To me, this would definitely be worth subscribing for.

I think in general, the greatest obstacle you guys will have to overcome with a subscription model is that there are a lot of people who are against it on principle alone ("I paid for it once, and shouldn't have to pay to keep playing"). The other thing is that subscriptions are not always easy to handle when the customers don't have credit cards, and the ease of going to a store or using paypal to just buy it once will be lost with a subscription model.

Hellgate: London was the first major game to include an optional subscription system where the subscribers get extra stuff, but that caused a lot of grief from people complaining about what's fair for the subscribers to get that the regular players would not. Splitting the two would be a rather big challenge.

By contrast, Guild Wars operates on the "multiple expansions" model, and though they are bigger and pricier than what you have in mind, it works well for them - each expansion introduces a new campaign, usually new classes, skills, and most importantly features.

In truth, I believe it will be easier for Stardock and Ironclad to adopt a mini-expansion pack model, as I think it causes fewer problems overall. If it's subscription-based, you'll have to figure out what to do for subscribers and what to do for non-subscribers, and you can be very sure the non-subscribers are going to be *very* vocal about stuff they aren't getting. Doing it the mini-expansion pack way will allow players to pick up the packs that have the features and additions they like with a one time purchase. Granted, this theory largely depends on what exactly you mean by a "persistent multiplayer universe" - if it allows people who don't have an expansion to play against people with, sans the ships/techs/etc, then I would say it could be quite successful.

For me, personally, either method would do just fine - I have nothing against a subscription in principle.

I think from a business standpoint it makes much more sense to release incremental updates a few times a year. Knowing how long people will stay interested in a game is a total crap shoot. If the popularity of the game wanes suddenly, while an expansion is in development, a company could be left with an expansion that took a year or two to develop and no one to sell it to. I also believe players would appreciate gradual content updates as opposed to the current model of "Here's our game, cya in another year or two!" that most game development studios do.

A studio would also have to be careful in the way it would go about releasing an optional pay-to-update game. As recently shown by Hellgate: London, if you leave vital features out of the game and then try to charge people for them when you finally get around to implementing them, people will not be happy or even no longer playing the game. I for instance, got frustrated, un-installed the game and never looked back. I see this problem with console games too, such as content releases on Xbox Live. I can't help but feel screwed when a game development company tries to nickel and dime me for content that should have been in the game on release.

Anywho, those are my thoughts on the topic. Looking forward to those future Stardock releases

Speaking only for myself...

If I like the game, I'd be willing to pay for meaningful expansion-type content. Subscriptions, I won't touch with a 10-foot pole (at least, not outside of an MMO setting) and judging by most of the public reactions I saw about the Hellgate model, I'm guessing that's a fairly popular sentiment. If nothing else, it makes buyers wary that developers are skimping on content so they can sell it piecemeal to the customers later (ala Oblivion. I frown on doors that you have to pay extra money to open).

Hell, if Dawn of War updated the graphics and added some new units here and there, I'd pay expansion rates (adjusted for the actual amount of content, of course) for that in a heartbeat.

My my Brad this is an interesting thought.

From my personal experiences, if one was to do this you'd have to be aware of the following things:

1. Content releases would have to be meaningful and significant. Too many times in the past have I seen a similar attempt in this area but the "new" content was so insignificant that most people just ignored its existence. I am thinking in regards to the Battlefield 2 booster packs here (I was an avid player back in the day and had the SF expansion pack, but I along with many of my clan-mates ignored the booster packs as they were so shallow and pointless). Same goes for the Oblivion packs (although they learnt their lesson after the horse armour pack and made future releases a bit more significant).

2. Do not go offering in-game power for money. I know Brad isn't talking about a micro-transaction scheme for ships and powers for Sins, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. Just look at Battlefield Heroes and Battlefield: Bad Company for examples of how this could go wrong. Even though they say the weapons "will be balanced alternatives" everyone knows that there may be a chance that such and such purchasable weapon will be more handy than the default weapon they have to use.

3. Content releases would have to be regular. Simple enough really, you don't want the customer to be wondering why on earth they are paying a subscription fee when they have to wait so long to get anything.

4. Content releases should encompass the entire game. By this I'm saying that not only should content releases for subscribers add new in-game content (units and technologies) but there should be improvements on the game as a whole. Having a new particle effect system to improve the player's experience, or introducing some new cool shader effects are some examples of other different content releases that don't have to be gameplay centred. This also stops people from going to other titles released in the mean-time because your title's looks are being kept up-to-date.

Hi Frogboy, Leinad here.

I consider myself to be from the group of players who dont play the game much (not at all) in SP but rather want a game that offers multiplayer fun for a long time.

To have fun in multiplayer you need (many) ppl who want to play it online. This is mainly achived with a good game balance, online support and ofc that everyone plays the _same_ game.

