Tom Chick

I agree with Tom, sword of the stars is inferior to GC2. Pretty graphics but limited gameplay. Any GC2 player would be disappointed in sword of the stars.

I considered buying sword of the stars but deceided it was not worth buying full price, may get it when the price drops.

Why should Tom not review space strategy games?

There r lots of people involved in different projects who give there opinion on related projects.

If you read more on the whole ordeal, you'll find the following items:

1. Tom Chick was paid a one-time flat fee for the manual for GC2
2. Tom Chick excused himself from reviewing GC2 and in fact tries to avoid reviewing any Stardock products
3. He didn't like Sword of the Stars and his review reflected that.  A lot of people, completely unconnected to GC2 disliked the game, as is their right.  If they liked GC2, that likely did not impact their opinion of SotS (as well as the other way around)

SotS and GC2 don't really compete, they're technically the same genre, but focus on completely different aspects of gameplay. SotS doesn't want to micromanage planets and instead focuses on a low-management style of planetary building, and tries to direct the player as much as possible into the tactical combat and multiplayer aspects.  GC2 is more focused on empire management and has an abstracted combat system that the user can not directly control.  It's like comparing Age of Empires 3 to Perimeter.  They're both RTS games, but so drastically different they don't stand for much comparison.  Genres are very broad and have lots of nooks and crannies a game can hide in. 

Also, the games came out 6 months apart.  In the gaming universe, that's practically an eternity.  If anything, one being successful helps the other as it raises awareness of the genre and once you play one 4X TBS Space game, you'll probably want to see what else is out in the market.  So since they weren't directly competing even for sales or shelf space, a bad review wouldn't do much good to keep one down to prop up the other.

Tom has no vested interest in knocking SotS down.  SotS succeeding doesn't preclude GC2 or future SD games from doing well.  SotS failing due to bad reviews doesn't ensure our future success.  SotS/Kerberos and GC2/Stardock will rise or fall on the merits of their titles individually, the two don't tie together.  If anything, success of any company or title in the strategy genre will most likely (at least in some way) help everyone else in the genre.

1. Which puts him in a conflict of interest in reviewing a stardock competitor.
2. Acknowledging the existence of a conflict of interest is an interesting way to suggest that another one does not exist. I'm not sure what you or he are trying to prove here. Maybe you're hoping this sleight of hand will work.
3. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Wether he genuinely likes or dislikes the game (he dislikes GC2 as well, or so he has said) has little to do with wether or not he has a conflict of interest.

If you think no one has asked themselves "which of these two games should I buy this week?" you would be wrong. Just glancing at Kerberos' forums, I see a number of folks asking that precise question right there out in the open. This means there are sure to be lots more who ask themselves this question when they're buying games.

Here's another fact you're ignoring: Tom Chick has indicated that he is expecting to work with Stardock on a future title. This confirms that there is no 'statute of limitations' on his conflict of interest; he is currently in conflict. Do you think someone who plans to get paid by Stardock in a future date should really say something, positive or negative, about a competing product in published media?


This is bad business practice up left down right and center. There's no way to sugar coat this to make it seem any sweeter.

It doesn't matter, I've said my piece: As a once-customer of Stardock's, if Tom Chick (or anyone else with such questionable business practices) is on your payroll on any future game, you can count on not receiving my money.

Good day, gentlemen.

so basically if I help write a manual for a 4x game I can then no longer review ANY 4x games in my entire life??

Remind me to never help write a manual!

so basically if I help write a manual for a 4x game I can then no longer review ANY 4x games in my entire life?? Remind me to never help write a manual!

Exactly!

Better stop reading Penny Arcade. They took our money for ads, and then had the nerve to tell people when the game came out, and comment on the whole copy-protection situation. They even linked to Brad's own articles. They'd probably run our ads again, too - unrepentant!

Oh, and I just found out Tycho called the original GalCiv extremely satisfying. Coming from him, I'm not quite sure what to think of that, but I guess you could call it an unsolicited endorsement.

Like I said, SotS and GC2 aren't really competing products.  They compete in so much as any game competes with any other game released in a certain period of time of each other.  Technically, WoW competes against every game released in the past two years, and that will be released in the next few years.  Writing anything for WoW doesn't preclude you from being involved in the rest of the games industry for fear of a conflict of interest.

