Like others here, I'd be reluctant to pay for a subscription -- I already have too many unused MMO subscriptions. But I might well be willing to pay for mini-updates. I buy new "Rock Band" songs, and buying the expansions to games like Civ and GalCiv2 is a no-brainer. I often leave favorite games (like Civ and GC2) on the shelf for a while, only to have my interest rekindled by an expansion. That might happens with a mini-update too, if it introduced a new race or a few new techs or something.

Idunno,

I kind of like the idea of a project being "complete" at some point. I enjoy feeling like the game I purchased is a finished product rather than a work in progress. I find that the "waiting for next patch" holding pattern can overshoadow the actual playing of the game.

It really depends what the updates are. As I see it, thre's are 3 kinds of updates. New features, new UI, new race, campaign, etc. Bug fixes like stability and balance issues. And new contnet: maps/scenarios, etc.


I think the first two should be bundled withyour original purchase of the game. When we buy software, i think it should be fully featured and fully functional. I don't like "waiitng for the next patch" so that the game is in a state of optimal playability. It needs to be in that state out of the box (this includes an acceptable feature set, acceptable stability, and acceptible balance). And if it's not it needs to be patched ASAP. So as long as these mini-updates don't drag this process out for years and years that's fine.

But it really shouldn't take more than a release, and a couple patches to get there. Then the expansion can make major changes, and a couple patches, and we shoudl be in great shape. There's nothing wrong with the current system. If IC/SC wanted to release small content additions, those seems totally reasonable to pay for on a microtransaction system.

However, I've in my opinion nothing stardock has done in an update so far, and nothign they've talked about doing really qualifies for that third category. It all falls into bug fixes and improving featurs that should have been availalbe in the first place (like functioning netcode and ultra quality graphics settings).

It really depends on what the updates are, and whether or not the update plan is used as an excuse to release incomplete products/expansions. The idea of waiting years and years for the devs to continue tweaking the balance, and adding features that should ahve been there in the first place kind of terrifies me.

I think one idea to consider, especially for Sins, would be to create an online galaxy or universe similar to MMOs and charge a subscription fee for that. You could have an online universe with hundreds of stars and thousands of planets that would be continually fought over. In effect, it would be a hybrid MMO-and-RTS4x-thingy.

It would require some significant server power, but the subscription service would provide an income stream in between expansion packs. That way, people who are interested in such a thing could subscribe while people who aren't could simply keep playing the wonderful RTS4x game as is.

I had the idea for such a game myself, and in fact I bought Sins because it appeared to hew pretty closely to the idea I had. Think about it, a player could conquer and create a sizable galactic empire over time. When finished for the day, he could position his fleets to defend his territory and log off, allowing his empire to be run by a default AI. Such a system would greatly enhance the role of trade and diplomacy because you would need allies to help defend your territory while off-line. The ideas for such an online universe are unlimited.

The netcode does function -- perfectly. Its just that some people don't have the access they need to set their network up to allow them to host.

As far as the ultra quality graphics settings, why should they hold back the game simply so that a few "power" users can get their E-Peen stroked at release?

Very partial quote from post #11, by lathorien :




« Starting to get dated » : place emphasis on "starting" !

Name us one game of the genre (Space-empire 4X/TBS) which has a graphical level of quality that comes anything near to 2006's GalCiv II -- even without taking into account its two expansions ?


Lost Empire Immortals (2008) ?
Lost Empire (2007) ?
Space Empires V (2006) ?


Because of the strong market dominance of RTS games, Space-empire 4X/TBS games are not an investment that major publishers are willing to risk.

Master of Orion III (2003) had a big negative impact on the perception of those publishers.

There are only two important leaders, at the moment, in the field of Space-empire 4X/TBS games (not counting a minor player like Pollux)... and Stardock's GalCiv series (especially with the very recent expansion) dominates the other series (Malafador's Space Empires).

It dominates in what concerns the graphical level of quality, and it dominates in what pertains to the sophistication of the A.I.

Of course, if you compare GalCiv II's graphics to Crysis ... but that would not be a fair comparison.

There is NOTHING as good as GalCiv II's Twilight of the Arnor (2008) on the horizon, in the genre.

In fact, I could not name you one major Space-empire 4X/TBS game being seriously engaged into design & development, at the moment (April 2008).

(I haven't heard about a Space Empires VI, and Ascendancy II is merely at the hypothetical idea stage.)

If Stardock is not planning a Galactic Civilizations III ... we are stuck into the void.   

GalCiv II's graphics are perhaps « dated », but there will be NOTHING better in the 2008/2009 time-frame -- in the Space-empire 4X/TBS genre.

Master of Orion IV, anyone ?   

There's a lot of good ideas in here.

Basically the questions are:

1) Do people want to see their favorite PC games developed on an on-going basis?

2) If they do, what means of paying for that ondoing development to users envision?

The current system is how it works by default - games come out, they get a patch or two, maybe an expansion pack and then it's on to a new game or a sequel.

If gamers want to see their favorite games continually updated, then we have to come up with a mechanism to justify developers to keep a couple of their people working on the game long-term. 

Obviously some people will always have unrealistic expectations of what they should get out of a purchase. At the end of the day, we can always debate how the world SHOULD be versus how it actually is.  I.e. "We should get unlimited free feature updates forever because we bought the game" isn't an option.

Subscriptions are less popular than mini-expansions. But subscriptions work better for developers because they reduce the risk.  Mini-expansions allow users to pick and choose what they want to pay for but provide more risk to the developers.

I also agree with those who say that any system can't break up the community. The extra content and features would have to be interoperable with users who haven't purchased any or only a few of the additions.  ala Magic the Gathering or something.

Personally, I look back at all the games I've loved in the past and am always saddened when those games begin to become "old". 

 

I would love to pay for additional content, but it has to actually be content.

For instance, planetary invasions, significant new planet types, vastly expanded tech trees (to name a few ideas). I would pay for that, but not for:

Christmas map with enhanced AI and red/green colors everywhere

Easter eggs consisting of voiceovers by (washed up movie star here) in some stupid mission

A campaign of any sort

However, I realize there is somewhat of a divide between the multiplayer and singleplayer communities. To that end, would it be possible to have different optional paid packages for each group? For the singleplayer crowd, give them better AI, more maps, a campaign, and all that good stuff.

For the multiplayer crowd, we'd prefer a deeper game with more options to play around with

I refuse to pay a subscription to play any game. That being said, mini-packs are something I'd consider as long as, like many have already stated, there was significant content to warrant the purchase. I do buy sequels and/or expansions for games I like though.

I think patches should remain free though, so they should be independent of any new content up for purchase.

Then there's the whole community fracturing aspect, which is something that should be carefully considered. It would suck like a black hole if you couldn't play with other people unless you have exactly the same mini-packs as someone else. And it would suck doubly if you couldn't hope to have a chance to compete without the mini-pack content.

As for the MMO type universe, even though I personally wouldn't pay a monthly subscription to play, I could see some real interesting possibilities with that. Different races in their own clusters vying for control of resources among various factions of that race; alliances and raids against other races in their own clusters to conquer territory and control resources; planetary invasion forces (and maybe even a switch to planet side RTS gaming when conquering planets if the player wanted to)*; playing as a pirate faction or as traders/merchants or smugglers; a hierarchy in the command structure, as someone previously mentioned, that the player could aspire to gain*; tons of possibilities, depending on what SD/IC wanted to put into it.

*very much along the lines of what Zellio mentioned.

Personalty the farther you stay away from HellGate's model the better in my opinion. No matter what, you can't charge MMO amount of money to subscribe for a non MMO game. Unless you add in raids, auction houses, crafting, and instances

I'm a fan of Guild War's model of mini expansions but I can already foresee the nightmare it could be balancing out the content in a RTS to make sure that people with the content don't have a huge advantage against people who don't. Or having to split the community similar to Company of Heroes. Which could keep you from developing interesting new units and researches for expansions.


One thought I had last night that may work could be a simple tier system. For ex:

3$ a month: All new units, buildings, researches, sides, for online and off.
4$ a month: Every thing in the last tier + new maps and campaigns.
5$ a month: Every thing in the previous tiers + access to online tournaments and special events.

The key would be to keep the prices as low as possible and offer the biggest features for the least amount of money. The only issue with this plan right now would be determining what happens if someone unsubscribes.

