Holy S***! NO Multiplayer Until Spring!

[kennymae]

Originally posted by isaac brock
they are digging a deeper and deeper trench every day between them and MPers because they fear what may happen if they announce the truth.

I like SP Civ. I like MP too. I never realized before today that there were two camps on this issue. It is all good to me.

However, my point is that at this date an MP feature is the standard for TBS. If they can't ship this feature they are a lame software shop, and I won't buy the product as a matter of principal. If they must charge $100 to include this feature then so be it, at minimum all the cards are on the table, otherwise I'm content to let them go the way of the Dinosaur.

Ken

[isaac brock]

Don't be ridiculous. Of course there are two camps. You must pick one or the other. Multiplayer people, or normal people.

Damn, I think I need some sleep. Shame on this forum. I have school tomorrow!

[TCO]

Anybody else find the threadstarter's behavior a little wierd?

I appreciate the information and the chance to chat about this. (I had predicited no MP earlier).

But I don't like the way you apporached Firaxis for free games and then printed an e-mail from them. The whole thing looks a bit snarky to me. Like you were more interested in Civ3 than in the Turing test. Espeically the way you came over here all hot and bothered...starting a thread of your own with swearing and multiple exclamation points.

It's not a huge deal...but something about your behavior strikes me as a little sneaky.

[yin26]

I thought the same thing at first, but:

1) It would take some brass balls to do such a thing. And a lawsuit could actually stick...though Firaxis hasn't done any damage control, so they are weakening their case if this is so.

2) I have never seen anything from Mister Pleasant (oh, crap, his initial are MP!) to suggest he would do such a thing. He is a known poster who probably did get such an e-mail and was shocked by it.

[kennymae]

Re: Anybody else find the threadstarter's behavior a little wierd?

I went to civ3.com after reading the first post and didn't see anything on multiplayer. However, I could have been blinded by rage.

[TCO]

Originally posted by yin26
I thought the same thing at first, but:

1) It would take some brass balls to do such a thing. And a lawsuit could actually stick...though Firaxis hasn't done any damage control, so they are weakening their case if this is so.

2) I have never seen anything from Mister Pleasant (oh, crap, his initial are MP!) to suggest he would do such a thing. He is a known poster who probably did get such an e-mail and was shocked by it.

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that MP lied about the e-mail. I trust that all happened as he said.

I just think his conversations with Firaxis have been a little wormy. He used his status as a professor (or TA!) to extract some information from Firaxis. Then he published an e-mail without permission.* It's weak to ask for a donation (free games from a company) and then go bad mouth them regarding the company's product.


It's not a huge deal...but something about it makes him look bad. I wouldn't give him a donation or help with a project after seeing this...even if "I HAD MP in my game".


*Note that this is "legal" although rude--certainly behavior that will mean at a miniumum that he will be ignored by this e-mail partner in the future and perhaps by others who see this.

[TCO]

DP

[TCO]

DP

[yin26]

Ah, I see what you mean. Well, I'd rather not get down on him just yet. I can't say for sure I would have been any more careful, and it seems he regrets the way he handled this.

Shall we let bygones be bygones and see how Firaxis, who really should have dealt with this publically anyway, handles it?

[TCO]

Originally posted by yin26
Ah, I see what you mean. Well, I'd rather not get down on him just yet. I can't say for sure I would have been any more careful, and it seems he regrets the way he handled this.

Shall we let bygones be bygones and see how Firaxis, who really should have dealt with this publically anyway, handles it?

Fair enough...it's not a big hairy point...just something in the bakc of my head that was buggin me until I figured out what was puzzling me.

[Jeje2]

There better be MP in Civ3...

... since we made a deal at our morningcoffetable today to have our own internal championship with Civ3. So they better have MP support, com on we are now already five persons to play... (It's gonna be muchos fun, until our boss discovers our real research project )

[Grim Legacy]

The omission would be a serious flaw. Not particularly because I want to play MP from Day One -as it *will* eventually get here- but because this lack will result in a devastating press reception. The game is sure to gather low ratings all around and casual gamers/customers will shy away from an already 'oldfashionedly turn-based' game. I can see the list of 'selling points' now:

1) turn based play!

