No Mp It's Official!

[korn469]

on a personal note, the lack of MP won't be devistating to me, because i don't have the time to devote myself to PBEM, and my internet connection requires alot of patience to play an ip game

however, i really do wish most of you would at least admit that multiplayer is a fairly important part of a strategy game

people can name a million and one games that are highly successful and don't include MP at all, but the vast majority of those games aren't strategy games...can anyone really make a list of ten single player only strategy games that have done phenominally in the past four years?

here is what we know

*May 1999, firaxis announces Civ3 at E3 with BR as the lead designer
*December 1999, BR quits and takes the core of the Civ3 team with him

so after seven months of working on Civ3, firaxis has to start all over again basically from scratch

so firaxis has been working on civ3 for only about 21 months, instead of 28

we also know that Jeff Morris wanted to conduct an open beta, but said their wasn't time for one
we also know that there wasn't time for a demo
and MP got cut out

we do not know if these changes allowed firaxis enough time to develop and ship a high quality program

i am going to give Civ3 the benefit of the doubt, because none of us here know if it will be as good or as bad as what some people are saying

all i'm saying i am prepared for the worst, but i am hoping for the best, and i am tired of of the following argument

civ3 sux!
no it doesn't!
yes it does!
no way man!
civ3 is the worst game i have ever played (in my mind)!
no way civ3 is the best game ever!
time to die
no you die!

we don't know yet!
so lets call a truce till the game comes out
then we can really spill blood

[GamesMun]

First, I'm very disappointed in most the SP comments on here. If the game had only come out with MP, I would have been so upset on the SP's behalf; I would even wanted to wait for the game to come out so the "other half" of our gaming family could enjoy the game as it was meant to be. But NO, not only could most SP's care less, they are making rude jives towards MP's.

If you're really a hardcore MP, then you can wait. You probably don't want to get a half-written implementation anyway.

No, If YOU were a hardcore CIV fan, you could wait till the fully written implementation of the game (including MP) comes out.

Multiplayer is standard in this day and age, and it's just plain inexcusable that it will not be included. No patch or upgrade can possibly do any type of descent job of adding MP. No AI can match the thrill, unpredictability, and fun of play against or with other humans. I, and my group of 8 friends/family that plays games together have promised never to buy CIV III until (if ever) a stable MP is available (FREE).

So to the rude SP's out there; forgive us if we have actual friends, and families, and Lans, and LIVES that include really living human beings to play with and against! Maybe that's why there's less MP's on this board now; they are spending time with HUMANS!

[SITS]

I think some people are missing the point here. They say that it is better to have a SP game than one that includes a half-arsed MP which, to me doesn't make sense. What Firaxis should do is produce a complete game not half of one. A complete game has both SP and MP options, both well written and that cater for both types of players. They have chosen not to at the expense of MP. They still haven't written it up on the official site, they still haven't given an explanation for the half the game missing. That is shoddy and a terrible way to treat their customers. But hey does it matter? I will still buy the game and the worst thing about that for me is that I wish I had strength of yin not to buy the game and it shames me that I don't. This has left a nasty taste in my mouth.

As to the SPers rejoicing I suggest you imagine Firaxis releasing Civ3 without SP but just MP. How would you feel then?

[SITS]

Sorry, a lot of what I said cross-posted with GamesMan...

[mjs0]

Wow, after lurking for who knows how many years (predates the Apolyton merger for sure) something finally piqued my interest enough to post...I started playing Civ1 on a Commodore Amiga (5+ minutes to create and populate a map!) almost 10 years ago and have passed through all the subsequent iterations/imitations including the CTPs and SMAC. I have already pre-ordered the CivIII LE.

Let me start by saying that I do bemoan the lack of multiplayer. My wife ( ), children and I play many many MP games on our home LAN from SMAC to Baldur's Gate and we are disappointed (not devastated/annoyed/suicidal or even mildly irritated , just disappointed ) that we will not get this functionality in the initial release.

I have worked in the software industry for over 20 years (although not PC games unfortunately) for several companies both small and large in positions varying from QA to programmer to architect all the way up to V.P. of development (a thankless job) and I have observed the following behaviour many times...

