GalCiv3 Forums
A good read and worth the time to view..
I agree with you. Thank you for sharing. Properly done, DLCs are good for everyone. That said, as a Founder who won't have to pay for them, is it wrong for me to want many, many GalCivIII DLCs over many, many years? 
for some reason i cant quite put my finger on.. I dont think its wrong for you to want many, many dlc over many, many years
Hey, being stupid last year, I will have to pay for them. But...bring 'em on, more is better!
Ok, I have had 24 hours to ponder after reading the article and the responses concerning the goodness and badness of DLC. So here is my response, in two parts.
1. There are many kinds of monetization and there seem to be more always on the horizon. Crowd funding, Early access, standard retail 1-time (is anything sold this way any more?), expansions, DLC, FTP, rentals, microtransactions, subscriptions (hey I played Everquest in 1998 and many years after at 15 bucks a month. For me, an incredible steal --- > more than 60 hrs a month meant I was paying less than 2 bits an hour), etc. So people discuss endlessly about which is good or evil or when it is good or evil, etc. A topic people love to argue about. And I say... all this talk about this stuff is just about totally beside the point. Let me be clear...from the consumer's point of view, the gamer's point of view, it's essentially irrelevant to try to gauge the badness of this stuff in themselves. From the publisher/developer point of view, it is very consequential and they are welcome to their opinions. They have to make a living or we don't get any games.
What is the point? Whether or not an enjoyable experience is provided at a price that the gamer (as an individual) finds appropriate. Period. I am not saying the details of this stuff can't be interesting, just that it is beside the point. It's sort of like buying a car. I might be very interested in how an internal combustion engine functions --- that's fine. But what is critical is whether the car is reliable, comfortable, has a "total cost of ownership" that is practical, and so forth. How many cubic inches or how the fuel injection works is a sideshow. Maybe an interesting sideshow, but still a sideshow, from the buyer's point of view. I was just watching some stuff about computers on you tube and the subject was i3, i5, i7, etc. And the point was, knowing the cycle speed and cache size and what type of i chip it is is generally completely misleading, because the overall performance of a computer depends an awful lot, not just on how the i3 or i5 or i7 chip in a particular case is constructed but on the rest of the motherboard, the bus, yada yada yada. Same for graphics cards --- the only thing that is generally useful is comparison on a specific piece of software, i.e., game. The guy mentioned that he could show 2 graphics cards that had about the same specs, one for $100, and another for $1000. Same on board memory, etc. But the more expensive card blew the cheap card into the next galaxy...it isn't the basic numbers that tell the story.
OK, so let me give an example on a computer game I will call X. Let's suppose the publisher decides that he will sell it this way: he divides it into 20 parts. Maybe part one is just creating a character and doing a tutorial on weapons and armor. Next is a newbie area. And so forth. On launch day, he offers the 20 pieces at $3.50 a piece. That's $70 to the math challenged. (sorry). He also offers to sell all 20 at once for $60. Now, from what I have read, this is just about the worst abuse of a customer that could possibly happen. The entire game divided into 20 DLCs at day one? Yipes!! So what is my reaction? I DON'T CARE. All I am interested in is whether the game experience is worth the money. Since the publisher is offering choices about how to buy it, it's actually a (very small) plus. Heck, for $7 I can get a pretty good feeling for the game, and save a bundle if it is not for me. But still, it's details compared to the overriding question of value vs cost.
And it should be mentioned that value vs cost is totally individual. If someone thinks $10 for a red colored hat is a good buy in his current shooter, well, by definition it is. Wouldn't be to me, but what difference does that make? It's his decision. If someone thinks it's a good deal to spend a ton of money so his apple trees will bloom faster on his virtual farm ---- it 's not my concern. It's theirs.
Actually I have a very firm view that the market, which is people putting their money down for what they want, will sort out the whole mess. What is truly bad will be weeded out. [Please --- I am not talking about out right fraud or felonious business practices; that's another topic.] What is truly good will triumph. Has it not? There are games, a very few of course, that keep a huge following for people years after initial release. E.G., Skyrim. I just watched a you tube that just showed the latest HR graphics mods for Skyrim while playing music (Leiliana's Song from Dragon Age). Now I like Skyrim vanilla. I eventually got about 35 mods running that turned it into something Very Special. And now people are STILL doing more with it. Or heck, look at Galciv2. It's been around a long time. Some very dedicated people volunteered to put together a community update package to improve the AI, and Stardock has volunteered, and has done, some reprogramming of the exe file for Twilight of the Arnor to take it still further. Returning to the point... how was Galciv2 funded? How the heck do I care? Whatever it was...it was part of producing a fine product that is still a lot of fun to play, and now is going to be even better, at this late date.
