Dlanordie/death 13d ago#7343065
spent 0 currency on pings
The most shameful purchases I ever did were for the first four expansions of EUIV. Coming from Civ I just assumed that 4 expansions was probably all that was going to come out for a single game. There are no greater paypigs in the industry than Paradox's.
They used to do only 2-3 expansions per game, but you had to buy everyone of them, no free updates I think it's a fair change and it also means a lot more updates over time.
But are they good updates? I've heard about a fair amount of drama with some of them. The 2-3 expansions would also be less expensive than all the DLCs that have been made for EUIV or CKII at this point. I'd rather take a few quality expansions and have them move onto something new than the same game getting updates for 10 years.
DestoryerCarbinesae/less
Only real g*mer on this entire site
Dlanor 10d ago#7354295
Edited 10d ago
spent 0 currency on pings
Yeah, every hoi4 DLC has significantly improved the game, especially NSB which included the most important part, reworked supply, as a free update, HOI4 without the DLCs is amazingly playable and multiplayer only requires one person to have them all. Every DLC has redditors complaining, that's what single-BIPOCs do, but on the whole every DLC has been good to very good and gamechanging. It's not like in EU4, because in hoi4 there's an actual game to build upon.
The only "bad" hoi4 DLC is Trial of Allegiance, but it's more pointless rather than bad, the content itself is not poorly made.
Also, it wasn't really all that cheaper when they made only a few DLCs, the Victoria collection on steam costs 100+ dollars at full price. Overall, the modern games are a better deal. EU4 is a completely different situation to hoi4, mostly cuz it's a map painter and not an actual game so the DLCs are really minimal.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The most shameful purchases I ever did were for the first four expansions of EUIV. Coming from Civ I just assumed that 4 expansions was probably all that was going to come out for a single game. There are no greater paypigs in the industry than Paradox's.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
They used to do only 2-3 expansions per game, but you had to buy everyone of them, no free updates I think it's a fair change and it also means a lot more updates over time.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
But are they good updates? I've heard about a fair amount of drama with some of them. The 2-3 expansions would also be less expensive than all the DLCs that have been made for EUIV or CKII at this point. I'd rather take a few quality expansions and have them move onto something new than the same game getting updates for 10 years.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yeah, every hoi4 DLC has significantly improved the game, especially NSB which included the most important part, reworked supply, as a free update, HOI4 without the DLCs is amazingly playable and multiplayer only requires one person to have them all. Every DLC has redditors complaining, that's what single-BIPOCs do, but on the whole every DLC has been good to very good and gamechanging. It's not like in EU4, because in hoi4 there's an actual game to build upon.
The only "bad" hoi4 DLC is Trial of Allegiance, but it's more pointless rather than bad, the content itself is not poorly made.
Also, it wasn't really all that cheaper when they made only a few DLCs, the Victoria collection on steam costs 100+ dollars at full price. Overall, the modern games are a better deal. EU4 is a completely different situation to hoi4, mostly cuz it's a map painter and not an actual game so the DLCs are really minimal.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context