NOT happy at all, wish i could do more than one steam review to help.   Many of us really appreciate all you and your teams hard work.  I stand ready to pay for DLC even if it was only balance/bugs tweaks.

Thanks for a great game

I originally came from the RTS style of games, played competitively and loved AOE games, Total Annihilation, C&C,  Warcraft, SC and so on. I'm in my 60's now and really enjoy 4x games like this one and Civ games. I don't play RTS anymore because they are too fast for enjoyment and I just want to chill out and enjoy a game like GalCiv3.  I believe there is still a healthy market for these games. CivV and CivVI have very good player bases. CivVI has its critics as much as this one. 

I have given both Stellaris and Endless Space 2 a go but much prefer this one. Even though Stellaris is not technically 4x I still think it plays like a 4x. 

One more thing...do you still plan to release the next expansion for this game or has that gone too? I'd be very disappointed if this game has completely finished its lifespan.

We have a major expansion in development for next year (near Crusade-level).  

After that, we will see where things stand.

But as you can imagine, between the Steam review scores and the general negative feedback we get when releasing pretty substantial free updates, it's taken away much of the incentive to do free updates for the foreseable future.

2.61 is a good update.  

Q.

Are you able to see how many players are logged in playing your game and compare that number to the quantity of unique posters on your forum mouthing criticisms?

Q.

And these "hundreds of hours played" bad mouthers, can you tell if they are actually playing your game or are they auto governed bots on the easiest AI settings controlled by your competitors to tank your ratings and sour the relations between developer and community?

Sure some may be legit. But they cry because the only strategy they knew how to beat the AI on Easy doesn't work for them anymore.

I have hundreds of hours, almost all of them on Godlike AI with ludicrous map and 35-64 players. And I love your game. I also have lots of ideas that though not likely to be included in any expansion may spark interest for inclusion in Gal Civ IV.

Speaking of Gal Civ IV. Start experimenting with a spherical galaxy. I want to read the comments of all the lost and confused people.

Re GalCiv IV, since I'll be designing it, I can tell you right now that the map system will be totally different than GalCiv III.  No more tiles.  I want to convey just how big space really is.

Wow! I sure hope that isn't true...

Well, I don't have hundreds of hours in the game, I have THOUSANDS! Yes, I'm a true GC fanboy right from the beginning with the original OS2 version... I like the game. I haven't agreed with all the changes that have happened but I still like that game and gave it glowing reviews when I reviewed it. I would still give it the same. It saddens me to read what you wrote and how you feel the genre is coming to an end, or at least entering the dark ages...

It's hard to compare different generations as people are definitely not the same as they were...

It will just mean it's time to move to GalCiv IV once the next expansion is complete.  When we're arguing over how often space farms should be built by the AI, we're in diminishing returns territory.

Several people reported seeing no farms being built by the Enemy AI, 100+ turns into the game. No farms mean no cities, which means no population growth. That's hardly "arguing over how often," it's a legitimate concern.

Why be so petulant toward people in this forum? If people take the time to read and post here, they're interested in your game. 

Except, they’re wrong and if they want the AI to build more farms they can modify the data themselves. 

Theyre not owed further updates. We continue to do updates because we wa t to support the community but if all we get in return are negative reviews and criticism we will just work on something else.

If they want us to do free work for them, they should adopt a better attitude.

I will stop giving feedback anyways. I value my time just as much as you do yours. There is no point in just pissing off each other. Only reason I have been around this long is that got the impression in 'beyond 2.6' that you were trying to take advice.

Screw the complainers. 

I bought the Founders edition and bought a gold edition package for a friend.  I have done my reviews and I have spent time on the forums, sometimes actually being helpful.  I submit typos.  I feel I have done my part of the unwritten deal that enables bug fixes and updates.  

I dislike feeling lumped in with a bunch of folk who do not meet proper courtesy and appreciation qualifications.  That is one reason I avoid the Steam forums.  Constant exposure to that stuff will rot anybody's enthusiasm.  

