Edit: Issue resolved - support was able to issue a code for the preorder content along with the refund, allowing me to repurchase the game with the discount and then redeem the code for the soundtrack and dome set.

--- original post below ---

So I was right about the "process" mentioned in the news post: I asked for a store credit in the amount of the discount, but instead support offered to issue a full refund so that the game could be repurchased with the discount.

The choice seems to be: Lose your preorder bonuses and get the discount, or keep your preorder bonuses and lose the discount.

So I suppose the soundtrack cost me $7.50 since I want to keep it. Not much of a "bonus" if you have to pay extra for it. :|

CK2 development project was just 18 months. While most of the games out there are impossible to release after that short development. This shows 2 things: 1) that they have, indeed, a big dev team and not just a tiny team of 3, for instance and 2) that the original release was, as expected, flawed with little and not so-little bugs. Also, there were aspects of the game that didn't worked well (like some claims, links between regions and future countries or the events system)

Even the CK2 project lead admitted that they had to cut features they worked on to be able to release in time, because as a publisher, they were forced to fit strictly to the 18 months limit (now let's talk about how publishers forces rushes releases from their developers, it's not only EA or Ubi or Activision :P). Of course, the extra work was sold as DLC's. He also admitted that some dlc's are not worth the price asked... go to the official wiki, you have the links to the forum threads where this is talked about.

And talking about expanded gameplay and not core (that is, stripped from the main game or not present previously to not unbalance the whole thing), take for instance Legacy of Rome. It was just the 2nd major DLC, and it was packed with the retinues 'addon' that proved to be basic to the core gameplay if you play whatever region no matter the size and go bigger (build an empire with the vanilla game and then with the original Legacy and the retinues, you will see there's no other option but to buy the dlc)

About Stellaris, being a game released after all the 'experience' Pdox had in the previous 4 years (and after seeing that a flood of post-release dlc's with the cut features they were already working or planning on is awesome for their economy) you already said it all:

->"I loved it just for the great exploration phase, although unfortunately it became boring in the expansion phase. But no game is perfect and imo it was worth buying at release even if it was flawed."

...really? So the game on release was flawed and boring after you explore a bit your surroundings and needed urgent patches (and DLC's, ofc) to make it fun and not flawed. This resumes what the Pdox games seem to be actually, flawed games rushed to be released and then flooded with DLC's that come even before the patches and polish to what was an unfinished game.

We can also talk about major changes in development direction and core gameplay that can make a fun game (after, let's say, 90 euros worth of dlc's in a little more than 1 and half years post-release) into a flawed and boring game (or just a totally different one that you don't enjoy anymore because it's too much different from what you played).

If you take it all, the unfinished and rushed releases that have even more dlc's than ever and released quicker than ever, the lack of a proper game once you have played a bit (like with your Stellaris example, there was no game after the initial phase, or a boring game with a boring mid-phase and no end-game at all-and no, this was not a complete game that was worth 70 euros of Galaxy Edition on release), and the feeling that you have always paid for an incomplete game and that Pdox seems to tell you that it's much better to wait a few months and you will be able to buy the same for less than your initial (and loyal, the faithful core of your fans that don't mind to pay you whatever you want) supporters (that also don't have a path to upgrade the game on GOG, and this is becoming a norm with Pdox: pre-order and pay now the maximum tier or f...k off), i think actually it's a delicate question to buy or not to buy Pdox games. At the very least, it is polemic the way they behave actually (i refer here to games developed by Paradox or published when they have the control on how to release and price their published games, not when a published company retains the control and Pdox has nothing to say there)

And after seeing what reviews are saying after playing an apparently fun game like this one, i have the same feeling that with Stellaris, for instance, or for EUIV after just shortly after release (and after the first DLC's), and after the first DLC's for CK2, etc. The feeling that game was rushed, it's a nice apparent experience that shows it's flaws after the initial phase of the game and yet, we had to pre-order for it and pay for the highest tier in advance. And now, wait for the upcoming DLC's, ofc.

