Long Term development ideas

To me, this would definitely be worth subscribing for.

I think in general, the greatest obstacle you guys will have to overcome with a subscription model is that there are a lot of people who are against it on principle alone ("I paid for it once, and shouldn't have to pay to keep playing"). The other thing is that subscriptions are not always easy to handle when the customers don't have credit cards, and the ease of going to a store or using paypal to just buy it once will be lost with a subscription model.

Hellgate: London was the first major game to include an optional subscription system where the subscribers get extra stuff, but that caused a lot of grief from people complaining about what's fair for the subscribers to get that the regular players would not. Splitting the two would be a rather big challenge.

By contrast, Guild Wars operates on the "multiple expansions" model, and though they are bigger and pricier than what you have in mind, it works well for them - each expansion introduces a new campaign, usually new classes, skills, and most importantly features.

In truth, I believe it will be easier for Stardock and Ironclad to adopt a mini-expansion pack model, as I think it causes fewer problems overall. If it's subscription-based, you'll have to figure out what to do for subscribers and what to do for non-subscribers, and you can be very sure the non-subscribers are going to be *very* vocal about stuff they aren't getting. Doing it the mini-expansion pack way will allow players to pick up the packs that have the features and additions they like with a one time purchase. Granted, this theory largely depends on what exactly you mean by a "persistent multiplayer universe" - if it allows people who don't have an expansion to play against people with, sans the ships/techs/etc, then I would say it could be quite successful.

For me, personally, either method would do just fine - I have nothing against a subscription in principle.

I think this model is already present in some form with a lot of the East Asian MMO type games, where they're free to play but players often pay small micropayments to get extra content. Battlefield Heroes is doing it too.

I for one think small expansions for around $10-15 would be a bargain. Obviously, you wouldn't want to do it like The Sims or Battlefield 2, where there's so many of them at retail price that it's frustrating, but at that price I'd definitely pay (especially the persistent universe thing, I loved Dynaverse in Starfleet Command III).

The ideal, as I see it, is that the player buys the major expansion coming up for whatever price, then is offered a $5-$15 per month subscription fee for persistence and free downloads of the smaller expansions. (or, alternatively, free persistence and a fee for the expansions, but that runs into version mismatches if they don't want to pay).

Regardless of execution, anything where I'm not paying retail for an expansion and get some neat stuff is something I'd buy. I think others feel the same way.

I think from a business standpoint it makes much more sense to release incremental updates a few times a year. Knowing how long people will stay interested in a game is a total crap shoot. If the popularity of the game wanes suddenly, while an expansion is in development, a company could be left with an expansion that took a year or two to develop and no one to sell it to. I also believe players would appreciate gradual content updates as opposed to the current model of "Here's our game, cya in another year or two!" that most game development studios do.

A studio would also have to be careful in the way it would go about releasing an optional pay-to-update game. As recently shown by Hellgate: London, if you leave vital features out of the game and then try to charge people for them when you finally get around to implementing them, people will not be happy or even no longer playing the game. I for instance, got frustrated, un-installed the game and never looked back. I see this problem with console games too, such as content releases on Xbox Live. I can't help but feel screwed when a game development company tries to nickel and dime me for content that should have been in the game on release.

Anywho, those are my thoughts on the topic. Looking forward to those future Stardock releases

Hmm interesting..

One thing i never liked was the Oblivion packs. Was not my kind of thing and i felt i already had brought the game so why should i buy extra content?

If your going like a MMO kind of a game then i really hope you will make it "free" in a way. People should be able to continue playing without extra cost after buying the game.

Ive been playing alot of Navyfield.com the last few weeks and you can play totally for free if you want, but you can buy certain stuff that makes you abit better. You can also subscribe to the game so that you gain 40% extra experience/credits/points.

