Keeping short, the article was about Just In Time business software, suggesting a model of small modules, no beta, pay per use, fine granularity.

You should build the package you need, chosing from a list of available little modules, of course with a good messaging system for linking them.

Translating it to a CIV game, we can dream of a main game structure (e.g. the graphic engine and map model, just to fix a common background) where you can chose the diplomacy model, the research model and technology tree, the production model, the unit workshop model, the economy model, etc. etc.

Properly balancing all that mix can become a nightmare, as mastering the resulting game every time you change a module, but if trimming and fine tuning can be done externally (i.e. at the player level) and the messaging system perfectly developed, this game can fit everyone taste and really kill every other product founded on the old "monholitic" model.

I can imagine team ("tribe" or "gild") of players sharing the same kit of module and flaming others choice at every forum and newsgroup

I can also imagine a different selling model (basic game on conventional shops, list of modules availabel on Internet only at reduced price, as Ralf suggest.
Before flaming me about download trouble and cost, please consider that a JIT module should be a lot smaller than a full game or a main patch: something under one MB, according to Gartner Group (about business software, I must underline).

MarkG, this is quite different from EA sport games, where AFAIK the software is still monholitic, and update are mainly a "cash cow" excuse, just for patching some part and adding last rosters and statistics.
This instead is a whole new approach that can be the next best thing after sliced bread or the worst "flop" after _______ (please fill the line as you like)

Good question. Personally, I enjoy TBS in phases. I'll go for long, dry spells without *any* TBS. In fact, I haven't played a TBS since SMAC (though I bought the super-edition of HoMM3...just never got into it).

However, after all this dedicated RTS-ing (AoK) and giving Ultima 9 another chance (works well now, guys, give it a try)...I'm ready for a solid TBS like Civ3.

Personally I'd rather have Civ every three years. I woudln't buy Civ every year because I don't have time to play that many versions nor the money.

in a sense, activision used the "ea sports model" for ctp2: about 20 months between the two versions, around 18 months of development

good stuff:
- same engine=less bugs
- time to balance many concepts that were new for civ games in ctp1(combat model, unconvetional units, etc)
- backwards compatibility in mod making(ctp1 unit sprites work in ctp2, most of the formats of the text files are the same, etc)
- enough time to add new/existing-in-other-games features(borders, new diplomacy model, etc)

bad stuff:
- the "it looks the same"/"it's a patch" accusations/feeling(depending how you look at it)
- not enough time to do even more balancing
- not enough time to do a better product(pbem/hotseat, more scenarios/editors, even less bugs)

so, i think in the case of ctp2, this worked well. still, if they decide to do a ctp3, it would be time to be "bold" again and try bigger changes, which would mean bigger development time

btw, some confused my original question with add-ons. i'm not talking about add-ons or "gold editions", but about sequels...

quote: Originally posted by Kumiorava on 12-26-2000 02:54 AM How about the Microsoft OS release model....

Or, taking a page from Apple's playbook, charge $20 for the privledge of being a beta-tester, and then charge full price when the final version is available!

Actually, depending on the pricing, I would pay for short "beta" like installments. I'm thinking of the old shareware prices like $5 per release, with a final version at a steep discount depending on the number of releases that you bought. I know that's not the model MarkG was refering too, I'm just musing out loud, running on caffeine and too little sleep.