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

[yin26]

Provost:

Civ2 was the sequel to a game that revolutionized gaming

That's what I say above. This is my point. Civ 1 revolutionized. Civ 2 facelifted. Civ 3 will "conservatively" facelift a facelift. The Law of Diminishing returns, especially with less than lack-luster PR, will be in full-effect here...starting with my wallet, the wallet of at least a few others here, and many many other wallets that have little stock in Sid's name alone.

[TCO]

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

Fair enough. Especially if MP is "your gig".

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.

Fair enough.
1. Of course your actions as an individual are not the key...it's what the majority of people do that matters. Any good reasons why you uinderstand the overall market better than publishers do? Don't be so quick to assume that the majority will follow you...

2. Look at it from their perspective. Failure to price aggressively (and let's be honest...this whole game is basically a pricing issue) may cause them to go out of business!!! It's not just a risk from being too aggresive, as Yin cautions us. There's a genuine business risk from not being aggressive enough: giving the customer too much of a break, spending time on the concerns of the "hard cases" (like Yin ), etc. etc.

[TCO]

Originally posted by yin26
Provost:



That's what I say above. This is my point. Civ 1 revolutionized. Civ 2 facelifted. Civ 3 will "conservatively" facelift a facelift. The Law of Diminishing returns, especially with less than lack-luster PR, will be in full-effect here...starting with my wallet, the wallet of at least a few others here, and many many other wallets that have little stock in Sid's name alone.

Still a reach, Yin...

1. What gives you the all-knowing knowledge of when this train runs out of juice? Secret Yin powers? Conveniently, you think there is enough of a market to encourage Firaxis to do the game, but not enough to price aggressively. Seems like your estimates are affected by your incentives. :;

2. A "secondsequel" is more similar to a "thirdquel" than to an original. Empire Strikes back can more easily be compared to Return of the Jedi than to Star Wars. Star Wars was truely innovative. The follow-ons were trips back to the same well. (Yeah, yeah I heard your argument about when the train runs out gas...)

[Provost Harrison]

You wouldn't be possibly trying to increase your post count there GP by breaking up your post

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ozymandous
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.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the rush. I think 60% of computer games are bought in the Chrsitmas rush. Ignoring that means:

1. Losing significant money. (if the game doesn't hit next Christmas)

2. Delaying a cash flow stream (if the game still sells as well next Christmas). Remember time value of money...plus the intense fiscal and market pressure the software industry is under...make earlier cash flows more desirable especially this year.

A couple finer points that you might want to consider:

-What if the TBS market is shrinking? Will you be able to get shelf space (and displays, end of aisle stuff, co-advertising, etc.) next Xmas? What if you release this game in March and then next Xmas you don't get any pop because the game is just seen as a minor staple, not a big Xmas item. Then you find yourself in case 1.

-Software companies are under some real pressure right now. From the markets which have trashed their stock prices and even in some cases to stay solvent (not go out of business). This isn't hype. I just talked to some software CEOs during a swing through California. This creates an incentive (even more than the always reasonable pressure) to cash in now.

-software evolves and competition is out there. A year from now, Civ2 will face more and tougher competitors on the shelves.

[Provost Harrison]

Well from all the information I have gathered, civ3 looks like a less conservative upgrade than civ was to civ2. But not a really radical change either, like CtP was, which was for the worst all in all.

It looks fine, there are some peripheral problems, such as with MP, but I have played SP nearly the past 8 years and I am sure another couple of months of SP with a new game won't worry me too much. It will give me chance to get used to the game as well.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
You wouldn't be possibly trying to increase your post count there GP by breaking up your post

I am...but they are still paragraph responses. I think Markos should be happy for me getting some flames flickering (ooops I meant polite thoughtful discussion) at the "real part" of the site.

FYI: I personally hate reading responses which are much longer than a paragraph. Especially the point by point rebuttals.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ozymandous



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.

Than why are you even considering Civ3? Stick to Civ1. I have a hard time taking this seriously...(no personal jab on this one...)

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.

Weeeeeeell...all the new Civ gamers could probably care less? Any idea what percent of sales are expected from new gamers versus old civers? What was the breakdown with civ2?

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.

Just to be cynical, maybe that business model actually works OK!

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.

Of course. The question is where to draw the line...

You obviously side with the game companies

Naaah. Not really.

