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 While the policy was eventually rescinded, reports came in that two o=f the weapons were quite a bit stronger than average.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?

@ Alfonse,

Firstly, excellent post, I must admit I wasn't thinking in those terms in the slightest. However, while I feel your example carries significant weight (individuals and corps alone adapt to every empirical condition regardless if they manage to smuggle a couple of token principles along for the ride) I don't know if it can be applied to this specific example.

GC2 has more than one byte in the grave, Frogboy has said as much in the recent past, I assume this thread is something of a water test. Is the game itself complete? Sure it is. Does the product contain the undeveloped seeds of a greater future? Sure it does. Is it buggy? I've never thought so. Yet I've noticed that it is common these days to confuse "bugs" with taste.

However, I absolutely agree that in the case of a preconcieved sales model, the consumer is at a significant disadvantage. Yet then again, if trust is that much of an issue for us, we can always go play a round of golf or something.

@ Alfonse

Yes. This. In addition to the competitive play or skill comparison issues, this. Thank you for articulating what I really could not.

While the cost difference may not be 90$ worth of modules on top of a 30$ game instead of a 50$ game and a 30$ expansion, there is little incentive for the consumer. If you want to convince people of the value of microtransactions or module downloads, please provide us with a reason why it is good for us. I have bought games from Stardock and have enjoyed them. For me, Stardock is generally associated with quality, but this certainly does not mean acceptance of questionable pricing plans without having a rather good reason first.

Cool, where do I pre-order?

@ Desmond Destructo

I can see two major advantages to the micro purchases.

1. Choice. Assuming the lack of any specific module leaves a completely playable game, you are free to choose which ones you want, and which ones you don't. for example, if Stardock were to release a module with additional ship-building parts, I would not buy it. You might. Presumably a good portion of the current players would, or Stardock would not make it. Same thing if a module improving the UP "improved" it even farther from what I think it should be.

2. Turn around time. Instead of waiting 15 months between expansions, we might get one every 3 or 4 months, as each one is not a massive overhaul of the game mechanics. User imput may be even more important, as suggestions would be narrowly focused on the module currently in development.

One downside for Frogboy is that, with release dates occurring several times as often, he faces this last week crunch more often. I probably shouldn't have pointed that out, he might read it   

@Willythemailboy

As for your first point, the advantage of being more specific in which modules you purchase would be to save money by not purchasing certain modules, as opposed to the expansion mentality of purchasing all of the new features or none, ass the case may be. This advantage would likely be offset by the price disadvantages detailed by Alfonse. Further, I would assume that most people would purchase most of the modules assuming that they don't get too overspecialized. The game elements in Galactic Civilizations are interconnected enough that even a primarily military player would appreciate diplomatic additions, and a cultural player would appreciate economic or trade changes.

Your second point is a good one, and one that I don't really have an answer too. It would decrease time between feature releases. This may decreases reliability and decrease overall polish, however, from the collective testing that new features undergo in an expansion test. An expansion testing process could test more features at a time and could establish those changes in the context of larger changes to the game instead of individual changes. With Dark Avatar the Krynn were connected with the new espionage system, and in Twilight of the Arnor the economic changes and fleet module additions reflect the changes in economic and military changes in the new tech trees- without one the other makes less sense. These are not the greatest examples, but it does come down between a choice among these two points, among other differences- between time between additions and ease and polish in implementing these features. Between those two aspects, I would gladly choose the better, not the more hastily released game.

I'm not saying it necessarily does. But that's the fear. And we won't know if it applies or not until we see how StarDock does with their first game to use this system.

The thing about hidden price changes is this. I don't mind adjusting the price of something. I know inflation exists, and I know it has to happen at some point. On some level, I expect to be paying more for GC3 than GC2. However, what I don't like is the possibility of this cost being hidden and the cost increase large because of the hiding.

Let me tell the whiners a truth about life: Money is exchanged for goods and services. Great Line and one great article

Since you firmly believe this, I sugest you get to spending all your time writing it and giving it away for free, then people would have no reason to bitch. Have at it buddy.

HOORAY for choice then!

Some people on internet (or anywhere) should definitely learn something about politeness. Even when i don't agree with a behavior, i try to express it in the proper maner and with a minimum of emendation. If i fail, i fail to respect myself and fail to defend my point of view.

A clear and legitimate opinion never nead insults or calling names to appear for what it is. It just needs facts and arguments. Passion too, but you don't have to call names to express passion. Or that means your mean of expression are rather limited.

That's a thing usually (or that should be) teached by our parents or by others. Insults and vulgarity don't make your point better. It's just prove that you can't express yourself without being rude and vulgar.

Plus, of course it's always easiest to call names comfortably on the net, rather than on an IRL discussion . At least, when you call names on some people IRL, you have to deal with the consequences immediately and to explain.

That's said, i'm always happy to pay someone for what he does (and obviously, a lot of people are not enough paid for the services they do for me, like teachers, nurses, firefighters, dustmen, the guys who give me food in a fast-food, a lot of workers etc...), so im' rather off-topic when it cames about the subject of the thread. But the way it was expressed only, makes me doubt about all that has been said.

Hey I heard a rumor about 64bit.. really we'll get computing at 64 bit... but hey it's just a rumor...

I like the open source concept, but I really don't think money is the issue. I don't mind paying for software and I regularly do. The advantage of open source, to me, is not that it's free (as in beer) but that it guarantees me that a given program will stick around and can be supported by someone else if need be.

I suggest that you haven't understood the open source spirit.

Realise that the Free Software Foundation do sell their products. And they are expensive too.

But if you want more open source software out there, there is luckily a way to do that. The FSF will gladly give you developer tools and an excellent compiler. Write as much as you can! Don't worry about cost. It's free!

 

 

Draginol,

I think I see your point. Reminds me of the iPhone hysteria in Europe where many customers and government agencies demanded that it be sold cheaper or without being locked to a specific contract.

It's a yuppie toy! Nobody needs it. The world will not end if only snobs can buy it. Don't we have other problems?

(Speaking of other problems... food prices went up, especially for rice. My flatmate is a student from a third world country. His father is a rice farmer. He couldn't be happier! The food crisis will really help his family and country.)

I have an iPhone and I love it. But why should I care if everyone can afford it? It's not important. Nobody needs an iPhone. It's a yuppie toy.

And the same goes for software that makes the desktop look prettier. It's, as Draginol said, luxury. It's a toy. And if it's a toy for rich kids only the world is not worse off because of it.

 

FREE, yea' FREE is good. I spent enough on this lap top; FREE is good. I'll take it and whatever comes with it, if I like it I keep it and hope the developer throws out a few more FREE bones to go with it. I like the dock, one of the few things about the Mac I like; so I'll keep it. Not to sure about the skins yet; guess we'll see. Oh, did someone say this guy's the CEO? Of what a small tech shop he runs out of his basement office? Or was it that Frog guy? Damn I'm confused! Anyway, any legit business wouldn't what it's self represented in this light, those opinions are best discussed internally. Just my opinion, you know?

YesHis "basement":

Draginol = Frogboy = Brad WardellIt's all Brad's toys.  HE can do what he wants and say what he wants when he wants.  He may do things differently but many respect him for that.  I do.