Europa Distasersalis IV

What do you mean I've "been disqualified from the clever titles awards"!?

Every now and then there'll be a little story that'll slip across my multiple screens and I'll peep it for a bit, but then really have a crisis of opinion on when it comes to diving into it on this here blog. (Cause unless I've got some insight on the matter, it's not really worth it) Most of the times that comes when I don't think there's really enough yet out about the topic, or in this case because I absolutely do not know enough to even really comprehend what all of the hoopla is about to begin with. Strategy games may be a little bit of a guilty pleasure of mine but that is in no way indicative of my knowledge of them, no I'm mostly a complete clueless dunce in those regards. But then a little turn to the story presented itself when I happened to take a little closer look at the product in question, and now what I really want to talk about is Europa Universalis 4, strategy games at large, and monetisation in the strategy game realm. Sounds vague, but I promise to hit all of those points by the end.

But first, Europa Universalis 4; what's up with that game? Well as far as I understand it, it's a civilisation-like grand strategy game where you helm an empire through their years of empire. The official description reads that it's games are set between 'renaissance and revolution', which I guess makes sense as those are usually the most action-packed years of any long-term CIV game unless you descend into all-out global warfare by the modern age. (You generally want to avoid doing that) Like most Paradox strategy games, Europa Universalis was well received and regarded as another stunning addition to the strategy pantheon; or at least that was until their latest release 'Leviathan' (Not the Mass Effect 3 DLC) wherein the community came together to give it single headedly the lowest rating on Steam. Now, that's a little bit of a misnomer as there are games with lower percentages than this single DLC pack for Europa, simply because Steam is ever assaulted by an endless deluge of shovel-ware, but it still wins the title thanks to the sheer volume of negative reviews against positive ones. People actually bought and played this DLC, you see, and a lot of them did not come away happy.

Thus was how I was introduced, and why I was reticent, towards this topic. I don't play Europa Universalis, I don't know why everyone would be hating on it's DLC. For all I know it could be anything from the balance of the game being way off, the additions to the game being ill-suited or just the thing not working, and even if any of that was the case, none of it would explain why any of this is such a big deal if we're just talking about DLC and not even the base, solid, game. Well, upon further reflection I understand. Leviathan is reported to be criminally undercooked with bugs hanging from every surface, missing assets and a general feeling that you paid £15 for a work-in-progress build; because that's pretty much what they did. And I also learned that Europa Universalis 4 was launched back in 2013, yet has been prolonged to this day through use of an ancient art once thought only known the live service crowd; content updates. Everytime one drops it's supposed to shake up the game to the point where it almost feels like a new title, serving the role that a new entry in the franchise once would; which could go to explain why everyone was so incensed when this content drop was such an underbaked buggy mess. (Hence justifying the worst rating on Steam right now), but before we explore that there is the discussion of precedent.

This isn't the first time that Europa Universalis 4 has dropped an undercooked expansion. Judging from comments this may be the worst example of that, but there have been others and, understandably, this is a trend that had started to weigh on the fanbase. If you've ever been sold a terrible game from someone you trusted one time that's already bad enough and is going to affect your opinion of them, but imagine if the next Bethesda or CDPR game was just as rushed- you'd start to feel pretty ticked off eventually. Well that's where the fans are at and it's the reason why they came to this expansion in droves to make their displeasure known. Even doubly so since the Europa Universalis developers have stopped visiting the forums often both for fear of retribution and because their track record has sort of painted them as a target around there. But then, as the developers tried to, we could turn this on it's head into a conversation about feedback.

Because in the wake of all this random negative press which got so bad that even bystanders like me were drawn into strategy games drama, a few fingers were pointed back at the community and the way they've been acting. In the eyes of the developers, it's demoralising to make content for a group of people who tear it to shreds each and every time, label them as incompetent and seem to thrive on their failure. All reactions that I can honestly understand, devoting yourself for those that don't seem grateful at the very least can take the fun out of the job, but on the otherhand one must consider that these are customers were talking about. People who pay a certain amount of money expecting to receive goods or services of equivalent value are usually pretty justified in their annoyance if what they receive is wanting. Calling out those who stiffed them, and on their own forums, does seem like a pretty reasonable response. Or do they expect everyone to say "Meh, they'll get it right next time." Die hard fans might, but the average player probably isn't going to be that patient. Cause a big enough ruckus and there really isn't many others to redirect blame for all this negativity to, and screwing up several expansions in the strategy games field is a big deal.

It was only when I looked at Europa Universalis' Steam page that I realised how big, and that was because these expansions basically form up what these games count as 'monetisation'. Rather than Microtransactions or lootboxes, these games shoot for a much more traditional DLC model, but with so much DLC you might as well be looking at a Microtransaction market. Buying all the DLC for this game in particular would run you back £290 for 34 items! (Of course, bare in mind that some of those are compilation packs, so the real full price would be slightly cheaper.) Good lord, these guys make a lot of DLC! And some of it is merely unit packs for various factions, but others contain actual systemic changes to the game that evolve the game experience to the next level. Following this train of DLC is similar to following the storyline of a Liveservice, both yourself and your wallet are invested so it's important for the developers to deliver. Of course that also puts the pressure on them to constantly perform or else end falling flat on their face, falling out of rhythm and then end in a situation like Europa Universalis did, with a string of poor releases.

Though I can't speak of specific examples for this game, I can offer my experiences with another strategy gem from the same publisher: Stellaris. There's a game about expanding a civilisation to the stars and it's built on a similar (if not as milked) model of big content updates through DLC that extends the game's life cycle. 'Apocalypse' added a whole new class of military vehicle with the ability to destroy entire planets, shaking up the balance to it's core. 'MegaCorp' implemented a whole new interface wherein supremacy could be won through the expansion of business, opening up brand new avenues to successful supremacy and essentially operating as a whole new campaign path. With 'Federations' there was a whole new system for diplomacy to fix the honestly broken system that was in the basegame. And 'Nemesis' was apparently a bit of a bust. Strategy games are no longer following the iterative release strategy of other genres but have settled into a pattern of building upon base foundations, which is why this seemingly unprecedented backlash to a DLC is simply a reflection of the environment in which these games are now thriving.

Recently the lead of the Europa Universalis has accepted all blame for the broken DLC and chose not to throw the virginal studio who helmed it under the bus. (Golf clap) He's also taken the time to detail exactly what they should of done under the assumption that because he can pinpoint it, that means fans should trust him not to make the mistake again. With any luck that will be case, because strategy game communities are so tightknit that's it's honestly heart-breaking to see one tear at itself like this. (I don't know what I'd do if X-Com were hit with something similar.) But I guess this just goes to show that half-assing DLC is no longer something that developers and Publishers can get away with under the guise of "Well, you don't have to buy it so stop complaining." (>Cough< Bethesda >Cough<)