Strategy gaming enthusiasts Al, Jack, and Timothy take a hard look at Paradox Interactive’s recent controversies, examining whether the publisher’s aggressive DLC strategies, problematic launch states, and treatment of satellite studios justify the exceptional grand strategy games they produce, or if players have simply become desensitized to practices that would be unacceptable from other developers.
https://criticalmovespodcast.com/listen
This episode provides an unflinching examination of Paradox Interactive’s business practices, with hosts who collectively have over 13,000 hours invested in Paradox titles critically analysing the publisher’s DLC-driven revenue model, reliance on post-launch fixes, and treatment of development partners. The conversation explores whether Paradox’s £389 price tag for complete Stellaris content represents value or exploitation, examines the devastating impact of the City Skylines 2 situation on Colossal Order, and debates whether AAA studios should embrace early access labelling for unfinished products. The hosts balance legitimate criticism with acknowledgment that Paradox creates irreplaceable grand strategy experiences, ultimately concluding that informed consumers can love the games while condemning problematic practices.
Critical Moves Podcast Episode 68 Show Notes
Episode Title: What’s Gone Wrong With Paradox Interactive?
Hosts: Al, Jack, Timothy
Episode Length: ~62 minutes
Episode Summary
The sixty-fifth episode of Critical Moves tackles Paradox Interactive’s controversial business practices through the lens of three strategy gaming veterans who remain deeply invested in the publisher’s ecosystem despite growing concerns. Following up on Episode 12’s celebration of Paradox games, this instalment examines what’s changed as the publisher faces criticism for Europa Universalis 5’s buggy launch, the City Skylines 2 debacle with Colossal Order, and an increasingly aggressive DLC monetization strategy. The hosts navigate the paradox of genuinely loving games like Stellaris and Victoria 3 while acknowledging that Paradox’s approach—releasing unfinished products, charging hundreds of pounds for complete experiences, and devastating satellite studios—would be condemned from other developers. The conversation explores whether this represents standard industry practice or unique Paradox problems, ultimately concluding that while the games justify continued play, the practices deserve sustained criticism.
What’s Gone Wrong With Paradox Recently
Industry Leadership and Recent Controversies
Paradox Interactive stands alongside Creative Assembly as strategy gaming’s dominant publisher-developer, responsible for defining grand strategy as a genre through flagship titles like Europa Universalis, Crusader Kings, Hearts of Iron, Stellaris, and Victoria. However, recent years have brought mounting controversies that even dedicated fans struggle to defend. Jack acknowledges the tension immediately: “We love to talk about Paradox and strategy games. They go hand in hand. But man, have we had some things to say about their recent releases?”
The publisher’s problems extend beyond individual game launches to systemic issues affecting multiple titles and development partners. Timothy identifies fundamental organizational dysfunction: “They haven’t streamlined too much. They’re a little bit all over the place and they’re releasing a lot of DLC, and they don’t have a good schedule to release games and release DLC and deliver a finished product in one streamlined goal.” This lack of coherent strategy creates frustrated consumers facing simultaneous DLC releases, buggy updates, and abandoned projects.
Lack of Clear Development Focus
Unlike publishers with clear development roadmaps, Paradox appears reactive rather than strategic. Al notes the apparent absence of new projects: “The only thing that Paradox are developing is DLCs for Vampire the Masquerade and Hearts of Iron. That’s it.” This DLC-exclusive focus raises questions about long-term vision—are they building toward future titles, or simply milking existing franchises indefinitely?
Timothy advocates for quality over quantity: “I would like them to cut out quite a bit and deliver more games but finished and polished.” The current approach spreads development resources across numerous DLC projects while simultaneously supporting satellite studio ventures, creating a scattered portfolio lacking clear priorities. This diffusion of focus contributes to quality problems across multiple fronts.
The DLC Strategy: Consumer-Friendly or Exploitative?
The £389 Stellaris Problem
Al presents the most damning statistic: purchasing complete Stellaris content costs £389.59 on Steam at full price, compared to £34.99 for the base game alone. This disparity reveals Paradox’s core business model—games function as entry points for DLC ecosystems that ultimately cost ten times the initial investment. Al articulates the fundamental absurdity: “If you tried to sell a video game for nearly 400 quid off the bat, nobody would buy it. So is this their way of just being able to get as much?”
This pricing structure works because incremental purchases feel manageable. Players who’ve already invested dozens or hundreds of hours will pay £15-20 for expansions rather than abandon their investment. The psychology resembles sunk cost fallacy—having already paid substantially, refusing one more DLC seems wasteful. Paradox exploits this tendency systematically across all flagship titles.
