Why is Galciv3 50% off a few months before it's due to be released?
I am doubly mad because I paid full price to pre-order to support the game because galciv 2 was one of my favorites. Did I just pay 20 Euro's to attend a Beta? A very early Beta I might add?
Is the game just being dumped now? Is Stardock done, or out of money?
I am pissed about the 20 euros but more about the lack of communication. We don't get a new roadmap, or official release date but the price is slashed 50%.. uh-uh..
At this rate people are going to start demanding their money back.
It's a sale on all GalCiv games, not just 3. It's Steam, games go on sale all the time, also the game was also half off in December. The tentative release date is May, previous was April, small delay was because Brad wanted more time to work on the AI. And the game was fully funded from the beginning.
Also a statement from Brad:
the money you (and I) spent is gone.
I would guess the 50% off thing is them trying to get more people into the beta because many early adopters have stopped playing.
The game will be whatever it is when they release it. Maybe they'll do the same routine as they went through with Elemental. And in a couple years they'll release something resembling the game they (and we) wanted. Or maybe a miracle will happen and they will go gold with a complete game with a compelling story and a functional, competitive AI.
Didn't notice discount, but if they did it, that's awful.
Well I didn't see or find the statement, thanks Rhonin_The_wizard, that helps considerably with my feelings of abandonment.
To Brad, maybe get this posted to the steam news stream? There the final "news" article is beta 4 from a month ago, which really doesn't look good. It looks like vaporware.
I'm still pissed over the 20 euros though but as I didn't get a founder version (i got the plain ol' 45 euro version a few months ago) I guess I'll shut up. An email or anything would however still be massively appreciated because as it stands you've just stopped me from ever buying a stardock game at full price ever again.
Actually, what we're in the process of doing is creating a way for users to hook up their Steam accounts and their Stardock accounts. In doing so, we can make sure those who became founders get additional perks.
They are aware and will make sure their fans get a fair shake...
hope this helps,
-tid242
Because they wanted my money? I've been waiting months for it to go back on sale and it finally convinced me to get it.
Perhaps our copies are different but I have to click a big message each game start saying I understand it's a beta game and there's a big banner at the top of the screen saying it's a beta.
I've paid extra for early access to support developers quite a few times. Paid nearly $80 for ArmA3 for example a year before it came out. I could have waited for a sale but felt like getting in some early peeks at the game and support for development. I enjoyed it all.
If you're enjoying the game that's really all that matters.
I didn't buy it to play the beta, I bought it to pre-order it. So no, I'm not enjoying it, I'm patiently waiting for the game to be finished, that's not the problem here.
I understood it was a Beta.. I do see the Beta button telling me it's a Beta. I just have little interest in playing a Beta.
SD sent me email after email asking me if I wanted to pre-order it. I did. Months ago. Because I liked SD, I remember impluse, I already have a few hundred euros worth of SD games and respected the philosophy they espoused way back concerning games.
I'm starting to realize that this is the underlying problem. People pay extra to get a earlier version of the game.
I'm used to paying the same, or less, to pre-order because it gives the game some publicity, an early adopter, a possible beta player and a confirmed sale.
You guys would go nuts if you bought and sold in the stock market.
What a ridiculous comparison.
I realise the price of a product changes. But a company should realise that people are going to stop paying full price and that they are going to be pissed.
Especially if all this happens before the game is even done.
You have to take responsibility for your own buying decisions. A Stardock employee did not come to your home and put a gun to your head and forced you to buy this game. You put down $45 or $50 or $100 of your hard earned money because you felt it was worth it at the time. You could have waited like 4-5 years for this game to be $5 as part of a holiday special, but you thought paying the extra money was worth it at the time. No one is ready to launch a revolution when bread and milk go up, when gas goes up, etc. For that matter, no one cries to the gas station attendant when they gassed up one day and saw that gas went down 10 cents a gallon 2 days later. In the world of computers and video games, victory comes to those who wait (assumming continuous technological development... I suppose that could change if we have a civilization collapse and its road warrior out there?), but the problem is we have an entertainment itch to scratch now and not 4 months, 1 year from now. You bought when you did because the value of entertainment exceeded $45, $50, or $100 in your mind.
What a ridiculous comparison. I realise the price of a product changes. But a company should realise that people are going to stop paying full price and that they are going to be pissed. Especially if all this happens before the game is even done.
I bet if Stardock stated ahead of time that there will be discounts on the game in the next 6 months / year, etc. that there would still be people lining up to pay full price to play on day one. Case in point. I phones. When a new I phone comes out, people pay crazy prices when they could probably wait 6 months to a year and get a much better deal.
^^ So much this.
I paid 100. I am actually very happy about it. I got to play ALPHA GC III when NOBODY else could. I had whined for YEARS on the GC II forums for when they were going to release my dream game of GC III. ...
YEARS ago, I posted that I wanted a 64 bit GC II and I wanted in DX10 or higher..Little did I know Brad was lurking those forums!
I would too, and this is exactly what I think should happen.
Ofcourse I'd play full price to play a game I like on release, and yes I'd expect it to go on sale a few months later. So I get a few months earlier playtime out of my extra money, no probs!
However I did not get that, because it's still in beta..
I bought GC3 in the recent 50% off on steam sale and am proud to be a new 2nd class citizen to the all powerful, all knowing founders!
By the way look at my account start date, I was playing stardock games at least 3 years in 2003 before the lot of you!
Does this make me a genuine precursor?
If you are a precursor, @Meglobob, what am I?
I would encourage you to check out this post by Brad:
https://forums.galciv3.com/461982/page/1/
It talks about the changing world of early access and how Stardock is going to respond. I found it very encouraging because I had the same concerns.
Also, disregard the lectures from a few people with logically fallacious analogies - they have trouble seeing how this represents a big shift for the game industry and for many of us and want to chime in on every thread about the Steam sale.
But fortunately Brad understands how this makes people feel like "chumps" (his word) and he runs the company.
I can't think of anyone who complains to the local gas station during the recent era of decreasing gas prices, that they could have delayed their gas purchase a few more days and saved a few bucks. That is just life. You needed/wanted the gas on day 1 and not on day 3. I also cannot think of anyone who firebombs a Walmart in sheer anger because had they held out until Black Friday and pitched a tent waiting for days in line, they could have saved hundreds of bucks on a flat screen TV as opposed to buying said TV in June of that year. Similarily, you wanted galciv3 on day 1 in alpha and not on day 200 something or whatever during beta 4.
Also, you are a founder. You effectively have a different product (a much better product) than the rest of us. You have a star system named by your choice, got access on day 1 while the game was in alpha and you get every future expansion completely free of charge and I would assume nice and early while they are still in alpha / beta. Honestly, this half price argument is really only applicable to those (actually like me) who bought the standard non-founder game for $50 a few weeks / months ago.
Finally, I know of several new posters posting today that they are glad to be playing after the Steam sale. Can we not feel happy for them? If those of us like me who paid 50 bucks for the game are chumps are they vile people who take advantage of the system to swindle compaines and get good deals and make founders feel bad in the process?
Done with this topic and leaving with agree to disagree.
Well, as someone who just bought it on sale, here's my perspective.
For months I've watched this game. In fact it inspired me to re-purchase Gal Civ 2 with all expansions and play the heck out of it.
I always wanted to buy Gal Civ 3 but found the price too steep for my budget, so I waited.
Then the sale, I'm in!
So the way I see it, you guys got to play way earlier than me. And as we all know, that has value. People always are willing to pay a premium to be first, or to not have to wait.
So I waited, and waited, and my reward was the sale.
So I guess I don't see why people are upset.
A ancient precursor?
Just to add to the 50% debate, I personally have maxium respect for Founders or Early Access supporters, stumping up $100 for Alpha is definitely, 'doing your bit' for the games industry and making games possible that otherwise may never happen. You should have a warm glow inside and feel proud when playing GC3 that you helped (in just a small financial way) to make it possible. Do not then undermine all that by being resentful about Stardock getting new customers on board and building up the player base.
From what I understand of the founder system the benefits you have got are:-
1. Any future DLC released are free to you, players like me after pay. Brad says GC3 will have a 7 year development life and there will be lots and lots of DLC, all free to founders I assume. Note Brad also says there will be expansions and everyone will after pay for those.
2. You get a special forum badge.
3. Brad in another post says he is going to look at other ways to reward founders.
4. You got to play GC3 long before anyone else and the opportunity to provide feedback to shape the game from the start.
Please correct me if any of the above is wrong or you got additional perks?
I think founders are being treated pretty well personally.
