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

[Dev]

SMAC gets better game prize for innovation alone IMO, it set a lot of new standards in which CIV3 is years behind in some.
Multimedia, unit workshop & combat system to name a few.

I expected Civ3 to better than SMAC across the board but instead I got a one step forward, two steps back game.

I played Civ and Civnet for years and years, I played Civ2 for a couple of years, I'm still playing SMAC but I doubt I'll be playing Civ3 in its current state for more than a few months.

Now I'm not saying Civ3 is bad game (would be kinda stupid since I've played nothing but civ since I got it), it's just too little too soon if you know what I mean.


/dev

[TCO]

Re: Relative views

Originally posted by Ozymandous


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).

SMAC had a much smaller market than Civ2 did (or than Civ3 will likely have.) If somebody likes SMAC better that's fine. But to assume that companies should make marketing decisions from that is ludicrous.

[korn469]

GP

i respectfully disagree with you

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

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.

ok i don't have 5,000 dollars to pay for the actual sales figures for the civ franchise, but i do know the following things

the civ franchise sold 4 million games before civ3 came out, now as to which games were included in this i'm not entirely sure...at the low end civ, civ2 and at the high end civ, civ2, civ:tot, civ:fw, civ:cic, civ:mge, smac, smacx

we also know that both SMAC and Civ:CtP both sold around a half a million units

one last bit of info is that CtP:2 sold about 40-50k coppies (or a littles less than one tenth of Civ:CtP)

the first week of sales figures are out and Civ3, and Civ3 LE held the #1 and #2 slots in the sales chart respectively

here is my take on the civ market
there are about 100k rapib civers out there that will pay a hefty price to play a civ type game, and then there are about 500k causual civers out there who like civ but still have value considerations before they will buy civ3 or any expansions, and then there is everyone else who will only buy civ3 if they have heard good things about it and consider it a good value for their hard earned gaming dollars

when civ2 came it the only real comparison a player could make was between it and civ1...with civ3 the player can make comparisons with civ1, civ2, smac/x, and CtP

when civ2 came out there were no RTS alternatives to it, now their is AoK, and empire earth which comes out tommorrow i think

when civ2 came out the internet was fairly new, DSL and cable modems weren't available, the fairly small number of households that had an internet connection had a 28.8 modem for the most part...i think they said just last week that 115 million americans now have access to the internet...battle.net (the best internet gaming service to date) had not came on the scene, nor had any real mainstream graphical MMORPGS

at that time even FPS were just beginning to develop their true MP potential

also when civ2 first came out the civ genre in general was newer and more revolutionary compared to now

there is a term called extinction used in management that basically means that if you stop doing something that a person has come to expect, even a thing that originally started out being voluntary, then the person will be somewhat dissatisfied and frustrated

though the civ market might focus mainly on the out of the box single player experiance, many players have came to expect scenarios and multiplayer because of civ2 and smac...it was fine for civ2 not to ship with multiplayer because civ1 didn't ship with multiplayer either, however SMAC came with multiplayer so that changed the market and it raised the bar...the same thing applies to scenarios

but your point is this:

instead of releasing a single x-pac that includes both MP, a real scenario editor, and a few fixes that firaxis and infogrames could make more money by releasing a scenario editor xpac, then a MP xpac, then possibly a third xpac that includes the previous 2 xpacs and some fixes...if we say that all xpacs cost about 30 dollars then basically will one big xpac sell more than three little xpacs?


i think so, here's why

not every one interested in MP also has an interest in a scenario editor and vice versa...so everyone that would buy the individual MP xpac but not the scenario xpac and vice versa will buy the big xpac...now the small xpacs can only increase sells over the big xpac by forcing people to buy both xpacs...while the big xpac can only increase sells over the small xpacs by reaching a larger audience by being a better value for gaming dollars

which seems like a larger group of people? the ones willing to pay 60 dollars for two small xpacs, or the people who are teetering on the edge and will only buy an xpac that really gives them alot of bang for their buck?
i will go with low price/high volume over high price/low volume...it hasn't failed walmart and dell yet

[TCO]

korn,

I like your style. You make a very nice argument. And also bring up some interesting facts and thinking.

I've been having fun thinking about the business issues in this situation. It's a great little case study. I've been a little extreme in my position deliberately to get people to think of the business issues more adultly (not in the "gimme, gimme" fashion of a 3 year old in a cart going through Toys R Us.)

It's pretty obvious that you know your stuff, so word up, to you!

