.. But I don't want to have to wait for a sequel...

Marketing vs. Distribution vs. Gamers

Published on September 26, 2006 By Draginol In GalCiv Journals

In the course of Stardock becoming a publisher we've learned a lot about the industry. Here's the dirty little secret -- game publishing is a business. A mature business. One whose models are well understood.

If I make game Wizbang 1, I can't realistically release Wizbang 2 for at least 36 months.

So what you get is this formula (and after reading this, take a look out there at other games).

WizBang 1 released.

IF WizBang 1 is BUGGY THEN release WizBang Complete 6 months later.

ELSE if WizBang 1 is a success release 9 months later WizBang: Expansion Pack which adds NEW content and a token new feature at $29.95.

THEN IF WizBang 1 wins any game of the year edition, create WizBang: Game of the Year Edition which incorporates (maybe) the Expansion Pack.

ELSE if WizBang 1 doesn't win game of the year edition, create WizBang: GOLD EDITION which does the same thing.

Here's my problem: I don't want to wait until 2009 or later to put in a bunch of features that users have come up with. I want them NOW or at least really soon.

In the upcoming expansion pack to Galactic Civilizations II (Dark Avatar) we have a pretty ambitious feature set there. But what if there's more we want to add to that? Users post some really interesting stuff. But it's too early for a sequel but at a certain point, you are way beyond an expansion pack.

Heck, a normal expansion pack for GalCiv II would be new ship components + new scenarios + new maps + new campaign + some cool new feature. That's how it's supposed to be done. It's not about whether that's a good thing or not, that's simply what the market has determined is the optimal business strategy for expansion packs. You can go back 6 years and see the same thing.

My other issue with a system like that is the cost to new buyers. For people who have WizBang 1, a $30 expansion pack isn't a big deal. But what about the new buyer? Paying $40 to $50 PLUS $30 is now a major purchase.

I'd like to see soething like WizBang: Half-Away to Sequel for $40 to $50 and then for people who bought the game the $30 expansion. That way, you can get new people into it and still provide a discounted upgrade path to the half-way sequel version.

I think it's not just better for gamers but it's also better for the game companies as well. So why don't they do it? The answer: Retail. Few games can put both on the shelves at the same time. It is confusing to consumers. It doubles shelf space. Since most publishers are completely reliant on retail for their income, we end up with the result: Expansion packs and "Game of the Year" editions.

And I don't want to knock that system. It's not a bad system. But in the case of Galactic Civilizations II, I am really anxious to keep going. It's done so well. It's done so vastly better than our wildest estimates and it's still doing well. Very Very well. And there's no end of fans with interesting ideas.

AND we realize that we can't do a sequel. But why can't we do something that really takes GalCiv II up a notch and then sell the upgrade to existing users as an expansion pack while having the retail version be the compilation all at the same time?

Most publishers couldn't. But thankfully we have something most publishers don't have -- TotalGaming.net. We have the proven capability of selling large volumes of games digitally. And because we opted to NOT have CD copy protection but instead provide a simple serial #, we have the capabilty of being able to tell who currently has the game.

What that means is this: We could potentially have a stand-alone retail game that is a quasi-sequel AND provide a digital (or at least direct boxed version) upgrade path in the form of the expansion pack to users.

The net result is that existing players could look forward to an expansion that has even MORE features than what had been promised without having to pay a cent more than the original expansion pack price AND new players wouldn't have to spend $70+ to join the fun.

Comments (Page 2)

Meglobob

on Sep 26, 2006

But on top of that, the whole patch thing makes you wonder if a game was rushed out the door - not enough play testing and such - but of course, there's nothing like releasing a game, charging for it, and getting the public to play test it for you.

Can u name a PC game that has been released in the last couple of yrs with no bugs?

No? Neither can I. PC games r so complicated nowadays its virtually impossible to do so. Especially for example when the company like Stardock only have 3 developers and they have several different projects to work on.

Also even if u get 100 players to beta play test it, guess what when it hits the shelves and 100,000+ people r playing, they find bugs. The recent 1.3 beta was freely available for beta testing by all for a month, yet when 1.3 final came out, it still had bugs.

