Pick 2: Polish, low price, sophisticated gameplay

Frogboy

Join Date 03/2001

+2342

Pick 2: Polish, low price, sophisticated gameplay

This is a response to the excellent article over at one of my favorite sites, Explorminate. In the article, author Oliver Kiley laments on what he sees as the current unpolished state of the modern 4X market.

He defines what he defines what he means by polish:

Before going further, I should clarify what, in my mind, a “polished” game has:

No major imbalances or exploits in the game that undermine its intended gameplay

No major bugs – particularly the obvious and game breaking sort

No major performance issues (late game lag, memory leaks, poor optimization, etc.)

No underdeveloped mechanics that leave you thinking that something was only half-implemented

An iteratively refined gameplay loop and an engaging overall game pace

I agree that the above is a good start to what would constitute polish. But the devil is in the details. For example, I would argue that Galactic Civilizations III: Crusade was unpolished at release yet it it would have passed this definition by most standards. Thus I would also add:

Gameplay systems are intuitive and highly usable
Documentation is complete and easily accessible
The tutorial is both informative and inviting
The game has no obvious "how could they miss that?" [typos, missing assets, etc.] bugs

So why are so many recent games having a hard time delivering a polished experience out of the gate?

The short answer is: cost. People pay for gameplay, not polish.

Galactic Civilizations III: Crusade shipped hundreds of amazing features including free-form ship design..and then misspelled "infidel"

Offworld Trading Company is an excellent game that was extremely polished upon release. And yet, many players balked at its initial price point of $39.99 even though it's an excellent game and one of the few economic RTS games on the market. Polish is very expensive and generally undervalued. Whether we like it or not, people buy games based on feature checklists and not polish.

Budgets vs. Sales

Now, let's have a cold, hard look at the game industry. Galactic Civilizations II cost $600,000 to make. Sins of a Solar Empire cost $800,000. By contrast, Galactic Civilizations III cost 5X as much as GalCiv II and not only has the market not gotten bigger but price pressure is greatly increased.

For example, Galactic Civilizations II sold over 3 million copies during its lifespan (over 700k on Steam where it wasn't added until it was over 6 years old). That's more than all the current crop of space 4X games combined. We're a long way from the days of games being on the shelves of Walmart and Best Buy and Steam has not filled that void completely yet (especially given its discoverability issues).

Stardock's popular, MULE-inspired RTS, Offworld Trading Company is loved by many...but frequently down-voted over its price.

So what is the answer?

Each game has its own unique story.

Galactic Civilizations III, when it first came out, had nearly half its budget consumed by the development of a brand new, multi-core, 64-bit, engine. That meant throwing out all of the GalCiv II source code base (in multicore, you're not even supposed to use pointers to give you an idea of what's involved). So the design was a lot more conservative than it otherwise would have been.

Galactic Civilizations III: Crusade is outstanding and only cost $400k or so to make because its focus was purely on innovative gameplay additions. It wasn't nearly as polished as I would like it to be but it does mean there's hope in the future (I felt GalCiv III need a lot of gameplay additions and I chose to sacrifice polish for more features) to being find a better balance between polish and innovation.

Stardock is hoping that modding, rather than DLC, is the future.

Which brings us back to the question: What is the answer? Fundamentally it involves an understanding between developers and players about the strategy game market:

No, gaming is not "big business". Let me put this right out there: Endless Space 2 + Stellaris + GalCiv III combined will almost certainly never make as much money as Start8. Enterprise software is big business. 4X strategy games (outside Civ) not so much. There is a huge disconnect between players and developers on this issue. I see the term "money grab" regularly used in response to a $4 DLC. Do these same people give their barista this kind of grief? In an age where Steam Spy exists, there's no excuse for people not knowing that niche game development, especially today, is not a get rich scheme. Developers make the games because they love making them.
Understand the trade offs. I am not privy to the budget of ES2 or Stellaris or MOO or what have you, but I would bet that the budgets for each of those were well over $5 million. If you want to know how much a game makes, take the list price, divide it in half for the average price, then multiply it by 0.7.   So imagine a game with a $5 million budget. Let's say its list price is $40 and it has sold 200,000 units. That means it is only about half way to breaking even on the development cost (let alone marketing, etc.).