Here comes the problem with subscription models for non MMPORG games and especially for RTS. You are pretty much "forced" to subcribe cause it wont be much fun to play an older version of the game than all of the people around you.
It can split a community in many small parts but tbh the Sins online community isnt big enough to survive that.
Also with all respect but i doubt that a RTS can justify a monthly fee. Sure u could make it pretty small but it would be still a hassle for many ppl to subscribe, especially younger people or those from europe dont have it so easy to subscribe.
A subscription is also never good if u want ur community to grow. It simply turns new ppl away, they wont subscribe just to get the full multiplayer experience.

Im also against "mini expansions". Sure it can work for a game like GalCiv but that is only single player, it doesnt mess with the online community.
Mini expansions would create a similar problem as a subscription model => defragmented community.

So just talking for the multiplayer community (which i think is important cause that group is very loyal and will play the game long term and thus is willing to buy expansions) i think it would be best to create just "normal" expansions for around 25-30$ and this maybe once a year.
This together with regular updates would be more than enough.
That way u can really include major changes and take feedback without screwing with the game every few weaks cause constant mini updates would do that (u cant balance things properly if u have every few weeks new elements in the game).
So im all for standard expansion pack which bring more and rly new stuff to the table even if that costs more.

I simply think that its easier to pay one time for a good product which will enhance ur game a lot instead of paying regularly for very few changes.
Also i think it would be for Ironclad/Stardock easier too. There is simply a lot of pressure on you guys to release new stuff in small timeframes if u would go with a mini expansion or subscription model and often does this lead to half arsed new features just so u can please the crowd.

With normal expansions you can take ur time, test things and keep the bigger picture in mind.
I would be for sure willing to buy an expansion pack every year or even more if you can make em worth it.

Although this seems contrary to most posts i think there is an understandable "cut off" for games for development. Users (majority not loyal fan-boys) are looking for the next BEST thing usually within Genre, now using Gal Civ II as an example, its engine is getting old, the graphics are starting to get dated, and experianced players already know what they want from there NEXT 4X and only some of these needs can be met through "quality content" updates for the game. Eventually someone is going to come out with a quality new engine 4X with some new ideas and graphics and the demand for support for (as in the example) Gal Civ II will drop and players will move on (eventually). There are excemptions such as Starcraft of games played for a LONG period of time but not the norm. In Summary i think if you have a good game that will last, keep supporting it (keep making money on it), but make sure YOUR game (sequal or not) is the next best thing when it is time.

P.S I think Gal Civ is due for a new sequal with a new engine. Not because it wont last (on the contrary) but because it just a matter of time befour a a good 4X come out and i hope its titled Gal Civ III. Plus announcing it would get all the 4X Gal Civ Fan boys around here off Sins back for not being "4x enough".

I'll buy mini-expansions on one condition: they must be good. But hey, I'm sure you already know that.

Leinad/LinkesAuge makes a good point. Expansions will split the online community. I'd look at solutions that other games have used.

Dawn of War - Expansions add new races, but people without expansions can still use the old ones.
Guild Wars / Magic: The Gathering - Expansions add new skills/cards. Note that the player can only use a set number of skills/cards. This means that new content is an optional replacement for old content.

That's all I can think of right now. But the problem with all expansions is that more content means that it's harder to balance.

I am personally not a fan of any subscription type service (and the implication of commitment to it).

I think that most gamers are relatively fickle beasts, and asking them to commit for a term to paying for content, even a very low fee (for example, five dollars a month for a six month period) is a turn off. If I don't use it for all of that six months, wander off, and come back later, there is some loss involved, or at least some is percieved.

I would much rather go out and buy an expansion for 30 dollars, get all my content there up front, and enjoy it at that pace.

Mini-Expansions and Booster Packs and all of those things I think generally are too complicated and lead to too much fragmentation of communities. Releasing few expansions with a lot of content that are a "must have" (think the Core Contingency for Total Annihilation) are much better to me than smaller ones with less content for cheaper (like Armored Fury for Battlefield 2).

But I am more of a traditionalist, so take that as you will.

I am quite partial to the Guild Wars style with regular patching and several stand-alone campaigns. The game had six core classes, each with 75 skills. Every additional campaign added two more classes wit 75 skills, and gave 25 new skills to the six core classes. The core classes had 50 core skills, skills that were accessible from every campaign, and each campaign then had 25 skills unique to that campaign. To have a character of a certain core class able to get all the class skills, one had to have bought every campaign. The thing is, due to the unique mechanics of the game(only 8 skills at any given time, limited balanced teams etc), tight balance was preserved throughout the various installments, so a guy with 125 Necromancer skills wouldn't have an outright better Necromancer than a guy with Nightfall 75 Necromancer skills, assuming both players are equally creative.
Company of Heroes had something like it going, with two stand alone games that are both mutually playable on-line. The downside of the CoH model of implementation is that CoH players that loved one of the factions in the game had no incentive to buy the second "campaign", as it contained no new units or technologies for the starting races, it only added new races.
Dawn of War took a different approach, trying to both add new races with each stand-alone campaign, and add units and techs for the other, older races. That one didn't work either, because each new campaign meant that the old one pretty much died, as the campaigns weren't mutually playable on-line, and support for the previous game died as a new one appeared.
So, the way to go is to find some kind of balance in between all this that rewards players with all the games, but doesn't punish(multiplayer balance wise) the ones that don't.