And now we have Galciv 3 with Founders, Early Access, and loads of DLC and expansions or whatever the heck you call it planned. If the result is a good game the details aren't very important - to me as a consumer. If it fails - hello - the same thing is true! (But I really doubt that to be sure, especially after each live stream!!). Since the same is true either way I maintain, interesting though it may be, the details are beside the point --- to me, as a buyer.
2. A more subtle point perhaps. So there are many, many ways of producing and funding a game. Well, I maintain that the more the merrier. Because the more choices there are the greater the opportunity for the publishers to find something that works for them, and if it works for them that implies that a decent game is being made available to me, and that is what I am critically interested in. (As I say, the publishers themselves necessarily take a different view --- but not all that different because if their customers aren't happy, they fail.).
It's sort of like genetic diversity. If you have a group of people with very little genetic variation, similarly for a group of any creatures, who try to survive by constantly intermarrying what do you get? It isn't pretty. With a lot more possibilities, better. So the gaming industry. Once their was one way (well actually two ways). You bought a disk and that was it. Or, the second way, you pirated it. That's all there was, back when I was much younger than now. Now there are many ways. And a key for a publisher is to find a way that works for his company and for his customers. Stardock, not being a mega software publisher like Bethesda or Blizzard, needs to find their way. So they choose Early access and DLC for Galciv3. Thus they have managed to keep much of their team around for a long time, which is very good for the end user. Of course the critical issue will be whether a fair percentage of their products are good ones --- no one, even the big boys, is going to be perfect.
The point is, that having many choices as to how to proceed gives a smaller publisher more opportunities to get it right. And that is what I care about. Indeed, I have spent a good deal of time trying to carefully document problems motivated by the earnest hope that I might just be helping the product succeed in a very small way. I believe it is time well spent. It is of course an advantage that I am retired so I have more time. (But I also have a lot less stamina!)
Summary.
I don't care much what's under the hood. What I do care about is the end product and its total cost, and therefore I conclude that my business is to decide whether stuff is worth my money, primarily achieving that by trying to be an informed shopper. And whatever (legal) means a company finds that helps them produce a decent product at a reasonable overall price is fine by me.
Actually, I don't think this would bother the anti-dlc crowd that much because it's clear and consistent. Here is the thing that bothers many people: Say Stardock released the GalCiv III with the features we are expecting it to have. It is sold for $50 which is the price of a full major studio game. On release day, they also sell 2 other major races for $10 each, the next map size up for another $5, and a small chunck of scenarios that continue the campaign for another $10. Then, a month later, they release an expansion with espionage, improved diplomacy and influence options, and fleet commanders for $30. Suddenly what appeared at first to be a full game for $50 seems to be 2/3 of a game that will cost you $120 total, which is way above the market price. This is not far off from what some companies have done, and why so many people complain about the dlc model.
Conflating companies abusing the DLC model with the idea the DLC model is broken bothers me. If you don't like what a company is doing, complain about that company. Boycott that company's games. People try to bad mouth Stardock and other companies just because they have DLC at all. It starts up a general DLC hate that is no longer valid or reasonable as far as I can see. Then it just inflates itself. It is similar to many other fan-hate subjects that become hot buttons. A possibly valid objection becomes nonsense because of its loudest supporters.
I have to agree with Bamdorf on this one.
Nobody has hit my main contention point with DLC. For multi-player games, it divides the comunity into those who have the DLC and those that do not. Subsequent DLCs divide it further. By their own numbers the first DLC splits the community in half. In the long run, the only part of the game that truly survives is that which existed before the first DLC. Folks stop playing amid a shrinking community, moving on to the next title. In this way, DLC actually serves to kill games, not keep them alive.
I am not anti-DLC. The genre matters and 4x games are not affected by a split community much. So having Brad as the main commenter doesn't make much sense to me. MMOS aren't affected much either because of the gear treadmill. RTSes and FPSs are affected, and that is partly why most of them fade quickly.
