Paradox buying BattleTech studio Harebrained Schemes

Paradox Interactive have announced they are buying Harebrained Schemes, expanding their power as the heavyweight champ of traditional PC gaming. Y’know, Paradox, the Swedish mob who make games including Crusader Kings II and Stellaris as well as publishing loads more. And y’know, Harebrained Schemes, the American studio behind Shadowrun and BattleTech – and which was co-founded by a fella who helped create those tabletop worlds, Jordan Weisman. Paradox published BattleTech and evidently they got on so well they want to tie the knot. It sounds like the plan is for Harebrained to continue as before, including making more BattleTech, only now with more security.

Harebrained will become a Paradox internal studio but still, Paradox say, be “led by its own internal management and creative teams, designing and developing the games that have earned them their outstanding reputation.” One thing in particular Weisman points out in a little video is that they’re “gonna make a lot more BattleTech”.

The deal hasn’t quite gone through yet, but assuming nothing goes wrong, they’ll be superfriends. Paradox haven’t said how much they paid, and I suppose it’s not really our business. Nosey parker. Onto the quotes!

“Our recent successful launch of BattleTech, our first project together, has been a fantastic collaboration, but the possibilities of what we can do together in the long term now that we’ve joined forces — that’s what has us truly excited,” Paradox CEO Fredrik Wester said in the big official statement-o-rama.

Okay, that’s enough from you, Freddo, we have a lot of quotes to get through. Over to the Brainers!

“Mitch and I started Harebrained to create the kind of story-rich tactical games we loved,” Jordan Weisman, co-founder and CEO of Harebrained, said in the statement, “and for the last seven years, our studio has been fueled by our team’s passion and by the generous support of our fans. As the scale of our games has grown and the marketplace has gotten extremely noisy we felt that HBS needed to team up with a company that could provide us the financial stability and marketing expertise that would allow us focus on what we love doing – making great games and stories.”

Harebrained relied on Kickstarter crowdfunding for Shadowrun Returns, Shadowrun: Hong Kong, and BattleTech. Fans supporting and enabling your dreams is great, but I can’t imagine it feels very secure to rely so much on crowdfunding, especially given that enthusiasm for the model was waned. It’s nice to cosy up to a bigger buddy.

“We share a deep respect for our audiences, for healthy and collaborative teams, and for the creative process itself — the fit just works,” Harebrained president and co-founder Mitch Gitelman added in praise of Paradox.

As a big hullo, Paradox say they’ll give a free copy of Stellaris to everyone who backed BattleTech’s Kickstarter campaign. For more on that, watch your inbox, I suppose. And probably be patient – I imagine there’s a whole lot of partying going on right now. And paperwork. A paperwork party. Neck a shot every time you sign and initial on a contract. What could go wrong?


  1. Premium User Badge

    Earl-Grey says:

    Nice, maybe they could make a sequel without god damned Unity bah!

    • Artist says:

      Well said like a true, clueless armchair-developer…

      • Ham Solo says:

        The game offers terrible performance for mediocre graphics. And that on many systems, including my i7 with GTX1080. What else is there to tell? If the engine is not to blame, the developers skills at optimizing said engine definitely are.

        • hamburger_cheesedoodle says:

          Well it does run better than Escape From Tarkov and House Flipper, but both of those run appalingly too.

          • Ham Solo says:

            Tarkov actually runs better for me, I don’t have random FPS drops in that game.

        • Lars Westergren says:

          Ah yes, Unity, source of famously ugly games like Ori and the Blind Forest, Cuphead, Subnautica, Firewatch, Pillars of Eternity 2, Ghost of a Tale…

          • Ham Solo says:

            Ah yes, Battletech, the topic of this discussion, famously literally the same game as Ori and the Blind Forest, Cuphead, Subnautica, Firewatch, Pillars of Eternity 2, Ghost of a Tale…

            Read before you post something stupid. This is about Battletech.

