Europa Universalis IV: Emperor expansion announced for release this year

Quoting: TheSHEEEP

To protect your privacy, external media requires approval to load. Source: media.giphy.com
View cookie preferences.
Accept & Show Accept All & Don't show this again   Direct Link

Not actually true this time imho. These mechanical reworks were on top list of user wishlist since long time and they actually took their time for this dlc, more than one year. So the premises are not for the usual rushed release with shallow features but plenty of bugs to inflate shareholders wallets that became Pdx norm. I sincerely think that after Golden Century they made some retrospective and that this time it won't be a cash grab but a real dlc.

Then if promises are met we won't know until it's released. But I've good vibes about this. Also the way they re-organized some DLC mechanics to make them integral into the base game gives me hope that they are not working on EU5 just yet.

Regarding this patch my only regret is that they couldn't find a way to make Austria a formable like Spain and Commonwealth. Since France was also split up in I thought they could manage to do it and keep things balanced. My feeling is that the actual issue was that it would also require work on Ottos and that was out of scope.

Anyway. I might finally go after the big blue blob achievement when it comes out. Although I actually think that my first game will be a battle pope one.


Last edited by Mal on 3 March 2020 at 10:59 pm UTC

The game was released 7 years ago. S-E-V-E-N!!!
Any DLC at this point, no matter if it is actually a good one or not, is milking.
When you need to spend hundreds of <insert your currency> to get a complete game, something is very, very, very wrong.

They should have been working on EU5 since years ago. Instead we got Rome... and we all know how that went.

I can agree that their pricing policy is nuts. Their stubbornness in not cutting the price of old dlcs won them ample criticism. I myself never recommend the game to new players even if it's easily my favorite one.

I disagree though that iterating on a game for more than 8 years is necessarily wrong. By refining and expanding the same game it is possible to reach a level of depth and fun that it's simply not achievable with the old reboot approach. And ofc when people work you pay for their job.


Last edited by Mal on 4 March 2020 at 9:34 am UTC

Quoting: TheSHEEEPThe game was released 7 years ago. S-E-V-E-N!!!
Any DLC at this point, no matter if it is actually a good one or not, is milking.
When you need to spend hundreds of <insert your currency> to get a complete game, something is very, very, very wrong.

They should have been working on EU5 since years ago. Instead we got Rome... and we all know how that went.

Whereas spending hundreds of <insert your currency> on EU5, EU6, and EU7 instead is somehow better…how, exactly? I'd personally rather pay hundreds for one truly great game refined over seven years than a few mediocre ones churned out and abandoned after a year or two.

And boy oh boy, quite apart from the DLC I can hardly wait for all the quality-of-life changes in the free patch that have been mentioned in dev diaries! Some long-standing issues that are finally being resolved, and ones I didn't even know I wanted.

Quoting: Philadelphus

Quoting: TheSHEEEPThe game was released 7 years ago. S-E-V-E-N!!!
Any DLC at this point, no matter if it is actually a good one or not, is milking.
When you need to spend hundreds of <insert your currency> to get a complete game, something is very, very, very wrong.

They should have been working on EU5 since years ago. Instead we got Rome... and we all know how that went.

Whereas spending hundreds of <insert your currency> on EU5, EU6, and EU7 instead is somehow better…how, exactly? I'd personally rather pay hundreds for one truly great game refined over seven years than a few mediocre ones churned out and abandoned after a year or two.

Nobody is saying there shouldn't be any DLCs, but there is a sweet spot here. 2-4, I'd say. Not 10-99+.
After that, a complete game package just becomes too expensive to be reasonable. And unfortunately, some of those DLCs really are mandatory if you don't want a severely limited experience. Not only limited in flavor content, mind you, but actual functionality.

Though HoI4 is way crazier in this regard than EU4, to be fair.
TfV basically made you pay to click a button without which you'd be severely handicapped if you conquered anyone.

There's also the question how other developers manage to support their games for years just as well - without requiring a yearly/bi-yearly payment of 20€.

Does anyone experience bad performance with this game? I have a Ryzen 1800x and 980Ti SLI and still get framedrops to 20 fps.

Quoting: ModofokusDoes anyone experience bad performance with this game? I have a Ryzen 1800x and 980Ti SLI and still get framedrops to 20 fps.

Sorry but I'm unable to play on the Manchu patch, the one with the new launcher and 64x refactoring. Though the launcher crashing issue was fixed in the subsequent hotfix, my game crashes at startup.
Apart from this my EU4 works fine and the devs themselves acknowledge that our version works better than the Windows one.

Quoting: TheSHEEEPNobody is saying there shouldn't be any DLCs, but there is a sweet spot here. 2-4, I'd say. Not 10-99+.
After that, a complete game package just becomes too expensive to be reasonable. And unfortunately, some of those DLCs really are mandatory if you don't want a severely limited experience. Not only limited in flavor content, mind you, but actual functionality.

I think we're coming at this from very different viewpoints. Let me use an analogy here:

Michelangelo took four years to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and whatever your personal feelings on it it's widely considered a masterpiece of art. Now imagine if the Pope came in after one year and was like: "Michelangelo, stop! One year is enough for any painting! There's no way additional time spent developing it can possibly be worth the increased cost of paying you for that long!" We'd be deprived of the final finished work due to an arbitrary restriction on the amount of time an artist is allowed to work on their product, or an arbitrary limit on how much they can sell their work for. People are allowed to sell artwork for whatever price they want, as long as someone is willing pay it, and this allows people to make a living doing it because it takes time to make art and people need money to support themselves; why shouldn't I be allowed to pay whatever price I like for a video game, if I likewise deem it worth the price?