Consumers WILL eventually tire of companies that try to hustle them short term and that company can and will suffer long term problems.

Agreed if you mean releasing a piece of junk and trying to cash pre-orders. But Civ2 did great in the market, even with (to you) insufficient features. I don't really trust your judgment of when players will "walk".

[QUOTE] By helping their customers Firaxis will AUTOMATICALLY help themselves.[QUOTE]

Naaah. Just think for a second and you will realize this isn't true. If you want some fun but more detailed info here, read Coopetition. (A book about game theory in business.)

The customer is always right.

Naah. Remember the Rockefeller quote: "Our competitors are our friends. The customer is the enemy!"

[TCO]

BTW Ozy,

Is your name spelled right? Or is it supposed to be Ozymandious?

[TCO]

Originally posted by yin26
I could care less what Firaxis thinks at this point.

You act like you care!

I also know that I am in the extreme side of the scale,

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...

Doesn't sound like you're an easy sale!

Sure you've got cash in the wallet...but you seem to want a lot of "care and feeding".

FYI: Maybe the "thousands" they are worried about are not at the "extreme side" of the scale.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ozymandous

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.

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

In conclusion, you should really stop launching so many personal attacks as you dilute your message

Peace Ozzy!

You have some fair criticism of my style. While I do take some jabs, I don't (generally) hit home too hard. I enjoy the intelligence of the youth at this site...although I do chide them occasionally for lack of real world experience.

My jabs are at least half in-play...and I like getting some OT spice into the discussion.

Certainly I feel affection to you in our current discussion.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by GP


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.

1) I have already decided to wait on buying the game until I see what everyone else has said here about it (both good and bad hopefully), so it doesn't matter to me what comes with the game initially anyhow. I am concerned with the people who did pre-order if the game does ship with broken or missing MP features. After all, in good faith they bought the game thinking it would have these aspects, it would be wrong for the game to ship in that condition (if it ships like that).

2) You are correct, game companies can decide what to include in the game, but IF they advertise a feature it is SUPPOSED to be present, if not they have done a "bait and switch" which is quite illegal.

3) You are correct I am TIRED of having to pay extra for features that the game developer PROMISED in the original release and also TIRED of having to wait (sometimes months) for patches after the game ships to bring it up to a functional form.

As for MP I really don't care one way or another about MP, but I DO care about the principle involved in when game companies either don't believer what they advertise or else deliver a sub-standard excuse for a product.

As far as not being able to afford to buy the game and any and all X-packs, who are you to say what I can and cannot afford? I make over $40K a year and usually spend $200-$300 a year on computer games. Just because I have the money does not mean I like companies to cheat customers by shipping sub-standard products or wait to release original features in an X-pack. After all, although I can easily afford to buy a game and it's expansion packs doesn't mean that EVERYONE can. This doesn't relate to just me but to everyone who shells out hard cash for a product only to have to buy the rest of the product later.

4) Wah, so people have to wait longer for the game. What was it you said earlier about comments in the "mommy, mommy, I want this and that" mentality? So people want the game now, I want a million dollars, it doesn't mean I will get it, if they have to wait, so be it, a few more weeks will not matter much when they can play the game for years if it is good out of the box.

Patience is a good thing, more people should learn it.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by GP

Fair enough.
1. Of course your actions as an individual are not the key...it's what the majority of people do that matters. Any good reasons why you understand the overall market better than publishers do? Don't be so quick to assume that the majority will follow you...

2. Look at it from their perspective. Failure to price aggressively (and let's be honest...this whole game is basically a pricing issue) may cause them to go out of business!!! It's not just a risk from being too aggressive, as Yin cautions us. There's a genuine business risk from not being aggressive enough: giving the customer too much of a break, spending time on the concerns of the "hard cases" (like Yin ), etc. etc.

1) Hmm, no good reasons why I know the market better than anyone (who said I did anyhow? ), but I do know about companies that released sub-standard games way back when, they went the way of the dodo bird because people were tired of dishing out cash for poor quality product.

2) Hmm, so your argument is that if companies don't milk every penny they can now out of consumers they will go broke? Sorry I don't buy that argument, here's why...

Assume a company takes six months longer than it's competitors (in this case no one as no one is doing a Civ type game, MOO3 comes close, but different styles of game) to release their game. However, the extra six months were spent adding, refining and bug-testing a few additional items the other company didn't put in.