          • Ham Solo says:

            And out of those games the only one that is graphically more impressive is Subnautica. The others either are 2D or have a slight comic look that makes people tend to ignore low poly objects. I am talking about more realistic, good graphics. Like something a battletech game could benefit from. Not artistically good 2D games that are not taxing in terms of graphics technology. So bugger off.

          • Lars Westergren says:

            Well if you are going to be pedantic, the topic should be about Paradox’s acquisition of Hairbrained Schemes. But then someone chose to talk about Unity so I jumped on that train.

            My point with listing these games was that, as you noticed, being realistic is not the same thing as looking good. In fact, striving for realism is the most boring way to try to look good, and it is a constantly diminishing return.

            Ergo, Hairbrained Schemes should continue to use Unity (if they want to, and feel productive in it).

          • Ham Solo says:

            I was talking about how bad the game is optimised. This game. Battletech. Not any of the other Unity games.
            A more graphics intense, realistic look is stressing an engine far more than a low poly comic look or 2D game. Which is why comparing them to this game or Subnautica makes no sense. Subnautica however also had alot of problems with FPS drops when moving a bit further for a long time. Which shows my point about it being either a bad engine or badly optimised by the developers for fancier looking games.

      • Pier says:

        Maybe the devs are incompetent, but I don’t think it’s far fetched to consider that the engine is the main problem here.

        In my anecdotal experience, most sufficiently complex 3D Unity games I’ve played on desktop are riddled with performance problems or are simply inferior graphically. The only exception for me was Firewatch.

        Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak, Escape from Tarkov, Life is Strange: Before the Storm, etc. All suffered from poor performance. Battletech in particular seems even worse, as not much is really going on and there are constant FPS drops and load times are atrocious with an M2 SSD.

        The only impressive stuff I’ve seen in Unity are demos by the Unity team which of course can be polished ad nauseam.

        • Fluffy says:

          Cities: Skylines runs in Unity, and that’s one hell of an impressive game.

          Sure, the engine has it’s problems, but it’s certainly not deserved all the hate it gets.

          I think the main difference is that Unity is cheaper (and often easier) to use, and is therefore often the choice of indie and small(er) developers.

          Those same developers don’t usually have the resources to “polish ad nauseum”, which may lead to sub-par performance, and at least partially explains Unity’s bad name.

          • Artist says:

            Oh god, thanks for at least one voice of reason!
            To add to your statement: Then theres also those naive Indie devs that bolt a tank chassis onto a bicycle and wonder why its not moving. (Hello Hellion, Im looking at you!)
            So yeah, in maybe 95%+ of the cases Untiy is definatly not the problem. If you know what youre doing Unity is a fantastic choice without having to compete with war pigs like Frostbite.

  2. SaintAn says:

    Terrible news. New-EA strikes again. Still mad the “new” Age of Wonders appears to be a disaster under Paradox.

  3. Jezebeau says:

    Oh good. They can scale it back, release with 6 mechs, and start selling the rest of the lineup as DLC over five years for six times the total cost of the last game.

    • Prime-Mover says:

      What do you have in mind here? I’m certainly not well versed in all things Paradox, but games like EU4, CK2 certainly did not have what seemed a scaled back base game.

      • hamburger_cheesedoodle says:

        Stellaris was released in a very barebones state; can’t speak for the other games though.

        • Zenicetus says:

          Stellaris was bare bones on release, and still is from a certain perspective, with undeveloped trade, diplomacy and other non-warfare options. But I didn’t get the impression it was “scaled back.” I got the impression the designers didn’t really know what they wanted the game to be. And it still feels a bit like that, two years later. But it’s one of the only two or three halfway decent space 4x options out there, so that’s worth something.

