Civ3 - The Marketing Plan

[Melios]

No one from Firaxis/Infogrames has given any official statement that MP is not in the initial release so I don't see any reason to assume there's no MP.

If someone at Firaxis said in an E-Mail that they supposively delaying MP, that does not mean Firaxis is 100% certain of it.

Since nobody from Firaxis has confirmed it, that means there is a very good chance it is going to be in release, because otherwise they would've just said MP is going to be delayed already or else be false advertising. But since they're silent its obviously because MP is still in testing and they don't want to give out any details that could change at any time before release, such as multiplayer modes (e.g. Hot Seat, PBEM, TCP/IP, etc.).

[Simpleton]

I think this lack of MP rumor has been started by Firaxis. They know it's going to be in but they just wanted to stir up talk among Civers so they can surprise us when the game comes out. I have no doubt that it will be in the game.

[dainbramaged13]

Originally posted by Kull


What's with the attitude? I'm simply offering a possible explanation for the otherwise inexplicable omission of a Macro Language and Multiplayer capability. If you want to cheerlead, at least do so with a modicum of thoughtfulness.

sorry about the 'attitude.' ive just seen so many related posts lat++++and it makes me mad...

the macro uninclusion (word? dis- maybe) is perfectly explainable... they have a good editor instead. Reasons: they want this to be a game for the public, not just for programmers. And even on this site, an overwhelming majority of peopel on a poll preferred editors

Multiplayer is also explainable - they just didn't have time for it within the release date...

of course im not saying your theories are wrong, in fact their probably right, im just critisizing the fact that your critisizing them for doing it. If you've ever studied economics, the whole point of a company is to make money, and to do that they make a price that maximizes profits (where the supply and demand curves meet)

from a post by connorkimbro

I hate this argument. If it makes you unhappy, then don't buy it. If it's not worth your money, then don't buy it. They're not forcing you to buy it. They are the ones making the product, they get to set the price. YOU, the consumer, get to decide if you like the price or not. Why should they ask one cent less than you are willing to pay for it? If they ask too much, and people don't buy it, then it's their loss, but so what? It's still their right to set the price. Marketing is about finding the point where profit is maximised. It's not about "how to get this product to whoever wants it for free." This argument is like them setting a price, you NOT buying the game, and the firaxis complaing, saying that it's not FAIR that you didn't buy the game, after they put all that hard work into it.

[Mister Pleasant]

I see someone got their custom avatar back . . .

I think this lack of MP rumor has been started by Firaxis. They know it's going to be in but they just wanted to stir up talk among Civers so they can surprise us when the game comes out. I have no doubt that it will be in the game.

It's one thing to think its a rumor, it's another thing completely to try to fool yourself inot thinking Firaxis cares about suprising veteran players. 'Simpleton' is right . . .

from a post by connorkimbro
quote:

I hate this argument. If it makes you unhappy, then don't buy it. If it's not worth your money, then don't buy it. They're not forcing you to buy it. They are the ones making the product, they get to set the price. YOU, the consumer, get to decide if you like the price or not. Why should they ask one cent less than you are willing to pay for it? If they ask too much, and people don't buy it, then it's their loss, but so what? It's still their right to set the price. Marketing is about finding the point where profit is maximised. It's not about "how to get this product to whoever wants it for free." This argument is like them setting a price, you NOT buying the game, and the firaxis complaing, saying that it's not FAIR that you didn't buy the game, after they put all that hard work into it.

Someone get ConnorKimbro a prozac . . .
He's about to have a libertarian seizure

[jdd2007]

i think that october is a perfect release date for the already mentioned reasons and the fact that many people will either reccomend it to friends, give it to friends or both. this word by(?) mouth strategy worked for both other civs, and it should work again...

[Sarxis]

October is good.
Marketing is good.
CivIII is VERY good.

I can't say that I blame them for wanting to maximize profits on their product. Hey, it's the Capitalist way!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by dainbramaged13


of course im not saying your theories are wrong, in fact their probably right, im just critisizing the fact that your critisizing them for doing it. If you've ever studied economics, the whole point of a company is to make money, and to do that they make a price that maximizes profits (where the supply and demand curves meet)

you want to study some more advanced economics? - here goes

consumers maximize utility by consuming a product when the utility (benefit, pleasure, whatever) from that product exceeds the price they must pay. Thats the basis for the demand side of the the demand and supply curves you're talking about (marginal cost, the usual basis for supply curves, is problematic for intellectual products like books, software or PC games where variable costs are trivial and fixed costs very high)

Consumers in the real world face the dilemna that they DONT know the utility they will get from a product. They will therefore engage in activities to gain INFORMATION about products before they buy them. While these activities may be costly, they will engage in them as long the benefits ( of the additional info) exceed the cost.

A forum like this exists in part as a place where people exchange such consumer information. Some come here for the info, some gain utility from the process of info exchange itself Kull by discussing Firaxis' possible strategy was attempting to improve consumer information, and thus maximize utility - a perfect example of the free market in action

You, by spamming this thread, are interfering with the efficiency of the free market.

and oh, yeah, i have studied economics.

LOTM

[JellyDonut]

Originally posted by Anunikoba
I can't say that I blame them for wanting to maximize profits on their product. Hey, it's the Capitalist way!

Vy kapitalisticheskija svinja!

