The amazingly strong "don't rush" sentiments re TA

I think we've all seen enough products that came in under a deadline, but ended up being so crappy that they might as well have not been published at all. Thus, for my money, I would rather wait a few extra weeks and get a solid product. Even further, I would be willing to tag a few more weeks of wait and get a great product!

I'm not in any big rush, so why not?

I suspect that most consumers don't really care whether a product takes an extra month or two...But when you get into the typical business where the extra month or two is seen as extra overhead and rising costs, the drive to get something out is internal and not external. The few vocal external voices just provide a hammer to drive home the nail.

Now, I'm sure others disagree with this piece of opinion. Now is their chance!

Good things come to those that wait.

As a political theorist I find your intro kinda funny, and would recommend you read Sandel for an interesting outlook on individualism in a structured community (how we claim to favor individual liberties but are often unwilling to give up the rights and benefits given by systems that require sacrifice of those rights for the greater good).

In response to your question, there are two types of consumers. The first type are those who only want what is cheap and quick. They normally gravitate towards big businesses since they can get a product for a cheaper cost with much less effort on their own part. Whether they can afford to or not they purchase what in the long run is usually the more expensive product since they buy something that is cheaply produced and thus is of poor quality, resulting the the subsequent need to repurchase the item many times.

The second type of consumer desire quality. These people will research their potential purchases, and seek out what they feel to be the optimum balance of quality vs. price. They normally gravitate towards smaller business since to them the any extra upfront costs are worth the improved service and quality of product, and feel that such purchases are of greater long term value since it not only delivers a better product, but establishes a basis for future commerce with that business.

Group number two tends to drive Socialists, Communists, and other anti capitalist groups into fits since they wreck up the propagandized idea that consumers are slaves of industry owners and that capitalism doesn't work (Robert Nozick has some hilarious things to say about those groups in his work "Distributive Justice" where he defends the morality and viability of a capitalist system).

Stardock is by no means EA, Sierra, or Ubisoft. They cannot command the shelf space nor generate the sales that larger publishers can through media hype and money. So, as a smaller business, they must rely upon consumer type two not only for sales, but in large part for advertisement to group one. Those who actually take the time to come to the website and provide extended support of the game well in advance of it's release are naturally prone to be more in line with group two, and as such would gladly wait the extra time for a luxury item knowing that it will be the same cost with greater return.

Look at the economic argument.

The people who read this forum are trying to maximize their utility.

Most (At least many) of them have already paid for the game via pre-order. Therefore, they are in the beta. I have no idea what % of SD's Galciv business for TA and DA were pre-orders.

The Customers gain no extra utility from having the product earlier, due to the beta. Therefore, a well-done finished product is in their best interest. If SD didn't do open betas, the public would be rushing them.

SD gets the benefits of a more patient consumer base, a pool of beta testers, and goodwill.

I'm surprised more companies don't use the SD open beta to pre-orders who do digital distribution method. Companies make more profits on direct downloads, they gain the positive externalities, and I think it reduces piracy.

The other thing is customer loyalty. We're kind of like dogs, you see. We went from game company to game company (home to home), mistreated in every one. We've finally found one that treats us well, so, were they to tell us "You need to jump off this bridge," we'd think, well, yeah, these guys have been nice to us, so I bet that's a good idea.

In other words, we're willing to take risks (or make sacrifices) because Stardock has proven to us in the past that they can make more than good on their promises.

The way I see it:

I'm in the beta already. Anyone who wants the game is ALREADY going to be getting it online, which allows them to get into the beta anytime. If they delay it another month, that doesn't impact my playing schedual at all, yet the extra month is going to result in a significantly better game by the end (Brad mentioned improved AI, which put me instantly on board)

1. I'm a life long member of group number two.

2. The beta's waiting for me when I'm ready.

3. I'm having fun with DA.

4. I'm enjoying reading the feedback and subsequent improvements.

5. I'm a very patient individual.

6. Stardock has made a great game and deserve the time to treat it with care.

I think the mindset and maturity of the average GC2 player is a part of it. It's kind of unofficially been determined in the past on these forums that the average age of GC2 players is probably close to 35. Your talking about people that have already grown out of the "Got to have it now" phase of their life, and will wait when it means a better overall experience/product.
I thought Feud's post was well written, since I can relate. I used to be in group one when I was younger. I would run to Best Buy multiple times for some games at launch(since they weren't always available on first visit).
Now at 35, I'm a group twoer. I have no trouble waiting six or more months for the price of a boxed game to come down, or for TA to get it's just development time. I know I got plenty to keep me busy.

What I did not like in the poll was the December-or-January alternative.

