I looked at the manual...

[Mirandasucre]

i suggest to use the crimean war or the FPW scenarios for the demo

[Sol Invictus]

I also get a queezy stomach when I hear DLC but considering the intial price of the game I can get over it. I have enough self-control to avoid buying any DLC that I am not interested in; which will likely be most of them. My main interest is the Grand Campaign anyway since I really don't think that a game designed to to cover the entire world can adequately depict smaller conflicts to a satisfactory degree. I think the technological changes and their effects on military docrine make it likely that I won't play a GC past the FPW in any event. Not really sure how well the game will handle a WWI type scenario to be honest. I think the ACW, FPW, and WWI really need a dedicated game that only covers that specific conflict to do them full justice. Looking forward to the demo and release!

[beatoangelico]

this is not unexpected, just see Cities in Motion, another recent game published by paradox: priced 20 € but with the preoder goodies and dlc that we are gonna see for PoN. paradox clearly is taking a gamble with this pricing model, wich is very different from their usual one (40 € as initial price, with frequent sales on the various DD sites like gamersgate, steam, etc). Personally thanks to the 20 € price tag I was probably gonna prorder anyway, so the additional scenario is a nice bonus.

[vonRocko]

Yes none of this is surprising. It's been downhill for ageod ever since they sold their souls too paradix. DLCs', that is standard operating procedure for their new masters! Content is the first to go at paradix, then quality will be next. Ageod WAS great and spoiled me, paradix will make sure that doesn't happen again.

[John Sedgwick]

Normally I'm not a fan of DLC, but considering how long this game has been in development, I'd be very surprised to see an overly buggy release, and I'm sure any additional content will simply be icing on the cake rather than paying for necessary features, as some have feared. Personally, I think having Paradox handle the publishing and marketing side of things can only be good for AGEod in the long run, as it allows them to focus on doing what they do best, which is developing awesome games and supporting them over the long term by releasing patches. There will always be some people bitterly complaining about "greedy" business models (and OneArmed this isn't directed at you as I feel your concerns are valid even if I don't share them), but I'm sure Paradox has done their market research and, as Gray pointed out, if these sour grapes had a negative impact on sales, then they would go about things differently. So if DLC means meeting the release schedule and a continuous revenue stream for AGEod, I'm all for it.

[yoshino]

In the recently's cruel economic circumstances in the game industry, I kinda doubt that an indie developer can survive without some of DLC or micro transaction stuff.

Anyway, I will have to make a mod of the FPW or the crimean war for just myself's enjoyment.

[PhilThib]

Thanks for the quick reply - don't you ever take a day off?

Well, so close to release date, the concept of "off" is alien to my life

[Baris]

Very much agree about developers and to some extent modders should benefit from DLC's for PON(Additional scenarious)in order to keep going and to make the players satisfied(high demand for scenarious). But,
I have the impression PON is not a wargame and from my readings its primary focus is colonizing and managing economy with less detailed generalized cartography and military warfare(OOB). Hopefully if Paradox doesnt interfere much about other future projects of Ageod I will be more willingly to see ex:Crimean War(s) not in PON. Maybe in another game with thousands of regions(balkans, Black sea etc.) and more accurate OOB and most importantly more correctly simulating the weakness of Ottomans and "straits". I think ageod player should think PON as a strategy game and any additional scenario wont be as detailed as RUS and ROP. But as an epic long strategy game PON should be enjoyed with her unique style.

[PhilThib]

That could be indeed an interesting project: an operational game of the wars in the age of Blood & Iron with the level of detail of an AACW...

[Narwhal]

Pre-order bonus? - Developpers usually claim this is a way to reward their loyal customers. Unfortunately, more often than not it is a way to trick customers to "buy the cat in the bag". All too often they realize afterwards that the game was incredible buggy at release and that they should better have waited.

Even though I plan to pre-order PoN, I dislike the system of "pre-order bonus". I like my game complete, and when I notice a game "too late" to have a pre-order bonus, I am psychologically blocked from buying the game. In PoN it won't be a problem for me, but if I had passed the date I would have been less likely to buy it. Your call.

DLC? - If I want something piecemeal, I buy legos or a puzzle. I get an allergic reaction when I hear the word dlc. Why? Usually dlc is overprized in relation to the price of the game itself as well as in relation to the amount of new content it delivers. If PoN needs to generate more money than demand a higher price in the first place. I would be willing to pay it. What I don't want, is enter the world of microtransactions. It is a highly annoying place!

I am ok with DLC if they are priced reasonably and if they have content that I don't feel has been kept out of release for DLCing purpose...
The infamous "horse armor DLC" is a big no-no.
I actually think DLC could work great for PoN. For instance, if I have no interest in the ACW, I won't buy the ACW DLC and I will hopefully lose no content I could have used. Similarly, some people could have no interest in the Franco-Prussian War, but I will be happy the the developers make the campaign because people will give hard cash for it. Overall, I believe it increases the total number of campaign in-game.