Even without the unprecedented level of future customer input represented by the CivIII list, the designers/developers of a product always have far more features and neat ideas ( ) than can possibly be implemented in a single release cycle. They (the good guys) will argue that the development time or available resources should be expanded to allow as much as possible to be done. On the other side sit the beancounters (the bad guys) who remind the designer/developer types that their salaries are not being pulled from thin air and that at some point the product they are developing needs to show an ROI (return on investment).
The solution is inevitably a compromise that sees the product shipped with less functionality than the development team would ideally want to see. The idea is typically to continue with some level of development effort working towards the next version/release/patch, and whether these efforts continue to completion is inevitably influenced by the success or failure of the initial release from a financial perspective.

(Background Notes:
1. There are only so many degrees of freedom in software development, typically these are time, resources, quality and functionality. Time and resources are typically controlled by the beancounters and are thus almost invariably non-negotiable (unless you have in your possession a suitably compromising picture of the appropriate beancounter taken at the last office party), quality and functionality are then in the hands of the development team)
2. The nature of beancounters (often referred to as suits in some industries such as TV): These are often perfectly nice friendly human beings when observed in a non-work situation, but when exercising power in the workplace they are ruthless dictators . Their sole goal is to use all the knowledge at their disposal to enable the company to turn a profit and provide investors with a decent return on their investment. This often results in tactical rather than strategic thinking
/Background Notes)

In the case of CivIII I would suggest that there would have been a decision point early on in the development cycle (although I seriously doubt it was formally considered as such or that much thought would have been required if it were) that said:
"Look this game has to be released in plenty of time for Xmas 2001, given that the continuation of this project will depend on the sales of the initial version should we release it as
(a) A great SP game only with a goal of releasing MP support later
(b) A great MP game only with a goal of releasing SP support later
(c) A game with both SP and MP but neither to the level of quality that development or customers would ideally want to see"
Of course I have grossly simplified the options but the important point here is which of these options will maximize short term (tactical) sales in order to allow long term (strategic) delivery of all the functionality the customers want.
Unfortunately for those of us that are waiting for multiplayer the only logical decision is (a) {Hey you...yes you, the one who is about to argue that this last point is not true, if you don't believe me I can't help you, but I think there are support groups for people suffering from denial of this kind, so don't give up hope. (ducks) } . Of course this decision is going to disappoint (or anger in some cases) many people so nobody really wants to tell anyone, especially the development team who get forced into making these tough decisions and even less the beancounters who having imposed their will on the powerless developers have already forgotten why they made the decision.
One unfortunate side effect of this is that boycotting the product just 'proves' the beancounter right (in their own perverse world of financial logic) and reduces the chance of ever seeing the product completed as the designers truly intended.

Phew that post was longer than I originally intended and I am not really sure it added that much to the debate. Those that are mad at Firaxis will continue to be mad and those that are happy or ambivalent will probably be reading the next post by this point.
Ah well, the point of these forums is to allow everyone to have a say so this was mine.

...Slinks back into the distant oort cloud of lurkers having spent his brief moment in the sunlight, perhaps never to return...

[player1]

I WANT A HOTSEAT!!!!!!!!!

[player1]

P.S.
Relly it's to easier to code HOTSET compared to other types of MP
You need only stratup & diplomacy screen.

I hope there will be civ3hack (ala civ2) wich will allowe "some sort" of
HOTSEAT.

[d4rkl0rd]

mjs0,

Your points are well taken. I too work in the software development industry, and face these decisions all too often. I think that one of the key points here is that the a/b/c alternatives you laid out were a bit over-simplified in this way: really, there was tons of functionality added, and MP was one piece out of /many/ that was deprioritized (btw I agree that SP was non-negotiable). My assertion is that MP is not just another feature like adding unique units or a diplomatic win. It's far more important than either of those. It /could/ have been included (considering the ~2 year development period), leaving others to be added as an XP, but historical precedent for making this particular feature an add-on likely gave them a defensable position for releasing it seperately and for extra $$$.

Originally posted by mjs0
Wow, after lurking for who knows how many years (predates the Apolyton merger for sure) something finally piqued my interest enough to post...I started playing Civ1 on a Commodore Amiga (5+ minutes to create and populate a map!) almost 10 years ago and have passed through all the subsequent iterations/imitations including the CTPs and SMAC. I have already pre-ordered the CivIII LE.

<...snip...>

...Slinks back into the distant oort cloud of lurkers having spent his brief moment in the sunlight, perhaps never to return...

