GalCiv4 Forums
It appears the discount for base game owners is not firing at all on epic games.
I own the base game on Epic Games. To purchase the Alpha version of Supernova will cost me C $65 plus tax - same as buying the base game. No discount?
I saw earlier on Reddit someone said the price was at $20 usd Before it was changed back…
there's a issue with the early access discount on Steam not showing up and a owners discount on Epic not working. Epic is being hollared at and Steam should update the price in 50 min or so.
They are working on it it will soon be the right price,
Are you telling me I have to pay an additional $16 for Supernova if I backed the original early access on Epic?
So it's actually another $6 extra which I'm still not too happy about. I love your games, but from now on, I guess I'll wait until they are released on Steam, instead of supporting early on via Epic.
You penalize me for hopping on board right when the alpha was released, that doesn't make sense to me.
Please give us a way to purchase the discounted Early Access on Steam if we supported you on Epic. I'd much prefer Steam but only bought Early Access to support you on Epic.
Stardock transition to EA seems complete to me.
Let's see if I got it correctly:
It might be me, but this looks like a highly unethical behaviour to have.
Stardock sold me some abandonware and now if I want the updated product I have to pay!
This borderline 'extortion light' may sanction the end of many years of support of most (if not all) of Stardock products. Shame
It might be me, but this looks like a highly unethical behaviour to have.
Stardock sold me some abandonware and now if I want the updated product I have to pay!
This borderline 'extortion light' may sanction the end of many years of support of most (if not all) of Stardock products. Shame
GalCiv IV was released on Epic a year ago. I’m not sure what alpha you are referring to. If you don’t like gc4 you probably won’t like supernova. GC4 continues to get updates on Epic. It’s only been a few weeks since the last update.
I think the problem here is not that early supporters on Epic are being asked to pay more for what is effectively an expansion, but that new buyers are being asked to pay less than the early supporters for the game + expansion.
If Supernova cost more than early supporters paid on Epic then asking them for a little more for the expansion would make sense, but with the price of Supernova being the same as GC IV then shouldn't early supporters get the expansion for free?
It just seems to penalise the early supporters.
This.
If you would have told me GCIV would be released in EA with an expansion added but cheaper than the price I paid to be an early supporter + the expansion, I would have waited to purchase.
I'll never do it again, that is for sure. Is this going to happen with Sins 2 as well?
Shame on me for supporting Stardock and a game I've loved over the years.
Even though GabrAuro is bitter in his argument, it is quite valid. The point, from my perspective is that Stardock (which I've had a long love-affair with, because they have had a trackrecord of showing compassion for their players, and I bought the GalCivIV early access on Epic to support the studio) decided to take their business to Epic's exclusivity heaven, probably for financial reasons. I'm not on the fence with Epic as many others, but I prefer having my games on Steam, as it is a superior platform from a player perspective. Finding good deals on future DLC:s, is for example much easier with a steam key.
When Stardock decided to reboot the problematic GalCivIV game with Supernova, I got the impression that the upgrade would extend to the owners of GalCivIV on the epic platform. I didn't expect Stardock to give me a Steam Key when it released on Steam, even though it has been the practice of other studios making the deal with Epic (Griftlands is one example). I would have appriciated such a gesture, ie Stardock showing it's players and backers thet it doesn't expect them to splash out twice for the same game.
But asking for $16 for me to get the expansion on a plattform I've never wanted to be on, if I would have had a choice, or $40 to rebuy the game and expansion on Steam, is not fair.
I won't buy GalCivIV until I'll find a steam key for the gold edition and all the coming dlc's for under $10 and it'll be worth the wait. There are a lot of other games to give my money and my time too.
But I share GabrAuro disappointment of a company that is loosing my sympathy, and think that Frogboy's response is disrespectful. It's because of we like the GalCiv-series that we are disappointed, not the opposite as he states.
For my part it is not about the money. I splash out lots of money to support the further development of Stellaris, even though I haven't liked all the dlc's. I buy the full retail games from smaller studios, and the dlc's, like Code Force (Distant Worlds II) and VR Designs (Shadow Empire), just to support the developers, and hope that they will have the incitement to continue their work.
And Stardock used to be in that category, but now I'm unsure about my future support.
Another supper disappointing attitude that he has been taking is repeatedly stating that people actually like the (base) game and that it got 4.2 stars on Epic, trying to justify that we had the 'privilege' of playing a fantastic game earlier than people on Steam. First of all, most reviews were extremely negative or pointed the obvious flaws with the game (while praising that yes, there were some 'interesting', albeit underdeveloped, ideas). Even after all the minor updates that we have, the most recent eXplorminate review from 2023 is still a solid "not buy". If you go outside of the bubble here in the forums reviews from users of the game are fairly negative, but mostly people didn't even bother buying it because of Epic (which Stardock is now proving why that was a wise decision).
Now, let's go back to the 4.2 'stars' on Epic. Ok, let me go and give you a 1-2 star review... Oh wait, I can't. Epic doesn't have a transparent review system, but a opaque grading system on which only certain users get asked to vote, and who knows how many voted, or who the average is weighted. Some absolute stinkers of games, panned by reviewers, have very decent "Epic" star reviews, which is suspicious to say the least. To add to this, most people in this forum played in the "Test" version, which I'm sure doesn't even get counted for play time for reviews. It is completely disingenuous to say that the game was 'good' for the last year and that it was rated as such. I think it was himself even saying on the eXplorminate interview/preview that the game was like a delicious cake with a rat turd on top, or something like that lol.
I still want Galciv IV to succeed. I've also stated to him, that if I'm given a path to pay a reasonable 'upgrade' price to port my game to Steam, I will be willing to do so. I'm not happy about it, but at the end of the day $20 bucks (Canadian) isn't a lot of money. At least it will give me the 'privilege' of giving a good or bad review to the game if it deserves either.