I support the idea of betas for major releases. Then the people basically patch the game for ya.

The problem with micro expansions on multiplayer fields is it then fragments the community. Then you hafta look for a game that has your games.

IMO, the future of game development isn't focus on one type of game. It's a focus on many different types. With new types of games released like Portal, it might not be a stretch for you guys to make original games based off the Galactic Civilization universe, or new games in all.

A 3d shooter with strategy functions and a good storyline set in the Galactic Civilizations universe could be badass if made properly. If the point of the game was like a strategy game, where you build everything, then when the action is setup, like your attacking a base or attacking something else. it switches to a 3d shooter, or 3d space sim, could be awesome.

Something like this would make the strategy genre come alive. You wouldn't be winning because you have better craft, you'd win because you have good skills.

The idea could work very well if it had multitudes of people. You could have your commanders, people who love strategy games and control the chess pieces, then you have ground and air grunts, people who like action games and fly to those locations.

Probably would use a ranking system. People showing high disclipline would become high level officers and commanders, and control the chess pieces, and people who showed great skill at combat would automatically be given better armor.

I don't like this subscribing idea with the monthly fees at all.
Just look at Hellgate: London and how well it worked. "Normal" buyers feel ripped off because they don't get the full gaming experience and subscribers rarely feel that the money is really worth it.

The problem with subscriptions in the user market is that home users to not think a tiny bit like companies. This is a very big mistake make companies make:
For them a subscription is great. They purchase it and have security and only pay for the features they need.
In the end-user market however bundles are very, very successful. The customer generally tends to prefer a "I have it all and don't need to care anymore" packet over an individualized one.
And don't forget the envy aspect: If there are some subscribers then there will be a LOT of non-subscriber kiddies who will talk bad about the game just because they are worse off then others and they are not willing to pay.
It's the "dark side" of word of mouth. I am not saying that this is good but it is simply reality and that's why such a business model will, in my opinion, completely and utterly fail for a company like StarDock that relies on word of mouth quite a bit.

The idea with small expansion packs is a lot better. However, to be worth it these packs have to be "more" then patches which again will make it quite hard to do right. Same rule as before: Don't piss off your customers. If you charge them for something they got for free the whole time they will be pissed (and the free patches and the great support is one of the main reasons why I spent quite a lot of money on StarDock products so far).

If you want games to be supported well beyond their corporate lifetime there is a very, very easy solution. ID Software did show it with Quake 3: Just open-source the code!
It helps jung developers to learn how to program, it will guarantee that the open source community will take care of the product and at least give bugfixes (and, if the fanbase is big enough, maybe even community-addons etc. - look at Vampire Bloodines and the fan patches there or the great Oblivion mods that basically turn it into another game).
If you retire a game then you won't make money on it anymore anyway. So why not make it free?

The single most important benefit for StarDock in this whole thing would again be: Word of mouth! Can you imagine a million geeks getting their nerdgasm over an open-sources GC 1? Can you imagine the impact this will have in the press and what it will do for the already great reputation of StarDock in the gaming market?

To be clear: Quake 3 got open sourced, but only the engine and not the artwork. That means you still can not download it "for free". You can download the (community-patched) engine and then get the media files from your legally purchased CD. As far as I know there are copyright issues giving the artwork away and it isn't necessary in any way. But at least for the engine StarDock should have all the necessary rights and ID Software has proven that it is more then enough to just free that part.

I think the other thing to consider is that it's not "mini expansions" that lead to longevity of a game, the most important thing is modability of the product, and for it to be a good game in the first place! When you make a "mini expansion" you are potentially competing for user made content, whereas a proper expansion allows to budget for significant changes to the game engine which are not possible with mods. I don't see how a continuous stream of mini additions can keep a game going for much longer than what could already be achieved with expansion packs and user made content. Civ IV for example has been going strong since 2005 with two expansion packs, the main reason being it is fun to play and has plenty of mods. And just look at the Sims! People lap expansions for that up like there's no tomorrow. They don't need subscription fees or mini content updates to remain popular.

I don't think the expansions of the Sims are the best example. A expansion every 6 months for a bathroom and toilets is a bit too much for me.
But I completely agree with your analyze : the problem with mini-expansion is the concurrence with the mods (some projects are amazing). A strong expansion don't have this kind of problems because it's adding some new mechanics and technical improvement with the new content we can't have in a mod.