If you have to cut game features, at least do this:

[TCO]

Originally posted by yin26

Let's recap:

1) If Firaxis releases Civ 3 WITHOUT features they promised or hinted at WITHOUT explaining/clarifying that as of yesterday, I will wait to buy the game...if ever.

2) If Firaxis releases Civ3 WITH major bugs and doesn't make a public effort to work with fans to fix them, I will NEVER buy Civ3. The converse could also be true, but that means I will still be waiting a good long while before buying the game.

And the thing that impresses me about Paradox is they really didn't need to do these last few rounds of patches. But they did because they want to sell the NEXT game. Not only that, but they worked closely with the public to craft the patches.

You really love to threaten not to buy the game! I'm sure they are crying at home about that one sale they are losing.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Bleyn


I thought it was clear from Stormhound's posts in the MOO3 forum thread on the cuts, at least on the matter of MOO3, the cuts were being done by the choice of the Quicksilver team, in order to meet the schedule that they have in place. Yes, there probably some prodding on the side of Infogrames that went along with this. But that is supposed to be part of a publishers job. At least, in this case, it was the choice of the designers to make some cuts, and early enough to potentially make a real impact on the rest of the project schedule.

Looking over the thread on the MOO3 annoucement, it appears to me that you have either little appreciation for the job of project manager, or just have something against Alan and Sid. I will admit that I have never worked on any sort of computer software project, but I can at least appreciate that their job is not an easy one.

It is, to my understanding, very normal for a lot of game projects to start out with a grand list of "We'ld like it to do this" ideas. At various times during the project, these ideas are evaluated for how well they are developing. Some remain the same, some get reworked, some get canned, some get postponed to an expansion or sequal. Some times, these changes happen late in the development cycle.

And while yes, I am willing to concede that some of the time when the developers have to can something late in the project, they might have been deluding themselves on the feasability or required timeline for an idea. There are also plenty of times where something is removed or reworked because they find that while it may be on schedule and working exactly the way it was planned, but they find that it just isn't fitting in with other parts of the game, or just plain isn't as fun or nice as they thought it would be. And unfortuantly, there are going to be times when an idea has to be worked on for a long time before they can really see these things.

Given how much things can potentially change in the development of a game, I am honsetly surprised that some developers give us as much info as they do. If it were entirely up to them, I suspect a few would rather not even announce a game is in the works until its ready to ship. However, that would be unrealistic market-wise, and at the very least the publisher is going to try to hype a game at least a little bit before it ships.


On another point, I think you are also somewhat mistaken. IIRC, Firaxis did Not choose to work with Infogrames on Civ3. I believe that they were originally contracted to work with Microprose. It was not Firaxis's choice for Microprose to be bought by Hasbro, or for Hasbro to then sell Hasbro Interactive to Infogrames. And given the amount of time that MOO3 may have been in the works, Quicksilver is probably in a similar situation. And there is no telling what sort of changes in relationship may have occured between the developers and publishers in the buy-outs.

Among other things, a number of people around here seem to want to blame the developers for absolutely every little thing, and few seem to consider that maybe some of the choices they don't like are either being made for them by the publisher without or because the publisher gave them no better option. Personally, I think it says something about both Firaxis and Quicksilver that they are willing to remove or delay certain components of the game to ensure that the product that is released is the best they can make it, rather than release it with multiple sections that need more work that may never happen.

Finally, I would like to remind people of an old axiom of computer hardware and software development that applies as well to games as :

In any project there are three options, but you can only have two. It can:
1. Work well (ie. few if any bugs/lots of features)
2. Run fast (ie be optimized)
3. Be cheap (ie. come in on time/under budget)

And thats just the way that things are.

1. A very well-written and thought-through post. You spent more time and effort on it than I deserve. I've been pretty tongue-in cheek in some of my comments.

2. Agreed that Alan was responsible about the feature cuts. I was responding more to the posters who want to idolize the developers and say bad things about those evil publishers. (Also. there was just a trace of a whine in one of Stormpups comments...and I didn't agree with his encouraging people to e-mail the publisher.)

3. You make a very good point about the inherent process (start with a raft of ideas and abonden some along the way.) That's fine. You just have to realize that the over-active fans (like Yin) will have been "counting on" those features.

