Does this look familiar?

[Evie]

"I'm not asking for free content, I'm merely criticizing the free content we got for not being enough." is...a thing.

 

[InsidiousMage]

"I'm not asking for free content, I'm merely criticizing the free content we got for not being enough." is...a thing.

Yeah, sorry for not liking part of a game I'm playing being turned into ad for something I'm not interested in buying. Like, every time I host a fest I'm very consciously reminded that content is blocked off because I don't own a particular DLC. I would posit that is bad game design. Paradox can do free content well, court positions from Royal Court being a good example. You get some court positions even if you don't own the DLC but there also isn't a constant reminder that you are missing out on content. That is my problem and that problem is more prevalent with Paradox that it should be.

 

[Evie]

You're free to dislike it and to suggest ways the free part could be better, It's still in no way, form or shape Paradox shipping an incomplete game.

Which is what the conversation was about, before you tried to make it about freebies added in patches instead.

 

[InsidiousMage]

It's still in no way, form or shape Paradox shipping an incomplete game.

Which is what the conversation was about, before you tried to make it about freebies added in patches instead.

Just because a game ships complete doesn't mean it stays "complete." Like, that's the whole reason why Paradox started adding free content to the base game because of the constant complaints of "must have" DLC that people felt like they had to buy. But if a game adds a bunch of free mechanics to the game that feel half-baked because you don't have the DLC, I think its entirely reasonable to argue that you still don't have a "complete" game. The larger point is whether or not you "need" DLC to have a complete experience with a game, and poorly added free content still make it feel like you need the DLC.

 

[Evie]

A game's completeness is judged based on what you paid for: the game that was released.

Not on the stuff you get for free after and how you'd like it to be better,

Moving the goalposts of a complete game every time you get free content is entirely unreasonable.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

but there also isn't a constant reminder

There definitely is for EU4. Just one example, Morocco has a mission in their mission tree to gain 200 ducats from raiding. But you can't raid unless you have a certain DLC.

 

[Patine]

I think this form of marketting gets a boost by the horizontal market influence of things like MMO's, MPFPS's, and such, where you are actually blocked from entering new content zones and activities and keeping up with your friends if you don't buy the expansions and DLC's.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I think this form of marketting gets a boost by the horizontal market influence of things like MMO's, MPFPS's, and such, where you are actually blocked from entering new content zones and activities and keeping up with your friends if you don't buy the expansions and DLC's.

I certainly think that having an overt reminder in the game that you don't own a DLC or expansion is intentional. It wears you down until you give in and buy it.

 

[tedhebert]

You're free to dislike it and to suggest ways the free part could be better, It's still in no way, form or shape Paradox shipping an incomplete game.

Which is what the conversation was about, before you tried to make it about freebies added in patches instead.

That's just plain dishonest. You accuse him of whining for freebies, but completely obscure the fact that the designer PLANNED a complete game, then released 25% of said game in the original version then PLANNED to sell the remaining 75% as DLCs
that you CAN decide not to buy, but will constantly be reminded of if you don't while in game, completely breaking immersion.

I stay on my firm opinion that Paradox and EA are two companies that go way too far in that department, and makes it so I personally DON'T buy their products anymore. And the OP meme represents that !

 

[Evie]

The idea that there's enough design time to put all, or even of a majority, of the devs's ideas (let alone the fans' ideas) in the base game without massively increasing design time and therefore game price is just misinformed. Trying to fit in all of a designer's idea in a game vefore releaese is how you end up with Vaporware.

This was true back in the old days, when there was still no time to fit every feature (we just never got most of them), and it's true today when there still isn't time and we get them as DLC.

"A game is not complete if the devs don't put all their ideas in" is sheer, brutal nonsense.

 

[tedhebert]

The idea that there's enough design time to put all, or even of a majority, of the devs's ideas (let alone the fans' ideas) in the base game without massively increasing design time and therefore game price is just misinformed. Trying to fit in all of a designer's idea in a game vefore releaese is how you end up with Vaporware.

This was true back in the old days, when there was still no time to fit every feature (we just never got most of them), and it's true today when there still isn't time and we get them as DLC.

"A game is not complete if the devs don't put all their ideas in" is sheer, brutal nonsense.

Once again, this is dishonest...

No one is saying DLCs are evil and should never exist. Proof is almost everyone here defends Firaxis model of 2 or 3 DLCs.

The OP is making fun of those who DESIGNS their game in a way to sell 10/20 DLCs, making the original offering feel very thin....

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Indeed. The vanilla version has always included the important core mechanics. This meme is cynical and hyperbolic in this context.

It turns out Vanilla is more playable. from modder's perspective

 

[Evie]

Calling Europa Universalis IV, Crusader Kings III or Hearts of Iron IV "very thin at release" is simply laughable. Theynweren't as good as they eventually got, but they were hardly very thin.

The only way in which they may possibly feel thin is when compared to a game with half a decade or more of post-release development (eg, CK2 at the end of its development cycle, about ten years after release).