Good ideas, you really know where the gaming is heading.
I remember similar questioning (or voting, and forum discussions)on TW Medieval 2 (I know its crappy Sony but cant help for loving the Total War games too).
They were asking would people buy (online) small campaing (1-2 factions) for 10 USD and people would.

I am not really sure about the monthly payments but for good quality "updates" most people would pay . I could bet on it.

Only problem is that if modding is relatively easy and there are alot of fans there will be hell of a lot good mods to fullfill your gaming needs. So you have to be able to do someting really unresistible. So, if you can make good updates people will pay.

Hell, you just keep up the good work and I will keep supporting you.

I like the idea as long as the updates are meaningful.

To follow-up on my post #30, more in the context of the thread's main topic :


It would be sad if the Twilight of the Arnor expansion was the end of the line, in the 2008/2009 time-frame, for the GalCiv series, taking into account that there is NOTHING serious on the horizon for the whole Space-empire 4X/TBS genre.

Then ... it would be important that some people on the Stardock GalCiv development team get paid to continue to work (even if it was only part-time) on post-Arnor GalCiv II design & development.

I have no idea what are the numbers, in what concerns the GalCiv II stable fan-base, but those serious fans of GC1 & GC2 might be interested in paying, in some form, to help pay those Stardock salaries -- especially if there was NOTHING else on the horizon.

My dad, who is a big GalCiv fan, recently purchased Lost Empire Immortals (released in March through Paradox's Gamer's Gate). I find it more easy to play than GalCiv II ... but it's far from being a serious contender to GalCiv II's throne.

Game producers don't seem interested in the Space-empire 4X/TBS genre.

We must give Stardock some financial incentives to continue in that genre, beyond the soon to be released Twilight of the Arnor expansion.

(Personally, I prefer the Heroes of Might & Magic type to the GalCiv type ... so I'm extremely curious about Stardock's still-secret project in the Fantasy-realm 4X/TBS direction.)

@ Sorceress Post #30
Shh, we are having a constructive thread, troll elsewhere. I didnt compare Gal Civ to anygame (other than maybe Starcraft, which is a compliment to its lifespan). We arnt comparing games or discussing the 4X Genre, we are talking about the life cycles of games. I was using Gal Civ as an example as most people here know about it. My only point is that in regards to releaseing data on games after launch, developers do need to listin around as to when it maybe smart to stop working on new content for a game (either in large expanions, mini-expansion, booterpack, or monthly trickle format) and start working on a new engine or code. IF there was a game just announced for release later this year that could dethrone Gal Civ, you think Stardock could just "whip up" Gal Civ III in time to compete, and not loose some fans to the "other franchise". Frogboy talks of a cycle that always ends with the next best game (sequal or competetor).

OP - I think with Gal Civ, or Starcraft or another game that lives Post-Humously you can use the ongoing updates and expansions not just to "finish off" the original game concept but also lead into your ideas plots, systems ect of your sequal. Adding gaming content that is almost a hybrid of original game and the yet to be release sequal.

From Big We lathorien (#38) :



My post #37 then put post #30 in the context of Frogboy's « constructive thread ».

In what concerns you calling me a « troll », Mister "We" Are Having A Constructive Thread, I'll leave the highschool-level name-calling & bullying to big boys like you.

If Frogboy thinks that I'm « trolling » on his thread, let him PM me about it.

Your reaction won't stop me from posting on this pseudo-"We" thread.

 

What he said.

In my perfect world, I see a 'mini expansion' being, since you mentioned Baldur's Gate, like the Tales of the Sword Coast expansion (which for a full expansion was a little weak).

Here's the issue. I don't want you / this to encourage other, less responsible publishers to say LOOK DLC WORKS ON THE PC TOO LOLOLOL. It just comes down to value. I perfectly understand where you're getting this 'little expansions' thing from, because while you can continue adding great patches to GC2 and the like, eventually the game will be off of store shelves, and you're still providing free content to players while no new copies of the game are being sold. That financially doesn't make sense, so I see where the 'pay to play' idea might seem reasonable.