2) no multiplayer!

3) no true 3D!

4) bugs galore! (~derived from the supposed rush of the developers and the lack of a public beta)

Now don't understand me wrong. *I* will still buy the game and probably enjoy it too. But John Doe will not. And small sales = end of Civ legacy and maybe even the demise of Firaxis.

[Leonidas]

I can understand all of this happening to another game company and game.

What puzzles me is this is Sid Meier and Firaxis and the game is Civ3. Civ3 has a fine legacy and a huge, loyal following. I have played all of Sid's games and have enjoyed them tremendously.

It seems that this is what may have happened:

Firaxis had planned originally to ship Civ3 in Spring 2002. That's plenty of time to include all the "extras".

But Infogrames comes along and says "Whoa!, get that game out in Oct, 2001 instead. We need the income to improve our bottom line. The investors have been howling at us since our stock dropped and we have to show an increase in income by the end of the 4th quarter. Besides it's only a game".

So, what happens? Firaxis has to scramble to cut features in order to get the game ready for Oct. They know their reputation is on the line. So they have to leave a bunch of stuff out, have in-house testing, and everybody has to work lots of over-time.

So the excuses start coming: "800x600 resolution? Who uses that resolution any more. A demo? Why waste your time playing a demo? Public beta testing? Ahhh, we can handle that in house, no problem. We have three employees who do not require any sleep. Alexander doesn't look like Alexander? You're seeing things. . ."

But the employees at Firaxis know the game is not ready. So certain emplyees start casually joking about the game; it's no longer treated seriously. The history write-ups become comical,
excuses are made for things that don't appear to be "historical", etc.

They also know MP won't be ready by the Oct release. But they have been told not to say anything (Kelly's email was probably an accidental slip), because that would hurt pre-order sales and over the counter sales in November. No. . . don't say anything. Let them buy the game. . . hey, they'll learn to love it anyway.

What about the bugs they didn't catch before release? Ahh, tell them you'll put out patches in January. By that time Infogrames bottomline will have improved, the investors will be happy, its a new year, and the gamers will have the patience to wait for the patches and download them at a later date.

After all, the fans are loyal and they will understand. . .

[Whitestar718]

Dismayed, but not really surprised

I was very disappointed to read this snippet about the possibility of the game being released without full multiplayer support. I realize nothing has officially been said by Firaxis...yet, you cannot blame computer gamers for becoming immediately frustrated at even the possibility of being suckered with yet another unfinished game being released to market. I realize that the Civ dynasty has a strong following of players who are content with just a single-play aspect, but this is the year 2001, and yes, MP is a feature that strategy gamers have a right to expect, and I feel it is completely reasonable to expect said features right out of the box.

What I find unacceptable is that a release date has been announced for this game; people are already spending money on pre-orders. Yet we are only now hearing that MP support isn't available out-of-the-box by way of a Firaxis e-mail to a 3rd party. I hope this is a big miscommunication. It will be in very poor taste if Firaxis waits until the last minute to announce no multiplayer out-of-box. Firaxis, please post an immediate update on the Civ3 website about what's going on with multiplayer. The fans deserve it.

I have loved the game since Civ 1, but I will not spend money on a product that I feel is unfinished. Furthermore, I will not pay extra for a "multiplayer add-on". It is not a threat; it is just my stance as a consumer in this publishing era of "close enough is good enough". Firaxis, please take the necessary steps to ensure that my confidence with Sid Meier games is not eroded. Please do not become Just Another Typical Game Company

--Mike H.

[Blacksurf]

Time for a new poll...

Is it time for a new poll?

Q. Will the developer update of the week be

1. An update on MP - Yes it is in the game
2. An update on MP - No it is NOT in the game
3. An update on MP - it might be in the game sometime
4. An update on something else entirely different.


I go for 4!