          I don’t think any of this translates to the HBS acquisition. That studio has delivered on target with the designs for Shadowrun and Battletech games. I don’t think that will change under Paradox as long as they’re at least somewhat independent. They don’t seem to have the same chaotic, “throw everything against the wall and see what sticks, and it’s okay not to finish the game for five years after release” game design culture as Paradox.

        • Veles says:

          Bare bones compared to their other games that have had years of free and paid content.

          It was their first 4X game mixed with their traditional grand strategy so it took more development to get the base of the game in.

        • brucethemoose says:

          The updates that fixed much of Stellaris are free.

      • Stellar Duck says:

        CK2 at release was amazing and had all the content of the first game plus some more. It was a full game, within their design scope and wasn’t cut or scaled back.

        All the subsequent DLC packs are additions, some of which I don’t particularly like, but they were never meant to be in the game from the beginning.

        In some ways I miss the purity of the original game.

        Same story for EU4.

        I don’t really get why people moan so much about the expansions. They’re not mandatory. I’ve only purchased the ones I have an interest in.

        • Someoldguy says:

          I sit on both sides of this fence. EU4 and CK2 were pretty great at launch. They weren’t shipped as half a game by any means. I only got fed up with the DLC when they started dicking around with core mechanics that I was quite happy with. Then you’re stuck with never upgrading or buying DLC for it ever again or eating these game changes you don’t want. The drive to keep tinkering with the game mechanics for years tends to mean this crops up in all the Clausewitz engine games eventually. I’m happy they produce more DLCs but I really wish they didn’t change the rules so much, just tightened up the AI play. HoI4 and Stellaris badly needed that.

          • juan_h says:

            I don’t know about Paradox’s other games, but Crusader Kings II allows you to disable mechanics you don’t like before you start a new game. I generally play with secret societies disabled, for example. I know other people who like to disable defensive pacts. It’s all quite customizable. The odds are pretty good that you can play the latest version of the game and still get the experience you want.

    • Premium User Badge

      phuzz says:

      Someone needs to learn the difference between ‘developer’ and ‘publisher’.
      Although Paradox are both, which does make it slightly more tricky.

  4. TotallyUseless says:

    Damn, that’s horrible news. Through the years if there’s anything I learned from Paradox is that they milk their thick headed fans by churning out either scrappy DLCs or ridiculous overpriced DLCs.

    • ramshackabooba says:

      Have you stopped to think for a second that people who like these games actually like to have periodic expansions? I am one of those, I’m eager for the next expansion to see what it brings. I don’t buy all the expansions, when I see the details of each expansion I decide if I like it or not, if I don’t like it, I don’t buy it. Simple as that. I’ve played these games for over 800 hours each and happily so. No I’m not rich I think I’ve paid full price for an expansion like once, the rest I just wait for them to go on sale.

  5. DanMan says:

    Meh, Paradox has a shitty privacy policy.

  6. Admiral666 says:

    I see the Paradox Hate Brigade is showing in full force today.

  7. teije says:

    Never takes long for the Paradox DLC haters to show up, regardless of topic. Every article about Paradox should come pre-loaded with 5-6 comments complaining about their DLC policy to save everyone some time.

    • Freud says:

      I’m neutral/positive towards Paradox and I find their DLC practices a bit excessive.

      • cairbre says:

        I just wait and buy any dlc in steam sales.

      • brucethemoose says:

        Eh. If the alternative is microtransactions, I can live with Paradox’s rather silly amount of DLC for their games.

        • Fluffy says:


          While the number of Paradox DLC’s is indeed a bit obscene, they’re either basically aesthetic micro-transactions (new songs, unit skins, etc.) that are sold through a much less intrusive channel (e.g., steam, not in-game), or actually add meaty new content for what I consider to be a reasonable price (usually around 10-15 units of your currency of choice).

          I find this vastly preferable to the Battlegrounds, COD, FIFA, etc. spam, throwing out a marginally improved variation upon the exact same game every single year – at full AAA prices!

