stardock future update plans: good or evil?

[vee4473]

Originally posted by Osweld




Whats-his-name said that pirates will have to buy the game if they want to "keep up with everyone else", well, customers will have get a new patch and start a new game every two days if they want to, aswell.

Well, heres my take...

Your "have to get a new patch and start a new game every two days" theory has to be based on an assumption that the patches don't affect previous save games, which I am not sure of.

But, out of the box, the game is completely playable. Someone can buy the game, go home, load it up and be happy.

If they don't have an internet connection to browse gaming sites and such, they wouldn't even know that all these minor updates are available. Nor would they care because the game is playable out of the box.

And those that do have internet access, (and are on this forum), have nothing to complain about since stardock central makes updating more painless than any game i've ever played. You launch SDC, click update and your done. I think it's easier than Westwood's or Blizzard's update mechanism where you have to log on to MP to update or else download a patch and then install it. Granted, I have a high speed connection, but the size of the updates doesn't seem too large.

Now that I think about it, perhaps their goal is to release many smaller updates instead of one or 2 massive ones in order to alleviate the dial-up download problem.

Bottom line for me is that I have yet to experience the problem of having to start a new game after each update in order to get the effects of the update.

Maybe I am missing something, but I whole-heartedly welcome Stardock's approach to customer support on this game.

[CygnusZ]

Its been about... 2 years or so since I've actually pirated a game. I plan on purchasing Galactic Civilization after having heard all the glowing things that have been mentioned on the Apolyton forums.

Osweld, the things is that you may or may not have a point. It's about whether the developers are making dynamic plans to add content based upon user feedback, or whether they are simply surpressing features. It sounds more like they are reacting to consumer feedback, which is good.

Just imagine how good a game (the underwhelming)Civilization III could have been if they had spent a year post release working on tweaking it to be a good strategy game? The shortcomings of GC are getting a chance to be fixed, as a direct result of player feedback, and that's a good thing.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by vee4473

But, out of the box, the game is completely playable. Someone can buy the game, go home, load it up and be happy.

Or pirate it. That's my point, this anti-piracy strategy has little more affect on pirates then it does customers. However big that affect is.


My tirades about 'suppresing features' ect... where off topic, and where just general complaints of mine that I have with the industry as a whole. I haven't played GalCiv, so I can't say what the situation is in that case. But obviously, if there is an expansion pack in the works only a couple weeks after release, that is very suspect. Even if they aren't charging for it.

[campfreddie]

Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick, but I don't think the multiple patches are an anti-piracy attempt. That's just a side effect. Of course, stardock could've just whacked on securom or safedisc like everyone else - which doesn't work on my computer

The primary reason for the patches is player satisfaction. Players post in the forums (go to galciv.com and see) and say "have you noticed that the AI seems too willing to allow me to buy his defence force, allowing me to conquer him with his own ships?". A few days later, a mini-patch comes out which addresses this issue.

Thus, the fans are kept happy. Of course, if you don't want to be inconvenienced my downloading a new patch every 3 days you don't have to. Just wait until you feel like updating and do it. Stardock are going to release stand-alone patches like everyone else, if that's what you want.

The point I'm trying to make is that the extra little patches are precisely that - EXTRA! You can just update it like any traditional game. But many players (like me) would prefer to have the game as up-to-date as possible. If I see an bug/exploit in the game, I want it fixed ASAP. It's much better than looking at a patch update thread (hello MOO3), and being told "we've fixed your problem but you'll have to wait another month before we let you play it".

Also, you do realise that GalCiv had an open-beta, with no NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement), which massively helped make the game fun and complete. Much better than the closed and/or NDA'd betas that every other game company uses.

Developers (and even beta-testers) aren't as clever as you seem to think. They don't spot exploits and bugs in the way that the public do. Post-release support is essential if a game is going to last.

I just don't understand your point that the game release should have waited another year. They still wouldn't have solved all the bugs and exploits due to the small number of testers and we would be deprived of a great game for another year. And if you think it's incomplete, then wait a year. Stardock have stated their patch/update strategy very clearly and no-one is being forced to buy an 'incomplete' game.

I hesitate to call anyone a troll, but I just can't understand why you'd remain to argue such an illogical position.

[Eric S]

Originally posted by Osweld
Or just play the game. Eitherway, there are new updates coming out every couple of days. It inconveniances customers and pirates alike - that was my whole point.

Osweld, that's silly. Upgrading through StarDockCentral is so easy that I check for updates every time I turn on my game machine, just in case there's an update. I look forward to the updates because they add user-requested features, tweak play-balance, and yes, occasionally fix a bug. The first certainly couldn't have been done pre-release, and every game I've ever played has had game balance issues out of the box that weren't immediately obvious to the beta testers, and the third, well, it happens.

