Announcement

**- Groucho -** · July 3, 2001, 00:19

For me, most pre-game sites are just eye-candy. I like to poke around and look at them, but really - they're just an elaborate ad so I don't put too much stock in their promises. The reviews are what really help me make a purchasing decision.

**joseph1944** · July 3, 2001, 00:22

In the past I bought a lot of games that I later wish I had not paid for. I have found that I really do not like first person shooter (Duke). I have Duke, but never play it. I like the X-Com series but not the space one. I have the King Quest series 1-7 but never Finnish even one on them. Have LOM, never Finnish a game.
Have Warcraft 1 & 2 I did Finnish no. 2. Had StarCraft sold it. At one time or other have own every Simtitle Will has produce. Still have most of them. 3 Police Quests gave away. Space Quest 1, 2, & 3 still have them. Several Star Wars game, properly will not buy any future Star Wars. Several Star Trek games have not brought any of the current games. Jagger Alliance 1 & 2. Finnish JA 1 but never Finnish no. 2. Gave No. 1 away. Have most of the Janes title, play one in awhile. First 3 Red Alert games did not buy the last one, no interest. Mechs whatever series gave away.
Panzer series gave away, did not buy last one. Gave Myst away. Still have Wing Commander Paophecy. I will not give any more game away. I now wish I never gave a game away. The games that really like and still play when not at this site is Civ 2, and CTP 2. Also have all of the Coaster game. Have Caesar III, Pharaoh & Cleopatra, Zeus they are fun. Have both Crusader games, would buy no. 3 but is was cancel. Any body here remember Rex Nebular, High Seas Trader, Afterlife, Rama, Rise and Rule, Dig? Have all four of AoE, AoK.

**yin26** · July 3, 2001, 00:29

joseph1944:

Did the official websites affect your decisions on any of those games or are you with Echinda that these websites are just "elaborate ads" that can be safely ignored?

Echinda:

Interesting statement. I wonder how many others agree? Certainly most sites are nothing more than elaborate ads (and some hardly even elaborate), but doesn't that just mean that the companies aren't using the Net well enough? In other words, are all sites BY DEFAULT just (worthless) ads?

**Rasputin** · July 3, 2001, 00:34

wow joe you sure have bought lot of games , hope you didnt pay for them all.. !!

I have played most of the ones you liste, but only ever bought King Quest 1-7 (collectors edition) Space Quest 1-V1 (collcetors editoin) Police Quest 1-3 (collectors edition again !!)
Sim city 2000 , civ 2 , civ 2 MPGE. and that sit all the others i played for free..

**Urban Ranger** · July 3, 2001, 00:48

Joseph,

If you don't want to pay for the wrong game again I guess it'd be wise to pay more attention to reviews than to the silly website babbles. I prefer Game Domain reviews although GameSpot/CGW isn't bad either. I myself have also wasted a truckload of money on games.

Yin,

I generally don't give a hoot to what the website of a game says. The company should be busily writing the game, not the website.

**Imran Siddiqui** · July 3, 2001, 00:50

Well, I love the Moo3 site (I made a thread saying Civ3 needs some of this stuff), but I have to agree that sites really don't matter that much to me. The reason is that official sites make promises, but you don't know how well it will end up working. Something could sound really cool on the main site, but in the game could be horrible. I pay more attention to reviews as well, but as for Civ3 and Moo3, I'll probably be pre-ordering them both.

**joseph1944** · July 3, 2001, 01:30

Originally posted by yin26
joseph1944:

Did the official websites affect your decisions on any of those games or are you with Echinda that these websites are just "elaborate ads" that can be safely ignored?

Echinda:

Interesting statement. I wonder how many others agree? Certainly most sites are nothing more than elaborate ads (and some hardly even elaborate), but doesn't that just mean that the companies aren't using the Net well enough? In other words, are all sites BY DEFAULT just (worthless) ads?

I started to buy back in 1984. No web site then. I really did not go online until 1996 when I bought my P-1 166. I did buy the old Commodore Mag. until it stopped. And did received the old Sierra Mag. until they stopped it. I have been receiving CGW, for about 4 years and PCG, 3 years.
Most of the time, it was looking at the Box and hoping. Now that I kind of know what my taste is, I don't buy as much as I once did.
This was dumb on my part, I bought Dungeon and Dragon and never open the box. Gave it away about two year ago. You guys won't believe this but last summer I gave 18 game to the young guy that bought StarCraft from me. Some of the games were old in term of games. Like in the early 90s. My wife has said over and over, she wish she had every dime I have spent on this computer.
I do look at the two Mag. to sometime help. The only site that I go to one-in-awhile is Sierra, Activision, MicroProse (can't do that anymore), Firaxis, MicroSoft etc, Maxis (now there is a site), and poptop.

