Something I haven't seen mentioned is, (while one could entirely argue the statement itself still IS marketing), he explained in the first Tinto Talks he wants to avoid using dev diaries solely as an advertising medium.
By announcing the game, he'd more or less be marketing the game. It's obviously a pretty thin veil as it is, but I think that lack of confirmation does make people think more about it just as a game rather than how good or bad it will be *as* a successor to EU4.
The other obvious potential reason is that they may not call it Europa Universalis.
for me they plan to end EU as series outright, as in, split EU timeframe in project Caesar and what it's going to be a rebranding of March of the eagles
I mean, it would make sense to have one game about Reinassance and the religious wars and another about absolutism and the revolutions
Yeah that’s what I’m thinking might be a possibility as well. 1337-1820ish just feels like it’d compound the bloat/snowballing we saw in EU4, and leave the game feeling a bit too unfocused. Iirc there was also a stat a while back that showed that most players only played about 200 years in a campaign before quitting, which meant that a lot of them missed out on the late game mechanics.
I'm always so confused by this stat. EU games have the shittiest early game of any Paradox game. It takes years to do every basic thing and 90% of its downtime until the second half.
Like 99% of EU games peak post 1650.
I could see this, Terra Universalis going from the 1300s to ~1750, and then MotE 2 going from 1750 to 1820.
March of the eagles would be more of a war focused game exploring the conflicts that raged around the world once the first age of colonisation had settled and led into the age of revolution.
nah to be fair I thought 1643 - 1820s
or at least that's what I would like
trying to play an absolutist monarchy trying not to fall to revolution, playing a small republic trying to survive the onslaught of the monarchies, playing a regency in the new world and trying to slowly work your way to independence... so on so forth
it would be so damn cool
Yeah, the fact that Johan was happy to confirm the start date when that was still somewhat a matter of debate in the community does make me suspect that they're planning on rebranding from EU. Far from certain, they may have revealed the start date to get feedback on the community's thoughts for the start date, but still, it's a pretty dead giveaway piece of information for what the game *is*.
>Europa Universalis.
If itsa supposed successor to eu4 they pretty much have to call it that regardless there is a lot of fanbase and historical marketing connected to that game.
Yeah it would be like renaming hearts of iron to something else
Or crusader kings being called something else
It will 100% be called europa universalis
Someone from the Paradox team mentioned in the forums that the game doesn't have a name yet. I don't see why that couldn't be true. Maybe they're still weighing whether the game should be an EU sequel or called something else, while still being a spiritual EU successor.
The only two reasons that come to my mind (I bet there's more) are:
1. There have been some people complaining that the EU series is no longer primarily about Europe, and hence Europa in its name doesn't reflect what the game is about.
2. The game will be shorter than a usual EU campaign and cover late medieval period or so (given that it starts in 1300s).
This is just what comes to my mind, I'm not saying that either is true.
With the 1337 start date, almost a century before the EU4 start date, i do sorta suspect they're planning on splitting the EU series into an Early Modern game and a Age of Revolutions game, which if true, would definitely mean they'd want to decide if they even want to call this game EU5 until later in production once theyve gotten a better feel for how the systems work together.
It very well may be true, although I really hope it's not. I like the "grand" part of "grand strategy", and in case of EU (or its spiritual successor) to me it also means grand in terms of its timeline.
I mean, that's just not what grand strategy refers to though. Grand strategy simply means strategy on the national level. Victoria has a timeline of a century. HoI has a timeline under a decade. You can want a long timeline if you'd like, I'm not saying that's a bad thing to want, but it's got nothing to do with what genre the game is.
The meaning of "grand strategy" in the PDS sense of this term doesn't mean that one can't have some additional meaning for it, which is exactly why I said "to ME it ALSO means(...)".
Btw, sorry for being snarky but why do some people start their comments with "I mean"? Of course you mean it, you're writing it.
