Expansion for EU IV announced

So many of their DLC are silly single race/faction graphics or sound updates. And they are very expensive for what they are are. It's a big turnoff for me. I don't like to play pick the wheat from the chaff bullshit in the DLC milk bucket....

Geeeze, that's a terrible mixing of metaphors. Sorry all. ;)
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
15,679
Location
Studio City, CA
But if we stick to the real world with real people in it - we have to consider what an expansion actually means - and how it's changing.
.
.
.
Can you let me have my opinion or do you have an argument with some merit to change it?

Well, you made my point for me, so that's my argument.
The point is the word has changed meaning. It used to mean an entirely new addition to a game such as a new landmass for (Action-)RPGs (a la NOTR or DiabloI/II) or a new playable "race" in strategy games (in the Settlers 3 : Amazons or Age of Empires I/II).

Now an expansion can be as little as a new soundtrack.

You do not need to like it and keep shut (I have never said that), I'm just trying to explain that your point (see quote below) is basically not applicable anymore :
While gaming could be considered a luxury, I don't consider milking your audience by piecemeal offerings sugarcoated as expansions to be a right that I care to defend.
Bold by me.

Of course, again, you can have your opinion and I don't mind that. I'm just saying that basically, times have changed.
You can try and fight it (and you might succeed), and that's fine.

What I do nowadays is basically only buy games on sale after a big bunch of expansions/DLC is already available.

I anyway do not have as much time to game as I used to.

One more thing, I am not trying to convince you that what Paradox is doing is fine per se, but rather to convince you that your view on expansions is basically outdated (not wrong), which might be why you think that they are "sugarcoating" things as "expansions", which you believe to be much grander in scale than just some portraits.

Did this make sense ? Or am I just rambling ?
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
9,177
Location
Manchester, United Kingdom
I think I get what you're going for. An expansion used to be a substantial content addition to a game. Now days, many just resemble larger (arguable) DLC offerings than an expansion. Marketing of course prefers to use the term expansion to sell them as substantial content additions though most pale in comparison to how they used to look imo.

I do agree with both the milking and only buying games like this post multiple DLC releases these days.
 
Joined
Jun 13, 2013
Messages
831
Location
North Carolina, US
Well, you made my point for me, so that's my argument.
The point is the word has changed meaning. It used to mean an entirely new addition to a game such as a new landmass for (Action-)RPGs (a la NOTR or DiabloI/II) or a new playable "race" in strategy games (in the Settlers 3 : Amazons or Age of Empires I/II).

Now an expansion can be as little as a new soundtrack.

You do not need to like it and keep shut (I have never said that), I'm just trying to explain that your point (see quote below) is basically not applicable anymore :

I'm not sure what you're saying. My point is 100% applicable for the exact reasons I've given.

I'm saying it's changing and I'm saying it has become the norm to milk your audience through peacemeal offerings disguised as an expansion.

Just because they're trying to call it an expansion doesn't mean I have to consider it an expansion. That's like telling me I have to consider a Big Mac a wholesome meal because they're marketed as such.

That's not going to happen.

Of course, again, you can have your opinion and I don't mind that. I'm just saying that basically, times have changed.
You can try and fight it (and you might succeed), and that's fine.

I don't know why you insist that I'm fighting it. I'm pointing out that it is what it is - and you think that's a fight?

I would never fight ignorance and greed - because they're forces of nature that I have no chance against.

But I'm not going to pretend it's something other than it is, because that would make me a liar or delusional - and I've chosen to live my life in a different way.

What I do nowadays is basically only buy games on sale after a big bunch of expansions/DLC is already available.

That's certainly one way to do it - but that doesn't change that they're milking their audience.

One more thing, I am not trying to convince you that what Paradox is doing is fine per se, but rather to convince you that your view on expansions is basically outdated (not wrong), which might be why you think that they are "sugarcoating" things as "expansions", which you believe to be much grander in scale than just some portraits.

No, it's not outdated - it's different. I don't know about you - but I don't let market forces control my perception of content. I like to use words so they mean something - and if everything can be an expansion, then we'll have to find a new word for the meaty examples - and I don't think that's necessary.

I like the concept of an expansion - and I believe it's an appropriate word. I will keep using it until such time as there's a new appropriate word available.

Did this make sense ? Or am I just rambling ?

It makes perfect sense :)

But I don't think your position is one I'd like to share.
 
Last edited:
Just like terrific's meaning has changed over time from the root : terrere (to frighten) to what it means today (extremely good); expansions have changed from meaning only big new additions to games to any addition to games.