The new Master of Orion game has sold about 200,000 units. Wargaming.net paid $2 million just for the trademark. Or put another way, the game hasn't yet sold enough to pay back the cost of the trademark acquisition let alone the development budget. But as anyone who played it can tell you, it was very polished at release and relatively in expensive. The criticism directed towards it is that it wasn't ambitious enough.   Would the new MOO have sold better if it had been less polished but more ambitious? I think so.

The point being: Developers have to be very careful where they invest their resources.
Understand why timing matters. Have you noticed that May is the new release date for many games? That's because in the Steam universe, if you don't release your game by mid May, you have to wait until September. June is the Steam sale month and July and August are dead months effectively. If your studio has a $500k per month burn rate, you are asking them to lay off employees to delay. I delayed Sorcerer King until August specifically for polish (and it's one of Explorminate's favorite titles). But polish hasn't made Sorcerer King popular. It's sold only around 60,000 units on a $2 million budget. Instead, Sorcerer King would have been better served having a lot more depth and features rather than going smaller and more polished. Thus, if you have a game that is basically done but could use more polish and your choice is to release it in May or wait until August and polish it, then you should release it in May (we waited until August and had to lay people off when it didn't sell as well as we hoped -- if we had released it in May and sold the same quantity, the studio wouldn't have had to lay anyone off).
Patience. As an industry, we are migrating from a 32-bit, single core code base to a multi-core, 64-bit code base. It's worth noting that the most "innovative" game the author calls out is the one that hasn't begun that transition yet and thus could take advantage of a mature code base. But ES2 and GalCiv III both had to make that transition and it's non-trivial. It just means that the next set of games will be much more polished. Going from from single core to multi-core is very hard. All that code where you're passing around pointers? Yea, that's gotta go for the most part. That's a really bitter pill to swallow.

So the good news is that I think players will see a substantial improvement in polish going forward as the transition from 32-bit, single-core to 64-bit multicore is completed. But in the meantime, we had to pick between gameplay, cost and polish and we can only pick two.

GalCiv III: Crusade. Some argue this is what GalCiv III should have been. But many of those players never played GalCiv II (the base game) but rather started at the Ultimate Edition.

I really enjoyed Mez's article. It also highlights the core disconnect between gamers and developers. The best way to think of those of us making these games is that we're gamers who happen to know how to code. We aren't in this for the money. We're in this because we love the games and the gaming community.

Cheers!

-brad

+1 Karma

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

sareth01

neone6

Join Date 12/2010

+898

@Frogboy: Brad can you PLEASE read & reply to your PM's from me (And Kitty), IT'S VERY IMPORTANT !

Successfully updated karma reason!

Sometimes people need to remember as well that the people that post on message boards are not the core representation of your game buying base.

We are the "hard core" of the buyers, so we tend to value polish very highly.

But Frogboy has the numbers, and likely has contacts around other 4x game makers that indicate what people actually spend their money on.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The problem with polishing Galciv3 is that the games take so looooooooong. Finding and reproducing problems would be so much quicker if it was one of these games that was over in 2 minutes.

Not an insurmountable problem, though--if you have good, motivated QA people to do it. You have to pay them to get that. And foster a good culture where QA people are respected (as in, not respected any less than the architects).

Successfully updated karma reason!

The reality is that polish takes developers, designers, etc and these people expect to be paid monthly salaries.

If you are too cheap to support the game ($7 is like 2 pints of decent beer a month) and the people who make it, thats fine - but I don't ever want to see you whine about polish, quality, etc. Because without subscription models, the frog is exactly correct - people pay for half finished features, not a polished balanced game.

Successfully updated karma reason!

