Cool deal, Brad. Thanks for sharin'. I sincerely appreciate the culture of SD and how it relates to the community. The forums allow us to vent, provide constructive criticism, learn, and share knowledge and insights. It's just plain cool and that's why I'm still around. How SD picked itself up again after the initial release and communicated earned my respect. The constructive critics are on the same page as you guys - we want a kick ass game out of it. The destructive critics can get lost because their motives aren't the same as those of us who want this thing to work.

So anyway, about gearing...

JK - have a safe flight.

There are reasons to take it seriously even with just one person. Software is software regardless of the number of people involved.

I disagree with DLC being a good way to lower the cost of the intial game (at least for certain types of games), but it is a good way to added more after the fact based on interest.

You're such an idealist.

While I like your sentiment, I don't believe for even a single second that any one of the big publishers and companies involved in games would follow you on that. Gimping the base game to make more money IS a sucessfull business model, as the last few years of DLC have shown.

Which is why I don't buy games like I used to. I shouldn't have to buy DLC to up the level cap or actually have more than 20 hours of gameplay in Fallout 3. That's why I didn't buy Fallout: New Vegas. It's why I didn't buy the expansion for Dragon Age. It's why I won't buy Dragon Age 2 (pretty sure it has been announced, hell for all I know it might already be out). I shouldn't have to buy DLC to get a draft in Madden 2010. It's why I'm thumbing my nose at most games now-a-days.

The industry is shooting itself in the foot. It's on the same path the music industry has taken. PROTIP: The music industry hasn't taken a big hit in sales only because of piracy (it's a minor factor, however), it's because we've known for decades the music industry has ripped off artists and released products with increasingly subpar quality. They want to maintain the level of sales they climbed up to in the 60s and 70s without maintaing the quality and without treating artists with respect. Likewise, the videgame industry is getting greedy. They want to maintain their peek (which they probably haven't hit yet in the console sector, but definately have in the PC sector) while quality goes to shit. I'm not gonna buy a CD with one or two good songs, like I won't buy a game with 20 or less gameplay hours.

I totally agree. DLC like anything else has to be planned for. How do you not gimp the base game? DLC is like a prizefighter saving his right hand for a later fight than the one he's in right now. So confident is one who regards his game design skills so great that he can leave stuff out! My money is on the guy who holds back nothing.

Ya, I'm also pretty much all against dlc... but who knows, maybe SD can do it right and not do full game release (60$), mappack (15$), new faction/skin (5$ a piece, 3 to go), drummer's set (100$).

I think you guys have really brought the game along. I check evey day for an update and it appears they are coming out about once a week. Keep up the good work.

One other factor: would STARDOCK fans care for DLC?  I suspect the clientele you have developed here with games like GalCiv and Sins, may be resistant to a DLC pricing model.

I think there's a preference for the traditional model- though mini-expansions would work. 

I don't even care about the money. I love PC games enough that I'm nearly price insensitive when it comes to my games, so let me show you an example of how DLC can impact a game even when its free!

So I'm playing Civ5 on my first full weekend with it, and I'm having a great time. I'm meeting the new Civs in game and each one is a wonderful surprise. On my third game or so my scouts are walking through the jungle and made contact with a civ I hadn't seen yet. Wow! hes standing in a menacing pose in front of a roaring fire and the insane crowd is screaming at his every word! So at this moment I'm thinking "this game is AWSOME". I had a great first weekend with Civ5, largely because the impact of meeting Montezuma.

After the first weekend though, I felt like I had seen most of what Civ5 had to offer, and I put it down. Soon after the game was released, they released Ghengis Khan as free DLC. So I fired up Civ5 again, started a dummy game with Ghengis as one of my opponents and explored the map until I met Ghengis. I met him, saw what there was to see and quit the game. Woop-te-doo.

Do I have to explain further regarding the WIDE GULF between the two methods of content introduction in terms of psychological impact? Can you imagine a more useless and vulgar way to introduce game content than on a website, outside of the game, while I'm at work? Civ5 had its issues besides being thin on the content, but maybe a civ game with more usable content would have had a significantly better reception from fans. Marketing gimmicks have no place in game design. After the game is made, then try to sell it. The marketing type people need to be kept in a different building from where games are made. They don't care about aesthetics so it can be just a cheap metal shed with cubicles. If they need something to do while the game is being made, have them sell T-shirts and mugs or something.

Game designers pour too much of their lives into making these games for them to simply be forgotten in a few years. You cannot accept that your game will be considered good "As long as you have bought all the doodads that came later". That is not how you create a legacy. You have to care, and if you don't, then don't expect us to.