4. You are right that Hasbro selected Firaxis (not vice versa).

5. I agree with your comments about 2 of 3 things wrt programs. People need to realize this too, when they get upset about publishers. Lots of little kids on this site don't understand the basic facts of life.

[yin26]

GP: I don't threaten. I could care less what Firaxis thinks at this point. I also know that I am in the extreme side of the scale, and most casual gamers could really care less about the issues as I and other see them.

So don't put words in my mouth. They HAVE lost one pre-order, that's for sure. If they don't care about the one sale that could have EASILY been made, though, you have to wonder what they think about a few thousand...

[yin26]

Don't worry ...Sid understands PR!

What a joke! Sid is a classic left-over from the garage programming days. Anybody who knows anything knows that. If it weren't for Maxis, he wouldn't be able to put together a decent Web team for Sid Golf, either.

Listen...I don't care if the man chats it up with us on Poly. In fact, I'd rather he didn't. But the lame PR from Firaxis goes back years now. They can claim like a mantra 'It's all about the game.' I agree. And part of that is how the fans percieve the game is being developed and supported.

Like I've said, it's EVIDENT Civ3 will be released a solid 2-3 patches from being what is should have been out of the box. I'm not telling other people NOT to buy the game...but I'm trying to say, Hey, if you hate the Hope for a Patch drama, just happily play something else for a few months.

[yin26]

Bleyn:

Good post. But the counter-point to what you've said is this: Firaxis has HYPED this game...they hyped the graphics, the gameplay, the MP, etc. And yet, what they have said and shown over the months makes for a muddled picture at best.

So, if you are going to be quiet, BE QUIET! If you are going to hype (which I guess even the mighty Sid has to do these days), then be smart about it.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by GP
1. Sid has been doing games for a long time. He probably has a decent handle on how to maximize profits from a Civ game. If he thinks its important to get a game out before Xmas or if he thinks its possible to break the game into 2 components and sell it as such, than he's probably right. At least I trust him, more than I trust you. If there were truly bad financial decisions being made, Sid would got to bat on them. I personally think that if the game is well-done who cares if it costs $70 and releases in 2 components?

You're right, Sid may have a handle on how to make Infogrames and/or Firaxis the most money, by screwing their customers out of every penny they can manage.

Case in point: Diablo2. Base version of D2 when it was first released $50. Expansion pack a year later (that was horribly broken when shipped) $40. Total: $90 for the "whole game". Three months after the expansion pask comes out Blizzard releases news that they will be bundling D2, D2 Xpack & D1 for the price of... $50. Who was screwed here, their loyal fans who eagerly awaited their games and bought them when they hit the stores or the "holiday shoppers" who paid almost 50% less for more?

Same thing could easily happen with Civ3. Civ3 comes out WITHOUT MP then 6 months later an "XPack" comes out with MP support and some extra crap they had to shove in to keep the fans from tearing down their offices because they now have to pay an extra $20+ for something that SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE GAME TO BEGIN WITH (assuming it ships without MP support).

Now then, shipping the game in two parts does maximize profits, at the expense of screwing the people who buy the games. Assuming the above mentioned scenario takes place you can be a lemming and shell out $70+ dollars for both, while I and many others, will wait and buy them both later at a much reduced price and be glad we're not lemmings.

2. Sid probably knows a little but more about PR than you. Repsonding to Yin and the Poly crowd is down pretty far on the priorities. They will make sure to take care of the magazines. Don't worry ...Sid understands PR!

Hmm, I have been playing games since 1993 and the companies I have seen that actually talk with and interact with fans during development have been few and far between. Yet, the games I have seen come from companies that do this are usually MUCH better than the games where the developer thinks they know how to do games better then their fans. I can give you a statement from Diablo2 project head Max S that says exactly that (he was saying he knew how to balance the game better than fans, even in light of pages upon pages of documented imbalances and problems with the game design).

Sure companies don't have to interact with fans at all, but I can't think of ONE instance where a game didn't turn out BETTER because a company actually talked to their fans during development.

