Topic: Stardock explains why it released free expansion for Gal Civ

[Gamester]

From http://www.galciv.com/gcx/ at the bottom of the page.

Quote:
Why are we doing this?

The PC game industry model has some issues as a business model. The problem has to do with the developer/publisher relationship. Here's how it typically works - publisher pre-pays developer a huge advance on royalties to develop the game. The contract usually commits the developer to release 1 "bug fix" (i.e. patch") after the game is released. The game comes out, often buggy since the developer gets paid most of their advance upon delivery of the "gold master" to the publisher, creating an incentive to get the game out. Then, typically 8 weeks later, a "patch" is released that fixes most of the significant bugs and hopefully with game play tweaks.

So what happens? Well, for one thing it means that the typical lifespan of a PC game is only a couple of months. Imagine that. Spending 2 years of your life working on a game and having it die off the minds of people after a couple months.

We have a different model. Stardock paid for GalCiv's development itself. No advances on royalties. We also have the right to sell the game directly from the GalCiv.com. Statistically, only a tiny fraction of the total sales of the game occur direct. 90% of sales still occur at some retail store.  But with that 10%, a different incentive is created -- keep the game fresh and improving over time in order to help sales over a long period of time. That strategy involves being responsive to your customers with frequent updates and instead of the game dying out after a couple months, it can keep growing its user base over many months. This keeps sales of the game going for longer.  Everyone wins this way -- the developer (us) has happy customers and continued sales over a long period of time. Customers get free updates and their $40 purchase doesn't end up being a disposable game. And the retailers and publishers see continued sales during the long run.

With all the discussion I have read here concerning alternate business models and with the publisher problems that have come to light, I was curious what the community and Taldren (i.e. Eric Bethke) thought of this approach. . .

Another fascinating read from Stardock founder Brad Wardell concerning how Stardock came into existence and how they ended up moving from OS/2 to Windows can be found here: http://www.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=328

Also, you can find his thoughts on software piracy and copy protection here: http://www.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=209

Just curious what everyone thinks. . .
Gamester
   

[Lono]

Yes, this is indeed an awesome business model.

I know its not practical for every company, but it is just plain cool!

In fact I have talked to several people online in the Warez community and they refuse to use the warez'd copy that was released of this game because they respect this business method so much.

Of course, Taldren has nothing to really fear from the warez community either, bacause it is clear they just don't "get" the SFC series, but I fully expect Black 9 will be unlawfuly distributed for a while after it's release.

And besides the anti-piracy implications of using such a distribution model, I think it is a great model for game franchises such as SFC.

I for one would totally suscribe to a service that continued to patch and refine the SFC series - and which also continued to support the SFC mod community.

Taldren or Khoromag - if this is possible or indeed sometime in the future legal, please consider some type of subscription support for your SFC series.

I would hate to have SFC just be a memory 2 or 3 years from now.



 

[Tumulorum Fossor]

Yes, I agree.

Due to the legal quagmire, I doubt such a model is possible with SFC, given the hopelessly entangled players of ADB, Viacom, Activision, Interplay, and Taldren, but I think it would make sense.

A system whereby people purchase software directly from Taldren, with steady support  and multiple small expansions.  I know I would pay for the support that Taldren (Dave Ferrell) has been offering for Orion Pirates strictly For Love Of The Game (and to protect Taldren's good name).  I just can't imagine the legal morass that has to be navigated to make it so (ahem).

Integrate some sort of dynamic means of checking for legit copies via a Dynaverse, and you have at least some ongoing protection from hackers.  At this point, however, I would think that the audience for SFC continues to be people who are sincere well-wishers for the economic viability of Taldren and its programmers, and hence less likely to go the pirate-route.  But there will always be those 'software czars' who have to have a copy of EVERYTHING, yet never want to invest the time to get particularly good at any one game.  So it is kind of self-limiting anyhow.

That's how I sees it, anyways.

Interesting post.  How good of a game is GalCiv anyway?  Is it only single-player?

-TF  

[Lepton1]

Can someone explain to me how a 1 player strategy game could be popular?  I mean write some multiplayer code!!

[Cleaven]

Quote:
Can someone explain to me how a 1 player strategy game could be popular?  I mean write some multiplayer code!!  