Free Content and Sponsored Development
Jack offers the most charitable interpretation: “They do have free portions of the DLC that everyone enjoys and usually they’re like the biggest most important parts of the DLC. I feel like it offers the opportunity for people to sponsor the continuous development that they do on these games.” This framing positions paid DLC as voluntary support for ongoing development rather than paywalled content.
The free update model does provide substantial content to all players regardless of DLC ownership. Major patches like Stellaris 4.0 deliver significant mechanical overhauls, performance improvements, and new features without requiring purchases. However, this generosity has limits—the most interesting gameplay additions typically require paid expansions, with free updates providing foundations that paid content makes truly engaging.
Scale Justification and Development Costs
Timothy defends Paradox’s approach through scale arguments: “These are huge games. These games are way bigger than many other games out there and probably require a lot more development.” Grand strategy titles do involve extraordinary complexity—simulating entire nations, economies, military systems, and diplomatic frameworks across decades or centuries creates technical challenges exceeding most game genres.
However, scale doesn’t automatically justify extended monetization. Many massive games—The Witcher 3, Red Dead Redemption 2, Elden Ring—deliver complete experiences at standard prices without requiring hundreds of pounds in DLC. The difference lies in philosophy: Paradox designs games anticipating years of paid expansion, while other developers create complete experiences potentially enhanced by expansions rather than requiring them.
Games as Beta Tests: Using Players for QA
Releasing Unfinished Products as Standard
The hosts identify systematic reliance on post-launch fixes as Paradox’s defining characteristic. Timothy explains the implicit arrangement: “They’re getting their audience to bug test the game for them and I think they do listen quite carefully to what players like or don’t like about the game and then adjust it in the DLC that comes up.” This crowd-sourced QA approach saves development costs while creating asymmetric relationships where players pay for the privilege of testing.
Al emphasizes the dishonesty: “They don’t say it’s early access. They don’t say this is an unfinished product. Someone that doesn’t know Paradox Interactive sees a game coming out, hears their friends say Paradox Interactive makes cool games, a new game comes out, they buy it.” Veteran players understand Paradox games improve substantially post-launch, but newcomers purchasing at release expect finished products matching promotional materials.
The Stockholm Syndrome Effect
Al articulates concerning normalization: “We’ve become desensitized to badly released games from Paradox. That’s what it seems like to me.” The acceptance of buggy launches and multi-year development cycles as “just what Paradox does” represents captured audience psychology. Players who’ve invested thousands of hours and hundreds of pounds become psychologically committed to justifying continued investment rather than acknowledging exploitation.
Jack exemplifies this mindset: “The game is fine” when discussing Europa Universalis 5’s mixed Steam reviews. This dismissal of legitimate criticism—reviews cite game-breaking bugs, incomplete mechanics, and radical post-launch changes—demonstrates how community expectations have adapted to accept substandard releases. What would constitute failure for other publishers becomes acceptable for Paradox through conditioning.
Victoria 3 and Unplayable Launch States
Timothy recalls Victoria 3’s catastrophic technical problems: “When Victoria 3 came out, you couldn’t even finish the game because it would not run. The optimization was not there and your computer would crash before the game could finish because the populations would get so intense.” Selling games literally incapable of completion represents consumer fraud in most contexts, yet Paradox faced minimal consequences beyond negative reviews eventually overcome by fixes.
This specific example reveals the extent to which Paradox relies on post-launch development to create functional products. Basic performance optimization—ensuring games run on reasonable hardware—should be non-negotiable. Yet Paradox regularly ships titles requiring months of patches to achieve playability, treating customers as alpha testers rather than paying consumers deserving finished products.
Stellaris Costs £389 for Complete Content
Breaking Down the Pricing
The Stellaris pricing structure epitomizes Paradox’s approach: a reasonable entry price conceals eventual costs exceeding typical AAA titles tenfold. The base game at £34.99 provides functional but limited experience, with meaningful content locked behind story packs, species packs, expansions, and cosmetic DLC. Players seeking complete experiences face choices: accept incomplete games, pay hundreds incrementally, or wait years for bundles.
Al’s personal investment illustrates the model’s effectiveness: “I have loads of DLCs for Stellaris. I have loads of DLCs for City Skylines because I was like, ‘Oh, I want bridges and ports. I want financial districts. I want biogenesis.'” Each purchase feels reasonable individually, but collectively represents extraordinary expenditure justified only by exceptional playtime (Al has 13,000 combined hours in two Paradox titles).