GC2 and SotS compete when a gamer is faced with the choice of one or the other and only has $50 to spend at that moment.  Only then, and only until they have another $50 and want their 4x strategy fix, and the numbers of people in such a predicament are going to overall be small since the games were released half a year apart.  Game adoption rates are heavy in the first month or two and start to slip steadily from that point on.  Should the guy who wrote the Baldur's Gate manual back in the 90s never be allowed to review an RPG game because he may have some long-hidden love for all things Bioware?  If the two games came out in the same quarter and were vying for the same customers at launch, sure there might have been some conflict.  You hear people commenting about it on forums, but forums have always represented a very vocal minority.

The only conflict of interest that would exist for Tom is if he took money from us and then reviewed or own games.  In that case, he might be inclined to give us favorable reviews to avoid pissing us off so we'd continue to to give him work... but like I said, he excused himself from that potential conflict.

If you don't like the guy's reviews, for whatever reason, then just ignore him. However, threatening to boycott Stardock because a reviewer over whom we have no control gives a game in the same genre a negative review isn't terribly logical. If you feel the review was unfair, take it up with 1up.com, who published it.

Or maybe we should just send a letter to everyone that's ever worked for Stardock asking them to please not write any reviews of games by other developers that are in the same genre of any games we might have done in the past.

GalCiv2 has a smart(when compared to other games) AI and no multi-player.
SEIV (and probably SEV) has a dumb AI but supports multi-player.
SotS has multi-player and likely a dumb AI.
Seems to me that SotS is more in competition with SEV than GalCiv2.

Okay I'm lost... Tom Chick recieved a 1 time amount to write the manual for Galciv2. He has refrained from writing any reviews on GalCiv2 and trys to do so on Stardock products. (For some reason, that seems to reek of Ethics, good lord! This is the 21st century tell him to get Ethics out of the picture!)
Now he reviewed a game- And he didn't like it. Big whoop. Thats his right not to like the game. Well I not buy the game now? Well- I might have bought the game, but since your going to boycott Stardock for somebodys opinion on GalCiv2, I am left with no other option but to boycott Swords of the Stars and any other Kerberos Productions products.

Bill Harris says it better than I could.

Dubious Quality

Axantur,

I'm glad that you have enjoyed our games, and I hope that you will continue to judge games on their own merit.

I'm one of the developers (the lead developer for the Galactic Civilizations series, in fact), so I didn't have anything to do with hiring Tom to do the manual and I won't have anything to do with hiring the person who does the manual for any of our future products. However, I can assure you that there were no bad business practices or backhand deals.  That's not the way that we operate at Stardock.    

I was just going to listen to opinions...but if you guys are seriously going to turn this into a disinformation campaign, try harder not to ignore this little fact:

"However, there's a more compelling reason that I can't really talk about beyond to say this: Brad has asked me to work for him again on the manual for a specific upcoming project and I've told him I'd be glad to. I can't really say more on that front, and it's very much a future thing, but it's one of the reasons I'd be uncomfortable covering a Stardock game." - Tom Chick

Would I be complaining if Tom Chick did not have a current business relationship with Stardock?

I would not be.

This is unethical no matter how you slice it (even and especially if he gave the other game a positive review).

I think a lot of your other customers would be interested to know that you condone people that have current business relationships with you - that have taken, and hope to take money from you in the future - are out there either disparaging or endorsing competing products and failing to present their current business relationship within that context (such as PA does).

I guess I'm done listening to opinions...there are too many Stardock employees out on a disinformation campaign to respond to here.

I am sorry that you are determined to think ill of us.

 

I don't even read reviews, most of the time I buy a game due to word of mouth.

Disinformation campaign, oh man, good times. So, let me get this straight, it's our job to police any people that have, at some point, worked for this company, and make sure they don't say anything bad about other games? As I said, it's the publication's responsibility, not ours. The guy wrote our manual. He did a good job. He got paid. Once. He is not on our payroll. We have no control over what he does. As much as we'd like to think we are, we're not omnipotent.

I don't like Tom Chick's reviews period, never did. He just plain writes bad reviews which make you wonder if he had even played a game. This is not going from my present experience either, this goes way back. I am talking probably in the 8 year range I remember this.

