I don't know. Sometimes, "tangential" issues can be very important. I'm on a permanent boycott of all things EA because I don't like how they do business and I don't like how they treat their employees. And I think that's a perfectly legitimate issue to decide whether or not I buy a company's products.

Plus, there's a simple human issue: if you think someone's a jerk, why should you give them money? I mean, there are other things you can do with your time and money than give it to people that you don't like, even if you think their product is being sold at a fair price. I'm not saying that you're being a jerk, but if someone feels insulted by someone else, there's no reason to expect that this will have no influence over their future buying decisions with regard to products made by said person.

I'm not a pure capitalist, and I don't plan on becoming one in the foreseeable future.



Well, for me, I wouldn't say that either one alone is worth $10. Perhaps together, but I would need to know more about the nature of the "redoing" before being able to pass judgment. I mean, it could be made worse (re: espionage from DL to DA).

That's one of the problems with microtransacted things; it's kinda hard to tell what exactly you're getting.

The other issue is that if you have them separate, they can't interact. You can't have the UP thing mesh with the new political system, because it can't assume that this code exists. Indeed, the latter may not have been designed when the former was written.

It'd be like if HL2:Ep2 was an alternate version of Ep1. Both would stand alone, but neither could build on the other. Granted, the HL episodes are standalones, so the only connection is storyline, but storyline-wise, it's kinda hard to play Ep2 without Ep1 and have the same connection as someone who's played the whole thing.

The great thing about larger expansions is that they all of the features interact with one another properly. It is an integrated whole, not a collection of separate bits that may or may not work together.

Oh yeah, that could be a third thing to pack, make an espionage system that isn't horrible, or make espionage work like it does in GC1. Espionage's the one thing where GC1 > GC2

Kudos Brad. " I don't live with my mom in her basement." This quote from your article speaks volumes. For those that are living with their parents because the parents need financial and/or physical help I salute you. To those who must live with their parents because of their own special needs I empathize with you. For those slackers that are mooching parasitic entities that make their parents lives miserable (the majority of the whiners), why don't you drop the game paddles, actually earn some money to buy things and then you will have earned the rights to bitch at Brad for how he handles his business or expresses his opinions. IMHO of course.

I'd suggest they also start their own gaming/desktop customization/publishing company first before actually bitching.    But movign out and gettin a job would be a good start too.  

Wow...can anyone else tell that a release is two days out? There's a reason most of us at my place of employment avoid the forums in the week before a release



I'd be interested in this with one caveat: That every couple of module releases, there is some kind of bulk pack of all of them. (At a discount, would be nice, but you can't have everything. )


Here's my think with the paid add-ons (and I've mentioned it else where on here.) In concept, I have no problem with them...but too many places turn them in to what happened to Magic: the Gathering back in the day. Namely, you really got left behind if you didn't constantly funnel money in to the game and buy every single add-on deck. More so, it eventually because a "we don't have anything more to add, but we like the money...so, let's make something up."

Also, as someone mentioned about, eventually it can also "break" the game in that everyone is playing a different version. (Another reason that it's good that GCII doesn't have multiplayer.)

So, yeah - I'm totally cool with paying for add-ons that improve the game...so long as they don't become a cash grab. Given the fact that SD has done so much for free so far, I doubt that this is going to be the case.

When it becomes a cash grab, I stop buying. Stardock itself generally provides enough value for the money for me (and I'm incredibly picky and annoying as a consumer)

For me, the general things I'm willing to spend extra money on is stuff that improves gameplay, not "horse armor".

GC2 even after TA still has a few warts (minor, and on the bottom, but still warts). Fixing those few warts (which all have been mentioned in this thread already) is something I'm willing to pay for. A really good game, to me, provides about 100hrs of fun. GC2 has surpassed that mark.

And much cheaper than food, clothing, and shelter

I completely agree with the entire article. As I've said before way to many people these days want everything without doing anything for it.

