I do not believe that mini expansions will work.

1- You have people like me who have short attention spans when it comes to games. I usually don't play a game for more then a few weeks and rare is the game i ever play a second time, and to be honest I don't think i'd check for mini expansions.

2- For sins it would have to be backwards compatible with previous sins games with regards to multiplayer matches. With the already small online community, splitting them up will be the death of online games even with a forum to organize matches. I simply find single player to be lacking.

3- Damn good mod tools to change EVERYTHING in sins will be far more cost effective. If the modding community are able to do what they are planning with sins then they will outdo you with their mods. If you decide to cut the legs out of the modding community so your content is better then you've already shot yourself in the foot as i would boycott any mini expansions.

I think it's best to support the game until you've gotten it just right and call it quits. Spend the money and time and money to make a expansion that will add a lot of new stuff in one go.

The only way I can see this working is to add all of the mini expansions into one and for it to be at least equal to a traditional expansion.

Hmmm... Frogboy, I was thinking maybe you guys could try the "once a year" style digital update (i.e. GalCiv II 2009 enhancement pack).

Once a game is off of its regular updates and expansion packs, this once a year pack would bring the game up to date to work on newer PCs and OSes, and add a few enhancements and tweaks.

Each year, if there is enough interest/pre-orders, it would continue until there is not enough interest in the game.

Two advantages of this is, one, it brings focus to the update - it's a regular yearly thing people can anticipate. Two, you don't have to do a "hard sell," as people will focus on the "year" and not just specific features of the update.

Anyway, just some random thoughts....

I would also pay.

BUT YOU'RE ASKING THE WRONG PEOPLE.

Two mechanisms are required: one to let all players (not just those who are dedicated enough to post on these forums, because that's a small and very biased sample size) know that Sins has an expansion available, and one to let them easily grab it.

Is it possible using today's computers to ping the Sins update server when you start the game (i.e. first automatically checking for a valid connection to the internet), even if you're not playing a multiplayer game, to see if there is an update or expansion available, and give the player a message if so, and in a way that is acceptable to computer security and that doesn't cause a warning to appear if you're running antivirus or monitoring systems?

-- Retro

Where is the edit button and why didn't thread go to the top when I posted?
Nevermind that's odd no edit button showed up on my post, probably because there was an error.

The system of selling a game without DRM and then updating the game for free for those of us who buy games worked well for me.

I also then buy expansions.

However I would not subscribe to an RTS or 4X. I have subscribed to an MMO but they do have larger running costs with servers etc...

I also think mini payments are disappointing yes you pay a small amount but I would rather pay a lot more for a bigger change. Perhaps I am just too Old School!

Generally speaking, I hate subscriptions. I've subscribed to a couple mmo's because I was going to play with someone else I knew, but I wouldn't have done them for just myself. If I want something and can afford it, I'll buy it, but I wont be signing up for a subscription based content update to sins. As long as they don't suck, you can probably get me to purchase sins expansions for a few years. If you're constantly evolving the game into something bigger and better, I'll have quit playing video games if I stopped getting them. I flat refuse to get a subscription for anything short of a substantial server requirement on your end to run the game I'm subscribing to, and I'd prefer you payed for it with advertisements. 10 bucks a month to play something five hours is a waste, it's an asinine system that's a great deal for people with no life that only play one game. If you can't pay for the server upkeep with advertisements... What can I say, I hate the MMO market.

MMOs are successful not because they're very good games, but because there's probably more money spent on the psychology driving them as there was on development costs.

The carrot-chasing bigger-harder-faster-stronger 'arms race' is what drives MMOs. World of Warcraft is more successful than any other MMO because whereas in Everquest you could've spent a month trying to get a new piece of equipment, WoW breaks that 'uber gear' down into smaller parts and makes them more achievable to the everyday schmuck.

People want to "keep up with the Joneses" and that's what drives them to keep playing WoW. Me? That doesn't work on me as much as it does on others, thankfully. I played WoW for a few months with my roomate, but once I realized that I was basically just as much a slave to the game as I am to any other job, I quit.