You don't honestly expect somebody to waste their time telling you why the sun comes up everyday in the electronic entertainment industry, do you?  

[Gamester]

IIt is a 4X space game. f you liked Master of Orion and loved Master of Orion 2 but thought that Master of Orion 3 was a major let down, then you would probably really enjoy Galactic Civilizations. It is single player only, and you can only be the human race, BUT that allows them to focus an incredible amount of attention to game detail. Just click the link at the top of my original post and see what the free expansion pack changed on the game. Free! Also, there is now a demo available for download if you would like to try it out. I like it. I also subscribe to Stardock's Object Desktop network.

Gamester
 

[Gamester]

Quote:
Can someone explain to me how a 1 player strategy game could be popular? I mean write some multiplayer code!!

Well, there are many MANY single player games out there that I've enjoyed immensely and I have never understood the reasoning for adding multiplayer modes to a game just so it would have some. For example, although Baldur's Gates 1 & 2 offered multiplayer gaming, I always found it to be pretty pointless as these games obviously have a very strong single player experience focus. I have played both multiplayer and found the experience to be more tedious than anything else. Other completely awesome in their day computer games featuring single player only were Might & Magic World of Xeen, Eye of the Beholders 1 & 2, Wing Commanders 1-4, Master of Magic (although admittedly this game would have greatly benefitted from a multiplayer mode), Civilizations 1 & 2 (Civ 2 multiplayer and Civ 3 kinda suck), Panzer General - the list goes on.

I will admit that RTS and FPS games in particular tend to benefit from multiplayer game play but it is not an absolute. There are many cases where games are really designed for one element or the other. Few are the games that excel at both. Case in point, our very own SFC. Singleplayer mode has a very tacked-on feel, but the game truly shines in multiplayer. C&C Generals is like that as well as innumerable other games. There are great single player games that have multiplayer tacked-on to them (ie Baldur's Gates 1 & 2). The Homeworld series has multiplayer support, but it is the single player game that was most satisfying to play. In short, most games lose focus when trying to be a best-of-both-worlds type single/multipler game and suffer greatly from this lack of focus (sometimes with the expense of neither the single nor the multiplayer experience being satisfying). John Carmack himself has commented on the phenomenon and stated that because of this, Doom 3 will be single player only. They will realease a different multiplayer only game at a later date.

Gamester
 

[Rod O'neal]

Well, here's what I think. I've been kinda interested in this game for a while. Not enough though to actually buy it unless it was really cheap.I figured that I'd just wait and get it sometime. Well, I'm not gonna wait any longer now. This makes it worth trying out for me. I think that this is a really cool idea. I hope that it makes them money.    

[Monty]

OK.

I hope someone who is a fan of this game, Gal Civ, can help me understand a couple of things about it.

I first came into contact with Gal Civ while browsing play.com . The thing that made me pause was that the game reminded me somewhat of Sid Meiers Alpha Centauri (spelling?) . It was out a few years ago. The 'real' Civ 3.

Is Gal Civ a new game? How long has it been out? Does it bear any relation to the Civilisation lineage? Is it worth buying?

I couldn't find any screen shots that showed 'in-game' play. Admitedly I wasn't looking very hard. Maybe someone can point me in the general direction of a site with such screen shots?

Any other info welcome.  

[Gamester]

Quote:
OK.

I hope someone who is a fan of this game, Gal Civ, can help me understand a couple of things about it.

OK I'll see what I can do. . .

Quote:
Is Gal Civ a new game?

This is actually a tricky question. The correct response is No and Yes. Allow me to explain. WAAAAAAYYYYY Back in the day, the original Galactic Civilizations was an OS/2 game - one of the few actually - and it received a very large amount of praise and adulation (for an OS/2 game). Stardock much later on converted themselves into a Windows software company making utility programs such as Window Blinds, WinFX, and DestopX. They being the unique company that they are, also make the occasional game. Most games they have made reviewed pretty well, but sailed on out below the radar (Anyone remember The Corporate Machine?). They decided to remake Galactic Civilizations for Windows from scratch (with many, many new features), and here it is. It is their first major heard-the-world-over success story. Part of it's success is that many fans of Master of Orions 1 & 2 were extremely disappointed in 3, and they found Gal Civ to be MUCH more like the game they actually wanted. It is published by Strategy First and can be found in most retail computer game stores or can be bought and downloaded directly from their website.