The game that was out first has six months of good sales until the other game it out, when suddenly it's sales start to drastically nose-dive. The game that was released later is a smash hit because of the extra features that were placed in and it has higher sales for a longer period of time than the gamer that was out first. Now in this example who wins in the short term and who wins in the long term?

Just because your strategy may win short term does not mean it's better overall, this is the distinction I am making, I think you understand but are just being stubborn.

Look at it this way, the higher quality a game is and the less bugs that have to be patched after it is released simply means that the game will earn more cash with less effort having to support it long term. Game development companies would seem to do better over the long haul if they spent more time initially to exponentially increase the life of their product after release. But then again that's only common sense to me, it's not as if I have upper-management experience (who typically lack common sense).

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by GP


I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the rush. I think 60% of computer games are bought in the Christmas rush. Ignoring that means:

And how many of those games that sell during Christmas are junk? Everyone and their brother tries to sell their game at Christmas. If a game takes 10% of that 60% market at Christmas or 50% of that 40% during non Christmas sales which game would make more money?

Less games to compete against means a game has more chances to be bought and played. Games like Rollercoaster Tycoon and Diablo2 are prime examples of games not released at Christmas that have sold phenomenally well.

1. Losing significant money. (if the game doesn't hit next Christmas)

See above.

2. Delaying a cash flow stream (if the game still sells as well next Christmas). Remember time value of money...plus the intense fiscal and market pressure the software industry is under...make earlier cash flows more desirable especially this year.

Hmm, so according to you the sales a game makes during the other 9-10 months of the year will never equal the Christmas rush? That's what you seem to say when you imply that a game might not sell as well as next Christmas. Tell me this, if a game comes out in July for example and sells good, but word of mouth makes it sell more during Christmas wouldn't this be even better?

A couple finer points that you might want to consider:

-What if the TBS market is shrinking? Will you be able to get shelf space (and displays, end of aisle stuff, co-advertising, etc.) next Xmas? What if you release this game in March and then next Xmas you don't get any pop because the game is just seen as a minor staple, not a big Xmas item. Then you find yourself in case 1.

And if the market is shrinking do you wade in amongst all the other games trying to make yourself stand out in a group of 50 or do you wait and release later and make yourself stand out in a group of 2? I would think it would be MUCH easier to get the shelf space, advertisement space, etc when there is LESS competition, but then again I am using that common sense again, shame on me!

-Software companies are under some real pressure right now. From the markets which have trashed their stock prices and even in some cases to stay solvent (not go out of business). This isn't hype. I just talked to some software CEO during a swing through California. This creates an incentive (even more than the always reasonable pressure) to cash in now.

Hmm, to go back to what I have said before, how does releasing a shoddy or half-finished product keep the company in business during the long term? Releasing a poor product every 6 months to stay in business may work for the first few releases then what happens after a year or eighteen months when the market refuses to buy your poor product after that?

I understand this is a tough situation that game companies find themselves in but this is no different than the gaming industry has always been in, the people who release high quality work stay in business and those who have poor development plans and/or produce shoddy work are discarded by the wayside.

-software evolves and competition is out there. A year from now, Civ2 will face more and tougher competitors on the shelves.

LOL!!! Did you really mean Civ2 or Civ3? Freudian slip there?

Umm, what other TBS games are out there? MOO3 and .... Who? I know of a lot of RPG and a few FPS's but hardly no TBS. If there is even less competition in your market wouldn't you want to take the time to release something good to try to pull customers away from other games/genre's?

If I recall correctly a lot of people said the RPG was dead until Diablo (not really a RPG) and Baldurs Gate came out, then suddenly it was back and doing well.

It only takes one GOOD game to resurrect a genre, but "playing it safe" or trying to milk customers is not a good way for a company or market to make a splash now-days. Red Alert 2 is a good example of that, it came out much later then Age of Kings and Starcraft and offered really nothing new to the genre. It sold decently, but not nearly as well as it's competitors in the market.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by GP
BTW Ozy,

Is your name spelled right? Or is it supposed to be Ozymandious?

Ozymandias. I originally mis-spelled it about six years ago, but by the time I tried to correct it someone else had the correct spelling and people knew me by this "name" so it stuck.