CSII has been a shitshow, and the devs rightfully should be ashamed, but honestly reading the comments on that forum makes me really not feel bad for a lot of those people doing the complaining.
Like yeah the game is broken, you got an incomplete product, and it’s ok to be upset. They didn’t fucking kill your dog, there’s no need to fucking dig into them quite so hard, dude. Stop acting like your abusive parents did to you.
The angry customers and the state of the game are problems.
it's hard to feel sorry for people who pre-ordered because they got exactly what they paid for - a game of unknown quality and quantity of content
it's hard to feel sorry for people who bought post-release because they also got exactly what they paid for - a game where reviews detailed poor quality and quantity of content
customers being disappointed and/or wanting a refund is perfectly reasonable
people wanting the game to be better is also reasonable
people abusing the devs is not reasonable
I'm not going to defend the poor quality of the game because it's obviously bad (from what I gather, anyway - I've not played it myself) and should be improved. But I do think gamers could learn to be a little more responsible with their purchases and inform themselves before buying a game.
I'm pretty over the whole cycle of games coming out and not meeting expectations, people buying them anyway (through pre-orders or day-one purchases), people being unnecessarily rude/hostile/sending death threats to developers as if they were forced to buy the game as gunpoint. Yes, developers should try to do better, yes publishers should often give developers more time to polish up games rather than announcing the release date two years in advance and refusing to delay, but also consumers could really take some responsibility for what they decide to give money to.
these people SHOULD be putting this negative pressure on them. It’s deserved
Was it not implied I agree with that when I said:
The angry customers and the state of the game are problems.
and;
customers being disappointed and/or wanting a refund is perfectly reasonable
people wanting the game to be better is also reasonable
I'm not going to defend the poor quality of the game because it's obviously bad (from what I gather, anyway - I've not played it myself) and should be improved.
?
I don't see why that would make my opinion stupid. Yes, the studio/publisher should be held to account for the crappy release. But a big part of holding them to account should be not giving them money for it in the first place; not just handing over money and then complaining afterwards. Complaining afterwards is reasonable for the people who did hand over money, but they should also hold themselves accountable for financially rewarding a company that puts out a crappy product - they're part of the problem.
I think it's important to look for the nuance in situations and not treat everything as zero-sum. Both sides can have good points and be open to criticism at the same time (this isn't an "enlightened centrist" take, I promise!). I think a lot of discussion online does tend to strip away nuance and take the position that if you show any empathy with one side then it means you must hate the other - I do my best to avoid that!
The last time I believed trailers was dead island.
The only reason why I played cs1 so much was because of the mods. I like to play the vanilla game before modding. I bought the game knowing that I would like it for a month or two, then I would wait for mods to come out and I'd hop back into it. I knew what I was getting and I didn't have a problem with the game. I don't need a city builder to be high frames. I didn't have a lot of bugs. I'm totally fine with the game, as long as the modding scene stays with the game.
My worry is that all the negativity around the game will make less modders appear for cs2.
Looking back at other city builders releases cs2 release is fine. I don't understand the extent of negativity. Just ask for a refund. If the game gets better with age then buy it when it is cheaper. I'm sure these people have other games to play. CS1 seems to be popular still. Nothing happened to that game.
That said, I just fired up the game yesterday for the first time since launch and was surprised by how much progress was being made. I was surprised to find that mod support is already available; I thought it was still a work in progress cause I didn’t hear anything about it. You think that Paradox would have been making a huge announcement about it since it’s a huge important thing, but if they did, I surely can’t find it on their website nor on the produce page in Steam.
I was also surprised to find that my performance issues were fixed too. Now getting a solid 40-60 FPS on high settings with a medium-sized city @ 4K. Not bad, given that I usually averaged 20-30 on the same machine in C:S1.
Now all they gotta do is make the economy easier to understand. I still don’t get how I can be losing money every month, yet my balance keeps going up. But other than that, all of my complaints with the game have been fixed. If anyone reading this hasn’t played the game in several months, I suggest you give it a try again. You might be pleasantly surprised.
But this was such an edge case, removing assets resulting in the unavailability of said assets in game, that this interruption simply couldn’t have been for foreseen.
They couldn’t foresee issues created by removing assets, in a game that is supposed to support user mods, which can be added/removed at any time? Really?
The explanation I’ve seen is that they wanted to pull the DLC as soon as possible, since it was - literally - the worst-rated product on Steam. I’m 99% sure the bean counters responsible for all of the terrible decisions (release the game, no matter what state! Release the DLC, no matter the amount of content!) pulled the lever on this one again - no chance they’ll see any responsibility with themselves.
This is but their legit response was “dunno, that wasn’t supposed to happen but it kinda did, maybe don’t do anything now, we’ll try to fix it sometimes”, so this is not that far:
I guess, but so the owner chose to get a refund, right? If so then that’s to be expected, if that’s the case then I don’t see what the fuzz is about. Unless the refund was forced onto the customer.