Quote:
How long has it been out? Does it bear any relation to the Civilisation lineage? Is it worth buying?

The OS/2 version of Gal Civ was out in 1993 or 1994. The Windows remake is a little less than a year or so old. It bears no story relation to any of Sid Meier's Civ games or Alpha Centauri whatsover. They are all 4x games (explore, expand, exploit, and exterminate), but Gal Civ is more like the MOO series in that you expand from planet to planet. You can get a good feel for these types of games by reading this GameSpot article http://www.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/pc/history_spaceempire/ on the evolution of 4x gaming (it even lists the original Gal Civ and is current up to about a year before the release of MOO 3)

Quote:
I couldn't find any screen shots that showed 'in-game' play. Admitedly I wasn't looking very hard. Maybe someone can point me in the general direction of a site with such screen shots?

Try Here: www.galciv.com
 

[Monty]

Thanks for that.

An intriguing game. £17.99 at play.com , very tempting.

An interesting approach from the developers. I wonder how its worked out for them.  

[Fahrenheit]

I own a copy of the original GalCiv for OS/2, as well as a copy of Object Desktop for OS/2.

Both great products, and service and support from SDS (what little I ever needed) was superb.

I kept OS/2 on my computer system at home for a few years, just so I could play GalCiv.

F°
 

[Gamester]

Hey Eric,

I would REALLY love to hear your opinion on this business model, especially as you have previously expressed interest in alternate business models to grow Taldren. I realize that this type of thing absolutely would NOT be of any benefit to the SFC series as they are not wholly owned by you. It may not even be applicable to a PC port of Black 9 as I am unfamiliar with your contract with your publisher. But it may be something to consider for your next independent project. I'd really love to hear from you (or Dave or Marc) on the viability of this. You are in all actuality half-way there as your support for the SFC 2 series of games is outstanding and way beyond the call of duty (I realize that 3 is laregley out of your hands).

Gamester
 

[Gamester]

From http://www.galciv.com/gcx/ at the bottom of the page.

Quote:
Why are we doing this?

The PC game industry model has some issues as a business model. The problem has to do with the developer/publisher relationship. Here's how it typically works - publisher pre-pays developer a huge advance on royalties to develop the game. The contract usually commits the developer to release 1 "bug fix" (i.e. patch") after the game is released. The game comes out, often buggy since the developer gets paid most of their advance upon delivery of the "gold master" to the publisher, creating an incentive to get the game out. Then, typically 8 weeks later, a "patch" is released that fixes most of the significant bugs and hopefully with game play tweaks.

So what happens? Well, for one thing it means that the typical lifespan of a PC game is only a couple of months. Imagine that. Spending 2 years of your life working on a game and having it die off the minds of people after a couple months.

We have a different model. Stardock paid for GalCiv's development itself. No advances on royalties. We also have the right to sell the game directly from the GalCiv.com. Statistically, only a tiny fraction of the total sales of the game occur direct. 90% of sales still occur at some retail store.  But with that 10%, a different incentive is created -- keep the game fresh and improving over time in order to help sales over a long period of time. That strategy involves being responsive to your customers with frequent updates and instead of the game dying out after a couple months, it can keep growing its user base over many months. This keeps sales of the game going for longer.  Everyone wins this way -- the developer (us) has happy customers and continued sales over a long period of time. Customers get free updates and their $40 purchase doesn't end up being a disposable game. And the retailers and publishers see continued sales during the long run.

With all the discussion I have read here concerning alternate business models and with the publisher problems that have come to light, I was curious what the community and Taldren (i.e. Eric Bethke) thought of this approach. . .

Another fascinating read from Stardock founder Brad Wardell concerning how Stardock came into existence and how they ended up moving from OS/2 to Windows can be found here: http://www.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=328

Also, you can find his thoughts on software piracy and copy protection here: http://www.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=209

Just curious what everyone thinks. . .
Gamester
   

[Lono]

Yes, this is indeed an awesome business model.

I know its not practical for every company, but it is just plain cool!

In fact I have talked to several people online in the Warez community and they refuse to use the warez'd copy that was released of this game because they respect this business method so much.

