Firaxis did it. Three times. Civ III to Civ IV, Civ IV to Civ V, and Civ V to Civ VI.
Maxis did it. The Sim II to The Sims III.
Any game that has buttloads of DLC or Expansions, or even only a few, is going to feel less than its previous title. That's just how it is and always has been with games like CK2 and the ones above, plus plenty more. It's a well-documented phenomena in the video game industry. Shockingly people are playing Civ VI now much more than they were at release. Why? Because it's gotten expansions and now has as much to offer as its previous title.
I dont dispute any of this because this isn't my argument. Of course Ck3 is never going to be able to beat Ck2 on release. My argument is that Ck3 should be able to stand on it's own on release and be a good game even without the DLC that comes later. I think Ck3 actually looks like it will be better about DLC considering it's not locking certain religions like CK2 did.
Who says the game they are giving you is half a game anyways? And who cares if it IS when it isn't a $70 title? CK2 was what? $40 at release? This stuff takes time and money to make, they can't give you a CK3 similar to a CK2 with eight years of additional support and labour. Do they give you a $40 game? That's what you should ask. And if the answer is no? Who cares? Just vote with your wallet. Either wait for a sale to justify it to yourself or just don't buy it at all.
I do. Imperator was not the experience we expected, and my argument is that Paradox ought to release Ck3 as a game able to stand on it's own merits without dlc before being expanded on with dlc. And to be frank, I never buy games for $70. Just because it's less expensive than other games doesn't mean it's not full price. And I intend to vote with my wallet, but again you misrepresent my argument. I'm not expecting it to be as good as Ck2 on release. I never said that.
Plenty of games operate this way, you can release a game and make it good with DLC. That's the world we live in and it has a much longer precedent that isn't the same as the obviously negative current slew of exploitative and greedy microtransaction full-price shovelware we see with the likes of Fallout 76, Star Wars: Battlefront 2 by EA, and other garbage that what Paradox is doing shouldn't be compared to. You're getting a $40 game with the promise of long term support and content focus on that price point not whether or not it holds up to a completely unfair comparison with a game that has eight years of post-release support.
This is just expanding on your rebuttal to an argument I never made. It's a convenient strawman, but again: I don't expect it to be as good as CK2. I expect it to be a game that stands on it's own merits with dlc expanding on the game without locking entire sections of the game like Ck2 did.
I mean, it's a niche market. As my roommate once said while seeing me play, "that's not even really a game." And the thing is, even the base games by most standards have a ridiculous amount of content. Perhaps it is half, but it's half of a sizable pie. Not to mention that the Devs have made shifts in DLC based on how people choose to play (for example- Way of Life and Monks and Mystics were released largely because the Devs saw players using it as a character RPG as much as a typical Grand Strategy).
Also, I'd say the problem with Imperator is we really don't know a lot about many of the civilizations at play, making them tough to flesh out.
I dont disagree with any of this. I just expect the game to stand on it's own and not require another year of development after release to be playable for most of the playerbase. I hope that they continue the trend of dlc that Way of Life and Monks and Mystics established.
