you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 14 points 1 year ago (1 child)

Im sympathizing with both sides of the conversation. Grand strategy games are so complex and can be supported for 10+ years so it makes sense that they regularly make DLCs to support development.

But they're not totally optional/unnecessary. The problem is that many games are balanced around the new DLCs that sometimes you're at a disadvantage if you dont buy them. I remember some drama around crusader kings where some mechanics don't make sense unless you buy some DLCs

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    I agree. Strategy game do occupy a weird space, EU4 was a go to game for me for like 10 years. I appreciated the support for the game and did buy the DLC that changed mechanics (skipping most flavour packs). I remember people complaining about janky mechanics without DLC, but I know others would rollback to previous versions.

    Funny thing is that despite playing EU4 for years and really enjoying the game. I feel little urge to upgrade to EU5.

  • source
  • parent