No!

(I know: it's laconic...)

Technically, they're five and ten dollaring us to death, but you have the basic idea.

On a serious note, like all gamers I'm left with a bad taste after seeing.. pretty much every implementation of DLC to date. But I do remain optimistic that it can work out to the benefit of the industry and gamers alike, in theory. Sins with its $10 micro-expansions has already given us a good example of how smaller chunks of content, rather than huge full-priced expansions, can be well done and worth the price without gimping the original game. Personally I wasn't a fan of Sins itself, but it's a solid business model nonetheless - probably/hopefully the way of the future.

Yes! Sins! Rebellion!

Enough of this "I smiteth thee with my +3 Schlong Replacement of Utter Boredom" and back to the cold harsh depths of space, where no one can hear you scream (in bed). 

I look forward to burning traitorous traitors of traitor-y-ness with my Advent drone hordes! 

edit: Speaking to the DLC business, it's been handled poorly by most of the places that currently do it -- Civ 5 anyone, or horse armor, or ETW's ten soldiers for ten bucks -- but I have a feeling that Stardock can pull it off.

The concept of DLC is great. A cheaper bare bones platform sold to everyone, with customizations added to it after the fact. Buy the elves and not the space ships and you've got a totally different game. 

For me, $20-30 is the price range I consider acceptable for most games, and I have a feeling I'm not alone on that account. I have a feeling I'm also not alone in refusing to buy DLC for a game I won't replay, and refusing to buy DLC that only adds gear or cosmetic items -- that said, plenty of people will buy those things, and they're supposedly pretty profitable. But for a game that I do enjoy and do want to play, I'd rather have DLC and development of the existing game than a sequel, which will run worse (because MOAR GRAFIX) and need extensive bug whacking (because that's how things work). 

I'd be willing to drop ~$10 on a content pack, and between $3 and $5 on a cosmetic pack. For a content pack to be worth buying it needs to add something worthwhile -- a new mechanic, a couple of scenarios, and maybe a few other things. If it's just a few maps, or just a few items, or just a new mechanic, it needs to be a little cheaper than $10. For a cosmetic pack, well, I can't really imagine buying that but I'm sure someone who is interested in that kind of thing could explain what they look for on that front. You could even regularly package the various content and cosmetics packages into bundles and sell them at a discount as expansions to people who don't like the DLC term. Finally, the DLC needs to come frequently -- once a month or so -- or I'll forget that it exists and will stop buying. I, like most consumers, have a short attention span, and you need to cater to it if you want to finger my wallet!

All that said, I do still expect regular free updates, and the sort of support I'm used to from Stardock. If a feature in the base game sucks, I expect you to rework it for free, not release a DLC that fixes it and bill me. Microtransaction based revenue requires a relationship built on trust and stellar performance -- much more so than the one time purchase model -- and if people don't get that sort of customer service you'll get a hell of a lot of moo and not a lot of milk for all your work on DLC. 

With Sins of a Solar Empire, if you assigned a small team to release DLC for it every few months, and all they did was expand it as a franchise and a concept, you'd probably create a fairly reliable revenue stream that wouldn't need much in the way of management or overhead. Plus, they'd pick up a buttload of practical dev experience, making it a pretty good place to stick new hires. I'd also buy the hell out of it. 

Oh, and you don't have to stop making DLC for a title just because a sequel came out. I don't get why video game companies do that, it'd be like Coke cancelling Diet Coke just because they also make Coke Zero. Pointless elimination of revenue from people who prefer the classic flavor! People like me don't buy new PCs more than once or twice a decade (yeah I'm not kidding with that number) and we play your old games for years. Keep selling us DLC on the old things because we're probably not going to move onto the sequels until they're old as hell. 

 You don't have a base game, what you have is a modular game with each module costing separately. It's how you make it cheaper. For example, rather than sell a single game at $30, you split it up and charge for each component.

For example, you could split the game into a single player and a multi player component, and charge $15 each. So the people who want both pay the full $30, while those who have no interest in multiplayer can pick up the single player for $15 and vice versa. Or in other words, you only buy the parts of the game you're interested in rather than having to pay the full price even if 50% of what you're getting for that is something you'll never touch.

  The pitfall to avoid is nickle and diming customers so they end up either paying more in total than they would have under a traditional release (which could get tricky to track when looking at things like expansion) or using critical content/basic features to try and maximise the money (i.e. you start selling the load/save feature as additional content at twice the cost of what you're pushing as the base game).