Why Firaxis SHOULDN'T upgrade the editor (Attn: Firaxis)

[DinoDoc]

Re: Been there, did that.

Originally posted by GP
Civ2.

Ok, I'll bite. What feature that was listed on the box of Civ2 was virtually inoperable out of the box but was later fixed in an x-pac?

Now I'm still waiting for some evidence (or at the least expanded description) of the changed market between 1997 and 2001...

I think the fact that that released MP for SMAC without charging their customers more money is proof enough.

[TCO]

Dino (btw are you Squaladon/Baryonyx/etc.?):

Think for a second....


We know that expansion packs do exist.

This tells us a few things.


1. Gamers are willing to pay "double" for added features.

2. Some gamers are willing to play games with limited features. (the people who buy the basic game and not the expansion.)

You can use whatever term you want to decide wether a feature is core (MP) or tangential (scenarios) to a game. But the bottom line is what will the market bear?

[TCO]

Same thing we're talking about...big guy!

Originally posted by DinoDoc


Ok, I'll bite. What feature that was listed on the box of Civ2 was virtually inoperable out of the box but was later fixed in an x-pac?

MP was added in the MGE XP. AND they charged for it!! And made money!!!

[DinoDoc]

I bought the game for the editor, GP. I want what I paid for.

Originally posted by GP
MP was added in the MGE XP. AND they charged for it!! And made money!!!

Was that listed on the box as the editor was on the Civ3 box?

[TCO]

This is better, Dino

Originally posted by DinoDoc


I think the fact that that released MP for SMAC without charging their customers more money is proof enough.

Ok...very interesting example. (And more responsive.)

Let's think about this more deeply:

-Why did they decide to do this? Was it in response to marketing surveys? Was it in response to failures of games that lacked MP? Was it because the market for a space game was smaller? (and thus they needed to pack more into the game to induce people to part with dollars.)

We don't know all the answers but we can look at some interesting data.

How do Civ2, SMAC and Civ3 sales compare? If Civ3 is selling better than SMAC, that tells you something. Either that MP is not required or that the two games have different characteristics that complicate comparison anyway.) If Civ3 is selling comparably to Civ2, than that argues that the market HASN'T changed. Let's wait for some of Markos's best-seller list reports. That should help us out here...

If it were me, I wouldn't be so quick to asume a market changing...it sounds more like you're thinking with your heart rather than head. (You don't want to pay for MP so you make the argument that Firaxis is better-off from a business perscpective tossing MP into the basic game.)

[TCO]

Re: I bought the game for the editor, GP. I want what I paid for.

Originally posted by DinoDoc


Was that listed on the box as the editor was on the Civ3 box?

1. I don't know(honest)? Did they advertise an editor in 2.4.2? Kinda tangential to our earlier posts...

2. You're confounding two issues. Ethical one of "truth in packaging" and the business one of "best pricing/release schemes." Both are interesting but let's be clear which we discuss at which time. Fair?

This whole PC-boosting discussion started (for me) in reponse to your single remark "but the market has changed". Let's not shift to this new consideration of fair advertising unless we do it cleanly and hopefully finish the earlier one off.

3. As it is, your current tack is more along the lines of "market hasn't changed"! And it doesn't address the question of whether market will pay for FW or CiC equivalents. (That's what we started with...)

4. By the way, I think the "fair advertising" issue is relavant to the overall decision of "patch or pay".

5. New point: I notice that you also think MP should have been included (from other threads). Surely the "fair advertising" argument doesn't apply here except for a very small portion of buyers who bought before MP was dropped...

[Moral Hazard]

My opinion is that the best policy for Firaxis is to fix the editor somewhat to allow placement of cities, troops, and flat map support, as well as the ability to add new unit graphics etc. This would be given out free in a patch.

Firaxis would then later add a better toolkit (which allows things like event editing etc.) The toolkit would be bundled with about 10 professionally done scenarios and be sold as an X-Pack. It is important however that the new tool kit provides real advantages that would be used by scenario developers, like a unit graphics creator similar to the one downloadable for the sims. If this is done right it can satisfy both groups (as in reduce bad impressions allowing the original game to still sell well via word of mouth, and bring in extra revenue from those who want really nice scenarios) It is essential that the X-Pack is not 100% compatible i.e new units created on it couldn't be used in the original game.

This would cost more than GP's all or nothing approach, but will I think create greater revenues; assuming scenario developers switch to the X pack. Either way they need to ensure that the X Pack sells enough to create a viable market (Unlike Ctp2)
Of course I'd rather have it all for free

[DinoDoc]

Re: Re: I bought the game for the editor, GP. I want what I paid for.

Originally posted by GP
1. I don't know(honest)? Did they advertise an editor in 2.4.2? Kinda tangential to our earlier posts...

I don't know. I bought Civ2 when the MGE came out.