Of course a game that's been in development for an additional five, ten years is going to feel much more complete than one that hasn't. That's exactly what any rational person would expect a decade of additional development time to do. It's purely an apple and orange comparison at that point: unreasonable.

 

[Arcaian]

Once again, this is dishonest...

No one is saying DLCs are evil and should never exist. Proof is almost everyone here defends Firaxis model of 2 or 3 DLCs.

The OP is making fun of those who DESIGNS their game in a way to sell 10/20 DLCs, making the original offering feel very thin....

I have to agree with Evie here, it's wild to me to call the Paradox games we've moved onto discussing 'very thin' on release. For example, CK3 - it launched with less content than CK2 had at the end of its development cycle, so someone who was used to that version of CK2 might make it feel very thin to them. But in reality, CK2 at-launch didn't allow you to play Muslim regions of the world, pagan regions of the world, tribal regions of the world, and a lot more that was included in CK3 from the start. If you simply bought CK2 on release, played it without any expansions for its lifecycle, and then bought CK3, you undoubtedly would feel like CK3 was a more fleshed-out, detailed game than CK2.

I'm not the hugest fan of a lot of the DLCs that Paradox put out, and I'm pretty dismayed at reports of working conditions within the PDS. But the implications above that their games have 75% of their mechanics ripped out to be sold later is ridiculous - their games are getting consistently more and more elements in them on release over time, not less. I've not played Hearts of Iron 4 or Victoria III, but I've rarely felt like a Paradox game is missing in content fundamentally required to enjoy it without DLC. They definitely seem to have a tendency to release extremely buggy games, which is disappointing, but I think accusing them of stripping most of the game out to be sold later is sorely missing the mark.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Insidious Mage talks more about a feeling than a prooved fact here. Fact ? That the base games are released incomplete purposely to sell more DLCs. It might be wrong. (although that doens't prevent them to abuse on the DLC format, $$$) Feeling ? That the devs are implementing incomplete DLCs in the base game to advertize them constantly. It might be right. Consequence ? Shouting on all roofs that their games are incomplete. That's not directly from a fact, but rather a feeling. But feelings are facts too, so... Self-eating snake discussion.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

I've thought for a while now that Civ 7 base game should end at about 1700 and the modern age should be released as a full game expansion. I'd rather the time be spent on other features then a underdeveloped end game that gets a few minor updates later on. But I'm seeing why that will probably not happen as there will be a lot of people feeling "ripped off" for not the modern game.

 

[Zegangani]

I've thought for a while now that Civ 7 base game should end at about 1700 and the modern age should be released as a full game expansion

Have you ever started a Game in Industrial Era or later? it's still very fun once the AI has settled some Cities. The Issue isn't about Time, but Pacing and Balance. Cutting down the amount of Playtime and/or "Years" to play wouldn't solve anything. The best example why that wouldn't work is Old World, which only focuses on 1 Era and it doesn't even offer good and well paced gameplay for the whole of that. The Game is only fun for ~150-200 Turns at most (which is on purpose AFAICT), and the Late Game in OW also suffers from the same issues as in Civ6, or even worse, bc the Late Game in Civ6 still offers way more stuff/content to interact with.

To answer OP's Question: No. Civ isn't such a Game, never was.

Can't talk about other Paradox Games, but Victoria 3 doesn't seem to follow that formula. The Devs have been churning out Quality Updates since release, for FREE. They added tons of free Stuff that actually should have been part of a DLC. And the DLCs they released so far all came with free Updates bigger than the Content of the DLCs themselves, which mostly are flavor things that you can do without, bc the Base Game offers 98% of what you need to enjoy the Game. Ngl I'd love Firaxis to be a bit like that when it comes to free (quality) updates, communication, mod support...etc.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Have you ever started a Game in Industrial Era or later? it's still very fun once the AI has settled some Cities. The Issue isn't about Time, but Pacing and Balance. Cutting down the amount of Playtime and/or "Years" to play wouldn't solve anything.

I've tried a couple. It is fun spending getting more time on modern unit and buildings. I'm looking at separating Civ 7 in two parts so that the game play changes a lot more than it does in Civ6 rather than just more content. The gameplay should become more about connecting your cities with railroad (single or double track?) and sewer systems and less about placing improvements. And I like the early part of the game and having to decide when and where to place improvements.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I've thought for a while now that Civ 7 base game should end at about 1700 and the modern age should be released as a full game expansion. I'd rather the time be spent on other features then a underdeveloped end game that gets a few minor updates later on. But I'm seeing why that will probably not happen as there will be a lot of people feeling "ripped off" for not the modern game.

Withholding America to a DLC/expansion?
At least that would be in line with the OP.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Withholding America to a DLC/expansion?
At least that would be in line with the OP.

I've tried to come up with a way to include America in the base game in my scenario and the closest I've come up with is Johnny Appleseed and James Oglethorpe.