I think the refund would have been right to do from the company side once everything was prepared - it wouldn’t be right for them to keep any money from customers after the content has been integrated into the base game. But only once they are sure nothing will break due to the refund.
Yeah, the industry as a whole has been moving away from these types of processes for the last 15 years. There are exceptions where it can still make sense but they have significantly higher risk profiles than video games do.
Truth be told, i don’t have an ounce of care in me about this community council. I want them to make a product that was advertised, because so far it’s just a scam of colossal orders of magnitude (ha)
When corporations acting in their best interest also act in the consumers best interest, the system is working as it should.
Intent matters for individuals, not for societal systems like governments and corporations. Incompetent governments/corporations need to be removed just as much as evil ones.
I did not even know that a DLC came out. I am sure I would have if it was good news because streamers I follow would have tested it.
But it is so sad. I really liked cities skylines because it basically is what I wanted from sim city. But with a million mods it would always break at certain points and force me to stop playing. I had such high hopes with 2 but seeing this game at launch and now seemingly still broken is so… well I am not really sure how I (should) feel.
The good thing is, that I do not have to keep reading and researching but rather wait for some “news” to pop up in my feed again. So I can get back to forgetting about it.
It’s not the devs who are to blame for this fiasco. The management who pushed for releasing unfinished product is. There were some people sitting in a meeting room who decided that it was a good idea to publish a worthless DLC. Change is needed at management level.
The apology looks like honest but some part of me feels like they are sorry because their strategy for ripping our wallets did not work as expected.
I’m not planning to buy any Paradox game in the future.
This screams so damn fake. If they ever wanted to make a good game, they should have made it before releasing it, let alone prioritising DLC for a game they are more than aware of being borked at release.
I wouldn’t expect any different from Colossal Order, given its close ties with Paradox Interactive: they don’t care about making good games, they care about milking the players.
He did finish it we saw it on TV and hated it. So now he’s not gonna do it because he knows no matter what he does we will hate it. He wrote himself into a corner
Yeah I remember some interview or something where he said the show just did a shittier version of the ending he wanted and it kind of killed his drive to finish. Imagine the adaptation being so bad it actually does ruin the source.
If he’d just say “It is over, no more books.” people would just move on. But him constantly stating that he’ll publish “next year” for 10 years years or so now is really annoying.
It is pretty comparable tbh. It is also the same for Elders scroll fans. Before Skyrim and before A Dance with Dragons both published constantly and both started publishing on the mid 90s, both published 5 times, both started publishing side project stuff.
Elders Scroll fans have it somewhat better though, not depending on a single person, who also isn’t the youngest.
I am also an Elder Scroll fan since Arena btw, so I am quite f…d.
We’re riding this wave over in the Total War community too. Broken game, weak and overpriced DLC.
We kicked off (and then all their other games managed to flop at once, so they came crawling back) and now we’ve got a notable amount more effort into the DLC coming at the end of the month, as well as price cuts, refunds and redoing of the bad DLC.
Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t, but I’m seeing positive movements in general on legacy resting-on-laurels games.
It’s all sheer greed, too. Paradox has fully embraced the model of releasing sequels with less content than their DLC-enhanced previous games after 2K showed the market had tolerance for it with Civilization. Considering how that already puts them ahead of the curve, it’s amazing that Paradox let this game come out in this state.
To be fair, I don’t expect the sequel’s base game to have more content than the previous game with all its DLCs, but I do expect the base game to have at least as much content as the previous game’s base game.
That doesn’t make it sheer greed; it’s what’s feasible to develop. A systems driven game like a city builder or a 4X game mean that you can’t just drag and drop old content in the new systems and expect it to work and look cohesive. Every fighting game launches with fewer characters than the previous version, and it’s not because it’s some conspiracy to delay dropping the SFV characters in SF6; it’s because swapping out the V system for the Drive system is a massive change, and the old characters take a lot of work to port over. Even the art style in Civ 6 is very different from Civ V. When you try to just copy and paste content between two different styles of art direction, you end up with nightmare fuel Chun-Li in Marvel vs. Capcom Infinite.
Sure, but that was iterative, like Super Street Fighter II Turbo, as opposed to making Street Fighter III. Wherever they go with Smash from here, it will involve a systems rework and fewer characters.
The ways that they play differently are a few numbers tweaks and occasionally a new animation. It’s not the difference between Melee and Brawl or 64 and Melee.
The base game having less content than its predecessor isn’t the greedy part. It’s the fact that taking advantage of that market inelasticity wasn’t enough for Paradox and judging it acceptable to release a product in this state on top of that.
No, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
Everyone ran out of cash in this industry. Investment dried up, and they knew what state their game was shipping in. That doesn’t mean you’re wrong to be upset as a consumer either.
If we’re both going to be speculating here, I’m going with the more likely consideration for a publisher with record performance. In early August, they saw an early access game get its full release in an unfinished state to massive acclaim and sales (along with similar, larger trends) and decided to test their market with the same.