Thats how i like it, i can choose when i want to pay or not and still enjoy the game without feeling left out from the paying players. Tho i do pay for certain stuff

What i fear about this new thing i see alot of companys are going into, is that in the end, sooner or later they will start demanding money for patches that should be free, and i mean those that fixes bugs.

Speaking only for myself...

If I like the game, I'd be willing to pay for meaningful expansion-type content. Subscriptions, I won't touch with a 10-foot pole (at least, not outside of an MMO setting) and judging by most of the public reactions I saw about the Hellgate model, I'm guessing that's a fairly popular sentiment. If nothing else, it makes buyers wary that developers are skimping on content so they can sell it piecemeal to the customers later (ala Oblivion. I frown on doors that you have to pay extra money to open).

Hell, if Dawn of War updated the graphics and added some new units here and there, I'd pay expansion rates (adjusted for the actual amount of content, of course) for that in a heartbeat.

I think that the additions offered would need to be truly compelling for the average gamer to be willing to purchase them. I played Oblivion for many, many, many, many hours -- but I did not download any of the individual feature additions. Instead, I purchased them with the Knights of the Nine physical release.

Would I pay for additional ships? Possibly, but it does depend. I would tend to prefer expansion packs -- in large part because they produce greater interest more immediately for me than I imagine what you're suggesting would. I have a limited attention span for all games. I will play many games I own for years (I have played GalCiv II a lot, and I will play it much more when TA comes out), but often in bursts.

So while this is an interesting idea, and would appeal to many . . . I'm not sure how much it would for me. If you were to release small amounts of new content every month, I'd rather purchase all that you've added at one time than pay for it month by month to get it in trickles, you know?

Not that I think you'd do this, but if you implemented this, we wouldn't lose the wonderful and free patches provided by Stardock and Ironclad, would we?

My my Brad this is an interesting thought.

From my personal experiences, if one was to do this you'd have to be aware of the following things:

1. Content releases would have to be meaningful and significant. Too many times in the past have I seen a similar attempt in this area but the "new" content was so insignificant that most people just ignored its existence. I am thinking in regards to the Battlefield 2 booster packs here (I was an avid player back in the day and had the SF expansion pack, but I along with many of my clan-mates ignored the booster packs as they were so shallow and pointless). Same goes for the Oblivion packs (although they learnt their lesson after the horse armour pack and made future releases a bit more significant).

2. Do not go offering in-game power for money. I know Brad isn't talking about a micro-transaction scheme for ships and powers for Sins, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. Just look at Battlefield Heroes and Battlefield: Bad Company for examples of how this could go wrong. Even though they say the weapons "will be balanced alternatives" everyone knows that there may be a chance that such and such purchasable weapon will be more handy than the default weapon they have to use.

3. Content releases would have to be regular. Simple enough really, you don't want the customer to be wondering why on earth they are paying a subscription fee when they have to wait so long to get anything.

4. Content releases should encompass the entire game. By this I'm saying that not only should content releases for subscribers add new in-game content (units and technologies) but there should be improvements on the game as a whole. Having a new particle effect system to improve the player's experience, or introducing some new cool shader effects are some examples of other different content releases that don't have to be gameplay centred. This also stops people from going to other titles released in the mean-time because your title's looks are being kept up-to-date.

It sounds like what a lot of the console games are doing. Release a few tidbits here and there and charge a small fee for the addon. It sounds good in principle but really there's just not enough content for myself to justify paying what they want for it. I guess it comes down to how much will it really affect the game for what I'm paying.

About the only way I can see myself paying for mini expansions is if it adds a significant change to the game, which in the case of the previously mentioned console games, it doesn't. To me, it's better to do exactly like you said, release, patch, expansion, patch, expansion, patch, sequel. Though sequels aren't as common as I'd like for some games.

Sequels are always fun, they can take the game to the next level. Improved graphics, tweaking the gameplay to add more options, expanding on ideas they had for the last one but just didn't have the technology for. Sequels aren't needed if expansions, or even the core game itself, add these changes to the game (and would obviously charge for) but more often than not I know it's a bad move because players are used to the way things already run. That's just me though, you can do the exact same game with a fresh paint job and I'll buy into it, otherwise I wouldn't still be playing JRPGs for as long as I have.

