Sadly, there has to be a moment in game development where the stuff can only be tagged with the feared but necessary - it; DONE!

However, nothing stops anyone willing enough to answer people needs. This, depends more on demands than business decision. If the customers loophole is big, it means supplemental work **may** just be worth investing in.

Maybe the following analogy isn't accurate but it illustrates my reasoning nevertheless;

- Doom.
- Initial open-source, had great success.
- Improved beyond original in great lengths in any successive versions.
- Popular, still growing.
- Built-in potential... cuz, the 1st person-shootout fanbase is (and always will be) there.
- Expect Doom 4, 5, 6 up until nobody buys any. Otherwise, the project still is alive and kicking.

I would agree though on the distribution method(s) currently available. There is a natural limit to which corps must somehow adhere to; package, web-driven, CD-DVD, name it.

I guess the solution lies more in how exactly the web will eventually play out:

1- Electronic security has made huge steps in the latest years, thus providing a serious method for rapid and fair numbers of sales for a mere fraction of the conventional method costs (read cd protection, boxed products, etc).

2- There WILL be a global awareness factor, want it or not. As of now, maybe only 50% to 60% of world's population can truly gain access to electronic ways, including "modern societies" and their infra-structure(s). Take Europe as an example; the EEU opened up huge marketing gateways simple by liberating commerce between neighboring countries. Common currency. The conditions allowed for much more efficient flow of goods and services, serving the consumers quite well in fact. Apply such a formula, worldwide and you get the mechanics of a giga lightning fast competition between those connected and the smaller foreign entry applicants for the maximum pool of consumers possible.

I guess that the only (possibly) way to consider a gaming franchise 'obsolete' enough is to witness steadily declining selling figures.

Another analogy, please if you'd care listening once more -- X-Com (i know, it's an obsession of mine!!).
I'd buy a modernized version (which would stick to the tactical and immersive options, the original gave me) of that game, blind-folded, arms-tied, doped & drunked, tomorrow and ever after if i could. It's just that i certainly would for a reason; gameplay, value.
In fact, a belgium gang is working at it right now (Cydonia's Fall). I'm willing to bet, they will have some success cuz that franchise has huge underneath shockwaves below itself that dates in the early 90's. Still coming out strong on the radar. Ask any 'knowledgeable' experts in gaming and they will probably agree, the good'ol X-Com is still up above the champions list of all-time.
Step forward in a decade or so. Someone will always be there to try reproduce THAT much success. And with the binaries flowing even more rapidly (techno improvements helping) through the web-pipes, these "someones" will become numerous. Stack your flag on the battleground NOW, get lucky, and you'll survive the rush.

Cuz, Brazil and India (just to name TWO) will buy your products or not.

I, for one, would not pay a subscription fee. Paying to play a game that I have already paid for is just too much. Being a former Diablo player, I was excited at the prospect of Hellgate:London, until I found out that it would be a subscription system. (At least to get the best equipment). They didn't get my money.

From Stardock's standpoint, I think that it would be a real millstone around the company's neck. People would demand value for their money. This would mean continuous attention to the product. Even if this system were found to be profitable, it would still require a constant stream of resourses from the talent there, and this would make them unavailable for any other current project in the works, and the new stuff is where the big money is.

I would gladly pay for new content in a 'micro-expansion'. This gives me, as the customer, the freedom to pick and choose what I buy; it gives the company the most freedom as well. Rather than a continuous grind of being required to 'feed the beast', the company could choose when and what to put out more of less at their leisure. They could use their resourses as they became available, and would have the time available for 'polish' and balancing issues.

Edit: Regarding "micro expansions"... I'm not crazy about that idea either, because it would probably split up the user base into separate factions, more than it already is with several expansions out for GalCiv2. Some will have all the "micros", others only a few, some might pass on them entirely. You'd have a user community trying to share tips with each other based on different games. That already happens with the usual expansion pack model, but at least the attractive features in a full expansion mean that a lot of people will get on board when a new expansion comes out. It doesn't split up the user base as much as a scattering of minor, micropayment-type upgrades would. Tech support might also be more of a nightmare with everyone using slightly different game versions.