So, consider your work to be noticed and appreciated by at least one customer.  I know it isn't enough to meet the reality of paying bills, but it is the best I can do for you.

I have more than 2000 hours into the game and own all gameplay DLCs plus Crusade.

I opened a couple of threads about bugs, but not to criticize, but to help you fix them.

I made a lot of suggestions about things I personally would like to see in GCIII, but not to criticize or as a request, I even would not mind paying for such things.

I even programmed a ground invasion demo to show how I would like the current ground invasion system to be modified.

I'm one of the people who stated that in my games I also don't see the AI building farms. Since that is crippling the AI I consider that as bug and mentioned it as such. If our observations lead to wrong conclusions then I would appreciate (but not request) a short post that explains how the AI goes about making farm building decisions.

I hope all that is not considered "bad attitude".

One can read the threads and the Steam reviews to know what I am referring to when I talk about a bad attitude. It doesn’t apply to most of the people participating but it does apply to enough to take the enjoyment out of working on it for me.

It is, indeed, one of the saddest things I see on the internet today. Everyone seems to see the need to one up others in the "how nasty/mean can I be" department. Please, when you see such posts, realize that they are usually a minority and ignore. Most of us love this game and usually strive to fight for this game and strive to give proper criticism when needed.

DONT QUIT!

I understand your position, Frogboy. Although, I would debate the argument that Paradox escape ire with their DLC policy. They cop plenty of shit for their DLC policy, and they're going to see a backlash with a free update that is going to change many of the game-play fundamentals of the current version. Paradox have a fairly large and rabid fanbase for their titles that sees those user scores stay in the 'blue', but I have a suspicion that is going to be tested in the coming months until things settle down... Stellaris 1.9 is going to be interesting to watch as some of the more toxic members of the community have being swearing up and down that their voices are going to be heard on those changes. Furthermore, while ES2 hasn't seen massive success, one of the founders of the company (I'm pretty sure) just posted on the forum that they're satisfied with overall sales and are continuing with their plans.

TBS 4X is niche, but has a dedicated community. It saddens me that the schizophrenic recent review score is dampening your spirits, because your efforts are certainly appreciated. 

@Frogboy

Well, I also have Endless Space 2 and Stellaris, but so far I've enjoyed my time with GC3 more than both of those. I really don't see much of a difference between turn-based and RTS, not when you can pause the RTS game, although I know some people do have a preference for one or the other. You have to sometimes wait out turn-times with the former, which can take a bit with some games, but with the latter you're constantly having to hit pause/play (and speed up and slow down), which can be an annoyance too. Personally, I care more about the game mechanics (outside of the turned-based or RTS mechanic), the setting, and story, etc. Anyway, I'm afraid your reaction might have exactly the opposite effect than what you hope for, that it might generate more negative reviews. People will accuse you of getting angry (that's putting it nicely) and giving the players a big middle-finger for complaining about legitimate problems, rather than fixing them. And I don't think that pointing out that ten years ago the average player of a game like this was more of a nerd who would be willing to dive into the code to adjust things for themselves will go over very well with a lot of people. But I do realize you're only human, and that it can be frustrating to put in so much time and hard work on a game and then have to constantly read a bunch of comments that basically amount to saying that all your work is crap. I'd just ask you to keep in mind that the people who appreciate all your efforts are not usually the ones posting these negative reviews and comments - because they're too busy actually playing and enjoying the game.

Dang. Being a proud GC owner for over a decade, I've loved every one of several thousand hours invested in playing II and especially III. With III, the beta opt ins are great and it grieves me to read such negativity. Mainly because the Stardock cats take great pains to ensure GCIII is bleeding incredible. 

To paraphrase Frogboy, if all certain elements are concerned about are AI farms - then that could also be taken as a sign that Stardock's hard work for crafting a beautiful, brilliant and balanced game that is truly immersing is a success.

luceo non uro

And Crusade has a higher average. It would be interesting to know how many of the negative reviews are coming from people who've only played the base game. Most people who've played Crusade seem to agree that it made it a better game, so it could be that quite a few people who've hated on the game have done themselves a disservice by not spending a little extra for the expansion. And really no excuse for it, considering all the sales. 

