Right click it in SDC and choose Archive Application. Then you can copy the .sdc archives from C:\Program Files\Stardock\Stardock Central\BACKUP to a DVD, etc., along with the SDC installer.

Notice how in my previous post I had already predicted it was a Dell monitor?

Anyone ignorant enough to blame a game for their garbage Dell monitor screwing up doesn't deserve any response, let alone such civil and reasonable ones. Dell is a cancer of the PC world, selling poor-quality hardware at prices only someone ignorant would pay. Their tech support consists of "Please wait, your call is in sequence" followed by a disconnect after 3 hours.

They have a specific warranty clause about their monitors being too shitty to display one image for more than a few minutes on end for goodness sake, and you think it's just a coincidence? They, and some other OEMs, only survive because of the ignorance of the masses.

"Oh, this new PC has 13 jiggawatts!"
"A new 13-inch monitor with *superultramegabritehotsecks technology*, only $399! Wow!"

Nobody with a clue about computer hardware would buy from them, and you're just another unfortunate victim. Don't blame the software that non-dell users have no problem with, that's like driving 300 miles an hour and then blaming the sunroof when you crash.

Since the Stardock people are too polite to tell you directly, I'll do it for them: You bought shitty hardware, probably refurbished to begin with (although you don't know it), and you got shitty results. Shocker. Go buy an Xbox and enjoy Generic FPS #22, or else stop blaming other people for your own problems. Or, maybe I should say, stop blaming the wrong people.

How did you pull this off, your profile says you're 24 years old?

Hahaha, just wait till you begin to play the game and run against the feared game-breaking research bug.

And you will pray you never bought this game.

It is to bad everyone is to lazy to send an email to all major game-review company's and tell them this game has got a major bug which still isnt fixed after 6 weeks.

I think the box issue is trivial.

The only thing that concerns me about ToA is the bugs.

It crashes a lot on Vista. It would be nice to have a promise of ongoing bug-fixes for ToA from Stardock ...

Also, the bugs are the only thing that would deter me about the fantasy game. Can we have a promise around that?

The amount of fanboyism in this forum is impressive.
The least you can say is that that image was deceptive advertising.

---

This is the thing that bothers me about computer gaming. You can't just get something cause you think it might be cool (either because someone advised or you read a cool review about it, or just simply cause it sounded promising) you HAVE to research all about it.

For someone who doesn't frequent these forums it would be easy to be fooled by that box image. It obviously requires a part of not paying attention, but you can't say that a deceptive image doesn't help.

---

Note: i got TOA and i knew it was digital only. And the thing that really bothers me is the amount of crashing TOA does on Vista (4/5 times per game + the whole alt tabbing mess that crashes even with window mode, albeit not so frequently). That's for a company who delivers bug-free games thoroughly tested that are only released when done. Go figure.

Are you sure it's not something in your system causing the crashes? I use Vista 64 and have been playing ToA since the beta's and besides the Tech price bug i have had no real issues, certainly no crashing. And i play in windowed mode on a dual screen setup. Check your video drivers etc....

Everything up to date etc. (as in last week)

Obviously TOA doesn't crash to the point it's unplayable, only to the point it's annoying.

The only time ToA crashes for me (Vista 32, dual monitor, windowed) is when alt-tabbing in a very narrow timeframe while creating the galaxy, before the main play windows comes up... Which of course is no help to you.

If you get one of these crashes, it would be best to send the debug.err to Stardock so they can have a look at the cause. Or, better yet, install SmartException and send THAT log to Stardock.

Smart exception doesn't work properly on vista 64 (i think).

The game crashes when alt + tabbing with windowed is when it doesn't fully auto + tab. That is when i alt tab to an msn window that doesn't cover the full window, so i guess there's some issue with the screen refreshing.

I also get occasional crashes on turn processing. Auto-attack is mostly bugged too, ie it attack one enemy and then it freezes, you need to click on teh fleet for it to proceed to the next target (though maybe that's awkwardly intended)

---

As for sending reports, too much of a bother (there could/should be an auto send feature).