So I guess that's pessimistic and maybe not helpful. But I think the only way to keep a game alive is with traditional, major expansion packs that give loyal customers a very strong incentive to upgrade. If you can't continue to do that for GalCiv2, then let's move on to the next Stardock game. That's just my opinion FWIW, and I know others might feel differently.

You bring up some valid points re the micro upgrades. I think that as long as they don't change the balance or gameplay in any fundamental way, that it wouldn't be much of a problem. Of course, for meta play, there could be an 'official meta' version of the game, so that it would be fair for everyone.

Well, its difficult to judge the effects of a patch plan when nothing like it has been used before. If you are going to be asking for money to help develop a new patch for your games, I would suggest you seek ways to minimize the chances of alienating your customers.

Here are two suggestions I have.

----

1. Pay for votes, but leave patches free.

It costs money to make updates, and that money has to come from somewhere. Why not allow players to contribute $5 bucks towards a patch. Regardless of if they pay, or don't pay, everyone should have access to the updates. Some people either don't have the money to contribute, or have difficulty paying online. Even if they don't or unable to pay, they still can contribute ideas, and they can go around saying how nice of a company you guys are.

$5 is probally large enough to make a meaniful contribution, but not too large to leave an elite few to dictate the development process (if allowed to pay an arbitrary amount). Also, you might want to allow players to pay by tokens instead.

----

2. Allow the community to make meaniful updates.

Allowing players to make updates to the games themselves would help keep a game alive longer. Making the "players updates" avialable as though it were a normal update (after you review it first) would help to keep players involved in a game.

Naturally, you ought to decide how much of the game the players should be able to mess with. After that, you should provide examples to how the players can make their updates, maybe even talking to players about what tools they would like to have. Once more editors are released for TA, the player community can design custom races. You could, for instance, make the best picks avialable through players updates.

Divine,
Very well put on point 2. Kind of says what I wanted to. Sorry for repeating you, I started typing before your post went up.

I'd be happy if you turned over some of the development to the guys at I-Mod when Stardock's stopped developing!

-Dave

The one thing I would want left in GalCiv II is a reworked event/political system, along the lines of Europa Universalis Three. That should be how you do it in GCIII- a combination of Imperial Ideas, Events based on party/events, ethical sliders- you could do a lot of neat stuff. The more I think about it, this stuff should be put into GCIII- and would be my biggest request for that game (Even if its five years early)

Other then that, honestly- you should move towards new efforts. I think fantasy games sell better then space games anyways.

Micro-expansions would not work with any other TBS game you make due to MP.

Ok. I will pay for the subsription, as long as I am promised new content every other month or so.
However, I'll be more happier with the micro-expansion's (paying as we go) also at the absolute end of GalCiv2's life you can sell all of them together >>
I really do hope this idea goes though for both GalCiv2 and Sins, because one thing I do love about Stardock is those juicy updates
If need be, I'll gladly give you my whole bank account ><

Dan

Can't wait for the Fantasy Strategy game. I know Stardock will do a job on it.

I do not like the idea of a subscription system, as then I will always be 'looking for value to be delivered' as I have already paid. I much prefer the mini-expansion pack route, and I will generally buy any expansion pack if it is cheap ($10-$15).

For example, lets assume that not-MOM is a sweet system and has 4 races (Humans, Orcs, Dwarves, Elves). Just for example. I would pay $5-10 to get the 'Giants' race expansion pack, basically new artwork and numbers (units, buildings) with probably a minimum of coding. New tech trees, spells, etc. I can then play with and against that race.

I am thinking of this as a single player game, where me buying extra things doesn't mean anyone else has to. In multiplayer games, it is tougher, because you are trying to make sure everyone has the same system.

At the same time, minor tweaks and updates should continue to come out free, so that everyone has the same version of bug-free software as a base.