Paying money to have extra face-heads of leaders... well, please don't do that.


I am a bit upset at the delay of the patching of RoP, but I can understand the limited resources are 100% allocated to PoN. I just hope the team will give itself some time to "patch back" after PoN.

RUS is out of AGEOD's scope, by the way.

[Narwhal]

That could be indeed an interesting project: an operational game of the wars in the age of Blood & Iron with the level of detail of an AACW...

I think by then you will have understood that both Baris and I would pay a lot to have a game in the Balkan / Turkey / Crimea region, a conflicts with an awfully high number of conflicts, but no love in wargames

Not that it could ever be profitable to you.

[Baris]

That could be indeed an interesting project: an operational game of the wars in the age of Blood & Iron with the level of detail of an AACW...

Exactly . That was the time of interesting alliances,and most importantly huge armies participated accompany by navies in black sea . Specifically the one between 1853-1856. Baltic theatre can be in off-map boxes. Glad to hear.

I think by then you will have understood that both Baris and I would pay a lot to have a game in the Balkan / Turkey / Crimea region, a conflicts with an awfully high number of conflicts, but no love in wargames

Not that it could ever be profitable to you.

Indeed . Balkans,Crimea area and OE regions were less in a status quo in comparison. And Crimea war is a long conflict. Hope to see more operational games like RUS and ROP.

[Sol Invictus]

That could be indeed an interesting project: an operational game of the wars in the age of Blood & Iron with the level of detail of an AACW...

Oh now you really have my ear! I would jump through the roof if you guys announced a FPW game on the scale of ACW. I would fall over and die from excitement if you developed an 1840-1871 Wars of German Unification game.

[hgilmer]

I'm not really upset with the game designers. I'm more just disappointed it isn't what I thought it would be even with the DLC. I have absolutely no issues with paying more for a DLC if it is a good addition which I'm sure they will be. Most of us thought the game should/would be in the 40s or 50s (USD), so it isn't like we weren't willing to output that amount of money for an excellent game.

I just remember asking would there be a WW1 campaign and the answer was probably. Not a promise, of course, a person would be a fool to promise something in that instance. It's disappointment in the sense we don't get it, not necessarily that your decision was you could not at this time.

I still think the game will be an excellent game, but possibly won't be something that appeals as much to me as someone else.

I guess this backs off a little of my earlier posts and I hope you weren't too upset with my obstreperousness.

You have to do what you have to do and I'm pretty sure you make thousands of decisions with every release, some that people won't like and some they will be overjoyed with.

[rsallen64]

I've never paid only $20 for a PC game on initial release, so if this game is "missing" some scenarios, that's ok with me. I understand some of the worry of the AGEOD/Paradox mix, but I'd rather have this company survive by merging with Paradox than die out like so many other independent developers have before. AGEOD is the ONLY developer that I have consistently bought games from upon release, because I know I can trust the quality of the content and the gameplay, and the level of support, no matter what bugs may be present at release.

What other company allows you to communicate with the developers online in a forum directly like you can here, and have them respond like the "Phils" do? With what other company can you post a message concerning a bug and have the developer respond within hours, with a fix, and sometimes have them respond to even a suggestion for a "better" game? You can't get that from the big time developers. As long as AGEOD keeps doing what they do, like they do (and I see no signs that's changing, even with PoN), I will keep buying.

[OneArmedMexican]

Due to circumstances beyond AGEOD's control, the volunteer individual who was coordinating the patches was suddenly hospitalized late last year.

Sorry, didn't know that. I hope he is getting better.

I think unfortunate that those scenarios are not to be included at release time, for several reasons: scenarios give added value to a game, and help tremeduously in "getting to" the game (I do not forget the countless times I played some AACW scenarios - specially Shiloh - before embarking on a full campaign). Plus, with a 1600 turn full grand campaign that probably noone will ever finish, juicy scenarios would be a strong selling point and a main part of the actual gaming experience.

I would much prefer to pay more at release time to have the scenarios that were announced more than a year before than to pay "cheap" and have to buy expansion packs later, but I will have to live with it...


(and please Gray, do not tell me to not buy it )

My feeling exactly.

Another reason we did not include some scenarios was the lack of time to properly test them...releasing an untested scenario won't do any good, and some, like the WW1 one, are real monsters...

But I guess it is hard to argue with PhilThib's point. Thank you for taking the concerns posted in this thread serious, though.

RUS is out of AGEOD's scope, by the way.

I am aware of that. And admittedly I failed to make a distinction when my polemic side took over. But there is another side to this issue: Updates to the AGE engine affect RUS, too. And it seems that some of the problems the newest patch for RUS introduced might be connected to this.

[marcusjm]

I have understood complaints about DLC, it is not like someone is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to buy it.

I do think this engine could handle WW1 (much better than the mediocre Darkest Hour I just paid for) but it would require special attention and certainly warrant DLC cost for me at least.

Nobody works for free, that is a fact.

