Unless, of course, it was me who helped you to install that pump.

Theory of relativity.

It is. Brad said this:

And this:

And this (the number is exaggerated, but the sentiment is true):

Give me $20M and I'll hire the people necessary to make it non-Steam works. May the check payable out to me directly please.

And this:

And Valve says this:

There's a reason why it's pretty much taken over the market. They chased Microsoft and GFWL out of the market entirely. There was Gamespy, but they jacked the prices way up and shut down servers without warning... so that's not exactly a credible alternative. There was Reactor, which went to Gamestop when Brad sold Impulse and didn't go anywhere after that.

Steamworks gives you a ton of features and doesn't ask for any money. It's pretty hard to beat that deal.

Steamworks is 100% free to developers.

Also note that you can sell your steamworks games at other stores or your own store. Steam only takes their 30% cut if you buy the game ON STEAM. Other activations (retail, other digital stores like Amazon/GMG/etc) do not cost anything to the developer/publisher. Effectively Steam loses money on any game that is activated via retail, because they make ZERO money off that and at the bare minimum lose the cost of bandwidth to distribute the game, even discounting all the other infrastucre (matchmaking, profiles, achievements, etc). Thus it is 'theoreticalyli' possible fro steam to make zero sales on a game, despite it being steamworks, if everyone for some reaosn buys it outside of Steam.

So for every single person that is a Founder for GalCiv3, Steam is going to be making zero money off of them. For the Elite Founder Steam will make zero money off of them for the entire life cycle of GalCiv3.

Note that unless you have your own store, or are selling via the Humble Widget, every other digital distribution store charges the standard 30%. Ergo whether you sell a game on Steam, or somewhere else, it's all 'the same' in the end. Someone, somewhere is taking 30%. Thus that doesn't factor into the 'cost' of Steamworks. Because it's the cost of businesss no matter where you sell the game regardless if you even use steamworks or not. Steam taking their cut is no different than selling you game at any other digital store.

For the above reason, I usually recommend people purchase games off a developer's website, or via their Humble Widget if that game gives out Steam keys. That way the developers keep the maximum amount of money from your purchase.

The trojan horse of Steam was Steamworks. Since it effectively solved the 'content' problem. A store needs exclusive content. By offering free middleware they solved that problem extremely effectively. Steamworks is basically the 'cost of business' to keep the Steam store going. it's very little overheard, yet effectively makes every developer a "Steam" developer. All digital roads lead to Steam. And that's worth it's weight in gold.

http://www.steampowered.com/steamworks/index.php

It's free

Not to mention that will give room for more features on the game.

So this really devolved into Steamtalk.

I like the concept of blind research at least as an option but not total randomness.

Each species should have a baseline tech tree that is always available and then unlock random branches. For instance, research materials in space provided you with increased research rates and that was it.  Why not tie in a system that gives you access to a new branch of research for holding that material.  You don't know what it will inspire your people to design and thus becomes a reason to invest in them.  Could even make each material capable of unlocking different tech from different fields, though these materials would need to become far more scarce.

I think we can all agree on one thing.

If this is what you mean be random tech trees then this option doesn't sound so bad and as an option I would play. So you mean that you would pick the tech you would research on the tech tree. The tech tree would be random, but you would pick what to research. This sounds like something suggested that I modified into this.

The tech trees would not be random in anyway, but there would be to many tech trees and as you pick them that would cause the other tech trees to disappear. There are different ways you can do this. I just changed one of my posts into one of these posts. I would like it if you visited this post, and give me your opinion on this. There are different ways to do this.

I don't mind any idea on the private sector doing research as long as you still give me control over what to research. I;m not sure if you should give me control on how much to invest into the private research. If this is what you meant by random research than I have to apoligise. I thought you meant that instead of being able to pick my techs that I am capable of researching the computer were going to pick which techs to research out of the ones I can research, and that I don't want 100%. Instead you are saying that I can still pick which techs to research, but the private sector would research on top of what I research.

Another option that came from this idea was having to many options on starting techs to pick from, and then picking half of them to start out with then the other techs not picked would not be used to start out with. This does sound like customized factions, but I'm actually talking about the stock factions.

Another option that was inspired about this idea was like the above one except you would connect a seperate tech tree that you would start out with connected to each starting tech.

These three options would be a little stagnant version of what you are talking about.

I think that this could be taken a few steps firther.

1. What the private sector wants to research depends on the type of government or the kind of faction you are playing. If civics were implemented instead of governments then civics would be used instead of governments on this option.

2. The private sector would be inspired by what they need.

3. I wouldn't mind the private sector going along paths that they think they need even though it doesn't fit into my game play.

If this is what you meant be random techs then I have to apoligise! This is a great idea even as the main game. This would be an option I would always leave on! This today does not mean randomised tech research. Sorry about advocating so hard against this if this is what you meant. I think that when you bring this up you should clarify. You might get more support for this.