**Rollo_CH** · July 3, 2001, 03:41

I have to say: Whats the fuzz about this MOO3 thing? I didn't really know what it was before (thanks Yin!), so i peeked at their site....well i'm not THAT impressed....look at their "Designers Diary" frequent updates from May 2000-December 2000, then February 2001, then nothing....? Does that mean they run out of steam?

Some quotes from their "Galaxy" explanation:
Gas giants can certainly have Earth-sized moons. In rare cases, you can even get a double planet; we've seen double Jupiters in our simulations once in a while.

We don't have double stars; while such animals exist, our theory is that they're far less likely to contain habitable planets in stable orbits. And we already have lots of variety in the star types. If we want to implement multiple-star systems, we can simulate that quite effectively by simply placing two star systems really close together in the Galactic Map.

*Deep sigh*

Well its all fair and well....if they dont stick with realism...but seriously: should i want a "Space game" i'd stick with David Braben's Elite/Frontier series, realism like you've never seen and playability like nothing else....all the Galaxy with "double" (the most common constellation) yes even "quadruple" star systems, its ALL there....now yes yes, this is a completely different game but still..

Btw, i'd want a decent website anyway....MOO3 looks better...but you can make a site about gravel look marvelous...

**yin26** · July 3, 2001, 20:28

Well, while we don't have enough numbers to come to any solid conclusions, so far it would seem that most people could live without an official site, choosing instead to rely on reviews of the game from a "trusted" source.

This calls into question, then, the company's need to make ANY site at all...or perhaps they only need the barest site, maybe one or two nicely done but not flashy or interactive pages.

I still believe, however, that at minimum a site should deliver what it promises. If you say "Monthly updates" then give the updates! And if you've changed your mind or will be late, post that as well!

It's one thing to have a sub-par site (in terms of content and interactivity). In fact, so far it looks like most people could care less. But it's quite another to publically record broken promises. I refer not only to the Firaxis site but numerous others over the years. It seems Webmasters tend to forget to go back and review their own work.

**Slax** · July 3, 2001, 22:39

A game's website effects my decision in one way: A badly MANAGED site, to me, tells me the game may be poorly designed, and/or supported. I'm sure you can come up with many examples where this is not the case, but to me, if I see either a messy design of a website, or one where the site has been obviously left un-maintained (ie Civ III) I get a little nervous about the upcoming product. ("Gee, are they hurrying to get the product out by Christmas and can't update the site?")

If a website has zero graphics, but is updated frequently, I would think the GAMES are at least, well thought-out. There should be scheduled updates, even if very little can be revealed.

**Rollo_CH** · July 4, 2001, 02:45

Well, how long does it take to make just a single little update involving two sentences for example?

About the time it took me to post this reply....7-8 seconds (and i'm slow)

Bottom line: Small notices should be done on the website, so that everyone knows there are someone nurturing it.

**Adm.Naismith** · July 4, 2001, 06:35

Originally posted by yin26
Well, while we don't have enough numbers to come to any solid conclusions, so far it would seem that most people could live without an official site, choosing instead to rely on reviews of the game from a "trusted" source.

Too early to guess this, IMHO.
But I think you are mixing two different point, Yin.

Making a product as a game (not a commodity, but an entertainment, target oriented one) can be done considering many facet:

Design on a Market Need, also know as "chose what heck of a game you can do and some people will buy"

In the Internet era you can (should, probably must) interact with your potential customers. It's hardly to do with a new game (you haven't a customers base to refer, you must attract some from similar game area), quite easy with a sequel of a succesful game.
This is where all the hype effort live, true or not. Any company with a game new enough or not sure about the mood of previus version customers will put great effort.
My guess: Firaxis think its product is not very different and lot of fans will buy anyway.
Low care of Web Site: some Fan Forum did more than enough

.

Make and Test for a Product you can Sell, AKA "anything you can sell without losing reputation must be selled, ready as designed or not"

In the Internet era you should (but probably don't want) interact with customers for early feedback, an alpha/beta test open enough to have right warning on game balancing, bugs, etc.
Here is where companies with some short timeline, or a fear for too much bugs to survive to bad feedback, will skip.
My guess: Firaxis started Civ III on a direct publisher request, so probably has some timeline/budget limit to cope with: if time will be in short (last interview: fall release?