---

This sort of things is what makes me believe one should NEVER buy a game before the first patches are released. (worked fine for Dark Avatar since i only got it when it was at 1.8 or something)

Anyway this off-topic

precisely. call the wahmbulance!!
jeez... seriously...



Dude! you bought a Dell???
Ever seen the Mac and PC commercials? I'll bet three hundred dollars that PC's first name is Dell

Content deleted by self due to a missed third page of discussion.

Let's keep it simple. There was a misunderstanding and you apologise for it.
I have also expected a box, but not because you could see one on the picture, no because I never had a game without one ...

That Stardock never shipped a expansion without a box was totally unknown to me. I never had GCI and I bought the Gold Edition Box of GC2 directly ...

BTW: Thanks, for the answer.

No, I haven't bought a dell, but people in my family have, I've read countless stories from people who have, and a bunch of computers where I work are all Dells.

The game has bugs and it's certainly a pain in the ass when things go wrong. Right now I'm in the middle of a game I don't want to finish because the strategy I was going for is impossible (mass stellar annihilation) due to being unable to add those stellar annihilators to a fleet.

Stardock has too much on their plate at this moment and I have to say it was a stupid decision to release two games so close together when you apparently have only one development team, but I think they should be cut some slack because we know that the game will be fixed. It's hard to comprehend that they're prioritizing a niche title that nobody will buy over their most well-known product, but that's their business.

It pisses me off, sure, but let's not go off the deep end and say that ToA is a "buggy" game. There's problems, but nothing of the scale I've seen many times before. Truly "buggy" games are in a totally different league.

If you want a company that deserves no forgiveness, hate Atari/Infogrames. If you want a truly "buggy" game, buy yourself a copy of Enter The Matrix for PC. This game was so bad that despite selling over a million copies in less than a week (iirc), they never opened a forum for it - they KNEW the kind of problems the game had and they didn't want to have a place for people to gather and complain.

People were taking pictures of stacks of illegal copies they'd made which they were giving away for free, then brazenly posting them in every Atari-owned forum they could find, in any language. One guy said he had given away 80 copies and was actively torrent-seeding it on 5 different computers, plus more where he worked and they had a fiber connection.

That game was unforgivable, the only patch that was ever made for it was released BEFORE THE GAME was, and after that, NOTHING. What sorts of bugs? My favorite was the way your AI driver drove the car while you were riding shotgun. It made the game virtually unwinnable. It would just run into everything. No attempt to avoid obstacles. Shameful, absolutely shameful.

There's hundreds of other examples of games that were just flat-out garbage, and a thousand more where the game wasn't all that bad but one single problem prevented hundreds of people from playing it and it was never patched. So if you want to bitch about bad game developers, Stardock shouldn't be your target.

It's the deliberate misleading that upsets people. These guys know that a lovely looking box helps sell the product. They know this so well that they paid a guy to draw a fake one!

The order site clearly and intentionally shows a sweet-ass looking box as they know it would entice people to buy that product. The exact logic that is used in the design of a box intended for retail stores. Most people who play the game do not post or visit these forums and would have no clue that all one gets is a CD in a sleeve like some resource CD when buying a new computer. Most of us expect a box and some sort of short manual. I bought the Gold Edition that had DA from retail and still read the hand-sized 90 pg manual even though I know every line in it.

So if whining over a box and manual is pathetic and childish then so is deliberately creating a fake box to mislead people into thinking they are getting one.

FTR I dont care about the box, just a manual. I enjoy the extras in the manuals. Short little 8inch by 6inch or so 90 page manuals like the one I have on the desk right next to me with the words Galactic Civilizations II Dread Lords Gold Edition Includes Dark Avatar Expansion Manual.

People who get enticed to by a 3cm pic of a box need to get their glands checked out.

It's what's inside the box that matters, people . . .

Why, just last week I saw this cool-looking box and I bought it. God knows what's inside, I just like looking at the box... it's... oh god it's so hot. Oh baby.

my point is that packaging sells. you know it, i know it, and the GalCiv team knows it - hence the effort to fake a box on the order screen. if packaging did not help sell the product then there would have been a blank little generic CD sleeve (which is what you really receive) in the spot instead of a well drawn box giving the illusion that you get the typical extras that come in them. (which is not what you get)

If the only point is that boxes and manuals don't matter, then I could agree with you. The thing is the deliberate misleading of the customer that matters. If the boxes dont matter then don't make the effort to fool people into thinking they are getting what they would get from a retail-sold game.

