that's cool. other than the map editor and the answer to why altarians look human, the stuff i want is most likely code stuff. would i be correct in assuming that, if it gets made at all, the ability for users to make their own linked events is a code thing? i remember looking forward to it when it was mentioned somewhere, and that was something that wasn't on the tentative 2nd expansion list.

I just read that thread and I don't see Frogboy saying ALL bonus packs would be free he was only talking about the one that had already been released. It was other people on the thread that said everything would be free. He said the bonus pack was to reward customers. And I don't see anything in that statement saying anything about Expansion packs, a Bonus pack and Expansion is not the same thing.

~SDC~

Brad's comment is #5, this comes after #2 which states that expansions will be free. I would assume that Brad had read all comments posted before his. Brad's statement lead me to believe that all previous posts were true statements, otherwise I would have expected him to refute any items he disagreed with. Further, I believe that it is likely (but not a certainty) that Brad kept up on this thread since he posted a response. Since he didn't speak up later and strike down any claim I believe that at the time he didn't have any plans to charge for expansions.

The term bonus pack and expansion have been used historically to mean the same thing (addons to an existing software title, expansion is usually used for games whereas bonus pack is usually used for applications), whereas patches would be bugfixes and possible minor addons.

Sorry for the lengthy post here, but it's quite frustrating to me that I can see and sympathize with both sides of this discussion. I have a great deal of respect for the honesty and integrity of both Brad and Brian, which I guess is why I keep pushing myself between them.

Addressing Brian's comments above -- I think it would certainly be fair to say that he interpreted what Brad did and didn't say in a plausible way. But it would also be quite fair to say that it's not the only plausible interpretation. To put the onus on Stardock employees to -- in a highly precise and lawyerly fashion -- nail down and correct every misperception and *possible* misperception that might arise on a thread is terribly unfair. Silence does not equal consent in this case. Stardock made statements that were, so far as I can see, consistently and appropriately "weasel-worded" by hemming them in with phrases like "about a year". That *doesn't* seem to me to rise to the level of intentional spin-doctoring to create a false perception (what some might call lying...)

From everything I can see, it boils down to this: Stardock's statements were such that they "promised" their audience "about a year" of free updates. Nothing in those statements guaranteed that it would be exactly a year. Nor did they guarantee that *all updates* during that period would be free. Indeed, their quite reasonable position seems to be that they have done lots to patch and improve the game during the period, as well as to add real new features (rather than just bug fixes). Now they are asking us whether it would be worth their time and money to develop additional features for which they would have to charge. While it's unfortunate that they don't have a sufficient budget to simply give away that additional development time for free, it's certainly understandable.

Moreover, it seems unfair for one of us to imply that Stardock/Brad is somehow unwilling to meet its obligations, or that they are succumbing somehow to greed in this matter. I think it speaks volumes that Brad was genuinely uncertain as to whether the project would even come close to paying for itself -- to the point of soliciting our feedback on it. A more arrogant or greedy company would simply have gone ahead and done it -- fait accompli, no user feedback. Or they might have decided that it simply wasn't worth the effort financially, better to pour those resources into a higher profit-margin project. IMHO, Brad's comments in this thread came across very much like someone who really wants to keep building the game and extending its appeal to the community, but who at the same time has a strict responsibility to his company and its employees to not lose money in the process.

Sorry again for the length of the post -- just my 2 cents...

not to repeat myself but in my post near the end of the last page:
both "nearly a year" and just plain "year" were written. one of those was the galciv q&a, last question : www.galciv.com/docs/qa.html

just for clarification, not to start an argument. although we can one of those if you want

Brian,

Your quotes almost exclusively rely on the statements by non Stardock people.

Stardock's stated (And often repeated) policy is that we would provide updates for a year after the game's initial target release (which was originally late January but pushed back by SFI, our publisher at which point we said "about a year").

Based on your account, it seems you are relatively new to GalCiv. The post, made many months ago, was referring to the BonusPak which we released on the same day as the game's North America release a a way to discourage piracy. GalCiv has no CD copy protection whatsoever. We took the route of discouraging piracy by releasing the BonusPak.

