So, you'd do anything to be on the Civ 3 alpha/beta team, eh? Consider...

[kolpo]

It's not because they have no legal obligations to do so that they don't have obligations to do so. Consummers can force companies to take obligations. This does me think about Shell they thought some time ago that they should not listen to consumers; the result was a boycot by a lot of people in Europe, there profits in Europe crashed so at the end, saw they that they had no other choose then to do what the consumers want, they increase income for workers in nicaraga and invested in alternative energy.NOT because they wanted it, but because the consumers forced them to take certain obligations(same happened with company that tried to sell genetic manupilated food in europe).

By attacking the inresponable way they beta test, do you lower there reputation=lower there sales. This is why we MUST complain if we don't like something in a game. If nobody complains are the other not informated by that fact and will they buy the game even with those lacking things, but if people complain loud then will others stop buying the game also, and hurt the company and let them reconsider there strategy. Just not buying because you don't like the way they beta test is not enough, this will not have any big influence, but if you complain and cry about it loud then will others also hear it and also maybe stop buying(if waht you says makes sense) it so can you force a company.

Pure legaly has firaxis no obligations at all, if they own the majority of there stocks have they even no real obligations to the othere share owners. There is no law that prefents firaxis to release a dos prompt game, But they won't do that because consumers will then complain and not buy the game. It is an illusion to think that companies only have to follow legal obligations. That is a quick way to bankrupcy.

So if you don't like something about a product can you best: complain about it and do it loud.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MarkG
what obligations are these? i dont recall firaxis pledging to have a public beta test.

Well no, but they are still obliged to test the game thoroughly before they sell it.

Just imagine what happens if Ford markets a new car without proper testing...

[Inverse Icarus]

or if it equips their cars with untested tires...

[Adm.Naismith]

I would add a couple of sentence about the "obligation" and "reason to complain before game is published".

I NEVER think that people at Firaxis are stupid: they very probably want to make a great game, well balanced and almost as bug free as is realistic with the current development method.

Working in (business) software development (or strictly related to it) for around 17 years now, I know how much pressure they may take from people who care of money but not of lot of others things; they aren't necessarly bad people, anyone understand they have a different role and different target to meet, at least just to keep the company alive while developers play with PC

So developers needs any help from us, the final customer, to support their argument. We have hints about "window opportunity" and Infogrames announcement about "better profitability results from selling of great games as CivIII next year".

I bet they do internal meeting and meet Infogrames as well, and may be sometime they can have some help showing some marketing statistic about "hard core fan afraid of trouble without proper beta test" or "they feel the graphics is sub-par with others game, let's tweak it another bit". Need of fresh cash ever has loud voice than ours, but still we can do our best to raise the chore loud enough.

It's not about badnaming a product before the release, is about doing our part on product development: asking and be suspicius of every vague response.
Buying the final thing or not is the last choise from a customer. It doesn't help any of the two side, either: I don't want a Firaxis broken (I know it can't happen is just for sake of example) because of customer boycott. I way prefer a Firaxis that answer any complain as best as it can, as early as possible.

No need for b/s, just a plain explanation. How could be a:

"Yes, we decided once again that map graphics must stay simple, because we had to move more budget on a more needed effort in AI improvement. We realize that none will buy the game for terrain looking, but we are sure that, after the official "post release" open tuning you'll have a game AI to die for."

[Sabre2th]

The tires weren't untested, the company just ignored a known flaw.

When the tires weren't inflated enough, the weight of the car put pressure on a metal band on the tire. The (sharp) edge of the metal band cut into the tire and eventually caused it to explode. In a way, it is partially the consumer's fault. However, companies should prepare for people's stupidity (and/or ignorance)

[SerapisIV]

Originally posted by yin26
Actually, I don't think ANY promises have been made. Vague hype, yes. But a proper promise? No.

One of the Firaxis guys was quoted as claiming that this will be a "clean release" as opposed to SMAC. That's a promise in my opinion. Not to say it will be perfect, but a heck of an improvement over the multitude of SMAC problems

[Rhysie]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Well no, but they are still obliged to test the game thoroughly before they sell it.

Just imagine what happens if Ford markets a new car without proper testing...

That is a completely spurious comparison, there are laws regarding the safety of cars, there are no laws regarding the bugginess of games.

I certainly have never heard of someone being seriously injured or killed as a direct result of buying a buggy computer game, as opposed to buying a car with brakes that don't work.

Therefore it's not an 'obligation', merely a 'desirability'.