A few topics have been brought up here that I need to comment on, I'd like to thank Bruce for starting this specific thread. Thanks to FrogBoy & Kryo for repeatedly throwing some official coinage into the pot, & hopefully continue to do so. Last but not least, thanks to everyone for replying, both to bring attention to the matter, as well as in serving to educate all those 'not in the know' whether a member or not. Same goes on the boatloads of other threads/topics I've sifted through.

For starters, I don't know everything about burning images into the monitor/TVs, outside of what little I've come across. I haven't researched it due to the results I've gotten from sticking to CRTs instead of LCDs whenever gaming. That cardinal rule has delivered as promised. Plus, it's easy to adhere to with all the reviews regarding CRTs reacting across the board better to what games bring to the table, vs LCDs. Also, the ridiculous $$$ of LCDs until recently, has pushed me towards prefering 2-4 CRTs instead of that 1 LCD. Only my laptop is LCD, as I obviously had no options. It is also plagued by Vista, another apparent no-no for any task. I guess I'm looking to suggest lean toward a CRT for all your gaming needs, & evade the issue altogether.
~ ~ ~
I must say, several issues are certainly afoot here. Bruce is absolutely correct about taking offense to no box WHEN PAYING FOR SHIPPING & HANDLING. Which is usually attributed to not cracking the box in half, or using it for a wiffleball upon delivery. Though the same can technically be said about the little CD, it's not the same. No extra space is taken than any other sort of mail, for a ho-hum Cd in sleeve to require ANY shipping or handling fees. It is no more alluring to be used as a frisbee than any other piece of mail save for its weight, which is nominal & less than my weekly grocery flyer.
What irks me to no end is the issue apparently missed by all. The same smoke & mirrors crap that can be seen almost everywhere, EXCEPT, Stardock is being showered with praise for NOT doing such things, or 'playing such games' with their customers. So it needs to be said, & so it has been here, & on other threads. What's pertinent of that behavior here is: regular retail price + no box + no manual + shipping fees = (WTF)x(BS).
*** THERE ARE NO SAVINGS FROM NOT MAKING THE BOX !! IS ANYONE ELSE AWAKE ? ***
I bought my GC2 Gold Edition(Lord/Avatar) at the retail chain CC, for $25 on sale from $40, in Feb08. So have a lot of people. Everyone has experienced this, & yet people are backing up the bull about how having no box produces savings for the buyers,sellers,& most importantly nature. I say again, IS ANYONE ELSE AWAKE!? I'm losing my mind over this kind of incoherent malaise no matter the subject!! HELP. How does one even respond legibly to such brutally pervasive myths? Perhaps by purchasing another Meshuggah album, for 1/3rd the price. (in-box w/banned artwork w/o s&h)
We all know that a new $40 PC game can be found on sale around $30 in 4-6 months after release. It stays at $40 except while on sale, for about a year, THEN it depends on the game if it drops to the bargain bin, stays at $40, or falls to $15-30. One store may put it up to $10 off twice over 10 months, but between all the competitors, a single game may be on sale for around $30, 5-6 times over the first year after release. (Black Friday,Christmas,etc,etc,to boot.) NO shipping fees, WITH the box, WITH the manual. This myth about saving cash for preordering & getting nothing but a download or naked CD is ridiculously insane, & obscene. It's NOT as if the price is $10 for just the download, $20 for the naked CD, & $40 for the in-store full-box! I say again, It's NOT like this, which would at least show effort.