It's that or allow the community to sell each other ship designs and take a clip - but then you better have a big base of players and artists.

DLC has the same problem as selling the base game. People don't pay for polish.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Heavenfall

Join Date 07/2008

+441

Yeah, polish (as long as it is not confused with bug-fixing) is a luxury with low returns on overall gameplay feeling for me. Not every item has to be balanced or interesting. Not every mechanic has to be perfectly integrated with the others. I'm ok with making an extra click on a poorly designed UI.

I want to spit in the face of the Dragon King before I cut his head off. I want to build dyson spheres around the few stars I didn't blow up after crusading across the galaxy. I want to pay the devil's due for stealing Excalibur because the Lady of the Lake deemed me unworthy. I want to stand in my last great city and realize that not a thing can be done with so few men. I want to smile at my companions' growth and lament their passing from the Dread Plague - and I want to punish the traitor that brought it to my empire.

If I can do that, I'll suffer an extra click or two.

Successfully updated karma reason!

This is a very interesting post.

I readily admit to being one of those demanding customers who expects a lot from modern strategy games. The points that Frogboy makes regarding how much money these games make is particularly thought provoking for me.

What I still struggle to understand though is how come games like the original MOO, Alpha Centauri and Elite Frontiers were made by just a couple of guys for peanuts and are in many ways deeper and richer than the modern remakes that cost a fortune.

Despite the many good points in this post I still don't understand how it's so difficult to make games as rich as the onces that were being made before, just with better graphics and UI.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Alpha centauri was a masterpiece for its time, and possibly one of the greatest games ever created. It was polished - although not balanced.

That said, did firaxis ever make a profit? Who knows...

I do think that one cheap way to add polish and depth is to hire a dedicated content writer or two. They are not expensive and add loads - just check out all that juicy flavour text in SMAC that really makes the game

Successfully updated karma reason!

Heavenfall

Join Date 07/2008

+441

Quoting NeutrinoSunset,

reply 82

What I still struggle to understand though is how come games like the original MOO, Alpha Centauri and Elite Frontiers were made by just a couple of guys for peanuts and are in many ways deeper and richer than the modern remakes that cost a fortune.

For me at least it's about 90% rose-tinted nostalgia glasses. When I go back to those games they aren't anything special, they certainly wouldn't be well received by today's standards even with updated graphics. The games were very well made and stood out at the time, but that's all.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I never even played MOO or MOO2 when they first came out and played them for the first time a few years ago. Even so, and despite the dated graphics, the gameplay was still as good as any other Space 4X game I've played.

The richness of the systems, and as AdamB says the flavour text, in Alpha Centauri are miles above what was achieved in Beyond Earth. We were discussing the use of voice acting earlier, the voice acting in Alpha Centauri is nothing short of superb and oozes with narrative and pathos. That's a game from 1999.

Elite Dangerous cost millions and a large team to make, but it launched with basically no content whatsoever. You could fly around, shoot other ships for bounties, and take goods from one place to another and that was about it. You couldn't even land on planets. Elite Frontier First Encounters had planetary landings (with actual procedurally generated cities and spaceports), hundreds of different missions, and a superb storyline that ended up with you getting a Thargoid ship of your own. That's a game from 1995.

MOO and MOO2 don't have the reputation they have for nothing. MOOs UI hasn't aged well, and it's weak in some areas, but when you consider that even now full price Sci-fi 4X games launch for full price with no implementation of espionage or any tactical combat whatsoever it's hard to conclude that we've really progressed very far, apart from better graphics of course.

But I fear you're right though, those old games wouldn't be appreciated these days. I'm not sure that mainstream gamers these days would have the attention span required to appreciate them.

Successfully updated karma reason!

A lot of polish is more about temperament than money. For example, Paradise tiles: the website says it gives an approval bonus, the (Crusade) game says it gives a Population bonus. It takes 2 minutes to update the website. But--do people care? That's what really keeps it from being updated. Whatever monetary investment it takes to get people to care, it's probably worth it for more reasons than just polish.