), forget about open beta.
No care of Web Site: better be silent than let people start complaining too much.

Go Gold and Sell, AKA "grab as many excited early buyers you can, pay some ads and hope on good review, then live selling on Name and Coloured box"

Paper magazines still rules here: casual buyers look at vote and stars, sometime spending few minutes at the newsagent (ehi kid, you are supposed to buy that, that's not a public library! :LoL:

In the Internet era you are sure to see one-way interview, some cool stuff released,etc. No real interaction with customers: questions aren't welcommed because you can't change anything if not with expensive (free for customers) patches/enhancement versions. Bad question can ruin the hype you pay lot of cash for with ads and reviews.
Some care of Web Site: ton of material can be show, because you haven't any more use for it anyway; lots of early, discarded drawn, sketches, dismissed idea... ehi, if they where so good, why you don't chose them? If aren't so good, why I'm supposed to enjoy them?
My guess: Firaxis will be best friend of everyone, lot of posts here, revamping of corporate site... very excited fans all around.

Customer support; AKA "forgive me, I'm been very sick" or "I have your money, you have like a product, this is business, honey"
In the Internet era you are sure companies can release some patches without distribution costs. Some can be very nice with customers, until their financial dep. will tell them cost and income lines are converging on the wrong way.
Interaction with customers largely depends of customers mood: if they starting ranting enough to make bad effect on game selling... well, we will be let alone

Some care of Web Site: some material added if marketing budget has some money left with great selling success, some patches available with game "added exciting features".
My guess: Firaxis will do slighty better than with SMAC... some fan will left in angry, anyway.
Please anyone left a personal mail address before to leave, do you agree Yin?

I still believe, however, that at minimum a site should deliver what it promises. If you say "Monthly updates" then give the updates! And if you've changed your mind or will be late, post that as well!

It's one thing to have a sub-par site (in terms of content and interactivity). In fact, so far it looks like most people could care less. But it's quite another to publically record broken promises. I refer not only to the Firaxis site but numerous others over the years. It seems Webmasters tend to forget to go back and review their own work.

True! Women and Men are always worth as their promises: too bad they lost themselves so often, in business world.

**MarkG** · July 4, 2001, 06:49

yin, see

Apolyton Civilization Site

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21245

**Grumbold** · July 4, 2001, 07:19

For me, an official game website comes into its own after the game ships. Before that point the website is probably no more reliable than any of the magazine previews at predicting whether it will live up to expectations. It does not pay them to be honest so every site is presenting the best game ever. All you can tell are whether the key features appeal to you and whether they have someone who can be bothered to post web content once in a while. If they cant manage at least one message a week then it is not worth bothering IMO. Nothing worse than coming back a month later to find no new content. It gives the impression that the game is in trouble although nothing may be further from the truth.

Once the game ships then the website is essential. For every in-game problem I check the manual then head for the website for an answer. Has anyone else encountered it? Is it a bug? Is it being patched? Am I just overlooking something or was the information omitted from the manual accidentally? Are there new updates/add-ons promised that will prolong the life of the game? What do other players think of the game? Is there anything I know that is worth sharing with them?

If I cannot get these answers from a company website then I will go looking for 3rd party sites. There, where the developers have no content control, I can sometimes find enthusiastic players eager to swap tips and advice, like the EU site. Other times I find embittered frustrated players all sharing and reinforcing their misery over a flawed product. If the latter happens then I'm far more likely to return the game as faulty than I would had I never gone looking (yes I always buy the games I play).

Firaxis have an opportunity to run a good website where additional "official" civs, leaders, unit graphics and maps are made available. This has the potential to give the game the long lasting appeal that SimCity, Command & Conquer and its sequels etc have had. Without it they will have to rely on Apolyton & others doing it for them, but fan run sites tend only to be found by the fanatics and are not as appealing to casual gamers.

OFTEN: If a website doesn't sell me on a game and/or let me get my questions answered, I won't buy it. Period.	17.39%	8 votes
SOMETIMES: A great or horrible website can affect me, but mostly it's not such a big deal.	41.30%	19 votes
RARELY: I don't much follow the hype or care if a company interacts with the public.	15.22%	7 votes
NEVER: I play a game, not a website.	26.09%	12 votes

Announcement

How Important is a Website to You as a Gamer? MOO3 and Civ3 Sites Compared:

How Important is a Website to You as a Gamer? MOO3 and Civ3 Sites Compared:

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment