Re-stating a flawed analogy does not make it any more valid. (Oh, and "a lot" is two words, Mister Writer-Man.) I find your arguments flawed, based as they are on fanboy moon-logic and some sort of bizarre entitlement, and you should be glad that the CEO and founder of a multi-million dollar business has bothered to respond to them as if they made any kind of sense.

(I was so trying to avoid trolling, but come on...)

Still the players would be right to critize the developers since that way they ruined the fun of a game the players have already payed for and thus forcing them to pay or stop playing. Now one who experiented such case can easily start ranting as soon as one sees anything similar.
Not that i say its right to rant about ObjectDock (i dont really know what it is anyway, but it does not matter). But stating that "for pay stuff does not hurt you" is simply wrong. It depends on the case.

Yes.

Let's assume that "content" is a reasonably measurable quantity. Let's assume that GalCiv 2's initial release has 100 "units" of content. Adding up all the patches and expansions, let's say that GC2 has 180 units of content.

So, GC2 costs $40 for the base game, with each expansion costing $30. It's clear that GC2 is a bargain; it's $40 for 100 units of content, thus giving a content-per-dollar (CPD) rating 2.5. The full GC2 package costs $100 in total. This is a comparatively poorer rating, at only 1.8. However, let's assume that each expansion offers 30 units of content, with the remaining 20 being freebies from patches. The CPD for an individual expansion is a mere 1.0; pretty small compared to the 2.5 for GC2. It is obvious that the expansions do not offer anywhere near the same content-per-dollar rating as the main game.

One more assumption: let's assume that each unit of content has a fixed cost from the developer associated with it. This is not necessarily the case, but let's assume that it is. So the initial release of GC2 cost 100 units of cost, and the full version is 180.

Because of this, it is obvious that the StarDock makes more money on the expansions than the main game. Just like with regular products in a store, the more you buy at one time, the lower the price is to the consumer, but also the lower the return on investment for each is for the maker. The content-per-dollar rating is, when inverted, the return on investment for the game developer.

Now, let's look at a hypothetical GC3. If StarDock pursues this strategy of selling smaller, incremental updates, there are two ways to do this. One of them is fairly reasonable (though antithetical to proper game design); the other is a price hike. Observe:

Let's assume that the hypothetical GC3 is shipped with 100 units of content. Let's assume it sells for $50, to deal with inflation and so forth. This means that the content-per-dollar rating is 2.0; less than GC2, but that's understood.

Now we get into the micro-expansions. Let's say each of these sells for $10, but provides 10 units of content. Well, the CPD rating for these is 1.0, which is the same as for GC2's expansions. No problems there. Maybe StarDock provides that extra 20 units of content for free, maybe they don't.

However, the big problem comes from when StarDock decides to game the system for a major price hike.

To do this, they maximize profits by charging as much as possible for content. Let's assume that this version of GC3 is shipped with only 60 units of content. A far cry from the 100 for GC2. Sold at $40, the CPD rating is a mere 1.5, less than the totality of GC2. Which means that the profit margin for the developer, costs per content, is very high. StarDock doesn't spend much to make a game that they sell for $40.

Then, we have micro-expansions that sell for $10, providing 10 units of content each. In order to reach the same level of content as even GC2's initial release, the gamer must pay $80. The CPD for this is 1.25. This is a de facto price hike; GC2's level of content went from $40 to $80; the price for the same level of content doubled.

It is this latter possibility that many of us fear. And the fear is compounded by this: it doesn't take many idiots to give you greater profits. Because the CPD halved between GC2 and this GC3, you only need half as many people to buy GC3 in order to break even. If you keep 2/3rds of your customers, you come out with a good 16% greater profits. Thus, the cycle is reinforced and next time, you'll try to shave the content even more. Eventually, enough people will stop buying it that you'll have to retreat back to some former level of content. But in so doing, you've increased your profits by maybe 20-30% at the expense of your consumers.

There's also the psychological effect of using smaller increments of cash to buy things. $40 is a "lot" of money, while $10 isn't. It's easier to make someone part with that $10, especially after their $40 expenditure.

Do your experiments with micro-expansions if you must. But be warned; we will be watchful for treachery.



If I think you're cheating people out of their money, why shouldn't I create a public uproar? If I think you're selling a half-finished game and bilking people out of their money for no more or better content than you were doing 3 years ago, if I think you're using underhanded practices to jack up prices just because you don't want to actually raise the price of your game, then yes, I'm going to create a public uproar.

It's part of the "invisible hand" of the market. You as a company do something to increase your profits; if it's unethical or a ridiculous money grab, we catch you at it and whack you in the head until you stop. Rinse, and repeat. Eventually, you'll find out what we're willing to accept and what we're not.



And therein lies the whole problem with your argument: you basically assume that people who don't want to pay for it will be unaffected by its existence.

TF2 is a multiplayer game. If you bought character X, and I didn't, we're no longer playing the same game. You're playing one where you get more options than me; it is no longer a level playing field. Can you imagine Chess, where you get to buy an extra Queen? If you could pay some money to replace a Rook with a Queen, then you have an advantage over people who don't.

You can't just shoehorn this kind of thing into any game without thinking of the ramifications. And no amount of "well, then don't buy it" will change the fact that in multiplayer games, what other people do or get does affect my playing experience. It basically amounts to me either buying the thing or stop playing the game.