PS. Speaking of the GalCiv2 expansion are there plans for releasing an all in one pack for it at the same time the expansion is released? I'd hate to say it but this game was the first time I've heard of Stardock. Played the demo and I'd buy it but I don't want to rush into getting it if an all in one will be released shortly as it normally saves $10-20.

Hi Frogboy, Leinad here.

I consider myself to be from the group of players who dont play the game much (not at all) in SP but rather want a game that offers multiplayer fun for a long time.

To have fun in multiplayer you need (many) ppl who want to play it online. This is mainly achived with a good game balance, online support and ofc that everyone plays the _same_ game.

Here comes the problem with subscription models for non MMPORG games and especially for RTS. You are pretty much "forced" to subcribe cause it wont be much fun to play an older version of the game than all of the people around you.
It can split a community in many small parts but tbh the Sins online community isnt big enough to survive that.
Also with all respect but i doubt that a RTS can justify a monthly fee. Sure u could make it pretty small but it would be still a hassle for many ppl to subscribe, especially younger people or those from europe dont have it so easy to subscribe.
A subscription is also never good if u want ur community to grow. It simply turns new ppl away, they wont subscribe just to get the full multiplayer experience.

Im also against "mini expansions". Sure it can work for a game like GalCiv but that is only single player, it doesnt mess with the online community.
Mini expansions would create a similar problem as a subscription model => defragmented community.

So just talking for the multiplayer community (which i think is important cause that group is very loyal and will play the game long term and thus is willing to buy expansions) i think it would be best to create just "normal" expansions for around 25-30$ and this maybe once a year.
This together with regular updates would be more than enough.
That way u can really include major changes and take feedback without screwing with the game every few weaks cause constant mini updates would do that (u cant balance things properly if u have every few weeks new elements in the game).
So im all for standard expansion pack which bring more and rly new stuff to the table even if that costs more.

I simply think that its easier to pay one time for a good product which will enhance ur game a lot instead of paying regularly for very few changes.
Also i think it would be for Ironclad/Stardock easier too. There is simply a lot of pressure on you guys to release new stuff in small timeframes if u would go with a mini expansion or subscription model and often does this lead to half arsed new features just so u can please the crowd.

With normal expansions you can take ur time, test things and keep the bigger picture in mind.
I would be for sure willing to buy an expansion pack every year or even more if you can make em worth it.

If A subscription system was done with updates in like popular mmos. I would pay for that!

Although this seems contrary to most posts i think there is an understandable "cut off" for games for development. Users (majority not loyal fan-boys) are looking for the next BEST thing usually within Genre, now using Gal Civ II as an example, its engine is getting old, the graphics are starting to get dated, and experianced players already know what they want from there NEXT 4X and only some of these needs can be met through "quality content" updates for the game. Eventually someone is going to come out with a quality new engine 4X with some new ideas and graphics and the demand for support for (as in the example) Gal Civ II will drop and players will move on (eventually). There are excemptions such as Starcraft of games played for a LONG period of time but not the norm. In Summary i think if you have a good game that will last, keep supporting it (keep making money on it), but make sure YOUR game (sequal or not) is the next best thing when it is time.

P.S I think Gal Civ is due for a new sequal with a new engine. Not because it wont last (on the contrary) but because it just a matter of time befour a a good 4X come out and i hope its titled Gal Civ III. Plus announcing it would get all the 4X Gal Civ Fan boys around here off Sins back for not being "4x enough".

From what I hear, the next best thing is suppose to be the fantasy 4X (think I remember them saying it was 4X) game Stardock is developing. 4X games are fun, there's just not enough of them, good ones at least.

I'll buy mini-expansions on one condition: they must be good. But hey, I'm sure you already know that.

