That's an odd assertion.

My point is that if people think the tech tree text is bad, it's in plain text and users can update it themselves.  We aren't talking about some game mechanic or feature. We're talking about flavor text. 

As I said before, while I agree that the flavor text for the tech tree could be better, I can list dozens of other things I think could be improved in the game too. 

The difference between those other dozens of things and this is that the things we tend to update are things that only we can do since we have the source code.  By contrast, the tech tree could be handled by the community if it wanted to. 

Anytime we update something, it costs money.  I assume you wouldn't expect to pay for a tech tree text update right?  So essentially you are asking for us to work for free. By contrast, we're not expecting anything, we're just pointing out what I think is obvious -- the tech tree is in text and if someone really thinks it's that bad, I invite them to update it themselves if they want. If not, that's fine too. We're not asking for anything. 

At the end of the day, updating budget goes mostly into things that only we can do.  Things that could easily be done by anyone don't tend to get the same attention.  And while I could update the tech tree text in my spare time, it's not something I want to do because I don't think it's a problem enough to justify a post release re-write and I'd rather spend my time writing the backstory for the next game. 

Could be edited on the Wiki and then put together in its final XML form after awhile. 

The text from Galactic Civilizations I was done by a fan who later became an employee at Stardock.  The names of stars in the game came from people in the community.

I realize a few people see community particpiation as a cynical "free work" type thing. But let's be honest here, we're talking about free updates.  The game's already the highest rated PC game of 2007. It's pretty solid and we're about to release a major update that revampes the underlying graphics engine (how many game updates in history have included a new graphics engine?). 

Anyway, the point is that we've always seen these post-release updates as a community effort: you guys tell us what you want and we try to put in the most popular requests.  But here is an opportunity where the community can take a more direct involvement.

I realize that folks like LightVader will say that text changing is very important but the post-release budget is finite.  And I'd argue that our time is better spent updating AI, adding new features, new events, new UI elements, etc. More people, I suspect, will appreciate that than if we re-wrote description text.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

Most of our budget (at least 90% of it) goes into updates that are adding new features and content, not fixes.  As released, GalCiv II and Dark Avatar were very solid (especially compared to other titles).  I really cannot think of any significant bugs that have been fixed in Dark Avatar (certainly nothing requireing a patch). 

I think most would agree that changing the flavor text of tech descriptions that have been around for a very long time would not fall under a "bug fix".

You seem to have developed a sense of entitlement. When users start demanding that we re-do the tech tree text to suit them as a free update, that, to me, is sending the wrong message. It means we've probably reached the point of diminishing returns.

If you really think there's no internal QA on these betas, then I don't know what to say to that. Do you really think that these betas are so stable on release by sheer coincidence?

You are correct - Stardock is a software development company. Not a game company.  Our internal titles are Project Manager, Team Leader, etc. Not Producer or whatever.

We look at games as an engineering effort and it is, I think, to the benefit of gamers.  To me, one of my gripes about the game industry is that games are released and quickly abandoned.

By contrast, like other software companies, we treat our games as something that continue to evolve after release.

If people think that the way we make games or treat customers is flawed or wrong, then odds are, they won't buy future titles and we will either have to adapt or not make games anymore.  Similarly, if people do like the way we make games and treat customers, they're more inclined to buy future titles.

I think, generally speaking, the way we do updates and deal transparently with users (even if that means being candid or blunt) is a net benefit. 

You seem to have me confused for a store clerk.  The player and the developer are on equal terms here. We provide a product/service you want and you exchange money for that product and service in a fair and equal trade.

I provide you with the same respect you provide me.  You claimed that you had 16 years of game development under your belt. I asked what games you designed. You then claim I am trying to discredit you.

That's nonsense.  Just because I agree that tech descriptions are a weakness in the game doesn't mean they need to be udpated.

Let me expand upon that:

I also think that:

1. The invasion handling in GalCiv is relatively weak.
2. That troops and civilian populations are merged is a weakness.
3. That the populations being measured in billions is a weakness.
4. That each turn is a week instead of a day is a weakness.
5. That players can't set the game year as one of their options is a weakness
6. That players can't select what UP issue is going to be voted on is a weakness
7. That spying (while improved in DA) could still be better
8. That there is no Galactic Encyclopedia integrated into the game ala what Civ IV has is a weakness
9. The way constructors and starbases are managed is a weakness
10. The way production is split between research on the one hand and military/social on the other is a weakness.

That's 10 glaring things off the top of my head that I see as weaknesses in the game.  But that doesn't mean that they can or need to be addressed in a free update. No game is perfect.  What we do is release the best game we can and then after release look at things we can improve with the budget we have and look at what we can do in future expansion packs and sequels.

I had an even larger laundry list after the first Galactic Civilizations which we addressed much of with GalCiv II.

Every game I play I can think of ways it could have been better. But that doesn't mean the developer owe it to me to change it.

Sure. But on that count, the case is pretty strong in our favor.  Fantastic sales, good word of mouth, highest rated PC game of 2007 (by far), lots of editor's choice awards, etc. All made by a company that has been in business for over 15 years. 

Unbiased? You claim that your opinion is objective? Objective relative to what?

You tried to make a business case out of thin air (claimed it would cost $1,500 to redo the tech tree text and that this would in turn justify itself through increased sales).  You provided no credentials or any other reason as to why your "objective" opinion should carry weight. 

I don't agree with your opinion.  And not agreeing with your opinion may or may not be my loss but you gave me little reason to accept your opinion as being valid other than your strenuous insistence that you know a lot on the game industry (16 years of experience you say).

I feel pretty confident that more users care about the 10 things i mentioned above than the text of the tech tree. 

The difference is that the tech tree text can be changed by anyone.