The way followed by a Sweden company making games about crusaders seems to be almost the good one for me: regular patches, cheap DLC with graphic contents + big DLC with huge content (yes, we can call it an expansion).

They do not consider players like sheep and they makes good games.



IMHO, this system (without the cheap graphic DLC) would be the best compromise between excellent devs and respected players.



And I agree with TheFrozenOne and ???.

As this kind of topic has cropped up before I will just quote what I said in a previous thread... some may or may not apply to the specifics of this thread.

DMT wrote:
Understandable, but the thread was to expedite a small companies progression on a wonderful project Your way is the traditional way that all games companies use and so many big titles are a let down in the end. At least with this public route we get to see whats going on hopefully makign a better game and bigger game, faster

Through the games2gether system, Amplitude already have the outlet to let people know what's going on and hopefully make a better and bigger game in terms of feedback and opinions tailored around the consumer base....



Once the core game is released, and people are playing the core game, you don't really need to spend developer time and effort maintaining public build quality releases for future content, dealing with tighter build deadlines because of the public expectation... people already have the environment from which the expansion will build upon and have the basis for (ideally) informed decisions when giving input through games2gether.



And as mentioned, they also have a small number of community members who as far as I know are exposed to non-public release builds, give feedback on them before they get sent to the public and so forth.



As you mentioned, Amplitude is a small(er) company likely both manpower and resource wise... this means limited room to spend away from core work, so adopting a regular DLCs content release schedule is counter productive as such a model with limited resources requires either ignoring supporting the core game to work on DLC, or not releasing DLC at regular enough intervals to make the net income from them worth the resource investment... simply put they would probably work faster and get a full expansion product which certain developers have already hinted at them having design plans for to an state of being able to offer is for (pre)sale for significantly more money per customer by not trying to develop and implement an 'EA|Bioware' business model of pushing a game out the door then making a living off DLC diverting core game support away from where it's needed.





As for just donating money to Amplitude... I really don't have a problem with this, however presenting it as a definite means of improving Endless Space and ensuring a better state of later expansions is really just rigging scenarios to make whatever point wishes to be made... kind of like how the last option was purposely worded to suggest that if there is no DLC, no public beta builds or no open donation for Amplitude to invest the money on anything they want Endless Space related or not, then Endless Space will suffer.



A much more assured way IMO to ensure future Endless Space content releases are as good as they can be, is by not bogging down the team with extra work and pandering to people, but rather get expansion products in a saleable state quickly utilising the community interaction platform they already have established whilst the core game is fresh and is selling before interest goes stale... keep interest flowing and the game evolving in larger significant leaps.... one of the perks of Unity is the addition of functionality and content can be a lot more streamlined if you simply are given time to work rather than pander around... what works for pre-release isn't always the best option for post-release.

/#/endless-space/forum/27-general/thread/9246-boost-the-company-idea

CooDy wrote:
In my opinion any kind of micro transaction business model is abomination to be burned, killed and denounced. This includes DLC.



I much prefer the expansion business model with small patches in between or subscription business model where applicable (like EVE's). Yes it's standard, but it makes the developer honest about things like not withholding finished things on release day and making game worth playing only if you spend money on it (Diablo3) or if you specialize in retail.



Also it does not hurt the gaming experience by implementing and actively marketing in game shops and constantly updating with content you basically don't need except that gun/prop/character in DLC #6, for which you have to buy all the previous DLC.



Just look how bad Heroes of Newerth got after micro transaction implementation, or Age of Conan or the jerk attitude of Bioware with Mass Effect 3 DLC on release day.



Adding additional in game vanity items in expansions for various people who want to support the game buy paying premium is OK. Because they are vanity items and they are not obtrusively applied in-game.



All I'm saying is, keep it honest.

Quoted for truth, great justice etc.



Seriously, I can't see why there are still people who see Microtransactions & DLC for anything other than the blatant fraud it is.

When I first saw this business model appearing, I thought that it would go down in a venerable shitstorm. At the very least, I expected it to be ignored by the majority. But why gems like paying another 10bucks for content that would have - and should have - been in the game all along were and are being praised is beyond me.

