Re-stating a flawed analogy does not make it any more valid. (Oh, and "a lot" is two words, Mister Writer-Man.) I find your arguments flawed, based as they are on fanboy moon-logic and some sort of bizarre entitlement, and you should be glad that the CEO and founder of a multi-million dollar business has bothered to respond to them as if they made any kind of sense.

(I was so trying to avoid trolling, but come on...)

If he was really a professional writer, which I doubt, then he'd know that everything but fanfic is done "to specs," just like software. If you're paid to complete a project, you complete it in the time and space alloted. It doesn't matter if it's a novel or a blurb in a technical white paper - it's done to specs in the professional world.

A better analogy would be: "Let's say I write a book, and later on write a magazine article or two discussing, revising, and updating the information in that book - a process that is not uncommon in research circles. Should these articles be released for free, such as on the publisher's or my own website, or is it proper to publish them in the appropriate journals, or even to charge people for an 'errata bundle'? In a similar vein, if my work is lengthy enough, should I also do an abridged, condensed summary volume, perhaps as a free download to those who need my conclusions for their own work but do not have the time and money to purchase and peruse the full volume?"

Then we got could compare, contrast, and debate, as that's not only a plausible scenario, it's one that professional writers really are struggling with.

But what do I know? I get paid to string words together in a meaningful and pleasant to read fashion.

Still the players would be right to critize the developers since that way they ruined the fun of a game the players have already payed for and thus forcing them to pay or stop playing. Now one who experiented such case can easily start ranting as soon as one sees anything similar.
Not that i say its right to rant about ObjectDock (i dont really know what it is anyway, but it does not matter). But stating that "for pay stuff does not hurt you" is simply wrong. It depends on the case.

Brad I would buy the 10 dollar module updates if they offer good value for money (I especially like the idea to upgrade diplomacy!). I think most Galciv buyers do not expect you guys to put in your valuable leisure time to keep expanding this great game. After all If you would keep on upgrading the game for free, Stardock will eventually go bust, unless you earn your money with other products of course.

Yes.

Let's assume that "content" is a reasonably measurable quantity. Let's assume that GalCiv 2's initial release has 100 "units" of content. Adding up all the patches and expansions, let's say that GC2 has 180 units of content.

So, GC2 costs $40 for the base game, with each expansion costing $30. It's clear that GC2 is a bargain; it's $40 for 100 units of content, thus giving a content-per-dollar (CPD) rating 2.5. The full GC2 package costs $100 in total. This is a comparatively poorer rating, at only 1.8. However, let's assume that each expansion offers 30 units of content, with the remaining 20 being freebies from patches. The CPD for an individual expansion is a mere 1.0; pretty small compared to the 2.5 for GC2. It is obvious that the expansions do not offer anywhere near the same content-per-dollar rating as the main game.

One more assumption: let's assume that each unit of content has a fixed cost from the developer associated with it. This is not necessarily the case, but let's assume that it is. So the initial release of GC2 cost 100 units of cost, and the full version is 180.

Because of this, it is obvious that the StarDock makes more money on the expansions than the main game. Just like with regular products in a store, the more you buy at one time, the lower the price is to the consumer, but also the lower the return on investment for each is for the maker. The content-per-dollar rating is, when inverted, the return on investment for the game developer.

Now, let's look at a hypothetical GC3. If StarDock pursues this strategy of selling smaller, incremental updates, there are two ways to do this. One of them is fairly reasonable (though antithetical to proper game design); the other is a price hike. Observe:

Let's assume that the hypothetical GC3 is shipped with 100 units of content. Let's assume it sells for $50, to deal with inflation and so forth. This means that the content-per-dollar rating is 2.0; less than GC2, but that's understood.

Now we get into the micro-expansions. Let's say each of these sells for $10, but provides 10 units of content. Well, the CPD rating for these is 1.0, which is the same as for GC2's expansions. No problems there. Maybe StarDock provides that extra 20 units of content for free, maybe they don't.

