average american. That's why regional pricing exists.

Yeah it seems like the only purchasing power they are adjusting for is their own, namely to increase it.

 

[TheVoidDragon]

Why is Paradox confounding purchasing power and foreign currency value? I'm sure Brazil's purchasing power has not increased by 100% lmao. It's all well and good if you want to get the same USD profit from everyone in the world, but don't expect people from foreign markets to play ball when a game paid in USD equivalent is a much bigger part of their peycheck than your average american. That's why regional pricing exists.

The explanation just doesn't add up. It seems like "You have more purchasing power? Well you can afford to give us more then! You have less purchasing power? Well your currency is worth less than before so you're gonna have to give us more to make up for that!". It doesn't make sense, really.

 

[water_wendi]

i thought this was kind of overblown until i looked at the prices of these dlc and what content is included in them. This is like a hop skip and a jump away from that train simulator. i also had to laugh how Obsidian always gets caught up in publisher bullshit.

 

[ClosingADoor]

I understand how changing values of currencies and supply/demand affect things on say, physical goods.

1. This market refers to games specifically
2. Digital games have no supply issues (they are infinite).

My point is that isn't how the gaming market works, which you said yourself we aren't used to because publishers don't do that.

Name me one single game you've ever seen go from full retail price to 5 years later going ABOVE it's brand-new retail price? (not counting special/limited editions, but plain mass-produced digital games).

I have never heard of a game releasing at like 49.99 on steam, and then 5 years later that same base game getting it's price increased to like 79.99.

As games get older they decrease in value, that's how the [market works, just like in other markets if you buy an older product (aside from rarity ones) the price tends to devalue over time.

Why wouldn't changing exchange rates have an impact on digital goods? The product is bought in a certain currency, the one making it is using another currency. So the price can change.

Supply and demand mechanics doesn't mean that once the game is digital, the demand side is taken out of the equation. At that point the demand makes pretty clear if your price is at a level the market accepts or not. If people stop buying Paradox games, their price is above a level the market accepts and they'll need to decrease again.

Why does it matter if there are other examples? I said that it is logical changing exchange rates and market circumstances have an impact on pricing. You said that is not how the market works. But it does. As others pointed out, Apple has changed App Store pricing because of exchange rates, which is also a digital good.

Prices on older items decrease, because people rather buy something new. There is no rule that says: your game is X years old, it now has to be decreased in price. If people keep buying it, the price is fine.

Of course people might disagree with in increase in price, and I get they are not used to it. But my only point you replied to was how prices can change because of certain circumstances, which it has here - at least in Paradox' view.