How much fun can we expect for $71.40, the price I paid for this game? Well, that depends on where and how would you spend that money. If we would be at Playstation Store, $71.40 would be the price of an average new AAA title. When we take risks by trying an in-development product, that might be just bad, most publishers reward that behavior. Here we don't see that. But we see an AAA sequel to a game we loved. The looks and the charm are gone, while there are other games that still use hand-painted games. So something that defined Baldur's Gate series is gone, we have new look, new feel, new style, new story. The brand name is used by a modern 5th edition D&D game, and a lot of things changed. So far it looks like a good game, like many other AAA titles. And if new AAA games are your thing, and you are willing to take risks by buying early, it is OK. Beautiful, like many other games, with "handcrafted stories" like many others. It has the potential to be a celebrated masterpiece like The Last of Us 2 was, and it has the potential to become a disaster like The Last of Us 2 was, maybe depending on your preferences. Early access and preorder is always a risk, and here we aren't rewarded for taking that. The publisher doesn't care much about it. So on Playstation Store, we wouldn't expect much more for $71.40 than what BG3 can offer. But we aren't on Playstation Store, we have GOG, with plenty of old masterpieces, plenty of cheap indie masterpieces, and most of the people here have a backlog of games we bought and want to play. And some old masterpieces (like Neverwinter Nights) are there and we still play with them. And here it isn't an OK offer, as there are much better ways to spend $71.40 on games here. Here we can expect much more for $71.40, and there are better games on GOG, at much lower price. We can buy BG3, try it, find it is in development, decide to play something else, and add it to our endless backlog of games where we will get very little fun from it.
It is the third game in the series, yet it isn't a finished product and it shouldn't be. There are other transportation focused games with limited scope and good graphics, and their developers have a task they can finish easily, yet plenty of people want more. And there are at least 2 open source games (one of them has 2 variants) with ever evolving gameplay and a complex simulation. They have a bigger team of developers, but they have outdated graphics and that can limit immersion and gameplay. Fans of the genre would want something that would combined the best of both worlds. And Transport Fever 2 tries to be that game. In addition to graphics we have better physics, more complex simulation so the game is demanding, and it should keep updated to use the new hardware, and to try to catch up with plenty of the older games. We will have performance bootlenecks and issues because we try to push so hard to have everything possible and impossible. When the developers can finance refining a game, we have a patch. When they can't, we have a sequel. And Transport Fever 2 is one of these sequels. It is visible unfinished, incomplete, but it is still the best option for the people who "aim to have everything". In a time where most sequels are usually a "worse version of a game trying to profit from the brand" it is nice to see a sequel that is actually an improved version of the game. It is arguably the best on the market, and it is a good game you can play for a lot of time. Yet we will see how it should improve in the next few years or decades. And when we have to get used to the new UI it won't be as comfortable as the old one. The performance won't improve too much for valid technical reasons. It is good now, but it will be even better to switch to the next improved verion when there will be one.
There is one thing to learn about multiplayer keys: If you don't have them, "any cheater can repeatedly join games". For any online multiplayer functionality this feature is essential and not only for keeping the load sane. We loved Age of Wonders. It was much better than the "well known Heroes series" and we loved it for depth, better gameplay options. And if we would still compare AoW 3 to the latest Heroes game it would be still good. But we can compare it to previous Age of Wonders games (preferably AoW 1), and to other games like "Endless Legend", or Sorcerer King, Fallen Enchantress, and Eador. And you know what? It doesn't make AoW 3 look any good. To protect multiplayer experience this way developers had to do one more thing as well: Keep online game modes tied to this match making service. But it means we would have to wait a lot for the other player(s) and as others will wait on us, we should sit non stop in front of the computer. It is much worse than playing at a slow pace as a Play By Email game. And when they have eliminated PBEM they forgot to add a replacement. Keeping a "multiplayer save in the cloud" and notifying the players in e-mail when it is their turn would keep most of the PBEM feel, and having some cloud storage would justify the online key. The problem with the online key lies in "longevity" of the game, as it questions what will happen in the future when maintaining the servers would be "unwanted burden". How will we play with friends if there is no unauthenticated multiplayer (LAN game) option? Our choice is limited to 3 options: To buy it here DRM free take this risk. To use a store that adds new multiplayer options to games when the official support dies. But if we choose the later, it would add DRM, unfair pricing, etc. and another client. And finally to avoid buying the game. When there are better games in the genre and older titles in the series are better, much better these options aren't that nice. Or are they?
Here on GOG.COM we expect certain rights. But I remember when Gamer's Bill of Rights were new from Stardock. And how we bought GalCiv I even if we weren't sure if we want to play with them. Just to finance fairness. We seen how GalCiv I and GalCiv II community gets much love from the publisher who added new and new expansions, improved the design. And we didn't have to "buy this years version for a full price". And GalCiv III is "a GalCiv" game. A decent 4X game with some issues (balance, to name one), yet with long term support where we can expect fixes for most of it. It has some story, and a friendly company behind it. And what they say about features and new options is true. It sounds too good to be true. But it is true. The only problem was "Founders Elite" edition came with a Steam key. That means: mandatory additional software and DRM. When GOG.COM started to release new games, not only good *old* games and here Stardock is "noone special". Yet they are here. Now we have GOG Connect, so we don't have to pay for the same game twice. And Stardock joined this program with their games quickly. But to have the content I already paid for, I would have to spend $46.09 on DLCs and expansions. And in the coming months and years new expansions and DLCs will be released. That is how it works with GalCiv III. And we would have to pay more and more and more. GalCiv III is a decent 4X game. With some smaller or bigger issues. But with this much extra content to buy, it gets too expensive very fast. Yes: Most of the DLCs and expansions have enough content, so the price seem fair. And on GOG.COM there are other cheaper and better 4X games, that are equally DRM free. On Steam they give me all the DLCs, expansions for an early expensive preorder. So I will play this game for a long time and will enjoy the expansions. But I wouldn't want to start an endless spending spree for the game and extra content here and now.