3. Wrt to the duty of Firaxis to communicate with us, come on! I'm sure they appreciate the list. And I'm sure it was useful to fix some bugs and to have as a reference. But the sheer bulk of the work they've done would have gotten done without a List. They've been playing and coding civ games for a long time. They could make a great new game even if there were no internet community.

And they could also make Civ3 as Civ2 was to Civ, same game better graphics only. The same game with better graphics doesn't not mean they had some better idea, only that they hired better artists. As fans of this game, or any game, we should feel obligated to press game publishers to IMPROVE their games, not merely throw on a new coat of paint. To do otherwise would be to stolidly accept mediocrity and while some may like any game that has a famous title with a numeral after it, some of us actually want something NEW and BETTER when we play a game.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by GP

2. Agreed that Alan was responsible about the feature cuts. I was responding more to the posters who want to idolize the developers and say bad things about those evil publishers. (Also. there was just a trace of a whine in one of Stormpups comments...and I didn't agree with his encouraging people to e-mail the publisher.)

Hmm, question... Why is it you don't like when people "idolize the developers" at QS yet you seem to do exactly that when talking about Firaxis?

A little biased in your opinions perhaps? If you complain about people praising developers in one thread then don't do it yourself, less hypocritical that way.

Just thought I would point that out.

[TCO]

Originally posted by yin26

Like I've said, it's EVIDENT Civ3 will be released a solid 2-3 patches from being what is should have been out of the box. I'm not telling other people NOT to buy the game...but I'm trying to say, Hey, if you hate the Hope for a Patch drama, just happily play something else for a few months.

Yin, Civ2 was a mess before patching...and it required a slew of them! But it did fine, in terms of sales. Why not expect Civ3 to follow the same pattern?

[TCO]

Originally posted by yin26
Bleyn:

Good post. But the counter-point to what you've said is this: Firaxis has HYPED this game...they hyped the graphics, the gameplay, the MP, etc. And yet, what they have said and shown over the months makes for a muddled picture at best.

So, if you are going to be quiet, BE QUIET! If you are going to hype (which I guess even the mighty Sid has to do these days), then be smart about it.

In other words you are going to have problems if the general gaming public (or rabid gaming nuts) sees the evolution from grand design to "less grand" design that Bleyn proposes as the best approach to design.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ozymandous


You're right, Sid may have a handle on how to make Infogrames and/or Firaxis the most money, by screwing their customers out of every penny they can manage.

Case in point: Diablo2. Base version of D2 when it was first released $50. Expansion pack a year later (that was horribly broken when shipped) $40. Total: $90 for the "whole game". Three months after the expansion pask comes out Blizzard releases news that they will be bundling D2, D2 Xpack & D1 for the price of... $50. Who was screwed here, their loyal fans who eagerly awaited their games and bought them when they hit the stores or the "holiday shoppers" who paid almost 50% less for more?

Same thing could easily happen with Civ3. Civ3 comes out WITHOUT MP then 6 months later an "XPack" comes out with MP support and some extra crap they had to shove in to keep the fans from tearing down their offices because they now have to pay an extra $20+ for something that SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE GAME TO BEGIN WITH (assuming it ships without MP support).

Now then, shipping the game in two parts does maximize profits, at the expense of screwing the people who buy the games. Assuming the above mentioned scenario takes place you can be a lemming and shell out $70+ dollars for both, while I and many others, will wait and buy them both later at a much reduced price and be glad we're not lemmings.

1. Charging what the market will bear is not "screwing" people. It's normal practice. Don't be such a child. Learn the way the world works and adjust accordingly. And calm down.

2. Breaking the game in 2, or charging a heavier price to initial users is just price discrimination. They are using this to extract more dollars from the people who value the game enough to want it NOW. Those who value it less, get charged less...but have to wait to play it.

Ever wonder why you can't get a paberback book for the first 6 months a book comes out? Or why movies wait to go on video until the theater run is over? It's all about "screwing" (HA HA ) every dollar out of the public that they can.

3. The company isn't too worried about losing YOUR individual sale. All they worry about is the overall result. Do they earn more money by price discriminating (by breaking the release in 2) or not? They know there will be cheapskates (or non-avid gamers) who will wait until the next summer. But they assume there are enough die-hards to make up for that. I would not discount the importance of the Xmas rush either...

