Letter of JEFF BRIGGS to the CIV COMMUNITY

[Velociryx]

Point taken.

You will agree, however, that "Play the World" is....fairly all-inclusive, yes?

And if there were problems that prevented some players from connecting, then it really *wasn't* "Play the World," true?

It was....play the part of the world that the game doesn't crash on.

What % of players did that represent?

I have no idea, but that a % existed means that "Play the World" was inaccurate to some degree. In none of my posts have I ever attempted to quanitfy that number.

Players could not play the world, because there *were* game crashing issues that needed to be addressed via patch.

Since the patch was required, and since the game that initially shipped did not (obviously) contain that modified code, then how is that blowing things out of proportion? It might not be popular to say, but it certainly is the truth.

Some percentage (unspecified in any information I have seen) of players were, in fact, having connectivity and game-crashing issues. Apparently in sufficient number to warrant a patch and to result in some REALLY scathing reviews by game sites.

-=Vel=-

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Velociryx
But not completly broken = not completely working, yes?

I would say, very definitely could work better out of the box. Like a lot of software.

Lag was a bigger issue than it should have been for many combinations of players. That was addressed by 1.14 to a large extent. I think they will improve on that yet more though.

People with Firewalls or routers had more problems getting going if they did not do a lot of work. Direct IP was added to help with that. Many fewer ports need to be opened if GameSpy is bypassed. btw, I am ecstatic that they added direct IP. I was worried what would happen to MP if GS went poof (it can happen to the biggest of them).

There are other improvements, although GS still has not turned Arcade back on for joining games so some things remain to be seen.

In short, needing improvement and not perfect, yes. Totally broken and misleading to the public, not from my POV.

[notyoueither]

The crashes were due to either warez or GameSpy AFAIK. To lay these things at the feet of Firaxis is unreasonable.

/Edit. I should have said 'largely due...'.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Velociryx
You will agree, however, that "Play the World" is....fairly all-inclusive, yes?

No. It's a marketing slogan.

And if there were problems that prevented some players from connecting, then it really *wasn't* "Play the World," true?

See above.

It was....play the part of the world that the game doesn't crash on.

All internet games are like this. All MP games, and I mean 100%, work except for the times when they don't. What's your point?

Players could not play the world, because there *were* game crashing issues that needed to be addressed via patch.

You have already admitted that you don't know how many people "players" includes. Yes, there were issues, but they were certainly not global.

Since the patch was required

It wasn't for everybody.

and since the game that initially shipped did not (obviously) contain that modified code, then how is that blowing things out of proportion? It might not be popular to say, but it certainly is the truth.

No, it isn't. You blow it out of proportion by taking a marketing slogan completely literally, reading massive and global failures into a letter that only mentioned "issues," and apparently reading truth into very reactionary statements on this board that you have no basis to confirm since you don't own the game.

[Velociryx]

Now we come full circle then....back to the point that this problem is hardly unique to Firaxis, but to software creation in general. It just so happens that this thread focused on one company in particular.

With regards to the connectivity issues....that's where it gets a little hazy for me.

See....I read some stuff from the gamespy people that said it was Firaxis' code causing the problems, and of course, here, we get information that Gamespy was the culprit.

Probably it was a little of both, but it IS noteworthy that whatever the problem, it was Firaxis' code (the 1.14 patch) that resolved the bulk of the problems, not a fix on the gamespy side, true? (or at least, I have not heard of a gamespy code modification to address the problem).

In any case, the goal is certainly not to start a flame war, but you gotta admit that had the expansion lived up to the company's own statements and hype, then there would have been no need for patching, yeah? And that's not a jab at Firaxis in particular....but a blanket statement that covers the whole of the industry, which is the direction I was herding my argument at the outset.

Heading to bed for the moment....but at this rate, I predict we'll have the bulk of the world's problems solved by noonish tomorrow....

-=Vel=-

[Cyclotron]

Sheesh, cross posted with Vel... see above post.

Anyway, you are right in that Firaxis clearly has problems, and those are probably pandemic to the industry. But I maintain that the problem was not global, and that your earlier analysis was kinda... questionable in your not having the game.

But peace. I think we both understand.

EDIT: Curses, I said endemic when I meant pandemic.

[notyoueither]

Well, GS has not turned on the join game feature yet, so who knows?

As far as the blame for the combination of PTW and GS is concerned, it is GS that requires Web server ports to be opened (port 80) which many ISPs block. Whose issue is that?

I do not mean to say that PTW could not have been better, and that IG deserves no flames for rushing the game out the door (note, that was not Firaxis) but at the same time, not all of the problems were within the power of Firaxis or IG to solve.

[Velociryx]

The name of the software package is a marketing slogan....it is also indicative of the ambition and scope of the expansion.

With the rise of the internet, play the world pretty much means....play the world, even if it's not on the box.

That there were connectivity issues serious enough to warrant a patch *strongly indicates* that the dropped connection problems were not merely of a casual nature....the sort that you expect when playing 'net based games, but rather, a fundamental flaw somewhere that required a code fix.

Will that elminate the usual "drops" you expect when you play on the 'net?