So I paid $25 for GC2 Gold Edition in 2/08, & $30 for Sins on 6/1/08, at 2 different chains. I drove to a real store & payed with real money, for a real item in a real sealed box. Where did I LOSE money, other than the possibility that the distance to the store multiplied by the current price of gas reaches above the S&H value. I haven't lost a cent. I'm not buying this crap about savings just b/c it sounds good & feels good, It's simply not accurate. The whole aspect of saving the Earth due to 'Twilight of the Arnor' not being sold in a box or with a paper manual, is High-Grade kindergarten cukoo right there. Wake up. Read that again. This shouldn't be where I, or anyone needs to list off the hundreds of everyday apathetic actions we all play a part in, & CAN change for FREE. Not giving us a box that has already been designed, for a video game that costs $35-40, IS NOT one of them. (I can't stand reading that garbage!) Stardock already paid somebody to design the box we all see/saw, NO man-hour salary savings there for Stardock either. Granted ink costs, the machines to print it etc,etc, & those that operate them, plus the price of the cardboard. However, I point you back to the beginning of this paragraph. If we need to play fruit loop games let's at least make some sense as a side bar. Stardock didn't lose money b/c I paid a total of $55 for both GC2 Gold,& Sins (in-box) - ALSO I DID NOT pay S&H on a flippin item that should NOT charge it. (Or perhaps they did lose money since Stardock wants to charge us $45 PLUS S&H on this site for what I payed $25 no shipping for. We all know they didn't lose anything.)
~ ~ ~
As far as 'false advertisement' goes, besides the picture of the gorgeous fake box(with 'false shadowing'!?), or the pic where it is 'standing' in tilted unison with its predecessors, how about the juicy big fat banner ad that reads: EB Games, BestBuy, Circuit City, GameStop. I suppose it's also a sillygoose case of assumption that this banner ad is meant to read all these games 'Can be found at...' or 'Sold by...' the following retail chains. I would not be surprised to find the truth is even richer than yes/no, & something similar to,'No, it's not false adv., it's meant to infer that every surrounding title listed with ToA can be purchased at those stores except ToA. That ToA is bunched together with, or perceived as being a part of the group available for purchase at those retailers, is simply an unfortunate mistake.' (that's not a REAL quote, but might be in the future)
For all those 'NOT in the know' this is called being a sleazy piece of poo, even without a probable quote. We all know it, only it hurts to accept when it sprouts up where we don't want it to exist. This whole issue is sleazy. Playing word games by not clarifying what is going on is retarded. There are obvious differences between what has been sold online & in the real world! It should not be such an outragious request to get a box for $40-50 bucks, or to request that you sell it in regular stores that are listed as carrying the games on the game's site! Let's not waste our lives playing ticky-tac word games of sophistry.
*** If ToA's so damn All-Time Great of an Historic Expansion, 5 of 5 stars here, 9 of 10 stars there, let everyone FIND it by putting it in the store in a box. ***
It's not as if Stardock can't afford it after selling 300,000 copies of GC2. Fix the bugs, put in in a box, THEN toot your own horn. As of now, this is an aloof & stupid stance by Stardock. I'm all for ToA basking in glory, but enough with the BS. Put it in a box, & where we all can buy it in person.
~ ~ ~
For the record, not that anyone asked for mine, but as much as I love Galactic Civ; I would NEVER have bought GC2 Gold for $55 + NO box. I CAN & DID buy it for $25, no S&H, no tax, WITH a box & manual. If Stardock wants to rape me instead of reward me for my loyalty & attention, I simply will do other things, & spend my money elsewhere. It's not the end of the world for a lot of GC fans b/c we have been forced to wait this long without the games. ToA took forever to release for anyone NOT paying for whisps of betas. Suddenly it's get robbed, we're ready now? Joke's not on me that's for sure. ToA doesn't exist if it doesn't exist, there's nothing I can do about it. I'm sure if I somehow need it bad enough, it will unexpectedly appear for free from a friend's copy or online as a freebee. Not the 1st or last time it will happen, as it's a really big universe outside of this pc shell. One thing that won't be happening, is me being one of Stardock's suckers if this is how it plays. I've been eagerly awaiting this release since December (besides when it was announced, long before that), finally 4 months later, this is the underhanded horse manure provided by someone raking in millions? Nice to take care of your own.
Is this thing on?

OscillatingAbyss,

Thanks for writing such a clear post. I agree 100% with everything you are saying.

