I generally disagree with the pay for downloadable content/module based game system not for the any problems with its literal definition but with inevitable resulting problems. First of all it can hide the true costs of a product. An expansion costs 25-30$. The features are listed on the box. It is a finished product, so it will reflect all of the features, and will be tested to be at a level of playability and free of bugs enough to be a finished product. The module content system removes these assurances, creating the assumption that the game is not finished and the features on the box are not fully implemented, even as the list itself is rather abstract and subject to change.
Second, in any sort of competitive play these modules simply break balance, and, with it, a standard of competition half-held sacred in many games. As for your specific example of an additional class in team fortress, that would only work if people with the module and those without could not be randomly paired. In such a cooperative game, those who do not have new and useful classes may even be second class citizens on team, less desired and less powerful in their flexibility. even the current metaverse system in Galactic Civilization would reduce any meaning or useful standard with enough content available to some. Recall the recent EA game in which 5 weapons were meant to be available only to collector's edition owners. The company gave assurances that the guns would not in any way affect balance. While the policy was eventually rescinded, reports came in that two o=f the weapons were quite a bit stronger than average.
Yes, people will complain and disagree. You can call it whining, but it is largely justified.
Yes, people will complain and disagree, and no, they do not need to own a development studio or make games themselves to do so. Ostensibly, this is the point of these forums, or a beta. The consumers say what the consumers want. Peer review is a fairly accepted method of improvement.

I would hope that you do this, but am in no position to calculate the risk I suppose. However, I am definately of the opinion that gc2, as well as being polished in its own right, still has a ton of lurking potential.

Surely the uncoiled angst of a few malcontents is not in any way a factor here? If there is a reasonable possiblilty of gc2 becoming even more alive than it already is now... and even more again after that...

Then for the sake of Legend alone man!

I think you're misunderstanding Desmond's problem.

His problem isn't with you charging for something per-se. It's a matter of trust.

When GalCiv 2 game out, there was an expectation that it was a "finished" product. Yes, there would be updated and gameplay fixes. But the expectation was that if you bought GC2, you were getting a finished, functional game worth the money being paid for it.

The common expectation with PC games is that you're getting a finished but buggy product. That you can't really expect the product to be fully functional on day 1, so you should wait a month or so for a patch to work the kinks out. But in terms of features, the game would be complete.

When GC2 came out, it was known, or at least somewhat expected, that there would be an expansion. However, there was never the sense that the expansion itself would complete the game, that it would be a necessary purchase in order to call the game a full and complete experience. The expansion would be exactly that: an expansion. More and different. But GC2 was not being sacrificed in any way to make DA something that more people buy.

Desmond's concern, as I see it, is this. Let's say GC3 comes out for $35. And you're writing it with the explicit intent of dropping "micro content" packets out. $10 mini-expansions that add bits of functionality.

Well, there is every reason to expect that the mini expansions will be a better bargain for you, the developer. Most of the cost of development was paid in the initial release. And the mini-expansions would only cost maybe a few days of artist time, a month or so of programmer time, and some tester/debugging time. So you the developer will be making more money off of mini-expansions than the core game simply because the mini-expansions don't cost as much to make.

Which means that you will want to sell as many mini-expansions as possible; that makes you the most money. The most effective way to sell mini-expansions is to make us buy as many of them as possible. And one effective way to do that is to not put as many features in the core game. So when GC3 comes out, it will have maybe 2/3rds of the features of GC2, but the other 1/3rd will be available in mini-expansions.

This model doesn't help us. GC2 had more features than GC3 in its base game, and thus the game that is equal to GC2 in features costs much more than GC2 did. We aren't getting more game for our more money.

The problem is this: how do we, the consumer, trust you the developer to not use this system to your own advantage? That is, how do we trust that you aren't getting more money from us for less gameplay? Until we have the game in our hands, we can't know for certain.

It isn't a question of not wanting to pay for something. It's a question of why you want to change the rules. Are you doing it to make more money at our expense, to find a way to get paid more for equal content? Or are you doing it to find a way to better and more effectively provide us with content, using effectively equivalent fair value computations for game features?

And here's the biggest concern. Some people would pay $10 to get, for example, a revamped UP system. Others won't. All it takes for this to be financially practical is for enough people to consider it fair value. All it takes is for enough people to trade the current feature-for-money value ($30 for complete game) for one that says that a single GC2 feature is worth 1/3rd the cost of GC2 the game.

Basically, it becomes a price hike. That's the concern. How do we know that you the developer don't intend this as a way to effectively jack up the price of the game without inducing actual sticker shock by changing the game's price?

@ Alfonse

Yes. This. In addition to the competitive play or skill comparison issues, this. Thank you for articulating what I really could not.

While the cost difference may not be 90$ worth of modules on top of a 30$ game instead of a 50$ game and a 30$ expansion, there is little incentive for the consumer. If you want to convince people of the value of microtransactions or module downloads, please provide us with a reason why it is good for us. I have bought games from Stardock and have enjoyed them. For me, Stardock is generally associated with quality, but this certainly does not mean acceptance of questionable pricing plans without having a rather good reason first.

@ Desmond Destructo

I can see two major advantages to the micro purchases.

1. Choice. Assuming the lack of any specific module leaves a completely playable game, you are free to choose which ones you want, and which ones you don't. for example, if Stardock were to release a module with additional ship-building parts, I would not buy it. You might. Presumably a good portion of the current players would, or Stardock would not make it. Same thing if a module improving the UP "improved" it even farther from what I think it should be.

2. Turn around time. Instead of waiting 15 months between expansions, we might get one every 3 or 4 months, as each one is not a massive overhaul of the game mechanics. User imput may be even more important, as suggestions would be narrowly focused on the module currently in development.

One downside for Frogboy is that, with release dates occurring several times as often, he faces this last week crunch more often. I probably shouldn't have pointed that out, he might read it   

I'm just thankful to be able to get QUALITY free stuff....wasn't so long ago I was downloading things with more viruses than a group of tourists on the Nile.

Let me tell the whiners a truth about life: Money is exchanged for goods and services. Great Line and one great article

HOORAY for choice then!

Hey I heard a rumor about 64bit.. really we'll get computing at 64 bit... but hey it's just a rumor...

FREE, yea' FREE is good. I spent enough on this lap top; FREE is good. I'll take it and whatever comes with it, if I like it I keep it and hope the developer throws out a few more FREE bones to go with it. I like the dock, one of the few things about the Mac I like; so I'll keep it. Not to sure about the skins yet; guess we'll see. Oh, did someone say this guy's the CEO? Of what a small tech shop he runs out of his basement office? Or was it that Frog guy? Damn I'm confused! Anyway, any legit business wouldn't what it's self represented in this light, those opinions are best discussed internally. Just my opinion, you know?

What concerns me is 0 Karma? Hell I even have a 1 and he runs the joint!

Sorry, was I complaining? Hey, thanks for the free stuff.

That's a nice looking building...where are the offices...like where is Karma's office? Can you see it from this side?