Sadi wrote:
The way followed by a Sweden company making games about crusaders seems to be almost the good one for me: regular patches, cheap DLC with graphic contents + big DLC with huge content (yes, we can call it an expansion).

They do not consider players like sheep and they makes good games.



IMHO, this system (without the cheap graphic DLC) would be the best compromise between excellent devs and respected players.



And I agree with TheFrozenOne and ???.

Funny. And here I thought charging us 10€ to unlock muslim leaders is exactly the kind of crappy business model we're talking about.

Not to mention charging us 2-5$ bucks for such inconsequential things as music, portraits etc.

But sure, 2 bucks isn't much after all, right? Might as well buy the other DLC, too.



At the end of the day, 2 bucks is 5% of the full game price. Is a bunch of songs or pictures equal to 5% of the game content? Sure isn't. The companies make you pay anywhere from twice to ten times the net worth of their content, just because the occasional 2 bucks seem cheaper than 40 bucks at once.

This is the cheapest, oldest psych-trick in the world, and people are falling for it, praising it even. Beats me.

Perhaps they might follow League of Legends purchasable content style if they do, where everything is purchasable, but also attainable by just playing the game, excluding ONLY vanity skins. (and even then they do the occaisional get a free skin by liking a video on youtube offer)



At least that keeps it honest enough for everyone who is against paying for extra content, and people who want to pay for a bit of glamour, will.

Draco18s wrote:
God, enough with the MicroTX Sacred Cash Cow model. It's sick, disgusting, and insulting to players.

I'm pretty sure this is the one and only thing that needs to be said in opposition to OP's point.

From my point of view I'm fine with DLCs as long as it's kept to aesthetics purposes only and as long as there is already some choice in the game (meaning additional ship skin, fancy planet skins...)



New features, content, game modes, races... and anything else that might add to the core of the gameplay should be either an expansion or a big DLC (well to be honest, I bought my Endless Space from Steam so anything the devs put out for the game is going to be technically DLC for me...)



HOWEVER, I personally believe DLC should not exist and video games company should put out 10-20$ expansions every 6 months along with monthly patches adding/tweaking content already in place. Unfortunately, I realise that this is a small studio and doing something like this could compromise its profit margins.

DLCs used to be a great way to add some hours to your game but nowadays they are mostly, like TheFrozenOne stated, made out of greed like you get 2 new maps and couple of new textures for almost the price of a full game

Rinnum has a very good point in that why would you want to wait for the expansions when you could have updates all the while.



In my experience - and I believe in the experience of many - it would be wiser to keep patching the game all the while. After that you should release a yearly (or other periodical) expansion that is compulsory for multi player. It would also add some of the more advanced content like huge system-wide changes that are hard to implement incrementally. This would keep lesser additions coming and the debate on the games2gether active, on the other hand the developers would get a much needed monetary reward to make things happen.



This system was proven effective all through the nineties and early 00s, especially Blizzard had this awesome attitude up until (and especially) Warcraft 3 that worked like a charm. Admittedly, Blizzard had a lot more resources back then than Amplitude does now, still this system was effective and in my opinion very fair.



What was nice about it is that you could see the projected course of the game all the wile, but had to wait for greater changes to come. And they did come. For those who remember how much Frozen Throne changed the game. It was like another game entirely. Still, most minor changes leading up to it were always there to let a player see where the game is going.



DLC system is not entirely bad, and if implemented right, with nice additions, I would buy the content. However, having periodic DLC, especially in regular intervals is much like paying subscription, which I agree is a bit radical for the genre. But it makes income regular, which is nice, since you do not need to save up.



The micro-transaction model, though advocated by some with valid argumentation, is another thing for more than one reason:



First, it makes the game developers spend a lot of time figuring out how to add useless game content. If the content is not useless (as in vanity content) it is mandatory for serious players [andthisiswrong].

Second, the vanity items usually work best for a "in person" genres, where you see your character and get attached to it. This very mistake is the one EVE made (among others) and these caused Jita riots [whichisbad].

