Ok.. Alright..

Let's get some things straight..

A) I have played the game.. I'd say roughly about 15 hours thus far.. Granted that's not a hell of a lot.. but enough to warrant an opinion on the quality of the game..

I'm a gaming grognard.. My first pc game was back in the 80's.. Larry Bird vs. Dr. J.. on my Apple II C.. (God, remember that thing?) I've played Master of Orion 1, 2, and 3.. (3 sucked, by the way).. All the Civs.. 4 was by far the most impressive.. So I'm no stranger to turn based strategy games..

C) I'm not dissing the game.. It's a good game.. However, I'm am peturbed that game publishers rush games to the shelves before they are ready.. I'm peturbed with Stardock.. $40 isn't necessarily a lot of money.. but I'm paying for a game that's suppose to work.. without a ton of bugs.. Have I encountered a ton of them.. No not really.. I have dealt with one that's particularly annoying.. Where the memory disappears from my system and I get lack of memory messages, even after I quit the program.. That in itself is again not a big deal.. But when you use the public to essentially beta test your product.. That's BS.. Aside from MMO III, it's one of the buggiest games out of the gate I've seen in a long time.. I don't think the majority of these "bugs" can be passed off as compatability issues.. I for one have no problems in that area.. Again I'm noting the actual number of bugs being discovered..

D).. In conclusion, part of marketing is execution.. Having a great idea.. and hyping it up to the public is all well and good.. I just think so many game publishers out there rush a game to the shelves for one reason.. The bottom line..Without much thought for the gamer.. and in my humble opinion.. I think this game is a perfect example of it.. For Stardock .in particular) To say ..

Tandis Nearly every game released has a significant quantity of minor issues of one kind or another..

Is poor QA.. and bad business.. Might as well say.. "Too bad.. Tough luck.. Put up with it until we get around to fixing it".. It's a virus that's spreading through the gaming industry..Tandis, Frogboy.. Do you take these concerns personally? How professional is that? Reread your responses.. There's a tinge of annoyance and you're overly defensive.. No need for that.. We're all clients of your's.. and I'm stating some concerns that obviously some of us have.. Having been a gamer for 20+ years.. I think it's absurd that I should be paying to do beta testing.. We as gamers shouldn't put up with that.. It's become the status quo with many companies.. and if you just sit back and take it.. It won't ever change.. So.. Pardon my rant on my soapbox here.. but I think there are some out there who will be able to see my point.. and more importantly.. A few people in Stardock.. who will amend this "Too bad, Tough luck" approach..

It may be poor QA on the whole, but it's not bad business. You're playing a game, not saving lives, or even working on an important document - this makes bugs less important. What you're seeing in buggy products recently is the result of the internet and adaptation to the real world conditions. Ultimately you can make a better, more featured game if you can take some of the extensive resources poured into QA and instead offload that work onto the eager player base.

You can, of course, vote with your wallet. But you should know that every time you buy an IDE or SATA drive instead of a SCSI drive you're voting for less QA - which is in your system? Most products are this way - consumers love to buy the cheapest things they can find, and then complain about how they break afterwards, or don't work as well as the top of the line. Would you pay $250 for a fully tested, bug free version?

Memory "disappearing" from your system is probably just your own misinterpretation of what's happening. When you exit a process, freeing the memory associated with the process is a job of the Operating System. I'd wager your OS doesn't have a bug here, since it would be pretty noticable and widespread, so you probably just need to wait a bit and let the windows garbage collection do its thing. If you're actually getting 'out of memory' errors it'll probably take 10-15 minutes, since that means you're also out of swap.

Most of the people coming here (or to any internet forum for any game) ranting about performance are victims of their own ignorance. You think your know how your computer works, but you don't, and when something doesn't work the way you want it to you immediately begin pointing fingers everywhere but yourself. Run a performance monitor recording the virtual and physical memory free in your system as you play the game. When you exit, let it continue to run for 15 minutes after the game exits without starting any other applications. Save it and provide a link to it. This is somewhat credible evidence. Logging in to a forum and posting that the game obvious fails to release memory without providing anything other than your say-so isn't going to stand up.

