To the Dev Team

Even tho' you may have a point, i'm pretty sure they have better things to do atm than cater to modders. in any game there are limits to the extent you can mod, if you want totaly free hands you have to make your own game.

I don't know how much you paid, but for me (DK) the game + 3 mini expansions will cost about the same as a normal game, it's fine. I'd rather be able to play now than wait 2 years for the final game.

Install a secondary OS to use impulse, that seems like a pretty petty complaint.

TBH I can understand why you feel neglegted if this is what you want, but im pretty sure you're not gonna see any change untill all x-packs are out

Remember how small a team is doing this, pulling just 2 guys out to rewrite something that is not needed to be able to play the game will will delay production be 25%, you are pretty naive if you think they'll do that. No company would.

Take it easy! Comparing IC/SD to EA is taking it a little too far. They do a lot of things way better than EA, and I think that you are being a little unfair.

1. Hardcodes. First of all, do you really think that when they were designing the game engine they were thinking about modablitiy? And its not as easy to rewrite the game engine as it is to say "fix it!" You can't just spend a weekend on it and all of the hardcodes will be gone. I'm sure that it would require a ton of work, and would probably be akin to creating an entirely new game. Plus, all the work that they have spent on Entrenchment and future expansions would go to waste. And some mods out there add way more stuff than anyone could have imagined or anticipated. 7ds is a great example. Who could have possibly imagined that evey single mod for Sins would be combined into one giant one? I doubt that there are very many games out there that could handle that.

2. Yeah, it would be nice if Entrenchment were free, but seriously, they can't work for free. They have to get paid for their work, which wouldn't happen if nothing new ever came out.

3. Ok, this is actually a valid complaint. Impulse should be Linux compatible, but I have to ask, how many people actually have Linux? I would imagine that the vast majority of users have Windows.

Better things?  Like what?  Oh, you mean Entrenchment?  The $9.99 content patch?

Sins = $39.99.  Add in all three $9.99 content patches and it comes to $69.96.  Plus tax.  Not exactly less than a standard game.  And by you referring to Sins + expansions as "the final game" you are therefore admitting that Sins was released as an unfinished product.

Actually, I have XP, so it isn't a problem for me.  It was just added in as a general comment on how Star/Clad is handling Sins.  Half-assed.  I know a guy who has Linux and Sins and decided to grab the 1.1 patch off a torrent site because Impulse isn't for Linux.  And since Impulse isn't for Linux, he isn't going to wait until the three expansions are released in a box to get them.  He will pirate them individually and then buy the box set when it is released.

Seriously, as much as I *love* modding potential, this is really taking it a bit far.

Maybe its just me, but calling a game "Made for Mods" seems to indicate that moddability is a priority for these guys.  And I know rewriting an engine isn't that easy.  I'm saying they should rewrite the whole damn thing, include an absolute crapload of new content, features, shiny graphics, fewer/none hardcodes, and release it as Sins 2.

Well when you ask like that, I'm sure they'll get right on it. A few months of work with no potential income because  some guy on the forums rudely demanded it. Who could say no to that?

Yeah.  Whatever.  Deal with it.

For teh other points . . start your own dev shop and roll your own.  It's what a *nix user should do anyway. 

Sins isn't Linux compatible, Linux is Sins compatible.  There's a difference.

Stardock and Ironclad did dick to make Sins work on Linux, it's the Linux community that worked out how to make Sins run on Linux.

If you want Impulse to be compatible with Linux, figure it out how to make Linux run Impulse.

I'm not entirely sure how insulting the developers' competence and making such demands are supposed to motivate anyone to give you what you want. Might work for you on people you know, but it's not going to cut it in the real world.

If you don't think the expansions will be worth the price, you're free to pass on them. And as others have said, we have no obligation to make our stuff run on unsupported platforms. If you'd prefer to run it that way, you'll need to figure it out on your own or rely on others of like mind.

And then you would complain that they want to charge another $39.99, right?

I'm sure the devs want to see monetary returns for their efforts.  Congrats and praises only go so far.