We then said in addition to our updates, we would release a free expansion pack. Which we are about to on Tuesday.

Free updates for about a year does not preclude us from putting together  a list of significant additions to the game that players want that would be far too expensive to justify putting into some update and seeing if users would be interested in buying a premium expansion pack.

Earlier on, you used an analogy to consulting. But there's another variable missing in your analogy -- we've only received a fraction of the royalties that we are owed via retail sales. 

I find it incredible that someone would actually take the position that we're not providing very good support for our game two days before we release a major expansion pack absolutely free.

[Message Edited]

Perhaps the best solution is to simply axe the premium expansion pack entirely.

We'll release the free expansion pack on Tuesday and continue to provide updates.

Extra races, map editors, logistics, etc. would wait to some fuure sequel or something since they would be too expensive to just have in some patch or update.

i think stardock support is very good. when you explain it like in the first paragraph i see your point.



i hope two people asking about the year thing isn't making you rethink the expansion. i know i certainly don't want to face the wrath of the forum if this was done because of my questions.

i am also glad for the year/about year clarification.

I would like to end this argument here and now, and let this thread get back to something - productive. I obviously got the impression that all updates would be free, I was obviously mistaken. This is possibly why other companies don't post responses to anything other than technical support in their forums Lawyers love these small slips.

So, to sum up.


1) I am satisfied with the game and I believe that support and updates have been way above the norm.

2) The possible premium expansion is not a money issue, it is an issue of principle - in which I was misled by various media outlets and these forums to believe that it would be free. For example, if Brad had asked for donations to cover the additional cost of such a thing I would have sent a lot more than $20. Requiring $20 for the expansion, since I thought it (all) would be free just rubbed me wrong.

3) I would prefer that these larger ideas be saved for a sequel. In a Galciv II everything can be started from the ground again. Ideas that are difficult now due to massive amounts of code that must be rewritten can be planned from the beginning. I think the sequel solution allows for a broader range of possibilities.

4) I don't dislike Brad, nor am I deeply upset with him. We had a disagreement that was hotly contested and both of us have voiced our sides - with others pointing out facts for each of us. The facts are laid bare, and we could argue for weeks back and forth about word usage, etc. It would not change my opinion or Brads. I got the impression before I purchased the game that all updates would be free for one year. This is a fact. Brad did not intend for people to think all updates would be free, just that development would continue and large amounts of updates would be free. This is a fact.

5) I never stated that it was my position that the support had not been excellent. Just that I was misled to believe that all updates would be free.

To clear something up - I was looking at the word "updates" like this. All tomatoes are fruits, but not all fruits are tomatoes. All expansion packs are updates, but not all updates are expansion packs. The word update meant to me addons, patches, bug fixes, and expansion packs or any other item released by stardock that directly tied into the development of galciv.

Brad, keep up the good work, we had a disagreement on words, but I don't dislike you or your company.

I'll let this go now, and continue with other threads.
[Message Edited]

20:00 EST == 02:00 GMT

Since the Netherlands have GMT+1, a transcript would be very, very welcome!

Thanks!

I believe that making a Non-Free expansion would be good for GalCiv. I believe MOST people believe that you have meet what you started out saying you would do, and have created a game that will have a strong following.

I think that GalCiv is what it should be, that what you have created and by the way you have done it we will now have GalCiv the way you wanted it and patched. The Exapnsion you are now talking about would in my opinion be the first expansion and even though I have a Drengin.net account would pay the $20 fee that you are proposing.

I truly hope that you do not scrap this idea.

Brad, I don't know the economics or the ability to project final sales from pre-release orders, but have you considered throwing up a few screenshots of the for-pay expansion, letting people preorder it? So long as there is a large caveat that if there are not enough preorders, there will not be an expansion, it will actually encourage preorders/direct payments to you. If no credit cards are charged until it ships/Stardocks, is there a loser in this approach?

