A simple thank you

[alexti]

Arryn said:
"Retail is the enemy of a complex game?" Nonsense. HOI is complex, and sold at retail. And Paradox continues to support it with patches, almost 3 years later. Need another example of a complex game? Try Morrowind. You cannot even say retail is the bane of niche games because HOI is a niche game.

My understanding is that he is talking about complex game as a game with complex gameplay, not with complex underlying code. I'm sure that Morrowind or MMRPG or Online 3D shooter have complex code inside, but the end user doesn't care about it, for him it only matters how complex is it to play the game.

Arryn said:
Regarding not being able to do retail and Online effectively, that's why I mentioned Stardock. They've made it work. Telling me that I'd "have to ask them" fails to answer my question to *you*, which was why can't you do what they've done?

Well, it depends how one defines "work". True, they sold a lot of copies through the retail. But they didn't get paid for those copies. Read Brad's comments here: http://draginol.joeuser.com/index.asp?c=1&AID=21895

[Arryn]

alexti said:
Well, it depends how one defines "work". True, they sold a lot of copies through the retail. But they didn't get paid for those copies. Read Brad's comments here: http://draginol.joeuser.com/index.asp?c=1&AID=21895

Thank you very much for posting that link! While it's the opposite of your intention, you actually backed up my position(s):

That article pretty well slams SF for not paying Stardock for GalCiv's retail sales, it also mentions that they intend to release their next game by both download and retail (via Ubisoft as a publisher). So Stardock, in spite of its bad experience with SF apparently still believes that retail has some merit, else why would they give it a third try? Perhaps the retail sales figures showed them that they *would* have gotten a decent amount of money were it not for the exception of making a mistake in choosing their publisher? I can only hope that Ubisoft treats them better than SF did (they can hardly do worse).

The article also conclusively states that Stardock (1.) doesn't have a significant problem with piracy from digital downloads, and (2.) is showing a healthy profit (or at least paying all their bills) by going that route.

Brad also answers the "question" regarding console vs. PC games:

I think that's a major reason consoles are starting to really crush the PC game market. People are getting fed up. They're getting a cold pizza and being told to lump it. It doesn't have to be that way. For example, The Political Machine comes out in August. We plan to have a free update available for it on the first week that adds some new features and extra goodies. There will be "bug" fixes but they'll likely be bugs no one would run into. And we'll put out updates as regularly as Ubi Soft will let us ... If the competing technology (consoles) can't be updated with new stuff after release, then you should exploit that advantage. And that means add new features, not use the Internet to supply updates that finish the game!

Basically, it's the developers/publishers releasing shoddy, half-finished games (knowing that they can finish it after release by providing patches) that he says is killing the PC market.

His concluding paragraph bears repeating:

Make it a no-brainer for someone to purchase games electronically by keeping costs reasonable and make using the games they've purchased easy and convenient. After all, it's their pizza, deliver it to them as they want and they'll support you with future orders.

[alexti]

Arryn said:

Thank you very much for posting that link! While it's the opposite of your intention, you actually backed up my position(s):

That's why I said that it depends how one defines "work". If the goal is to sell through retail to make profit, than it didn't work. If it was done for vanity or for publicity, that it worked. For example, some people pay to publish their books.

Arryn said:
The article also conclusively states that Stardock (1.) doesn't have a significant problem with piracy from digital downloads, and (2.) is showing a healthy profit (or at least paying all their bills) by going that route.

Stardock is showing healthy profits because they sell other (non-game) products, that's also a reason why it was worthwhile for them to invest into electronic sales software and infrastructure. Brad was mentioning that he was prepared to take loss on GalCiv for Windows from the very beginning. And, interestingly, in each of his attempts to sale various Versions of GalCiv through different retailers he got burned every time. Not sure why he thinks it will be different next time Maybe, having his games in retail stores helps to promote his business software, so he doesn't mind taking a loss.

[Zen]

I can just imagine wearing a cowboy hat, sitting on the top of the engine of a bullet train yelling "Yeehaw" as we go plummeting into a canyon from a bridge. Right beside me Quantum has on his maid outfit and a terrier mumbling "best intentions!".

[archaeolept]

just to keep this on topic, what I really don't understand is why Arryn feels the frontal armor of the T-34 was so second-rate:

Arryn said:

I can assure you that the T-34's frontal armor was made predominantly of tinfoil

[Arryn]

archaeolept said:
just to keep this on topic, what I really don't understand is why Arryn feels the frontal armor of the T-34 was so second-rate:

You misquoted me. I said "cheap tinfoil and spit". If you're going to quote me, please get it right.

