Sins Forums
I am ready to plop my money down now!!! I may not have a job in 2 months!!!!
I am ready to plop my money down now!!! I may not have a job in 2 months!!!!
I just wish they'd fix the multiplayer issues with the expansions first so that you can see and join games for the earlier versions.
C-C-C-Combo Breaker!!
I'm willing to pay double for better scaling - higher utilization of multicore processors, 64-bit executable to use 4+ gigs ram.
Granted, 'double' only means $20, and it costs a lot more than $10 extra to develop that. Who else would be willing to pay $10 extra bucks for this?
Is there even an ETA for it yet? Or are they planning on releasing them yearly or something like that?
Well, I don't (on this system can't) have 4+ gigs of ram and I only have one core, but within the time it takes them to make the next expansion I will. If I'm going to shell out several hundreds for a new box, I'd gladly rebuy my favorite game to take advantage of the new hardware. I think I paid $40 for vanilla and $10 for entrenchment. I'd pay that again on top of new hardware for sure.
$10 to be honest seems very very small, considering what they put into the expansion. $20 does not seem unreasonable.
However i wish the game was a single game, by that what i mean is the expansion overwrites the main folder and there is no Vanilla AND Expansion, which effectively splits the community. But from a dev standpoint having those who buy the expansion still able to play with those who haven't is a move to keep the community together in the on-line games. That is my take on why they did it that way, just a guess on my part, so maybe im wrong. But it seems a reasonable reason.
I am not a developer by any means and so my understanding of what works for a gaming communtiy is rather obviously amateurish, but if Vanilla were to move by closer degrees toward what Entrenchment is, file system, file format, single game folders (which is where it seems the devs are in fact taking it) then the Expansions could add small differences, new skyboxes, additional ships, starbases, etc... which might of course mean that players without the updates can in fact play against, (and probably lose to) players that have the starbases and the added ships and perks of the game. It would mean the players without could "see" the starbases and other ships, the cool new skyboxes and neat abilities, but not have access to them of course.
It might mean people saying "Hey, i want a starbase too!!" Or i woulda whooped him if i had all those structure killer ships too!"
Just two cents worth of thoughts, and perhaps not even workable, but just an idea.
-Teal
Blizzard does that with WoW; no idea how effective it is, though. WoW has a much larger playerbase, and splitting them between the haves and the have nots isn't as big of a deal.
The expansions are also more than just new units - they also include engine and AI improvements. If 'entrenchment mode' can play with 'non-entrenchment mode', all of the enginechanges would no longer be a benefit to buying the expansion. I think the current approach of allowing expansion owners to launch non-expansion versions of the game is the best approach at the moment.
Ahhh... Thank you, didnt know about the engine changes, i guess i should have, or did and forgot.
Take care,
-Teal
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
Stardock Forums