However, the big problem comes from when StarDock decides to game the system for a major price hike.

To do this, they maximize profits by charging as much as possible for content. Let's assume that this version of GC3 is shipped with only 60 units of content. A far cry from the 100 for GC2. Sold at $40, the CPD rating is a mere 1.5, less than the totality of GC2. Which means that the profit margin for the developer, costs per content, is very high. StarDock doesn't spend much to make a game that they sell for $40.

Then, we have micro-expansions that sell for $10, providing 10 units of content each. In order to reach the same level of content as even GC2's initial release, the gamer must pay $80. The CPD for this is 1.25. This is a de facto price hike; GC2's level of content went from $40 to $80; the price for the same level of content doubled.

It is this latter possibility that many of us fear. And the fear is compounded by this: it doesn't take many idiots to give you greater profits. Because the CPD halved between GC2 and this GC3, you only need half as many people to buy GC3 in order to break even. If you keep 2/3rds of your customers, you come out with a good 16% greater profits. Thus, the cycle is reinforced and next time, you'll try to shave the content even more. Eventually, enough people will stop buying it that you'll have to retreat back to some former level of content. But in so doing, you've increased your profits by maybe 20-30% at the expense of your consumers.

There's also the psychological effect of using smaller increments of cash to buy things. $40 is a "lot" of money, while $10 isn't. It's easier to make someone part with that $10, especially after their $40 expenditure.

Do your experiments with micro-expansions if you must. But be warned; we will be watchful for treachery.



If I think you're cheating people out of their money, why shouldn't I create a public uproar? If I think you're selling a half-finished game and bilking people out of their money for no more or better content than you were doing 3 years ago, if I think you're using underhanded practices to jack up prices just because you don't want to actually raise the price of your game, then yes, I'm going to create a public uproar.

It's part of the "invisible hand" of the market. You as a company do something to increase your profits; if it's unethical or a ridiculous money grab, we catch you at it and whack you in the head until you stop. Rinse, and repeat. Eventually, you'll find out what we're willing to accept and what we're not.



And therein lies the whole problem with your argument: you basically assume that people who don't want to pay for it will be unaffected by its existence.

TF2 is a multiplayer game. If you bought character X, and I didn't, we're no longer playing the same game. You're playing one where you get more options than me; it is no longer a level playing field. Can you imagine Chess, where you get to buy an extra Queen? If you could pay some money to replace a Rook with a Queen, then you have an advantage over people who don't.

You can't just shoehorn this kind of thing into any game without thinking of the ramifications. And no amount of "well, then don't buy it" will change the fact that in multiplayer games, what other people do or get does affect my playing experience. It basically amounts to me either buying the thing or stop playing the game.



Charging people to get a fixed version of the broken thing that they bought that you released in a broken state is not just unethical, but I'm fairly certain there are laws about that sort of thing. Making people buy errata, or in gaming terms patches, is despicable and unacceptable behavior.

Alfonse,

Your statement that users are forced to buy optional content packs seems to be entirely based on the assumption that those content packs hold fixes to bugs, or somehow complete an otherwise incomplete product.  That the existence of a content pack implies that part of the original game was somehow intentionally limited so we could sell the extra $10 download.

You also talk about how it's obvious we make more off of expansions than we do off of the main game.

You're making a ton of huge assumptions in your argument.  You're saying that users are FORCED to buy that extra content on the ASSUMPTION that we have or would intentionally cripple the core game to sell the packs later on.

By that argument, you could say that people are FORCED to buy expansion packs, or that we have intentionally crippled the original game so we could make expansions later on to sell.

*IF* a game is released where core features have been intentionally removed so they could be sold as optional content packs, then you have something of a case stating that a user must purchase them to complete the game (though even in this case they're not forced to.  There's no gun to their head).  But the existence of content packs does not mean that the core game is somehow incomplete as a result.  One does not necessarily imply the other. 