Leinad/LinkesAuge makes a good point. Expansions will split the online community. I'd look at solutions that other games have used.

Dawn of War - Expansions add new races, but people without expansions can still use the old ones.
Guild Wars / Magic: The Gathering - Expansions add new skills/cards. Note that the player can only use a set number of skills/cards. This means that new content is an optional replacement for old content.

That's all I can think of right now. But the problem with all expansions is that more content means that it's harder to balance.

For a game like galciv II it would be a nice option, but for games with online multiplayer its a different story and much harder to implant without getting people on your back about it.

I would buy a small update for galciv II if its any good sure. But how far are you willing to go with it. i mean 3 expansion packs for 9 dollars = one classic expansion pack.
True that if you do it in small pieces the devs can finish a project quicker and people can chose if they want a certain feature in the game or not.

I agree with the fact that every game gets old at some point. Galciv II is a wonderfull game with allot of dept in it. But at some point there will be a better game released, one game that makes full use of a quadcore or SLI 8800 GTS because thats the standard at that point if you know what i mean.

So yes i would buy those packs, but i'm not sure if stardock would benefit more for releasing small packages for galciv II or creating calciv III.

I am personally not a fan of any subscription type service (and the implication of commitment to it).

I think that most gamers are relatively fickle beasts, and asking them to commit for a term to paying for content, even a very low fee (for example, five dollars a month for a six month period) is a turn off. If I don't use it for all of that six months, wander off, and come back later, there is some loss involved, or at least some is percieved.

I would much rather go out and buy an expansion for 30 dollars, get all my content there up front, and enjoy it at that pace.

Mini-Expansions and Booster Packs and all of those things I think generally are too complicated and lead to too much fragmentation of communities. Releasing few expansions with a lot of content that are a "must have" (think the Core Contingency for Total Annihilation) are much better to me than smaller ones with less content for cheaper (like Armored Fury for Battlefield 2).

But I am more of a traditionalist, so take that as you will.

Firstly, monthly Subscriptions for non-MMO's are in general a terrible idea, in part because "you" (as a company) are forced into regularly creating things to justify the subscription cost, which puts undue pressure on the developer and would lead to empasis on quantity rather than quality. And in part because PC gamers dont expect to (and won't) keep paying to be able to play a game they have already purchased once.

Second, I happen to quite like the micro-expansions concept (ala Oblivion), The issue is that the content has to be worthwhile and at the sametime not force you into buying the expansion, which is a Very very fine line when dealing with Multiplayer.

Now, the other thing I would to point out is Don't, i repeat DO NOT, limit extras (however we pay for them) to Multiplayer OR Singleplayer, I'm not saying dont release new features that affect only one, but a good 80% of what you release should be applicable to both.

So main points: Any addons should be Optional and not harm the enjoyment of those who didn't buy it.
Any addons should be interesting to both Multiplayer and Singleplayer gamers
Any addons should be Worth the money
Any addons should not interfere with patching the original game.
Having an addon should not preclude you from playing with people who dont have the addon.

In honesty, I can't see anyway of doing it successfully, without it getting so complicated that it interferes with the development process

I am quite partial to the Guild Wars style with regular patching and several stand-alone campaigns. The game had six core classes, each with 75 skills. Every additional campaign added two more classes wit 75 skills, and gave 25 new skills to the six core classes. The core classes had 50 core skills, skills that were accessible from every campaign, and each campaign then had 25 skills unique to that campaign. To have a character of a certain core class able to get all the class skills, one had to have bought every campaign. The thing is, due to the unique mechanics of the game(only 8 skills at any given time, limited balanced teams etc), tight balance was preserved throughout the various installments, so a guy with 125 Necromancer skills wouldn't have an outright better Necromancer than a guy with Nightfall 75 Necromancer skills, assuming both players are equally creative.
Company of Heroes had something like it going, with two stand alone games that are both mutually playable on-line. The downside of the CoH model of implementation is that CoH players that loved one of the factions in the game had no incentive to buy the second "campaign", as it contained no new units or technologies for the starting races, it only added new races.
Dawn of War took a different approach, trying to both add new races with each stand-alone campaign, and add units and techs for the other, older races. That one didn't work either, because each new campaign meant that the old one pretty much died, as the campaigns weren't mutually playable on-line, and support for the previous game died as a new one appeared.
So, the way to go is to find some kind of balance in between all this that rewards players with all the games, but doesn't punish(multiplayer balance wise) the ones that don't.