With regards to the suggestion that their obligation to their shareholders/owners means they have an obligation to have an open beta, this is wrong. The obligation they have to their shareholders is to make as much money as possible.

A few bugs in a game which are subsequently patched will have minimal impact on future sales of future games, whilst a delay pushing the release back beyond the christmas period to conduct further testing would mean both a loss of sales as they would lose the christmas extras, and a loss of resources spent on conducting the test itself and maintaining the hype and advertising for the additional time. I am pretty certain that the monetary value of losses caused by the slight loss of reputation caused by a slightly buggy and then patched game would be a lot less than the monetary value of the losses caused by a delay to the release.

Therefore, the most shareholder friendly route is to get it out for christmas, and thus that is their main obligation.

[yin26]

I am pretty certain that the monetary value of losses caused by the slight loss of reputation caused by a slightly buggy and then patched game would be a lot less than the monetary value of the losses caused by a delay to the release.

Of course, you keep using the word 'slight' here. 'Slight' loss of reputation and 'slightly' buggy game. Sure, if the game is only slightly buggy and has strong gameplay, you'd be right. But this is the risk, isn't it? What if there are some major (and obviously unexpected) problems? For example, what if in the rush to meet a deadline, a last minute AI change is made that causes all enemy civs to stop building ANYTHING after 15 turns?

So, you use the word "slight" and I use the word "what if," but clearly the proper thing to do is to test the damn game carefully so as to NOT rely on patches to do the finishing work. I'm sure you agree in theory, but we can also agree that, in reality, shareholders and suits have far more faith in the Release and Patch process than we do.

I could list a bunch of games / companies that died a tragic death by playing that dangerous method with the public, but you are aware of them, I'm sure. And, frankly, I'd be stunned if Civ 3 actually had any showstoppers. No, Civ 3's biggest problems will relate to gameplay issues...which are just perfect for us to handle as post-release public beta testers.

[d_dudy]

i like yin and markos going at it


i hope there's not too many bugs because they've been working on this game forever

[Rhysie]

I say slight, because they are spending almost two months beta testing it in-house and in a department of their publishers which is dedicated to testing computer games. Therefore I think the benefits from a _more_ extensive beta test would be neglibile, and who is to say they won't extend the current beta test if there are problems?

Try giving them some credit that they will act intelligently instead of assuming that no-one but the public can test a game.

[yin26]

Oh, but the public WILL test this game, see?

[Rhysie]

I never said that the public wouldn't test the game after it is released, that's a rather obvious point. However, it doesn't have any relevance to the proposition that the game is 'not properly testing' if it is released without previous public testing, which is the proposition you previously put forward.

[yin26]

I see. So the public actually helping the company finish the game AFTER it is released is just 'obvious' these days? Gee, I wonder how it got that way...

[Rhysie]

It got that way through improvements in communications which allow a games player to contact a games producer and tell them what is wrong with the game and what they would like to be improved. I would say it's the producer helping the player rather than the other way around, as by this point the player has paid the producer already.

In the past when you bought a game, you had no way of communicating with the games producer, and so the game you bought was the game you were stuck with. Nowadays we can help ourselves by taking advantage of the modern communication.

You make this sound a bad thing, I don't see anything about it which isn't good.

Oh, and the same communications advances make open betas possible, if you lived a long way away from the producers in the past you wouldn't have had a chance to participate in a beta, and the chances are you wouldn't even know it was occurring.

[yin26]

I would say it's the producer helping the player rather than the other way around, as by this point the player has paid the producer already.

So, I pay my money. But the game is weak. No, that isn't the producer's fault, of course, since it's OBVIOUS they needed our advice to get it right in the first place. So rather than getting that advice BEFORE taking our money and making a game worth playing out of the box, they ship the weak product only later to look at the financials and decide if sales warrant any further "helping the player."

This leaves the gamer firmly in a bent-over position, sticking his hands (or other) out to get whatever comes his way.

Oh yes. They ARE helping the player. Helping the player get the game that should have come in the box. With help like that...Of course, some rare companies actually use instead of ABuse this process, but that is the exception, not the rule you paint it to be. I felt Ensemble Studios, for instance, was OUTSTANDING in delivering a game that truly evolved with the public's comments.

Firaxis? Let's just say their process needs, uh, work.

Face it: The Release and Patch process does one primary thing -- get games out the door in time for quarterly financial statements. This "helping the player" business is just a delusion and the sickest of corporate BS 90%+ of the time.