Third, and by far, far the worst is, that the developer quickly figures out that marketing is a better option for making money than adding relevant content. For example, having totally cool and very well made store that is restocked regularly and bigger and bigger visibility of vanity items, bigger and more present shopping interfaces and more purchase friendly interface of the web and other out-of-game sources... [thisisverybad]



Let me add, that I would never buy any micro transaction content. I interpret micro-transations as a cheap, belittling and dishonest way to rip off players. Yes, they may not be mandatory, but they add nothing to the game itself and try to constantly catch your eye - want it or not.



That said, I very much agree with the valid posts made in this thread and most of this hate toward these models comes from bad experience from other companies. Still, companies work in similar ways and certain models tend to favor certain approaches. (For examples: DLC - small patches that add little to no "real" content in order not to break multi player experience, Micro transactions - Marketing above game making, trivial changes that have absolutely no effect.)



This is why I am fervent in my belief stated in my initial reply to this thread - but ultimately it is the choice of the team behind this great game to decide.



I believe I am speaking for everyone when I say that we are very much interested in developer views on this matter.

??? wrote:
Also, AmazingPhil, the problem with the "Don't buy it" Argument is that some multiplayer games tend to make it so if you don't buy the DLC you can't play multiplayer with people who do. Know what's fun? Not shilling out 5-10 bucks for an awful map or character pack that are already on the disc and then no longer being able to play the game with 80% of the people who play the game also.

"some"

There's no reason that would happen here. I have enough faith in the current proceedings of the company to believe that they would release content that was worth the price. I mean, the main game itself is a bargain all things considered. It seems a bit premature to assume doom and gloom scenarios about potential DLCs, as we've all probably seen a good few which were tastefully made and priced. I'll cite DOW2 as the example I'm thinking of... Expansion of game play without disrupting the balance of multiplayer, and completely optional. I'd like to think the makers of ES are quite tasteful (Just look at those gorgeous Horatios, Ouhhhh...).

Also, AmazingPhil, the problem with the "Don't buy it" Argument is that some multiplayer games tend to make it so if you don't buy the DLC you can't play multiplayer with people who do. Know what's fun? Not shilling out 5-10 bucks for an awful map or character pack that are already on the disc and then no longer being able to play the game with 80% of the people who play the game also.

My experience with DLCs and microtransactions regards the following games: Civilization V, Europa Universalis III, Deus Ex: HR, Company OF Heroes Online (which was shut down) and Tribes Ascend (when it was still in beta). I only bought those of Civ V and only when they were on sale (like 80 cents each). In any case, they added a little something to the gameplay. The cosmetic DLCs, like new skin for Europa Universalis, didn't really interest me. But this is all a matter of taste, of course, and mine is only one opinion. You won't get a probability of success out of this thread, there's no "statistic" here.

Still, the question is valid. And what interests me is: what's the opinion of the developers?



ps. subscription: it is that thing in which you continuosly pay in order to play, right? That wouldn't work for me (my two cents on the matter )

mhstierney wrote:
To TheFrozenOne... High on passionate rhetoric, low on actual logic. Why is it the bane? What has it corrupted? What have we lost because of it?



Now more than ever we can choose what we want to buy and decide specifically what content we feel is worth paying for. The only thing we've lost because of it is the sense of shame that comes from spending too much on something that isn't worth it.



It is survival more than greed. Companies die if they don't make money. If Endless Space fails, real jobs are on the line. What's worth more to us? Mindless spite against the concept of DLC or the survival of a company which has given us something genuinely enjoyable? So far as I view it the more money made off of this game, the bigger the boot to the crotch of the mainstream development community, and seeing as how that's where the corruption lies, everyone should really be on my side concerning this.

The problem of DLC is worthless content like an aditional race that is mostly not balanced for 4,-€ (See Civ). I don't pay for a thing that can be done in 1 hours by using the already designed editor. It's an insult for me. I am not dumb. Now you could argue "hey, then just don't buy it". But I am into the multiplayer part of this game. Adding DLC doesn't improve the multiplayer experience. It never did due to a variance of reasons (availability, balancing etc.). You can sell graphics but not actual content. (I am fine with selling stuff that makes the game blinky for people who like it, though).