As for your main argument, have you never seen a program that released an X.n version where n>0? Does that mean that X.(n-1) was unfinished and never should have been released? Hate to tell you this, but I've got a 4.8 version OS that has been in constant development AND constant use in a production environment since 2.2. You've also shown no evidence that this is being done only, or even primarily, to thwart piracy. Brad loves this game, and it shows. He's committed to making it the best that he can, and I've never seen a programmer that was committed to a program that could leave the program alone even after releasing it.

Then you go off on a tangent saying that Maxis promised continuing support, but switched to expansion packs. Are you implying that StarDock will do the same? That's about as logical as saying that since we know at least one human is a murderer, we should all be in prison.

Next argument: That a year from now, people will have to download millions of little patches to come up to date. Again, your lack of facts is in evidence. In fact, if you install the program using StarDock Central over the net rather than off of the CD, it installs the latest version, no patching necessary. If you install off of the CD, two clicks in StarDock Central will bring you up to date, no matter how many patches have been released. I'll admit that this model isn't convenient for people that don't have a net connection on their game machine, but even if all they've got is a 56K modem link, any patches will only download those files that have changed (assuming StarDoc Central is set up right, some people are having issues with this).

Now we come to a glaring lack of knowledge of the facts: You state that they should have had a semi-open beta, gathered suggestions, and then implemented them before the release. Guess what. They did. The problem is that X*(very large number) players are going to have more suggestions than X beta testers, and statistics would indicate that some of those suggestions will likely be better than any of the beta tester suggestions. I don't know if you've been following it, but GalCiv is a huge hit on most of the places that are tracking this. It hit #1 at AVault and #3 at Amazon.com. This is much larger than anyone expected pre-release.

Oh, and then you keep harping on moddability. Lack of facts yet again. You can't tweak the AI, add new major races, or new forms of government, but you can add new social buildings, new technologies, new starships, and new events.

At this point, however, it really sounds like you're grabbing on to anything so that you can jump on your personal soapbox, and you're willing to twist your uninformed opinion in order to make it work. I'd suggest you find out what updates have been made, then wade through the suggestions threads, main and all the minor ones, to find out how many of the changes were by user request. You might also want to read threads on future development plans for GalCiv, rather than latching onto a single sentence. If and when you've got an informed opinion, come back and argue logically.

Right now all you're doing is hurting your credibility with every post because you're ignoring most counter-arguments and repeating your original argument as if that refutes everything. You've shown no facts that support your argument, just your interpretation of facts that don't support it.

For the record, I'm enjoying GalCiv. I don't think it's the greatest game ever, but I certainly rank it quite a bit higher than most other games I've played. I'm certainly enjoying the fact that playbalance issues and bugs tend to get resolved fairly quickly, and I know that the game will continue to get better for the next year. I can't say that about very many other games.

[0bsidi0n]

This is kind of on topic, and it's been bothering me: can anyone see any problems with starting a really long game (months, in my case) and when they finish the numerous updates since have changed the game? I'm kind of worried that while I was playing the game would change on some fundamental level...

[Rasbelin]

You can never expect to get a 100% complete game straight out of the box which will completely satisfy you. The fact that Stardock has released small fixes frequently however shows great committment, unlike many other game studios would have. Point taken that there's the subscription system, but it could be still okay as you at least get frequent updates.

[Pyrkaige]

Originally posted by 0bsidi0n
This is kind of on topic, and it's been bothering me: can anyone see any problems with starting a really long game (months, in my case) and when they finish the numerous updates since have changed the game? I'm kind of worried that while I was playing the game would change on some fundamental level...

You may notice a few changes after you update; certainly, some of the small bugs that were in earlier versions have been squashed (trade goods not being monopolistic, etc.) Overall the changes have not made fundamental differences in the game, and any changes that have been made are for the good.

For example, the latest patch that came out yesterday calculates morale a little differently, so when you reload under it the morale on your planets will start out high (mine were at 100% for almost every planet) and then calculate on down from there. But that's certainly not something I mind.

[Harry Seldon]

Are you sure about trade items? I can still build them after someone else builds it as long as it's in my queue and I can never get a monopoly on a trade good because other civs use the same exploit.

[Pyrkaige]

Originally posted by Harry Seldon
Are you sure about trade items? I can still build them after someone else builds it as long as it's in my queue and I can never get a monopoly on a trade good because other civs use the same exploit.

I haven't played enough with the new patch that came out yesterday to verify that, but other people have said that they don't see that bug anymore. You may have to start a new game with the new patch (1.02049) to have that part fully working, I don't really know.

[Eric S]

Harry, if you've got a game that is still (after yesterday's update) showing that behavior, the devs will probably want to know. They thought they had the bug squashed once before only to be proven only partially right (it got better, but not completely fixed), but Frogboy (Brad) is pretty confident he got it this time.

[Harry Seldon]

I didn't see yesterday's patch but I'm downloading it now. It'll be great if they got it this time.