For a game to continue to be played after years, it needs to be kept fresh, and the fundamental nature of the game must be such as to deliver variety and new challenges. While GC is along those lines, there really isn't the depth to the system that is needed. In particular, resource types, terrain complexity, economic model.

Hopefully these will be possible in not MOM.

Cheers,

Hunter

Brad, especially concerning GC, you make it, i'll buy it. Simple as that. About the only thing i would not be interested in in GC2 would be multiplayer...everything else i would buy.

C'mon guys, instead of throwing what you would do or how "it" should be done or saying what your looking forward to...let's just show Brad and SD that wesupport the idea and let them work out the details later.

Yes!!! I for one want more updates to GC2, SOASE..etc..etc

Surely none of you could say you would not be interested in further updates to GalCiv2.

My first thought is: more powerful mod authoring tools. While the stuff that GC2 has is fine for tweaking some of the balance, adding new factions, etc... it's very limited. You can only do what Stardock has already enabled, as there's no script backend, no SDK, nothing of the sort that would let you, say, create a total conversion mod or significantly alter core gameplay mechanics.

What I'm saying is, give the community the tools to keep games evolving, and they'll do it indefinitly. There's a reason the half life games are going strong... they've got a huge modding scene. The source engine SDK gives enourmous freedom to users, to the point where some teams have made RTS games from it!

No 'underlined' thought hidden behind this observation but;

Isn't it a bit like how the soon_TBR Spore processing would integrate its faithful community into the grand scheme of things; development wise that is?

I can foresee a common direction for game producers; let their customers stay actively involved into a product evolution through "external" assets. Which is, by no means, a negative way to expand a franchise beyond its first state (as released by producers).

Speaking for myself, i think the development of a pretty decent set of files & graphics for GC2_DA/TA combo with X-Worlds qualifies into the above --adding stuff-- type of progress any particular game can benefit from. I do it for free, spare time... cuz, i like it. It simply feels great to play WITH my elements in someone else's framework. As such, the modding aspect provides YOUR product with non-negligeable additional value - at zero cost for SD!

Expand the reasoning at a dedicated engine to encourage people's participation into games either via packed MODS or online uploads and you actually raised your active payroll (free of charge), gained a huge marketing ploy, opened up tremendous opportunities beyond in-house staff & finally, gave a title a slick future filled with mystery & most probably, ingenious discoveries.

No longer do we have a sealed container where THE truth is written up through local guidelines since a business takes virtual content to its advantage while supplying the sooooooo precious consumers/buyers pool by the hand to the golden road of positive feebacks & solid results (good or bad, coming from wide & far).
Thus, the Modding ways came into existence.

Please, DO thank us, modders, for the kick up the rolling empty aluminium can.
Funny though, how such a fantastic game (GCxx) can drag that much of a following.
Stay tuned (sic!), we've got even more up our sleeves.

Basically, what you're asking for is a way to improve your return on investment (making add-ons/expansions/etc is more economical than making a new game) while providing some benefit to the consumer. Let us call this "revenue enhancement".

Personally, I'm not a big fan of this kind of thing. There are many different kinds of games, and precious few are capable of functioning under the GC2-model of game development.

The GC2-model is functional for the kind of rule-based games that GC2 is. But it isn't even good for all rule-based games. A StarCraft-like RTS game shouldn't be having a lot of updates; if it does, then that suggests that it was horribly balanced to begin with. That kind of game you release, tweak it a bit as adjustments for subtle balance errors, release an expansion to correct gross balance errors, and it either succeeds at being digital Chess or fails. For that kind of game, there simply is no mechanism for revenue enhancement.

The GC2-model eventually has its breaking point for games that are of the proper type. At some point, the ship is as good as the developers can make it. Beyond there, adding more features is just, well, more, not better. After a while, the core-root gameplay (the stuff that would only change with a proper sequel) cries out in pain at the weight of all the features built on top of it, and the game is weakened as a result.

