Wampyre: Unlikely. People have bitched about both timely updates and the lack of updates for years. I mean, I know it's popular to bash MoO3 (or its fans) here, but you're just scapegoating.

~SDC~

While I think that GalCiv has it's problems, the developer update strategy is certainly not one of them. In fact it's the only thing that keeps me coming here, to make sure I don't miss any updates that will remedy the things I see as problems.

I am spreading the word about this new design philosophy! It's good to see that Age of X developer having similar thoughts.

Bobo not say who making gripes. Pahedyme say.
Bobo not like goats so Bobo never scrape them.

I'm just saying, looking for an underlying cause for complaints about frequent updates is probably a lost cause, because gamers tend to be ungrateful demanding bastards. Gamers who are upset about - for example, MoO3's release, will usually just flame MoO3 directly.

~SDC~

If anyone gives you guff about "buggy" products, have them whip together a survey and send it to your registered players. We'll send it back in and firmly rebuff that theory. Long live Stardock!

Bought the game last week. I haven't enjoyed a game this much in many years. In spite of the fact that my tired old PC is below minimum requirements I've had no CTDs or any other problems.

Patches to a game that is playable when released are a good thing because there's no way 100 beta testers can catch everything that 1000's of users will eventually experience.

I'm a little more cautious on enhancements. Early enhancements usually add a lot to a game but not necessarily the later ones. IMHO the later ones are often in response to vocal supporters who usually are expert players and often play MP. As a non-expert SP player more than 1 game has been ruined for me when non-optional "enhancements" were added to increase difficulty and respond to MP requests.

Keep up the great work.

Bobo say to Phaedyme: ok.
Bobo not mean to stir poop.
Bobo just wonder why some not know difference between patch to fix bad game and update to make good game gooder.

All I can say to Bobo is that gamers are ungrateful bastards.

~SDC~

*jumps on bandwagon* All games that come out have bugs. Its better that Stardock is fixing them frequently, rather than taking months to fix a few problems *coughQuicksilvercough*.

When I took a comp sci course in high school, my teacher spent the first week of class explaining the biggest problem in the software industry: a number of managers that oversee programmers aren't programmers themselves. (Insert joke about engineers and 9 women here.) Adding people to the programming team can end up slowing down the project, rather than speeding it up. You can't set deadlines and expect to met them because of testing; Blizzard is a testament to that.

If anyone can name a PC game released in the past decade that was neither buggy nor patched, speak now. I doubt anyone can.

Microsoft Solitare?

~SDC~

I have noticed a couple pro reviewers noted your record of continued support of your product. and the overall 80's scoring says the rest.

Strategy gamers are willing to work through a few bugs. As we get a very long term return on our investment. And value continued development.

It is not only Stardock that has a good rep. Strategy First has proven to support other product post development.

Disciples 2 recieved value added content. Real improvements that the users asked for. This I think is the trend to developers and publisher must persue if they want to survive such a competitive market. Stardock has been around longer than many companies. That says a lot in of it's self.

I should probably be more clear:

The reason why this issue is important is that "lots of updates" can be taken as either good support or a buggy game. If the perception is the latter, it will slowly make its way to retailers, distributors and of course publishers which in turn will ask us to decrease the quantity of updates (fewer of them not necessarily to stop doing them) in order to combat the perception that lots of updates == bugginess.

I wasn't responding to any particular forum post (I hadn't seen the one referred to in this thread).

You've got my support, Frogboy.

I am a long time gamer - 50 years old - been playing every console and PC game for over 10 years.

I can not believe the harsh words I hear on every gaming forum I go to.

The coolest games I could ever imagine are every where I look.

I don't think the majority of gamers think that many updates necessarily equates to a buggy product. GalCiv, IMO, was pretty buggy out the door (with Bonus Pack installed)--a look at your "Bug List" thread is all that one needs to confirm that--and yeah, you might want to consider tightening that up for TPM, GalCiv 2 or whatever. However, I'm confident this level of support would have been there regardless. Many of the fixes you're doing aren't bug fixes per se, but rather, balance tweaks and tweaks to stay ahead of newly discovered cheese strategies.

~SDC~

I always asumed the reason v 1.0 was so buggy was a marketing strategy :/ Hey man if you think v 1.0 was buggy play moo3 out of the box, ouch.

I've been on both sides of the update- the side where 'updates' were little more than emergency fixes due to insufficient testing beforehand, and (oddly enough, more often) the side where 'updates' meant "Hey, we thought about something really cool for all you fellows!" Then again, it's rare for me to get a sequel and most of my programs are of the freeware varity, but that's digressing from the point.

The point is, I generally expect updates to be of the "cool stuff" varity, and GC has delievered quite well in that department. After getting the bonus pack and 1.2 updates, I noticed considerably better play on te AI's part. If I started to expand in their direction, they seemed to really ramp up their own expansion efforts to prevent me from grabbing too many planets and resources. All in all, it seemed like something a human player would pull, and that's high praise for an AI. Kudos on the updates, for you have made them good.

Will the same type of logic not apply to the object desktop components. I never heard the incremental releases equals bugs with something like Windowblinds.

How is the product presentation different ?