Species Packs and Minimal Content
Not all DLC delivers equal value. Al criticizes cosmetic packs: “A lot of my Stellaris DLCs I bought were species packs. There’s no new content for the game. It’s just or very very very minuscule amounts of new content for the game. It’s just you can have a plant man rather than a fish man or something like that.” These minimal-effort products generate revenue without meaningful development investment.
Jack agrees: “The species packs are my least favorite of their DLCs and are things that I usually would avoid buying if I had to go through and purchase every one of them again. I probably just wouldn’t purchase most of the species packs.” However, their existence proves profitability—Paradox continues producing cosmetic DLC because enough players purchase them, demonstrating market tolerance for low-value content alongside substantial expansions.
Subscription Model Alternative
Paradox offers subscription alternatives acknowledging prohibitive total costs. Al mentions pricing: “I think it’s 8.95 or something to get access to all of the DLCs on subscription or you can pay I think 25 quid for a six-month subscription.” This model provides temporary complete access without permanent ownership, targeting players wanting full experiences without permanent financial commitment.
Subscriptions solve immediate accessibility problems while creating dependency—players lose access upon cancellation, incentivizing continuous payment. For Paradox, subscriptions provide predictable recurring revenue superior to one-time DLC sales. However, this approach further demonstrates that complete Stellaris experiences cost far more than the base game suggests.
EU5 Launch State and Community Response
Mixed Reviews and Technical Problems
Europa Universalis 5’s January 2026 launch exemplified persistent Paradox problems. Jack notes reception: “I think it’s mixed reviews.” Timothy’s personal experience confirms issues: “It’s buggy as hell.” These aren’t minor polish problems but fundamental technical failures undermining core gameplay. Steam reviews reflect frustration, with one cited by Al stating: “Paradox has dumped a steaming pile straight onto the players’ heads. Don’t make the same mistake I did. Don’t give Paradox your money.”
The review continues with devastating accuracy: “Tim, the game might be playable in a year, maybe two. Patches radically rewrite core mechanics every other week. There’s zero point learning the game today because in a month everything will work completely differently.” This captures EU5’s fundamental problem—not just bugs but unstable design requiring radical post-launch revision. Players cannot master systems guaranteed to change substantially.
The “Potential” Defense
Despite acknowledging problems, Timothy maintains optimism: “I do see the potential. I feel so dirty saying it, but I do see the potential of the game, and I think it’s going in the right direction.” This “potential” framing excuses present failures through promised future improvements. However, Al challenges this reasoning: “That’s the problem. They’ve released it already. Why have they not released a great game?”
The potential argument normalizes selling incomplete products. If games require years reaching potential, they shouldn’t launch at full price. Timothy’s discomfort (“I feel so dirty saying it”) reveals awareness of the rationalization, yet inability to escape it. Paradox has successfully conditioned fans to evaluate current products based on hypothetical future states rather than present quality.
Compared to Previous Launches
Jack contextualizes EU5 within Paradox’s pattern: “It’s true for the previous games. It’s true for all these previous games that had released were buggy and not complete and then eventually they got really good.” This historical consistency demonstrates intentional strategy rather than isolated failures. Paradox has discovered they can launch incomplete products, face initial criticism, then rehabilitate reputation through years of patches and DLC.
Al identifies the core problem: “We’ve become desensitized to badly released games from Paradox.” Acceptance represents victory for problematic practices—when communities expect and forgive bad launches, publishers face no incentive to improve. Paradox benefits from lowered expectations while competitors face harsher judgment for equivalent problems.
City Skylines 2 and the Colossal Order Situation
The Manufactured Split
The City Skylines 2 situation represents Paradox’s most morally questionable recent action. Al characterizes the public narrative as deceptive: “They manufactured ‘oh it’s a mutual decision to split from Colossal Order.’ It wasn’t. It was a purely financial business decision to do that.” The diplomatic language of “mutual decision” conceals unilateral publisher action devastating an independent studio.
Paradox removed the City Skylines license from Colossal Order—the Finnish studio that created and built the franchise—transferring it to Iceflake Studios, a Paradox-owned developer conveniently located in the same city. Al describes the execution: “Iceflake Studio is just down the road from Colossal. They’re in the same city, a couple of minutes away on public transport. So Paradox take the license for City Skylines away from Colossal Order, give it to Iceflake Studios and then just poach all the staff.”