Further: We had so many great expansions in the past that died to DLC. Instead of making considerations how new features add together and improve the game experience DLC is just a flaw series of releases going out of context.



This is my problem with DLC. I never saw a DLC worth buying and I doubt there will ever be one. I saw expansions that rocked the game play and were actual good designed products (e.g. for Dawn of War there were many good expansions releases).

God, enough with the MicroTX Sacred Cash Cow model. It's sick, disgusting, and insulting to players.

TheFrozenOne wrote:
I'll repeat what CooDy said:



Any kind of micro-transaction business model is abomination to be burned, killed, and denounced; this includes DLC.

I agree. It's more logical to keep back for a while all these small things and hand them out in small or big expansions.

all points sounds good, and as a person on a fixed income, i still dont have a strong stand either way. i am willing to pay a few bucks now and then for certain things, but i hate having to pay to get extra races to use or stuff like that that others can use and i can not afford to for a bit. i feel at a disavantage against players who can use a race i can not , or special stuff that gives them an ingame avantage because they can afford to pump money into a game for an avantage over others. just my imput.

First I want to say that I really like this game and the professional way it is setup in developing agile. From a software developer's point of view, this product is just great.



I don't agree with the statement, that an independent developing studio can't survive against the financial monsters of the branche like EA. The small german studio Egosoft shows with it's X-Series, that it is possible to run a profitable developing studio when you rely on a loyal community and develop the game together with them. And they had never make use of DLCs or donations so far.



I don't think DLCs are a bad thing in general, but I think they should rather introduce features than graphics. They feel like the downloadble version of addons to me, giving one game a longer lifetime. And for those who blame DLCs and Addons: Software is one of the most expensive products, as you have to pay a whole bunch of people for years before the first dime rolls in from the completed product. Think about this, I'm sure you want to have quality software, too.

So far I've really enjoyed watching the development of Endless Space. It feels pretty satisfying to vote on new developments, small as my input may be, but, it's better than not having any say in how things pan out. For the sake of the gaming community we should all hope that Endless Space turns out profitable: it might just inspire other developers to look to their communities for insight and opinions, rather than just shunting them to the side and pushing forward their bad ideas (The last game in the Tiberium series comes to mind, with hundreds of fans screaming that they didn't like the concept behind game play, being ignored, and then the game flopping and being dubbed an abomination by everyone who dared touch it). Unfortunately, being an small developer, the team behind Endless Space can't afford to mess up like EA can (and constantly does) so...



We just need to throw money at them (when they make us things we like) and make sure other people do as well!



Micro-transactions seem to be a good way of doing such... The most popular example being buying hats in TF2. Everybody loves hats, and most people don't feel too terrible about spending a few bucks supporting something they like for a pretty token, and as such Valve has made quite a nice profit. Relic is another example. Dawn of War 2 released race DLCs which did quite well. Personally I was willing to pay to have my units looks especially glitzy, and felt good going it: I got to support the company and run around looking like Craftworld Ulthwe (which means I looked pretty badass, or so I'd like to imagine...).



So, release an extra race or two and charge some small amount for it. Perhaps some alternative skins, ship designs, etc. Maybe some new concept entirely, like minor races (although I think I read someplace that was already on the table...).



Feel too mainstream doing that? Make a donation page, set up some stupid concept like part of it going to charity, the rest to the company, and then give people bonus tracks, skins, options, and the like (a token of some sort makes it much more appealing).



If this is a re-post I feel no shame. Do it, FOR GREAT PROFIT, and so that you can make more games, because this one is awesome.

TheFrozenOne wrote:


Any kind of micro-transaction business model is abomination to be burned, killed, and denounced; this includes DLC.

I agree with this.

The real question is how do we make Endless space fun and playable for months and years to come?



I really like ES but what really makes it enjoyable is the vibrant community and the continous patches. Each patch brings new cool stuff that I have to see and try. I want more patches and not just bugfixes after launch. Preferably every 1-2 weeks. This will keep me playing for a long while yet.