I can hire a team of two custodians to clean a 3000-square-foot space for $100. Similar for landscaping. It's hard to quantify the return on that investment, vs. not polishing the floors at all. Yet no one questions that that is a good one.

Successfully updated karma reason!

tid242

Join Date 04/2008

+63

Quoting adamb1011,

reply 79

the frog is exactly correct - people pay for half finished features, not a polished balanced game.

Well, maybe I can only speak for myself on this one, but... I never knowingly buy a 1/2 finished game. Do half-finished games sell a lot of copies? - sure, but did most people think they were buying a half-finished, or game that's unplayable during the end-game? I would guess not.

Certainly, I've had my fill of less-than-finished or otherwise gimped products. I might even go so far as to say that this is why Maxis eventually went under, and some other major studios aren't that far behind - because people like me quit buying anything from them years ago. My last Maxis game with Spore - I waited years and years for it to be reasonably priced (since I really hadn't heard anything good about it, but still wanted to give it a go) and yea - wasn't even worth the bandwidth to download it. My last true AAA was probably Diablo 3 - I only bought it because some friends wanted to get together and beat on things and man, what a huge waste of money, and now they think I'm going to play their MOBA instead of LOL... yea, right..

It may take a while, but studios (like any media product) that produce no goodwill ("badwill?") do end up floundering and usually in such a way that the studios themselves have a difficult time nailing down exactly why..

The only true AAA currently on my 'watchlist' is GTA5 - not really my type of game, but possibly great casual fun. Rockstar has shown that you can still be a huge studio and still care about making quality games.. Most of the other games that really do it for me tend to land firmly in the niche/indy category, even if they are done with larger teams and established studios..

Just a thought..

Successfully updated karma reason!

This might be a game of words and connotations. "Polish" would seem to imply obsessing over details that don't matter, like a pretty splash screen or better voice acting. But with this game, I think of it more in terms of finishing the job. Like doing a first-class job developing the game, but neglecting to sell it. Or coming up with an intriguing, highly-interlocking game mechanic but failing to balance it. Or train for a marathon, but sleep in on race day.

I only finished the tutorial and a couple Altarian Prophecy levels, and the polish issues I'm seeing are about finishing the job. The documentation is off in a lot of places and is not very trustworthy. Population, tourism, and money don't matter much. Does influence, even? How? They put all this time into a cool planetary invasion, but in the end, it doesn't work.

I see this with consumer product development all the time. When you think you are "done", you are in fact only 40% of the way there. And that's what this is: a software consumer product.

Successfully updated karma reason!

trims2u

Join Date 08/2010

+26

Two things here:

1. In reference to "polish" - one of the biggest things that would make people's (both players and dev's) lives easier is to develop a method/system where your hardcore audience (i.e. those of us who hang out on the forums rabidly) could make updates to the system quickly and easily. I work in Release Management and Systems Architecture, and what you folks need is some sort of CI toolchain for community "patches". Make it simple and easy for the community to update a large number of "polish" items, and that makes everyone happy. The simplest thing here is for textual fixes. Then XML fixes. Yes, they need reviewed. Yes, you can pay something trivial amounts to do this, and it saves VERY valuable Dev time.

2. I think one of the other problems is NOT initial pricing. Without getting into things, $40-50 is a good pricepoint, and a reasonable ask for games where you expect to play them for a long time. Look not at mobile (since that has an audience in the 100s of millions), but at consoles, where $60 is now common, and stuff still sells there like hotcakes. The audience is the same: there are FEWER current gen consoles (~18m PS4, for example) in the USA as there are PCs that will run GC3. People have the disposable income (even well down the economic scale) that they're willing to spend on games.