Human Cost and Developer Impact
Beyond business implications, the split carries devastating human consequences. Al emphasizes the personal dimension: “Colossal Order is finished as a company. The CEO of Colossal Order, City Skylines was her baby. That was her project, what she always wanted to do was make this city builder and Paradox have taken it from her.” This individual story—a developer’s passion project stolen by their publisher—exemplifies the ruthless business practices underlying Paradox’s success.
Al connects this to broader ethics: “There’s a human cost to these practices. Games are supposed to be fun and bring joy and it seems that for the consumer there’s fun and there’s joy, but for the people that are involved in the development of these projects, people putting all of their hard work and effort into them, they’re getting nothing but kicked in the nuts by Paradox Interactive.”
Predicted Monetization Changes
The hosts theorized about City Skylines 2’s future under Iceflake management during their city builders episode, with Jack recalling predictions: “We would stop seeing major expansions for City Skylines and start seeing monopolized versions of DLCs releasing for them. Little content packs, new songs on the radio, the small things like the species packs for Stellaris that we didn’t like for City Skylines 1.”
This monetization shift serves Paradox’s interests over players’—numerous small DLC purchases generate more revenue than fewer substantial expansions while requiring less development investment. The transition from passionate independent developer to corporate-controlled studio predictably degrades content quality while increasing monetization aggression.
Publisher Risk Management Through Satellite Studios
Minimizing Corporate Exposure
Al identifies Paradox’s strategic use of satellite developers: “They seem to attach themselves to smaller development studios and I guess by doing so they minimize the risk to the Paradox parent company because if the game fails they can just get rid of that studio and keep the core intact which is survivalist thinking.” This structure insulates Paradox from failure while capturing success.
When Lamplighters League failed commercially, Harebrained Schemes faced devastating consequences with approximately 80% staff reductions. Paradox wrote off the loss and moved forward unscathed. This asymmetric risk distribution represents standard publishing practice, but Paradox’s particular ruthlessness—taking licenses from creators, poaching staff, then discarding studios—exceeds typical industry behavior.
The Lamplighters League Example
Jack describes the Lamplighters League aftermath: “With Lamplighters League, I think it was like 80% of the studio was let go following that game. Paradox carried on, but the developer was essentially and effectively disbanded.” This catastrophic failure for Harebrained Schemes represented a tax write-off for Paradox—financially inconsequential beyond lost investment.
Al challenges the “risk-taking” narrative: “This isn’t a situation where Paradox are taking risks on these smaller studios. Paradox are having the smaller studios take the risk on their behalf because if the game fails, Paradox, as you say, write it off. They’ve gone public. They make a lot of money. They have a lot of money in the bank.”
Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines 2
The troubled Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines 2 development exemplifies problems with Paradox’s satellite approach. After years of development hell, studio changes, and delays, the project remains incomplete despite substantial investment. Unlike independent publishers who might face existential threat from such failures, Paradox absorbs losses while developers face consequences.
Jack notes: “Vampire the Masquerade, Lamplighters League, those are not things that are going well for them. I think that’s making them double down on their games as a service strategy rather than investing in these core experiences.” Failed external projects drive retreat to safe DLC-focused strategies for established franchises.
Valve Comparison: Playing It Safe vs Taking Risks
The Half-Life 3 Parallel
Al draws parallels to Valve’s risk-averse approach: “The situation with Valve is people are saying when will we see Half-Life 3? And I don’t think we ever will because Valve know that at the moment they take 30% of everybody else’s games when they sell them. So why would they want to take a financial risk on releasing or developing Half-Life 3 in order to release it and risk it not being successful?”
This comparison illuminates Paradox’s strategic calculations. Like Valve profiting from Steam’s platform dominance, Paradox generates reliable revenue from established franchises through DLC. Developing new IPs or major sequels introduces risk potentially damaging profitable existing ecosystems. Why risk Stellaris 2 failure when Stellaris 1 DLC sells reliably?
Established Player Base Advantage
Al explains the safety of DLC over new games: “Rather than developing a new game where you’ve got risk, release a DLC for an existing game where you know you’ve already got an established player base, you’ve already got people that are actively playing that game all the time. We can see our analytics. We know how many people are playing it. We know how many people have bought our existing DLCs so therefore we can kind of project how many people will buy the next DLC.”
This analytical certainty versus new-project uncertainty drives DLC focus. Existing games provide data enabling accurate revenue forecasting, while new titles involve speculation. For publicly-traded companies prioritizing shareholder value over creative risk-taking, this conservatism makes financial sense even while stifling innovation.