I mean, I wake up on SATURDAY MORNING to an alarm clock (that alone is all kinds of wrong), so I can go to a raid. I line up with the rest of the sheep, listen to a boring guy bark out orders to me, wait for the inevitable ass chewing, slog my way through the same stupid boring shit we did last week, get in an argument with some associate, get my reward (or not), and then do it all again later. Am I playing a game, or working? I could tell, because a job GIVES me money, not vice versa.

Another thought:

Why do people insist on making the same mistakes over and over again? Why do failed business models get adapted?

We saw this with DRM which completely failed in the music and movie market and which also obviously (as GC Sins have "proven") failed in the gaming market. Intrusive DRM is making people not buy stuff for years now but the industry repeats their mistake over and over again and only now, after years, there seems to be change in just some parts of it (thanks to StarDock).

Steam introduced the episode style games. And how did that turn out? Was there ever a successful one? Yes, Half Life episodes ... but that was Half Life. They could sell a turd with a Half Life label on it and it would be successful
Oblivion addons? Same story.
Hellgate London? ...

MMOs are not successful because they are subscription based - they are successful because people like MMOs. People like deep worlds and good gameplay. Guild Wars, one of the most successful MMOs, is not subscription based. And I think that is exactly why it is successful. I'd never buy WoW but I am considering Guild Wars because of exactly that right now.
And what's Guild Wars approach? No subscription. And no pointless stupid mini-addons either! Each Guild Wars addon is a "full" addon. It delivers really good gameplay content and costs a little more. That's what players prefer I think (well, at least I prefer it that way ).

It was said that people feel abandoned after buying the game and then nothing happens. But what about the people that would not subscribe?
My little brother bought Hellgate London but is not willing to pay a montly fee. He bought it because of the hype and now he regrets the decision since there is no balance between subscribers and non subscribers. Having subscriber-only items that rock the game just sucks. He feels abandoned. On the other hand: If the subscribers don't get a "real" advantage then they won't subscribe. There simply is no way out of it (except for providing only single player content like a giant campaign that keeps developing over month or something like that). People will never accept the "he does double damage because he has more money then I do" thingy that is quite hard to avoid. Same goes for mini-expansions there.

Bottom line: Why repeat all the mistakes that have been made with Hellgate, Horse Armor or episode games? Why not simply release "normal" addons and keep the game alive with that (soo GC2 or Guild Wars)? Doesn't it work just fine?



And yet another thing:
I really enjoy being "globalized" with StarDock. I buy the online release and I play the same game that people have in the USA or in Japan (I'm from Germany).
Steam is treating us non-americans quite bad I heard. "The rest of the world" wants to be treated fair. As paying custumer I will never ever again buy a single game from a company that sells me censored titles or doesn't allow me access to titels based on my location / IP adress. That's why I'll never get steam and I very much hope StarDock doesn't make the same mistake. I know that for selling more stuff it might be nice to divide the market into segments and deliver things differntly to Europe and America for example. But as customer I absolute hate it. The region coded DVDs just sucked and luckily they were very, very easy to go around. An IP based system to restrict users from buying software in parts of the world is also easy to fool (proxy anyone?) and does nothing but piss off your honest customers.
We are living in a globalized world and I expect to be able to purchase what I want when I want it without location-based restrictions when using an internet-based system.

See the steam group "The rest of the world". There obviously are a lot of people thinking like me

I know that a big chunk of that problem is because of our retarded politicians. We have totally insane laws restricting games over here. I have no idea what StarDock would have to do to comply with these redarded laws if they were to be an official German publisher (does something like that exist?). But as a customer I am very happy with the way it is right now: Just let us Europeans buy in the online store, case closed. I can buy everything I want and you guys don't need to care about stupid German laws.
I also enjoy playing the game in english since translation usually are really, really bad. There are only very few exceptions were a translated game comes even close to the original.

Bottom line: Treat us as one world please Don't give into people demanding a separation, it will not be liked at the consumer end.

