the money you (and I) spent is gone.

I would guess the 50% off thing is them trying to get more people into the beta because many early adopters have stopped playing.

The game will be whatever it is when they release it. Maybe they'll do the same routine as they went through with Elemental. And in a couple years they'll release something resembling the game they (and we) wanted. Or maybe a miracle will happen and they will go gold with a complete game with a compelling story and a functional, competitive AI.

Well I didn't see or find the statement, thanks Rhonin_The_wizard, that helps considerably with my feelings of abandonment.

To Brad, maybe get this posted to the steam news stream? There the final "news" article is beta 4 from a month ago, which really doesn't look good. It looks like vaporware.

I'm still pissed over the 20 euros though but as I didn't get a founder version (i got the plain ol' 45 euro version a few months ago) I guess I'll shut up. An email or anything would however still be massively appreciated because as it stands you've just stopped me from ever buying a stardock game at full price ever again.

Because they wanted my money?    I've been waiting months for it to go back on sale and it finally convinced me to get it.

Perhaps our copies are different but I have to click a big message each game start saying I understand it's a beta game and there's a big banner at the top of the screen saying it's a beta.

I've paid extra for early access to support developers quite a few times.  Paid nearly $80 for ArmA3 for example a year before it came out.  I could have waited for a sale but felt like getting in some early peeks at the game and support for development.  I enjoyed it all.

If you're enjoying the game that's really all that matters.

You guys would go nuts if you bought and sold in the stock market.

You have to take responsibility for your own buying decisions. A Stardock employee did not come to your home and put a gun to your head and forced you to buy this game. You put down $45 or $50 or $100 of your hard earned money because you felt it was worth it at the time. You could have waited like 4-5 years for this game to be $5 as part of a holiday special, but you thought paying the extra money was worth it at the time. No one is ready to launch a revolution when bread and milk go up, when gas goes up, etc. For that matter, no one cries to the gas station attendant when they gassed up one day and saw that gas went down 10 cents a gallon 2 days later. In the world of computers and video games, victory comes to those who wait (assumming continuous technological development... I suppose that could change if we have a civilization collapse and its road warrior out there?), but the problem is we have an entertainment itch to scratch now and not 4 months, 1 year from now.  You bought when you did because the value of entertainment exceeded $45, $50, or $100 in your mind.

^^ So much this. 

I paid 100. I am actually very happy about it. I got to play ALPHA GC III when NOBODY else could. I had whined for YEARS on the GC II forums for when they were going to release my dream game of GC III. ...

YEARS ago, I posted that I wanted a 64 bit GC II and I wanted in DX10 or higher..Little did I know Brad was lurking those forums! 

I bought GC3 in the recent 50% off on steam sale and am proud to be a new 2nd class citizen to the all powerful, all knowing founders!

By the way look at my account start date, I was playing stardock games at least 3 years in 2003 before the lot of you!

Does this make me a genuine precursor?

I would encourage you to check out this post by Brad:

https://forums.galciv3.com/461982/page/1/

It talks about the changing world of early access and how Stardock is going to respond. I found it very encouraging because I had the same concerns.

Also, disregard the lectures from a few people with logically fallacious analogies - they have trouble seeing how this represents a big shift for the game industry and for many of us and want to chime in on every thread about the Steam sale. 

But fortunately Brad understands how this makes people feel like "chumps" (his word) and he runs the company.

Well, as someone who just bought it on sale, here's my perspective.

For months I've watched this game.  In fact it inspired me to re-purchase Gal Civ 2 with all expansions and play the heck out of it.

I always wanted to buy Gal Civ 3 but found the price too steep for my budget, so I waited.  

Then the sale, I'm in!

So the way I see it, you guys got to play way earlier than me.  And as we all know, that has value.  People always are willing to pay a premium to be first, or to not have to wait. 

So I waited, and waited, and my reward was the sale.  

So I guess I don't see why people are upset.  

Just to clarify, the people who paid $100 get all the expansions and dlc.

From Adam Biessener "We also believe that $99 is a more-than-fair price to charge for a lifetime subscription to all Galactic Civilizations III content, between the numerous DLCs and full expansion packs we plan to develop."

http://www.pcgamer.com/galactic-civilizations-3-alpha-costs-100-how-much-is-too-much-for-early-access/

The complaints are coming from the folks who paid $45, not the founders.   They're not getting the additional stuff.  This isn't the first $25 sale either.

I expect for $100 we'll receive around $200 of content if bought at full-price, so we'll come out ahead with a sale.  If you're spending $100 on a game, you pretty much have damn good faith in it.  That's getting near territory people paid for Neo-Geo games in the late 80s and 90s (My avatar is from a character introduced on that system)

I do wonder if this is a good business strategy- but the only way that impacts me is if Brad lost a bunch of money and decided to quit gaming, which is very unlikely.   I'm also not going to fall into the trap of selfishly bemoaning others getting a good deal.   (and this is a human fallacy- and I won't say more due to ease of this becoming political)

The race to the bottom on PC prices has been great for consumers, though it's becoming hell on indie devs.

The downside to whales is that tend to play only one game.

As for 4x strategy games, the traditional model works best for them.  I remember many (10+) years ago on here, Brad saying that one reason Stardock went into strategy games was because the folks who bought them tended to buy their games at higher prices and were more affluent.   The market has changed considerably since them, since PC gaming has become a lot more popular and open to many more power at lower income levels.

It is really a squeeze for indie devs these days.  What was good a few years ago, isn't good now, and even gameplay standards have increased.   You're not only competing with increasing numbers of indie devs, you're also competing with backlogs and the old games- many of which were made by huge teams several years ago.

Eventually we are going to see a crash in the indie market, as most of the devs entering will not be able to make enough, even with an expanding marketplace, due to the increased competition.   You can beat that trend by finding unexplored niches, which is why I think female-friendly games are going to be a growth area in the next few years.  You really have to find that underserved market.  Two cases in the last five years of underserved markets that blew up were fighting games in 2011-2012 timeframe, and strategy games right now.   I suspect Brad's right about RTS games being the next big thing to come back, so I think his investments there are going to pay off well.

I also think woman-oriented games are going to be a growth area as well.