Be careful what you wish for.
Next year all the 4X’s are going to come out. What I write below is not under some NDA. I know it because it’s my job to know it.
Let me walk you through the schedule:
1H2016: Stellaris, Master of Orion
2H2016: Civilization VI, Endless Space 2
I could be wrong on the dates. You could swap some of this around a bit but you get the idea.
Where is GalCiv III in this?
Stardock will be announcing its first expansion in January. I won’t go into details here but it is something we’ve never done before. 2016 we’re going to release a steady stream of GalCiv updates but we are going to do our best to stay away from the flood and work on the really big GalCiv III expandalone for much later.
GalCIv III has been a tremendous success for us. It’s kind of our Civ V. That is, with Civ V, a lot of long time fans were really upset that it didn’t do X, or Y like Civ IV had but it brought in a lot of new players. GalCiv III has done a good job welcoming a lot of new players into the GalCiv universe. 2016 is going to add a kick ass expansion (target release date February) and follow that up with a lot of updates to refine and improve the GalCiv III universe. But it won’t make sense to do another big expansion after February since all the 4Xs are coming out.
What should be in the base game versus some future expandalone?
Let me walk you through the things I think GalCiv III needs and how we want to get these things to you.
First off, Steam now supports upgrading to expandalones. This is a big deal because it means we can make a GalCiv III: X that is major game change but let people upgrade to it very inexpensively. In the old days, you’d have to “rebuy” the game. It also lets use do universal DLC which means that all the DLC you would buy for III will work on all versions of GalCiv III. As a gamer, that’ s a pretty big deal.
What we have decided going forward is that any really major changes will have to go into an expandalone. We had a pretty serious bit of pushback with the per-planet production wheel and we don’t want to go through that again. The per planet production wheel is a bad game design. We allow players to still get to it through a racial trait but personally, I’d rather see it die. But I understand players who feel attached to it.
But now there’s a lot of fear about making game changes that I think are objectively good. Let me give you an example:
In GalCiv II, I made it so that ship components used X + Y% of hull size space. Thus, an engine might use 3 units of space but also use 5% of the max hull space. This meant , no matter what you were very limited in how many engines you could have. GalCiv III doesn’t have the Y% and thus, inevitable, we have people designing ships that can move 73 moves which breaks the game balance. Do we bring back the Y%? Well, you know what will happen when/if we do. There will be angry people down-voting us on Steam. And to be candid, a game’s review score determines how often Steam will promote it. When we got rid of the per planet wheel, several people gave GalCiv III a negative review on Steam which hurts us even though we suspect most people were glad it was gone.
So on the one hand, making engines and sensors consume consume a % of hull space will make the game objectively better. But on the other hand, if we do it, we’ll upset some people who like having ships that can move 73 moves and some of them will give us negative Steam reviews which will in turn cost us a lot of future sales.
Let’s talk about the future
GalCiv III remains the first and only 4th generate 4X. All the other games out there are still 3rd generation (32-bit, DirectX 9c, single core design). Eventually, everyone will have to move to 4th generation. This was painful for us since we lost a decade of legacy code. But it’s something every franchise has to do sooner or later. So we’re in a good position for growing it into the future. It’ll just be a question of whether the fan base will stick with us or whether we’ll all great fractured between MOO, Stellaris, ES2 or whether Civ VI will annihilate them all.
Regardless, what I do know is that there are certain key ingredients on our road-map that I want to share with you guys:
These are intentionally vague so read into them what you will. But the game is called Galactic Civilizations. So over the next few years there’s just a lot of stuff to keep integrating into it.
So anyway, just some thoughts.
cheers,
-brad
That's fine. But so am I. I have as much right to speak on my own forum as he does. I don't even read Naselus's comments anymore. I don't think he's intentionally being malicious. I just don't care about his opinion. Every game has a guy or two like him. You eventually just have to tune them out or you end up just not visiting the forums anymore.
Stellaris (at least of what we've seen so far looks much like a usual Paradox Dev game) exists on a distinctly different (though similar) axis to other large-scale strategy games. Paradox exist in a unique enough niche that their success is almost entirely in their own hands. It's really the same sort of mistake that people make regarding Sony/Microsoft vs. Nintendo. Yes, they're all console makers that also make games. But Nintendo has a very different part of the market. That's why it can get away with crap 3rd party support. I can't imagine a Paradox game taking a huge hit from being released near the other games listed, but all those other games may take a hit from releasing near one another and have to be aware of that.