No.  I would gladly pay the $39.99 providing they do all that.  Maybe even $49.99 or *gasp!* $59.99, especially if they somehow manage to add a good campaign in along with a ship builder of some sort.  What 4X doesn't have a ship builder? I'm just saying from my experiences with Sins (multiplayer issues, modding issues, lack of any sort of campaign) Sins is worth $19.99 at most for me.

And no Kryo, I'm not gonna buy the micro-expansions.  Don't worry.

Well, you should have said that you wanted it for Sins 2, instead of just saying that they should fix it now. And Sins is way more modding friendly than plenty of other games. How many actually give you documentation on how a lot of the game works, or tell you how to make a model that can work with the game, or give you tools to export said model into the correct format, or give you something like the developer.exe?

And I would be willing to bet that every game, no matter how "modding friendly" it is, has some sort of hardcodes or limits to how much stuff you can add in. They probably all have a point at which the game can't take anymore, and it just crashes. Some games just allow more to be added than others.

SC/IC have the best game ever. If they didn't, you would even be here complaining. Personally, I think that they should be supported by their community, and not insulted. If I could, I would give everyone who worked on Sins a massive bonus, but since I don't have the money for that, I will support them by buying their games. They deserve it.

For one thing, I don't see Linux as being offictially supported - a quick glance at the system requirements, and I don't see Linux listed anywhere. I would say that the compatibility is more accidental and not something that should be counted on in the future.

In addition, Impulse is Stardock, and Sins is mostly Ironclad. Sure, they worked together, but ultimately they are still two different companies and not obligated to support the same platforms.

. . . and finally, if they were to port to another platform, it would make a lot more sense to port to a console or to the Mac. Sorry, but Linux's market share is pretty abysmal, especially when it comes to games.

It's mostly a matter of complexity and performance. The more generic something is made, the more "layers" it needs, adding some complexity to the game and decreasing performance because of the increased overhead needed to keep track of all of that stuff.

The big ones made by the big companies - pretty much every Civilization game. I liked the ship builder in GalCiv 2, but I'm under the impression that a game with a ship builder is the exception, not the rule.

In any case, it's ultimately up the the developers where to spend their time. Please keep in mind we are talking about small development teams with limited resources.

One of the reasons entrenchment is an optional upgrade is that not everyone's going to like the defensive style of play it introduces.

*facepalm*

As for the $9.99 'content patch' issue:

Would it have been great if the entrenchment defenses and diplomatic options of the second one were included in the original release?  Sure.  We also would have had to wait a long time for them to release the game in that state and still wouldn't be playing it.  This complaint only has merit if what they originally released was some bare bones copout not worth $50 or whatever you paid.  Can anyone seriously claim that SINS was so stripped as to not constitute the vast majority of features you've come to expect in an RTS?

I vastly prefer these $10 expansions I can splurge on to waiting months and months to pay $30 or $40 for everything lumped together or not getting the game at all while they try and release everything at once.

Can we mod ppl down?

He allready has down's, no worries:)

Although I dont agree with the tone the OP takes, I do agree with most of the points the OP makes. Pre-release on IRC and elsewhere both Ironclad and Stardock reps said that they were releasing sins early and in an unfinished state, for commercial reasons. They also said that stuff such as diplomacy and some of the other features missing due to a needed early release, would be made available via a patch. At one point I believe the patch said to contain said features would be 1.11. 

TBH, this above issue has been raised before but never responded to by Ironclad or Stardock, so I understand why the OP is frustrated. As for modding? Well, again, what was said pre-release over IRC and elsewhere has not been held to. Now, what makes this all the more frustrating is that Stardock then has the gal to put forwards the gamers bill of rights given this development history, which is quite well document in numerous IRC logs and archives of these forums.

Trying to view this from the dev perspective I understand the need for cash flow and have no problems with expansion routes that deliver new content; however, not content which was intended and stated as being available post-release for free, given that Sins was said to have been released in an unfinished state without said content.

p.s.

