🚀 go-pugleaf

Marco Calcaterra <LOLZ@LOLZ.it> contributed wisdom to 
news:i5jqbn$rp7$1@nnrp.ngi.it: 

> "Your purchase includes a year's worth of FREE updates, new content
> and more based on YOUR requests."
> 
> Huh?
> 
> Does this mean that after the year, I will have to pay for further
> patches? 

It might just mean that they dont feel like making promises more that a 
year away.

After a year, wouldnt an update be major new version material? Most games 
charge for that dont they?

I dont know. Ive been spoiled by Dominions 3 the last few years. Free 
patches and updates still coming out for it. Still going strong and alive 
on my computer. 

Interestingly... it seems that there is a new influx of Dom3 players 
showing up and they are saying that the release of Elemental is why they 
finally decided to pay for Dom3.

Gandalf  Parker
-- 
http://www.Dom3Minions.com (fan site)

On Aug 31, 3:57 pm, Marco Calcaterra <L...@LOLZ.it> wrote:
> The mail reads:
>
> "Your purchase includes a year's worth of FREE updates, new content and
> more based on YOUR requests."
>
> Huh?
>
> Does this mean that after the year, I will have to pay for further patches?
>
> That would be like a hurricane hitting a ship that has just left port
> and is already sinking.

I noted that too.  What in the world is Stardock thinking?  There's no
good PR that can come from that promise.

I'm a little sad to see Stardock becoming the M. Night Shyamalan of
computer gaming.

Carl Lundstedt
UNL

On 01/09/2010 8:50 AM, Gandalf Parker wrote:
> Marco Calcaterra<LOLZ@LOLZ.it>  contributed wisdom to
> news:i5jqbn$rp7$1@nnrp.ngi.it:
>> Does this mean that after the year, I will have to pay for further
>> patches?
> After a year, wouldnt an update be major new version material? Most games
> charge for that dont they?

GalCiv got paid-for expansions after a while (I forget how soon); I 
wouldn't mind the same for Elemental.

David Lamb ha scritto:
> GalCiv got paid-for expansions after a while (I forget how soon); I 
> wouldn't mind the same for Elemental.

But this is the norm in computer games so it wouldn't make ANY sense 
stating that in advertising communications. That's why I fear that even 
"basic patches" are not going to be free after a year.

To me it just seems that they are making a mistake after the other on 
this game, and it's sad, considering I was really loking forward to it.

On Aug 31, 1:57 pm, Marco Calcaterra <L...@LOLZ.it> wrote:
> The mail reads:
>
> "Your purchase includes a year's worth of FREE updates, new content and
> more based on YOUR requests."
>
> Huh?
>
> Does this mean that after the year, I will have to pay for further patches?

Probably.   From reading their forums, I think they had planned on
some free patches (to correct basic errors) and some larger expansions
called Books.

After the fiasco of releasing it basically broken and unfinished, I
think they have decided to release all Updates including the Books for
free for a year.

Why they rushed it out when it had been delayed previously is a
mystery.

On Sep 1, 3:58 pm, pauls2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Aug 31, 1:57 pm, Marco Calcaterra <L...@LOLZ.it> wrote:
>
> > The mail reads:
>
> > "Your purchase includes a year's worth of FREE updates, new content and
> > more based on YOUR requests."
>
> > Huh?
>
> > Does this mean that after the year, I will have to pay for further patches?
>
> Probably.   From reading their forums, I think they had planned on
> some free patches (to correct basic errors) and some larger expansions
> called Books.
>
> After the fiasco of releasing it basically broken and unfinished, I
> think they have decided to release all Updates including the Books for
> free for a year.
>
> Why they rushed it out when it had been delayed previously is a
> mystery.

I don't think it's a mystery.  Civ 5 is about to take all the air out
of the room.

Carl Lundstedt
UNL

clundst <clundst@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think it's a mystery.  Civ 5 is about to take all the air out
> of the room.

Which just makes this seem even stranger.

You're releasing a new game into a rather small niche market to begin 
with, and the 800lb gorrila is about to come in and eat your lunch.  So 
then why make some vague comment like this that's going to scare off 
customers?  I was thinking of buying it until I saw that "first year of 
patches are free" comment.  Does that mean if a year goes by and the game 
still needs fixing, I'll have to subscribe to some sort of patching service?

-- 
It's not broken.  It's...advanced.

On 2010-09-02, Doug Jacobs <djacobs@rawbw.com> wrote:
> You're releasing a new game into a rather small niche market to begin 
> with, and the 800lb gorrila is about to come in and eat your lunch.  So 
> then why make some vague comment like this that's going to scare off 
> customers?  I was thinking of buying it until I saw that "first year of 
> patches are free" comment.  

I'm encouraged by the comment. It means they will be fixing bugs
for a full year. Most games see less than three months between
release and the final "bug fix." Some are worse, e.g., Temple of
Elemental Evil, which had virtually no resources for patching
it's horridly buggy release.

-- 
Neil Cerutti

On Sep 2, 3:36 pm, Doug Jacobs <djac...@rawbw.com> wrote:
> clundst <clun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't think it's a mystery.  Civ 5 is about to take all the air out
> > of the room.
>
> Which just makes this seem even stranger.
>
> You're releasing a new game into a rather small niche market to begin
> with, and the 800lb gorrila is about to come in and eat your lunch.  So
> then why make some vague comment like this that's going to scare off
> customers?  I was thinking of buying it until I saw that "first year of
> patches are free" comment.  Does that mean if a year goes by and the game
> still needs fixing, I'll have to subscribe to some sort of patching service?
>
> --
> It's not broken.  It's...advanced.

I don't disagree, but I was commenting on the early release, not the
'patches' promise.  I think the '1 year' thing is a promise to
continue development on the game for a year, not that after that the
customer will have to pay.  That's the only thing that makes sense.

I hope they get things worked out, but I'm not purchasing until a
price drop and I hear of a "community approved (tm)" patch.  I want to
support Stardock, but I have way too many things on my plate and too
little money in my bank.

Carl Lundstedt
UNL

On Sep 3, 11:51 am, clundst <clun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 2, 3:36 pm, Doug Jacobs <djac...@rawbw.com> wrote:
>
> > clundst <clun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I don't think it's a mystery.  Civ 5 is about to take all the air out
> > > of the room.
>
> > Which just makes this seem even stranger.
>
> > You're releasing a new game into a rather small niche market to begin
> > with, and the 800lb gorrila is about to come in and eat your lunch.  So
> > then why make some vague comment like this that's going to scare off
> > customers?  I was thinking of buying it until I saw that "first year of
> > patches are free" comment.  Does that mean if a year goes by and the game
> > still needs fixing, I'll have to subscribe to some sort of patching service?
>
> > --
> > It's not broken.  It's...advanced.
>
> I don't disagree, but I was commenting on the early release, not the
> 'patches' promise.  I think the '1 year' thing is a promise to
> continue development on the game for a year, not that after that the
> customer will have to pay.  That's the only thing that makes sense.
>
> I hope they get things worked out, but I'm not purchasing until a
> price drop and I hear of a "community approved (tm)" patch.  I want to
> support Stardock, but I have way too many things on my plate and too
> little money in my bank.
>
> Carl Lundstedt
> UNL

Yea, I think you guys are reading too much into this.  Frogboy (I
forget his real name) put out a letter saying that Stardock will
support many updates (maybe even a year) before offering a paid
expansion pack.  I think that was the intent of the statement of "free
updates for a year".  They are saying that they will provide free
updates, expansions, etc. for a year before they start selling
expansion packs, which some will interpet as "paid patches".  Pretty
much the same they did with Sins.  They offered sizeable patches both
fixing things and adding content for a period of time before they sold
Diplomancy and Entrenchment.  Yet they still had people demoaning why
they had to pay for the two expansion packs.  Frogboy said that a
sizeable patch/content update is coming in September to both fix bugs
and add content, but is free.

EMan ha scritto:
> Yea, I think you guys are reading too much into this.

My main problem was the mail not being clear.

I am perfectly fine with the Sins route, but most of all, I hope we have 
at least a playable game for Christmas. :)

Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> wrote:
> I'm encouraged by the comment. It means they will be fixing bugs
> for a full year. Most games see less than three months between
> release and the final "bug fix." Some are worse, e.g., Temple of
> Elemental Evil, which had virtually no resources for patching
> it's horridly buggy release.

The comment isn't clear and its purpose seems to be to call out a distinct 
change in how Stardock's business operates.