There is another problem with mini-packs : The press. Sins of a solar Empire had good reviews because it was a complete game. The marks(when the sites or magazines decide to review the game) will decrease significantly when you release small packs because even if the price drop (10-15$), this argument is often weak face of the lack of content(if you compare with a normal addon at 30$).

I largely prefer the system you used for sins and TA (the preorder allow to play the beta of a big addon) than monthly fees or mini-packs.
I've always prefer quality (1 or 2 addon) to the quantity(mini packs for Oblivion and battlefield 2) simply because personally I think a company should sell more content and improvement than what the modders can do (and I like to have a nice box).

I support the idea of betas for major releases. Then the people basically patch the game for ya.

The problem with micro expansions on multiplayer fields is it then fragments the community. Then you hafta look for a game that has your games.

IMO, the future of game development isn't focus on one type of game. It's a focus on many different types. With new types of games released like Portal, it might not be a stretch for you guys to make original games based off the Galactic Civilization universe, or new games in all.

A 3d shooter with strategy functions and a good storyline set in the Galactic Civilizations universe could be badass if made properly. If the point of the game was like a strategy game, where you build everything, then when the action is setup, like your attacking a base or attacking something else. it switches to a 3d shooter, or 3d space sim, could be awesome.

Something like this would make the strategy genre come alive. You wouldn't be winning because you have better craft, you'd win because you have good skills.

The idea could work very well if it had multitudes of people. You could have your commanders, people who love strategy games and control the chess pieces, then you have ground and air grunts, people who like action games and fly to those locations.

Probably would use a ranking system. People showing high disclipline would become high level officers and commanders, and control the chess pieces, and people who showed great skill at combat would automatically be given better armor.

Why make montly fees.
WHy not create small expansionpacks, release them when ready and set there prices at 5-10 dollars.
That way people can chose if they want that pack or not, if not than just dont buy it.

I don't like this subscribing idea with the monthly fees at all.
Just look at Hellgate: London and how well it worked. "Normal" buyers feel ripped off because they don't get the full gaming experience and subscribers rarely feel that the money is really worth it.

The problem with subscriptions in the user market is that home users to not think a tiny bit like companies. This is a very big mistake make companies make:
For them a subscription is great. They purchase it and have security and only pay for the features they need.
In the end-user market however bundles are very, very successful. The customer generally tends to prefer a "I have it all and don't need to care anymore" packet over an individualized one.
And don't forget the envy aspect: If there are some subscribers then there will be a LOT of non-subscriber kiddies who will talk bad about the game just because they are worse off then others and they are not willing to pay.
It's the "dark side" of word of mouth. I am not saying that this is good but it is simply reality and that's why such a business model will, in my opinion, completely and utterly fail for a company like StarDock that relies on word of mouth quite a bit.

The idea with small expansion packs is a lot better. However, to be worth it these packs have to be "more" then patches which again will make it quite hard to do right. Same rule as before: Don't piss off your customers. If you charge them for something they got for free the whole time they will be pissed (and the free patches and the great support is one of the main reasons why I spent quite a lot of money on StarDock products so far).

If you want games to be supported well beyond their corporate lifetime there is a very, very easy solution. ID Software did show it with Quake 3: Just open-source the code!
It helps jung developers to learn how to program, it will guarantee that the open source community will take care of the product and at least give bugfixes (and, if the fanbase is big enough, maybe even community-addons etc. - look at Vampire Bloodines and the fan patches there or the great Oblivion mods that basically turn it into another game).
If you retire a game then you won't make money on it anymore anyway. So why not make it free?