Actually, I don't think this would bother the anti-dlc crowd that much because it's clear and consistent. Here is the thing that bothers many people: Say Stardock released the GalCiv III with the features we are expecting it to have. It is sold for $50 which is the price of a full major studio game. On release day, they also sell 2 other major races for $10 each, the next map size up for another $5, and a small chunck of scenarios that continue the campaign for another $10. Then, a month later, they release an expansion with espionage, improved diplomacy and influence options, and fleet commanders for $30. Suddenly what appeared at first to be a full game for $50 seems to be 2/3 of a game that will cost you $120 total, which is way above the market price. This is not far off from what some companies have done, and why so many people complain about the dlc model.
Perhaps I am just missing something obvious (wouldn't be the first time!) but I don't see the difference between my scenario and yours. On launch day you have clearly delineated choices, do you not? You make a purchasing decision. When more stuff is released, you have more decisions. Each time for each item, is it worth purchasing, should I wait for a sale, should I give a decent interval to see more clearly what is going on,
So what you bought was "half a game". In whose opinion? Was what was sold actually an enjoyable experience that was worth the money paid? Or wasn't it? Same for the "second half" sold later. Now, let's be clear. Did the company publish that the game (the first chunk I mean) would include A, B, C, and D and you only got A and B? Well, that is not a question of evaluating value vs price. It's fraud. False advertising. Fraud is a bad thing. But it is different from, I thought it would probably have C and D and it didn't (Games like this are supposed to have C and D, for example). Ok, then from your point of view the original game sold is not a good game and not worth buying. So don't buy it. If you are making a large guess about the game...well, let me try to cut this short and say I very seldom buy games at launch or pre-order. The few times I have ( Star Trek Online! ) generally haven't worked out. And further some of the best strategy games of all time haven't become great until the second expansion or so (Civ IV BTS or Civ V BNW, Skryim not until the graphic and realism mods were firmly established).
So what the heck am I doing in Early Access for Galciv3, not to mention that I have stated plainly that I was mistaken when I didn't go Founder? Well, Stardock is not a typical company (my opinion_; the group working on GC3 is essentially the same as for GC2 (pretty sure this is a fact), and so forth, and GC2 was pretty darn good (my opinion). So in retrospect it would have been a good gamble, especially since to me watching a game evolve can be rewarding. But as a consumer I don't expect that I will always make the right choices. I try to hit for a high average, but it doesn't always work. But when I make a choice that doesn't work out it isn't because somebody was evil (I exclude fraud etc, as I said).
Like I have said, it's not a certainty that GC3 will be a success. But I am convinced that Starbdock will bust a gut trying. And I have learned that some companies, not so much. And I am going to guess that you have been very active and supportive on these forums because you think so too. But I think you have just been trying to explain why the anit-DLC crowd is upset. I actually appreciate your effort here but I still don't get it. So I will finish by repeating that the anti-DLC crowd is missing the point. They should be focused on the quality of the product when they buy it. If it seems half-done, they have every right to say so and not buy it.
Actually I would be very interested to have you explain what you yourself think, as opposed to "many people", so I understand this discussion better. After a few months on this board I have come to respect your opinions, though that doesn't mean I agree with all oft them!
Blah blah blah, I should just give it a rest. I am getting worked up about something that, as I say, will work itself out. Whether I can convince any ant-DLC people or not.
I agree this could be a huge problem for multi-player. Still, I have been involved in multiplayer games where a subset of the totality of what is available is set as the requirement for play, and the game is configured so that someone with more expansions or DLC can still play, but stuff provided by those extras (if it affects the game play) are not enabled in MP. That seems workable to me, and I think is the way MP should be handled. Similarly, some MP games have choices for activating this or that expansion, and when you join you get those parameters. This has less of a divisive effect because people can "trade down" or "up". But then the company releases the sequel to the game, and you really get the full force of dividing your potential pool of players. But that doesn't involve DLC per se. I do think that companies that apparently don't understand what you are saying are just shooting themselves in the foot. Great MP, like great modding, can carry a franchise for years if not decades (Counterstrike, anyone? Starcraft?).
I think the real problem with MP is just getting a critical mass of players involved so that one doesn't have wait forever for a match. Having different versions completely isolate groups of players clearly doesn't help. I am watching Off World Trading Company very carefully, btw. Oh, and I confess, I bought it in Early Access too! Go figure.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.