What the problem is has to do with Steam and how it's run its economics. The very frequent sales is hurting all developers, and realistically should stop. Games are a luxury item, and you DON'T discount luxury items until they're well and truly past their prime. The price at release is what the price should stay at, for as long as the game exists under active development. Sales should be very infrequent and not 75%, but 25%. You'd end up with a far better (and more stable) revenue stream, and an audience that knows what games cost, instead of a bunch of entitled whiners who have no idea of the economics of development. Tell me, really, Brad, since you have the numbers, how much money do you really make when GC3 is knocked down 75%? If you could sell the game consistently at $25 since launch, doesn't that beat out the revenue for a $50 launch where some (read, just the hardcore folks) people buy it, then 3 months later have 80% of your total audience only purchase it for $10?

Games are luxury goods, but ones well within reach of 50%+ of your typical US households, especially ones that have relatively low HW requirements (let's face it, GC3 runs on a 10-year-old PC that's had a $30 RAM upgrade). Stable pricing is far better than sales-based ones, unless you've borked your target audience so badly that they only buy on sale. JCPenny found that out the hard way: the retail clothes business has so trained the average buyer to only shop at sales times that when they lowered normal prices by 15% but didn't have sales, it screwed them over completely. Steam has enough of a major marketshare to undo this kind of damage before it's permanent, but it's getting darned close to being irreversible now, and unless Steam changes, it'll screw devs forever.

Start screaming at Steam NOW, if we want good games to survive.

Successfully updated karma reason!

My experience: I waited for a sale, not so much to save the money, but because when I buy, I am risking both money and (more expensively) leisure time on a game that might not work out. Even the regular Civilization has a history of being buggy and frustrating when it first comes out. So I wait until that all shakes out, first.

But it really didn't. I guess I timed it with the Crusade launch. Now it's like the game is just enough totally awesome in just enough places to make me both really want to play and be really frustrated at the same time. Just finished the Altarian campaign on Incredible, and I guess the AI finally sort of put up a fight then. I beat him with my starting ships and the whole game became about researching planetary invasion so I could end it, so...maybe not.... Just finished the second game of the Terran campaign, where I was able to establish a mining starbase on HIS starting resources in HIS starting system, so can't say that fared any better. MHO: starting starbases should be defenseless, and you should have to pay 100bc to get the starting defenses. But you can mod that.

But the primary issues are really not modable: they are the economy system and the AI. That's source code, and the source code are your crown jewels. There seems to be this push-pull relationship between game developers and customers regarding expectations. For example, the expectation that your rabid fan base will pay YOU to beta test YOUR game. And that may be so, but you first have to have that rabid fan base, and that involves your game working. Then there's this expectation that the best mods out there will do all the balancing, and that they'll be the ones that everyone ends up playing. Two problems with that: a) you have to code the AI toward the mod, and b ) the customers expect there to be a main trunk that's good and balanced to mod from. So if you want to do that, you need some form of Linux.org (like Linux did) and gatekeep what goes into the main trunk.

Now, do I want to go off and just develop my own game, then? Nope. Playing games is my me-time, but developing games is work. As a full-time job, yes, I'd love to develop, but if I have another job, I don't want to come home and work some more. Those people (who go off to work, and come home to work some more) are called entrepreneurs.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting tetleytea,

reply 90

This.

Crusade was the first SD title I bought on release and my future buying decision will factor in, that I may be paying to beta-test it. If you release a month before Steam summer sale, I may still end up buying it during the sale.

It's not a polish-or-sophisitication decision. You have to find the right balance. Besides, it is not like polish and sophistication are independent variables. The more sophisticated your game is, the more polishing you need to do. Lots of unpolished sophistication is not fun either.

Successfully updated karma reason!

trims2u

Join Date 08/2010

+26

Quoting zuPloed,

reply 91

That's all well and good in theory, but the reality of a sophisticated 4x game is that balance (in both features and behavior of said features) is incredibly difficult, and really is NEVER done. "Polish" in the sense of game/feature balance and such - rather than a slick UI/fully vetted text/etc. or even bugfixes - is a moving target, and while a game developer can spend a large amount of time on it, it's not really ever going to please even a majority of folks at release.