How do we get continous patches? I have thought along similar lines to the OP. The Devs need to make money to create the patches. How do we feed them cash while not being ripped off?



Expansions take 6-12 months => I get bored and play something else.

Paying for more content (DLC) => Patch with new stuff every 1-4 weeks costing say 99 cents. This could be very doable especially with Steam handling payments.

Subscription model => Works wonders on WoW and the rest but does it suit ES?



Your idea?

Of course we can just be obtuse. That always works.

You people have way too high standards and hopes for the average gamer. People almost always eat up and buy bad DLC no matter what, companies continue to get away with flat out removing content from a game (including whole multiplayer modes) because they know enough people will buy it. This is why so many people are down on it, this is why people call it the bane of gaming. It's pure greed propagated by the stupidity of the average consumer.

To TheFrozenOne... High on passionate rhetoric, low on actual logic. Why is it the bane? What has it corrupted? What have we lost because of it?



Now more than ever we can choose what we want to buy and decide specifically what content we feel is worth paying for. The only thing we've lost because of it is the sense of shame that comes from spending too much on something that isn't worth it.



It is survival more than greed. Companies die if they don't make money. If Endless Space fails, real jobs are on the line. What's worth more to us? Mindless spite against the concept of DLC or the survival of a company which has given us something genuinely enjoyable? So far as I view it the more money made off of this game, the bigger the boot to the crotch of the mainstream development community, and seeing as how that's where the corruption lies, everyone should really be on my side concerning this.

Microtransactions work in exactly the same way releasing a revamped iphone every year works. it keeps people interested, it also helps the developers see what theyre doing right.



Due to modern internet being highly accessible, why would any company devote a year (generally), to designing a new expansion while watching its playerbase disappear because they've played the same old content to death with nothing new, found a new shiny game, and are now devoting their time there, all the while forgetting about what they were playing beforehand except for the occaisional game once in a blue moon.



Sophons for example.



Their ships look cool, but theyre mat coloured, plain, and boring to look at after the first couple of combats. If 2 weeks after the game's actual release takes place they start making skins; everyone who shares this opinion would buy it, and for what? 1.99 USD? you can buy a burger for that. big deal.



But an expansion, you dont even know if the designers could warrant making it yet, and you'd be stuck playing the same fantastic space 4x game for the next 10 years before a new developer decides to attempt to create endless space 2, or master of orion 3 or god forbid that company who tried to relaunch dungeon keeper in a different name.



At least with micro transactions, it keeps the designers working on the game, keeps you interested, and gives you something to look forward to.

mhstierney wrote:
Interesting thoughts, though...

- Expansion packs vs DLC DOES NOT mean that a developer is more honest. Have you ever played the Sims? Best example. That argument makes no sense actually. At all. People hold back content for both all the time. Not justifying it, but... How much do you think has really been held back from Endless Space? They've already put 110% into development, it isn't as though you're being ripped off. We've already been given more for our money than another company would give us for a similar product. Kind of a bratty argument given the circumstance.

- Game shops and marketing don't terribly hurt the gaming experience. If anything Valve and Relic found profit from it. Using Relic as my example, I'd cite the stir when new model variants were released for the Warhammer armies: people liked looking at the sparkly new content, even if they didn't buy, and those who did buy felt quite happy. These DLCs didn't harm multiplayer either: they were purely cosmetic.

- Who says Endless Space DLCs have to be done in a jerky manner? Certainly this CAN be done tactfully (otherwise Valve wouldn't be hiring a hat economist). There's money to be made from it, the risk is worth while...



Honest.

I'll repeat what CooDy said:



Any kind of micro-transaction business model is abomination to be burned, killed, and denounced; this includes DLC.





Micro-transactions and DLC are the bane of the game industry and are the embodiment greed and corruption above all things. The fact that you support it makes me fear for the future of gaming.

I'd drop this game the second they started doing "micro transaction" BS. I'm tired of it all. What few games manage to do DLC good are very rare between all the awful ones.

CooDy wrote:
In my opinion any kind of micro transaction business model is abomination to be burned, killed and denounced. This includes DLC.