If Tom Chick wrote the manual for GalCiv2, I think that was a great job! Maybe he should do that instead of writing reviews, he is just not very good for review writing in my opinion.

As for SotS, hey put the cheap talk aside, thats an excellent game! Although it does not replace GalCiv2, there is enough different about it that it makes buying it worth it and it is action pack I tell you. I bought it and I play that as well as GalCiv2. Calling it not a 4x game? What is it?? Funny everyone in the fairly large SotS community who are veteran 4x gamers call it a 4x game. I will be buying Space Empires V too and will play that too but it will NOT take the place of GalCiv2. There is too much goodness in GalCiv2 that is unreplaceable but this does not mean I won't buy and play the others too. GalCiv2 basically has replaced the MOO series and is now the new MOO, so basically THE 4x space game to clone after.

I guess I'm done listening to opinions...there are too many Stardock employees out on a disinformation campaign to respond to here.

Alright, enough tip-toeing. You where not here to listen anyway. You where here to preach and sling mud. As this conversation unfolded I used a wonderful web tool, called "Google". What I found didn't support your argument Axantur. Also, what I found on google about Kerberos Productions turned my belly. While I was jesting when I first said I'd never buy a product from them, now I truely mean I WILL NOT BUY A PRODUCT from them.

*I'll also bet, this post stands and is not deleted- Unlike what happens on somebody elses website... *cough* Kerberos Production *cough*

Go STARDOCK!

@Meglobob

I agree with Tom, sword of the stars is inferior to GC2. Pretty graphics but limited gameplay. Any GC2 player would be disappointed in sword of the stars.

Gotta love stupid generalisations like that one.
I'm a GC2 player AND I like SotS.

edited by moderator.  Let's stay on the less burning side of flame war, ok? 

So, let me get this straight, it's our job to police any people that have, at some point, worked for this company, and make sure they don't say anything bad about other games?

To help you get this straight: No.

He is not on our payroll.

Are you stating, as a Stardock employee with that kind of authority, that Tom Chick will not be employed in the future project he has referred to, or any others?

In that case, you have given me precisely what I have asked for at the very start of this thread (and possibly finally gotten around to dealing with this issue).

Otherwise, 'being paid in the future' is ethically identical to 'on the payroll' and you are just disinforming people with verbal sleight of hand.

Stardock probably does not have the authority over anyone to say they can't review games anymore

Wow. Why would Stardock want a customer like you, Axantur? I mean, all points aside, you clearly are not even open to the idea of discussion or debate, you came out with guns a-blazing in post one and got more belligerent in further posts. I don't think charging the market like a wild bull is a very good way to communicate, "I like your company and hope I can influence you to consider my opinion so I can keep liking this company."

And to correct your last post, you didn't "ask" for anything. You demanded it, as if Stardock need please you or else face dire consequences. Occasionally there are customers a company is better off losing, and in my opinion you're such a customer. That opinion may not be respected or wanted by you, but it's valid all the same.

Are you stating, as a Stardock employee with that kind of authority, that Tom Chick will not be employed in the future project he has referred to, or any others?

Maybe he will, and maybe he won't - that's up to Brad. But if he does, his previous performance as a manual writer will be the reason, not any reviews he chooses to make of other games that aren't anything to do with us.

He won't be getting bonus points for trashing Sword of the Stars, and it strikes me as odd that you think that he would.

Are you stating, as a Stardock employee with that kind of authority, that Tom Chick will not be employed in the future project he has referred to, or any others?

For clarity's sake, none of us who have responded are in a position to hire or fire Tom Chick.   If you want a response on that, you will have to wait for Frogboy. 

I believe that TorpedoBeetle meant that we are not paying him, encouraging him, or in anyway deliberately trying to influence Tom Chick's reviews of other strategy games. 

Stardock does not behave in an underhanded manner.  We do not delete or hide posts criticizing our game.  

You remarked earlier on the number of Stardock employees replying to this thread.  We love working for Stardock.  It's a great place to be.  So we're sticking up for the company.   Maybe we're not doing the best job.  All I can say is that I wouldn't be here if Stardock had slimy business practices.