Why aren't all game companies like Stardock?

from GalCiv2 Forums

I feel compelled to complain about the way modern games continue to march forward into next gen tech and graphics without bothering to perfect their current games.  Two big examples bother me to no end:

1. Total War--I love this series.  However, there are many issues that need improvement in this series that don't require new tech.  The main one that irks me no end is the clipping that happens constantly when zooming into the battlefield.  The sound is great, the graphics are as real as ever, and yet . . . every close up soldier breaks apart into squarish chunks when you get to close to them.  I'm excited for Empire:TW, but I'm certain that despite all the new water effects and ship battles, you'll still see everything break apart upon closer inspection.

2. Oblivion/Fallout 3--Oblivion is a beautiful game and also pretty fun.  But it is extremely annoying hearing the same voices over and over, or hearing one person use two different voices in one conversation.  The plastic faces are unrealistic.  The way people walk/run/swim/crouch/etc. is completely ridiculous looking, but here comes Fallout 3 with a shiny new setting and yet still retaining all of the problems of Oblivion.  And you know that Elder Scrolls 5 will still feature the same nonsense.

So why is it that games companies don't follow Stardock's example with GalCiv2?  That is, constantly updating and improving the game with meaningful updates and expansions that do more than simply add content?  Clipping issues, overused voices, terrible pathfinding, and the like are all things that are allowed to slide in this industry.  Bad CGI in a Hollywood movie virtually destroys the experience and is therefore avoided as much as possible.  Why can't gamers be afforded the same luxury?

off-topic
58,643 views 16 replies
Reply #1 from Sins Forums Top

In short, why would they? Too many game players are like drug addicts. They'll buy anything for a few hours of quick fix, then go looking for something else.

 

The market doesn't demand that they do better, so they don't.

Reply #2 from Demigod Forums Top

Stardock is privately held, so our friend and CEO Brad Wardell is able to do whatever he wants to make money without a bunch of whiny stockholders to ask him to justify himself.

Going pretty well for him so far. :P

SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #4 from Sins Forums Top

I've begun to boycott games from certain companies because of their post sales support.  Ubisoft being the prime example.  Most of their past games have received about 2 patches, the second patch leaving something quite broken but they never revisit the game, instead concentrate on their next big money spinner like Far Cry 2.  I will never buy Far Cry 2, it is totally a game I would enjoy playing but I know what Ubisoft are like and that game will not see any more than a few patches unless it gets an expansion.  Plus the state they have left the Rainbow 6 games and not bothered to fix them makes me prefer to keep my money than give it to them.

Companies who deserve a reward for going against the grain in post sales support: Valve, Blizzard, Stardock, Ironclad, Criterion Games

Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top

I've begun to boycott games from certain companies because of their post sales support.
A boycott is almost worthless unless you have a communication plan telling everyone you know and teh company what you are doing and why.  I hope you are doing that too.

Reply #6 from Demigod Forums Top


1. Total War--I love this series.  However, there are many issues that need improvement in this series that don't require new tech.  The main one that irks me no end is the clipping that happens constantly when zooming into the battlefield.  The sound is great, the graphics are as real as ever, and yet . . . every close up soldier breaks apart into squarish chunks when you get to close to them.  I'm excited for Empire:TW, but I'm certain that despite all the new water effects and ship battles, you'll still see everything break apart upon closer inspection.

2. Oblivion/Fallout 3--Oblivion is a beautiful game and also pretty fun.  But it is extremely annoying hearing the same voices over and over, or hearing one person use two different voices in one conversation.  The plastic faces are unrealistic.  The way people walk/run/swim/crouch/etc. is completely ridiculous looking, but here comes Fallout 3 with a shiny new setting and yet still retaining all of the problems of Oblivion.  And you know that Elder Scrolls 5 will still feature the same nonsense.

1. I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you provide a screenshot of what you mean? Because it sounds like a problem on your end.

2. This isn't a result of constantly going for better graphics. It's quite the opposite, a phenomenon that's, sadly, just as widespread. They're abusing ancient engines, trying to graft prettier shaders onto them like some virtual Frankenstein. Of course Fallout 3 has crappy animations, and the same bugs Oblivion had - they're the same game with different art assets.