You pretty much *must* run a large-scale public beta to get sufficient feedback from the community about WHICH "polish" features are the right ones to focus on, and which balance is the one they desire. That is, the META of the game is pretty much unknowable by development, since it's a community attitude, and you can't really figure it out by doing surveys ahead of time. People say one thing, then demand another all the time. Yes, the Devs can steer it in one direction or so, but even then, there's a huge amount of unknowns that can't really be polished until *after* release.

4X is not FPS, or even RPG, where the constraints are such that it's reasonable to predict ahead of time what is satisfying to the large amount of your audience.

This is not to say that the non-critically-essential stuff that is textual consistency, functionality bugfixes, a reasonably clean UI, and the like cannot be polished before release, and there's reasonable expectations that a certain level of finish should be there at release. But balance is a completely different animal, as are feature priorities.

So, yeah, if you're buying ANY 4X right after release, you should absolutely expect that it's not anywhere near polished for your specific expectations. Good news is that Devs like Stardock are more than happy to have the community figure out what it wants to be polished, and work on that, rather than make decrees from on high. Bad news is that there absolutely will be some non-trivial annoyances.

If you want a "finished" game, then you'll have to wait at least a half-year after release, and you should get what you want (if the Devs are competent and reasonable), but you'll get what the *community* decides, which may or may not match your own personal quirks. Which still may annoy the heck out of you, but will NEVER get "fixed".

Successfully updated karma reason!

@trims2u

I partially agree. You can't avoid having to beta test. No matter how smart the people working on it are.

However:

There is also a bunch of things you can figure out beforehand. The GC3 strategy part for instance is a very complex system. The combat system however is only mid tier complicated. You can make some solid estimations. For instance the thulium hull reinforcements. You can evaluate effective hp on it vs other defenses. That estimate would have come screaming at you for having them add 20 hitpoints. But it costs rare thullium... fine so make an estimation of how much power (at least do a*HP + b*dps) you get out of a ressource. That way you don't get 16 antimatter nightmare torpedoes while doom rays are 1 elerium. Unless this was an oversight, in which case: why didn't they just play test this? Or even better have a longer beta period than 1 weak for founders only.

You can also check the way objects stack up and if there is divergent behavior on them.

Meta is not unpredictable. People gravitate towards easy to use and towards powerful.

As I said above, I don't expect a perfect game on release, it can't be mathed out. Asteroid mines for example are something I would tend to say are an ok-ish imbalance on release. But what's up with the way evasion and attack speed stack up? It's been reported and is lieing around for 2 years now. SD did not think this one through back then and they certainly didn't think about it when they added evasion to tacspeed boosters in crusade.

And even if the game is unmathably complex, than polish means planning for a sufficiently long beta period.

Balance very much is a part of polish.

Successfully updated karma reason!

admiralWillyWilber

Join Date 05/2009

+99

Quoting trims2u,

reply 89

Two things here:

1. In reference to "polish" - one of the biggest things that would make people's (both players and dev's) lives easier is to develop a method/system where your hardcore audience (i.e. those of us who hang out on the forums rabidly) could make updates to the system quickly and easily. I work in Release Management and Systems Architecture, and what you folks need is some sort of CI toolchain for community "patches". Make it simple and easy for the community to update a large number of "polish" items, and that makes everyone happy. The simplest thing here is for textual fixes. Then XML fixes. Yes, they need reviewed. Yes, you can pay something trivial amounts to do this, and it saves VERY valuable Dev time.

2. I think one of the other problems is NOT initial pricing. Without getting into things, $40-50 is a good pricepoint, and a reasonable ask for games where you expect to play them for a long time. Look not at mobile (since that has an audience in the 100s of millions), but at consoles, where $60 is now common, and stuff still sells there like hotcakes. The audience is the same: there are FEWER current gen consoles (~18m PS4, for example) in the USA as there are PCs that will run GC3. People have the disposable income (even well down the economic scale) that they're willing to spend on games.