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ozymandous



Hmm, I have been playing games since 1993 and the companies I have seen that actually talk with and interact with fans during development have been few and far between. Yet, the games I have seen come from companies that do this are usually MUCH better than the games where the developer thinks they know how to do games better then their fans. I can give you a statement from Diablo2 project head Max S that says exactly that (he was saying he knew how to balance the game better than fans, even in light of pages upon pages of documented imbalances and problems with the game design).

Sure companies don't have to interact with fans at all, but I can't think of ONE instance where a game didn't turn out BETTER because a company actually talked to their fans during development.

I think you're flattering yourself. But hey maybe you're right.... In which case, feedback is not too hard to get. They don't need to be responsive though. If Yin gets huffy because it's a one-way street, Firaxis just moves on to some other site to listen to gamers.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GP
Ever wonder why you can't get a paberback book for the first 6 months a book comes out? Or why movies wait to go on video until the theater run is over? It's all about "screwing" (HA HA ) every dollar out of the public that they can

C'mon, GP: you're making it too easy.

A clear demonstration of a situation in which a planned economy would be more "efficient" in using resources to satisfy wants than the free market.

And you wonder why I'm a socialist.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ozymandous


And they could also make Civ3 as Civ2 was to Civ, same game better graphics only. The same game with better graphics doesn't not mean they had some better idea, only that they hired better artists. As fans of this game, or any game, we should feel obligated to press game publishers to IMPROVE their games, not merely throw on a new coat of paint. To do otherwise would be to stolidly accept mediocrity and while some may like any game that has a famous title with a numeral after it, some of us actually want something NEW and BETTER when we play a game.

1. Civ2 sold very well. Why not repeat that formula? This is not a competition for best product, it's a business. Who care if they don't get points from you for having a better idea. This is not some intellectual Cheney size contest.

2. Yes, you do have an incentive to push the developers to put the most product into the game (while keeping the price the same). The developers have a different incentive (to sell lots of copies, without too much work. Just becuase you want something, does not mean other people want it too. Sorry...but that's the big bad world for you.

3. Yin, for one, realizes this incentive defference and tries to explain why Firaxis should do what he wants (in terms of arguments that it will end up benefitting them too.) These are the kind of arguments you need to make. Not the "Mommy, mommy, give me, give me" arguments. The thing is...I don't quite trust Yin with his arguments. After all, he still has fan incentives...not game company incentives. He will make a cogent arguemnt for aligned incentives. But I'm not sure that I trust him regarding things like the lost Xmas rush...

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ozymandous


Hmm, question... Why is it you don't like when people "idolize the developers" at QS yet you seem to do exactly that when talking about Firaxis?

A little biased in your opinions perhaps? If you complain about people praising developers in one thread then don't do it yourself, less hypocritical that way.

Just thought I would point that out.

I'm not making any distinctions between Firaxis and QS at this time.

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


C'mon, GP: you're making it too easy.

A clear demonstration of a situation in which a planned economy would be more "efficient" in using resources to satisfy wants than the free market.

And you wonder why I'm a socialist.

I. Actually price discrimination represents an overall more efficient method of resource distribution than simple monopoly behavior (the situation without price descrimination.) Perfect price discrimination (as perfect competition) has zero dead-weight loss. The difference is a higher amount of wealth transfer to the producers from the consumers.

II. Your assigment (if you choose to accept it) is to discuss this subject by:

1. Drawing supply and demand curves for A. Perfect competition, B. Simple Monopoly behavior, C. Perfect Price descrimination, and D. 2 tiered price descrimination.

2. Using the civ game example discuss how tangible A through D would look in terms of selling arrangments.

3. Use geometric arguments to show the differeing deadweight losses and consumer/producer surplusses.

4.Propose and discuss regulatory schemes and how they might affect this situation. What are the implications for game developer and consumers wrt to innovation?

5.Why is the monopoly assumption useful? How should we think of other games in this example? (How do they enter the problem?)

III. Ever watch any USSR flicks? Play any USSR games? Have fun...

IV. I don't bother wondering why you're a socialist. These things tend to be almost religious, rather than fact-based...so let's not get into an argument as fruitless as the Dookie religion arguments.

