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

[Master Marcus]

Sure , crafting something alone without suggestions is not the best way to do it. But when a software company doesn't interact with the fans, that doesn't necessarily means they don't take some of their inputs (plagiarism hehe ). EVERY team has a couple of designer/programmers devoted to surf the crowded fan boards. They certainly do not answer to them as often as they should; at least they read. It's an evolution from the pre-internet era, isn't it ? I remember some of the hardest games of all-time, released in the late 80's / early 90's ( namely Genesis and some PC ) oh often they were impossible to beat because of an incredible unbalanced gameplay and horrible control...today's games have a much better control mechanism but are easier also. A global market influence has made its way.

All in all I think the developers have the right to do what they want with their projects; they work sometimes 10-16 hours per day scratching their eyes for us . They are paid for that, but NOT to answer all of our whimsical demands . At least they can't ignore the gamers community.

[yin26]

Yin, Civ2 was a mess before patching...and it required a slew of them! But it did fine, in terms of sales. Why not expect Civ3 to follow the same pattern?

I actually got on the Civ2 wagon a bit late. I was too busy at the time for computer games, so I missed the whole release, patch thing. What you have to remember in all this is that Civ2 was the sequal to a game that revolutionized gaming in its day.

Civ 3, however, is revolutionizing nothing. Aside from the Civ player who is dedicated enough to buy Civ simply because it is Civ, people move on, the industry moves on. And even old fans are growing weary of the same formula. There is better competition. The market is over-flowing.

So Civ 3 is hardly in the command seat that Civ 2 was. I promise if it gets a slow start out of the gate, there could be trouble. Will it still sell well? Yes. Will it sell as well as it could have had Firaxis played its cards better?

In other words you are going to have problems if the general gaming public (or rabid gaming nuts) sees the evolution from grand design to "less grand" design that Bleyn proposes as the best approach to design.

That's not what I said. I said if you are going to ride on the "BEST MP EVER!" wave of hype (and other hype), don't then become a bumbling fool in public for months as people continue to ask: "Ummm, about that rumor..." Back up your hype with at least plausibility and a degree of courtesy for the fans when information is obviously going awry.

Civ2 sold very well. Why not repeat that formula?

Again...because it IS a repeat. It's tired. I don't think people will have the patience to have Firaxis cram the 'It's your computer, not our code' garbage again. And let's face it: Many gamers new to the Civ title will look at the specs and say: "Hmmm, not RTS. O.K. So this is just a TBS world conquer game? I've been hearing good things about that OTHER game, though...what was it? Europa Universalis 2, an RTS/TBS hybrid, or Empire Earth, which spans history in a totally new and exciting way? And these graphics on the back of the box ain't all that...I bet a better TBS would be HoMM4. Yeah! Plus I never hear much about this Firaxis company anywhere..."

You might not agree with a few or most of those potential gripes, but as has been said here before: The Sid name is no longer springing to mind the way it used to when people think of great, modern games. He is a face in the crowd as far as the average gamer is concerned, and he needs to adjust his company's PR strategy to deal with it.

But I'm not sure that I trust him regarding things like the lost Xmas rush...

I've always said that an X-mas release alone does not guarantee good sales...but a horrible round of first reviews can kill them. This is Infogrames' call, of course, but unless the deadline was sprung on Firaxis, they share the brunt of the blame for missing features and any serious gameplay issues we might see out of the box.

We have seen a number of solid indicators that Firaxis has had to cut its dev list and shoot for a dealine and not the game they envisioned. Sure, that happens to most every game ever made, I realize. But if Civ 3 had two years of dev time, was being built on top of the same engine as previous titles, etc., then why all the secret or lame presentation of information and cut features?

All of it seems like horrid management to me...and that screams: WAIT TO BUY THIS GAME...if ever.

[KrazyHorse]

GP, I PMed you with a response. It's not obscene , but I felt that its content was long enough and boring enough that I wouldn't needlessly expose others to it.

IV. I don't bother wondering why you're a socialist. These things tend to be almost religious, rather than fact-based...so let's not get into an argument as fruitless as the Dookie religion arguments.

