CoH2 vs CoH3 Battlegroups MTX

It depends if you consider battlegroups as new content or not. And it depends on how they sell it, imagine an Italian package including Italian battlegroup + cosmetics, or French package including French battlegroup and cosmetics. Those could also come with a short scenario of 2 or 3 missions to unlock more stuff for solo players.

Relic already sold differently Coh2 commanders between vanilla and western army, the latest were much more balanced at release and not paytowin.

The problem isn't to sell additional content but how it impacts the game. I play Stellaris and Paradox is well known for milking their player base with constant new add-ons but since those are correctly implemented and finally don't break the game they are well received.

Hard to say really. There are signs of them, but they are very vague. We for sure know that there are at least 2 units missing from the game being Noshorn and Archer TDs.

We also know that having more then 3 battlegroups are also planned, since there were signs of battlegroup loadouts. On top of that, dispute a lot of concepts of battlegroups, have changed since previous tests. Most of the abilities were still in use in tech tests.

Meaning that we are still missing multiple units\weapons\abilities in battlegroups tech test had (and relic pretty much said that on release there will be only 3 battlegroups). Not to mention that WM and US had 4 commanders in the files.

So its safe to assume, that relic will release new battlegroups.

My personal opinion is that they are most likely then not, will be locked behind both in-game and real money, since Relic got a lot of hate before about commanders being unobtainable without real life money.

As for gameplay content. Pretty much mini-gamemodes similar to the ones in vCoH ToW, will be returning to some extend, there were a lot of signs of them.

So basically the same things as in CoH2: Mini-expansions/DLCs, commanders, skins.

I would speculate that they will release pure single player campaigns as well. This will be a big fraction of the player base, and once they have set up the basic systems for the release version, there is no reason why they should not create a campaign e.g. North Africa, France, Poland, Greece/Crete etc. especially a German POV Crete campaign would lend itself well. Or maybe the more obvious choice: US POV campaign in the Pacific. They would work well for their designed gameplay of integrating navy, air and land forces on the strategy map. Maybe they'll even bring back Soviets at some point.

They literally said they will be releasing new battlegroups during one of the deep dives and UI is dead giveaway for it. Doctrines were monetized and sold well, so no reason to believe they wouldn't do the same with battlegroups.

Not really sure what you're debating here.

The debate is not only about battlegroups. If you couldn't find hints for monetization of basically confirmed battlegroups in the game files, you won't find anything else as well. If you however find them, whatever else Gachi claims to have found in the game files has more credibility as well.

The problem isn't to sell additional content but how it impacts the game. I play Stellaris and Paradox is well known for milking their player base with constant new add-ons but since those are correctly implemented and finally don't break the game they are well received.

Definitely this. I don't know how varied and interesting MP gameplay will be with only three battlegroups at launch. Yes, they offer more variety than CoH2 commanders, but having the choice of 5-6 commanders only gives you an okay at best variety for gameplay.
If the base game has enough content, then I am fully fine with releasing paid (but balanced) battlegroups down the line. However, if the current battlegroups are designed to become stale after a short while so you're incentivized to buy more, it is not. Then the game has basically a 70-80€ price tag.

Some of the DLCs that Paradox released did break the game though in the sense of putting someone not owning the DLC at a serious disadvantage, because the AI had access to it while the player did not.

Paradox and Total War games do NOT monetize cosmetics. It is much easier to accept that more gameplay content will come as DLC/Expansions, rather than free updates. They are also great games, content rich at release, and this is their business model. Good value boxed game, with ok value DLC (some you should ignore).

CoH2 had poor post launch monetization. I don't buy the explanation that there was storage or whatever limitation: they just stopped making commanders (the final recycled ones were given for free). It wasn't a productive time (profitable) of Relic's time.

I have money, I will pay it if the DLC is valuable. One part is that it has to be value for me, that I wouldn't feel stupid for spending $5-10 on the DLC. Another part is that the post-launch support has to work for everybody, so the community is healthy, not just for the people who pay for Battlegroups.

CoH3 information is lacking. We all will make a much better judgement once the game launches, and once the first microtransaction content hits the shelves.

Paradox and Total War games do NOT monetize cosmetics. It is much easier to accept that more gameplay content will come as DLC/Expansions, rather than free updates. They are also great games, content rich at release, and this is their business model. Good value boxed game, with ok value DLC (some you should ignore).

CoH2 had poor post launch monetization. I don't buy the explanation that there was storage or whatever limitation: they just stopped making commanders (the final recycled ones were given for free). It wasn't a productive time (profitable) of Relic's time.

I have money, I will pay it if the DLC is valuable. One part is that it has to be value for me, that I wouldn't feel stupid for spending $5-10 on the DLC. Another part is that the post-launch support has to work for everybody, so the community is healthy, not just for the people who pay for Battlegroups.

CoH3 information is lacking. We all will make a much better judgement once the game launches, and once the first microtransaction content hits the shelves.

Paradox releases broken, unfinished games and you need to wait for multiple paid DLCs for the game to end up in state it should start with.

Paradox and Total War games do NOT monetize cosmetics.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1317230/Hearts_of_Iron_IV_Allied_Armor_Pack/
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1579991/Hearts_of_Iron_IV_Eastern_Front_Planes_Pack/

Monetizes. And it also does it worse than modders who make models of better quality. The Paradox as a whole is very bad. Their DLC is constantly underdeveloped, poorly developed. But since this is a niche product and there are few or no similar games, Paradox can simply exploit the fans of their games.

Paradox releases broken, unfinished games and you need to wait for multiple paid DLCs for the game to end up in state it should start with.

Ehh I wouldn't call them broken and unfinished. Shallow and bland is more like it. Technically the paid DLCs also add new content for everyone even if they didn't purchase it and if the one hosting the game has a DLC, all the connecting players are able to access the DLC content.

Paradox releases broken, unfinished games and you need to wait for multiple paid DLCs for the game to end up in state it should start with.

I don't have a strong opinion, some games definitely had bad releases.

But... I am not the expert 500h player. Each offers enough mechanics/content/missions to be entertained for a while. Even without any DLC. Put a new players on even the base HOI4 (which is already a streamlined HOI3), and see him drown in complexity and possibilities.

And this is their business model. Don't try to build the SP/Coop/Casual Multiplayer/Esport-level MP all in one. It would fail, instead: build these for-the-fans games, and then expand the popular ones with 5 years of monetized DLC. If you don't like the medieval 4X, go with WW2, Space or discovery age.

If the launch content is limited, if the technical quality is mixed: It is part of their business decision. They used to price games like €40, helps a lot with the value perception.

In conclusion: Paradox games (regardless of quality) launch with the audience and the business plan in mind. Limited features, limited scope, limited audience, limited expectations - it is a functional business model.

Which is unlike CoH3: launching to appeal to everybody, and the chaotic monetization plan.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1317230/Hearts_of_Iron_IV_Allied_Armor_Pack/
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1579991/Hearts_of_Iron_IV_Eastern_Front_Planes_Pack/

Monetizes. And it also does it worse than modders who make models of better quality. The Paradox as a whole is very bad. Their DLC is constantly underdeveloped, poorly developed. But since this is a niche product and there are few or no similar games, Paradox can simply exploit the fans of their games.

Well, I guess there are some vanity items for sale. Some throwaway historical model expansion. And I suppose TW games have the "Blood" cosmetics.

Regardless, you can see the amount of reviews - game racks up 50k players on Steam at the peak time, yet the DLC has 205 reviews. It is junk, you cannot build the business model on selling skins/vanity packs in that game. It is all about selling copies/gameplay DLC/Expansion-sub.