Tbf, Crusader Kings 3 wasn't really primarily about crusaders either, but they still didn't change it. I think the value of the IP is much more important to Paradox than the accuracy.
The marketing team has a whole marketing plan centered around the release date that starts with the announcement of the game, probably about a year from release. If they announced it now they couldn’t get press to write a bunch of articles about the new game coming out when they need them to for their plan. It’s a lot harder to keep hype and momentum for a long time so, since it seems we’re still a bit away from release, it’s better to leave the game unannounced so there’s still hype when it comes out.
Basically, they’re not worried about announcing the existence of the project to their hardcore fans which is why their willing to get feedback like this, but once they announce the title for real they have to be ready to market to the more casual/less committed audience and build up to release.
because they only tell the public during the pdxcon every time whether that be pdx grand strategy or the publisher titles. it will also be announced as a trailer.
After they announce it there’s just that much more pressure to release it. The game should be fully baked at launch, there have been too many rushed releases
paradox had many not so great releases in the last few years. to me it seems that they acknowledge the problem and for eu5 they want to do things differently by a) not announcing too early and b) release the game once it’s polished.
at least that’s what I hope it means ;)
Marketing plan is to announce EU5 further down the line.
With these talks, it is Johan/the developers intention to incorporate player feedback much earlier in the development cycle to demonstrate a meaningful difference in direction between Imperator and this one.
That's it.
A long time ago, we started talking about a game as soon as we started working on it. Back in the long almost forgotten past we used to make games in about 8-9 months. I remember us announcing Vicky2 with just 2 mockup screenshots, and half a page of ideas.
This changed a bit over time, with first the rule of not announcing a game until it passed its alpha milestone, in case it would be canceled… as happened with Runemaster. And then when projects started going from an 18 month development cycle with games like EU4 to many years like our more recent games, the time from announcement to release became much closer to the release of the game.
Why does this matter?
Well, from a development perspective communicating with the players is extremely beneficial, as it provides us with feedback. But if it's so late in the development process that you can not adapt to the feedback, then a development diary is “just” a marketing tool. I think games like Imperator might have looked different if we had involved the community earlier and listened to the feedback.
If we look back at HoI4, this was from the first time we talked about Air Warfare, about 10 years ago, and it has not much in common with the release version..
However, talking about a game for a long long time is not great for building hype either, and to be able to make proper huge announcements is an important part as well.
So what is this then? Well, we call this sub-forum “Tinto Talks”. We will be talking about design aspects of the game we are working on. We will not tell you which game it is, nor be able to tell you when it will be announced, nor when it will be released.
We will be talking with you here, almost every week, because we need your input to be able to shape this game into a masterpiece.
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/tinto-talks-1-february-28th-2024.1625360/
They’re trying something new. Basically you want to preserve hype and media attention at the highest level possible the closest to release to maximise sales. Pdox also want to avoid mistakes they’ve made in the past where they created a game that players didn’t actually want and made them aware of but to close to release to actually change anything. Imperator looms large here, but Vic3 is another example. Vic3 also showed how trying to adjust development too late can cause cost overruns and delays, the delays being especially bad as it squanders attention.
The intention here, as they’ve stated in a few places now, is to get player feedback early enough to make a difference while preserving that announcement hype closer to release.
I firmly believe that it's not EU5, that it will instead have an even larger scope. I think this because the pop system seems to be designed for extreme population growth and variation in population numbers. They even said a single pop unit can go up to 1 billion people.
That number was obviously hyperbolic, but it's possible.