I want to thank everyone for expressing their honest thoughts and feelings on this matter. It's very insightful, and I appreciate the explanations to help us better understand the general feelings of everyone. We are looking into alternative solutions at this time, and thank you for your patience and support.
I'd love to get Supernova on Steam as well, but it really does seem like double-dipping to ask players to buy the game twice.
Zen recently released Pinball FX on Steam after its Epic exclusivity period expired and they gave me Steam keys to add all the tables I had purchased on the Epic store. That's the way to keep your customers happy... or just keep your customers, period.
This.
If you would have told me GCIV would be released in EA with an expansion added but cheaper than the price I paid to be an early supporter + the expansion, I would have waited to purchase.
I'll never do it again, that is for sure. Is this going to happen with Sins 2 as well?
Shame on me for supporting Stardock and a game I've loved over the years.
But isn't this the case with every game? Ever?
Game comes out, a year later, an expansion comes out and there's a bundle that's cheaper than the base game plus the expansion separately.
And that doesn't even touch on post-release sales.
Is there something here I'm not taking into account?
An expansion which is essential though, otherwise you have a very unbalanced/unfun game, that was panned by players and reviewers alike. The game was not released in a state that a lot of us early backers agreed was a good one. So bad indeed that you aren't even releasing that game onto your new platform.
Again, if the base game is so good, why aren't you releasing it, plus the extra DLC, on Steam? Most other companies do that. It speaks of not having confidence in the base game as it exists.
But isn't this the case with every game? Ever?
Game comes out, a year later, an expansion comes out and there's a bundle that's cheaper than the base game plus the expansion separately.
And that doesn't even touch on post-release sales.
Is there something here I'm not taking into account?
No, it's not.. or I wouldn't bother to post my displeasure.
Most games that go into EA are at a reduced price, then at release it goes up.
Afterwards, DLCs are released.
Never, ever, have I paid for a game in EA and then the company releases the same game with added features under a new name that i now have to pay more money for.
If that's the new Stardock release cycle I'll speak with my wallet.
I can't even play the original GCIV now because I want the features included in SN... but I'm not paying more for it.
If I could refund GCIV vanilla and Sins 2 I would.
For the sake of argument, let's say we agree with you (which we won't, GC4 at launch is still better than GC3). GC4 has been getting updates for an entire year. GC4 base is not a bad game.
The only reason it's not being released onto Steam is because there'd be a minor riot on Steam if we released the base game with a separate DLC on day 1.
GC4 has not been in early access for over a year on Epic. You can get Supernova on Epic for $15.99 right now if you have GC4.
The reason GC4: Supernova is a separate product on Epic rather than a DLC has to do with some of the...specific ways that Epic handles file directory structures and such that would have made it difficult to have it as a standard DLC.
Incidentally, we did the same thing with Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation and Fallen Enchantress: Legendary Heroes.
I'm just not understanding what the issue here is. GC4 has been frequently updated and will continue to get updates. We've been back porting improvements from Supernova into GC4 all year.
For the sake of argument, let's say we agree with you (which we won't, GC4 at launch is still better than GC3). GC4 has been getting updates for an entire year. GC4 base is not a bad game.
The only reason it's not being released onto Steam is because there'd be a minor riot on Steam if we released the base game with a separate DLC on day 1.
Exactly. People would not take it well. Specially since the base game isn't considered good too. And yet you expect your Early backers to be happy about it. We got the bugs, we got the crappy platform, and we also get the worse price. And all because we made the mistake of supporting you.
I believe AotS: Escalation was a free update if I'm remembering correctly. I don't remember if FE:LH was. (I do own both games)
Like I've said to exhaustion, if I would have known the plans for GC4 to become GC4:SN and you would have told me it would be released on Steam cheaper than backing GC4 during alpha, beta and release, plus the SN expansion, I never would have purchased on Epic in the first place.
I get it.... you want me to pay $16 to upgrade to SN, even though I've already spent my money for what I thought was GC4. The same amount of money if I just would have waited for the Steam release.
I guarantee you this wouldn't of happened if you had skipped Epic and released the original GC4 on Steam.
I appreciate your response, I know you mean well, but I'm moving on.
Good luck with GC4:SN and its future.
But isn't this the case with every game? Ever?
Game comes out, a year later, an expansion comes out and there's a bundle that's cheaper than the base game plus the expansion separately.
And that doesn't even touch on post-release sales.
Is there something here I'm not taking into account?
Yes, you are missing something. Lack of transparency. As MizzouRah71 is saying there has been no transparency from Stardock (probably because they haven't had a straightforward or well thought through plan) from the beginning.
I have no problem with Paradox dlc-policy. If you want extra content, you purchase the dlc, otherwise you can enjoy the upgraded base game for free. A company needs money to operate. Nothing wrong with that.
You'll probably now will be arguing that this is the same case with Stardock. But the difference is that, Paradox has been very clear and consistent with it's policy, so as a buyer and player you'll know what is what. Some hate the policy and buy the dlc:s anyway, and spread their displeasure in the community. Some stop buying the games. Most of us buy and enjoy the game and accept that companies have operating costs, and we'll have to pay to get the content.
But the problem is that Stardock choose the Epic way, without transparency, and with that screwed loyal backers and asked for more money. Had they been more transparent in the beginning (or a few months ago when they announced the expansion), I wouldn't have been as disappointed.
If they had given me a steam key for the base game, and asked me for $16 for the expansion on Steam, I would have felt fairly treated.
Finally, Frogboy. I'm old (53) and don't get the badge-things, but if you really are the CEO of Stardock, you should maybe listen more to your community manager (Rammastardock), because the ignorance of the customer perspective in your posts, is pissing me off even more.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.