Like others here, I'd be reluctant to pay for a subscription -- I already have too many unused MMO subscriptions. But I might well be willing to pay for mini-updates. I buy new "Rock Band" songs, and buying the expansions to games like Civ and GalCiv2 is a no-brainer. I often leave favorite games (like Civ and GC2) on the shelf for a while, only to have my interest rekindled by an expansion. That might happens with a mini-update too, if it introduced a new race or a few new techs or something.

I think one idea to consider, especially for Sins, would be to create an online galaxy or universe similar to MMOs and charge a subscription fee for that. You could have an online universe with hundreds of stars and thousands of planets that would be continually fought over. In effect, it would be a hybrid MMO-and-RTS4x-thingy.

It would require some significant server power, but the subscription service would provide an income stream in between expansion packs. That way, people who are interested in such a thing could subscribe while people who aren't could simply keep playing the wonderful RTS4x game as is.

I had the idea for such a game myself, and in fact I bought Sins because it appeared to hew pretty closely to the idea I had. Think about it, a player could conquer and create a sizable galactic empire over time. When finished for the day, he could position his fleets to defend his territory and log off, allowing his empire to be run by a default AI. Such a system would greatly enhance the role of trade and diplomacy because you would need allies to help defend your territory while off-line. The ideas for such an online universe are unlimited.

Very partial quote from post #11, by lathorien :




« Starting to get dated » : place emphasis on "starting" !

Name us one game of the genre (Space-empire 4X/TBS) which has a graphical level of quality that comes anything near to 2006's GalCiv II -- even without taking into account its two expansions ?


Lost Empire Immortals (2008) ?
Lost Empire (2007) ?
Space Empires V (2006) ?


Because of the strong market dominance of RTS games, Space-empire 4X/TBS games are not an investment that major publishers are willing to risk.

Master of Orion III (2003) had a big negative impact on the perception of those publishers.

There are only two important leaders, at the moment, in the field of Space-empire 4X/TBS games (not counting a minor player like Pollux)... and Stardock's GalCiv series (especially with the very recent expansion) dominates the other series (Malafador's Space Empires).

It dominates in what concerns the graphical level of quality, and it dominates in what pertains to the sophistication of the A.I.

Of course, if you compare GalCiv II's graphics to Crysis ... but that would not be a fair comparison.

There is NOTHING as good as GalCiv II's Twilight of the Arnor (2008) on the horizon, in the genre.

In fact, I could not name you one major Space-empire 4X/TBS game being seriously engaged into design & development, at the moment (April 2008).

(I haven't heard about a Space Empires VI, and Ascendancy II is merely at the hypothetical idea stage.)

If Stardock is not planning a Galactic Civilizations III ... we are stuck into the void.   

GalCiv II's graphics are perhaps « dated », but there will be NOTHING better in the 2008/2009 time-frame -- in the Space-empire 4X/TBS genre.

Master of Orion IV, anyone ?   

I would love to pay for additional content, but it has to actually be content.

For instance, planetary invasions, significant new planet types, vastly expanded tech trees (to name a few ideas). I would pay for that, but not for:

Christmas map with enhanced AI and red/green colors everywhere

Easter eggs consisting of voiceovers by (washed up movie star here) in some stupid mission

A campaign of any sort

However, I realize there is somewhat of a divide between the multiplayer and singleplayer communities. To that end, would it be possible to have different optional paid packages for each group? For the singleplayer crowd, give them better AI, more maps, a campaign, and all that good stuff.

For the multiplayer crowd, we'd prefer a deeper game with more options to play around with

Personalty the farther you stay away from HellGate's model the better in my opinion. No matter what, you can't charge MMO amount of money to subscribe for a non MMO game. Unless you add in raids, auction houses, crafting, and instances

I'm a fan of Guild War's model of mini expansions but I can already foresee the nightmare it could be balancing out the content in a RTS to make sure that people with the content don't have a huge advantage against people who don't. Or having to split the community similar to Company of Heroes. Which could keep you from developing interesting new units and researches for expansions.


One thought I had last night that may work could be a simple tier system. For ex:

3$ a month: All new units, buildings, researches, sides, for online and off.
4$ a month: Every thing in the last tier + new maps and campaigns.
5$ a month: Every thing in the previous tiers + access to online tournaments and special events.

The key would be to keep the prices as low as possible and offer the biggest features for the least amount of money. The only issue with this plan right now would be determining what happens if someone unsubscribes.

I like the idea as long as the updates are meaningful.

@ Sorceress Post #30
Shh, we are having a constructive thread, troll elsewhere. I didnt compare Gal Civ to anygame (other than maybe Starcraft, which is a compliment to its lifespan). We arnt comparing games or discussing the 4X Genre, we are talking about the life cycles of games. I was using Gal Civ as an example as most people here know about it. My only point is that in regards to releaseing data on games after launch, developers do need to listin around as to when it maybe smart to stop working on new content for a game (either in large expanions, mini-expansion, booterpack, or monthly trickle format) and start working on a new engine or code. IF there was a game just announced for release later this year that could dethrone Gal Civ, you think Stardock could just "whip up" Gal Civ III in time to compete, and not loose some fans to the "other franchise". Frogboy talks of a cycle that always ends with the next best game (sequal or competetor).

OP - I think with Gal Civ, or Starcraft or another game that lives Post-Humously you can use the ongoing updates and expansions not just to "finish off" the original game concept but also lead into your ideas plots, systems ect of your sequal. Adding gaming content that is almost a hybrid of original game and the yet to be release sequal.

