Originally posted by yin26
I'd say when a game is already in pretty tip-top shape, I don't much care about how the fans interact with the developer / publisher. I mean, the game is good already, right?
In the case of Civ3, however, I don't feel the game is good, in part because a clearly unfinished product was put on the shelves. This means that indications of how fans are treated likely serve as signs regarding how well the patches and expansions will be handled.
I'd say when a game is already in pretty tip-top shape, I don't much care about how the fans interact with the developer / publisher. I mean, the game is good already, right?
In the case of Civ3, however, I don't feel the game is good, in part because a clearly unfinished product was put on the shelves. This means that indications of how fans are treated likely serve as signs regarding how well the patches and expansions will be handled.
And I think that CTP2 showed us that they will only patch a game if:
1. The game is not a complete dog in sales (and thus better written off).
2. Patches are needed to keep sales up. (i.e. there are some things that really need patching and are being commented on in reviews.)
Based on this: I think you'll see patches. Civ3 has been less of a complete smash than desired...but it is still a strong title.
To the extent that the game wasn't a complete hit, I blame Firaxis...not Infogrames. Firaxis screwed the pooch by losing half the team in the middle of the project.
Comment