That's basically it. It's a process that took ~5 years, but that's the way it is. Terrere took centuries to change meaning, but it doesn't mean you're going to use terrific nowadays like people did five centuries ago now, is it ?

If so, then you're right and there's not much point to this discussion. If you do agree that words can change meaning over time, then you would need to explain to me why this is not such a case and you can't say : "because I don't think it is".

Well, you could say that, but again, not much point then…

Terrific (to frighten) is still in the dictionary and it still correct to use it, but it just isn't done. So when you say:

"It's not outdated - it's different"

You are right in saying it's different, but wrong in saying it's not outdated.

From the Oxford Dictionary :

terrific
Pronunciation: /təˈrɪfɪk/
adjective
1of great size, amount, or intensity:
there was a terrific bang
informal extremely good; excellent:
it’s been such a terrific day
you look terrific
2 archaic causing terror:
his body presented a terrific emblem of death
Bolded by me
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
9,177
Location
Manchester, United Kingdom
I think I already explained it. As long as the word expansion makes sense to use to describe what I consider an expansion, I will use that word.

I use words in the way that makes the most sense to me - not how corporations would like me to use them.

I don't have any investment or interest in the word terrific - but if I did, I would use it in the way that made the most sense to me as well.

The only approach to communicate that I can understand is to be rational and to use words in a way where they're distinct and meaningful.

But I freely admit that I'm not necessarily a good communicator when the target is someone who sets aside the rational approach and just does as he's told.

Personally, I don't think the corporate forces should get to decide what an expansion actually is. That's something each individual will have to decide for himself.

If everyone starts calling this kind of thing an expansion - then I'll reconsider my position for the sake of mutual understanding, but we're not there yet.

As of now, the vast majority of developers and publishers call this kind of thing DLC in one way or the other - and since we all learned to associate DLC with Horse Armor - I'm ok with that designation. It's just that they're trying to call DLC expansions ;)
 
FWIW, I'm going to call publishers/devs on being deceitful when they try to sell a trivial DLC as an expansion. We should pick a word to label these kinds of DLC.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
15,679
Location
Studio City, CA
in the case of Paradox, AFAIK they don't call the small DLCs expansions (i.e. portraits, country banners, unit icons, music, or tools). Only the ones that do add significant gameplay elements to the game, at least in my experience from CK2 and EU4. Looking back, EU3's expansions were not any bigger than CK2's The Old Gods (they did cost more back then, and if you didn't buy it, you didn't get anything, unlike now).
 
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
5,645
Location
Tardis
FWIW, I'm going to call publishers/devs on being deceitful when they try to sell a trivial DLC as an expansion. We should pick a word to label these kinds of DLC.

I thought we did. Horse Armor.:)

At least that's what my friends and I call them, anytime we talk about DLC's we often ask does it actually add content or is it Horse Armor?

I wonder if bethesda will want a royalty?:D
 
DArt and Paradox is a bit like Joxer and Bethsoft (or me and Creative Assembly, but I like to think that I've matured enough to stop commenting on franchises that I stopped playing more than a generation ago):biggrin:

So many of their DLC are silly single race/faction graphics or sound updates. And they are very expensive for what they are are. It's a big turnoff for me. I don't like to play pick the wheat from the chaff bullshit in the DLC milk bucket….

Geeeze, that's a terrible mixing of metaphors. Sorry all. ;)

I'm not terribly happy with their DLC policy (it made me switch to buying their games after a few major DLCs were released), but separating the wheat from the chaff is pretty easy in their case. It's always perfectly clear what every DLC adds, and they are AFAIK always optional.

I wouldnt want to go back to their more artistic pre-DLC days either. The improvements in quality control since then are huge. Now their games are reasonably bug-free upon release, unlike EU2 where it took four major patches to get rid of never-dying monarchs and the like.

IOW they've gotten more professional all around, and I'd say the upside (acceptable quality control) dominates.
 
Joined
Nov 4, 2006
Messages
2,013
DArt and Paradox is a bit like Joxer and Bethsoft (or me and Creative Assembly, but I like to think that I've matured enough to stop commenting on franchises that I stopped playing more than a generation ago):biggrin:

Yes, you'll definitely find me putting Paradox down in all threads with limited rational criticism. I can't go 5 minutes without saying bad stuff about Paradox… Bad Paradox… BAD!

Oh, you mean I argued this 2-3 times before and you didn't like it because you're such a fan?

AHHH - I get it now ;)

I'm not terribly happy with their DLC policy (it made me switch to buying their games after a few major DLCs were released), but separating the wheat from the chaff is pretty easy in their case. It's always perfectly clear what every DLC adds, and they are AFAIK always optional.

So, you're basically joxer too? ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom