Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Cities Skylines Paradox: how the sequel stumbled

selix.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 58 posts

Re: The Cities Skylines Paradox: how the sequel stumbled

#21

Post by arbll »

gyomu wrote: post #7
voidUpdate wrote: post #3

I still don't know why we needed a sequel... Couldn't they just keep working on the original game, which already worked really well and lots of people loved? I had similar feelings about kerbal space program, but at least there it's somewhat understandable, given the jank that crept in over time

Development teams are expensive to fund, and people who have bought a game will pay full price for a sequel, but won’t pay full price for updates/DLC. And releasing a sequel gets you hype and press coverage - potentially expanding your customer base - in a way that releasing updates won’t. There are some exceptions (No Man’s Sky?) but they are very few and far between.

Rust (not the language) is another good exception that is mostly powered by DLCs and skins today. Continuous updates with balance changes keep the game fresh, ensuring you maintain your playerbase that will in turn buy DLCs.

Re: The Cities Skylines Paradox: how the sequel stumbled

#22

Post by Ciantic »

> The Paradox Mods platform will remain the only officially supported mod hub, so deep code mods akin to CS1’s may never return.

I've written a mod to CS2 and CS1 (granted not a big mods but few small ones), Paradox mod store doesn't limit you in depth of the code mods. What you are limited by is churn in the internals of the game engine, as most mods use monkey patching techniques that then break.

What I wished CS2 modding had some official way to monkey patch, so they could somehow try to detect incompatible monkey patching when people have 100s of mods installed. Suppose two mods modify WaterSystem, it would show the user both mods and locations they've attached at. It would help debug things down.

Many gamers blame original game devs for broken game even though it was fault of the mods they've installed. For us who knows programming, that is ridiculous because these mods are monkey patching at so deep level... but that is probably reason many games don't have official modding as it weighs down their reputation.

Re: The Cities Skylines Paradox: how the sequel stumbled

#23

Post by dfxm12 »

voidUpdate wrote: post #3

I still don't know why we needed a sequel... Couldn't they just keep working on the original game, which already worked really well and lots of people loved? I had similar feelings about kerbal space program, but at least there it's somewhat understandable, given the jank that crept in over time

You can only sell a game once. Once you have your customers' money, you've achieved your goal. What else is there to do? DLC has a hard cap on your possible sales...

You could work on a totally new game, but, I think companies are looking to cut costs by reusing content.

Re: The Cities Skylines Paradox: how the sequel stumbled

#24

Post by Zardoz84 »

gyomu wrote: post #7
voidUpdate wrote: post #3

I still don't know why we needed a sequel... Couldn't they just keep working on the original game, which already worked really well and lots of people loved? I had similar feelings about kerbal space program, but at least there it's somewhat understandable, given the jank that crept in over time

Development teams are expensive to fund, and people who have bought a game will pay full price for a sequel, but won’t pay full price for updates/DLC. And releasing a sequel gets you hype and press coverage - potentially expanding your customer base - in a way that releasing updates won’t. There are some exceptions (No Man’s Sky?) but they are very few and far between.

> Development teams are expensive to fund, and people who have bought a game will pay full price for a sequel, but won’t pay full price for updates/DLC.

So, you never fall in the trap of Paradox Games and the eternal launch of DLCs for Stellaris/Victoria/Hearths Of Iron/etc?

Re: The Cities Skylines Paradox: how the sequel stumbled

#25

Post by wongarsu »

voidUpdate wrote: post #3

I still don't know why we needed a sequel... Couldn't they just keep working on the original game, which already worked really well and lots of people loved? I had similar feelings about kerbal space program, but at least there it's somewhat understandable, given the jank that crept in over time

KSP2 made some degree of sense: the game had outgrown its engine and architecture, so you start fresh with a bigger dream.

But before that had a chance to fail from second system syndrome it was doomed to fail by insane demands from Take 2. News of work on KSP2 could harm sales of KSP1, so when hiring people to work on KSP2 they couldn't mention what they were hiring for. So you had a team who didn't know KSP1, and due to budget constraints were mostly juniors. Then to "save time" they were not allowed to only pick the good parts of the old source code or to even switch engine, they were supposed to just expand the janky KSP1 code base. Obviously without being allowed to talk to the developers of that code base, because secrecy. And no talking to fans about what they would want from a KSP2 either, because, you guessed it, secrecy.

So an inexperienced team disconnected from the fan base was supposed to fix a code base they were not familiar with, without speaking to the people who wrote it, add some cool features to it that the original team never tackled due to engine limitations, and release it to massive fanfare. Surprisingly this did not work. As the project was failing went back on many of those decisions, but it's hard to fix a project that starts off so wrong

Compare to Kitten Space Agency: hire KSP1 devs and KSP1 modders so you have people who can judge what worked and what didn't, start with a home-grown engine that fits the unique demands of a KSP-like game, talk with the community during development. Obviously they aren't far enough along yet to call it a success, but I give them much better chances

Re: The Cities Skylines Paradox: how the sequel stumbled

#26

Post by sidewndr46 »

input_sh wrote: post #12
manyaoman wrote: post #2

"Developed by the Helsinki-based Colossal Order" -> Tampere-based? (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossal_Order )

You'll have to excuse Claude, it must've missed that. They're both Tampere-based, in fact they're like 500 meters away from each other. Unlike CO, Iceflake is owned by Paradox. CO has no public projects outside Cities Skylines, so the question is will they fail and will their employees simply be poached by Iceflake.

I don't know how labor and employment law works there but it's more likely they've all been given notice by CO at this point

Re: The Cities Skylines Paradox: how the sequel stumbled

#29

Post by intotheabyss »

wongarsu wrote: post #25
voidUpdate wrote: post #3

I still don't know why we needed a sequel... Couldn't they just keep working on the original game, which already worked really well and lots of people loved? I had similar feelings about kerbal space program, but at least there it's somewhat understandable, given the jank that crept in over time

KSP2 made some degree of sense: the game had outgrown its engine and architecture, so you start fresh with a bigger dream. But before that had a chance to fail from second system syndrome it was doomed to fail by insane demands from Take 2. News of work on KSP2 could harm sales of KSP1, so when hiring people to work on KSP2 they couldn't mention what they were hiring for. So you had a team who didn't know KSP1, and d…

I'm really excited for KSA, hoping this is finally the sequel KSP1 deserves!

Re: The Cities Skylines Paradox: how the sequel stumbled

#30

Post by stetrain »

voidUpdate wrote: post #9
gyomu wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Development teams are expensive to fund, and people who have bought a game will pay full price for a sequel, but won’t pay full price for updates/DLC. And releasing a sequel gets you hype and press coverage - potentially expanding your customer base - in a way that releasing updates won’t. There are some exceptions (No Man’s Sky?) but they are very few and far between.

Well ok, I know "value to shareholders" is a good enough reason for some people... I guess I'm not thinking capitalistically enough about stuff

Even before you get to "value to shareholders" you have to actually pay your developer salaries to update the game. Where does that money come from when you're updating a game that's been on the market for 10 years and sales of new copies have tapered off?

Free major updates make your existing customers happy but don't pay salaries. This is why so many games have moved to some kind of ongoing revenue model with Battle Passes, cosmetics, item marketplaces, etc.

Post reply on HN