And yes, I'm annoyed by your 'gosh, why dont you guys just be perfect' attitude. I have no relation to StarDock, but I do understand the complexity of these programs that are made entirely for your entertainment, and the labor that the developers put into it primary out of the desire to create a great work. Your implications that anyone can just choose to make a bug free program is insulting, more so considering many of these folks probably worked 60+ hour weeks leading up to release, and undoubtedly fixed many bugs more serious than the ones you're nitpicking over. It's damn depressing to work your hardest, get 99% there, and have some 'professional game player' come along and point out the 1% that's not done and call the whole thing crap because of it.

And, as a follow up.. here's what every game developer wishes to reply to comments phrased like this...
Link

Hey Rhadman..

Quite an astute observation..

I am playing a game.. Good point.. an no.. I'm not saving lives.. However.. If you buy pay $40 for a filet mignon.. and it comes out well done when you ordered it rare.. Do you not complain? or are you just complacent.. and sit there and eat it.. Whether or not Stardock has the resources to put into testing the game, or for proper QA.. is not the customers problem, burden or responsibility.. They advertised that the game would do a, b, c.. Would I have bought the game.. if I knew it had 100's of bugs.. no.. I wouldn't.. Would I have bought it if I knew I'd be beta testing it? No.. I wouldn't have..

Your argument about IDE vs. SATA is ridiculous.. Most products that are priced the same as top end products of their type are laden with 100's of problems? Umm.. I think not.. If anything, saying SCSI is a better drive, must mean you've never used one.. They're a pain in the ass in regards to compatibility.. More expensive doesn't necessarily equate into a better product.. And since when does a game cost $250? If the top games cost that.. Your point would be valid.. But they don't!

Ahhh.. now for you "memory disappearing" observation.. You're absolutely right.. When I run graphic intensive games.. like Fable.. Quake 4.. Fear.. etc.. and run into no problems.. Games which are much more taxing on my system.. but I experience none of the problems I experience with Gal Civ.. You're right.. I must be misinterpreting what's actually happening.. Since when are we ok with getting "out of memory" popups after quitting a program.. I'm not the only one having the problem.. You would know that if you read the forum..

You're saying I'm complaining about performance.. Ummm.. I don't recall doing that.. and if you're comprehension levels were a bit more up to snuff.. You would have realized I was addressing the number of bugs discovered in the game.. and not complaining, as you so put it.. about my own computer's performance with the game.. You're correct in saying that if I post that only I am experiencing this problem.. it won't fly.. But, numerous people have had this issue.. along with 100's of others.. So if you're going to make a point.. Please make it pertain to what's actually being discussed in the thread.. Not just typing so you can see your name up in the big white print..

So you're annoyed at my "Guys be perfect" comment? Did you read a different post? I don't recall ever typing that.. In lieu of insulting you again.. I have one question for you Rhadman.. and everyone else can respond to this question as well..

WHY DON'T CONSOLE GAMES GET RELEASED WITH 100'S OF BUGS?

You know why Rhadman? Because they can't.. They can't be patched.. So guess what? The company releasing them, if they want to have a fighting chance.. Has to invest in doing their own testing prior to release.. and guess what? They work 60+ hour weeks too! Imagine that!

We had a public beta for several months.  We had private gammas.  The game is rock solid on our QA boxes and our test boxes.  It's very solid for most players (>95%). 

I really get a bit peeved when I hear people say "it was rushed to market".  GalCiv II was definitely not rushed to market.  Stardock doesn't need the sales from the game.  If GalCiv sold 0 copies, Stardock would still be running in the black.  So to say that it was "rushed to market" is troubling.

It's easy for someone to sit back and say "Oh, how could they not have caught bug X."  Well, first off, bug X may only affect 1 out of 100 people.  I woudl venture our compatibility lab is up there with the big guys since we have to use it for testing our utility software that has to run on crazy stuff.

Yes, it's annoying when some problem happens -- to you.  That is why we are here, to listen to what you hear and address them as quickly as we can.  But to compare us to consoles is absurd.  Consoles  = 1 hardware platform. 

And, incidentally, some of the naysayers here should spend some time in the forums of other games or heck, even some of the console maker forums.  The Xbox 360 had its share of issues as well. Games locking up, crashing, etc. Why? Overheating and that's where Microsoft controls the entire platform.