[Esben Mose Hansen]

In between all the flame wars, there is some interesting stuff here. This forum is the only one where I have wished for a kill filter Fascinating.

Anyway, the download load and peak problem could possibly be solved by some of the emergent technologies such as Torrent. As for piracy, in games like dominions, I would go for a CD-key like the one already in use, or maybe a bit more advanced. This is from a techies point of view. I'm image that Torrent is probably not so easy in the windowsworld.

[Arryn]

alexti said:
If it was done for vanity or for publicity, that it worked.

If Brad's intention in selling retail was solely advertising, that's still a valid reason. Making a profit from doing so would be a bonus in that case. However, I sincerely doubt he'd go through the effort of getting hitched with Ubisoft if he didn't intend to seek a profit from retail. Seems to me that the possible "reward" from using that as an ad technique wouldn't outweigh the effort involved. I'd think he'd get a better bang for the buck advertising in other ways. Which leaves the profit motive, since Brad doesn't strike me as the vain type.

alexti said:
Brad was mentioning that he was prepared to take loss on GalCiv for Windows from the very beginning.

Has he said, anywhere, that he has actually lost money on GalCiv sales? Or that GalCiv's Online sales aren't profitable?

[alexti]

Arryn said:

If Brad's intention in selling retail was solely advertising, that's still a valid reason. Making a profit from doing so would be a bonus in that case. However, I sincerely doubt he'd go through the effort of getting hitched with Ubisoft if he didn't intend to seek a profit from retail. Seems to me that the possible "reward" from using that as an ad technique wouldn't outweigh the effort involved. I'd think he'd get a better bang for the buck advertising in other ways. Which leaves the profit motive, since Brad doesn't strike me as the vain type.

So, we're coming to the conclusion that it didn't work for Stardock. Though "advertisement" effects and increase in "brand name recognition" are somewhat hard to estimate. And the way their Online purchases and patch downloads were organized, it was hard not to notice their other products, so I suppose that was part of the plan.

Arryn said:

Has he said, anywhere, that he has actually lost money on GalCiv sales? Or that GalCiv's Online sales aren't profitable?

I haven't seen any statement from him on that. Surely, Online sales are profitable. But whether they have made enough to offset development costs, I don't know. But I remember him saying that if not for Online sales, GalCiv would be a total financial failure. Which just probable says that they've got very little from the retail deal.

[Gandalf Parker]

Arryn said:
That article pretty well slams SF for not paying Stardock for GalCiv's retail sales, it also mentions that they intend to release their next game by both download and retail (via Ubisoft as a publisher). So Stardock, in spite of its bad experience with SF apparently still believes that retail has some merit, else why would they give it a third try?

Thats half of it (Brads half). Anything along the line of what Strategy First offered creates a time frame to pay off expenses before there is a profit. SF tried some things to boost sales which didnt happen and has now filed for bankruptcy.

Perhaps the retail sales figures showed them that they *would* have gotten a decent amount of money were it not for the exception of making a mistake in choosing their publisher? I can only hope that Ubisoft treats them better than SF did (they can hardly do worse).

Developers tend to feel that their game never sells as well as it would have if its not seen by every gamer. To an extent thats true but the charges for getting games into retail can kill the profit margin. At this point Brad is making obvious moves to increase his "name brand" status. We will see if he is going to shoot for the same retail level as Shrapnel does, or something more mainstream. For his own games he is willing to gamble abit more than for developers who are talking to him, which only makes good sense.

The article also conclusively states that Stardock (1.) doesn't have a significant problem with piracy from digital downloads, and (2.) is showing a healthy profit (or at least paying all their bills) by going that route.

but that is thru the stardock software.

Basically, it's the developers/publishers releasing shoddy, half-finished games (knowing that they can finish it after release by providing patches) that he says is killing the PC market.

That may have been part of why developers like Brad and Tim create their own publishing companies like StarDock and Shrapnel.

His concluding paragraph bears repeating:

I dont think anyone is arguing the obvius advantages of Digital Downloads. Just that its not available yet unless you want to create the system from scratch which is a heavy gamble. There are plenty of publishers willing to offer the higher-priced gambles and there are plenty of them being ranted against right now by their developers or becoming headlines with their firing, dropping projects, or bankruptcy.