[vaalen]

I have made it a point of pride to never buy DLC from anybody.

But if there is DLC for this or any other Ageod game, I will buy it - Happily!

Because it is Ageod. Because of who they are, and how they have treated me.

[Zap Brannigan]

Just to add my backing - I've no problem with DLC in this instance - New in-depth scenarios are new content in my opinion -as opposed to the Vikings etc in Civ5 which should have been in originally, the grand campaign is the main focus of PON here.

Also the whole idea of DLC is not a major issue here - As several people have already said the price is only $20 rather than the usual 40-50. If the game is not good enough people will not buy the DLC and will save $20, while if it's up to the usual AGEOD standard the cost of DLC will not be a problem for me (or many others I'd suspect). The pressure is on AGEOD to produce a good game upfront to secure further sales later.

[Franciscus]

Just to add my backing - I've no problem with DLC in this instance - New in-depth scenarios are new content in my opinion -as opposed to the Vikings etc in Civ5 which should have been in originally, the grand campaign is the main focus of PON here.

Also the whole idea of DLC is not a major issue here - As several people have already said the price is only $20 rather than the usual 40-50. If the game is not good enough people will not buy the DLC and will save $20, while if it's up to the usual AGEOD standard the cost of DLC will not be a problem for me (or many others I'd suspect). The pressure is on AGEOD to produce a good game upfront to secure further sales later.

I agree. But as we are not talking about WoW or Civ here, the DLC business model is risky. Even if the original game does very well, only a (small) fraction of the people that bought it will buy some DLC scenarios when/if they are released (they may even never be released if the game does not do "well"), and even fewer will buy all DLCs as they are released. A few more bucks will be nade when the price goes down, and somekind of "gold edition" with all the DLCs is eventually released at discount prices. But in any case in the end the total revenue may be smaller than a full game priced at 40€ on release day.

Anyhow, there's no point arguing, because if PhilThib says that the scenarios are not ready for release, I believe him of course.

Regards

(PS: as a side note, the policy of pricing in the USA and Europe as if $ are 1:1 to the € is unfair !. Praise to GOG, where they gave European buyers of The Witcher 2, vouchers of the difference (in the case, around 16€), to be used buying whatever we want in their catalogue. Paradox/Gamersgate should do the same, IMHO)

[gchristie]

This game looks to be a thing of beauty and a labor of love. I trust the Phils can work within the strictures of Paradox' marketing parameters and to pull this off.

Looking forward to playing this one, DLC or no.

[Lasse]

Sorry, don't know yet, this is handle by the mother company up in Sweden...will ask tomorrow

Hey Phil

Any news on the preordre bonusscenario?

[marcusjm]

Almost the same debate exists about Matrixgames huge pricing but personally I realise that if we want hardcore war/strategy games, then we also have to cough up the money for them, this is the hard truth. Either a) We get super cheap casual garbage like the ones seen in various app-stores, or b) Deep engrossing games and pay what they cost to develop.

I think model is better than MG.s in fact. Cheap entry price then optional DLC that we ourselves decide whether to get or not. This is a great model.

I would also pay for better MP tools btw .

[Queeg]

I've never understood people who whine about DLC. Why do people think they're entitled to new content for free?

Game is offered with feature A. If you think it's worth it, buy it. If not, don't.

DLC adds feature B. If you think it's worth it, buy it. If not, don't.

Where do people think new games come from anyway? I hate to break it to them, but there's no such thing as a Game Fairy.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[ERISS]

Game is offered with feature A.
DLC adds feature B.

DLC are often badly done: Feature A was made to be sufficient. Adding feature B (by other devs?) is often removing the balance of the game.
Usually if B is just a scenario, it's good.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[ERISS]

Yes, BUT you have the choice NOT to buy the DLC... Gamers can exercise some self control

I consider the complete game is it with all its DLC.
That's why I now usually don't buy games at release. I'm waiting some years, and if a DLC wastes the game I buy nothing. If I bought the game and then a bad DLC is released, I no longer plays the game (I'm owned) as it has became incomplete without the DLC, or bad with DLC.
That's why I don't like DLC: You can't be sure about the future of a game.

[Franciscus]

I have nothing in principal against DLCs or expansions, provided they bring extra optional content to the game. But I do not like so called "expansions" that are patches in disguise.

Patches should correct game stopping bugs and bring the original game to the most possible bug-free state, and with ALL the advertised content at release time.

Ageod's past policy, in fact, went far beyond that. AACW's patches, in fact, were not only bug corrections but added much content to the game. As I stated back then, I would not mind to pay for extra content, and I will not mind now

Regards

[Pocus]

Something worthy of note is that if you buy a game in a bargain bin, you have failed to send a signal to the people who paid for the development of the game that it is a good game that deserve expansions, many patches or even a 'volume II'.
Now, everybody will vote with his purse, but know that the post-PON future will be decided in some weeks, not in some months. So if you believe PON is either a good game already, or even a diamond in rough, you are better vote now, because now is the only time.