I don’t even have a dog in this fight; I’m not a city management sim fan. I’m just calling it like it is.
And perhaps that health is because by that point they already started releasing multiple games far too early for a cash injection, one of which ended with them cutting Harebrained Schemes loose. I’m also calling it like it is. I don’t see healthy companies sacrifice their long term fan base and development throughput for short term gains. It smells a whole lot like trying to stop the bleeding. As for assigning The Chinese Room to sequel a beloved RPG, I don’t even know where to start there.
I don’t see healthy companies sacrifice their long term fan base and development throughput for short term gains.
New to Capitalism?
No, hence my conclusions.
You’ve never seen a corporation sacrifice its long-term health to report short-term profits, to meet an upcoming quarterly report?
Ever?
I’ve never seen one I would call healthy.
Well, most people believe that all publicly traded corporations, healthy or otherwise, only focus on their next quarterly report profits, and that long-term strategy and growth goals are rarely if ever considered.
Granted, I’d much rather live in your world than mine, but I don’t think you’re correct on this one.
You don’t see Take Two shoving GTA6 and Judas out the door for profits now, for instance. Paradox abiding by the same MO to burn good will for multiple games and then getting developers off their books is a move you make when you’re out of better options.
You don’t see Take Two shoving GTA6 and Judas out the door for profits now, for instance.
And all the other corporations out there?
Remember your stance was that all healthy corporations would never sacrifice long-term health for short-term profits.
Paradox abiding by the same MO to burn good will for multiple games and then getting developers off their books is a move you make when you’re out of better options.
You’re not really addressing my point, but instead skirting around it…
Well, most people believe that all publicly traded corporations, healthy or otherwise, only focus on their next quarterly report profits, and that long-term strategy and growth goals are rarely if ever considered.
Our original disagreement was on if a healthy corporation would focus on the quarterly profits over long-term goals in the same way that an unhealthy corporation would. Your stance was that any healthy corporation would not.
Correct. We’ve seen tons of layoffs in this industry because their business models weren’t healthy. So they’ll make cuts, or push out games like Cities: Skylines II or Skull and Bones when they’re not ready or will do long-term damage to their brand because they need to take the least bad option, but meanwhile, Take Two and Nintendo can push back marquis products another few quarters because they’ve got a moat of security around themselves. At times, those companies were not, and one day will not be, healthy, but then they sacrificed or will sacrifice something or other in order to survive to be healthy another day.
So, just to confirm, your opinion is that no healthy corporation in any industry on this planet would ever focus on short-term quarterly reports and financial gain to satisfy their shareholders, over long-term goals and stability, yes? That only unhealthy corporations would do so?
I’d say it’s a sign of an unhealthy company, since their reports must be truthful but can present the rosiest picture possible. You don’t have to force this to be some absolutism. The rest of the industry came on hard times simultaneously to these games releasing unfinished, as well as games from their peers doing the same. I don’t think my conclusion is farfetched.
Not all corporations on the planet are unhealthy, but all focus on the quarterly report more so than long-term, if they’re publicly traded.
You keep focusing on a few game companies, where my original comment, and my recurring comments, are about corporations in general, as a discussion on Capitalism as a whole.
It’s well known and believed that all corporations that are public and that have shareholders focused primarily on the next quarterly earnings report and returns, and not long term results, regardless of their health.
I don’t think my conclusion is farfetched.
Your conclusion is purposely not answering the point I’m asking you, which is what this conversation is about.
It blows my mind you’re not willing to acknowledge that, which is why I keep interacting with you, trying to get you to speak specifically to that point, but you keep referring to just two game companies over and over again only.
You’re looking for an argument that I’m not interested in, and it’s not what this conversation was about. Paradox sure looks like it released some games early, knowing that they were underbaked, because they couldn’t feasibly keep delaying them to give them the time they needed. We can agree to disagree there and go our separate ways.
You’re looking for an argument that I’m not interested in, and it’s not what this conversation was about.
You’re purposely not answering the point of the conversation, and trying to label it otherwise is not an answer in and of itself.
The conversation was about healthy corporations focusing on short-term profits or not. Not one game company who’s unhealthy focusing on short-term profits.
I don’t see healthy companies sacrifice their long term fan base and development throughput for short term gains.
New to Capitalism?
No, hence my conclusions.
You’ve never seen a corporation sacrifice its long-term health to report short-term profits, to meet an upcoming quarterly report?
This team has been making the exact same game for multiple decades. Look at this developer’s game history. It is literally the same exact game redeveloped over and over every few years and then they repackage and resell the same DLCs for the new versions. What a con of a game dev.
So you think they’ve been making entirely new games for their entire existence? You don’t think it’s conny at all that literally all they do is make city builders and sell DLCs and then make a new one when interest dries up? Doesn’t seem very creative or innovative in my opinion it sounds like pure capitalism. Publisher is a microcosm EA.
forum.paradoxplaza.com
Gorące