DLC doesn't work on the PC. It's been tried, and by and large it doesn't work. How much would we be getting? I'd like to say I'd support this if you (read: responsible developers) gave us a lot of value for that little price, but I'm worried that it'll turn into Xbox Live for the PC - everyone tries to start selling 'horse armor' for $3.

Not all people are very smart with their money, but from my point of view, $9 is 22% the cost of a full Stardock game and a little under half the cost of an expansion pack, so I'd expect to get that much value out of it.

Also I should mention what was on page 1:

The 'word of mouth' and bad perception could do more harm than good. People will start bad-mouthing the game because they can't afford or are too lazy to get the expansions. There will inevitably be people telling others that the game has a 'monthly fee' and they won't buy it on that principle. Doesn't matter if its true or not. As soon as people hear 'monthly fee' they think 'MMO' and that'll turn off a lot of customers.

It's like Hellgate: London. I didn't have any interest in the game in the first place but when I heard about the 'free vs. subscribe' I kinda went 'Hahaha right, like that'll work'. And it didn't. The game flopped.

One thing i forgot to say is that i loved the idea of the BETA!!!!!

I payed for the game as soon as beta 1 was released and i really enjoyed how we were "given" certain things as time went on

Maybe i liked it so much because i already paid for it and felt it was like i was given extra stuff i dunno.

I Just hope to see something like it again

I would not be interested in a regular fee based subscription, but possibly will pay for extra content if the activation method is changed.

To expand on that a bit, I am a lover of old games. I still have Win95 on an old PC for some titles. Now these titles I can just install and play no problems. With titles from StarDock we have to activate to be able to use patches so there is no garantee of future possible use. Imagine in ten years time trying to activate Hearts Of Iron, or one of your titles. No Go.

Having said that I do not mind spending a few dollars on one of your titles, but for a long term commitment with no garantee of future installs, I have to limit my exposure to the risk of problems installing in the future.

If you mooved to a "Matrix Games" serial protection type I would consider spending more on a particulat title in expansions etc. I own Calactic Civilization 2 but will not be spending more on it because of this potential problem.

I am a keen flight simulator player as well, and have spent a fortune on FS2004 expansions. But now we have to activate FSX I will not be purchasing that title or any of it's expansions as it will have no future.

But I really like the concept of keeping Calactic Civilization 2 & Sins going for the long term. "I think one day they could be merged, just dreaming"

Cheers MarkL

I agree that many will stay away from a game on that principle, but if the game is a quality one such as Sins, then I think the success of MMOs proves many people will subscribe. If you take a game that has proven itself to be fun, and create an optional online "universe" such as I described before, then I think not only could you create excitement among fans, but also you could use the revenue to create new technologies, ships, planets, maps, races, campaigns, what have you for both the regular game and the MMO-like universe. That way you could pay the people it would take to generate the expansion pack for the regular game.

I think a few things would need to happen to make this plan work:

1. Instead of a monthly fee, I would recommend having six-month subscriptions. People are just sick and tired of getting screwed with bills every month. The price of a subscription will be easier to rationalize if it is spread over six months.

2. The online universe would have to be incredible to justify the fee. I'm thinking vastly expanded trade, tons of new technologies and updated ship improvements, the ability to trade technology, ground invasion assaults, the ability to create your own organization with its own hierarchy, the ability to grant control of your ships to another player, huge tracts of space to explore . . . etc.

3. The regular, non-paying, online experience couldn't be left in the cold. Things that work in the paying universe could be applied to the regular online game if appropriate. Expansion packs should be included for the regular game as well, because as several have mentioned on this forum, they would be willing to pay for an expansion pack as long as it was quality. Well what better way to create quality than to use what works in the MMO-like universe and apply it intelligently to the regular game. The people who don't want to pay the subscription shouldn't feel like second class citizens even though they are, well, second class citizens.

What does everybody think? Is this idea feasible or way too optimistic?

I think the constant mention of Hellgate: London is a bit off. The game didn't fall remotely because of the normal vs subscription debate, but because the game was mediocre at best by most standards, and riddled with issues. Having to pay to complete/fix the game was just a little salt on that wound (and was still never very good).

I'm alright with subscriptions, I'd honestly prefer them to large numbers of mini-packs by fair margin, but it does boil down to value. $10 is a fourth the price of Sins. Something along the lines of $10 per 3-4 month period would put it at around buying an expansion/sequel per year or so, much more is iffy to me.