Frogboy: First of all, it's not much to ask one or two employees to release balance patches at regular intervals. Many other developers do this. Second, certain problems break the game, such as the AI being unable to build farms. These are major bugs that must be fixed otherwise you are ripping off your customers. 

 Instead of blaming your customers for mixed reviews, maybe ask yourself why the reviews are mixed. GC3 is just not on the same level as GC2, or Civ 5 or Civ 4. And even GC2 wasn't on the same level as many other TBS games. There were tedious things that made the game unfun, such as having to build a bajillion starbases and a bajillibajillibajillion constructors. In Crusade, you've gone a long way to addressing these problems, but in doing so you created an AI that couldn't build farms for at least a month (I'm assuming you've fixed this, though that is still very much up in the air), and during that month the game was unplayable. 

I noticed that you guys fixed the extra movement bug that I mentioned on these forums, and that's great. Yes, there is a lot of noise, a lot of people are asking for a lot of things and you can't please them all. There are certain things that you really ought to be doing, though, as a developer, like fixing bugs, such as the AI getting 30 movement at the beginning of the game or not being capable of building a farm. As long as you are fixing bugs and rectifying any absolutely glaring balance problems, you're doing your job as a developer and your sales will show it. 

Also, you guys are not alone. Every developer is going through these problems right now. Look at Civilization 6. Holy cow what a mess. The community has been griping about it nonstop, and justifiably so. I suppose what has happened is that the bar is just that much higher these days. People expect that when they buy Galactic Civ 3, it will be just as polished and fun to play as Galactic Civ 2, even though GC2 had years of expansions to further its development. Basically, no one wants to take a step backwards. No one wants to buy GC3 and then find its an inferior game to GC2. This is the problem Civ6 has, and its the problem Civ5 had as well. Part of what's happening is that you are a victim of your own success. When your company has produced the game that is GC2 with ToA, people expect that the next iteration of the series will be even better. 

And don't hide behind the "indie" excuse. You want people to give you a free pass because your game is "indie"? then it should be priced at 17 bucks. I bought Planetfall and played it for 30 hours. There's nothing left to do in the game, it doesn't have much depth, but it was worth the 17 bucks. Same goes for Factorio. I played that for 80 hours and I'm done, but it got a good review from me. GC3 is not an indie title. You may not consider it triple A, but it's priced as such, and so it will be judged as such. 

Don't blame others for the mixed reviews. You want better reviews? Earn them. 

I understand it must be unpleasant to work on improving the game and see people be mad that their favorite exploit is no longer working.

But please reconsider just abandoning the game, it's only been released for 2 years and you stated that you will work on it for 7 years.

While I consider GC3 a good game there is still lots that can be improved. There are still errors in the XML files that need to be fixed, namely the UP resolution Interstellar War Fine has turn duration set to 0 and other problems. Mercenaries need to be balanced for Crusade.

There are still features that could be added in DLC or expansions. For example differentiating population based on species, this is one area I think Endless Space 2 does right.

Yeah, but many do not. Consider Master of Orion: Conquer the Stars as one example, which was released in February of last year and received its last update months ago. (Although I hear through the grapevine that it might be getting at least one more update at some point.) Beyond Earth is another one, off the top of my head. You mention Civ. 5 in your post. How long was that game updated? It was released in October of 2010, and best I can tell it got its last update in November of 2013 - so just over three years. GC3 isn't too far off from being three itself. So it could be argued that it would be reasonable for Brad and team to start thinking of moving on to the next thing in the near future. But we know we still have at least a few more updates coming over the next several months, including at least one more large expansion. Hopefully most of the major bugs will be ironed out after all that's done and we can then all part on mostly amicable terms.

edit: please delete. don't really want this to be here permanently.