2. You're confounding two issues. Ethical one of "truth in packaging" and the business one of "best pricing/release schemes." Both are interesting but let's be clear which we discuss at which time. Fair?

Since the topic of the thread is the editor and MP is tagential to that discussion, let's deal with truth in advertising issue if you don't mind.

3. As it is, your current tack is more along the lines of "market hasn't changed"! And it doesn't address the question of whether market will pay for FW or CiC equivalents. (That's what we started with...)

I actually do think that the market would pay for an x-pac that provides good value for the money. However, I don't think that a TBS game can get away with out either having hotseat of PBEM modes to day as it could in the past.

5. New point: I notice that you also think MP should have been included (from other threads).

Yes, I do think that MP should have been included. However, I don't think that its ommission is as egregious as what they did with the editor.

[TCO]

Dino,

I guess to summarize all this.

You: say that the market will not pay for scenario packs (like FW and CiC) and ALSO think that the editor should be patched regardless because of "truth in advertising".

I: Think you have a semi-decent case wrt to the "false advertising" claim. (on the editor, not MP.) BUT haven't done much to show that the "market has changed" and won't support scenario packs. Or MP packs.

Unless there are significant new points, we seem to know where each other stands...

BTW: Why'd you change your name so often?

[ravagon]

Originally posted by TheDarkside
my sarcasm meter is broken, so i have to ask, are you being sarcastic?

Its GP.
Asked and answered.

[yin26]

Yin and Dinodoc need to understand that a company like Firaxis can go under from UNDERpricing just as easily as from overpricing. And what we're talking about is a pricing issue. Should we charge for expansions or not?

Well, since I already understand that, is there still a 'need'?

Anybody who thinks clearly about the Civ series will know we have at least one X-pack coming and perhaps other spin offs. I have said a million times that I want Firaxis to make lots of money so they can make better and better games. I'm not against a steep price, either. I would have paid $80 for an LE that actually delivered the spirit of the LE promise.
So for me, money is not an issue. I just don't like being d!cked around. Stare me straight in the face and say: "Sorry. You're gonna have to pay for MP." It's O.K. I can take it. Or stare me in the face and say: "We have no idea if MP will be free or not." In fact, this is what Firaxis finally did in their less than stellar way, but the message to me is clear on Civ3: There are no promises about anything.

In fact, I prefer the no promises approach as opposed to botched PR that hypes one thing and delivers something else or nothing at all. So I say to Firaxis: Make your money. Make lots of it. Just remember that Civ was a cash cow. It's gonna get much harder from here, and messing with the public (even if it's just a perceived messing) could be the kiss of death.

ANY developer is no more than 2 failures away from bankruptcy. I don't care who your top guy is.

[Dev]

Of course Civ3 will sell better than SMAC, a lot better too.

They could make an ASCII game and call it Civ4 and it would sell better than SMAC....

Just too bad that SMAC in fact is a better game than Civ3 but marketing > quality.


/dev

[TCO]

Originally posted by ravagon


Its GP.
Asked and answered.

I like your style...

[TCO]

Originally posted by yin26

Well, since I already understand that, is there still a 'need'?

Anybody who thinks clearly about the Civ series will know we have at least one X-pack coming and perhaps other spin offs. I have said a million times that I want Firaxis to make lots of money so they can make better and better games. I'm not against a steep price, either. I would have paid $80 for an LE that actually delivered the spirit of the LE promise.
So for me, money is not an issue. I just don't like being d!cked around. Stare me straight in the face and say: "Sorry. You're gonna have to pay for MP." It's O.K. I can take it. Or stare me in the face and say: "We have no idea if MP will be free or not." In fact, this is what Firaxis finally did in their less than stellar way, but the message to me is clear on Civ3: There are no promises about anything.

Nope, need is gone, Yin. And I agree with the rest of your comments. I would only add that I think even Firaxis understands what is different/possible with Civ vs with other games.

[Ozymandous]

Relative views

Originally posted by Dev
Of course Civ3 will sell better than SMAC, a lot better too.

They could make an ASCII game and call it Civ4 and it would sell better than SMAC....

Just too bad that SMAC in fact is a better game than Civ3 but marketing > quality.


/dev

Hmm, SMAC is better than Civ3? Well maybe for you but not for everyone. I think Civ3 is better than SMAC, simply because I couldn't get into the "feel" for SMAC. I don't know if it was because of all the "future" tech's, the fact that SMAC seemed to compound many of the "Argh!" factors of Civ2 instead of fixing them or what.

I honestly don't know, but don't baldly state that SMAC is better than Civ3 because for you it may well be better, but for me and more than likely a lot of other people, Civ3 is the best TBS that Sid has been involved with to date.

To judge what you think the market for the game is based on your own perceptions, or the views of the loud faction here who wish it were SMACIV with better graphics, would be hasty and illogical to say the least.

IMHO.

(Note, this is not to say Civ3 is "perfect" just better than the rest, IMHO).