V. I miss the kitty too.

[Master Marcus]

Sure , crafting something alone without suggestions is not the best way to do it. But when a software company doesn't interact with the fans, that doesn't necessarily means they don't take some of their inputs (plagiarism hehe ). EVERY team has a couple of designer/programmers devoted to surf the crowded fan boards. They certainly do not answer to them as often as they should; at least they read. It's an evolution from the pre-internet era, isn't it ? I remember some of the hardest games of all-time, released in the late 80's / early 90's ( namely Genesis and some PC ) oh often they were impossible to beat because of an incredible unbalanced gameplay and horrible control...today's games have a much better control mechanism but are easier also. A global market influence has made its way.

All in all I think the developers have the right to do what they want with their projects; they work sometimes 10-16 hours per day scratching their eyes for us . They are paid for that, but NOT to answer all of our whimsical demands . At least they can't ignore the gamers community.

[yin26]

Yin, Civ2 was a mess before patching...and it required a slew of them! But it did fine, in terms of sales. Why not expect Civ3 to follow the same pattern?

I actually got on the Civ2 wagon a bit late. I was too busy at the time for computer games, so I missed the whole release, patch thing. What you have to remember in all this is that Civ2 was the sequal to a game that revolutionized gaming in its day.

Civ 3, however, is revolutionizing nothing. Aside from the Civ player who is dedicated enough to buy Civ simply because it is Civ, people move on, the industry moves on. And even old fans are growing weary of the same formula. There is better competition. The market is over-flowing.

So Civ 3 is hardly in the command seat that Civ 2 was. I promise if it gets a slow start out of the gate, there could be trouble. Will it still sell well? Yes. Will it sell as well as it could have had Firaxis played its cards better?

In other words you are going to have problems if the general gaming public (or rabid gaming nuts) sees the evolution from grand design to "less grand" design that Bleyn proposes as the best approach to design.

That's not what I said. I said if you are going to ride on the "BEST MP EVER!" wave of hype (and other hype), don't then become a bumbling fool in public for months as people continue to ask: "Ummm, about that rumor..." Back up your hype with at least plausibility and a degree of courtesy for the fans when information is obviously going awry.

Civ2 sold very well. Why not repeat that formula?

Again...because it IS a repeat. It's tired. I don't think people will have the patience to have Firaxis cram the 'It's your computer, not our code' garbage again. And let's face it: Many gamers new to the Civ title will look at the specs and say: "Hmmm, not RTS. O.K. So this is just a TBS world conquer game? I've been hearing good things about that OTHER game, though...what was it? Europa Universalis 2, an RTS/TBS hybrid, or Empire Earth, which spans history in a totally new and exciting way? And these graphics on the back of the box ain't all that...I bet a better TBS would be HoMM4. Yeah! Plus I never hear much about this Firaxis company anywhere..."

You might not agree with a few or most of those potential gripes, but as has been said here before: The Sid name is no longer springing to mind the way it used to when people think of great, modern games. He is a face in the crowd as far as the average gamer is concerned, and he needs to adjust his company's PR strategy to deal with it.

But I'm not sure that I trust him regarding things like the lost Xmas rush...

I've always said that an X-mas release alone does not guarantee good sales...but a horrible round of first reviews can kill them. This is Infogrames' call, of course, but unless the deadline was sprung on Firaxis, they share the brunt of the blame for missing features and any serious gameplay issues we might see out of the box.

We have seen a number of solid indicators that Firaxis has had to cut its dev list and shoot for a dealine and not the game they envisioned. Sure, that happens to most every game ever made, I realize. But if Civ 3 had two years of dev time, was being built on top of the same engine as previous titles, etc., then why all the secret or lame presentation of information and cut features?

All of it seems like horrid management to me...and that screams: WAIT TO BUY THIS GAME...if ever.

[KrazyHorse]

GP, I PMed you with a response. It's not obscene , but I felt that its content was long enough and boring enough that I wouldn't needlessly expose others to it.

IV. I don't bother wondering why you're a socialist. These things tend to be almost religious, rather than fact-based...so let's not get into an argument as fruitless as the Dookie religion arguments.

Yes, you do tend to wander into the mystical when you discuss the virtues of the free market.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by GP


1. Charging what the market will bear is not "screwing" people. It's normal practice. Don't be such a child. Learn the way the world works and adjust accordingly. And calm down.

2. Breaking the game in 2, or charging a heavier price to initial users is just price discrimination. They are using this to extract more dollars from the people who value the game enough to want it NOW. Those who value it less, get charged less...but have to wait to play it.

Ever wonder why you can't get a paberback book for the first 6 months a book comes out? Or why movies wait to go on video until the theater run is over? It's all about "screwing" (HA HA ) every dollar out of the public that they can.

3. The company isn't too worried about losing YOUR individual sale. All they worry about is the overall result. Do they earn more money by price discriminating (by breaking the release in 2) or not? They know there will be cheapskates (or non-avid gamers) who will wait until the next summer. But they assume there are enough die-hards to make up for that. I would not discount the importance of the Xmas rush either...

1. Ah, pardon me? "Don't be such a child?" I'll admit I am new here but most forums have rules against personal attacks, why don't you review the rules against that here (assuming there are any) and apologize, eh?

IMHO, breaking the game in two for the deliberate reason to charge people double for what you initially advertised as being in the original game IS giving customers the shaft. As someone mentioned recently (not sure where) this is like selling someone the chasis and wheels for a sports car and telling them that it'll be the best thing on the road if and when they buy the engine, tranny and body in the seperate package 6 months later.

I don't think it is unreasonable for game companies to put what the promise (major features at least) in the initial release of the game and to have it work corectly. The "recent" trend seems to be to release games with more and more problems and missing features and then charge customers later for bug fixes and the missing elements in some expansion pack. An expansion pack used to be truly extra stuff they wanted to put in the game as "extra" stuff that added more to an already good game, not an excuse to release buggy software with missing features.

2. Yes, I agree it is price discrimination. I know why books aren't available in paperback for 6 months, but do you see many paperbacks that come out with missing chapters from the original hardback book? This example is not the same as what happens when a company breaks a game apart like this. The book example would only be valid if the publisher issues a "sequal" for the book with the 3-4 missing chapters 6 months after the book came out that provided more character history and in-depth plot elements.

Paperback books are typically the SAME content wise as their hardback cousins just cheaper due to cheaper publishing methods. This is what happens later when games come out with bundled packages, gold editions, etc. The issue is this: when you buy a hardback book you know you will get the same content as someone buying the paperback later, you buy it because you like hardcovers, etc. When buying a game in todays economy you do not know if you're only buying part of the game, with the "missing" features comming later or not, so people who often make the game an initial hit are shafted because they have to pay more to get what the "casual gamer" get for cheaper prices.

This practice may be "smart" for game companies but eventually upset anyone who has half a brain. In the Diablo2 example I mentioned earlier I was disgusted with BLizzard and will make sure I never buy any of their games again until enough time has passed that 1) they fix all the glaring problems they typically have in their games and 2) that I make sure I get all the game at once, and not added later where I have to pay double.

With the rumors about missing MP for Civ3 I'll probably wait to get it also, just in case.

3) Sure the companies probably don't care about me, but I am sure if enough people like myself stop buying their games initially they may wise up, or else go the way of Spectrum Holobyte, Microprose, etc. It may make sense to break the game to get more money short term but I can't help but think this is a very bad policy as the long term effects may be a loss in revenue as people wait to get games because they are tired of having to buy two products to get ONE functional game.

EDIT: One last thing, this hype about the Chrostmas rush is exactly that, HYPE. I have seen more games become mega-hits that were NOT released during the Christmas rush as during the rush. The reasons why are numerous: not as much competition, the developers weren't as rushed, etc. Just because a game is released during the "christmas rush" does not mean it will be a hit, just that it faces more numerous and often stiffer competition.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by GP


I think you're flattering yourself. But hey maybe you're right.... In which case, feedback is not too hard to get. They don't need to be responsive though. If Yin gets huffy because it's a one-way street, Firaxis just moves on to some other site to listen to gamers.

Flattering myself? How so? Because games seem to turn out better when developers actually ask fans what they want? Or because I have been playing since 1993? lol, be a tad more specific if you wish to debate semantics, unless of course your aim and goal is to casually dismiss the comments of anyone else as irrelevant.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by GP

1. Civ2 sold very well. Why not repeat that formula? This is not a competition for best product, it's a business. Who care if they don't get points from you for having a better idea. This is not some intellectual Cheney size contest.

2. Yes, you do have an incentive to push the developers to put the most product into the game (while keeping the price the same). The developers have a different incentive (to sell lots of copies, without too much work. Just because you want something, does not mean other people want it too. Sorry...but that's the big bad world for you.

3. Yin, for one, realizes this incentive difference and tries to explain why Firaxis should do what he wants (in terms of arguments that it will end up benefiting them too.) These are the kind of arguments you need to make. Not the "Mommy, mommy, give me, give me" arguments. The thing is...I don't quite trust Yin with his arguments. After all, he still has fan incentives...not game company incentives. He will make a cogent argument for aligned incentives. But I'm not sure that I trust him regarding things like the lost Xmas rush...

1) Why not repeat Civ2? Because Civ2 was simply a repeat of Civ with better graphics. Did you play Civ when it first came out? I did, and after playing it for over a year, when I bought Civ2 expecting new, improved features and better gameplay I was disappointed because it was the same game with better graphics.

Sure Civ2 sold well, but what percentage of gamers will be disappointed if Civ3 is simply Civ2 with a new feature or two added in? More than were disappointed by Civ2 compared to Civ I imagine. Gamers expect more with games today, it's not enough to simply slap the same name on a game with some added numbers on the end, at least for most gamers who really liked the original game.

2) Hmm, "big bad world"? So you always act like everyone else is immature or is this just something new you've started? It is not flattering I assure you.

Game companies have to do what they think will make them the most money. Consumers have the ability to vote on how well game companies do with their cash. Short term game companies may get away with stiffing their customers but this is not a healthy long term business ideal for success as eventually the people who use your product will stop buying your games if they think they are getting the bad end of the deal.

Another example from the "big bad world" is that if enough consumers stop buying products or services from a company that company will go bust. There are numerous examples of game companies that produced shoddy or inferior products that are no longer in business.

3) Hmm, once again you launch a personal attack. Did you have a bad day or something? I try to get along with folks maybe you should do the same? Do you like being reported for launching personal attacks? You must, as you have done it three times in two messages I have posted.

In any event, what grounds or basis do you feel you have to dictate HOW someone should post? I am simply stating facts from previous games and companies that have done some shady things. You obviously side with the game companies in thinking that all consumers are lemmings that will blindly buy everything you spew, regardless of quality. Consumers WILL eventually tire of companies that try to hustle them short term and that company can and will suffer long term problems.

Why should I offer examples of what Firaxis "should do" that will benefit themselves and their customers? By helping their customers Firaxis will AUTOMATICALLY help themselves. How? Simple, they will have a larger fan base and have more people will have even more people fanatically supporting their games, even if they have a bad game or two. This is not hard to figure out, if a company increases their demand base the number of units they can supply and make a profit on will increase. Conversely, if a company decreases their fan base there will be less people to buy their games, see how this works? (Thought you'd enjoy that comment )

In conclusion, you should really stop launching so many personal attacks as you dilute your message and you may want to ease off a bit on the "the business is always right" aspect because while that may work in an area where the consumer does not have the ability to choose what they buy in a consumer driven market the consumer is generally right.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ozymandous



1. Ah, pardon me? "Don't be such a child?" I'll admit I am new here but most forums have rules against personal attacks, why don't you review the rules against that here (assuming there are any) and apologize, eh?

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. I apologize.

[TCO]

Originally posted by yin26


I actually got on the Civ2 wagon a bit late. I was too busy at the time for computer games, so I missed the whole release, patch thing. What you have to remember in all this is that Civ2 was the sequal to a game that revolutionized gaming in its day.

Civ 3, however, is revolutionizing nothing. Aside from the Civ player who is dedicated enough to buy Civ simply because it is Civ, people move on, the industry moves on. And even old fans are growing weary of the same formula. There is better competition. The market is over-flowing.

So Civ 3 is hardly in the command seat that Civ 2 was. I promise if it gets a slow start out of the gate, there could be trouble. Will it still sell well? Yes. Will it sell as well as it could have had Firaxis played its cards better?

Yin, that's kind of a reach. What you're saying in effect is DON'T look to civ2 as a reasonable model of comparison. And that civ2 and civ1 are more similar (in terms of original vs follow-on) than Civ2 and civ3 are. Face it Civ3 is a sequal. So was civ2.

[yin26]

"Face it Civ3 is a sequal. So was civ2."

Precisely. At some point, sequels of sequels begin to run awfully thin unless I'm being told it's being handled well...which I haven't been told or seen so far at all.

[Provost Harrison]

Yin, Civ2 was not revolutionary. It was a well needed facelift to the real groundbreaker Civ, and they took the opportunity to tweak some of the features of the game and add a bit more depth to certain areas of the game. Sounds familiar? Of course, it is exactly what they are doing with Civ3.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ozymandous
IMHO, breaking the game in two for the deliberate reason to charge people double for what you initially advertised as being in the original game IS giving customers the shaft. As someone mentioned recently (not sure where) this is like selling someone the chasis and wheels for a sports car and telling them that it'll be the best thing on the road if and when they buy the engine, tranny and body in the seperate package 6 months later.

1. It is only dishonest if the split game ships to people who don't know about the missing MP. (For instance pre-orders.) You know about the "missing drive shaft"...so this is not applicable to you.

2. Game companies can decide what features to include in a game just like car companies do. The game is "drivable" (at least in some sense) without MP.

3. I think what really bugs you is 1. having to pay more. 2. having to wait for MP. But nobody is sticking a gun to your head to buy something you feel is inferior. They've made the decision that enough people (unlike you) WILL pay double. Why fault them for that, because you don't have the money to pay for that. I don't like the price of yachts, either...

4. Also realize that delaying the SP launch would deprive some players of having the game that they want.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ozymandous
2. Yes, I agree it is price discrimination. I know why books aren't available in paperback for 6 months, but do you see many paperbacks that come out with missing chapters from the original hardback book? This example is not the same as what happens when a company breaks a game apart like this. The book example would only be valid if the publisher issues a "sequal" for the book with the 3-4 missing chapters 6 months after the book came out that provided more character history and in-depth plot elements.

We can't find perfect analogies. But perhaps magazine publication of novels prior to book publication would be a decent one: Stories are generally chopped down, overall, are released in seriel (annoying), and the book is held in check (not published) while the seriel runs.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ozymandous
I don't think it is unreasonable for game companies to put what the promise (major features at least) in the initial release of the game and to have it work corectly. The "recent" trend seems to be to release games with more and more problems and missing features and then charge customers later for bug fixes and the missing elements in some expansion pack. An expansion pack used to be truly extra stuff they wanted to put in the game as "extra" stuff that added more to an already good game, not an excuse to release buggy software with missing features.

1. The bug problem is a seperate issue. Let's stick to one evil trait at a time, OK? (The MP issue). Not confound things by ranting about all the nefarious practices of software companies.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ozymandous
When buying a game in todays economy you do not know if you're only buying part of the game, with the "missing" features comming later or not, so people who often make the game an initial hit are shafted because they have to pay more to get what the "casual gamer" get for cheaper prices.

If you really think the game is incomplete why would you buy the game now? Why would anyone? I don't buy your argument. The product has value as shipped, else it wouldn't sell at all...and the abitility to play the game (even if less functional has value also---not postponing your entertainment). Think about this. Civ1 compared to civ2 has reduced features as did civ2 to civ2 MGE. But people still got lotsof enjoyment out of civ1 and civ2.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ozymandous
In the Diablo2 example I mentioned earlier I was disgusted with BLizzard and will make sure I never buy any of their games again until enough time has passed that 1) they fix all the glaring problems they typically have in their games and 2) that I make sure I get all the game at once, and not added later where I have to pay double.

1. I think gamers understand how the system works. The companies are not exploiting naivete as much as just tapping into gamers need to have the product, NOW!!!!! It doesn't matter if gamers get smarter as long as their need for the game remains similar to a smac (tee hee hee) addict's.

2. Ever consider that some games might be WORTH double? Ever consider it? At all? Ever consider that more complex art, etc. requires more costs to produce? Ever cosnsider it? At all?