Meaningful expansions, be them big or small, that add value and playability to a game are something I would purchase. I think EA was onto something with their booster pack ideas that contained new maps, vehicles, weapons, and sometimes new factions. I would be willing to pay for that sort of stuff even if it were released quarterly each year. In Sins' case, I would be willing to pay $10 to $20 for small expansions/packs that would add new races, game mechanics (such as what the Rise of Legends expansion did adding government powers), ships, ships, scenarios, campaigns, planets/moons/others, and maps. All of those are not equal in value since it's obvious creating a new race takes a lot more effort than putting together a map (something we can already do). I would also welcome regular expansion packs similar to what Warhammer 40000: Dawn of War has been doing. That game never appealed to me in terms of gameplay, but I do like what they've been doing in their expansion packs. Adding new races/factions in particular adds a lot of value in my eyes. Things that are complex and modders aren't able to do often or at all are normally what gets me into a purchase if I'm still enjoying the game and playing it.

If you use a monthly subscription I will not sign up for it. Also, if you plan to charge people for game fixes I will stop buying all products with your company's name on it. Regardless of price I paid, I expect the product to be in working order so that I can play against/with friends with said product. If you want to charge me for the fix for a crashing issue, a game problem, balances, or some other oversight/bug/mistake/error/bad thing then I'm just not going to buy your products anymore. I buy meaningful content that extends the playability of a game.

Also, I don't agree that the current business model is not ideal. I like it and I don't see any problems with it. It keeps companies in check so that if they release crappy products it comes back to bite them via low sales. I know you guys see the current model as a gamble though. I'm one of those people who will run away from your products if I think you're going to nickel and dime me. Unlike your average gamer, I can construct things to replace your product so believe me, I WILL run away if you nickel and dime me. Having a constant revenue stream is the holy grail of almost every business these days. I have enough other things to spend my money on so I am quick to leave companies that try to add to that list of monthly bills.

Btw, I'm not fond of persistent game worlds. I wanted to play Sins because it's like the usual RTS game. If I wanted something persistent, I'd go play EVE. The audience for a game like Sins is not always the same audience as a game like EVE has. I normally avoid and will not pay for persistent games because I choose how to spend my time--not other people and not companies.

Hell no to Subscriptions.
Hell yes to miniexpansions...and of course eventually...a sequelll!

While it may be an interesting thought-exercise to re-invent the wheel (Google "Rouleax Triangle"), I frankly don't see the need to actually re-invent it. I'm used to the way game companies are doing business. Generally, I approve of how game companies work. I'm not looking for innovation in their Customer Support Department, but rather innovation in the games themselves.

Ideally, a game shouldn't need patches at all, right? If that were the case, if you wanted more game content, you'd go out and buy the sequel.

These days, for RTS games, it seems normal to create a rather long string of patches. They're still patching Company Of Heroes and Supreme Commander. Mostly that's because either hard-core gamers keep poking holes in the game balance, or else there were promised features that couldn't be added until much later when gaming technology caught up to the potential of the game i.e. DX10 drivers and stuff.

While I appreciate the patches, I do get to the point of thinking enough is enough. And in the case of Company Of Heroes, stirring the pot too much broke the sauce. Too many little edits and tweaks have thrown that game out of balance, at least for the casual gamer.

I would say NO to subscriptions.
I would say a smaller No to mini-expansions.
I would say probably Yes to traditional buy-it-in-a-box-on-the-game-store-shelf sequels.

If the devs need more money, I would suggest that they charge more for the base game. Sins is not my favourite game, but it is kind of fun and it has its moments that grow on you. But I still feel like I ripped off the EB for the price I paid, as I was expecting to pay quite a bit more for a game of this level of quality.

I wouldn't pay $50 a year for a membership, sorry, and I'm NOT stupid. I always like to KNOW what I'm getting, even if it's from a trusted source, before I shell out my money.

The recent subscription debacle with Hellgate:London is an example of why I'd much rather have standalone expansion packs.

-- Retro

Well 10 million do with xbox live..