The games they release are complete in them selves, and with 15-20€ dlces every ~6 months they keep the games fresh with new content.

People rarely complain that features are missing from their games until it gets added in a DLC. Then suddenly it’s a mandatory feature.

  • Stamets@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    6 months ago

    Your last paragraph is just untrue. One of the biggest complaints is that they routinely lock stuff in a DLC that should be in the base game.

  • jet@hackertalks.comEnglish
    0·
    6 months ago

    I think if you like the base game, and it’s your kind of crazy, the paradox model is great cuz you constantly get drip fed more of the thing you like.

    I think the paradox model is proven that paradox can buy a great game, and sustain it long-term.

    However, paradox because of their model is unable to make a great game in house. Every attempt they’ve made at a new game more or less fails completely. At least in the last few years

    So if paradox buys the game you love, great you’re going to get more content. But I don’t hold hope for paradox making a game for the love

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      6 months ago

      paradox because of their model is unable to make a great game in house. Every attempt they’ve made at a new game more or less fails completely. At least in the last few years

      I’m pretty sure Crusader Kings III would beg to differ. As would Victoria 3 and, depending on whether 2016 counts as "the last few years, Hearts of Iron IV and Stellaris.

      All of those are Paradox Development Studio originals that are considered classics and follow the Paradox model of more or less complete games followed by excessive amounts of expensive DLC…