Saying that the existence of optional content means the main game is incomplete is like saying the ground it wet, therefore it must have rained.  Someone could have poured a bucket of water on the ground, or a pipe nearby might have burst, or someone might have spilled a drink. 

But at no point are you FORCED to purchase anything. 

Then don't buy it and play or use something else.

Again, I have to reiterate my disbelief that you're involved in any sort of modern creative labor. I have several different "office" and graphics programs installed on this machine because different companies require different formats for various projects. Whenever a new version of, say, Microsoft Office or Abode Creative Suite comes out I can expect to pay into the hundreds of dollars just to stay current on vital work components. THAT is what being forced into upgrades is about, not pasttimes like skinning your GUI or playing a video game.

(And someone go ahead and mention Gimp and/or OpenOffice.org so that I can have a good laugh.)

Not angry. Just busy so fewer fluff words between statements.

I'm not saying that such extra-content couldn't be abused. You shouldn't be giving other players an advantage.

But let's say it's an RPG. I don't think adding, say a "Barbarian" class to an existing RPG that didn't have that class would debalance the game.

I can be talked into agreeing that adding new characters to TF2 would be a bad idea, but I don't think it's universally a bad idea.

The game example I gave earlier was adding specific features to Galactic Civilizations II such as an expanded United Planets feature.

I'm not sure I'd pay for some UP expanded DLC unless it was really awesome and brought something truely new to the game. I *would* however pay for that "epic generator" idea you used to throw around a year or two ago though. Generally though, most DLC I have seen so far both when it comes to computers and consoles is far too low value for money for me to consider buying it. New phat lewt, general e-peen enhancers or "cool stuff" doesn't do it for me. I think it would have to be something really deepening the gameplay experience in a meaningful way.

Amen. This was my one concern, so I am glad that you feel this way.

I was a fan of the Diablo series, so I was more than a little excited when I heard about the Hellgate:London project. That is, until I learned that it would use a subscription system. You can play the game out of the box, with no additional cost, but if you want the *good* stuff, you have to pay. I think that it is patently unfair, and even a bit unscrupulous to charge a player just to stay competitive. They didn't get my money. Good thing too, per the reviews I have read.

Stardock has always given me excellent value for my money. Sign me up.

Oh, I don't think StarDock has done so in the past. But past behavior is ultimately no guarantee of future behavior. And ignoring a possible 30-50% increase in profits is pretty difficult. For a publicly traded company (which SD admittedly isn't), it's almost impossible, which is where a lot of the fear comes from.

The point is that you should not dismiss the concerns of the other side as being from people who just aren't willing to give fair compensation for a product. Yes, those people exists, and they should be shoved back in their caves. But there is a real concern that developers can intentionally cripple a core game to sell micro-expansions later. And if it becomes standard industry practice, it can easily lead to a pretty substantial price hike for similar quantity of game.



True. But one makes the other possible. Opening the door can be dangerous; it can let in unexpected and unpleasant things.

My point is this: feel free to experiment with micro-expansions if you wish. The market can work out what fair value for an individual piece of content is. But we will be watchful for any attempt to short-change gamers on the main game.

"Unfair"?
Users knew what they were getting when they bought it.  Fair and competitive are two different things dependign on your needs.

That's the key part: Stardock not only isn't a publicly traded company but I'm the primary shareholder and I don't need more money. I'm fine.  

That said, I WANT to be able to keep working on games I like working on without losing money on it.

Past poor behaviour is the telling point.  Past GOOD behaviour is, likewise.

In any commercial endeavour the number one priority is 'good reputation'.  Past behaviour establishes that.

If people want to go through life worrying about what 'might' happen 'if' ...then they'd be wise not to pop off down the street to even purchase a game....that rampaging herd of pink elephants may scuff their sneakers....

WHEN the sky is falling.....is the perfect time to yell "the sky is falling"....