For me, my issue isn't a box (which for the S&H they charged is a complete rip-off that there isn't one). My issue all along is that there is no updated manual and there was deliberate deception by StarDock to change the cover page of the Gold manual and pass that off as the ToA manual. That is just absolutely wrong. (this ties in somewhat with the box/no box arguement)

Ok, no box? What about an electronic version of an updated manual AT LEAST? Software released without any kind of official documentation is ridiculous. Didn't even one person at StarDock take pause and ask "Wait a minute, we're not updating the manual AT ALL? Except for the cover page?"

Rather than just admit that as software developers they made an omission or a mistake, they are taking the stance of "We don't do strategy guides" or "Just ask for a refund". They are telling this to the same loyal customers who bought ToA unseen (like me) who expected the quality that StarDock has been known for.

Except, the support for ToA has been shockingly poor. I think that StarDock has caused irreperable damage to it's reputation. Also, I simply cannot believe that ToA received such blanket 5/5 reviews, etc. given it's poor support, spotty bugs, and custom tech trees that for all we know are broken or imbalanced but hey... there's no documentation, so without documentation, who the hell knows?!?!?!?

It's so shocking that this much-ballyhooed expansion is basically a "black box"... who knows what is supposed to happen, if it's right, if it's wrong, if it's broken, if it's working.... feels like no one really knows at this point.
Another point, an updated manual is even more important for ToA than with DA because ToA fundamentally alters the gameplay a massive amount, specially with the custom tech trees. I don't want to right click every damn tech in the game and start multiple games just so I can learn the strengths/weaknesses of each race. It's ridiculous.

All 4x games and expansions ship with a truckload of bugs and oversights. It's a symptom of making games that have so much content and so many different systems and variable details. Can't avoid that, not even with extensive beta testing. The best you can do is be quick about fixing the bugs reported on your forum, which apparently Stardock is pretty good at.

The fantasy game will ship with a bunch of bugs that make the game shit, but the really bad ones will be fixed quickly and then the game will be good. The more minor bugs will be fixed more slowly. Count on it.

As before, the image is for consistency and identification purposes. If you look at the store site, you'll find that nearly every product we sell has a mocked-up box shot. Of them all, only a handful of them actually have retail boxes.

If the lack of box is a deal-breaker for you, you can contact [email protected] about a refund; we have no box or printed manual (which is one of the biggest expenses in making a retail box) to offer you.

For those who just want updated documentation, Brad has commented that he plans to do that soon. In the meanwhile, the journals section does have an overview of the new features in TA.



Retailers are free to mark down prices at their own risk if they feel they'll get more benefit from doing so than they lose.



That's hardly the case. The mockup consists of a simple shot of a terror star with the logo over it, and a standard logo/rating bar. No back-of-box with screeshots, features lists, etc. No carefully crafted front-flap either. I'd expect that the terror star image already existed, so making the mockup as it is was probably quick. The same can't be said for the work needed to make an actual box design, of which the mockup would only be a small fraction. And that's ignoring the tremendous expenses involved with actually manufacturing boxes and manuals, and the according retail release, marketing expenses, and fixed launch date that would be needed to recoup said costs.

TA was intentionally made as a direct release only. That means that none of the trappings required for a retail release were needed. As a result, all the budget that would have gone into those went into the game instead.

It's no mistake that TA has far more content than DA did, and I'd personally much prefer a meatier game than a box that's just going to collect dust on a shelf. Having that box would have unequivocally meant less content in the game; we chose to sacrifice it and put the money where it mattered more, and I think most people would agree with that choice.

First of all, Creation of an Image for a box is in no way anything like creating a box. Just because one was done does not mean that the other was/should be done. Hiring a marketing single person to mock up a virtual box is an extremely small investment and maybe a couple of hours on a computer at most. Putting that box into some kind of production is a HUGE thing. It costs money. Not just the ink and the cardboard. But paying a printer to build the prototype, run it by legal department and the production company (plus revisions for both departments). Then the product needs to be productionalized by having the printing company configuring their hardware to the desired specs and for mass production. Then comes pressing out and construction of the final product. Then comes paying someone to package the CD and it’s sundry materials. This all doesn’t include mocking up a manual. If you have any illusions that this is a “Cheap” project, you can kill them right now. Sure, in the grand scheme of things, any mass production is going to scale the cost per box downward. The more the sales, the more this initial investment gets spread over the number of units sold. But it is not a cheap endeavor to start off with, and as evidenced by Stardock and other companies, it isn’t always necessary.