Just to clarify, the people who paid $100 get all the expansions and dlc.
From Adam Biessener "We also believe that $99 is a more-than-fair price to charge for a lifetime subscription to all Galactic Civilizations III content, between the numerous DLCs and full expansion packs we plan to develop."
http://www.pcgamer.com/galactic-civilizations-3-alpha-costs-100-how-much-is-too-much-for-early-access/
Just to clarify, the people who paid $100 get all the expansions and dlc. From Adam Biessener "We also believe that $99 is a more-than-fair price to charge for a lifetime subscription to all Galactic Civilizations III content, between the numerous DLCs and full expansion packs we plan to develop."http://www.pcgamer.com/galactic-civilizations-3-alpha-costs-100-how-much-is-too-much-for-early-access/
Wow...that's even better...so why any complaints at all?
The complaints are coming from the folks who paid $45, not the founders. They're not getting the additional stuff. This isn't the first $25 sale either.
I expect for $100 we'll receive around $200 of content if bought at full-price, so we'll come out ahead with a sale. If you're spending $100 on a game, you pretty much have damn good faith in it. That's getting near territory people paid for Neo-Geo games in the late 80s and 90s (My avatar is from a character introduced on that system)
I do wonder if this is a good business strategy- but the only way that impacts me is if Brad lost a bunch of money and decided to quit gaming, which is very unlikely. I'm also not going to fall into the trap of selfishly bemoaning others getting a good deal. (and this is a human fallacy- and I won't say more due to ease of this becoming political)
The race to the bottom on PC prices has been great for consumers, though it's becoming hell on indie devs.
Ah okay, gotta...
Yes I know as a big steam user that GC3 was on 50% off for about 24-48hrs around black Friday 2014. This was actually how I found out about its very existence! I was completely unaware GC3 was in development (happily still playing GC2 off and on at the time). I did not buy it then as I personally have a very firm policy of never buying betas no matter what, I like my games complete. The only reason I made a exception (the 1st ever) was on the steam forums a lot of folks thought it was being released at the end of March/April time, so I thought what the hell! Since read it may be June or later for final release, now that I have it and on my 2nd game I am happy I got it. So alls good.
Yes, I understand low prices is bad news for indie devs. I play a lot of different games from indie games to those by the biggest devs like ActiBlizzard. The games that are really bucking the trend atm and raking in loads of money are those with a Cash Shop to buy, well essentially 'fluff' items for the game and misc stuff like extra character slots, extra stash space, etc They are often based on RNG/loot finding games.
A example of a Indie doing really well is Grinding Gear games with Path of Exile (based on Diablo 2), they are or did sell packs for $40 to even $10,000 each to support the game, obviously you got some goodies but quite frankly they are not worth the amount you paid, alternatively you can pay exactly $0 and play for free. It seems to work thou as majority of players spend at least $40, a lot $100-$500 and the odd rich guy/girl $10,000!
4x strategy games don't suit this method but if a dev can figure out a viable method it could boost indie dev by a huge margin. No idea how to do it personally but indie games dev does need a financial boost. The reason Grinding Gear model works is there is a small % of gamers who are very rich and happy to throw money at there favourite hobby, which kinda makes up for all the penny less students playing...
The downside to whales is that tend to play only one game.
As for 4x strategy games, the traditional model works best for them. I remember many (10+) years ago on here, Brad saying that one reason Stardock went into strategy games was because the folks who bought them tended to buy their games at higher prices and were more affluent. The market has changed considerably since them, since PC gaming has become a lot more popular and open to many more power at lower income levels.
It is really a squeeze for indie devs these days. What was good a few years ago, isn't good now, and even gameplay standards have increased. You're not only competing with increasing numbers of indie devs, you're also competing with backlogs and the old games- many of which were made by huge teams several years ago.
Eventually we are going to see a crash in the indie market, as most of the devs entering will not be able to make enough, even with an expanding marketplace, due to the increased competition. You can beat that trend by finding unexplored niches, which is why I think female-friendly games are going to be a growth area in the next few years. You really have to find that underserved market. Two cases in the last five years of underserved markets that blew up were fighting games in 2011-2012 timeframe, and strategy games right now. I suspect Brad's right about RTS games being the next big thing to come back, so I think his investments there are going to pay off well.
I also think woman-oriented games are going to be a growth area as well.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