I loved Paradox games, i really loved them. But i can't believe in them anymore as publishers, because with them, actually, i feel like buying a game from EA, or Ubi, or WB, or Activision, etc and i need, for mental sanity, put them in the same lists as those other 'polemic and questionable' developers. And i don't want to do that, really :S

Finally, this:

Yes, they learned something it seems. This curious sudden 10% discount after seeing what reviews are saying now is an example :P

That's a highly contentious statement.

Even were I to agree with that claim, the original CK was indisputably a more "rounded" experience. For what it did, it did well, without any "DLC-holes."

The whole point of technology progress allowing now to do much more than in 2004 completely aside.

As Kakarot detailed above, this is a very strange claim seeing how you describe precisely the issue of a non-feature-complete release.

I will not question your right to support whatever publisher/developer you wish, but I will question your defense of their business practices. In the end, it's anything but helpful for the gaming industry (in itself already at risk of eliminating the "fun" in games in the name of higher profit margins).

Maybe it is. All I can talk about is my own opinion, and I remember loving CK 2 at release. I liked it more than the first game, tbh.

About Stellaris, I just liked the fact that they tried to make the exploration phase fun, when in most 4X it's the most boring part of the game since you have very few things to do, and most turns you just press the "end turn" button.
Also, I didn't mind the boring conquest phase too much, because I typically quit in strategy games once I'm sure to win, so the most boring part of Stellaris (doing limited wars then waiting 10 years for the truce to end before being able to conquer more) I mostly skipped.
That being said, I can completely understand all the people who hated that part.

I'm not really trying to defend their business practices, especially as a publisher. I have no intention of buying Surviving Mars, for example, until it's feature complete.

Would I prefer it if they gave up on the endless DLC business model? Yes. Would I prefer it if they sold their games DRM-free here instead of tying them to Steam? Yes.
But the fact is, I still love their games enough to put up with the bullshit (especially since for some reason they basically have no competition), and I was just trying to explain why.
I'm also aware that Paradox does need to make money, and if they weren't making DLC constantly, they'd probably be making sequels. Given a choice, I prefer the optional DLC business model.

I am loving this game :D

Paradox was making enough on the expansion model back when.

In fact, Paradox made so much money that they became the ubiquitous "only-profits-matter" big company.

Hence the changes.

Also, they really, really pissed me off when they put forced telemetry in CK2 long after release (and my purchase of it). Apparently we live in times where contracts work only one way, and companies can change them at a whim with no repercussions.

The "expansion model" was basically the same as the current business model, expect back when it wasn't anywhere near as convenient to sell DLC. But if you look at the 5 EU 3 "expansions", they had basically about twice the amount of content of current DLC, for twice the price.

And you're ignoring the fact that said DLC model was basically what much of their community asked for. I remember that when EU 3 was still their most successful game, they did a survey on their forums asking people what they wanted between one last EU 3 expansion, Vicky 2 and another game I don't remember. They chose the expansion.


As for the telemetry, I'm annoyed about that too, which is why I try to only play CK 2 while offline, but there isn't much that can be done about it.

It was hardly comparable.

Expansions required certain amount of actual content to be seen as not-ripoff. That content usually expanded a number of areas of the game. The base game was expected to stand on its own (and not just in one "phase" of gameplay), so the content was an actual expansion rather than adding pre-designed elements that were removed from the base game.

A lot of the expansion work was also based on balance feedback from previous version.

In comparison, CK2 DLCs were originally split between game code, art, and music assets. It makes it all that much easier to leave off things that should have been implemented in the base game. Not to mention that the price/content ratio is much lower.

Expansion, not DLC.

Also, Paradox would have done well to consider that their consumer base does not merely consist of the most vocal forum users. I disliked having to "link" my games for support in the first place, and certainly did not have time to set a foot on the forums unless absolutely required.