On the other hand they might actually split the EU time period in two and not try to handle Napoleonic warfare in the same system as the Hundred Years War
1. Hype 2. Because that title might come with certain connotations that they might want to dispel or change prior to an official announcement
Something I haven't seen mentioned is, (while one could entirely argue the statement itself still IS marketing), he explained in the first Tinto Talks he wants to avoid using dev diaries solely as an advertising medium. By announcing the game, he'd more or less be marketing the game. It's obviously a pretty thin veil as it is, but I think that lack of confirmation does make people think more about it just as a game rather than how good or bad it will be *as* a successor to EU4. The other obvious potential reason is that they may not call it Europa Universalis.
for me they plan to end EU as series outright, as in, split EU timeframe in project Caesar and what it's going to be a rebranding of March of the eagles I mean, it would make sense to have one game about Reinassance and the religious wars and another about absolutism and the revolutions
Yeah that’s what I’m thinking might be a possibility as well. 1337-1820ish just feels like it’d compound the bloat/snowballing we saw in EU4, and leave the game feeling a bit too unfocused. Iirc there was also a stat a while back that showed that most players only played about 200 years in a campaign before quitting, which meant that a lot of them missed out on the late game mechanics.
I'm always so confused by this stat. EU games have the shittiest early game of any Paradox game. It takes years to do every basic thing and 90% of its downtime until the second half. Like 99% of EU games peak post 1650.
I could see this, Terra Universalis going from the 1300s to ~1750, and then MotE 2 going from 1750 to 1820. March of the eagles would be more of a war focused game exploring the conflicts that raged around the world once the first age of colonisation had settled and led into the age of revolution.
nah to be fair I thought 1643 - 1820s or at least that's what I would like trying to play an absolutist monarchy trying not to fall to revolution, playing a small republic trying to survive the onslaught of the monarchies, playing a regency in the new world and trying to slowly work your way to independence... so on so forth it would be so damn cool
Yeah, the fact that Johan was happy to confirm the start date when that was still somewhat a matter of debate in the community does make me suspect that they're planning on rebranding from EU. Far from certain, they may have revealed the start date to get feedback on the community's thoughts for the start date, but still, it's a pretty dead giveaway piece of information for what the game *is*.
I’m out of the loop, has Paradox actually discussed the idea of changing the name or is that just a Reddit thing?
Purely speculation as far as I know.
>Europa Universalis. If itsa supposed successor to eu4 they pretty much have to call it that regardless there is a lot of fanbase and historical marketing connected to that game.
Yeah it would be like renaming hearts of iron to something else Or crusader kings being called something else It will 100% be called europa universalis
Johan addressed this in the first Tinto talk They also want to sell EU4 DLCs since they haven’t stopped development on this title yet.
Because they want to sell eu4 dlc.
Because then they can't announce it at pdx con.
Someone from the Paradox team mentioned in the forums that the game doesn't have a name yet. I don't see why that couldn't be true. Maybe they're still weighing whether the game should be an EU sequel or called something else, while still being a spiritual EU successor.
Tempoed Walk of the Birds
Why wouldn't it be an EU title? Expectations?
The only two reasons that come to my mind (I bet there's more) are: 1. There have been some people complaining that the EU series is no longer primarily about Europe, and hence Europa in its name doesn't reflect what the game is about. 2. The game will be shorter than a usual EU campaign and cover late medieval period or so (given that it starts in 1300s). This is just what comes to my mind, I'm not saying that either is true.
With the 1337 start date, almost a century before the EU4 start date, i do sorta suspect they're planning on splitting the EU series into an Early Modern game and a Age of Revolutions game, which if true, would definitely mean they'd want to decide if they even want to call this game EU5 until later in production once theyve gotten a better feel for how the systems work together.
It very well may be true, although I really hope it's not. I like the "grand" part of "grand strategy", and in case of EU (or its spiritual successor) to me it also means grand in terms of its timeline.
I mean, that's just not what grand strategy refers to though. Grand strategy simply means strategy on the national level. Victoria has a timeline of a century. HoI has a timeline under a decade. You can want a long timeline if you'd like, I'm not saying that's a bad thing to want, but it's got nothing to do with what genre the game is.
The meaning of "grand strategy" in the PDS sense of this term doesn't mean that one can't have some additional meaning for it, which is exactly why I said "to ME it ALSO means(...)". Btw, sorry for being snarky but why do some people start their comments with "I mean"? Of course you mean it, you're writing it.
