In the future they promise to still be working on reducing the bug count and improving game performance as much as possible. They have not only addressed a lot regarding the Leviathan issues but have fixed a lot of legacy bugs, reducing the backlog of existing issues and starting a rebalancing of some parts of the game that were required and requested by fans. It's like that saying, "fool me once.".īottoms line is, we may need EU5, but we need Vic3 far, far, FAR more.At the moment, developers say, they are quite satisfied with the current state of the game and think it’s in a much better spot than one year ago.
Not gonna say I'll lose interest in GSGs altogether, but my confidence in PDX would take a serious blow, hard to tell if I'd still be motivated to keep up with these games.
Then again, I could ultimately forgive PDX for CK3 coming before Vic3, but if EU5 does as well the "Vic3 never" meme will stop existing and become full fledged reality. It makes sense to me, that they'd keep selling new DLCs for the current game right up until close to when they feel ready to announce the next game, keeping the gap between games (and potential profits) as small as possible. Like it was with CK3, I think they are going to stop developing EU4 as soon as they feel EU5 is close to a good enough state to be announced, "room for growth" being of secondary concern. Like someone pointed out earlier, EU5 is very likely in development already, perhaps even for a while now, so I think the timetable of the sequel is going to be dictating the final nail in EU4's development. That said, I don't think "room for growth" will end up being the determining factor here. Like many, I also think EU4 has some room to grow before being done. Do people want to have a less interesting HRE at launch so they can buy Emperor again? Genuinely curious.ĭo we need it? Yes, most definitely, but do we need it now? I'd say probably not. So they can take their time to make EU5 the best it can be.Įdit: I'd really like to know why some people disagree with what I've said.
Sales are going pretty strong too I believe. They have time, the community is not actively demanding EU5 yet and is willing to support EU4 for some years still.
They probably learnt a lesson with Imperator that the initial sour taste can remain even if the game improves later on. Hopefully Paradox takes its time to guarantee the first option happens, which may require a lot of work from them. I think EU5 should ask itself: "can I go beyond EU4?" Not: "can I just reinterpret EU4 with this and that new core mechanic?" Just looking back at the money I've spent in EU4 makes me fear this scenario and puts my loyalty to the brand to test.
But if it's just a blank canvas clearly designed to get DLC/immersion packs of content we already have in EU4, I will probably just abandon the series in disgust. If EU5 keeps the content of the EU4 DLCs, with the appropriate tweaks and improvements on their integration and UI, and adds new core elements people demand, be it pops/diversity mechanics/better trade/whatever, I will happily jump in and keep supporting it during its lifetime like I do with EU4. I am afraid that we may lose added content we already give for granted in EU4 for EU5.ĮU4 is immense so I fear they will go the route many developers in the industry do when making a sequel, deleting features and content just to hype and sell their reintroduction later on.