So say you buy the game now.  Does that mean you're entitled to updates 
until 9/2011 and after that you'll have to pay?

What if I buy in March 2011?  Does that mean I get every update until 
March 2012?

Does that mean you'll have to pay for updates that I'll be getting for 
free?

And if there are paid updates, what is the cost?  Or are they talking 
about expansion packs - which I don't consider to be updates, and don't 
expect to be free.

Personally I'd rather not buy a game and wait for the patches.  I've done 
that before, and it almost never really works out very well. 

-- 
It's not broken.  It's...advanced.

On Sep 2, 3:36 pm, Doug Jacobs <djac...@rawbw.com> wrote:
> clundst <clun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't think it's a mystery.  Civ 5 is about to take all the air out
> > of the room.
>
> Which just makes this seem even stranger.
>
Brad did a post-mortem on the release on the latest Three Moves Ahead
podcast.  His claim was that their launch date was set long before Civ
5 was announced.  They simply thought the game was done.  They really
need to do some analysis about how they test their games.

I stand corrected.

Carl Lundstedt
UNL

On Sep 10, 12:27 pm, clundst <clun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 2, 3:36 pm, Doug Jacobs <djac...@rawbw.com> wrote:> clundst <clun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I don't think it's a mystery.  Civ 5 is about to take all the air out
> > > of the room.
>
> > Which just makes this seem even stranger.
>
> Brad did a post-mortem on the release on the latest Three Moves Ahead
> podcast.  His claim was that their launch date was set long before Civ
> 5 was announced.  They simply thought the game was done.  They really
> need to do some analysis about how they test their games.
>
> I stand corrected.
>
> Carl Lundstedt
> UNL

This may be true, but once the release date for Civ V was announced
and they realized that true state of the code, they weren't about to
push back the date beyond the Civ V date.  The code holes are too
large, there's no way they could be missed.  If you ask anyone who was
in beta they would agree that the game wasn't ready.  So how could
Stardock, think it was done.

EMan <supreme.evolutionary@gmail.com> wrote:
> This may be true, but once the release date for Civ V was announced
> and they realized that true state of the code, they weren't about to
> push back the date beyond the Civ V date.  The code holes are too
> large, there's no way they could be missed.  If you ask anyone who was
> in beta they would agree that the game wasn't ready.  So how could
> Stardock, think it was done.

It's not as though Civ V just sprang out of nowhere.

And if the game was in such a state from the beta customers as people say 
it was, then this was clearly an economic decision to try and beat Civ V 
to market.

I would have thought Stardock was above such stupid games (hah).  It's not 
as though the turn-based strat market is overflowing with games at the 
moment.  Besides, I'm sure I'm not the only one out there who would rather 
wait for Civ V to pop out an expansion or 2, and do a bundle - because you 
KNOW that's what they're going to do.  Meanwhile, I wouldn't mind 
supporting a smaller company by buying stuff new so long as it was good of 
course.

-- 
It's not broken.  It's...advanced.

On Sep 20, 8:23 pm, Doug Jacobs <djac...@rawbw.com> wrote:

> It's not as though Civ V just sprang out of nowhere.

The release date for Civ V did.  It was still 4Q 2010 in June, which
usually means Nov/Dec, not Sept/Oct.  Elemental could've benefited
from baking in the oven for another month or two.

> And if the game was in such a state from the beta customers as people say
> it was, then this was clearly an economic decision to try and beat Civ V
> to market.

It was in a bad state even a week after launch.


>
> I would have thought Stardock was above such stupid games (hah).  It's not
> as though the turn-based strat market is overflowing with games at the
> moment.  Besides, I'm sure I'm not the only one out there who would rather
> wait for Civ V to pop out an expansion or 2, and do a bundle - because you
> KNOW that's what they're going to do.  Meanwhile, I wouldn't mind
> supporting a smaller company by buying stuff new so long as it was good of
> course.
>

I'm sure Stardock got a fair number of sales from people who just
wanted to tie them over until Civ V.  After Civ V releases, TBS fans
aren't going to have time for another one, especially not a gamble
like Elemental.  Same with Diablo 3.  Torchlight 2 has to be released
before D3 because ARPG fans won't know how to spell Torchlight after
Diablo hits.  Its not a game, its actually a pretty smart business
decision as long as it doesn't tarnish your reputation and
unfortunately Stardock has had one too many fumbles.