I had indeed forgotten about upgrading to expand-alones as an option (Street Fighter 4 did it with USF4 IIRC) since it's so rarely used (devs seem to go with having a package so they can put that really big discount number on the base game to probably get more traffic on the Steam sales), but it's definitely nice to see it being used. Especially since it gives hope for other companies that are more rigid in how they have to market (fingers crossed for Xrd Revelator). I'm no marketing expert, so I dunno which gets the most sales.
Thinking about it, we've actually seen a LOT of attempts recently to try to make a game more of a platform with a longer monetisation period (episodic games, lots of expansions, expand-alones, stand-alone content in the same engine, F2P models, cosmetic microtransations). Some kneejerkers will say that's a bad thing. I personally think it's a lot better than the old method for both developers and consumers. A stable engine is less buggy for consumers and requires less QA from devs, developers can get more money from hardcore diehard fans who enjoy their content and more casual fans can enjoy deeper discounts on older content, and usually lower risk for both consumers and devs. I mean, FFS, Runescape is still getting updates. RUNESCAPE. The potential is out there and it can be done right.
As for where GC3 stands, as I hinted at earlier it risks suffering somewhat if it releases an expansion anywhere near anything that's not Stellaris, especially if those releases are much stronger. Really, no front is particularly certain. ES2 might do as well as EF. Or it might do as well as ES1. Civ 6 might not be a buggy mess that's perfect on launch. More realistically, it might be a not-so-buggy mess with a lot of clear potential that people are willing to get onto the ground with. Or it could have Beyond Earth levels of success. MoO might be a grand resurrection of the franchise. Or the beating of a dead horse. Signs point to the latter, but I've seen some very strong turnarounds lately, so you never really know.
It isn't easy, but after listening to the eXplorminate interview I am trying to take the long view and have a bit more faith that the huge 'potential' of GalCiv3 will eventually materialize into something I would consider great. I suppose GalCiv2 took a while to get there, and I waited... so I guess that's what I'll be doing again: waiting, and probably not playing again until February, tbh. Frogboy, I like most of what you've outlined in your roadmap but would have more enthusiasm for it if I knew you personally were going to be more involved in the development, and it doesn't exactly sound that way.Also I must say that Naselus is a great guy who's brought a lot of thoughtful discussion to these and other forums. Of course these are your forums and you have the right to ignore whomever you want but I am not sure why he in particular has gotten under your skin. Of the other games mentioned, Endless Space 2 is looking very fine to me. If the underlying mechanics and ai match the aesthetics and lore, which look to be top-notch, it should be one of my favourite 4x's. I am impressed with the developer and feel they can be trusted to keep working on it for a long time after release.The MoO reboot interests me the least. Less than most of the upcoming "spiritual successors" to MoO.
I can't imagine Civ VI being anything less than excellent. I'm not sure which game I am the most excited for.
It's a close race between Stellaris, Civ VI and MOO for me.
That said, people tend to gravitate towards a particular game. With so many space 4X's coming out, some of them are going to end up like Warlock 2 I fear.
http://www.wired.com/2008/09/drm-opponents-a/
This sort of thing isn't new - although, in the case of EA/maxis those guys really were jerks and deserved it, IMHO..
6. Unified resource system 7. In-depth trade
Has there ever been any thought on implementing some kind of markets (ie commodities, widgets, etc) into the trade system? I've always been enamored by the idea of cornering the market in some resource and then using the resulting monopoly to wield galactic power. It's vaguely represented by being able to trade resources through the diplomacy screen, but really only as a way to dispose of assets that you happen to have but don't actually want, as opposed to a means to muscle someone else out of something they want/need.
There's sort of the latient idea of a stock market for trade goods, but it's kind of a boring abstraction compared to, say, being able to form the Thulium Mafia, especially considering that a financial market for products only works if the buyers can't just produce/mine their own anyway...
It would be really fun to form a cartel and play GC3 as OPEC, or be able to be the sole supplier of some laser component that's required for beam weapons to function properly ...
"A Drengi That Can Say No"? http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/japanno.txt (specifically section 1.2)
cheers & thanks for the roadmap/post ,
I don't imagine for a minute that it will be a 'bad' game, neither was Civ V, but there was no way I was going to play the s*** out of it like I did the others before it, and so I am hesitant to get excited over it, which sad. It's a trust thing. I trust you guys, based on experience, I don't trust them for the same reason.
What I'm getting at is that, provided resources, time, the market, god, and 'stubborn' players don't interfere, the current roadmap for GC3 makes it look like a game that will have a good chance of outliving many of the above. I am but one gamer in millions, but I think it's worth stating that GC2 is the only game of its type that I have ever been able to lose large portions of my life to without needing mods to maintain my interest. Yes, I played a modded GC2, and I'll probably play a modded GC3, but mods don't feel necessary for me to enjoy the game past the honeymoon period, and for me that's a massive plus over most other games I (have ever) play(ed).