    • Werthead says:

      “Every article about Paradox should come pre-loaded with 5-6 comments complaining about their DLC policy to save everyone some time.”

      It did. They just took a little while to unlock.

  8. mattevansc3 says:

    I’m quite happy with this news. Paradox is one of those publishers that knows its market, caters to its market and doesn’t try to change its market.

    Yeah they milk the DLC but how many other companies support a base game like Crusader Kings 2 with free content patches for as long as they have?

  9. causticnl says:

    let there be no mistake, Paradox is now in the same way corporate as lets say EA (their DLC policy is almost identical).

    • DatonKallandor says:

      Not really. For one thing, they make completely different games – EA makes primarily multiplayer and Paradox makes primarily singleplayer games – but even where they overlap the DLC structure is completely different.

      Paradox almost never sells individual tiny DLCs for example, they prefer to bundle them together into pretty sizeable packages. Paradox also doesn’t operate on a season based model – they just make stuff until they can’t think of anything anymore, without year-based pre-planning.

      Paradox also likes gameplay-changing DLC far more than cosmetics, and their policy for multiplayer in that area is “if the host has it, everyone can play with it”. Compare to EA, which prefers cosmetics and giving out all gameplay altering DLC for free (and in the cases where the gameplay altering DLC isn’t free, they force everyone to own it or nobody can play it).

      So no, their policy are not “almost identical”. They’re probably as far apart as any two publishers are nowadays.

      And that’s not even getting into lootboxes and how Paradox might be the only publisher that hasn’t ever put them in any of their games (as far as I know?).

      • magogjack says:

        H-h-h-h-headshot !

        • causticnl says:

          not really.

          hope you enjoy your 500/600$ DLC packs.

          • c-Row says:

            What a great and convincing counter-argument you present.

          • Xerophyte says:

            So, what do you want Paradox to do? Because realistically their options are:
            1. Release a sequel every other year or so.
            2. Release paid expansions and updates at some cadence. 2/year seems reasonable.
            3. Significantly reduce their team size and focus on risky new IPs.

            Personally I’m elated that they’ve supported EU4 with updates for 5 years now and I’m perfectly willing to pay for those updates. If you’d rather just play the base game then … do that and don’t buy the expansions? You can check out old versions going back to 1.4 on Steam if Estates or some other feature added in the free patches is scary. If you don’t like EU4, why on Earth do you care how its continued development is handled?

          • modzero says:

            So, what do you want Paradox to do?

            Switch to a “paid upgrade” model, where what you buy in a store today is a fully upgraded current version, and an owner of an old version can upgrade at a discount.

            I mean, it’s not going to happen, and I’m not very grumpy about Paradox, but the model could be better. And, haters aside, let’s not stan for our corporate overlords.

        • Captain Narol says:


          And yes I enjoy a lot all my DLCs for CKII, I have more than 2000 hours in that game that I consider the Best Strategy Game ever and that they keep on improving years after its release.

      • automatic says:

        Magicka’s huge list of cosmetic DLCs just met Battletech and they want to have a talk with you.
        link to

    • rochrist says:

      Other than being totally wrong, sure!

  10. Infinitron says:

    Nobody is asking whether this means that Harebrained can’t make new Shadowrun or BattleTech games. They’re using those under license with Microsoft. Will Microsoft agree to work with a rival publisher?

    • magogjack says:

      Don’t you have news to post ?

    • DatonKallandor says:

      They did for Battletech. Battletech was published by Paradox. Microsoft already worked with a “rival publisher”. Plus why would they say no to free money? They’re not doing anything with the license, might as well get paid by someone who does.

      I think if anything this decreases the chance that Microsoft will sell the license as a whole – they keep licensing it out and get a steady revenue stream now.

    • Evan_ says:

      MS works hard so they could consider Paradox a rival game publisher, but they are nowhere near.

      Best of luck guys, forget Win10 and WinStore, and you’ll get the chance to see why you are failing. Currently the worst concepts obscure the underlying reasons.