There are only so many configurations we can test on and the fact that the forums are relatively clear of serious bug report problems relative to the sheer volume of unit sales I think demonstrates that there really aren't very many significant issues.

And for those people who have, what more do you want? We've put in 80+ hour weeks recording people's issues. Hanging out on IRC, testing out saved games, etc.  And within a week of widespread retail availability, it appears we have solved nearly all those issues.

It's hard enough to make a game this complex that runs on its own under normal circumstances.  But it's impossible to make a game that will be perfect on every single person's computer regardless of their hardware, case issues, laptop configuratons, heating issues, video driver issues, sound card issues, etc.

And another thing to consider: Of the bug reports you've seen posted here? We track them as you probably knwo.  2 out of every 3 "random CTD" issues we get end up being someone with 2+ year old drivers even though this is documented.  Or do you think this is our fault too?

Our friends at Firaxis had a huge beta too.  And what happened? They released Civ IV and it didn't run on most (>50%) of ATI cards on the market initially due to a memory mapping issue in the ATI driver.  Is this Firaxis's fault that ATI changed driver capabilities seemingly at random? I don't think ti is.  But there was still a riot when the game was released.

And there's nothing even remotely comparable here to that. I agree and feel for those people who do have problems.  By this weekend, it should be a thing of the past. 

Maybe I'm just incompotent but it did not occur to us to be sitting around monitoring GPU temperatures during the beta. You can bet we will in the future.

A few more commentaries for good measure..

http://www.the-underdogs.org/scratch.php

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/profile/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=24032317&user=Atomic_Mutant

http://dubiousquality.blogspot.com/2005/06/game-financing.html

just add the _blog portion to your link window, for the Gamespot article..

eh hem...*cough* *cough* *clears throat* *gets on top of grassy knoll* *stares Stpinmass down and points finger accusingly*............ TROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL TROLLLLLL TROLLLLL...... *whew* *huff*......*breaths in deeply*.... TRROOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLL TROLLLLLLLLLLLL TROOOOOOOOOOLLLLLL ......

WARNING: do not feed the trolls

WHY DON'T CONSOLE GAMES GET RELEASED WITH 100'S OF BUGS?

Sorry, just want to add one thing. While it's true that many console games have fewer bugs due to the fact that they can't be patched.. Console games also run on one system and one system only.

They don't have to worry about what OS, the language of OS, the hardware performance, etc.

They have one system and they just have to make sure that it works within that system.

PC games, onthe other hand, have other problems to deal with. The game might be 100% free on the 10 OS and 100 hardware configuration they tested. That doesn't mean the game will run completely bug free for the thousands if not millions of different system out there. If there are only a hundred bugs from a thousand system, that's quite a feat.

With that said, I have to agree that a lot of pc games just use patch to fix the games.

For me, the population and social production problem seems like a problem that shouldn't sneak into the official release. That made it seem like a beta. Then again, I am slightly happy that the game feels a bit like beta. It is not because i'm masochistic and want to be over-run by bugs. I feel like I'm in a beta because players' opinions are heard and new features are added. What I don't like about what you said is how you keep using the 100's of bugs from curttasker's list against stardock when in fact, many of the 'bugs' are suggestions and preference issues.

Just like different computer configuration might lead to different problems, different players also have different ideas about how a certain aspect of the game should work. They might suggest stardocks to change some game feature even though the rest of the players would hate that change. The suggestions/annoyances represent the different images people have about what their ideal game should be like. Granted, galciv2 will not be the ideal game for everyone.. but it is working its way to be a good if not great game for everyone.

So i'm sorry to hear that you are not satisfied with the game.. but keep in mind that this might be one of the few game where the game play will get better and better (not because bugs are fixed) without you needing to fork out another 40 bucks for an expansion. If you dislike this game so much that you wouldn't want to play anymore, so be it. Though perhaps you should give it another chance and come back in a few weeks and see if the game surprises you with additional content.

Stpinmass dude, what's with all the periods? Seriously man, it's like you have OCD.

