The Cities Skylines Paradox: how the sequel stumbled
41 comments
·November 19, 2025Ciantic
> 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.
voidUpdate
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
wongarsu
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
intotheabyss
I'm really excited for KSA, hoping this is finally the sequel KSP1 deserves!
dfxm12
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.
maerch
Factorio 2.0 seemed to pull it off. I think that as long as users don’t feel misled by a DLC that only adds a few skins, they generally appreciate larger updates to a game.
anon191928
or you go "online" and milk customers for decade? yeah that is done by Rockstar.
gyomu
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.
jjk166
People will pay for DLC what the DLC is worth, which should in theory be directly proportional to how much effort it makes to produce the DLC. 4 small $20 expansions could be much more lucrative than an $80 new game which needs to not only include those changes but also make the rest of a functional (and presumably higher quality than the original) game.
voidUpdate
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
fsckboy
"value to shareholders" is just a measurement of "value to users". if buyers don't pay more, sellers won't get more. producers are looking in the mirror of consumers, and vice versa. accusing the other side of caring too much about money is entirely accurate as you are looking into a mirror.
stetrain
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.
shadowfiend
The point above wasn’t about value to shareholders but rather about being able to pay the people doing the actual work.
scrollaway
I don’t want to harp on as you had a couple answers on this already but if you need to pay your devs, what is your suggested alternative to “having money in the bank”? The latter only happens with more sales, and that only happens if you have something to sell.
BolexNOLA
In most cases I would agree with you but ultimately games get older and can’t be sustained forever without people being compensated. People don’t pay for DLC like they pay for sequels, as the other person said.
It’s not about shareholders necessarily. It’s also about sustainability and people paying bills - they live in a capitalist society and can’t choose not to participate at the end of the day. You can’t ask a dozen or more developers to keep working on a game for free for a decade or more. They have to eat too.
The only other option is keep playing the exact same game with little to no changes. Which you can! The original is still available. But if you want it to improve and change over time or receive substantial DLC’s, somebody has to get paid at some point.
hypeatei
> will pay full price for a sequel, but won’t pay full price for updates/DLC.
I'm not sure this is true, see Factorio as an example. They released Space Age as a "DLC" but for full price and with clear messaging that it's version 2.0 of the game.
master-lincoln
To claim Factorio Space Age as counter example would require to show that it was as successful as DLC as it would have been as a new game. Probably not easy to show...
arbll
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.
Zardoz84
> 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?
zamadatix
Both could definitely have used a completely updated engine at the very least (not just graphics, but scaling/capabilities around the core gameplay had grown quite a bit beyond what made sense originally), which would enable a lot of things which weren't as feasible in the original games, but it's hard to do that kind of reset and match 10 years of building and tweaking on the original. Hopefully KSA (Kitten Space Agency) can have better luck.
voidUpdate
As far as I remember, KSP did keep pretty on top of engine updates. And I never thought the graphics were that bad, TBH. Sure, its not raytraced to hell and back, but I thought it looked just fine. However, there was a lot of physics jankery that never really got fixed (the kraken likes to eat complicated ships), and it did have performance issues in some areas. I think the community kinda wanted multiplayer and colonisation too, and the codebase was probably getting quite mangled and convoluted, making that hard. It would have been nice to see Squad get some time to be able to rework their systems over the course of a few updates, not really adding many features but focusing on performance and de-spaghettification, but I'm guessing Take-Two wouldn't see it the same way and just wanted MORE CONTENT, MORE SALES, MORE PROFIT
zamadatix
> As far as I remember, KSP did keep pretty on top of engine updates. And I never thought the graphics were that bad, TBH. Sure, its not raytraced to hell and back, but I thought it looked just fine. However, there was a lot of physics jankery that never really got fixed
This is what I mean by engine updates that aren't just about graphics but the scaling/capabilities around the core gameplay. Updating Unity again or adding raytracing graphics wouldn't have fixed the actual problems with the rest of the engine.
stetrain
There isn't much of a business model in paying developers for a year for updates that won't generate more revenue.
If I told my boss that I wanted to spend 12 months refactoring our entire system in ways that would benefit our existing customers (who have paid once and won't ever pay again) but likely result in no additional revenue being generated, I doubt that project would be green-lit.
phgn
The interesting part about Cities 2 is that the simulation is much more in-depth: pops have a real job where they commute to (versus taking any available one in the first game), they don't just teleport around, companies have to import&export resources and make profit based on that, etc.
Also the graphics/lighting seems much improved with a more realistic art style.
Both things which you cannot really retrofit into Cities 1.
null
luckyturkey
The story is familiar: small team nails a niche, publisher scales expectations, sequel inherits AAA scope without AAA staff. Ten years later we call it "mismanagement", but really it's the same incentive loop that breaks most creative partnerships once success hits Excel.
nottorp
Yep. It's the curse of too much money.
Just because you hit on something and gamers threw their money at you because you deserved it, it doesn't mean the next iteration has to have MORE OF EVERYTHING.
Even some series that have maintained quality have got a bit too big for their own good if you ask me. Did Horizon Forbidden West need to be that big? Zero Dawn was the perfect length if you ask me.
Even Witcher 3 has a faint whiff of 'it could have been a bit shorter and still brilliant'.
I'm not sure it's always the publisher's fault though. Success and the worldwide obsession for cancerous business growth can go to your head even without outside pressure.
bluetidepro
> The Paradox Mods platform will remain the only officially supported mod hub, so deep code mods akin to CS1’s may never return.
As someone else pointed out, this is false. I have also created mods for both CS2/CS1 and I would even say it's the opposite. In my opinion, CS2 allows for even deeper code mods because they have mod tooling built right into the game unlike CS1. The host of the mods (Steam Workshop vs Paradox Mods) doesn't change anything related to mod capabilities.
> ...its long-time partner Colossal Order announced a quiet but monumental shift.
Ah yes, "quiet", like how it's been posted on every CS2 social media account, and blasted in every possible space of CS2. Haha Absolutely nothing "quiet" about it.
input_sh
I find it hilarious how everyone here easily recognises ChatGPTisms but so far nobody caught on all of the Claudeisms in this post.
manyaoman
"Developed by the Helsinki-based Colossal Order" -> Tampere-based? (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossal_Order)
input_sh
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.
sidewndr46
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
anon191928
it went Nokia way and Nokia city is not far from there.
harha
Bit of a tangent: Not sure if it's because I grew up with other games, but somehow the aesthetics of modern games just seems off to me. That being said, I didn't manage to get back into SimCity gameplay.
DrierCycle
The collapse of AAA is a parallel sim game-narrative.
jrepinc
Yeah something strange is going on with Paradox lately. Enshittification shenanigans has gotten them too :( Same or similar disaster is in the making with Europa Universalis V and Surviving Mars Relaunched. So sad to see this happening to them.
> The engine lacked occlusion culling and relied on high-resolution shadow maps, causing “an innumerable number of draw calls”.
The engine does not lack or cause these things. The fact that the developers chose the HDRP pipeline for this game should be the most obvious dead bird in the entire coal mine. These games should be running on URP without question. We don't need advanced lighting systems in a top down city builder.
If we want an art workflow that allows artists to shit arbitrary content into the editor without thinking, we should probably reach for Unreal and flip on TAA like everyone else is doing.