Which would have cause a bigger controversy?

[Steve Clark]

I don't like doing polls so here's the question:

What would have caused a bigger controversy?

1. Saying that Civ3 would have MP and then not delivering it?

or

2. Saying that Civ3 would be released in October 2001 and then delaying it?

Putting things into perspective.

[Sabre2th]

No MP. Games are delayed all the time for any number of reasons, but MP is usually there.

[drake]

yes thank you for doing so.

1

A release date is irrelevent. If it was released around Christmas time and it was complete, it would be worth waiting for, for everybody.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by drake
If it was released around Christmas time and it was complete, it would be worth waiting for, for everybody.

My underlining.

What makes you assume that only an additional 6-8 weeks would be enough to add the multiplayer-part?

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Ralf

What makes you assume that only an additional 6-8 weeks would be enough to add the multiplayer-part?

Agreed. It's my experience with other games that MP is difficult to implement and takes a long development to get right.

With most games, even after several patches, there are still bugs to be found in MP.

[Sava]

Delaying it for the sake of MP would pis$ me off. I'm not big on Civ MP, though.

[Utrecht]

In my mind -

Neither.

I do not care about multiplayer so dropping it as a development decision is no big deal.


And has been stated above - Release dates are fluid. I have other things do do with my time - sure civ would be fun, but so is a good book.

[drake]

My underling

Truthfully? I wouldnt give a crap if the game wasnt released to 2003. Its more important that a game be finished and refined, as perfect as possible, than releasing as fast as possible. Rush jobs mean rushed results.

What I was saying was, that they should release the game when it is done. Not 50%, not 75%, not 95%, but 100% done. To market a game in bits and pieces is a cheezy way of doing things. I used the Christmas date as a reference. I wasn't suggesting that implementing these features would only take 6-8 weeks.

I want the complete game when I buy it. Not the half ass version. So to summarize, I don't think its a big deal pushing back a release date to make sure the game is pristine. What I do think is a big deal, is releasing a half assed game for full price.

Is that better my underlings?

[Steve Clark]

You know what I think? If, for example, last month they announced that the October 2001 release would be delayed until January 2002. We would have seen dozens of flaming threads here along the lines of "I F****** PREORDERED, I WANT IT ON OCT 30" or "I WANT THE GAME NOOOOOOOWWWWW!!!!!" or "YOU PROMISED OCT 30, I WANT THE GAME NOW, DAMMIT". You have seen this in other forums, haven't you? In the end, once the game is released, such controversies seem silly. But because I believe that more folks are 1) impatient or 2) are eager to play SP (including those that will do both SP and MP), once an expectation has been built (where we did not have such a thing for MP apart from some preview stuff long ago), #2 would have caused a much bigger cry.

Don't believe me? Just wait until Oct 30. We will see too many threads saying "WHERE IS MY F****** PREORDER????" or "STORE X DOESN"T HAVE IT YET".

[Jason Beaudoin]

My vote = 1

I think they should have honoured their commitment.

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by Jason Beaudoin
My vote = 1

I think they should have honoured their commitment.

For my information, can you point to me specifically where on www.civ3.com they committed to MP?

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by drake
What I was saying was, that they should release the game when it is done. Not 50%, not 75%, not 95%, but 100% done. To market a game in bits and pieces is a cheezy way of doing things. I used the Christmas date as a reference.

...And when does the company decide that the game is truly done?

Firaxis could push the deadline back to 2005, and there would be people here griping because, in their minds, the creators did not put a particular concept in the game for lack of time.

[Jason Beaudoin]

I can't remember where I saw it, but I do recall a member of Firaxis (it could have been the big guy himself: Jeff) saying that they were "committed to multiplayer".

Anyone care to help me out here. It may have been in an interview or something.

[drake]

...And when does the company decide that the game is truly done?

Firaxis could push the deadline back to 2005, and there would be people here griping because, in their minds, the creators did not put a particular concept in the game for lack of time.

No doubt I can't answer this question, but a game released without MP available is not 100% done. I'm not saying that everyone who buys it should use this feature, but they should want the complete game and have that option. After playing civ3, there may be converts from sp to mp. People may want to switch over or even experiment playing online. But they probably won't be able to without buying something additional. And that isn't cool. We should all want our monies worth, but it looks like none of us will be getting it.

[Jason Beaudoin]

For my information, can you point to me specifically where on www.civ3.com they committed to MP?

Besides... what is the real reason why they didn't include multiplayer. Seriously? If they didn't commit to it from the start as you claim, why not just say right from the beginning that multiplayer will not be in the initial release? Why not come clean from the start?

If they didn't commit to it, as you claim, than maybe they were being delibrately misleading.

Alternatively, maybe they were unable to complete that portion on time.

The point is, we don't know what they are thinking. Was this merely a marketing strategy so that people devoted to multiplayer would buy the game anyway?

We need a response from Firaxis.