I can. Civ V ruined the Civ series for me. I am unlikely to buy another Civ game in the future.
Whereas GCIII did NOT ruin the series for me. I can see a promising future for it.
That's an important difference.
Civ V and the sci fi one (can't even remember its name, how forgetful it was) both proved that Civ 6 will definitely NOT be memorable at launch. It may be good or even great after expansions though.
Civ5 feels so complete I am not sure a new Civ is needed yet.
Sorry Frogboy, but I have to agree with Naselius on many points. I still feel GC3 is like a Beta.
You have to see GC 3 has to measure up to GC 2: Twillight of the Arnor. That was a fantastic game. But till now, I think the current game is still lacking features and even worse usability. A lot of game mechanisms are not explained in a good way in game.
Just for one example, where can a new player find the information if it is better to build a new factory next to two other factorys or a solar plant instead?
I would really like to know, how this game would have been received under an other name and by an other company.
IMHO, the expansions did nothing to improve the underlying issue that the game is about as immersive and engaging as a doorknob.
I have everything as well and supported and played it, even after launch. However it could benefit from 64bit so we can have larger maps. That would be my request and a change to DX12 so we can unload some Ai thinking onto the GPU.
"Every game has a guy or two like him. You eventually just have to tune them out or you end up just not visiting the forums anymore. "
Seriously Frogboy? As of today the thread for the mod constructed by Naselus has 655 Replies and 33800 Views. You might want to take a look once in a while and try to figure out why. Pick up a book by Ichak Adizes called "Managing corporate lifecycles" someday and read the part about the "Founders trap".
This argument has happened before. It will happen again.
I suggest you read this post I wrote over 7 years ago in the GalCiv II forums after a series of threads just like this:
https://forums.galciv2.com/312130
You see, every GalCiv ends up with the same thread like this one. You have a the resident critics endlessly complain that the latest update wasn't good enough. I'll come on and basically tell them that maybe they should just leave. Then someone like you shows up and explains to me that I need to hire a PR person or learn more aboout proper management because a CEO shouldn't act the way I do.
Naselus is awesome, and I'm ready to write my review now.
This argument has happened before. It will happen again.I suggest you read this post I wrote over 7 years ago in the GalCiv II forums after a series of threads just like this:https://forums.galciv2.com/312130You see, every GalCiv ends up with the same thread like this one. You have a the resident critics endlessly complain that the latest update wasn't good enough. I'll come on and basically tell them that maybe they should just leave. Then someone like you shows up and explains to me that I need to hire a PR person or learn more aboout proper management because a CEO shouldn't act the way I do.
I have to say, posts like this and especially the tone, is very dissapointing and raise more than a little concern. I actually feel buyer's remorse for the 1st time regarding GC3.
By the way, if "control combat" means anything like real-time or even real-time with pause as in TW or something along those lines, involving directing movement and clicking on enemy units throughout a fight to selecttargets, I must say I would personally hate it if GalCiv went in that direction. Turn-based or maybe phase-based tactical combat, maybe like Endless Space but better... thoughI think it could really slow down the pace of the game.
Ok, that was funny. I guess having been around the block once or twice pays off. I suppose privately held companies do not have as much to fear as public ones at least in regards to things such as this.
Ok so I'm new to this game universe, but a few comments as I read all the above, I think that the roadmap is going in the right direction, and I had read of the planned ongoing addition of features before I bought it, it was a selling point for me.
As I read all these comments, I have been gaming for almost 40 years now, and what come to mind is the difficulty of developers to find the right role they want the player to assume, a general, a prince, the leader of a galaxy spanning civilization, and stick to it. With computer gaming its easy to forget that and fall into the trap of micro-managing, something that is just not possible in the real world. Imagine running a government of several planets and stoping to assume tactical control of a battle, let alone the communication issues, or planing all the economy of several worlds in minute details, and still have time for other things. As the game stands now, it reaches a nice balance of the role played, and the micromanagement of everything, if more battle control is introduced then you go towards a space battle game, and move away for a civ type. Adding levels of control only masks the problem, and then you get to act as human resources department for your armed forces!
BTW I have played every version to that franchise since civ 1, and I find that the choices made over the years were not the best, (the spin off "Beyond Earth", was so limited that I bought this game instead of upgrading), for one; difficulty results in bad placement, cheating, (a feature of civIII), and undue advantages to the AI like free stuff, while not considering the inherent advantage of number crunching, (by the AI), which is beyond the ability of most players. I haven't played long enough to see if this is a problem with this game, but so far so good.
Features I like, the feeling of the vastness of space, the customizable ships and races, the incremental progress of terraforming, among many. Most of the limits are listed in the roadmap. One thing I'm not certain of is a stand alone expansion, there is a solid base here that might be best developed fully, but if the stand alone goes in a different direction, like a tactical game, then ok, but just a different version of this one, it would be a shame. I am part of a group that makes a mod for a city builder by and indi, and the bones of that game, simple as they are, are so good that it gave us so much to work with, this seems to be the case here as well. There is so much potential beyond just a more fancy look, actually the best games are those that invest in mechanics and story rather than fancy pictures, when you've played civ in B&W on one of the first macs, well you understand what grandpa meant when he spoke of that new fangled color TV.
Looking forward to all the new features to come.
Re Normal expansions vs. Expandalones
The upcoming expansions and other DLC and of course the regular updates will extend the existing base game.
The Expandalone, by contrast, will make far more radical additions. In the old days, the expandalone would be a sequel. But the main reason to do the expandalone is that we can make big changes without the allegation that we went and pulled the rug out from those who enjoyed feature X or Y.
Re Tone
I make games because I like gamers. I like our community. What I don't like is being treated like I"m some sort of servant. I want people to be happy with the game. But when someone makes multi-page diatribes at how awful our work is, well, like I said, I've seen it over and over again for the past 20 years. And since I can't leave, I'd rather that other person either learn to treat us like people or I'd like them to leave.
Put another way, these forums are my home. You are all welcome guests here. All I ask is people talk to me as if they were talking to someone in person.
Not to worry. Instead, imagine a future where you have generals or admirals or something where some of them might have the ability to control the battle. Hence, one player might want to have admirals that can do that sort of thing while others (like me) would prefer to have admirals that gave big fleet bonuses so I wouldn't ever monkey with a battle.
I guess this is a good place to throw this out. I was thinking about starbases, and planetary sponcers last night. This is what I came up with. Auto improved starbases is a start, but it would let you pick the shipyard. I'm thinking to have optional shipyard sponsoring for starbases. This wouldn't be a requirement. A sponsored shipyard would build constructures for astarbase, or bases. You could have multiple shipyards, or multiple starbases either way as an option. In case of multiples take turns. When the starbases is done with modules I guess the shipyard would be idle. Always prompt which upgrade unless there is only one. Allow the player to use custom constructures.
This prompted another idea about constructures spam. The problem about not using constructures is not allocating enough resources. After you build a starbases you could have an option I instead to sponcer a planet, andashipyard for a starbases. Has long this takes could've modified by how far apart. This would require some math. The math would essently be how long it takes to make a constructures, and move it over their. This is how long it takes to build a module. The player should have the ability to pause this, and do another project. Their should be a route between the shipyard, and starbases. Think trade routes in two where here their would be a Minny constructures that can be destroyed. The player should have an option to hide the route, so as to not get in the way. This would be visible to the enemy unless he also shuts this off, so he can try to destroy the constructures.
Are expandalones the expansions, or are we having both.
@Frogboy
No doubt the fans will fracture somewhat (personally I'll play all of the games you've listed as a space/science-fiction 4X junky) but on a collective level there is also an opportunity to grow the 4X market by having a bunch of hopefully high quality games available. Whether that is enough to offset the fracture and well timed expandalone releases I have no idea. The other big game coming (no idea on dates but presumably 2017+, all we know publicly is that it's in the works) is Distant Worlds 2.
As for timing plans I have no objection either way. I'm sure I'll continue to get even more value from my $100 and feel far more confident in where Gal Civ 3 is heading after the great 1.4 patch. Probably my main comment is to encourage more work on diplomacy as I doubt winning Alliance victories in 60 turns on Huge maps with 8 opponents on Incredible difficulty was the design intent.
With respect to Naselus, while I understand your comments, I'm really saddened to read them. As an active modder both here and elsewhere Naselus had added to my personal experience of Gal Civ 3 with the Insane Abundant Balance Mod. While I'm sure you have good reasons to disagree with Naselus in some areas, I fear there are good ideas gone to waste and so see the lack of healthy dialog as an opportunity lost. As a newbie modder myself (Distant Worlds AI Improvement Mod was my first), what I found most enjoyable was the great support from the developer (there were a whole host of changes made in patches which enabled various aspects of the Mod) ... even after I chucked a hissy fit about the state of the AI ... which makes it doubly sad to see such fractures here. If there was a way I could electronically buy you two a coffee and convince you both that getting along well was in the greater good, I would do so!
Brad, as an Elite founder would we get the 'Expandalone' as part of our founders package, or as its technically a sequel would it be outside that? I would definitely pony up the capital to get it in nothing flat.
As he already said...
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
