Paradox is doing most things right, not like some of their competitors. No pay-to-win or other ingame buys, but optional DLCs, that actually enhance the game, and constant development and care over years for their games, and excellent multiplatform support. Also, they are successfully producing some of the games with the highest (hours of gameplay)/(price) ratio, second only to some indie games and the unbeatable Dwarf Fortress.
These games are not for everyone. Also, not entirely unlike Dwarf Fortress, they might seem a bit off-putting due to their complexity. But they have a much better GUI, and learning the basics is faster. It still takes time, though.
I like that they are doing, but I think their DLC strategy is starting to cause some concern in various online gaming circles.
People loved it with CK2 because it expands the game so much, and it was unlike what they were doing before. This helped people forgive the fact that the base game was just okay at launch. Contrast that to HoI4 where the base game was not fantastic at launch (but probably not much worse than CK2 at launch in terms of stability and systems) and then the DLC train started and I saw a lot more negative comments online. There were similar conversations around the Stellaris launch "Oh they are going to make us pay or features that should have been in the game in post launch DLC".
That could just mirror changes in players being hyper-sensitive to DLC/Monetization strategies these days, and probably don't bother the people who are really into Paradox games and put hundreds if not thousands of hours into them.
I am very interested to see what they do next with Crusader Kings, since they have mentioned a few times they plan on ending the DLC soon. Transitioning to a CK3 seems incredibly difficult given how barebones it will feel.
Civilization solved this by including most of the content in Civ5 DLCs to the base game in Civ6. They did start the DLC train immediately with highly priced extra civilizations though, and got major flak for doing that.
I read about that actually. They use a 3rds model: retain a 3rd of existing systems, improve on a 3rd of existing systems and bring in a 3rd of totally new gameplay systems.
I don't bother with non-gameplay DLC. I don't get these story packs. I'd prefer DLC that overhauls some aspect and provides deeper gameplay.
Yes. The first time I played a paradox game, I closed it due to the overwhelming UI. Takes a bit of perseverance if you want a rich, fully featured strategy experience.
After a Paradox game, although fun, Civ just doesn't cut it.
Indeed. After Paradox games Civ definitely has a "casual strategy" feeling to it. Plus there are simply no emergent storylines forming in Civ games. I do still enjoy both, though.
These games are not for everyone. Also, not entirely unlike Dwarf Fortress, they might seem a bit off-putting due to their complexity. But they have a much better GUI, and learning the basics is faster. It still takes time, though.