  11. Captain Narol says:

    I, for one, welcome our new Paradox Overlords !

    Seriously, Paradox Interactive is starting to have a nice collection of studios, but contrary to EA they let them work in peace and respect their soul…

  12. juan_h says:

    We’ll, that’s good. Probably. My confidence that the promised Linux version of Battletech will eventually see the light of day has gone up, at any rate.

  13. HeavyStorm says:

    They heard BattleTech was slow, thought, this belong in Paradox catalog, bought the studio.

  14. fearandloathing says:

    I’m also not totally sold on how PDX DLC model evolved, but haters are going full hatetard. We haven’t seen or heard any indications about PDX forcing that model in its other collaborations (and yes, publishers can and did do that, especially if they contributed to funding), there is no reason to think this would turn out to be any different. Even the dlc’s for Stellaris were much more “sane” than EU4 and CK2.

  15. CaidKean says:

    I do think this is a shame, I mean Jordan has himself in past interviews indicated regret about how he and the other owners sold off FASA, both the parts that were sold to WizKids and to Microsoft.

    Now he’s finally built up another great game company but decides to once again sell it off? Mind you, I have no idea how the ownership for Harebrained Schemes was structured, i.e. whether he and Gitelman were the sole owners and had final say on such matters.

    I personally am a fan of Microsoft and think that they’re by far one of the more benign of the big publishing houses out there [Conflict of Interest warning, they are based in my hometown] but I still do feel that it’s a shame that once again Jordan builds up something great with talented people and once again decides to sell it off.

    Honestly, this whole thing would make a whole lot more sense to me if Jordan had simultaneously announced his early retirement, I mean he’ll be sixty in two years time, I would’ve understood if he found the lure of a nice juicy check and early retirement too enticing to resist but so far it seems like he’ll still be heading up Harebrained Schemes.

    Honestly, my biggest concern about this affair is that Microsoft might see this as very solid proof of the FASA computer-game licenses that they’ve been generous with are in fact worth a lot more to them as exclusive IPs, i.e. they decide to wrestle back control in order to make their own BattleTech/Shadowrun titles.

    I mean, I love HBS, backed several of their Kickstarters, but does anyone think they’d have gotten to this point where they get purchased by Paradox without having been granted usage of the old FASA licenses? Mind you, last I recall the licenses were granted until 2020, but that was a few years ago so I guess it’s very possible a longer period has already been negotiated.

    Time will tell I guess, I just hope it doesn’t lead to a repeat of history.

    • Infinitron says:

      Mind you, last I recall the licenses were granted until 2020

      Where did you read that?

      • CaidKean says:

        I can’t recall exactly where right at this moment, I think it was an older article discussing the cancellation of the original MechWarrior reboot, you know, the one that was announced on the Unreal Engine 3 before being quietly cancelled, and the interactions between Smith & Tinker (Weisman’s now defunct company that he started in, I believe, 2007) and PGI on that project.

        I did find the official source that I’m guessing the article referenced: link to

        “On Nov 8th 2013 PGI and Microsoft finalized negotiations on an extension to PGI’s MechWarrior license. Whereas before our license ran out mid 2015 we are now ensured rights until mid-2018 and also if certain criteria is met will have until mid-2020 to continue to develop MechWarrior products including MWO.”

        I’m speculating but I do think it’s reasonable to assume that Microsoft negotiated similar terms and conditions as well as time-frames for the licenses they leased out to HBS.

        Either way, the end condition is the same, Microsoft is still the actual owner of the electronic entertainment rights to the IPs, Smith & Tinker, HBS and PGI are all leasing the licenses from Microsoft and I’m fairly sure if Microsoft’s analysts decides that it’d be more profitable to use the IPs to for instance try to generate hype for the Xbox platforms by means of exclusives then I’m sure they won’t hesitate to not negotiate further extensions.

