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

[yin26]

ANNOUNCE IT PROMPTLY AND PUBLICALLY!: Take a look at the MOO3 thread if you haven't already.

Am I disappointed? Sure. But am I well-informed and can I understand the decision? Absolutely.

Same developer but even later release date. If anybody could afford to keep back the info, it would be Quicksilver. So...

Firaxis?

[Zanzin]

Agreed, Yin.

This is an important lesson on how to achieve developer <---> consumer communication.

Firaxis, take note!!

[tniem]

yin,

Couldn't agree more. The scary thing is it sounds like Firaxis themselves don't know whether they are going to include it or not. I take this from the newest interview that they are still working on something. It sounds like they hope to include something they just started working on. Hoping that there are not that many bugs in the code. I wish they would just come straight with us.

[Leonidas]

I agree.

The most important thing is communication, not hiding things from the fans.

If things won't be included - say so - it'll hurt. . . but the fans will understand. . .

But honesty and being frank about the game's capabilities is the best route to go. . .

[Leonidas]

Hmmm. . .

What a coincidence. . .

Infogrames is rushing MoO3, just like it's rushing Civ3. . .

Pity that Infogrames is the publisher of these two superior strategy games. . .

[Alex]

Yea. Absolutely. I do agree that the developer should take the time to explain to the fans why those features are not being included in the game. So the people at the MOO3 development team seem to be on the right way... So I wonder: why Firaxis doesn't talk about the MP thing? Why do we have to frantically speculate about it? Wouldn't it be more simple to release a statement to the fans, admitting that MP won't be in the game out of the box, OR denying that rumor and confirming that some or all of the MP features will be in?

Sure, I can understand how delicate this situation is to Firaxis: if they say that the game won't have MP features out of the box, they will probably lose some potential buyers... on the other hand, if they remain silent about that subject, they are also probably going to lose some potential buyers. The point here is: I think that they would lose less consumers IF they decided to keep us informed about the development. Sincerity almost always pays off.

[tniem]

Originally posted by Alexnm
Sure, I can understand how delicate this situation is to Firaxis: if they say that the game won't have MP features out of the box, they will probably lose some potential buyers... on the other hand, if they remain silent about that subject, they are also probably going to lose some potential buyers. The point here is: I think that they would lose less consumers IF they decided to keep us informed about the development. Sincerity almost always pays off.

You are totally right.

That is why I am beginning to believe that Firaxis actually has no idea what they are going to do with MP. They want to include it but they just getting started on it. They are trying to figure it out so they are ignoring the issue. They want to satisfy us but they know it won't be ready.

So that means the Infogrames deadline on top of them not planning well, has lead to a non finished game that might be released anyways.

[raingoon]

Yeah, but you know what? I don't want to know too much. Would you also demand to know if George Lucas had taken Darth Vader out of the next installment of Star Wars? Consumers of such immersive entertainment products don't necessarily benefit from having certainty over their final release condition. The main benefit I see would be providing certainty about what is coming, where uncertainty makes the consumer uncomfortable. But if I'm a producer of product, I don't see where that is a positive. I want you to have some uncertainty and, like it or not, the anticipation that uncertainty builds.

[MarkG]

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

Originally posted by yin26
If you have to cut game features, at least do this

first they have to decide to cut something, right?

[Inverse Icarus]

i concur.

having the whole multiplayer thing up in the air is horrible.

whats the best source of this anyway? someone with an email of questionable nature.

hell, i can send you an email from thecivteam@firaxis.com saying i am a magical goat. give me your email if you wanna see me do it

[Master Marcus]

The cuts are unavoidable for such ambitious TBS & RTS games in development: think about the initial plans for MoO3, Civ3. It would have taken at least 5 years of full programming to implement everything in harmony. No company can afford that; they want to make some money after all, and they want also to ...just do another project as soon as possible. That's why the numerous patches released after, and so on. We all want to be informed promptly of course, but they don't want to lose upcoming customers for such unpleasant but efficient$$$$ "readjustements".

[CapTVK]

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

Originally posted by MarkG
first they have to decide to cut something, right?

How can you cut something when it wasn't even there to begin with?

[MarkG]

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

Originally posted by CapTVK
How can you cut something when it wasn't even there to begin with?

then why you would you continuasly say that you are working on something really cool in that area?

[Inverse Icarus]

to amass pre-orders with false-hopes.

[OzzyKP]

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

Originally posted by MarkG
then why you would you continuasly say that you are working on something really cool in that area?

to amass pre-orders with false-hopes.

Exactly. Thats what all you who are critical of all us MPers who are upset over this miss. They are delibritly trying to scam us, keep us in the dark, and hurt the quality of this game to make a buck.