Cost Analysis: DLC vs New Games
Al continues the economic argument: “We know how much it’s going to cost because it’s not a full game. Core mechanics are already there. The core code is already there. We don’t have to do a lot of work in order to produce a DLC. Are they maybe playing it safe by releasing DLCs rather than developing new games? And is that indicative of some maybe financial pressures that the studio is under?”
DLC development requires fractions of the resources needed for new games. Existing engines, core systems, and frameworks mean expansion development focuses on content rather than foundational technology. This efficiency creates superior profit margins compared to full game development requiring years of investment before generating revenue.
Where Are the Sequels? Why No Stellaris 2?
The Hearts of Iron Timeline
Al questions sequel timelines: “Their core titles which they develop, where are the sequels? I appreciate we’ve now had four Hearts of Iron games but that’s over what, 30 years or so. When are we going to see Hearts of Iron 5?” This extended development cycle between major franchise installments differs dramatically from annual or biannual releases common in other genres.
The lengthy gaps between numbered entries reflect both grand strategy’s complexity and Paradox’s DLC-focused model. Why develop Hearts of Iron 5 when Hearts of Iron 4 continues generating DLC revenue years post-launch? Sequels cannibalize existing revenue streams, making them financially suboptimal until player bases significantly decline.
Stellaris 2 Demand
Al articulates widespread fan sentiment: “Where’s my Stellaris 2? That’s all I want. The technology for Stellaris, they can’t rewrite the entire codebase in a patch in order to take advantage of modern technology. They need to release a sequel.” Technical limitations of the 2016-era engine increasingly constrain Stellaris’s potential, creating genuine need for ground-up reconstruction only sequels enable.
However, Al acknowledges his own complicity: “I’d be very interested to see Stellaris 2. Of course I would. And of course I’d buy it and I would then invest 400 quid in DLCs for Stellaris 2 because I’m that kind of schmuck.” This self-awareness highlights how Paradox’s model succeeds despite consumer objections—dedicated fans will purchase sequels and subsequent DLC regardless of cost.
Victoria 4 and EU5 as Examples
The Europa Universalis 5 launch demonstrates sequel risks. Despite years of development, EU5 received mixed reviews citing bugs and incomplete features. Jack predicts future Stellaris 2 reception: “Stellaris 2 will release and it will see critical panning across the industry because it will release without the innovations of the first game and also it will be buggy as hell at launch and it will have a litany of other problems that have to be fixed after a year of patches and expansions.”
This prediction reflects established patterns—sequels launch without predecessor’s accumulated features, disappointing players expecting improved versions of mature games. Paradox faces impossible expectations: match decade-developed first games immediately or face criticism for missing features.
Industry-Wide Problem: Paradox Isn’t Alone
Creative Assembly Comparison
Jack contextualizes Paradox within broader industry trends: “For the whole games industry at large, this is a trend for everyone. This isn’t specific to Paradox. Creative Assembly have continuously released games the past few years that launch in a state where people are expecting they need DLCs to improve the base gameplay.”
Total War faces similar criticisms—recent releases launch with minimal content requiring years of DLC to feel complete. The upcoming Warhammer 40,000: Total War announcement already faces skepticism about launching with only four factions, obviously requiring extensive DLC to represent the setting adequately. This shared pattern suggests systemic industry problems rather than Paradox-specific failures.
Civilization’s Decade-Long Cycles
Jack describes Civilization’s alternative approach: “Sid Meier’s Civilization releases a new game once almost a decade it seems and then they release only two or three expansions for that game entirely. They don’t treat it as games as a service.” However, this model creates different problems—decade gaps between installments with limited expansion support means failed innovations require ten-year waits for correction.
Civilization 6 faced criticism at launch that took years to address through expansions. Civilization 7’s recent release brings renewed controversy about design choices, but dissatisfied players cannot expect Civilization 8 until the mid-2030s. Paradox’s continuous development model at least enables relatively rapid iteration compared to Firaxis’s glacial sequel pace.
Pick Your Poison
Jack summarizes the industry dilemma: “It’s pick your poison. Creative Assembly, they work on their games until they break years later and then they refuse to address the problem. Sid Meier waits a decade before they drop another mainline title and then when they do, it’s not worth your money at all. And with Paradox, you wait a few years for the sequel to a franchise you love to come out, it comes out and then you have to wait a few years before it’s even playable or enjoyable.”
This trilemma reveals systemic problems transcending individual publishers. Strategy gaming’s complexity, development costs, and niche audiences create economic pressures pushing publishers toward problematic practices. No major strategy publisher consistently delivers polished, complete products at reasonable prices with satisfying sequel cadences.
