Which would have cause a bigger controversy?

[splangy]

Im not waiting for a feature to be finished so I can get the game and never use it...

[tniem]

Originally posted by 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.

Interviews, Ask the Teams, and on the FAQ. They said from the start that they were working on some new things for MP. They just never decided to ever work on it. Shame on them.

[Steve Clark]

So no one has come up with an official committment from Firaxis saying that they will release Civ3 with MP in Oct 2001? Hmmmm....interesting.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by drake
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.

Actually, you will get no disagreement from me on this issue, because I really think that the game should of been held back until Multiplayer was implemented - in light of the fact that Firaxis did promote multiplay as a feature a few months ago. Personally, I will not be using multiplay/PBEM, but there are a lot of players who would, so not including it was a bad decision on their part. And if the multiplay feature is 'sold' instead of patched in, then watch the fireworks really start...

However, what people do forget is that Firaxis is a company, who has to make ends meet - so there is a certain logic in getting the game out before Christmas. They had a deadline set up for a fall '01 release, which they have kept, but that deadline might of been due to economic necessity as much as anything else. Businesses have to make money too - quality has to work alongside economic necessity. So pushing for a later release may not have worked for Firaxis, because it is not a huge company to begin with.

This game has been in development for a few years now - it is the hope that they have had plenty of time to address balance issues during that time, which are really what players need to be most concerned about. (but Firaxis has done the testing without an open beta, which is not encouraging). And it's hard to tell if the game will be truly balanced without fan participation - you have to take every statement put out by Firaxis with a grain of salt.

After all, if the game stunk, do you really expect them to say so...?

[old dog]

I wonder why Firaxis is sometimes a bit reticent to hand out "ongoing" information? Could it be because some people are so quick to run with it and come to perceive tentative things as promises, such that any change of plan becomes less than a 100% complete game?

Geez, most of us want info while an exciting game is being developed, partly out of curiousity and partly out of wanting a chance for input. Don't create an atmosphere that encourages a total news blackout!

And really, what kind of self-centered is this to say that no game should come out for anyone until you get what you want? Hey, I'm a single player kind of gamer, but if they released a multiplayer Civ 3 this month and said the AI for single player wasn't ready -- I'd be disappointed, but no way I'd think that the MP crowd shouldn't get their game. I think anyone carrying on that way needs to have a close look at the guy in the mirror.

[cassembler]

I think people that are still complaining about MP are wasting their breath... I mean, it's not like Firaxis is gonna go, "Holy S#!T! People are mad that we aren't releasing MP!!! Quick, stick one of these disks into every box!"

My oppinion is biased, yes, because I'm not interrested in MP... Too many last minute schedule conflicts; all of my human opponents would be pissed 'cause I would always be late or have to leave early.

[cassembler]

Hey, I'm a single player kind of gamer, but if they released a multiplayer Civ 3 this month and said the AI for single player wasn't ready -- I'd be disappointed, but no way I'd think that the MP crowd shouldn't get their game.

VERY GOOD ANALOGY!!! What about all of those games that can only be played online (no SP)? People like us- the SPeople- don't own those games... Nor do we desire them to not be released until SP versions are available...

BTW, If SP wasn't developed and MP was, then yeah, I'd be really pissed, .... really, really pissed , and yeah, I wouldn't buy the game. But I wouldn't be at this forum either.

[Grumbold]

Some companies are very well respected for releasing games "when they are done" and meaning it. Blizzard are one that immediately springs to mind. IF Civ III had been delayed, and there was discussion of it arriving in Spring 2002, then it had been released with MP and storming AI, everyone would have praised it to the heavens. They will get away with an October release if the game proves stable and playable but will damage their reputation if it needs patches to resolve stability, AI and balance issues before the Multiplayer version finally arrives.

[Steve Clark]

SPeople??? Oh great, I can see it now, The Up with SPeople Club or SPeople of the World Unite.

I have alot of respect for those that play Civ MP. It's just their impatience/whining can get a little annoying.

[Sarxis]

No MP is already stirred up the CIV community a great deal. A game delay isn't uncommon, and almost expected these days. But no MP in CIV? That's atrocious! (but forgiveable )

[tniem]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
So no one has come up with an official committment from Firaxis saying that they will release Civ3 with MP in Oct 2001? Hmmmm....interesting.

Well I guess in that sense we have never gotten official commitment to wonders or unique units or anything with the official release in October. They said they had MP in mind. Asked if MP would be in the game, they gave us a list of ways that MP would be included. I guess I was naivee to believe that meant that they would have MP included in the final game. Just like they have indicated lots of other features would be coming.

So I ask you have they indicated officially in your mind that UU and other things are definitely in the October release? Of course they are. But Firaxis hasn't specifically said so, so according to your reasoning, we should be worried.

[Steve Clark]

UU may not be in the final release???? OH NOOOOOO, WHAT WILL I DO??????

Let's see, according to the developer's update at the official civ3.com website, there are sections on wonders, civ attributes, resources, diplomacy and war & battles. Even see an MP section? How about screenshots? While some of them have been updated, ever see one about MP?

All we have had all along are some concepts, ideas, plans, questions and casual statements that they are working on it. Nope, nothing concrete anywhere.

I'm going on vacation for a week and I'll bet during that time, we'll see the following Firaxis Press Release:

"Regarding MP for Civ3, we are working on it. Thank you."