Yes, you do tend to wander into the mystical when you discuss the virtues of the free market.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by GP


1. Charging what the market will bear is not "screwing" people. It's normal practice. Don't be such a child. Learn the way the world works and adjust accordingly. And calm down.

2. Breaking the game in 2, or charging a heavier price to initial users is just price discrimination. They are using this to extract more dollars from the people who value the game enough to want it NOW. Those who value it less, get charged less...but have to wait to play it.

Ever wonder why you can't get a paberback book for the first 6 months a book comes out? Or why movies wait to go on video until the theater run is over? It's all about "screwing" (HA HA ) every dollar out of the public that they can.

3. The company isn't too worried about losing YOUR individual sale. All they worry about is the overall result. Do they earn more money by price discriminating (by breaking the release in 2) or not? They know there will be cheapskates (or non-avid gamers) who will wait until the next summer. But they assume there are enough die-hards to make up for that. I would not discount the importance of the Xmas rush either...

1. Ah, pardon me? "Don't be such a child?" I'll admit I am new here but most forums have rules against personal attacks, why don't you review the rules against that here (assuming there are any) and apologize, eh?

IMHO, breaking the game in two for the deliberate reason to charge people double for what you initially advertised as being in the original game IS giving customers the shaft. As someone mentioned recently (not sure where) this is like selling someone the chasis and wheels for a sports car and telling them that it'll be the best thing on the road if and when they buy the engine, tranny and body in the seperate package 6 months later.

I don't think it is unreasonable for game companies to put what the promise (major features at least) in the initial release of the game and to have it work corectly. The "recent" trend seems to be to release games with more and more problems and missing features and then charge customers later for bug fixes and the missing elements in some expansion pack. An expansion pack used to be truly extra stuff they wanted to put in the game as "extra" stuff that added more to an already good game, not an excuse to release buggy software with missing features.

2. Yes, I agree it is price discrimination. I know why books aren't available in paperback for 6 months, but do you see many paperbacks that come out with missing chapters from the original hardback book? This example is not the same as what happens when a company breaks a game apart like this. The book example would only be valid if the publisher issues a "sequal" for the book with the 3-4 missing chapters 6 months after the book came out that provided more character history and in-depth plot elements.

Paperback books are typically the SAME content wise as their hardback cousins just cheaper due to cheaper publishing methods. This is what happens later when games come out with bundled packages, gold editions, etc. The issue is this: when you buy a hardback book you know you will get the same content as someone buying the paperback later, you buy it because you like hardcovers, etc. When buying a game in todays economy you do not know if you're only buying part of the game, with the "missing" features comming later or not, so people who often make the game an initial hit are shafted because they have to pay more to get what the "casual gamer" get for cheaper prices.

This practice may be "smart" for game companies but eventually upset anyone who has half a brain. In the Diablo2 example I mentioned earlier I was disgusted with BLizzard and will make sure I never buy any of their games again until enough time has passed that 1) they fix all the glaring problems they typically have in their games and 2) that I make sure I get all the game at once, and not added later where I have to pay double.

With the rumors about missing MP for Civ3 I'll probably wait to get it also, just in case.

3) Sure the companies probably don't care about me, but I am sure if enough people like myself stop buying their games initially they may wise up, or else go the way of Spectrum Holobyte, Microprose, etc. It may make sense to break the game to get more money short term but I can't help but think this is a very bad policy as the long term effects may be a loss in revenue as people wait to get games because they are tired of having to buy two products to get ONE functional game.

EDIT: One last thing, this hype about the Chrostmas rush is exactly that, HYPE. I have seen more games become mega-hits that were NOT released during the Christmas rush as during the rush. The reasons why are numerous: not as much competition, the developers weren't as rushed, etc. Just because a game is released during the "christmas rush" does not mean it will be a hit, just that it faces more numerous and often stiffer competition.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by GP


I think you're flattering yourself. But hey maybe you're right.... In which case, feedback is not too hard to get. They don't need to be responsive though. If Yin gets huffy because it's a one-way street, Firaxis just moves on to some other site to listen to gamers.

Flattering myself? How so? Because games seem to turn out better when developers actually ask fans what they want? Or because I have been playing since 1993? lol, be a tad more specific if you wish to debate semantics, unless of course your aim and goal is to casually dismiss the comments of anyone else as irrelevant.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by GP

1. Civ2 sold very well. Why not repeat that formula? This is not a competition for best product, it's a business. Who care if they don't get points from you for having a better idea. This is not some intellectual Cheney size contest.