In this edit I just wanted to respond to those opposed to the points the OP makes with regards to modding. Ironclad and Stardock originally promoted Sins as being one of the most moddable PC games, whose development had modders in mind and catered for them and would include comprehensive modding tools. Now, to my mind what consitutes decent, comprehensive modding tools can be subjective, but may include examples such as the TES construction kit for the elder scrolls series, or perhaps the Neverwinter Nights tool sets. Taking these tools as examples, clearly sins is lacking by way of user friendly modding tools.

how much are you paying? *if* i choose to buy all 3 x-packs im looking at 250+100+100+100=550DKr vs a normal game price of 500DKr As far as im concerned the *real* game is not done untill then. If they start moving stuff to expansions after that you have a point, until then

/facepalm

For all three expansion packs, at UK prices, I would be paying the equivilent of two PC games. Given what I have said regarding the acknowledged release of Sins in an unfinished state and also keeping in mind the lack of a single player campaign, really add weights to mine and others line of argumentation, IMO.

Now, if a compromise was offered, say releasing all of the content  that was originally meant to be free and in the original Sins release for $10 or $12 (i.e. all three mini expansions), then I might view that as acceptable. Even more acceptable would be releasing these gameplay features for free and then charging for a decent, long and involving single player campaign.

p.s.

When you say 'if they start pushing content to expansions then you have a point'...well that is exactly what they have done and is the point I am trying to make...regardless of whether they continue to do this the precedent has already been set.

Completely non-related what this thread is about, however I wanted to make a simple request.  In the future, if Ironclad online decides to do updates to it's servers is there someway you could post a online message in the game telling user's of this?  This is the second time now, that I've been disconnected from a game due to server issues w/IronClad online.  Each time I try and login online I get a disconnected notice.  I checked the chat rooms and this is happening to multiple people so I know it's not on my end.  Simple request, thanks for listening.

as i said, i consider the mini xpacks part of the game, in that sentence i was talking about *real* expansions after thoose.

Also, if you want a world where no desisions are ever changed and no statement ever altered you're gonna become a very bitter bloke:)

no info no teasers no screenshot no public info, what a drag of a place:(

(we really want blablablabla in this game---> 3onths later, dang we couldent find a way to implement it --> WTF /HATE I'LL SUE YOUR ASS FOR 10mill for breach of contrat!!!)

P.S im not sure if you where on the sceene back then, but when MOO3 was released (and diddent work QQ) the modders got it to work with NO assistance from atari what so ever. if you had any idear how long it took before we finnaly understood the game enough to start make changes...

compared to that (extreame exsample i know) the Dev team on sins are helpfull past all expecttations and comparing them to EA is just..........

P.P.S

bwahahahaha game is cheaper in demark, world first /flex

The expansion packs for sins were never planned during development.  The way Sins was released was the way Ironclad wanted it.

Also.  Since the release of Sins.  There have been a lot of patches that have come out, tweaking the game, improving the graphics...

I dont' believe I ever heard Ironclad state they were releasing the game unfinished. You guys should remember, the guys at Ironclad are gamers just like the rest of us.  They want to produce a game that they love and others will love.  They are not a corporate machine.  They're a small team of 6 artists and 4 programmers (during sins development, was smaller)

I read these forums every day.  I have yet to see many forums about people complaining about the game Engine.  Maybe it's you and a few others.  Either way.  Instead of crying like a baby.  Post your complaints about the engine.  For an art perspective, the game is open ended, you can create any art assets you want.  Things like weapon banks are hard coded to increase stabilty and performance of the engine.

I can understand your frustration, however, dont accuse Ironclad of being some malicious corporation.  I know them personally, they are some of the nicest people I know.

Yes, I understand what you mean regarding changes in statements. However, I think in the context of Sins this point you make is a little over the top given the develpment history and what was promised, particularly in light of the gamer bill of rights. You can't claim to be representing gamers interests whilst contradicting your own codes of conduct.

Now, I acknowledge that Sins was released in some countries at a lower retail price than most PC games. However, looking at what was said and by who, we can see that it was the lack of a single player campaign not the aforementioend features, that was put forwards as the raison d'etre for the lower retail price.

p.s.

Yes they did say they were releasing the game early and without said features due to commercial reasons and the fact it was a small dev team.

p.p.s

I am not accusing anyone of being malicious, just pointing out and bringing balance to the PR and marketing machine by reminding people of the past and past statements.

Gee, I'd love to see this quote in context.