Anyhow, here's my gut feel. I think a lot of the stuff you said may be right. I also think that human nature doesn' always change as quick as people think it does...and that it makes sense to "milk the cow hard" and let the market tell you when you go too far.

So if yoy mix all that up. Here's where I come out. THE KEY TO SALES and to X-packs lies in how good the SP version is. Right now, it's a little rough to be honest. Some bugs/playbalancing issues and some missing things like multimedia which take away form ambiance. (Probably still the right thing to get this out for Xmas. Xmas is huge!) So I think they can get at least one X-pack out for sure. (I don't think they need to give out MP seperately.) Scenarios and a better editor could be in the X-pack or the patches. But it's ludicrous to say (as many here have) that the original game won't sell well without MP.

[Dr Spin]

I live by the rule: "Never attribute to conspiracy what you can first attribute to incompetence".

I doubt Civ3 was ever intended to ship single-player. If it happens to work out for the best for Firaxis, it will be a happy accident.

I also doubt they had X-packs on their minds. They didn't for SMAC, right? I think they try to put out a single title that stays popular (read: out of the bargain bin) longer. How long has The Simms been out? It still sells for $50 (and moves).

Just my naive guess.

[Dr Spin]

Right now, it's a little rough to be honest. Some bugs/playbalancing issues and some missing things like multimedia which take away form ambiance.

Kinda OT, but I was wondering exactly what all these bugs/balancing issues are? It's difficult to discern from the other posts what is considered a 'feature' rather than a 'bug'. I haven't encountered any show-stoppers yet myself. In fact, my major complaints about Civ2 (too many city improvements, no strategic resource dynamic, limited ways to 'win', limited diplomacy, boring caravan game, boring diplomat game) have almost universally been set to what I like.

[korn469]

GP

my biggest worry is that Civ3 will simply fail to have a major attraction among non civers, and that if they release a 30 dollar MP only xpac that it will fall flat on its face, because many wont want to pay 80 dollars for what they consider should cost 50, and since it is MP only most fans will say, hey maybe next time when they add a scenario editor...but because of low sells they wont invest in another xpac and civ3 will remain as it is now...unfinished

only time will tell, but we learnt that civers won't get burned twice (the CtP series proves this) and civ3 is good, but it just needed a little more time in my opinion; however, my opinion could be wrong and everyone could think that civ3 is the greatest game ever and they will flock to it and avoid other titles like EU2, Empire Earth, MoO3 etc and we will get all of the things we ever wanted in civ3 (for a price of course! )

[TCO]

Originally posted by Dr Spin
I live by the rule: "Never attribute to conspiracy what you can first attribute to incompetence".

I doubt Civ3 was ever intended to ship single-player. If it happens to work out for the best for Firaxis, it will be a happy accident.

I also doubt they had X-packs on their minds. They didn't for SMAC, right? I think they try to put out a single title that stays popular (read: out of the bargain bin) longer. How long has The Simms been out? It still sells for $50 (and moves).

Just my naive guess.

Yeah, this is a good point. I think they need to have the equivalent of a civ2.4.2 or Sims that is sharp and clean (SP is sufficient probably) that will move for years. And any X-packs will have lower sales so they need to be cheap to make...(little add-on modules)

[TCO]

Originally posted by korn469
GP

my biggest worry is that Civ3 will simply fail to have a major attraction among non civers, and that if they release a 30 dollar MP only xpac that it will fall flat on its face, because many wont want to pay 80 dollars for what they consider should cost 50, and since it is MP only most fans will say, hey maybe next time when they add a scenario editor...but because of low sells they wont invest in another xpac and civ3 will remain as it is now...unfinished

MHO: a genuinely engaging and charming Civ3 game will draw ion non-civers without MP, just as the Sims and Civ2 did. For this reason, the game needs to contain some decent eye candy and mystery (we've all fotgotten that who are veteran civvers...but to the newbie it's key).

The MP would sell to hard-core civers as MGE and CivNet did.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Dr Spin


Kinda OT, but I was wondering exactly what all these bugs/balancing issues are? It's difficult to discern from the other posts what is considered a 'feature' rather than a 'bug'. I haven't encountered any show-stoppers yet myself. In fact, my major complaints about Civ2 (too many city improvements, no strategic resource dynamic, limited ways to 'win', limited diplomacy, boring caravan game, boring diplomat game) have almost universally been set to what I like.

The air superiority bug, the scroll bug, the million dollar demand bug, etc.