  16. Darth Gangrel says:

    First Nordisk Film buys Avalanche and now Paradox is buying Harebrained Schemes. A lot of Scandinavian business stuff recently.

    I’m personally just waiting for Paradox to do something with their World of Darkness IP they acquired in October 2015. A Werewolf game was in the making I heard, but before then I’d wager we’ll see the Enhanced/GOTY Edition of Cyberpunk 2077 (another game I’m eagerly awaiting that has been in development for a long time).

  17. simz04 says:

    It might be a very good thing. Herbrained Schemes develops games on awesome IP’s but they always come a bit short in term of realization. Shadowrun could have been so much greater, and its even more blatent with Battletech.

    I hope they can put their creativity and story-telling skill to work with a set of good pc game devs and enough manpower to create awesome games.

  18. icarussc says:

    Really looking forward to more Shadowrun! Hong Kong was one of my favorite ever RPG experiences.

  19. kud13 says:

    Hmm. Let’s hope this means more and better Shadowrun

    Edit: should we now be expecting Paradox to offer to buy Obsidian? There’s a fairly healthy publisher/dev relationship there as well…

    • malkav11 says:

      Is there? When Chris Avellone went rather aggressively tell-all the other day one of the things he said was that Paradox hadn’t liked working with Obsidian any more than previous publishers had, and while I would take the things he said with a grain of salt given the clear antipathy he holds towards the studio’s current management, it seems potentially telling that while Paradox published Pillars of Eternity, they didn’t publish Pillars of Eternity II. (Which was published by a company I’ve never heard of called Versus Evil.)

      • zomgponies says:

        I mean at this point the problem might be Chris Avellone/Obsidian not able to play ball with anyone else. Occam’s Razor and all that.

      • Danda says:

        Why am I learning about this by reading a user comment? Gaming blogs post about every silly little thing (Random current Kotaku post: “At this capsule hotel, there’s free beer”. Current newest story on RPS today: “This great Twitter account collects safe rooms in games”), but then Avellone drops those bombshells about Obsidian’s mismanagement, with absolutely insane stuff, but nobody but TechRaptor reports about it? Wow.

      • Werthead says:

        That’s interesting. I always thought his departure from Obsidian was odd, and in the Pillars of Eternity behind-the-scenes video he looked pretty unhappy.

        I wonder how much of this was down to Obsidian apparently prioritising Sawyer in the company over Avellone. Whilst Sawyer has designed some solid games, I don’t think there’s much to argue that the games Avellone was lead on were far superior (particularly Fallout 2 and Planescape: Torment versus Icewind Dale), and it’s even more apparent when you see that the Avellone-directed expansions for Sawyer-led games were more highly rated than the games themselves (Mask of the Betrayer to NWN2, arguably Old World Blues to FO:NV, although NV is still a great game). It also appears that a fair bit of Avellone’s material for PoE was cut or edited, which I can imagine not going down well at all.

        OTOH, Obsidian are anomalous in being an indie studio that’s somehow managed to survive and that does require a somewhat ruthless attitude to costs and creativity. It’d be interesting to see if we heard an alternative perspective from someone at Obsidian.

  20. racccoon says:

    So who’s going buy Paradox. :)
    Do not think this is good example for kids, Eat, or be eaten. lol

  21. malkav11 says:

    I’m not especially worried about Paradox as the specific buyer, but I’m not excited about a company whose success is built on steering their own course thanks to crowdfunding then going straight back to the publisher model that crowdfunding is so promising as a way to escape.

    I mean, enlisting a publisher to do the actual publishing – marketing, print copies if any, using their established relationships to handle getting things in storefronts, etc – doesn’t bother me. They have their uses. But placing them in actual control of the studio’s an entirely different matter.

    • Zenicetus says:

      Sure, loss of control is a risk, but “Crowdfunding as an escape” isn’t a perfect solution either.