I much prefer the expansion business model with small patches in between or subscription business model where applicable (like EVE's). Yes it's standard, but it makes the developer honest about things like not withholding finished things on release day and making game worth playing only if you spend money on it (Diablo3) or if you specialize in retail.



Also it does not hurt the gaming experience by implementing and actively marketing in game shops and constantly updating with content you basically don't need except that gun/prop/character in DLC #6, for which you have to buy all the previous DLC.



Just look how bad Heroes of Newerth got after micro transaction implementation, or Age of Conan or the jerk attitude of Bioware with Mass Effect 3 DLC on release day.



Adding additional in game vanity items in expansions for various people who want to support the game buy paying premium is OK. Because they are vanity items and they are not obtrusively applied in-game.



All I'm saying is, keep it honest.

Interesting thoughts, though...

- Expansion packs vs DLC DOES NOT mean that a developer is more honest. Have you ever played the Sims? Best example. That argument makes no sense actually. At all. People hold back content for both all the time. Not justifying it, but... How much do you think has really been held back from Endless Space? They've already put 110% into development, it isn't as though you're being ripped off. We've already been given more for our money than another company would give us for a similar product. Kind of a bratty argument given the circumstance.

- Game shops and marketing don't terribly hurt the gaming experience. If anything Valve and Relic found profit from it. Using Relic as my example, I'd cite the stir when new model variants were released for the Warhammer armies: people liked looking at the sparkly new content, even if they didn't buy, and those who did buy felt quite happy. These DLCs didn't harm multiplayer either: they were purely cosmetic.

- Who says Endless Space DLCs have to be done in a jerky manner? Certainly this CAN be done tactfully (otherwise Valve wouldn't be hiring a hat economist). There's money to be made from it, the risk is worth while...



Honest.

Syl wrote:
If you wanna support the developers, why you only bought the Admiral Edition instead of the Emperor Special Edition?

X.B

Initially I wasn't sure if I'd like it.

CooDy wrote:
In my opinion any kind of micro transaction business model is abomination to be burned, killed and denounced. This includes DLC.



I much prefer the expansion business model with small patches in between or subscription business model where applicable (like EVE's). Yes it's standard, but it makes the developer honest about things like not withholding finished things on release day and making game worth playing only if you spend money on it (Diablo3) or if you specialize in retail.



Also it does not hurt the gaming experience by implementing and actively marketing in game shops and constantly updating with content you basically don't need except that gun/prop/character in DLC #6, for which you have to buy all the previous DLC.



Just look how bad Heroes of Newerth got after micro transaction implementation, or Age of Conan or the jerk attitude of Bioware with Mass Effect 3 DLC on release day.



Adding additional in game vanity items in expansions for various people who want to support the game buy paying premium is OK. Because they are vanity items and they are not obtrusively applied in-game.



All I'm saying is, keep it honest.

Love you for writing my exact opinion on DLC

The idea's a nice one. I've figured that we would see some kind of DLC system, to get fleet skins for ships and maybe new races down the road, maybe new kind of ships or other features (although these I would prefer seeing in bigger expansion packs, as opposed to cheap DLC). As long as they get the pricing right, it should be a perfect way to boost their profits.

In my opinion any kind of micro transaction business model is abomination to be burned, killed and denounced. This includes DLC.



I much prefer the expansion business model with small patches in between or subscription business model where applicable (like EVE's). Yes it's standard, but it makes the developer honest about things like not withholding finished things on release day and making game worth playing only if you spend money on it (Diablo3) or if you specialize in retail.



Also it does not hurt the gaming experience by implementing and actively marketing in game shops and constantly updating with content you basically don't need except that gun/prop/character in DLC #6, for which you have to buy all the previous DLC.



Just look how bad Heroes of Newerth got after micro transaction implementation, or Age of Conan or the jerk attitude of Bioware with Mass Effect 3 DLC on release day.



Adding additional in game vanity items in expansions for various people who want to support the game buy paying premium is OK. Because they are vanity items and they are not obtrusively applied in-game.



All I'm saying is, keep it honest.

If you wanna support the developers, why you only bought the Admiral Edition instead of the Emperor Special Edition?