Bobo say game only buggy if Bobo know bugs. Him play GalCiv1. (IBobo now play 2) Him not notice bugs. Many others do. They say buggy. Maybe so. But if Bobo not see bugs, Bobo say him not care. To Bobo, not see bugs mean if bug there no big deal. Other people maybe more smart than Bobo...see bugs and other wrong things. Make game wrong for them.
Bobo say GalCiv not wrong for him. Maybe better to be not so smart.

The updates and the great amount of feedback is the main reason I decided to buy this game (and as I buy about 2 games a year, it's a tough decision to make).

Oh, and there is also the meager fact that I played a couple games *looks innocent* and I'm totally hooked

Posted by Technician:
> Will the same type of logic not apply to the object
> desktop components. I never heard the incremental
> releases equals bugs with something like Windowblinds.
>
> How is the product presentation different ?

I'm pretty certain that GalCiv represents Stardock's first physical store sales. OD as far as I know is only sold through their website. With OD, there are no distributors to act as middle man in hamstringing your sales.

Are you finding that retail sales of the game are exceeding direct sales by a significant margin?

Frogboy... in general, I wait on most retail games to get out at least one patch, if not 2, before I buy them. Retail games seem to get pushed out to meet schedules, rather then sent to the retailers when the game meets the developing teams 'I wouldn't be embarassed if my family played this game' level.

Now, in retail, when a game has already been patched TWICE before the first week is out, I perceive that game as buggy.

Being familar with GalCiv and StarDock (to at least some extent), I do not percieve GalCiv as buggy. There are a few issues, but as a customer, I perceive them to be much fewer then retail average.

However, if I heard MoO3 was giving out point builds to its customers, while working on its future stand alone super patch, I'd look *favorably* on that game (and QuickSilver). As that shows strong customer support, as well as demonstrating PROGRESS. QuickSilver isn't releasing point releases, of course. For them to demonstrate progress, they are releasing 'issues addressed' on their forum, every few days.

You are caught between a rock and a hard place. Perception is, unfortunately, much more important then facts. If you release 20 updates for a product, some people are bound to percieve that as meaning you make buggy products, and cannot get your act together, given a tour guide, a map, and a compass. Others will see that as extreme dedication to your product and customers. The only question is, whose perception are you interested in? Publishers (so that you can gain another distribution channel for your products), or your customers and their friends (potentional customers)?

Bobo say just call updates that really extras BONUS packs. Call fixes patches. That way stupid people know difference. Many people stupid. Frogboy do good to help make them less stupid.

Word games will work against you.

Firaxis decided to call all of it's patches 'enhancements' because they 'enhanced' the game (by eliminating bugs).

No matter what you call it, it will be viewed by those not intimately involved with the game, patches. And if you are playing 'word games' with some of the patches, I doubt the perception of those not in the know would be a good one.

I think there are a few issues that are floating around relating to the rate of patches. (I'm going to ignore the issue of people who can't tell the difference between patches that fix bugs and patches that add things to the game. There's nothing much you can do about people suffering from chronic cranial-rectal inversion.)

The first issue is bug fixes. Faster bug fixes are pretty much always better IMO. The exception being if the bug fixes are being released effectively the day the game hits stores. This often gives the distinct impression that the game was rushed out the door despite having known bugs. It's actually worse than having significant bugs discovered after shipping, since in the former case it would appear that someone basically said "this has some significant problems, but we don't care, we're shipping it anyway."

Gameplay rebalancing is another issue, and one that applies significantly to GalCiv. Large, rapid-fire gameplay mechanic rebalances can be pretty annoying, to be honest, especially when they completely negate existing strategies and/or are packaged along with bug fixes. Having the rules change that often makes it difficult to refine strategies, or even get a good feel of whether or not the new patch's changes will even be improvements. That's not to say that major rebalancing is bad. It can be very good. It's just annoying when you don't even have time to finish a game with one patch before the next dramatic change comes out. I think regular (~weekly, as needed) small tweaks and AI upgrades would be better, followed by slightly less common major rebalances as needed. Alternatively, a gradual drift to the new balance over several weeks might be an option (though harder for you to manage).

Regular general upgrades and modifications are usually a good thing, as long as they don't fall into the major rebalancing category. However, just because the players think something is a good idea, doesn't mean it is. The old adage "be careful what you wish for: you just might get it" comes to mind.

Anyway, great game. I'm thoroughly enjoying it. Keep up the good work!

> Gameplay rebalancing is another issue, and one that
> applies significantly to GalCiv. Large, rapid-fire
> gameplay mechanic rebalances can be pretty annoying,
> to be honest, especially when they completely negate
> existing strategies and/or are packaged along with bug
> fixes.

I disagree. What we are witnessing with GalCiv is the first time a team of devs
is taking the idea that although they've playtested the bejesus out of it, and even had a fairly large beta, the real test of game mechanics strengths and weaknesses comes when the game hits the streets.

When a flawed or at least less than perfect game mechanic is found (e.g. +15% PQ, huge superiority of battle hammers, AIs trading skills, etc.), the quicker they get that fix into the general pool of players, the sooner they get feedback, the sooner further tweaking can begin.

We're in the beginning stages of a something that looks to become a classic of strategy gaming - the sooner they get the balancing of gross mechanics out of the way, the sooner they can get around to refining and adding to the game.