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?