Early Access: Should AAA Studios Use It?
Timothy’s Honesty Proposal
Timothy advocates for transparent early access labeling: “My main concern would be to be honest and call it early access and then all these issues kind of go away because then you’re being told that you’re participating in testing the game out to be continuously developed.” This solution addresses the dishonesty problem—if Paradox openly acknowledged releasing unfinished products, consumer expectations would adjust accordingly.
Early access provides benefits Timothy celebrates: “I think there’s great value in getting so many players to try the game out and test it. I think they save a lot in development because it can be tough for game designers to know where the issues are in their game because they require so much testing and they’re too close to the game. They have their face right in front of it. They don’t see it from a greater distance anymore.”
Al’s Rejection of AAA Early Access
Al vehemently opposes AAA studios using early access: “If Paradox released a game early access, I would never buy an early access game from Paradox or from Creative Assembly or from Firaxis or any of these major studios. Why would you expect your community to beta test your game for you? I think it’s a ridiculous prospect.” This objection centers on resource asymmetry—major publishers have QA departments and budgets indie developers lack.
Al draws distinctions: “If an indie developer releases a game on early access, I’ll be all over that. I think that’s absolutely fine because they don’t have the financial resources that Paradox have.” Early access serves legitimate purposes for small teams lacking testing resources, but becomes exploitative when employed by corporations capable of proper QA.
The Stellaris 2 Test
Jack hypothetically challenges Al: “Stellaris 2 out on early access tomorrow.” Al insists: “I’m not doing it. I refuse. I wouldn’t do it because when I play a game, I want to have that complete experience. I don’t like bugs. I like my experiences of games to be fun and error-free.” However, this conviction faces the reality that Al already tolerates buggy Paradox launches—early access would simply formalize existing practices.
The hosts acknowledge current reality—Paradox already uses players as testers without early access labeling. Jack notes: “They’re doing it anyway. Getting players to play test the game for them.” This recognition suggests early access labeling might actually improve transparency rather than worsening exploitation already occurring.
DLC Sales and Early Access Incompatibility
Jack identifies economic incentives against early access: “If you are in early access, you can’t release DLCs for an early access game. So maybe you’re right and maybe what they’re doing is when they release their DLCs, which tend to change many core mechanics, if that was part of the early access timeline, they wouldn’t be able to sell that to you. They’re essentially selling us their updates to their core game, which really should be part of their early access process.”
This observation reveals the fundamental barrier—early access prohibits DLC sales, conflicting with Paradox’s business model. Major patches accompanying DLC releases would become free early access updates, eliminating revenue streams. Paradox’s refusal to use early access stems from monetization strategy rather than quality commitments.
The Positive Side: Free Updates and DLC Structure
Substantial Free Content
Jack defends Paradox’s free update generosity: “They keep a lot of parts of DLC free. You do get updates even if you don’t pay anything at all. A lot of the updates in the other games are significant ones.” Major patches deliver meaningful improvements to all players regardless of DLC ownership, distinguishing Paradox from publishers paywalling all post-launch content.
Timothy contextualizes this practice: “Part of the DLC is free and the other part is paid.” Paradox splits expansion content between free patches available to everyone and paid DLC adding premium features. This approach ensures player bases don’t fragment between DLC owners and non-owners while monetizing those willing to pay for additional content.
Non-Intrusive DLC Marketing
Jack appreciates restrained monetization: “They do a pretty good job of not waving the DLC in your face. Are there things in Stellaris that when you click on they directly tell you you need to have spent $20 to access? Yes. But do they ever tell you that you reach a certain limit in your free update that you need the DLC for? Not really. Those systems don’t exist in your game anymore. You actually have to have downloaded the content pack for the DLC to see them pop up.”
This design philosophy avoids aggressive upselling. Players without DLC don’t constantly encounter locked features demanding payment. Instead, DLC content simply doesn’t appear, creating clean experiences for various purchase levels. This consumer-friendly approach contrasts with free-to-play games constantly advertising premium content.
Dedicated Update Teams
Jack reveals infrastructure supporting ongoing development: “Stellaris has a dedicated team of internal developers whose job is entirely just to moderate and work on major even number updates like 4.0 and 5.0. They don’t work on DLCs or content. They don’t work on the free part that comes with the DLC. They work on just the base game updates.”
This specialization ensures continuous base game improvement independent of DLC development. Players benefit from performance optimization, bug fixes, and mechanical improvements without requiring DLC purchases. The investment in dedicated update teams demonstrates commitment to product quality beyond immediate monetization.