What he said.

In my perfect world, I see a 'mini expansion' being, since you mentioned Baldur's Gate, like the Tales of the Sword Coast expansion (which for a full expansion was a little weak).

Here's the issue. I don't want you / this to encourage other, less responsible publishers to say LOOK DLC WORKS ON THE PC TOO LOLOLOL. It just comes down to value. I perfectly understand where you're getting this 'little expansions' thing from, because while you can continue adding great patches to GC2 and the like, eventually the game will be off of store shelves, and you're still providing free content to players while no new copies of the game are being sold. That financially doesn't make sense, so I see where the 'pay to play' idea might seem reasonable.

DLC doesn't work on the PC. It's been tried, and by and large it doesn't work. How much would we be getting? I'd like to say I'd support this if you (read: responsible developers) gave us a lot of value for that little price, but I'm worried that it'll turn into Xbox Live for the PC - everyone tries to start selling 'horse armor' for $3.

Not all people are very smart with their money, but from my point of view, $9 is 22% the cost of a full Stardock game and a little under half the cost of an expansion pack, so I'd expect to get that much value out of it.

One thing i forgot to say is that i loved the idea of the BETA!!!!!

I payed for the game as soon as beta 1 was released and i really enjoyed how we were "given" certain things as time went on

Maybe i liked it so much because i already paid for it and felt it was like i was given extra stuff i dunno.

I Just hope to see something like it again

I agree that many will stay away from a game on that principle, but if the game is a quality one such as Sins, then I think the success of MMOs proves many people will subscribe. If you take a game that has proven itself to be fun, and create an optional online "universe" such as I described before, then I think not only could you create excitement among fans, but also you could use the revenue to create new technologies, ships, planets, maps, races, campaigns, what have you for both the regular game and the MMO-like universe. That way you could pay the people it would take to generate the expansion pack for the regular game.

I think a few things would need to happen to make this plan work:

1. Instead of a monthly fee, I would recommend having six-month subscriptions. People are just sick and tired of getting screwed with bills every month. The price of a subscription will be easier to rationalize if it is spread over six months.

2. The online universe would have to be incredible to justify the fee. I'm thinking vastly expanded trade, tons of new technologies and updated ship improvements, the ability to trade technology, ground invasion assaults, the ability to create your own organization with its own hierarchy, the ability to grant control of your ships to another player, huge tracts of space to explore . . . etc.

3. The regular, non-paying, online experience couldn't be left in the cold. Things that work in the paying universe could be applied to the regular online game if appropriate. Expansion packs should be included for the regular game as well, because as several have mentioned on this forum, they would be willing to pay for an expansion pack as long as it was quality. Well what better way to create quality than to use what works in the MMO-like universe and apply it intelligently to the regular game. The people who don't want to pay the subscription shouldn't feel like second class citizens even though they are, well, second class citizens.

What does everybody think? Is this idea feasible or way too optimistic?

but can't stardock release patches for galciv2 that will take advantage of the most up to date graphic cards. If not, then maybe they should find a way to do it for their next upcoming fantasy based strategy game. Or they can release a patch that will either add or delete lines of code which will do this. I am not a programmer, but if they can get around the problem of graphics, then the game engine issue is nto that a big deal. Look at it this way, there are games that are bing developed which utilizes the UT3 engine and that engine is not exactly new. Also if there are regular subscription patches or be it mini packs, can't stardock just find way to update the existing core game engine.

There just seems to be 2 different problems, one business and the other technical. if the technical problem can be adequately dealt with, then it can give more credence to the business side of the issue.

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

p.s. this post is on also on the GalCiv2 forum (just making sure my view is put across)

Half-life 2?
I know you guys aren't necessarily thinking about this sort of thing, but it's a great example of people paying money to continue playing the same game. In this case, Valve hooked people with an incredibly compelling story line and offered popular multiplayer alternatives, in the form of the orange box. But episode one sold really well too, and that had nowhere near as much 'stuffing.'

But I think it's a -great- idea. I know that I personally would be willing to pay $10-15 for a micro expansion, assuming that it had something to offer. I think the main thing you'll need to watch for is multiplayer compatibility. Adding in new units and stuff is sweet, but if people need to keep paying their 10 bucks every so often to play with other people and use toys they might not be interested in, they'll lose interest. Take a page from Valve, keep people interested in multiplayer by keeping it fresh and introducing new ways to play the game, sins meets day of defeat? Hey, that sounds a lot like that Dawn of Victory mod that is in development....

First, make up a campaign. Make it good, make it neat, let it tease us. Don't charge for the first installment, I think the majority of players will agree that a campaign is part of the 'standard' buisness model we are all used to. Then if people get hooked, release more of the story periodically, for a price. With each micro expansion, you could introduce new gameplay types, maybe alternate victory conditions for vanilla sins, or popular community mods, or just whatever stardock has cooked up in their basement. Along with these micro expansions, release free updates that keep vanilla sins users up to snuff in the core game, but don't provide extra content (or at least, don't provide nearly as much extra content).

Seriously, emulate the crap out of Valve. You guys already have the digital distribution thing down, you're headed down the right path. Just keep putting out quality product, and continue supporting the core game, and people will gladly shell out cash just for the novelty of having more of the game to play.

Also...

The mod community may think of me as a Judas for mentioning this, but... Right now I'd pay ten bucks for a polished mod tools set. Hell, I'd pay five bucks just to be able to open the original mesh files in XSI. So if development cost is keeping anything on the back burner...