Holy S***! NO Multiplayer Until Spring!

[Leonidas]

The attacks were horrible, and we all still feel the pain. But after a while it becomes very depressing, especially hearing all the individual stories and news items all day long.

In a way it's a nice break to come here for a few minutes and at least get your mind on something else for a while - even our emotions deserve a rest too. . .

As for MP, by Firaxis allowing these "rumours" to continue, they are hurting pre-order sales. After all, word spreads fast.

If it wasn't true, I would tend to think that just plain common sense would dictate that they dispel the rumour ASAP.

What else are we to think?

[tniem]

MarkG, they had Monday to respond.

I would think it is in their best interests to say something. And hey this disaster could be the perfect excuse. "We were working hard but the disaster due to the pain it caused our developement team in fear of our fellow Americans is forced to postpone the game two weeks as a tribute and we are donating x dollars to the Red Cross to aid in the recovery effort."

I mean it isn't likely but I really don't believe the disaster is stopping their response.

[Swissy]

Checking out the three pre-order sites:

Amazon.com says "Fully integrated multiplayer system"
ebgames.com and gamestop.com have no mention of multiplayer.
No mention of multiplayer at Infogrames.com
In fact the EB and Gamestop Civ3 game feature descriptions are the bullet points from the Infogrames site.

If Amazon changes their ad in the next week, we will have our confirmation.

[Alexander's Horse]

If Firaxis doen't include Multiplayer they are playing with fire

I know they have form for cynically releasing multiplayer versions of the civ games after the single player release but times have changed.

I find it hard to believe they would risk the sort of consumer backlash that brought down Activision.

For example, if I bought the single player version and then out of spite returned it as defective, Firaxis would have sell at least 5 copies just to make up that one loss.

Think about it Firaxis - this is part of what happened with Call to Power I and II!

[Swissy]

I am amazed that people still post here as if Firaxis has the final say as to when, where and in what form Civ3 will be released. Infogrames calls the shots on all these issues. If Infogrames says they are releasing Civ3 in october (and the product line list at the Infogrames site still says october), there will be a Civ3 game on the shelves Oct 31st. It may not be the Civ3 we want, but it will be there. Cut Firaxis some slack, they are only doing what they are told they must do.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by isaac brock
I don't think its unbelievable, but should the administrator of a civ site be saying theres no reason to talk about civ after stopping wtc threads? It's curious that he should be keeping the community from continuing with their lives

when did i say all that?

[MarkG]

Originally posted by tniem
MarkG, they had Monday to respond.

what if they weren't sure what to respond?

[tniem]

Originally posted by MarkG
what if they weren't sure what to respond?

I thought a similar thing, but isn't that pretty scary? That Firaxis or Infogrames or whatever a month and a half from release have no idea what is going to be in the final game. That is even worse in my mind than not including MP. That they just have no idea.

[OzzyKP]

Civfanatics interviewed Jeff Morris from Firaxis, he was asked directly about Multiplayer and he dodged the question! Another clear sign they are ignoring us and don't care about the players.

CivFanatics: What is the current status of multiplayer?

Jeff Morris: We're still working out all of the details around multiplayer and will give you more information later.

To read the full interview go here:
http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3inter...rris_913.shtml

Its True Its True!!

E-mail Firaxis! Tell them to include Multiplayer!

[Leonidas]

At least now we know

[Whitestar718]

Originally posted by Swissy
Cut Firaxis some slack, they are only doing what they are told they must do.

I'm sorry, but that excuse is unacceptable, whether it be true or not. It seems to be a very popular excuse coming from developers releasing unfinished product. Developers CONTROL who they sign with. Developers AGREE to a product deadline. If they can't deliver the full product in the timeline they agreed to, then the management team is not doing their job and must accept at least some of the blame.

To just say, "The publisher made us do it; we have no control" is extremely weak IMHO, and makes me question the ability of these developers to own up and accept responsibility for their actions. If developers can't deliver on their promises by a mutually agreed upon deadline, then DON'T SIGN THE DAMN CONTRACT!

--Whitestar

[Swissy]

Originally posted by Whitestar718


I'm sorry, but that excuse is unacceptable, whether it be true or not. It seems to be a very popular excuse coming from developers releasing unfinished product. Developers CONTROL who they sign with. Developers AGREE to a product deadline. If they can't deliver the full product in the timeline they agreed to, then the management team is not doing their job and must accept at least some of the blame.

To just say, "The publisher made us do it; we have no control" is extremely weak IMHO, and makes me question the ability of these developers to own up and accept responsibility for their actions. If developers can't deliver on their promises by a mutually agreed upon deadline, then DON'T SIGN THE DAMN CONTRACT!

--Whitestar

In this case Firaxis had no choice. They sign on with Hasbro Interactive. A year later Hasbro Interactive was gobbled up by Infogrames. Multiplayer may not have been a feature made manditory in the original contract. Seeing that it was an add-on for Civ and Civ2, this is quite possible.

[dexter4dxm]

Originally posted by Swissy
Seeing that it was an add-on for Civ and Civ2, this is quite possible.

I absolutely HATE that excuse.

Civ2 came out FIVE years ago. It's 2001 now, and multiplayer is a staple of strategy games.

[Swissy]

Originally posted by dexter4dxm


I absolutely HATE that excuse.

Civ2 came out FIVE years ago. It's 2001 now, and multiplayer is a staple of strategy games.

But Hasbro Interactive was a division of a toy company who had no idea how to make computer games. Nothing published by Hasbro Interactive was really great, mostly passable translations of their popular family games. They butchered the wargames, Axis & Alies and Diplomacy. The two best things Hasbro Interactive did for computer gaming was to hire Firaxis for Civ3 and sell-out to Infogrames. I think it is highly likely Hasbro Interactive gave little thought to making multiplayer a manditory feature.

I can imagine this discussion, right after Infogrames buys Hasbro Interactive:

Infogrames: How is the Civ3 game going?

Firaxis: we have basically what Hasbro wanted us to do finished, but it isn't exactly the game the civ players want.

I:Oh, well we'll give you another year to make it right.

One year later

I: So is Civ3 finished?

F: Pretty much ready to go gold, except we can't get the multiplayer to work. At least not to the level the civ-players will be expecting.

I: Well, we have to get the game out.. We go gold mid-october, with or without multiplayer.

F: What do we tell the civ-players?

I:Nothing


And that is about what we have been getting from Firaxis, nothing concrete on multiplaying.

[Sarxis]

Basically:

I won't buy the game without a MP component, and may not buy it at all if I have to wait for one (my interest will be lost by then).

Hmm, is TBS dying?