The 4.0 Update Example
Jack describes Stellaris 4.0’s scope: “They came out with Stellaris 4.0. Major fixes to population, major fixes to the mathematics of the game to help with the late game lag. All things considered, the update didn’t really go that smoothly, but they followed it up with a big paid expansion that was highly requested that delivered on most of the promises that the community would actually ask for.”
This pattern—substantial free updates accompanied by paid expansions—represents Paradox’s best face. Players receive meaningful improvements regardless of payment, while those wanting premium content can purchase expansions. When executed well, this model balances ongoing development costs with consumer value.
Frontier Developments as a Counterpoint
Innovation Between Installments
Jack contrasts Paradox with Frontier Developments: “Another company you could look at is Frontier Development. They seem to continuously work on installments in their major franchises and when you look at their installments that they’re coming out with, they’re innovating.” Frontier’s approach—releasing sequels that genuinely improve predecessors—demonstrates alternatives to Paradox’s model exist.
Jurassic World Evolution 3’s recognition proves commercial viability: “It was just nominated for best strategy sim game at the Game of the Year awards in 2025.” This success suggests players will support properly-developed sequels rather than demanding endless DLC for aging games. Frontier proves innovation can succeed commercially.
Planet Coaster 2’s Leap Forward
Jack celebrates Frontier’s innovation: “When you look at the differences between Planet Coaster 1 to Planet Coaster 2, they’re actually able to innovate so significantly on their games that it’s still worthwhile to jump from the first title to the next title just because of the innovations alone. It doesn’t matter how many DLCs you pay for for Planet Coaster because Planet Coaster 2 is that much better.”
This contrast highlights Paradox’s stagnation—Frontier creates sequels rendering predecessors obsolete through superior features and technology, while Paradox sequels often lack predecessor features accumulated through DLC. Frontier’s model demonstrates that meaningful innovation justifies sequel purchases without requiring DLC accumulation.
Game Design Enabling Innovation
Jack identifies enabling factors: “They have a game that allows them to innovate. They’re able to innovate so significantly on their games because of the style of game that they work on.” Theme park and zoo simulators enable visible, tangible improvements between versions—better graphics, improved simulation depth, new construction options create obvious upgrade justification.
Conversely, grand strategy’s abstract nature makes innovation less apparent. Improved AI or economic simulation doesn’t create screenshot-worthy differences compelling purchases. This structural challenge partially explains why Paradox relies on DLC—incremental additions prove easier to demonstrate and monetize than abstract systemic improvements.
Mod Support and Monetization Practices
Jack’s Controversial Take
Jack challenges conventional wisdom about modding importance: “I think mod support is vastly overstated as significant to developers. I think many players overstate the importance of mod support for a developer. Paradox could probably give far less of a care to the support for its modding community because they don’t necessarily make money from mods like that. It’s a very small percentage of their overall revenue.”
This provocation disputes the narrative that publishers support modding altruistically. Jack argues: “There are definitely companies that morally lean into it. I’m not saying modding is bad. I’m not saying they shouldn’t do those things. It’s altruistic they’re going out of their way to support their modding community.” However, he doubts significant financial incentives drive this support.
Al’s Economic Reality Check
Al demolishes the altruism argument: “Don’t be so naïve. It’s not altruistic. Mods extend the lifespan of a game. They give people the opportunity to make mods and therefore people continue to play their game. And if they’re continuing to play their game, they’re paying attention when DLCs come out and they buy more DLCs.” Mod support serves clear economic interests—sustained engagement drives DLC sales.
Timothy adds developer benefits: “I think it can teach the developers too. I’ve seen lots of features in many games that were mods that were then later taken by the developers and put into the core game.” Modders provide free R&D, testing features and mechanics Paradox can adopt without development costs. This crowdsourced innovation directly benefits publishers.
Content Creator Packs Exploitation
Al highlights particularly egregious monetization: “They’re releasing content creator packs. They’re getting modders to create content and then selling modders’ work.” This practice transforms free community labor into paid products, with Paradox capturing revenue from others’ creativity. The ethical problems resemble Bethesda’s controversial Creation Club.
Jack explains the business logic: “They’re taking the modding community and then packaging it and selling it to the player base when it was previously free. It’s not altruistic. They’re trying to find a way to outsource this foreign labor force and repackage it to sell to the player base. That’s villainous in a way.” This monetization represents pure rent-seeking—capturing value from community creativity without adding development effort.
