stardock future update plans: good or evil?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by MarkG
seems like brad's post is trolling out the idiots one by one...

Stardock has already announced a years of updates. after that, with the subscription system that they have created and the fan base that is being formed, they've got all the reasons of the world to continue with the updates

In other words, they kept some of the content out of the game so they could release it in patches over the next year. This is, as I said in my other post, inconveniancing their legitimate customers by forcing them to download dozens of updates if they want all the content, and also by not giving them the full thing right off the bat. Pirates will have to wait a year before they can get it all hassle-free, and so will the customers. The only difference is that the customers will have to wait a bit less inbetween the updates.

[Fried-Psitalon]

Or maybe they don't have it all done yet? They've announced a year of updates: That doesn't mean they have a year of content lying around. Maybe they're generating new content as they go along, or they have a different section of their staff working on this seperate project and it's easier for them to set it up this way?

The epitome of the self-centered: They must be doing this to inconvenience ME!

[MarkG]

In other words, they kept some of the content out of the game so they could release it in patches over the next year. This is, as I said in my other post, inconveniancing their legitimate customers by forcing them to download dozens of updates if they want all the content, and also by not giving them the full thing right off the bat.

the didnt keep anything. if they wanted to put everything in the game that they will release this year, they would (imagine this) have to delay the release one year

the fact that you can program something into a game doesnt mean that the implementation is instant....

and when we talk about "a year of updates" it means "money to pay programmers to work on this specific thing for a year"

[MarkG]

in fact, the game has been delayed for over a year (do a search in our news). it's certain they didnt have the time to do features only to hide them from the release version so that they can sit for a year while making people's lives harder forcing them to download patches(for which they are thanked for continuing to support the game after so many months(a really really really evil plan!!!))

[unic]

Seems to me that they certainly are listening to what the customers say, and taking that into account when creating new content or changing the game. I doubt they have lots of ready-made stuff lying around...

I am very impressed by both the game, and by their attitude to us customers and the support given.

/unic

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by MarkG
the didnt keep anything. if they wanted to put everything in the game that they will release this year, they would (imagine this) have to delay the release one year

Exactly my point, they released it unfinished - a whole year before it's finsihed, apparently - and plan completing it through a slew of patches. Actually, I don't know what these updates are, but I doubt they're much - probably not a year's worth of work.


Any developer that has patches planned before the game is even released gets a big thumbs-down from me.

[Pyrkaige]

Originally posted by Osweld
Exactly my point, they released it unfinished - a whole year before it's finsihed, apparently - and plan completing it through a slew of patches. Actually, I don't know what these updates are, but I doubt they're much - probably not a year's worth of work.

Any developer that has patches planned before the game is even released gets a big thumbs-down from me.

If you want a game that is never patched after it comes out, you shouldn't have any problem finding one; there are many developers who refuse to support their products, blithely shipping their game and immediately forgetting about it, so they can go on to make the Next Big Thing.

If, however, you want a game that is actually improved from suggestions made by players after it was released then GalCiv is your game. There were many large additions in the Bonus Pack that came with the game release (since the game was delayed an extra month at the request of the US distributor.) There have been multiple moderate additions already, based on feedback from players. And there are very large additions planned for the free expansion pack that is scheduled to be released in June -- you can look elsewhere on this forum where those details are outlined.

Perhaps you like playing a game that is the same forever as it was when it came out of the box. Perhaps you enjoy playing only what the imperious game designers came up with, and not being able to suggest any improvements of your own. Perhaps you're thrilled to discover games that have no support by their developer. If so, great, there are many games like that.

Myself, I find it refreshing that a developer has allotted the manpower to add new features and fixes to a game for an entire year after they got my money for the game. I rather enjoy being given a free updater program that can grab those updates for me on a regular basis, instead of having to wait at least 2-4 weeks for each single patch to come out. And I tend to have found that the changes so far have come from what the actual players want, even if it sometimes goes against what the designers initially thought would work best. (The change to the trade slider is a perfect example of this.)

I happen to enjoy all that. But then, I suppose that I'm alone in those sentiments... nobody else could possibly want a game like that, could they?

[MarkG]

Exactly my point, they released it unfinished - a whole year before it's finsihed, apparently

galciv is a complete game out of it's box. it has it's issues and there are tons of ideas to make it better, but that happens in any game

the difference is the developer's commitment (money) to continue improving it

i guess you prefer the classic "develop until we run out of money, release, make a first patch only if the game sells, make a second patch only if there is good chance that an expansion pack will sell" scheme that we have all learned to love....

[campfreddie]

"[Games] are never finished, only published."

The old adage is true of just about any project. Commercial and technical reasons mean that you will never wait until everything is 100% perfect. I certainly don't in my field of work. Not least because until you see the public reaction, you don''t even know what 100% perfect is.

All that matters is that you get a good, fun, (almost) bug-free game out-of-the-box. Then it can be released. You can then get a happy fan-base and add your free updates based on their feedback.

Or you could deny the fans access to a good game for a further year, and stick in a bunch of extra features that you think are good but the fans might not like or care about.