This always assumes that the production company wishes to make the initial investment. In this case Stardock chose not too, in keeping with their operational business practices for the last several years and generations of games. And personally, I would rather have them spend that extra coin to make a good game (which Gal Civ2 is IMHO) than on frilly boxes.

Secondly, showing a “Box” on the website and charging for “Shipping” are two totally different things. You may, as a consumer, assume that one means the inclusion of the other. But that is in no way the fault of the production company. What is it that they say about people who “Assume”? Admittedly, in this instance, there is nothing in BIG BOLD LETTERS (for the literary impaired) stating “This product does not come with the nice shiny box shown above” but it is more reasonable to take the manufacturers side in that they have never provided boxes EVER for expansion (Gold editions not withstanding), then to say “You charged for Shipping, so there had better be a bright shiny box”.

Thirdly, you should learn some economics of the industry. Just because a game that has been out for X months is less than at launch, this does not in any way mean that the company was trying to “Rip the customers off” by charging more at launch. Any such development requires a significant cash investment to create. This investment is in no way insured that it will produce any kind of a profit and usually well (Years) in advance of the launch. So a company sets the “Sale” price for launch in an attempt to recoup that investment and show a profit “At (or close too) Launch”. Any “Pre-orders” are simply proof of demand for the company and as such, are paid for with a slightly lower price. It is like good faith money. I know I need to sell X units at launch. If I can guarantee I am selling X – 100 units, I am willing to pay a premium for it.

Also, once I make a certain number of units with the intent of distributing it to stores all over the world, I am guessing how many there will be a demand for. I know that, if I don’t have enough boxes on the shelf to cover the immediate demand plus some left over for casual purchases I am going to miss out on sales opportunities. So I usually go a bit high on my estimates. Keep in mind that often (though not necessarily always) the initial number of units is set by the production company as they need to make those sales in order to make their profit margin. Anywho, so I, as the production company, produce X units. Hopefully they fly off the shelf in the right amount and frequency to only leave a few extant copies to linger and make after market sales and to increase demand for my next project.

Now it is a known fact that ANY product value will decrease exponentially over time after launch. So I have only a limited window to sell all of my initial product. If I overshoot, I have to store those copies. Now not only do I have to pay for the production and marketing of the product, but also storage. Over time, this storage gets expensive and erodes my profit per box. Finally there comes a point of diminishing return where I might say I can under-cut the initial price (and cut my profit margin) to a point where I just break even. It is either that or I have to pay more to store it. Then comes the point where I might even undercut my total production cost just to recoup some of the loss. This is why you see game costs go down. THIS IS NOT AN INDICATION THAT THE COMPANY IS TRYING TO RIP YOU OFF. Simply that the economics of the industry is such that, the longer a game is out, the more a company needs to evaluate their costs to sell of remaining stock.

I am not saying any of this in defense of Stardock. Personally I think they can and have said more than enough on their own behalf but I just wanted to set the record straight for anyone who seems to think they are awake and are actually in their own dream world.

I really can't believe this thread is still going. I actually can't believe the original guy was enough upset that he bothered to post on this topic.

To me, Stardock are completely in the right. The guy misunderstood and that's unfortunate, but really not worth getting worked up over. The screen burn issue is even more of a joke, laying that at their door is hilarious.

They saved money and didn't waste money on packaging or printing. That's the deal. They're a bit of a smaller developer, so money is tight. Honestly, get on with playing the game and if you need a box so cravenly then get some cardboard and some colouring pens and go make one.

I agree with you mate.



I have made this point before as has Kryo, but it is really of little concern when you can easily just download the cover art(once Brad, Kryo...whoever, uploads it) and print yourself off your own jewel case cover.

There problem solved, meatier game and a box on the shelf!!!