Agreed! While I like the idea of randomization in a tech tree (or trees), some parameters need to be included.  I like the idea that some 'discoveries' in one area may help progress in another area.  RL example: Invention of plastics affected food delivery/storage, medical equipment, parts for vehicles, and surgical techniques (and many others?).  With fantasy (future) techs, we can have connections that are not apparent at beginning of each game.  This would create some variety. 

Also, One game, I don't remember which, had current tech projects noted with a percentage chance it would be completed in one turn.  Upon first beginning research, the % would be very low.  Each turn, research points would be added (based on empire choices/distribution), and the probability of completing the project would increase.  Each turn, the game engine would make a roll based on current probability of completion.  The length of time needed to research a project would not be set in stone.  Even at 99% a poor roll could force player to wait an additional turn (cost overruns, etc).   The basic idea here is to reduce the precision in tech planning.  No longer will a player know that the new phaser tech will be available in 9 turns.  Now it will be in about 9 turns.  It might be 8, with awesome luck, 6 turns.  Or the research facility might be off for abit and it takes 10 turns.  Variety. 

Can you clarify what you mean by this are you suggesting that not the whole tree is random. Sorry I never played Pandora. This is really confusing me.

Quoting Xsifilad, reply 8

The randomization part is fun but it destroys the "lore" of a tech tree an example is you have to research mining in order to get to the naval transportation tech, that just makes no sense.

[/quote]

If these two ideas are the same then I would agree. Matter of fact I'm not sure if any one specific tech ideas I've used or modified is better. Talking about the top Quote. Now if they are different then I think the last part is a bad idea. I like having some control over what I research. I avoid games wuthout tech trees even when they find some other solution. All randomization would be the same. Partial randomization with a different base tech tree for each faction is a good idea as long as I have an option on what to research.

Quoting Xsifilad, reply 8

Also one of the reasons i especially preferred GC2 style tech tree over Civ style is that its not one giant tree moving in one direction. In GC2 its many trees growing on their own depending on where you choose to allocate your efforts. 

[/quote]

Agree on that multiple tech trees are better than one tech tree. I did like eras though.

Quoting Xsifilad, reply 8

Agreed! While I like the idea of randomization in a tech tree (or trees), some parameters need to be included.  I like the idea that some 'discoveries' in one area may help progress in another area.  RL example: Invention of plastics affected food delivery/storage, medical equipment, parts for vehicles, and surgical techniques (and many others?).  With fantasy (future) techs, we can have connections that are not apparent at beginning of each game.  This would create some variety. 

[/quote]

This part added to trades idea is a good option if you add this to if you pick certain tech options it would cause others to disappear. I think this is a good addition.

Quoting Xsifilad, reply 8

Also, One game, I don't remember which, had current tech projects noted with a percentage chance it would be completed in one turn.  Upon first beginning research, the % would be very low.  Each turn, research points would be added (based on empire choices/distribution), and the probability of completing the project would increase.  Each turn, the game engine would make a roll based on current probability of completion.  The length of time needed to research a project would not be set in stone.  Even at 99% a poor roll could force player to wait an additional turn (cost overruns, etc).   The basic idea here is to reduce the precision in tech planning.  No longer will a player know that the new phaser tech will be available in 9 turns.  Now it will be in about 9 turns.  It might be 8, with awesome luck, 6 turns.  Or the research facility might be off for abit and it takes 10 turns.  Variety. Quoting Xsifilad, reply 8

[/quote]

Scary realistic this wouldn't affect the game for me either way as long as the Ai for this was hard and not easy. If the Ai couldn't do this good then I wouldn't want this it is already to hard unless your the Torians or the Thalans to keep up with me. If the Ai couldn't do at least as good as it does now I definately wouldn't want it. If the Ai could do as good as it does now then this wouldn't affect how I feel.

I think Trade came up with a way to make this work. 100% randomization I can't support it might actually make me change games. If people actually would play this way as the second idea then it would make a viable option I would never play. Trades idea though would work as a major game for me. my comment only makes sense as an understanding that I quoted two randomization ideas. One was good the other wasn't there were five ideas total.

1. Every faction has a different baseline tech trees. Resources found on the game unlocks tech paths for you, and then as you research normally your people will do research on their own depending on their needs and what kind of faction they are.

2. Not sure what the second idea is. It's talking about randomized techs while you can see the techs immediately in front of the tech.

3. Multiple tech trees

4. Dicoveries in one area affect another area on randomization. My added to this idea was it would eliminate others. These two ideas could be added to the first.

5. Percentage rolls instead of tech turns. Not sure what to make of this.

I outlined this because I was starting to see confusion hopefully that clarifies. Oh yeah I'm in support with ideas 1, 3, and 4.