Bethesda’s Parallel
Jack compares to another mod-famous publisher: “If you look at Bethesda, one of their biggest things is they make huge open world RPGs and they purposefully stick with the same engine to make it as accessible as possible for a massive one of the largest modding communities in the world behind Skyrim to stay there.” Bethesda’s engine continuity enables mod ecosystem persistence, demonstrating long-term community investment value.
However, Bethesda also attempts controversial mod monetization through Creation Club, facing backlash similar to Paradox’s content creator packs. Both publishers recognize modding’s economic value while struggling to monetize it without alienating communities providing free labor.
Final Thoughts: Why We Keep Playing Anyway
Irreplaceable Experiences
Timothy explains continued engagement despite criticisms: “I am a big Paradox player myself. I obviously have fallen into that quite a bit and I enjoy the games they make and I don’t think there’s another video game developer out there that makes games quite anything like what they make.” This uniqueness provides market power—dissatisfied players lack alternatives offering equivalent experiences.
Jack emphasizes Paradox’s monopoly on grand strategy: “Until we start to see some things that challenge that, they’re just going to continuously do this. These are games that are challenging things like Age of Wonders and Civ. They’re not really challenging the Crusader Kings and the City Skylines of the world.” Absent competition, Paradox operates without market pressure to improve practices.
The Paradox of Criticism
Al articulates the central contradiction: “We don’t like how they do business, but we like what comes out of that business and we continue to then fund that business through our purchases.” This tension defines the episode—genuine frustration with practices coexisting with genuine love for products. The hosts criticize Paradox while acknowledging continued play.
Jack frames criticism as responsibility: “Boycotting a game or not playing it outright isn’t actually the best way to make your voice heard necessarily. Us in solidarity of anger towards Paradox just never playing one of their games or never purchasing another DLC isn’t really going to fix the issue. But whether our voices get lost or not, we’re just three more blogs talking about our problems with Paradox among many mixed reviews, negative reviews across Steam and other platforms.”
Informed Consumer Choice
The episode’s ultimate purpose emerges as education rather than boycott advocacy. Al explains: “What we’re saying is Paradox make great games. We enjoy their games, but you need to know what’s going on behind the scenes so that you can make an informed decision on whether you wish to continue to play those games, which we all will continue to do.”
This approach acknowledges reality—dedicated Paradox fans will likely continue playing regardless of business practice objections. However, informed consumers can advocate for change, provide critical feedback, and avoid normalizing exploitative practices through uncritical acceptance. The hosts model this balance—maintaining engagement while refusing silent complicity.
The Junkie Metaphor
Al self-deprecatingly captures addiction dynamics: “I’d buy it and I would then invest 400 quid in DLCs for Stellaris 2 because I’m that kind of schmuck. I’m like a junkie. This is my last hit. This is my last cigarette. Just one more. I hate that I’m smoking cigarettes, but I just I have to do it. I have to fulfill the need.”
This metaphor, though humorous, accurately describes captured consumer psychology. Thousands of hours invested create psychological investment impossible to abandon. Sunk cost fallacy, network effects (friends playing the same games), and genre scarcity combine creating dependency Paradox exploits through reliable DLC revenue from players who’ll purchase despite objections.
Contact & Links
About | Contact | Meet the Team | Get Involved | Forum | Episodes
Discord | Reddit | Twitter / X | Facebook
Instagram | Twitch | Steam Group | Steam Curator
YouTube | Spotify | Apple | Amazon
Email: [email protected]
Episode Verdict
This episode successfully articulates the Paradox paradox—genuinely exceptional games produced through genuinely problematic practices. The hosts navigate the tension between appreciation and criticism, refusing both uncritical fandom and boycott absolutism. Their approach models informed consumer engagement: continuing to play beloved games while maintaining critical awareness of exploitative business models, industry-wide normalization of incomplete launches, and devastating impacts on satellite developers like Colossal Order. The conversation’s greatest strength lies in the hosts’ self-awareness about their own complicity—acknowledging they’ll continue purchasing Paradox products despite objections demonstrates intellectual honesty rare in gaming discourse. For listeners, the episode provides necessary context about Paradox’s DLC-driven model, the £389 Stellaris problem, early access debates, and how publisher practices affect developers. The ultimate message transcends Paradox specifically: strategy gaming’s complexity creates economic pressures pushing publishers toward exploitative practices industry-wide, making informed consumer awareness essential for advocating change while enjoying irreplaceable grand strategy experiences.
Next Episode: To Be Confirmed
Discover more from Critical Moves Podcast
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.