What the problem is has to do with Steam and how it's run its economics. The very frequent sales is hurting all developers, and realistically should stop. Games are a luxury item, and you DON'T discount luxury items until they're well and truly past their prime. The price at release is what the price should stay at, for as long as the game exists under active development. Sales should be very infrequent and not 75%, but 25%. You'd end up with a far better (and more stable) revenue stream, and an audience that knows what games cost, instead of a bunch of entitled whiners who have no idea of the economics of development. Tell me, really, Brad, since you have the numbers, how much money do you really make when GC3 is knocked down 75%? If you could sell the game consistently at $25 since launch, doesn't that beat out the revenue for a $50 launch where some (read, just the hardcore folks) people buy it, then 3 months later have 80% of your total audience only purchase it for $10?

Games are luxury goods, but ones well within reach of 50%+ of your typical US households, especially ones that have relatively low HW requirements (let's face it, GC3 runs on a 10-year-old PC that's had a $30 RAM upgrade). Stable pricing is far better than sales-based ones, unless you've borked your target audience so badly that they only buy on sale. JCPenny found that out the hard way: the retail clothes business has so trained the average buyer to only shop at sales times that when they lowered normal prices by 15% but didn't have sales, it screwed them over completely. Steam has enough of a major marketshare to undo this kind of damage before it's permanent, but it's getting darned close to being irreversible now, and unless Steam changes, it'll screw devs forever.

Start screaming at Steam NOW, if we want good games to survive.

what probably not make this work is that steam has regular sales at certain times where people buy games on sales. These people wouldnt.pay 25 dollars for the game when.they could buy one on sale. There are probably a lot of these.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting SilasOfBorg,

reply 7

I'm gonna keep voting for games that arrive in only moderate shape, as long as I'm confident that they'll get cleaned up afterwards.

Me too. I would rather have a fully flushed out product however I can forgive lack of polish and some bugs if I believe the dev's are going to stay dedicated to there game and patch it. That being said I am still waiting for the AI to be fixed in Gal Civ III vanilla as I will not buy the DLC since they have not and my patience has warn thin on the matter. My confidence in Stardock is waning.

Successfully updated karma reason!

My concern about periodic payments to Mercenaries is another micro nightmare. Not just the micro for you to pay them: but if you (or the AI) don't, they go back into the pool, and now you're constantly checking the bazaar to see if your favorite ship is back online again.

I like the population scaling linearly, and move the inefficiency factor to the Approval system, and here's why: first, it's simpler. But second, I want to apply bonuses to it. It's hard to balance if you design one faction that gets ^0.75 power and another gets square rooted. But it's easy to give bonuses for Harmony crystals, +1 population, food, and stuff. But yes, that's a game changer. You have to go back and re-price EVERYTHING.

I think synthetics should have very LOW populations. Like the Dread Lords. It's simpler. That's their distinguishing trait: population doesn't matter.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting TheFunMachine,

reply 54

I'm yet to be convinced by the 'games are a service' approach being pushed by the likes of EA, etc. I will ask you this -- some people argue that Paradox's DLC model is a quasi subscription model, where the stream of DLC funds continued development. Is that something you would be on board with?

Oh god please no. As someone who's been supporting CK2 since the start, buying every DLC at launch, they have a terrible DLC model. It's so bad that it ruined a similar game I want to break into. EU4, but I just can't... the game is too old now and there's over $200 of DLC to buy. I can't play incomplete versions of games so it's either all or nothing. Pretty much all of my friends that see me play it are having trouble getting into CK2 for that very same reason. Hey we're interested in playing your games Paradox, but... you're not making it very easy! What a bad business model to scare away people that are actually interested in your content.

I mean I'd be fine with it if they actually lowered the price on old content. 90% of a games sales are during the launch month. Release all the DLC you want for $10 or $15 each every once in awhile. Hell make them even more expensive if you have to. But having ancient DLC still be at the same price it launched several years ago is insane. Who are you trying to penny pinch at this point? You'd be better off making all the old stuff cheap and easy to dip your toe into. Package the DLC for free into the core game so you can encourage new players to pick the game up and sell the full priced NEW expansions and DLC to them. Instead of scaring away all your potential future customers with a giant pay barrier.