If you think the game is incomplete then just wait a year before you buy it. You should even be able to get it cheap by doing this.

That's what I'm doing for MOO3 (which is incomplete,unfun and bug-ridden).

[Lemmy]

Osweld, i really suggest that you play the game before calling it unfinished.
Unlike more recent releases, this game IS finished and playable right out the box. I understand that with the let downs of civ3 and moo3, you may think that this is impossible, but it is.
GalCiv delivered what it promised. Good gameplay and a killer AI.
There aren't any features mentioned on the box that you don't get. *cough*civ3 multiplayer*cough*
If you're going to compare it with the game it might be in one year, then yes, it's incomplete. But if you take the game as it is now, and look for all the things they promised in the initial release, then it's complete.

Actually, I don't know what these updates are, but I doubt they're much - probably not a year's worth of work.

Bad bad Osweld, drawing conclusions like that without even knowing the content of the first updates
Them releasing several patches in one week should give you an idea of how much work they're putting into it.

Any developer that has patches planned before the game is even released gets a big thumbs-down from me.

What about a developer that promises free expansion packs? That's how i see it, since there is nothing seriously wrong with the game. There are bugs, yes, but that year of commitment isn't just about fixing bugs.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Lemmy
Osweld, i really suggest that you play the game before calling it unfinished.

If it is not unfinished, why is there a years worth of patches planned and, as you say, already a series of patches in a single week?

I didn't say it was unplayable, just that it is not complete, and that they're stringing people along in a futile attempt to keep the pirates at bay.

If you want a game that is never patched after it comes out, you shouldn't have any problem finding one; there are many developers who refuse to support their products, blithely shipping their game and immediately forgetting about it, so they can go on to make the Next Big Thing.

I want a game that doesn't have the first patches scheduled before it even hits the shelves.

Perhaps you like playing a game that is the same forever as it was when it came out of the box. Perhaps you enjoy playing only what the imperious game designers came up with, and not being able to suggest any improvements of your own. Perhaps you're thrilled to discover games that have no support by their developer. If so, great, there are many games like that.

Are there any modding capabilities in Galciv and if so, are they compatible with the patches?

Myself, I find it refreshing that a developer has allotted the manpower to add new features and fixes to a game for an entire year after they got my money for the game. I rather enjoy being given a free updater program that can grab those updates for me on a regular basis, instead of having to wait at least 2-4 weeks for each single patch to come out. And I tend to have found that the changes so far have come from what the actual players want, even if it sometimes goes against what the designers initially thought would work best. (The change to the trade slider is a perfect example of this.)

After-release support is not something new, and is not something that should need promising. All the good devlopers already do this, and they don't do it only to spite pirates. (Although Blizzard likes to take pirates into consideration in their patches - they did something similiar to this with warcraft 3 - they don't just pump out patches for the hell of it.)

Are you really so impatient that you can't wait 2-4 weeks for a good patch, and would rather download 2-4 small patches every week? Just think about a person who buys this game a year from now... they're going to have hundreds of patches to download. This sort of 'rapid release' strategy of patches is much more prone to making mistakes and creating new bugs in the game, anyways.



By the way, Maxis promised continuing support for The Sims when it was released, and it only lasted a few weeks before they releaized they could be making expansion packs and geting people to pay for it all instead.

[Lemmy]

If it is not unfinished, why is there a years worth of patches planned and, as you say, already a series of patches in a single week?

I see patches as a means to fix bugs only, if you have another definition please post it. If not, then i already answered your question:

There are bugs, yes, but that year of commitment isn't just about fixing bugs.

I didn't say it was unplayable, just that it is not complete, and that they're stringing people along in a futile attempt to keep the pirates at bay.

But what is missing then? What do you miss that should be in now? Stardock said what the game will contain on release, and that is what they've already delivered.

I want a game that doesn't have the first patches scheduled before it even hits the shelves.

It's only realistic to plan for at least one patche post-release. It would be arrogant not to. The only thing Stardock did different is to make it public, and schedule updates to go along with the patches.

Just think about a person who buys this game a year from now... they're going to have hundreds of patches to download.

Eh? "Cumulative patch"

[Lemmy]

/me reads Oswelds post again..
Bah you're confusing

You call it an unfinished and incomplete game. But it isn't unplayable...mk, i can live with that, though a bit odd.
But then, you don't like the fact that there are patches (and updates/new features!) scheduled, and that you don't want patches to be planned before release....yet you find it normal that good developers have after-release support ("not something that should need promising"). So the "good developers" obviously expect it, and most likely also plan for it.
Then why condemn Stardock for being open about it and offering a lot better support then most developers?

[yin26]

Sure, I'd like the game to come out-of-box with a magic wand that allows me to go a year into the future and update the game with all the cumulative knowledge gained. Anybody know of a game that comes with a (functioning) magic wand? No?

O.K. I'll stick with a company like Stardock. Thanks.

[Fried-Psitalon]

::hands you his magic wand::

How do you think I've gotten the "Ultra Terraforming Mark IV" tech in all my games? Duh.