I would just like to say that I am wholly impressed with the quality of GalCiv2. It has the least amount of bugs of any game released that I have played in years. If you would like to see a game that was rushed out, pick up Civ 4 (wouldn't run on mine nor my roomates, nor a friend's machine until 2 patches later). Or even Battlefield 2, which many people still have problems with. Or Star Wars Galaxies. (Yeah that link that Rhadman posted was hilarious and all, but seriously, that game has issues, not everybody complaining about bugs wr0te l1ke th1s!!!111!!!!one!!!, and I know many people who made very reasonable pleas on the forums to fix the major gamebreaking bugs, and a few of them to this day still exist, after 2 1/2 years.

Stardock has been outstanding in the way they have handled the release of GC and GC2, and I am thoroughly impressed by their customer service. Sony Online's CS is a nightmare, and I've dealt with it for 2 years now. I refuse to play another SOE game (I know, it's an MMORPG, but still their CS was terrible). I feel I have been spoiled by Stardock since I bought GC1, they have a loyal customer for life here now.

I'm sorry your computer can't handle this game but plays every other game just fine. There is probably some fluke with some piece of hardware in your computer. Happened to me with a game a couple years back. Every game worked just fine, cept one. All I did was change out a RAM chip (not to address the problem specifically, as I was just upgrading anyway) and the game worked beautifully after that. Never know what is going to stress what piece of hardware until something does.

And to address your comment about console games being bug free - well console developers are working with one hardware set, and it is much easier to code around one hardware set than the litterally millions of hardware combinations out there in PCs today (especially the big differences like ATI/nVidia, Windows 2k/XP, Intel/AMD, etc). If you actually read some of these response rather than repeating yourself, that would be great. Stardock is doing an excellent job, please direct your venom elsewhere. Thanks.

I find this funny:
stpinmass loves Civ 4
That game was even more buggy at the release then GalCiv II
And GalCiv II fixed it after three days my problems, Civ 4 memory problem took a long time!
It still gives me CTD's. I don't have that with GalCiv II.

Well I guess I should chime in as well.

FIRST ABOUT THE CONSOLE STATEMENT: Someone above made a comment about how PC game programmers must be just taking it easy and slacking... more or less. That is not an exact quote but, it is the gist of it. FIRST: A console is ALWAYS the same whether it is in your house, my house, or someone elses house. It has the same graphics, same sound, same motherboard, same operating system. So, when a game developer makes a game for a console if it works on their test system then it will work on every console. This is not the case with PCs. There are literally infinite combinations of hardware possible. There is no feasible way for them to test it on all of them so, even the most bug free game on a PC will hit machines it will not work on. This is why patching is needed. However, a lot of companies add new features and such when they patch a PC game as well. I expect this company will do the same.

GAMES IN THIS DAY AND AGE: I have become a try before I buy type of person now. There is a lot of crap being released and a lot of it is mainstream. I no longer can afford to pay $50 to try out all the games coming out today. The majority of them are pretty poor IMHO. They may have great graphics but, they have crappy game play. I read about this game while I was downloading a WAREZ/PIRATED copy. I was impressed enough by the creators not using DRM and other stupid protection methods and the general attitude of the developers that I canceled that download about 50% into it. I then went and purchased a copy and downloaded it and hope the CD will arrive sooner or later. I support developers who innovate and who support their customers. Now, if I had downloaded it as a WAREZ and played it and liked it (got more than a days fun before getting bored) then I would turn around and purchase it. That is the only safe way to do it for me these days.

AS TO BUGS: This game should actually avoid some bugs other games have due to not having any copy protection. Securerom, and safedisc often cause all kinds of problems on various hardware. So, I think the model stardock is doing is going in the correct direction. I may even see if I can eventually have them publish something for me.

TO THOSE OF YOU WHO DID DOWNLOAD IT AS WAREZ/TORRENT: This game uses the serial number to connect to the servers and update the game. If you are using a downloaded version as I almost did then you are not running the latest version because, they have already made updates. So, if you are using a pirated version then of course it is buggy... you don't have the latest bug fixes. If you like what you see so far then go buy the game. This is an INDIE developer and they really have to struggle to produce games. So, when they put out something of this quality we need to show them our support.

TO THE REST OF YOU: If you are having bugs and problems. Give them a bit to address the hardware/software related problems that happen with ALL new PC games. I am sure they will get it fixed.