[korn469]

all of this talk about economics has so far left one thing out, namely competition

a company could have a good product and sell it at a good price, but if a competitor has a better product and sells it at a lower price then the first company will be in trouble

i personally think that Civ3 will be better than SMAC which was better than Civ2, but lets face it, civ3 is a single player TBS game, certainly not a genre which many people rave about, and games even with a great new graphic overhaul don't automatically sell...look at Emperor: Battle for Dune, great new graphic engine same old C&C gameplay, and it did ok but didn't shatter any records

there are those that say Multiplayer doesn't matter, well as of 1:17am EST october 7, 2001 there are 258,663 users on battlenet at this moment while apolyton has 11,786 registered members total, and 84 people online...Most users ever online was 248 on 11-09-2001 at 15:23

my personal belief is that unlike what kull has predicted that Civ3 will not follow the same gameplan as Civ2, i personally think that Civ3 will release Multiplayer as a free patch if it is not in the game already (from the sounds of it, i highly doubt that civ3 will ship with MP) and that civ3 will have a single expansion

first there is too much competition for gaming dollars in my opinion for civ3 to release key features over a number 30 dollar expansions and gold updates, if they hold back on features they will cut down on the number of customers who think that civ3 and all of its expansions are a good deal

people have alternatives: empire earth, star wars: galactic battlegrounds, MoO3, EU2, WarCraft3 just to name a few of the upcoming strategy games...yes EU2 might not sell a single copy if it and civ3 both cost $50, but if civ3 costs $140 to get all of the parts and EU2 costs $50 then i think customers might think twice before they pick up civ3

do i think civ3 will be a hit? yes
do i think customers would pay any price to have civ3? no

if civ3 is priced above what many are willing to pay for it, i think that there is a distinct possibility some customers who would have bought the game at $50 might go and download a warez copy of civ3 instead of paying $140 for it

personally i disagree with warez, i have never downloaded a warez game and i never plan on doing it, but i can see how people are justify it...i believe if a company charges more than what i am willing to pay for a product then i will refuse to buy that product and warn others they are getting ripped off

so what i look forward to is the following

*civ3 comes out at the end of october without MP, to maximize christmas sells
*MP is added on later in a free patch
*the civ3 expansion comes out around june 2002
*august 2002 they release Civ3 and the Expansion bundled together, quite possibly in a new Tin (like the LE edition)

[Moral Hazard]

Kull et al:

I couldn't disagree more; the size pf the market for an expansion pack is determined purely buy the number of people, who purchased the game! Game companies do not pull features from a game to put into an expansion pack later, because you can always improve any game. Take the Sims for example ( a game I'll never understand) by all standards the first release was both polished and finished. EA has gone on to release two expansion packs which have both sold extremely well, because their was a large market already and the player wanted more. Pulling important features from initial release will lower sales for the original game, lowering sales for an expansion pack. Which also explains why patches come before the expansion pack.

As to the market who will buy Civ regardless, they are insignificant compared to the market who with a game like Civ will pick it up later thanks to word of mouth. Not entirely true in the FPS market where sales dip sharply after a few months, due to very short shelf lives.

The reason features are pulled before release is not to increase revenue over a long run, but to meet a release date and get often much needed revenue in the short run, as well as lower costs. Meeting release dates isn't necessarily a short term decision, because if you take too long you'll be outpaced by your competitors destroying LT revenue. Taking too long to release also kills your buzz. Duke Nukem Forever will probably suffer from both of the above.

So Capitalism does work.

LOTM:
To be fair the producer probably has to deal with more uncertainity in maximizing their profits.

[Jamison]

Originally posted by JellyDonut


Vy kapitalisticheskija svinja!

huh?

[korn469]

Moral Hazard

i agree with you completely!
i just wish my post had of been as eloquent as your's
and if features (like MP) did get cut from Civ3 i highly doubt it was (as the conspiracy theorist would have us believe) to increase long term revenue from civ3 by bundling them as seperate features, but it was like you said, time had ran out on the clock and civ3 had to come out

blizzard is the only company that i know of which actually improves their games when they delay them, most of the time when a game is continously delayed it is going to fail, daikatana is a perfect example

[Moral Hazard]

Thought I'd add that the market for expansion packs is not just those who bought the game, but those who bought and are either still playing it, or are interested in playing it again AKA happy consumers.

Oh and why do some people try to misuse economics to tell people to stop *****ing about a companies actions. When as LOTM pointed out the complainers are contributing by improving decision making, which helps an economy. There's nothing in economics which says the producer should be protected from the anger of thier consumers.

[Moral Hazard]

Korn:

Thanks. You also brought up the other key factor: Competition, which will kill crappy addons in todays market.

Yes Blizzard and Maxis are amazing companies and provide the model of how to do business in the brutal PC Game industry.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Kull et al:

LOTM:
To be fair the producer probably has to deal with more uncertainity in maximizing their profits.

They certainly face uncertainties. Thats not the point. I was replying to someone who seemed to think that holding a discussion of Firaxis's strategies here was somehow "anti-capitalist". Firaxis and Infogames face uncertainties, particularly demand uncertainties, and we can be sure they are doing their best to figure out consumer behavior and consumer strategies in order to manage that uncertainty. On our part it is not at all unreasonable to discuss their strategy as we make our decisions - which include not merely the binary decision of buy/not buy, but the decision of when to buy. I can pay $50 to 60 US to get the game right away (not to mention the upgrade costs for my PC) or I can delay several months (by which time there is a likelihood I will have already upgrade or replaced my PC) If there is a significant probability that important features will be released later as part of a follow-on product (a la FW, etc) that adds to the arguments for waiting.


LOTM