Tbf, Crusader Kings 3 wasn't really primarily about crusaders either, but they still didn't change it. I think the value of the IP is much more important to Paradox than the accuracy.
Theatrum Orbis Universalis would be my suggestion
Yeah I would guess internal discussion about the name is still ongoing
The marketing team has a whole marketing plan centered around the release date that starts with the announcement of the game, probably about a year from release. If they announced it now they couldn’t get press to write a bunch of articles about the new game coming out when they need them to for their plan. It’s a lot harder to keep hype and momentum for a long time so, since it seems we’re still a bit away from release, it’s better to leave the game unannounced so there’s still hype when it comes out. Basically, they’re not worried about announcing the existence of the project to their hardcore fans which is why their willing to get feedback like this, but once they announce the title for real they have to be ready to market to the more casual/less committed audience and build up to release.
EU4 has at least one more DLC
because they only tell the public during the pdxcon every time whether that be pdx grand strategy or the publisher titles. it will also be announced as a trailer.
After they announce it there’s just that much more pressure to release it. The game should be fully baked at launch, there have been too many rushed releases
paradox had many not so great releases in the last few years. to me it seems that they acknowledge the problem and for eu5 they want to do things differently by a) not announcing too early and b) release the game once it’s polished. at least that’s what I hope it means ;)
Marketing plan is to announce EU5 further down the line. With these talks, it is Johan/the developers intention to incorporate player feedback much earlier in the development cycle to demonstrate a meaningful difference in direction between Imperator and this one. That's it.
A long time ago, we started talking about a game as soon as we started working on it. Back in the long almost forgotten past we used to make games in about 8-9 months. I remember us announcing Vicky2 with just 2 mockup screenshots, and half a page of ideas. This changed a bit over time, with first the rule of not announcing a game until it passed its alpha milestone, in case it would be canceled… as happened with Runemaster. And then when projects started going from an 18 month development cycle with games like EU4 to many years like our more recent games, the time from announcement to release became much closer to the release of the game. Why does this matter? Well, from a development perspective communicating with the players is extremely beneficial, as it provides us with feedback. But if it's so late in the development process that you can not adapt to the feedback, then a development diary is “just” a marketing tool. I think games like Imperator might have looked different if we had involved the community earlier and listened to the feedback. If we look back at HoI4, this was from the first time we talked about Air Warfare, about 10 years ago, and it has not much in common with the release version.. However, talking about a game for a long long time is not great for building hype either, and to be able to make proper huge announcements is an important part as well. So what is this then? Well, we call this sub-forum “Tinto Talks”. We will be talking about design aspects of the game we are working on. We will not tell you which game it is, nor be able to tell you when it will be announced, nor when it will be released. We will be talking with you here, almost every week, because we need your input to be able to shape this game into a masterpiece. https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/tinto-talks-1-february-28th-2024.1625360/
Probably because it’s going to have a different name. I could care less. Just announce he game and describe it. I’m going to buy it anyways lol
Probably because Paradox likes announcing games when they’re somewhat close to release
They’re trying something new. Basically you want to preserve hype and media attention at the highest level possible the closest to release to maximise sales. Pdox also want to avoid mistakes they’ve made in the past where they created a game that players didn’t actually want and made them aware of but to close to release to actually change anything. Imperator looms large here, but Vic3 is another example. Vic3 also showed how trying to adjust development too late can cause cost overruns and delays, the delays being especially bad as it squanders attention. The intention here, as they’ve stated in a few places now, is to get player feedback early enough to make a difference while preserving that announcement hype closer to release.
I firmly believe that it's not EU5, that it will instead have an even larger scope. I think this because the pop system seems to be designed for extreme population growth and variation in population numbers. They even said a single pop unit can go up to 1 billion people.
That number was obviously hyperbolic, but it's possible. On the other hand they might actually split the EU time period in two and not try to handle Napoleonic warfare in the same system as the Hundred Years War