2. Yes, you do have an incentive to push the developers to put the most product into the game (while keeping the price the same). The developers have a different incentive (to sell lots of copies, without too much work. Just because you want something, does not mean other people want it too. Sorry...but that's the big bad world for you.

3. Yin, for one, realizes this incentive difference and tries to explain why Firaxis should do what he wants (in terms of arguments that it will end up benefiting them too.) These are the kind of arguments you need to make. Not the "Mommy, mommy, give me, give me" arguments. The thing is...I don't quite trust Yin with his arguments. After all, he still has fan incentives...not game company incentives. He will make a cogent argument for aligned incentives. But I'm not sure that I trust him regarding things like the lost Xmas rush...

1) Why not repeat Civ2? Because Civ2 was simply a repeat of Civ with better graphics. Did you play Civ when it first came out? I did, and after playing it for over a year, when I bought Civ2 expecting new, improved features and better gameplay I was disappointed because it was the same game with better graphics.

Sure Civ2 sold well, but what percentage of gamers will be disappointed if Civ3 is simply Civ2 with a new feature or two added in? More than were disappointed by Civ2 compared to Civ I imagine. Gamers expect more with games today, it's not enough to simply slap the same name on a game with some added numbers on the end, at least for most gamers who really liked the original game.

2) Hmm, "big bad world"? So you always act like everyone else is immature or is this just something new you've started? It is not flattering I assure you.

Game companies have to do what they think will make them the most money. Consumers have the ability to vote on how well game companies do with their cash. Short term game companies may get away with stiffing their customers but this is not a healthy long term business ideal for success as eventually the people who use your product will stop buying your games if they think they are getting the bad end of the deal.

Another example from the "big bad world" is that if enough consumers stop buying products or services from a company that company will go bust. There are numerous examples of game companies that produced shoddy or inferior products that are no longer in business.

3) Hmm, once again you launch a personal attack. Did you have a bad day or something? I try to get along with folks maybe you should do the same? Do you like being reported for launching personal attacks? You must, as you have done it three times in two messages I have posted.

In any event, what grounds or basis do you feel you have to dictate HOW someone should post? I am simply stating facts from previous games and companies that have done some shady things. You obviously side with the game companies in thinking that all consumers are lemmings that will blindly buy everything you spew, regardless of quality. Consumers WILL eventually tire of companies that try to hustle them short term and that company can and will suffer long term problems.

Why should I offer examples of what Firaxis "should do" that will benefit themselves and their customers? By helping their customers Firaxis will AUTOMATICALLY help themselves. How? Simple, they will have a larger fan base and have more people will have even more people fanatically supporting their games, even if they have a bad game or two. This is not hard to figure out, if a company increases their demand base the number of units they can supply and make a profit on will increase. Conversely, if a company decreases their fan base there will be less people to buy their games, see how this works? (Thought you'd enjoy that comment )

In conclusion, you should really stop launching so many personal attacks as you dilute your message and you may want to ease off a bit on the "the business is always right" aspect because while that may work in an area where the consumer does not have the ability to choose what they buy in a consumer driven market the consumer is generally right.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ozymandous



1. Ah, pardon me? "Don't be such a child?" I'll admit I am new here but most forums have rules against personal attacks, why don't you review the rules against that here (assuming there are any) and apologize, eh?

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. I apologize.

[TCO]

Originally posted by yin26


I actually got on the Civ2 wagon a bit late. I was too busy at the time for computer games, so I missed the whole release, patch thing. What you have to remember in all this is that Civ2 was the sequal to a game that revolutionized gaming in its day.

Civ 3, however, is revolutionizing nothing. Aside from the Civ player who is dedicated enough to buy Civ simply because it is Civ, people move on, the industry moves on. And even old fans are growing weary of the same formula. There is better competition. The market is over-flowing.

So Civ 3 is hardly in the command seat that Civ 2 was. I promise if it gets a slow start out of the gate, there could be trouble. Will it still sell well? Yes. Will it sell as well as it could have had Firaxis played its cards better?