Now, even though I quite like it, I'm not claiming EU 4 is "the Sistine Chapel ceiling of games." But I do think it's very good and still has potential for improvement, which is why your attitude personally distresses me so much: I see it as potentially cutting off something artistic before it's reached completion, for what is, to me, a completely arbitrary limit to how much games should cost or how long developers should be allowed to work on them.

I can agree with you that development probably shouldn't be stretched out indefinitely; at some point you'd like the team to wrap it up, and five or so years later come out with EU 5. But given that we've now finally reached the end of CK 2's lifespan, I think we've seen how long Paradox plans to support the games in their current system. I highly suspect that Emperor stands to EU 4 in much the same relation as Holy Fury did to CK 2. Over a year between expansions, lots of quality of life improvements, the two games are at about the same age…we might get one or two small DLCs after this (like Rule Britannia/Third Rome/Golden Century size), or maybe one last normal one (people have requested a south-east Asia overhaul for a long time and it's one of the last places not majorly touched), but I'd be surprised if we see any beyond that.

Quoting: TheSHEEEPThere's also the question how other developers manage to support their games for years just as well - without requiring a yearly/bi-yearly payment of 20€.

Different development team size, perhaps? If Eric Barrone makes $5 million (just throwing out numbers) off of Stardew Valley he can probably live of it for the rest of his natural life and continue making new updates for free. If the EU 4 team makes that much money, it'll probably run the team for, I dunno, a couple of years? (Taking into account salaries for all the people involved, rent and utilities for the whole company, etc.)

Plus, EU4 is undoubtedly a very complex game (both in the sense of the engine, and in all its interconnected systems); supporting it requires pretty skilled programmers/scripters/game designers/etc., so likely has commensurately higher costs than for a simpler game.

Quoting: Philadelphuswhy shouldn't I be allowed to pay whatever price I like for a video game, if I likewise deem it worth the price?

Of course you are allowed to. I just think at some point it becomes silly.
Especially for new players.

I somewhat understand it from the perspective of someone who invested hundreds or even thousands of hours into a game - at that point, you reach MMO levels of time investment and the payment becomes akin to a monthly subscription or some MTX every now and then.

But you have to look at it from the perspective of those just getting started. Those are the ones most negatively affected.
If I wouldn't already be "done" with EU4 (I might come back at some point, but I haven't had the inclination in a year or so) - I'd never even consider getting into it unless it is a very, very, very deep sale. Hundreds of $ just to get started with a complete game? And it is not even free like CK2 so you can get a "demo" version to try and see if the DLCs would be worth it to you.
No. Just no. It's not ethical and even I consider that anti-consumer (and I usually don't give too much about that as I think it's mostly a smoke and mirrors term).

Quoting: PhiladelphusNow, even though I quite like it, I'm not claiming EU 4 is "the Sistine Chapel ceiling of games." But I do think it's very good and still has potential for improvement, which is why your attitude personally distresses me so much: I see it as potentially cutting off something artistic before it's reached completion, for what is, to me, a completely arbitrary limit to how much games should cost or how long developers should be allowed to work on them.

The analogies don't really work, because the chapel or other paintings do have a point where they are done. And that point is usually known/defined fairly well before the work is even started.
EU4 changed its core nature multiple times - after release. I remember a time when forts were just local defenses - by now they are essential choke point holders that cannot be walked around (don't think about why lol).
The trade systems was fundamentally changed around at least once. Same is true for other core parts.

Changes like that you usually see when? Upon the release of a new title in a series. Say, Civ or so.

They aren't improving small parts of the game, putting in only more content or adding QoL features.
They are essentially creating a new game on top of the old one. Why do that instead of taking all the changes you want to make and create a truly new game?
What if someone liked the way it was before patch X better? Well, sucks to be that guy, I guess.
And they can keep doing it forever - the medium video games does allow for that, in theory.

Quoting: PhiladelphusI highly suspect that Emperor stands to EU 4 in much the same relation as Holy Fury did to CK 2. Over a year between expansions, lots of quality of life improvements, the two games are at about the same age…we might get one or two small DLCs after this (like Rule Britannia/Third Rome/Golden Century size), or maybe one last normal one (people have requested a south-east Asia overhaul for a long time and it's one of the last places not majorly touched), but I'd be surprised if we see any beyond that.

Probably true.
Hopefully true.

Quoting: Philadelphus

Quoting: TheSHEEEPThere's also the question how other developers manage to support their games for years just as well - without requiring a yearly/bi-yearly payment of 20€.

Different development team size, perhaps? If Eric Barrone makes $5 million (just throwing out numbers) off of Stardew Valley he can probably live of it for the rest of his natural life and continue making new updates for free. If the EU 4 team makes that much money, it'll probably run the team for, I dunno, a couple of years? (Taking into account salaries for all the people involved, rent and utilities for the whole company, etc.)

As someone who does development for a living, you don't require the full initial size of people to support a project like that once it is released, to put out improvements and some DLCs.
I can practically guarantee you most people who created EU4 initially have long moved on to other projects and what remains is a comparatively small team.

Yet that small team keeps raking it in just fine. This goes way beyond just "maintenance cost".


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 7 March 2020 at 8:38 am UTC