The whole "we can't do anything about it" approach is what enables companies to crew customers more and more.

Of course you can do plenty about it - from writing Paradox (either e-mail, forum post, or even fancy snail mail letter if you feel so inclined), through reducing your purchases from such a publisher (accompanied by explanations of why you do so in visible places... or just from another letter to the company), through engaging in discussion of such practices in your circle of acquaintances... Frankly, I'm pretty sure the post-sale contract change would have a decent chance of going to court (at least in the EU since those guys seem to have a bit saner society than our "best laws money can buy" system), but I realize the time and expense requirement makes it prohibitive (by design, too, I might add).

Edit: Also, what 5 expansions? As far as I'm aware EUIII had only 4, spread over the period of four years.

Unlike the "several DLCs every other month" of CK2 (at least early on).

It's completely comparable as far as I'm concerned. There really isn't much difference between a DLC like "The Old Gods" that expands the timeline, adds playable pagans, modifies rebellions and religion and an "expansion" like "In Nomine" that expanded the timeline, changed religion mechanics, and buffed rebellions, it's just semantics.

And yes there are DLCs for CK 2 and EU 4 that deliver less content than that but typically they're priced accordingly and anyway you don't have to buy them (I haven't bought any of the graphics or music DLCs, and I don't miss them).

Again, the distinction between expansion and DLC is pure semantics when it comes to Paradox imo.

As for their customer base, they can't be expected to read the minds of people who don't try to communicate what they want. The only thing they have to go on when it comes to customer feedback are their forum, sales numbers and user reviews. Apparently, those things have told them that the DLC model was the way to go.

Right, 4 expansions, my mistake sorry.

Several DLCs every other month is a serious exaggeration. By my count, they've had 12 DLCs in 6 years. And no, I'm not counting the graphics and music DLCs, because those are pointless and completely optional imo.

Their scope is always smaller than a stand-alone expansion of the EUIII kind. This leads to (and is absolutely taken advantage) of diminishing return on purchase price.

And yet they are often priced at about 3/4ths the price of old expansions (they were $20 on release).

Also, I really disliked when Paradox was selling unit models separately (again, combined with the "expansion" it was paired with it also brought the price up to around $20, despite not having anywhere near the content of EUIII expansions). Not only was that a hideous precedent, a lot of them should have been included in the base game since it already covered the same time period and region (just without special focus on it). They had "dynasty shields" to replace repeatable and ugly heraldry in the base game for non-historical characters. They had "clothing" sold separately to avoid having the same look of characters in the base game. And the list goes on...

That's absolutely cutting content from the base game to milk it in my book.

I sincerely doubt the "community feedback" had much to do with the decision to go the Sims route. I can't find the interview right now, but one of Paradox C-levels outright stated that DLC model offered much greater profit margin, and they were very much keen on focusing on the "long trail" as he called it.

Conveniently avoiding mentioning the fact that the same profit pursuit benefits from removing features from base game precisely to encourage "long trail" sales.

Remember that art, music, and gameplay changes were sold separately.

I never bought either the music, "e-book," EUiV converter (really, selling a way to continue from one of your games to another was such a dick move, Paradox), or any other "misc" DLCs that weren't art or gameplay assets.

My last purchase was the Old Gods (and I remember not buying everything that was out by then because the new DLCs were too pricey for me), and even with that in mind I have 42 DLCs listed as owned.

Paradox combined them later on into "only" 28 DLCs as of now. My strong suspicion is that they disliked the lack of income from music and some art assets.

Some of those music packs though. Rock music removes any immersion for me. Thankfully you can remove them in the launcher.

Wouldn't know - that's actually the one kind of DLC I can live without.

Usually end up running my full playlist after an hour or so of game-specific music anyway. :)

(Also, I recommend Wardruna for the Old Gods play-through)

Do you need the season pass to get the patches?

The Steam version has already had 3 patches released for it. What is the word for Surviving Mars getting patched here on GOG?