Given the mature age of Gal Civ players, I would bet most of them have credit cards.

Brad, I think it's clear that the overwhelming majority of posters on this site are in favor of the idea. As the brouhaha over Metaverse scoring indicates, you can't make everybody happy all of the time.

Just an idea here: If you're talking about new features - ummm, enhancements? - for a premium expansion pack, how about that proposed difficulty level between Crippling and Maso? Particularly with the new scoring changes, THAT would get some attention.

I think the number of downloads of the free expansion pack should tell Brad & Co. what they need to know. If under 5000 people download the expansion, do you think more would pay for the "for pay" one?

At the same time, the release of the free pack is a one shot opportunity. Before letting people download the free expansion, how about letting them join (or not join) a mailing list that will let them know when the for pay expansion is ready.

If you get 10,000 signups, you might figure some % of those will actually buy it. If you get 600 signups, . . .

I'd be interested if Brad has to say something about the ai. I mean, the game has a good ai (with regards to other games), so good that many people are pissed off because they can't seem to win and the ai is very aggressive. Methinks this is because those players are used to soft computer opponents which never behaved intelligently. But was the game hard because the ai was good even at the lowest levels or did the game require too much? I don't think the learning curve is steep myself, but would like to know whether Brad has had feedback like this. I'm always interested in better, harder ai, and I think Brad is interested in a good ai that doesn't rely on 'deux ex machina' (like 'here's a free wonder for you' or 'you don't suffer from the opponent standing on your mines'). What are Brad's opinions about the current state of ai's in games, particularly strategy (not that there are many which fit my definition of strategy nowadays)?

(of course I'd ask that if I could be up at 3 AM my time the 16th but I probably won't).

I am very happy with the game and support and would gladly pay another $20 (directly to Stardock) for an expansion pack.

Do you accept checks at Stardock?

I bought expansion packs for Total War, Age of Empires, Diablo, Civilization, and other good games. I would certainly consider doing this for Gal Civ. A Map Editor or something allowing "standard maps" (instead of Control-N) sounds especially fun. Keep up the good work.

Rick

I would happily pay $20 for a premium expansion pack. GalCiv is a great game and the level of developer support has been oustanding, easily surpassing that of any other game I have purchased.

paul

I think that an expansion pack is good strategy for the future of the game.......if it brings substantial new th ings to the game itself. Most of us users would be happy to pay $20.00 to get something like that. It would mean more free press(hopefully) and an extension to the life game in terms of providing you with more resources to invest in it.

This is about investing in this product. If we are willing to invest 20 bucks each then we can keep a high level of support and updates for longer because there is more money coming in. Right now, with all of Stardock's issues with the publisher that could be a huge shot in the arm for them keeping everything on schedule.

Brad, we are behind you 100%. So don't worry about the little fights, when it comes time to put up.........we ALL will. We're in this with you to the end.

Brad,

I hope the scoring cap of 30k has been moved to a higher number in the Xpack build. Have been hitting my head on it for a couple of games.

~SDC~

I'am with Paul. Keep up the good work Stardock. I love the game, and I love to see more of it!

~SDC~

I think I would definatly buy and expansion pack for $20. I also don't think it is a breach of contract over the 1 year free updates which I think they've done admirably. In my opionion the 1 year free has to be from the release date since the game is still being sold in stores and someone who buys tomorrow or next year gets a years worth of free updates in the work that has been done to date.

I would also make sure I get the expansion from the site and pay you guys directly. Publishers have got to be some of the sleaziest most unethical companies out there... I wish you luck with getting your royalties Frogboy.

one feature I'd like to see even before 2 new civ AI's is to be able to play some of the other civs against the Terrans

How about, this is just and idea for future expansions, how about to be able to play in the role of the different civs, like play as a Torian or Altarian, or Dregins, etc, but also what about creating technologies that are only develop by individual civilizations and you only can acquire them by trade, buying it, or conquering a planet of the civilization that has develop that particular technology or stealing it by the work of spies?

We did raise the scoring cap to I think 50k or 60k.