[SITS]

Wonderful post mjs0! And welcome to the boards - careful you don't get sucked in...

I really dislike your post as it smacks of reality! I agree with the points you make but I do believe Firaxis could have acted in a more 'honourable' way and been upfront about it. They haven't (and they knew for a while as proven by the leaked email) and have ignored the many questions about MP. This to me smacks of foul play, especially as inforgames proclaim in a press release how wonderful pre-sales are. It just ain't cricket, know what I mean?

Please post some more doses of reality, especially one as well written as that.

[yin26]

mjs0: Your calm and reasoned view will only likely cause riots around here.

Yin26 is heard softly chuckling in the background. Mwahahaha!

Not chuckingling...just *deep sigh*-ing.

My take on this is as follows:

1. No matter if you play MP or don't, the fact that Firaxis kept this under their hats when they KNEW about it as far back as Kelly's 'leaked' e-mail completely ruins Firaxis' credibility on ANY announcements regarding planned patches and future versions of the game. Period.
2. I am not necessarily against the decision to delay MP *if* that allows for a better SP and *if* MP is released later for free...however, #1 is so disturbing, that I really don't feel like giving Firaxis any of my money at any point. "Your loss, Yin!" Sure. Whatever.
3. But rest assured that if Firaxis is capable of #1, they'll also be capable under thier 'evil' publisher (whom THEY signed with) to try to make MP part of another product you have to pay for. I can only hope that if that were to happen that people would see Firaxis in a clear light.

Bottom Line: They used MP to hype up sales of the game. They then willingly kept the truth from us to protect their pre-orders. And still there is no Firaxis statement to address this issue.

Talk about the most piss-poor, stick your head in the sand, screw your public attitude. It sickens me, actually.

[Fidel]

great posts!

i am perfectly aware of the financial constraints and it is understandable that good civ3 sales will let them work on support for up to a year. there was even a column on apolyton on this topic and someone (also ex-industry guy) explained how business decisions are being made (it was about CtP disaster).

It is too late now to whine and flame suits(beans) - they are shipping SP. I preordered my LE being 99% sure that there would be no MP (not a single word on it 1 month before release). THe next question is - will they charge us for it, and, if yes, will they charge us a lot? By 'a lot' I mean anything over 10 dollars. This, again, I am aware, will be decided by suits. we can all envisage the outcome (a MP expansion disk with a couple of scenarios for around 25 USD).

now i am pissed as much as the next guy when having to part with my hard-earned ( ) cash but the market economy gives us all a wonderful option of spending those USD 75 total on something else. if civ 3 is pants and the follow-up patches (there have to be some) are dodgy, i will not waste my time on buying MP. however, suits are not THAT stupid. i reckon they will understand that additional profit may be squeezed only if the after-release support is really good. we'll see....

[Alexander's Horse]

I really think they made a PR boo boo

I know some people here say MP doesn't matter etc. etc. but I really think Infogames/Firaxis has made a big PR/marketing boo boo by not including MP - at least in some form.

The multiplayer community, in its many forms, is large, articulate and vocal. Sure, you can exagerate their influence but at the same time you can't discount their influence on perceptions of the game either.

If I buy this game as SP, I'm sure I'm going to die of frustration because I'll want to MP. Since I started MP I never played another SP game of civ II.

I really would have preferred an unadventurous MP set up to no MP at all. If they came out with an enhanced Mp setup later I'd probably be quite happy to buy the game again. But not an SP version and then an MP version (if it ever comes out).

Hopefully MP code will be a present somewhere in the SP and it will just be a matter of finding it, like the way someone, Markusf I think, found the simult mode, which we now all play in civ II

[Fidel]

AH, so are you buying the SP version at all? (until MP comes out)

[Deathwalker]

I dont mind if I have to wait a while to get MP
After all this way we get the game earlyier and that never did Civ 2 any harm.

[Alexander's Horse]

To be honest I haven't decided

Originally posted by LaRusso
AH, so are you buying the SP version at all? (until MP comes out)

I hate to admit it but it will be hard to resist - especially if its good and a few of my MP buddies get it. They'll be taking the game apart piece by piece to find the best strats and it will be hard not to be part of that. Especially if that's all people are talking about on icq.

But I will still probably hang back to see if its a dog or not and if the platform is stable. If I buy it will probably be version 3.1 or whatever.