$5 might not seem like a lot individually but people have to keep in mind that consumers only have so much money to spend. Like take Patreon for example. Everyone who's asking for donations is always like "Just give me 1 or 5 dollars! It's not a lot!" seems to forget that they aren't the only person asking for money on Patreon. If I gave everyone $1 on Patreon that I watch a youtube video from or whatever I could easily be spending $100-$500-$1000 a month it just adds up that quickly. Permanently hiding actual content from anyone who doesn't donate is the worst, but I love the ones that exclusively show donors content early (like tabletop). So we're still getting the same content, but if I reeeeally REALLY can't wait then I can pay to get it now.

The same applies to games. $40 for one game now? Or $40 for several games during a steam sale? Which do you think is going to entice people more easily? Yeah it seems very stingy to hear someone complain about say... Darkest Dungeons for being $20 but hey look at what that $20 is competing with. I could've gotten THAT game, or I could've picked up THIS game where I got GC3+Crusade+DLC for around $20-$30 during the latest steamsale. DD went down in price too but it only went done by like $10, meanwhile I saved like $40 getting GC3. Individual game prices aren't that bad but we don't want to play just one game. We want to play as many games as we have the time for. So this $5 and $40 can easily add up.

As for GC... I think they're doing some smart things. I've been with the franchise since I first got the GC1 demo from PC Gamer back when it used to be a magazine worth subscribing to. I later picked up GC2 and enjoyed the improvements. Then finally got my hands on GC3 after patiently waiting for it to be more finished and at a reasonable price for me. I thiiink I even remember seeing the beta or alpha version of GC3 being sold at a heavily marked up price and I think they were onto something with that. People want things NOW. NOW NOW NOW! Even if you try to stress to them that it's an unfinished version of a game. Like lets say WoW's newest expansion leaked, and they offered anyone the ability to play and test the early versions of it for $100 or $200 do you really think nobody would bite? It sure beats waiting for some RNG invite to be thrown at you in an email. Meanwhile just try and sell that very same expansion at its proper release date at $100 and see the massive backlash they'd get for trying to rip loyal fans off.

While technically the same game for the same price, it's all about context. Devs need to find more creative ways like that to catch and drain the whales without harming the experience of your more massive but equally loyal part of your fanbase. If all you care about is money then you're more likely to push that delicate balance too far and ruin everything. See: basically every F2P game in existence and YES cosmetics are part of gameplay. I'm so sick of people who think anyone enjoys looking like some dirty peasant while 1st class whales are the only ones that get to have fun creating a decent character. May god please forbid devs that push past cosmetics and start giving actual tangible advantages... those are just the worst. Truly a cesspool environment to take part in.

Though honestly if you're making games solely to make profit then you're probably making games for the wrong reason *coughEAcough*. I know it's a paradoxical thing to say since the whole point of a company is to make money, and you can't make games if you don't have a budget to fund the making of more games. Yet a lot of developers/publishers keep falling into this trap for some reason and after 20+ years to see them make the same mistakes is depressing. Especially since it can permanently kill off some really promising trademarks. But Stardock is probably one of the rare ones that found a way to get some nice profit from a non-gaming market to help fund an actual passion project for the gamers. I think others should try to follow, or look elsewhere for profit like through merchandising their brand, whatever it takes just so long as it doesn't ruin actual gameplay. The current popular trend of bruteforcing profit by nickle and diming us with endless DLC or preorder exclusives is going to do more damage to this industry in the long run.

In the end I think all three of the things listed in the OP are obtainable. The topic title says that I can only pick two, but I say I can pick all three with enough patience. Patience from both the fanbase, and the devs, equally. So I'm glad that got a nod by the TC.

Successfully updated karma reason!