U have to judge how good a software company is by the after sales support, free patches, how fast they r made, stardock r excellent when it comes to this.

Achillus

on Sep 26, 2006

Patching is a must for PC due to the nature of variety of the PC. The original game probably runs perfect on the Developer's PC. But then, because PCs can be upgraded, the problem will arise that a certain combonation, software and hardware, will affect the game performance.

That is the advantage of the console. Every Xbox is exactly the same out the door. The only variation is superficial. Even the differences such as different size Hard Drives are just superficials. The Hardware are the same, the drivers and the OS are exactly the same. So if the game is developed with quality in mind, (Such as Galciv 2) there wouldn't be any problems.

The disadvantage of this is that new features could not be usually be implemented. But that has changed too with the advent of XBOX Live and hard drives for the console. This is a double edge sword though because if a feature is rushed and NOT tested for bugs, it could potentially ruin the game code which then would have to be patched.

That's my thought.. What's yours?

LintMan

on Sep 26, 2006

If I make game Wizbang 1, I can't realistically release Wizbang 2 for at least 36 months.

I'm curious why this is... Are you saying the market (buyers or retail vendors) wouldn't support Wizbang 2? Or do you mean that it would take 36 months to create a release-worthy Wizbang 2? If it's the former case, I know that I'd be willing to buy the Wizbang 2 sequel to a Wizbang 1 game I liked, regardless of the time interval in between- 36 months or 6 months.

This sounds like a good deal all-around, but I wonder how it works for a second (and third, etc) expansion. In that case, the early buyer ends up paying $50+$30+$30, while the new arrivals still only pay $50 for all three? And what about this: If I know that's the pattern, I can postpone buying expansion #2 and wait until the third expansion is released, and buy the "gold edition" set that includes both for $50, and then give a friend or sell my original game. Now, I wouldn't really do that, but the incentive is there.

Achillus

on Sep 26, 2006

If I know that's the pattern, I can postpone buying expansion #2 and wait until the third expansion is released, and buy the "gold edition" set that includes both for $50, and then give a friend or sell my original game. Now, I wouldn't really do that, but the incentive is there

Yes, you could do that.. But the time between expansion is usually pretty long. Take for example Warcraft 3. I bought the game at full price, then bought the expansion. I knew that a battle chest, which contains both games would eventually come out and would be cheaper, but it still bought the games at retail. Primary reason is because the "I WANT IT NOW!."

Having to wait longer, especially 3 to 6 months felt like it was not an option. So, I swallowed the extra $30 I could have saved and got the game right away. In most cases, time is money and people will almost always pay money to save time. Unless of course your frugal, then in that case, you probably have a $500 computer from dell with an Intel Graphics card and could hardly play the game. Then you just have my pity.

*I'm not saying people that have $500 Dell computer are Frugal, I'm saying frugal people would have a $500 Dell computer if not less. Like the logic, all Dregins are ugly but not all Ugly are Dregins... I know cause the girl next door is not a Dregin, yet....

Ugleb

on Sep 27, 2006

You could apply the same logic to new titles and budget re-release. I bought Dawn of War for £30 when it came out, now its £10. Did I get ripped off?

I bought GC2 when it came out, now I'm buying DA. Full price each. At the same time I get DA a new player can get both for less than I paid total - but then I have had GC2 for quite a long time now, I spent the money ages ago when I pre-ordered it. Buying DA isn't much of a shock to my wallet, if I was buying GC2 as well it would be a pretty big shock. I wouldn't do it, at best I would just buy GC2 and maybe get DA later on, which sucks because I know I wouldn't be getting the full experience out of the game.

e-stab

on Sep 27, 2006

I bought GC2 when it came out, now I'm buying DA. Full price each. At the same time I get DA a new player can get both for less than I paid total - but then I have had GC2 for quite a long time now, I spent the money ages ago when I pre-ordered it. Buying DA isn't much of a shock to my wallet, if I was buying GC2 as well it would be a pretty big shock. I wouldn't do it, at best I would just buy GC2 and maybe get DA later on, which sucks because I know I wouldn't be getting the full experience out of the game.

Fully agreed, same story for me.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!