I voted for the latter, but I would have prefered to cast for a 3rd option :

"Sometime in 2008, when it's really ready to be released."

My age : 57.

That would make more sense if Stardock was not so good about continuing updates after the release of the game. No game of this scope will ever be absolutely "perfect," but at some point you balance out all considerations and make your release. In the case of Stardock, thankfully, that is not the end of the story. They continue to fix bugs as they are discovered, and make game-play tuneups as found appropriate. A January release does not preclude later upgrades, but presupposes them.

Hey, I'm 57 too! For antother month, anyway. Definitely a category 2 consumer!  

You can't always avoid crowds and people (I've tried). Just be satisfied that you are in good company.



I like to think of myself as a cat. You don't get my affection unless you earn it.

Think of Stardock as the Anti-Ubisoft.

I'm only 23, looks like I'm fairly young for the group.

This has nothing to do with "sympathizing with the producer". Not that I don't sympathize with Stardock, but the real reason I voted for the delay is that in the last year or two each and every game I bought was so buggy that I had to wait weeks, months or forever until it was patched to a level that I considered playable. And I am *so* fed up with this. Since a bugged release rarely gets the patches it needs to be really finished (mostly, just the worst stuff is fixed), I support every publisher/developer who chooses to delay and release a quality product instead.

I know, Stardock would support the game further and there probably wouldn't be any game breaking bugs in TA, but the principle still holds.

Fear not, it's all driven by enlightened self interest (isn't everything). It's just that the average GC2 player is brighter than your average consumer, and realizes it's ultimately better for them if the designer takes their time and releases a stronger product.

Though Stardock has created a massive amount of customer affection simply by supporting their game well. Smart people, they are.

Hey, you've still got 5 years on me...

a basic observation of social psychology: when you give a person a vote, s/he's more likely to go along with the outcome, whether or not it's what s/he voted for.

what you don't know is that the devs wanted to push the date back to Jan so they could avoid all the work entirely - their RL terror star will arrive in our solar system by new year's, and this is all just a sneaky way of shirking the huge amount of work TA is involving.

seriously though, i voted for the devs to take their time, not because i wanted the final release to be stronger, but because i don't want them to over-work themselves. those damned holidays are back, and i'm sure everyone at SD has enough going on in their personal lives that the lifting of a massive, pre-christmas deadline has got to be a small holiday gift if nothing else.

Brad, Cari, and all of you whose real names i don't know or can't remember: you're doing great work, and you deserve to spend some time with your families and friends, or crack open a bottle of cab, or go bowling or fishing or sleding (has it snowed in michigan yet?)--whatever you choice of relaxation is, reward yourselves this weekend.

Heh, he's got 6 on me.

I'm really happy that they are gonna push back the release, I've played many games that where rushed out (Hellgate for a good example) and they really do ruin the experience. It's always good for a game to extend the release date, it usually means that there will be less bugs and a better game.

I'm a translator and a lexicographer. "Don't rush" was the only option

I already gave Stardock my money for TA, but as I have many games to play and, generally, a great deal of things to do, I won't mind if they take they time.

People who want the expansion rushed out as soon as possible (Xmas holiday $$$ blah blah blah) are the kind of people who are deluded into believing that creatures with MBA or Marketing degrees actually have souls.

I think the task that SD has set for themseves with TA (individual, ideally somewhat balanced, tech trees for all the races) is quite ambitious for the time table they've mentioned. I would be perfectly happy to let them take well into next year with it, as long as I get beta access.


However, SD is a small developer, with other demanding products competing for development time, as well as strategic considerations regarding the timing of the launch of other games (both theirs and from other developers). I suspect that the Announced TotA release date is already as late as they can comfortbly push it, without screwing up a number of other considerations.


Come December, we'll probably get TotA released as a "Work in Progress", which I would frown on from anyone else, but Stardock has always shown they'll actually follow through and improve/fix products on a timely basis. Either way, Stardock's track record clearly shows theres nothing to worry about, regardless of when it's officially released. I'm not losing any sleep over it.

100% the same for me. I wouldn't have believed it some years ago, but now I've actually got to choose what to play and when, so it's 'quality first' for me. I gladly spent the money I save this way (because of buying less games than before) on the full price of those games where I made good experiences with their producer. Good games are a bargain when judged by "bucks per gaming hour" after all - just compare to a movie DVD or going to the cinema, although these leisures aren't mutually exclusive of course.

that's a really good point!

The "bucks per unit fun" thing has long been a major factor in my preferring to spend several tens of dollars for "one thing" as opposed to buying an unknown CD or paying for a movie ticket instead of using a Netflix slot. Now that I think of it, for me, that sentiment far predates Netflix.

Nice thread, y'all. Thanks for typing.