Charging people to get a fixed version of the broken thing that they bought that you released in a broken state is not just unethical, but I'm fairly certain there are laws about that sort of thing. Making people buy errata, or in gaming terms patches, is despicable and unacceptable behavior.

Then don't buy it and play or use something else.

Again, I have to reiterate my disbelief that you're involved in any sort of modern creative labor. I have several different "office" and graphics programs installed on this machine because different companies require different formats for various projects. Whenever a new version of, say, Microsoft Office or Abode Creative Suite comes out I can expect to pay into the hundreds of dollars just to stay current on vital work components. THAT is what being forced into upgrades is about, not pasttimes like skinning your GUI or playing a video game.

(And someone go ahead and mention Gimp and/or OpenOffice.org so that I can have a good laugh.)

I'm not saying that such extra-content couldn't be abused. You shouldn't be giving other players an advantage.

But let's say it's an RPG. I don't think adding, say a "Barbarian" class to an existing RPG that didn't have that class would debalance the game.

I can be talked into agreeing that adding new characters to TF2 would be a bad idea, but I don't think it's universally a bad idea.

The game example I gave earlier was adding specific features to Galactic Civilizations II such as an expanded United Planets feature.

Amen. This was my one concern, so I am glad that you feel this way.

I was a fan of the Diablo series, so I was more than a little excited when I heard about the Hellgate:London project. That is, until I learned that it would use a subscription system. You can play the game out of the box, with no additional cost, but if you want the *good* stuff, you have to pay. I think that it is patently unfair, and even a bit unscrupulous to charge a player just to stay competitive. They didn't get my money. Good thing too, per the reviews I have read.

Stardock has always given me excellent value for my money. Sign me up.

"Unfair"?
Users knew what they were getting when they bought it.  Fair and competitive are two different things dependign on your needs.

Past poor behaviour is the telling point.  Past GOOD behaviour is, likewise.

In any commercial endeavour the number one priority is 'good reputation'.  Past behaviour establishes that.

If people want to go through life worrying about what 'might' happen 'if' ...then they'd be wise not to pop off down the street to even purchase a game....that rampaging herd of pink elephants may scuff their sneakers....

WHEN the sky is falling.....is the perfect time to yell "the sky is falling"....

Like I said; have a go at it. If people kick and scream, they kick and scream. I mean, the applications you describe in your initial post weren't destroyed by online criticism. I'd bet they're even making a decent bit of money off of them.

Though this is true regardless, it counts double online: just because you get hate mail doesn't mean you're doing something wrong. You're doing something wrong when you put out a product and only like 10% of the customers you know would be interested buy it.



Actually, no; that's probably the least useful time to yell it. Back far enough when it was even remotely preventable, is when it's time to yell it. Once the sky starts to fall, there's not much to be done about it.

The purpose in yelling and screaming is to ensure that it doesn't happen, not to alert people of something that is already in progress and far more difficult to rectify.



I have an unopened copy of WoW that I bought, then decided that I don't need an addiction (though given my record with MMOs, it'd only last 2-4 months). Does that count?

If it stops me from having fun with a paid game, wouldnt you call it "hurting me"?




No they did not if the for pay stuff was added afterwards or noone was telling them about it.
That way one is cheated to pay more or stop playing. a lose-lose situation for the customer.



Are you trying to be offensive?

Oh, so you mean people should run around screaming "the sky might fall.....or maybe not".

That'll work well...and shows the real value of all of this, doesn't it?

There IS only one time to state "the sky IS falling"...and that is when it actualy IS doing so.  All else is conjecture guesswork and [as used in other similar threads] FUD.

Nostrodamus gets it wrong with monotonous regularity too...premonitions are nothing more than spin-doctored coincidences laced with embellishment and interpretation.

Past performance [good conduct/reputation] is how to prejudge, if you MUST prejudge.  Assuming people will be evil because the option exists for them to be evil is more than cynicism, it's condemnation.

There exists the potential for ALL sorts of crap to happen in ALL walks of life.  If you must pre-empt it all simply because the potential exists then you're in for a pretty neurotic life.  Maybe that's what happened to the dinosaurs....it wasn't a meteor at all....they just woke up one day and thought "shit...there might be a meteor....we're all going to die" ...so they did...

If I buy a car with an AM/FM radio in it . . and later the car is offered with AM/FM/8-track is that unfair to me?  I think not.
I got what I paid for at the time of purchase.

In regards to a game . . If I buy a game and it's fun . . and then an update is released I don't "lose" fun.  I may not gain fun if I don't buy it . . but I don't lose anything.

In the case of Stardock, anything that Frog says is the future . Being that they're not publicly traded, they're not slaves to people who want their money but probably never bought a Stardock product in their life, AKA Public Stock Holders.



I want that on a bumper sticker!

By the way, feel free to ignore us and keep working on the next great project .

Going a tad off topic here, but Frogboy seems to hang out here more than the WinCustomize forums: Could the system requirements detection be added to all of the software? I'm running a 64 bit OS, and some software, such as MyColors will detect it fine, but other software, such as IconPackager give me no warning that it's incompatible with 64 bit Vista.

Actually, maybe that system requirements detection stuff should be moved to Impulse and SDC? A central location may be easier to manage.

In any case, it seems hit and miss as to whether software will correctly recognize if it's compatible with my computer .

But I am glad I bought Object Desktop . I'm more than happy to contribute to a company that makes great products, and I love playing around with skinning and customization.