Just look at EA's C&C series: They started using the SAGE engine with Generals. At the time it was very efficient for it's hardware need, and had good graphics. That's because it was custom built for that time. But they didn't scrap it when it became clear that the engine was outdated. They're still trying to use it today, resulting it games that look horrible, have ludicrously high hardware needs and still carry the bugs of their ancestors. Like Fallout 3/Oblivion and a host of other games (yes, Total War-since-Rome too, although it's a pathfinding, AI lack in that series)

So why is it that games companies don't follow Stardock's example with GalCiv2?  That is, constantly updating and improving the game with meaningful updates and expansions that do more than simply add content?

GalCiv 2 was graphically outdated by the time of it's release - which is something you can do in it's genre. But that already means a huge amount of work that goes into expansions and updates of more graphically up-to-date games is dropped. It's relatively easy to add content to what is, gameplay wise, best compared to a 2D RTS in complexity, especially in terms of pathfinding.

Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Quoting Legerdemain, reply 2
Stardock is privately held, so our friend and CEO Brad Wardell is able to do whatever he wants to make money without a bunch of whiny stockholders to ask him to justify himself.

Going pretty well for him so far.

That and they are a software house that just happens to have made a few games.  Their income from the software end is enough that they can take their time to get their games right and make people happy.  A company that sole income is from games wouldn't have the luxery to do this since time in development is money not being earned for them.

Reply #8 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Zubaz, reply 5

A boycott is almost worthless unless you have a communication plan telling everyone you know and teh company what you are doing and why.  I hope you are doing that too.

You're absolutely right in a way.  My boycott isn't in the hope of making games companies change their ways though, it's for selfish reasons, to ensure I avoid buying glitzy looking games that are going to be as broken forever as they are on release.

I don't need to communicate with these companies either, look at Ubisofts game forums for people who do all the moaning for me.  The only forum not full of them kind of complaints are the Far Cry 2 forums because any such complaints get deleted by their moderators.

Reply #9 from Demigod Forums Top

because giving people stuff costs money and most companies feel that annoying DRM will keep away pirates rather than constant support.

Reply #10 from Elemental Forums Top

I buy games that I know I will enjoy from developpers I trust.

 

In the past I use to buy about 20 games a year. Now it's about 10. And from those 10 I pick and choose the ones I really trust.

I don't care what the companies do but I figure that at some point lots of people will be doing what I am doing. Either because they have a limited income or because they are tired of getting crappy games.

 

Reply #11 from Elemental Forums Top

Why do i have guys in my class that coudln't write a foreach loop even when intellisense pops up and threw it in there face?

Why do these guys get a job regardless?

Why do crap programs get programmed?

Why do said programs get published?

Why do people still buy these programs?

Reply #12 from Sins Forums Top

Ironically, Sins of a Solar Empire was one of the 10 best selling PC games of 2008 not counting the significant digital sales which aren't counted.

http://www.neowin.net/news/gamers/08/12/17/top-10-best-selling-pc-games-of-2008

 

Reply #13 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

I don't think there will be a Elderscrolls 5 anytime soon.  From what i read, Fallout 3's AI is an improved version of Oblivion's AI.  But you have to give them Bethesda credit, they are not exactly as wealthy as EA, but then they did a fine job with their own dev games even though it is not perfect.

Reply #14 from Stardock Forums Top

If compines were run like Stardock you would never know if they were making anything. They hate talking about if or when OD+ 2.0 is coming. Stardock really needs to have better comucations about their products to users.

If Stardock went public their stock would be very low.

 

Reply #15 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting Randall, reply 14
If compines were run like Stardock you would never know if they were making anything. They hate talking about if or when OD+ 2.0 is coming. Stardock really needs to have better comucations about their products to users.

If Stardock went public their stock would be very low.
Stardock has been as open as they can about OD+2.0.  The fact is that they are stacked up on other projects and can't do as good a job as they feel they need to do with OD.

Reply #16 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Why don't more companies give the after-sales support of stardock (e.g. patches, updates etc.)? Quite simple, it's not worth it. It costs a lot of money for only a small amount of gain, meaning that time would be better spent producing another game. This is assuming of course there arent any major bugs with the game that needs to be fixed, since that would likely anger the customers. However improving the g ame slightly (e.g. small balance tweaks) is of less importance and also less noticeable. It's great if you get a developer that does it, but I've still had plenty of fun games where there has been fairly limited after-sales support.

 

If game purchasers really wanted such after sales support, and were prepared to pay much more for games with it, then you'd probably see more companies following stardocks approach.