The issues of bad word of mouth (a fair number seem to hate it on principle, though I wonder how much of it is actually just vocal minority considering the popularity of most MMOs), and community splitting in MP are both very good points against the idea as well.

but can't stardock release patches for galciv2 that will take advantage of the most up to date graphic cards. If not, then maybe they should find a way to do it for their next upcoming fantasy based strategy game. Or they can release a patch that will either add or delete lines of code which will do this. I am not a programmer, but if they can get around the problem of graphics, then the game engine issue is nto that a big deal. Look at it this way, there are games that are bing developed which utilizes the UT3 engine and that engine is not exactly new. Also if there are regular subscription patches or be it mini packs, can't stardock just find way to update the existing core game engine.

There just seems to be 2 different problems, one business and the other technical. if the technical problem can be adequately dealt with, then it can give more credence to the business side of the issue.

Personally, I have no problem with mini-expansions (and would, in all likeliness, grab them), but there's no way I'd touch a subscription service for GalCiv2 or Sins -- it doesn't work with the way I play these games.

With strategy games in general, I tend to play in 'spurts' -- I'll be all over the games for a couple weeks, then not touch 'em for a couple months. I have no interest in paying for a game while I'm not going to be using it.

Ok. I will pay for the subsription, as long as I am promised new content every other month or so.
However, I'll be more happier with the micro-expansion's (paying as we go) also at the absolute end of GalCiv2's life you can sell all of them together >>
I really do hope this idea goes though for both GalCiv2 and Sins, because one thing I do love about Stardock is those juicy updates
If need be, I'll gladly give you my whole bank account ><

Dan

p.s. this post is on also on the GalCiv2 forum (just making sure my view is put across)

This has already been mentioned by another poster, but I'll reiterate:

While subscriptions are safer for the developers because it's a steady stream of income, it also puts extra pressure on the developers to release something regularly, which can lead to a shift of quantity over quality.

Going with mini expansions, more time can be given to making sure that the additions are worthwhile for the players to pay money for, which may or may not always be the case with subscription content.

You all know I hold SD and IC in the highest regard so I'm not saying that's what you guys are going to do, but the pressure to get something out because people are expecting it since they're paying subscription will always be there

Half-life 2?
I know you guys aren't necessarily thinking about this sort of thing, but it's a great example of people paying money to continue playing the same game. In this case, Valve hooked people with an incredibly compelling story line and offered popular multiplayer alternatives, in the form of the orange box. But episode one sold really well too, and that had nowhere near as much 'stuffing.'

But I think it's a -great- idea. I know that I personally would be willing to pay $10-15 for a micro expansion, assuming that it had something to offer. I think the main thing you'll need to watch for is multiplayer compatibility. Adding in new units and stuff is sweet, but if people need to keep paying their 10 bucks every so often to play with other people and use toys they might not be interested in, they'll lose interest. Take a page from Valve, keep people interested in multiplayer by keeping it fresh and introducing new ways to play the game, sins meets day of defeat? Hey, that sounds a lot like that Dawn of Victory mod that is in development....

First, make up a campaign. Make it good, make it neat, let it tease us. Don't charge for the first installment, I think the majority of players will agree that a campaign is part of the 'standard' buisness model we are all used to. Then if people get hooked, release more of the story periodically, for a price. With each micro expansion, you could introduce new gameplay types, maybe alternate victory conditions for vanilla sins, or popular community mods, or just whatever stardock has cooked up in their basement. Along with these micro expansions, release free updates that keep vanilla sins users up to snuff in the core game, but don't provide extra content (or at least, don't provide nearly as much extra content).

Seriously, emulate the crap out of Valve. You guys already have the digital distribution thing down, you're headed down the right path. Just keep putting out quality product, and continue supporting the core game, and people will gladly shell out cash just for the novelty of having more of the game to play.

Also...

The mod community may think of me as a Judas for mentioning this, but... Right now I'd pay ten bucks for a polished mod tools set. Hell, I'd pay five bucks just to be able to open the original mesh files in XSI. So if development cost is keeping anything on the back burner...