BUGS I HAVE SEEN: I run dual monitors.... AMD Athlon XP 3000+, Geforce TI4200, SB Live, 1GB RAM. I locked up one of my monitors (with the game screen) when I launched the game in FULL SCREEN mode while watching a DIVX play back of a star trek episode on my other monitor. So, it is not really a tragedy that it crashed. I then set it to windowed mode and tried it and it didn't like it either. Of course. I do not consider this really a bug. It was more curiosity to see if it could handle it. I've gotten used to playing Space Empires IV while watching things. That game uses a lot less resources though so, I did not expect the same performance here.

OBSERVATION: If I play the game for quite a while (I have not completed a game yet) and quit out it takes quite awhile for memory to be freed up and my desktop to respond again. The way the hard drive is spinning up I am certain it is using a substantial amount of virtual memory. This tends to be worse as time goes on (Longer played). I suspect there may be some MEMORY LEAKS They need to track down. I haven't tried to isolate this fact but, the way it behaves when the game is exited and the reports some people are describing for crashing can be tied to memory leaks.

OVERALL: This game is from an INDIE developer and it is in better shape than many HUGE BUDGET / HUGE TEAM developing houses games that have been released. Overall, it is more bug free than a lot of high profile titles. I expect if you work with these developers they will be able to address and fix the problems you are encountering. It is a waste of all of our time for you to argue that it should be like on consoles... simply not possible. That is the appeal of consoles. Developers can make their games.... if they work... they work for everyone. I personally prefer PC games but, this is a reality that MUST be faced and understood. PC Development is much more complex in development than a console simply due to all the different permutations of computers out there.

Oops, a little forum slowdown and it seems all the points have been covered in a less aggrivated manner than I can manage to put them at the moment I'll cut my rambling short(er).

Perhaps if you think about it this way: Have you ever had or known of anyone who's had an allergic reaction to a drug? Many people have allergic reactions to drugs, but just because you and a thousand other people have such a reaction to one drug and don't have a reaction to another drug doesn't mean that the drug you do have a reaction to is defective. It's interaction of very complex systems, and as time goes on these systems only get more and more complex.

Why don't console games get released with 100s of bugs? Because there is exactly 1 system configuration developers need to worry about on consoles. All Xbox systems have the same amount of ram. All systems have the same video processor, the same main processor, and the same everything else. You can actually test your product on the exact same system that your customers will be playing on. Do you know how many different AMD and Intel CPUs are available and in use now? Multiply that times the number of different motherboards, and video cards, and ram sizes, and there's even a handful of Operating Systems, and drivers, and other sofware that likes to poke it's nose in. And let's not stop at things that are actually logically in the system, if your case doesn't have enough airflow, or you play in a hot room your video card might overheat.

Why do they have only one configuration? Partially because they dont want 100s of bugs. (At least as big of a reason is because they want to know that all games will perform as well on all systems). And they don't want 100s of bugs because they can't patch. They don't have 100s of bugs because they engineered the whole system - including hardwre design, sales and marketing - to avoid that. Game developers for the PC don't have that luxury, there are too many factors out of their control.

What you do have that console games don't have is actual conversation with the developers. You not only have a patch mechanism here, but you have a way to report your problems. You can cause things to be fixed about the game that console titles wont even consider as a bug. The AI is stupid? On a console that's something you will have to live with, in this game it can be updated. You also get the ability to mod the game, to add your own content. This freedom has a price in complexity, and that results in more bugs. If you prefer fewer bugs to this freedom, then you should definately stick to console titles.

I appologize for coming in with a rant from left field previously. My background is in MMO games, which are even more 'beta' than normal PC games now. These games accept even more bugs in order to provide content that is constantly being updated. It's not that the developer can sit down and click a button that says 'fix bugs' or 'dont fix bugs', it's that they have a certain budget, certain goals that must be met, certain flexible goals, and people - just real people, not robots - to work with. You don't see the costs for these decisions which seem like no-brainers. It's quite easy to see the company as some entity to itself. The reality is that you're interacting with the people that actually do (try to) take pride in the work they do, and when you launch a tirade like this it has an effect on those people. It's hard to respond to a post in that situation with any civility, and yet there's an expectation to not only do it civil, but to avoid showing any defensiveness. The danger here is that too many of these posts where the devs are expected to show no emotion while being baited with imflamatory language will result in the devs not responding at all, and that will be a loss for everyone.