For more content-centric games (FPSs, RPGs, action, etc), the only fair kinds of revenue enhancing models you have are episodes.

For content-heavy games, much of the primary cost of development is in assets. Levels, character models, AI, etc. Episodic games work best as revenue enhancement by reusing these assets whenever possible.

The "grossest" version of this is the NWN model. Terrain is built out of mesh-tiles. So if each new episode adds a few new mesh-tiles and bits of window-dressing that can be scattered about a level, it can turn old terrain into something that feels new. However, this requires good level designers and well-built terrain tiles. And if you fail at it, then your new episodes look like rehashed versions of old episodes. This one has the advantage of being pretty fast to produce new levels, so your episodes can be released fairly frequently.

The next version is where you use certain pieces of terrain. Imagine an RPG where you have a large city as your base of operations (with many adventures and possible adventures everywhere), but about half of each episode is spent exploring the countryside and far distant places. In that way, you start with a city-based game and then you expand to unknown territory. It focuses each episode's asset development time on the new territory, which provides the sense of newness to each episode. At the same time, it allows the episodes to be longer and more user-pleasing by reusing terrain (the city). Basically, it's like how most TV programs work; you build a few sets and reuse them forever, while sporadically throwing in a few new sets here or there for newness sake.

This method is advantageous in that the world isn't as tile-based as the NWN model, but it suffers from possible user burnout on the large city. However, the tile-based model would probably wear thin in an action setting, while this model would be much better suited to such things (imagine GTA with mission packs that expand the city, etc). It's how MMO's work to varying degrees.

The last version we'll call the Half-Life 2 "Episodic" model, which isn't. Valve is basically making a new game with the same characters each time. They share characters and weapons, maybe some terrain textures, but lots of asset work needs to be done with each episode. And of course, there's storyline work, dialog recording, etc. It's greatness from a user-value perspective depends entirely on its cost vs gameplay value. The key here is whether the episode's gameplay is worth the money. HL2's episodes don't even bother to try to be economical in their asset use, but a more reasonable developer (one who isn't getting fat off of Steam and thus can't afford to throw money at anything) would be able to reuse more assets.

Ultimately, most game types can provide some mechanism for revenue enhancement. The key being to provide sufficient value to the consumer to make them want to pay for "less" content. Or to put it a less self-serving way, to use less money to provide the user with more enjoyment.

As for user-directed value added stuff, I can't really bring myself to care. I stopped playing with mods after ThreeWave CTF and TF in Quake 1, and I haven't missed anything of value. Most people are not good game designers and do not know how to properly provide a balanced, well-paced experience.

Personally, I don't think games should be extended in this way. Not in the general sense. I prefer that if a game is going to last 10 years, that it be because it is near-perfect like Starcraft, not because there are people poking at the corpse of a good idea ad infinitum. Good books end. Good movies end. Good games end too.

Some ramblings.

I too feel that once a game has reached it's zenith, it is probably best to let it go...mostly. At least as a commercial product.

I really like the idea of hosting 'officially' approved Mods mentioned in an above post. Perhaps they could be purchased at a small one time fee - enough to pay for the bandwidth the hosting site uses. In conjunction, the Developer would still provide the occasional bug fix - nothing major or earth shattering - just fix things that are really broke. Finally, the game, if not multi-player, must be readily adaptable for online tournaments. The Dev site again could be the host for monthly tournaments for a small fee.

My example would be Civ 3 - I really loved that game. Tournaments were easy to do - as .sav games were interchangeble. It had a very very strong and loyal modding community - but for me the eventual killer was the damn sub bug. I eventually lost enjoyment of the game due to that one bug - it got under my skin so much. If the Devs had fixed that one thing, I'd still be playing the many Mods today. Otherwise, Civ 3 had two legs of the - 'moddable-bug fix-tournament triangle' model.

So my suggestion would be along the lines of a readily moddable platform (XML makes this very feasable now) - and after the half life runs out - just do major bug fixes.