Yin, that's kind of a reach. What you're saying in effect is DON'T look to civ2 as a reasonable model of comparison. And that civ2 and civ1 are more similar (in terms of original vs follow-on) than Civ2 and civ3 are. Face it Civ3 is a sequal. So was civ2.

[yin26]

"Face it Civ3 is a sequal. So was civ2."

Precisely. At some point, sequels of sequels begin to run awfully thin unless I'm being told it's being handled well...which I haven't been told or seen so far at all.

[Provost Harrison]

Yin, Civ2 was not revolutionary. It was a well needed facelift to the real groundbreaker Civ, and they took the opportunity to tweak some of the features of the game and add a bit more depth to certain areas of the game. Sounds familiar? Of course, it is exactly what they are doing with Civ3.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ozymandous
IMHO, breaking the game in two for the deliberate reason to charge people double for what you initially advertised as being in the original game IS giving customers the shaft. As someone mentioned recently (not sure where) this is like selling someone the chasis and wheels for a sports car and telling them that it'll be the best thing on the road if and when they buy the engine, tranny and body in the seperate package 6 months later.

1. It is only dishonest if the split game ships to people who don't know about the missing MP. (For instance pre-orders.) You know about the "missing drive shaft"...so this is not applicable to you.

2. Game companies can decide what features to include in a game just like car companies do. The game is "drivable" (at least in some sense) without MP.

3. I think what really bugs you is 1. having to pay more. 2. having to wait for MP. But nobody is sticking a gun to your head to buy something you feel is inferior. They've made the decision that enough people (unlike you) WILL pay double. Why fault them for that, because you don't have the money to pay for that. I don't like the price of yachts, either...

4. Also realize that delaying the SP launch would deprive some players of having the game that they want.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ozymandous
2. Yes, I agree it is price discrimination. I know why books aren't available in paperback for 6 months, but do you see many paperbacks that come out with missing chapters from the original hardback book? This example is not the same as what happens when a company breaks a game apart like this. The book example would only be valid if the publisher issues a "sequal" for the book with the 3-4 missing chapters 6 months after the book came out that provided more character history and in-depth plot elements.

We can't find perfect analogies. But perhaps magazine publication of novels prior to book publication would be a decent one: Stories are generally chopped down, overall, are released in seriel (annoying), and the book is held in check (not published) while the seriel runs.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ozymandous
I don't think it is unreasonable for game companies to put what the promise (major features at least) in the initial release of the game and to have it work corectly. The "recent" trend seems to be to release games with more and more problems and missing features and then charge customers later for bug fixes and the missing elements in some expansion pack. An expansion pack used to be truly extra stuff they wanted to put in the game as "extra" stuff that added more to an already good game, not an excuse to release buggy software with missing features.

1. The bug problem is a seperate issue. Let's stick to one evil trait at a time, OK? (The MP issue). Not confound things by ranting about all the nefarious practices of software companies.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ozymandous
When buying a game in todays economy you do not know if you're only buying part of the game, with the "missing" features comming later or not, so people who often make the game an initial hit are shafted because they have to pay more to get what the "casual gamer" get for cheaper prices.

If you really think the game is incomplete why would you buy the game now? Why would anyone? I don't buy your argument. The product has value as shipped, else it wouldn't sell at all...and the abitility to play the game (even if less functional has value also---not postponing your entertainment). Think about this. Civ1 compared to civ2 has reduced features as did civ2 to civ2 MGE. But people still got lotsof enjoyment out of civ1 and civ2.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ozymandous
In the Diablo2 example I mentioned earlier I was disgusted with BLizzard and will make sure I never buy any of their games again until enough time has passed that 1) they fix all the glaring problems they typically have in their games and 2) that I make sure I get all the game at once, and not added later where I have to pay double.

1. I think gamers understand how the system works. The companies are not exploiting naivete as much as just tapping into gamers need to have the product, NOW!!!!! It doesn't matter if gamers get smarter as long as their need for the game remains similar to a smac (tee hee hee) addict's.

2. Ever consider that some games might be WORTH double? Ever consider it? At all? Ever consider that more complex art, etc. requires more costs to produce? Ever cosnsider it? At all?