As for the earlier comments on it, about Brad mistreating customers, I think people are looking at it the wrong way. Although some of the complainers are customers I think the vast majority of the whiners he was referring to in the original post are the ones who make it a point to go around making comments about what trash certain products are just because they cannot get them for free. These are the people that would be happy as hell with the product and be using it on a daily basis if it wasn't for just that one little thing called a pricetag. I mean if you have a problem with the way a product works then fine you have a right to voice your opinion about it but to go around badmouthing a company just because you feel you shouldn't have to pay for their products is just ridiculous.

And as for the customers who buy the products and then later complain I'd say it's about the same. Again if you buy the product and have a valid complaint about the way it works then great speak your mind. But if you buy a product, especially ones that can be used with tons of great free stuff you can find out there, and then later decide to complain because not everything that you can use with it is free well then again you're just being ridiculous.

I've seen tons of different examples out there to compare the whole idea to but here's one I'm surprised I haven't seen.

How many computers have you bought? How many upgrades have you bought for them?

Just because you run to a store and pick up a brand new pc do you then turn around and complain to every manufacturer who made the video card, memory stick, processor, keyboard, mouse, or monitor in your pc that when they put out newer versions of these things that will work with your pc that you should get it for free? Hell do you go to Microsofts website and have a fit you should get the newest OS for free when they put it out?

Basically my own response to those who like to whine about all things with a pricetag would be grow up, get a life, and try doing something with life other than complaining.

Free is a powerful incentive, which means not-free is a powerful disincentive. There have been plenty of econometric tests on this. I understand the reaction of both sides.

Customers have a right to complain however they wish, but the only valid complaint is to stop buying. I'll complain a lot here because I know Stardock will listen, and they improve their products frequently enough for the product to not depreciate rapidly, and sometimes even appreciate with age.

I'm with Brad on this one.

OD = free and OK
OD Plus = OD + a much better Tab Launchpad = Uber L33t and worth the money . A capable replacement to Taskbar.

They are two different applications.

If you flame Brad for this pricing model, don't count for any help from me. I'm happily using OD+ for all my application launching needs. for $20 it's one of the best little applications.

you cant beat a selfmade man....@ brad        you rock brother....with you all the way @ Draginol

I generally disagree with the pay for downloadable content/module based game system not for the any problems with its literal definition but with inevitable resulting problems. First of all it can hide the true costs of a product. An expansion costs 25-30$. The features are listed on the box. It is a finished product, so it will reflect all of the features, and will be tested to be at a level of playability and free of bugs enough to be a finished product. The module content system removes these assurances, creating the assumption that the game is not finished and the features on the box are not fully implemented, even as the list itself is rather abstract and subject to change.
Second, in any sort of competitive play these modules simply break balance, and, with it, a standard of competition half-held sacred in many games. As for your specific example of an additional class in team fortress, that would only work if people with the module and those without could not be randomly paired. In such a cooperative game, those who do not have new and useful classes may even be second class citizens on team, less desired and less powerful in their flexibility. even the current metaverse system in Galactic Civilization would reduce any meaning or useful standard with enough content available to some. Recall the recent EA game in which 5 weapons were meant to be available only to collector's edition owners. The company gave assurances that the guns would not in any way affect balance. While the policy was eventually rescinded, reports came in that two o=f the weapons were quite a bit stronger than average.
Yes, people will complain and disagree. You can call it whining, but it is largely justified.
Yes, people will complain and disagree, and no, they do not need to own a development studio or make games themselves to do so. Ostensibly, this is the point of these forums, or a beta. The consumers say what the consumers want. Peer review is a fairly accepted method of improvement.

Desmond, if you don't think something's worth it, that's fine, don't buy it.

But people who yell and scream at the very concept in an attempt to deprive others of the OPTION to buy this content are the ones I really can't stand for.

I would hope that you do this, but am in no position to calculate the risk I suppose. However, I am definately of the opinion that gc2, as well as being polished in its own right, still has a ton of lurking potential.

Surely the uncoiled angst of a few malcontents is not in any way a factor here? If there is a reasonable possiblilty of gc2 becoming even more alive than it already is now... and even more again after that...

Then for the sake of Legend alone man!

@Draginol

Sorry, but this type of statement irks me. Obviously if I don't want to buy something, then I won't. It is a bit condescending to say, well, fine, I will give you the right to not purchase our product. I know that this is probably not what you are saying, but it comes across as very annoying. It would be great for this to turn into an actual debate over methods of distribution, but as it is you seem to be saying "because this is my service, any complaints you have are invalid" or rather "I have no reason to listen to your complaints", yet the very presence of these forums are supposed to be for these discussions. It does not help that modular digital distribution tend to benefit the business instead of the consumer. Although arguments for consumer choice in this regard do have some merit, especially in certain situations such as the Sims or Spore type creation/customization based games, the same options can be offered in larger expansions while avoiding the problems not unique to but enhanced by modular distribution or micro-transactions. You can understand why we might be hostile to a large shift of questionable value for us but with fairly obvious value for you.

As an aside, nice Thalan picture. That is a seriously awesome Thalan picture.

I think you're misunderstanding Desmond's problem.

His problem isn't with you charging for something per-se. It's a matter of trust.

When GalCiv 2 game out, there was an expectation that it was a "finished" product. Yes, there would be updated and gameplay fixes. But the expectation was that if you bought GC2, you were getting a finished, functional game worth the money being paid for it.

The common expectation with PC games is that you're getting a finished but buggy product. That you can't really expect the product to be fully functional on day 1, so you should wait a month or so for a patch to work the kinks out. But in terms of features, the game would be complete.

When GC2 came out, it was known, or at least somewhat expected, that there would be an expansion. However, there was never the sense that the expansion itself would complete the game, that it would be a necessary purchase in order to call the game a full and complete experience. The expansion would be exactly that: an expansion. More and different. But GC2 was not being sacrificed in any way to make DA something that more people buy.

Desmond's concern, as I see it, is this. Let's say GC3 comes out for $35. And you're writing it with the explicit intent of dropping "micro content" packets out. $10 mini-expansions that add bits of functionality.

Well, there is every reason to expect that the mini expansions will be a better bargain for you, the developer. Most of the cost of development was paid in the initial release. And the mini-expansions would only cost maybe a few days of artist time, a month or so of programmer time, and some tester/debugging time. So you the developer will be making more money off of mini-expansions than the core game simply because the mini-expansions don't cost as much to make.

Which means that you will want to sell as many mini-expansions as possible; that makes you the most money. The most effective way to sell mini-expansions is to make us buy as many of them as possible. And one effective way to do that is to not put as many features in the core game. So when GC3 comes out, it will have maybe 2/3rds of the features of GC2, but the other 1/3rd will be available in mini-expansions.

This model doesn't help us. GC2 had more features than GC3 in its base game, and thus the game that is equal to GC2 in features costs much more than GC2 did. We aren't getting more game for our more money.

The problem is this: how do we, the consumer, trust you the developer to not use this system to your own advantage? That is, how do we trust that you aren't getting more money from us for less gameplay? Until we have the game in our hands, we can't know for certain.

It isn't a question of not wanting to pay for something. It's a question of why you want to change the rules. Are you doing it to make more money at our expense, to find a way to get paid more for equal content? Or are you doing it to find a way to better and more effectively provide us with content, using effectively equivalent fair value computations for game features?

And here's the biggest concern. Some people would pay $10 to get, for example, a revamped UP system. Others won't. All it takes for this to be financially practical is for enough people to consider it fair value. All it takes is for enough people to trade the current feature-for-money value ($30 for complete game) for one that says that a single GC2 feature is worth 1/3rd the cost of GC2 the game.

Basically, it becomes a price hike. That's the concern. How do we know that you the developer don't intend this as a way to effectively jack up the price of the game without inducing actual sticker shock by changing the game's price?