The single most important benefit for StarDock in this whole thing would again be: Word of mouth! Can you imagine a million geeks getting their nerdgasm over an open-sources GC 1? Can you imagine the impact this will have in the press and what it will do for the already great reputation of StarDock in the gaming market?

To be clear: Quake 3 got open sourced, but only the engine and not the artwork. That means you still can not download it "for free". You can download the (community-patched) engine and then get the media files from your legally purchased CD. As far as I know there are copyright issues giving the artwork away and it isn't necessary in any way. But at least for the engine StarDock should have all the necessary rights and ID Software has proven that it is more then enough to just free that part.

I think the problem with releasing mini expansion packs for a multiplayer game is you will get into a situation where some people have the expansions, some don't have any, some have purchased a couple etc, and that's going to complicate players being able to match up online using different versions. At least if there are only one or two major expansions it makes things simpler. You also have to be careful about the type of content introduced- Oblivion copped a lot of criticism for the "horse armor" content which became almost necessary to purchase to allow for enjoyment of the game, and that was only single player!

I personally don't like the idea of mini expansions. It just feels like a way to shake more money out of customers without having to put that much effort into improving the game (eg Oblivion adding one extra item or quest per purchase). That being said, if Stardock/Ironclad could make the purchases seem more worthwhile, I might consider it.

Finally, I strongly oppose subscription fees. I would rather support continued development of a game I really like through purchasing sequels or expansion packs, and with the money I have saved by not chaining myself to one particular game, I would purchase and enjoy something completely different. Once you are paying a monthly fee it's like the developer putting a gun to your head to play their game regularly or else! Kind of like pay TV, forces you to sit in front of the idiot box rather than doing something constructive, otherwise you are just wasting money whilst the TV sits there unused. Although Galciv2 is one of my favourite games, there have been long periods of time that it has sit on the hard drive unplayed. I would't pay a monthly fee for that.

Overall, some interesting ideas. Whatever decision is made it would have to be made carefully IMHO, it has the potential to be pretty divisive.

I think the other thing to consider is that it's not "mini expansions" that lead to longevity of a game, the most important thing is modability of the product, and for it to be a good game in the first place! When you make a "mini expansion" you are potentially competing for user made content, whereas a proper expansion allows to budget for significant changes to the game engine which are not possible with mods. I don't see how a continuous stream of mini additions can keep a game going for much longer than what could already be achieved with expansion packs and user made content. Civ IV for example has been going strong since 2005 with two expansion packs, the main reason being it is fun to play and has plenty of mods. And just look at the Sims! People lap expansions for that up like there's no tomorrow. They don't need subscription fees or mini content updates to remain popular.

Personally, mini-expansions would be perfectly reasonable... if they offered something worth the price. Only problem would be multiplayer compatibility / patching issues. You could do stuff like map-packs easily enough to get around patching, but you still have problems with people not having the "right" map. With expansions, which are relatively few, you don't have so much of a problem with that, you just chunk your user base into two / three divisions (or more for more packs). But minipacks would quickly get ugly that way.

On the other hand, I know SD and IC. If there is a creative way to make the system work, and work well for both consumer and developer, I trust you to find it.

(That said, I like the basic idea behind Oblivions content packs, but they were too small and basic, you need more "meat" even if it costs more. Oh, and releasing them in a "lump sum" was a nice addition on their part...)

I don't think the expansions of the Sims are the best example. A expansion every 6 months for a bathroom and toilets is a bit too much for me.
But I completely agree with your analyze : the problem with mini-expansion is the concurrence with the mods (some projects are amazing). A strong expansion don't have this kind of problems because it's adding some new mechanics and technical improvement with the new content we can't have in a mod.