      Battletech delivered on the core promise of the crowdfunding, but it has a feeling of being slimmed down, just barely enough there to work. With backing by Paradox, their next project may not feel as bare-bones.

  22. csbear says:

    CK2, EU, HoI, Stellaris, Pillars of Eternity, Shadowrun series, Battletech…

    Some of my favorite games I’ve played in recent years. I’m not worried. And yes, I don’t mind the DLCs.

    This isn’t Ubishit, EA, or Activision we are talking about. Paradox already has a nice portfolio of games unlike the aforementioned.

  23. icemann says:

    You’d think Jordan Weisman would have learned from what happened to FASA, but nope here we are again. In 2-3 years everyone will have left or been fired. This is horrible news. R.I.P Harebrained Schemes.

  24. Herring says:

    Doesn’t Paradox own the rights to World of Darkness? A Vampire game in a similar style to the Shadowrun games could be awesome :)

  25. Tyrmot says:

    ‘Paradox haven’t said how much they paid’

    They did say – USD7.5m + 25% of anything Harebrained make over the next 5 years.

  26. Apologised says:

    I saw that video in my inbox, Weissman looked like one of those american hostages forced to read out statements whilst Al-Kaeda hold them at gunpoint.
    At least it’s not actually EA. At least Paradox EVENTUALLY make a good game, it just takes them a few years worth of post-release content to do it.

    It’s still less alarming than Microsoft buying GitHub though.

  27. VisibleMachine says:

    That’s great, maybe they can update the Golem Arcana app…

  28. Hoot says:

    Can I still not comment? Testing, 1, 2, 3…

    Oh, it’s working, great.

    So yeah, I used to champion Paradox as a studio but since the release of Stellaris they have went from heroes to zeroes in my eyes. Their release, patching and DLC policy is disgusting. Hamstringing customers by hiding critical parts of an update behind a paywall while releasing a free patch that doesn’t really work without the accompanying DLC is just…bleh.

    This is actually made worse by introducing game-breaking bugs into each major release and not actually fixing them for months at a time, and sometimes not at all. Yes, there are still major issues present in the current live game that were around at launch. Not minor bugs either, but significant issues. But hey, at least they re-enabled the ability to have the AI declare war, was fun when that couldn’t happen for a month.

    That and the fact that the Stellaris DLC has mainly been more “waffer-thin” than a mint offered by a French waiter have done much to put me off the studio.

    If they focused on fixes and didn’t have the same DLC policy for every game they release (like, if I wanna play all their games I have to spend hundreds upon hundreds of pounds and wait 3 years each to get a finished product) I would be a lot happier.

  29. Lars Westergren says:

    Great news. Hairbrained are a great studio, hopefully they can do even more stuff with the solid financial backing of Paradox. Paradox stock value has skyrocketed since their end of year report a couple of weeks ago, lots of people complaining about their DLC model, but it seems to be profitable…

  30. SamD says:

    I’m another who’s sunk hundreds and hundreds of hours (ok I think it may actually be thousands but am too scared to check) into Paradox games,there’s nothing quite like how these games in terms of how I can absolutely lose myself and build my own stories across the worlds and decades.

    The DLC policy is hard to comment on due to how much I play these games (I await each one’s release eagerly!). I’ve recommended it to some friends who play more casually and they seem to just grab them on sale. That said while some are great, there’s certainly some that are pretty damn poor and all the prices are a little high.

    In comparison, I’ve been pleasantly surprised by Total War’s DLC both in terms of freebies, cost at release and amount of content.

    Also for the record, I adore Stellaris; it’s become one of my favourites. It looks incredible and the writing is sublime, the writing! I think I play more to roleplay various empires than anything else.

  31. Spinkick says:

    Gamers are such a complainy bunch.

    Its almost if you want them to sell lootcrates instead of dlc.

    Software development these days depends on continuous inflow of cash in order to outflow development and updates to products.

Comment on this story

HTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>