Of course, Taldren has nothing to really fear from the warez community either, bacause it is clear they just don't "get" the SFC series, but I fully expect Black 9 will be unlawfuly distributed for a while after it's release.

And besides the anti-piracy implications of using such a distribution model, I think it is a great model for game franchises such as SFC.

I for one would totally suscribe to a service that continued to patch and refine the SFC series - and which also continued to support the SFC mod community.

Taldren or Khoromag - if this is possible or indeed sometime in the future legal, please consider some type of subscription support for your SFC series.

I would hate to have SFC just be a memory 2 or 3 years from now.



 

[Tumulorum Fossor]

Yes, I agree.

Due to the legal quagmire, I doubt such a model is possible with SFC, given the hopelessly entangled players of ADB, Viacom, Activision, Interplay, and Taldren, but I think it would make sense.

A system whereby people purchase software directly from Taldren, with steady support  and multiple small expansions.  I know I would pay for the support that Taldren (Dave Ferrell) has been offering for Orion Pirates strictly For Love Of The Game (and to protect Taldren's good name).  I just can't imagine the legal morass that has to be navigated to make it so (ahem).

Integrate some sort of dynamic means of checking for legit copies via a Dynaverse, and you have at least some ongoing protection from hackers.  At this point, however, I would think that the audience for SFC continues to be people who are sincere well-wishers for the economic viability of Taldren and its programmers, and hence less likely to go the pirate-route.  But there will always be those 'software czars' who have to have a copy of EVERYTHING, yet never want to invest the time to get particularly good at any one game.  So it is kind of self-limiting anyhow.

That's how I sees it, anyways.

Interesting post.  How good of a game is GalCiv anyway?  Is it only single-player?

-TF  

[Lepton1]

Can someone explain to me how a 1 player strategy game could be popular?  I mean write some multiplayer code!!

[Cleaven]

Quote:
Can someone explain to me how a 1 player strategy game could be popular?  I mean write some multiplayer code!!  

You don't honestly expect somebody to waste their time telling you why the sun comes up everyday in the electronic entertainment industry, do you?  

[Gamester]

IIt is a 4X space game. f you liked Master of Orion and loved Master of Orion 2 but thought that Master of Orion 3 was a major let down, then you would probably really enjoy Galactic Civilizations. It is single player only, and you can only be the human race, BUT that allows them to focus an incredible amount of attention to game detail. Just click the link at the top of my original post and see what the free expansion pack changed on the game. Free! Also, there is now a demo available for download if you would like to try it out. I like it. I also subscribe to Stardock's Object Desktop network.

Gamester
 

[Gamester]

Quote:
Can someone explain to me how a 1 player strategy game could be popular? I mean write some multiplayer code!!

Well, there are many MANY single player games out there that I've enjoyed immensely and I have never understood the reasoning for adding multiplayer modes to a game just so it would have some. For example, although Baldur's Gates 1 & 2 offered multiplayer gaming, I always found it to be pretty pointless as these games obviously have a very strong single player experience focus. I have played both multiplayer and found the experience to be more tedious than anything else. Other completely awesome in their day computer games featuring single player only were Might & Magic World of Xeen, Eye of the Beholders 1 & 2, Wing Commanders 1-4, Master of Magic (although admittedly this game would have greatly benefitted from a multiplayer mode), Civilizations 1 & 2 (Civ 2 multiplayer and Civ 3 kinda suck), Panzer General - the list goes on.

I will admit that RTS and FPS games in particular tend to benefit from multiplayer game play but it is not an absolute. There are many cases where games are really designed for one element or the other. Few are the games that excel at both. Case in point, our very own SFC. Singleplayer mode has a very tacked-on feel, but the game truly shines in multiplayer. C&C Generals is like that as well as innumerable other games. There are great single player games that have multiplayer tacked-on to them (ie Baldur's Gates 1 & 2). The Homeworld series has multiplayer support, but it is the single player game that was most satisfying to play. In short, most games lose focus when trying to be a best-of-both-worlds type single/multipler game and suffer greatly from this lack of focus (sometimes with the expense of neither the single nor the multiplayer experience being satisfying). John Carmack himself has commented on the phenomenon and stated that because of this, Doom 3 will be single player only. They will realease a different multiplayer only game at a later date.

Gamester