Of course not....it was never designed to.....it WAS designed, however, to address what was seen as a critical enough problem to warrant putting company resources on, which again, strongly implies that the game did not work as advertised (goes back to the ol' "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" notion).

And I never indicated that there were massive global failures. I simply reiterated what's on the civ3.com website and what's in the letter that heads up this post). There were problems. Serious problems (or at least, serious enough to earn a patch and several scathing reviews.....what was the phrase "borderline disaster" I think?) - that wasn't me....that was a game site that reviews games.

Was it all Firaxis' fault?

Nope.

The thrust of my argument has been for several posts now that the software industry as a whole is.....neurotic, at the very least.

But this thread IS about Firaxis, and in the case of PTW, it didn't work as advertised.

The proof of that is in the patch(s).

The patch, the letter, and this thread would not exist if it had.

True?

-=Vel=-

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

I'm stuttering and cross posting too....time for bed methinks....but yes...peace. This is not a direct gouge at Firaxis....but given that this thread is about Firaxis, they got to bear the brunt of it. Sure....every company in the industry has these same types of problems because of the WAY the industry itself is structured.

When you sell something before it exists, and rush it out the door helter-skelter, that's what you can expect.

What you can't expect is "quality debuts" like mentioned in the letter that started this thread.

We've not gotten one yet, and I'm not holding my breath.

Peace, and g'nite....

-=Vel=-

[notyoueither]

I doubt this thread would have existed if some scum bag did not leak an alpha. That, on top of other issues pushed it over the edge.

I remember trying to get games going with strangers on GS the first few days and weeks. It was a nightmare. Do you have 1.04? 'Yup'. Do you have a legit copy? 'Yup'. Are you entering through GS? 'Nope'. Ok, let's go... Alpha crash or GS crash (largely the same). Grrr!

btw, I know these were due to warez, or GS, because they never happen, NEVER, when playing with reliable people I know who are legit and were not entering through GS. Not that sort of crash at any rate.

[notyoueither]

and g'night

[Raion]

Well, I don't expect to play anyone in Afghanistan, although the box says to play the world, or any other number of Countries.

It's an idea, and that is all!

[asleepathewheel]

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't see release and patching as a problem.

I think its folly to compare a luxury item such as a game to a vehicle or other necessity. Also, IMHO, the price differential makes the comparison inadequate, as 50 dollars is dropped by me on frivolous things all the time, but 20k, well, not too often. I've never expected 50 dollars to buy me perfection.

So the game had some problems out of the box, big deal. I and others were playing and enjoying the game out of the box And, the patch (which did shore up some large issues) came out in less than a month.

I'm not saying that companies should just release shoddy products and patch them later. This is not the case for Civ3-PTW. Its was playable, SP was quite improved, MP had some problems, but was still playable.

Isn't patching a good thing?

If I am disappointed by a movie, will it be fixed or edited? No, except in some limited collecters dvd whatever, and then, rarely.

If I buy a cd, and end up hating 4 songs on it, I either have to live with it or dump the cd. Nothing will fix it later.

At least in the software industry, the problems may be addressed as they arise. Firaxis has proven that they patch their products. 4 patches for Civ3 and 2 for PTW. If they didn't patch (oh, say, like Activision), I would be right there complaining.

I have faith that the problems will be solved, all that is required is patience, which seems to be lacking these days.

Again, what's the big deal? As long as the game is playable on release (which it was) and the remaining bugs get ironed out in a reasonable time, then what is the problem? Its not like this is an OS and your system is vulnerable until patched, its a game.

edit for clarification: I do view bad releases as a problem, I want a good game out of the box like everyone else, but I try to be realistic about the system.

[Velociryx]

First, please don't misunderstand me here. I'm not against releasing and patching AT ALL.

What I'm against is a company (ANY kind of company, whether they're selling "just a game" or not) hyping one thing, selling an incomplete or patently unfinished version of what they're hyping, taking our money with ZERO promise or guarantee of fixing it later.

Yep...it's just a game.

And because it's just entertainment, and not really all that important, we should just expect less attention to detail.

The "it's no big deal" or "it's cool if they patch it later" attitude IS tacit support of the industry policy to release incomplete products and fix them later via patching, whether you acknowledge it as such or not. You can't have it both ways....either it's okay for them to do it (in which case, you're right....it's no big deal), or it's not (in which case, it IS a big deal, even if it is "just a game).

I am not alone in the thinking that no....it's NOT okay to promise one thing, deliver something else, and fix it later on.

I'm not okay with that.

And because I'm not okay with that, I didn't buy the product.

Why not?

Because based on my previous experience with the company, I had every reason to believe that what would be released would be an incomplete, not fully functional product that would (hopefully) be patched to completion later.

And in that, I was not wrong.

If it's no big deal to you, that's cool. No skin off my nose. But to say that "it's no big deal" in general is simply not how it is. Cos it IS a big deal. It's a company breaking deal in just about every other sector of the economy, and the only thing keeping it from being a company breaking deal in this industry is that we've become so accustomed to that as "business as usual" that we've simply developed a tolerance for it.

There's a growing body of people for whom it is rapidly becoming a big deal.

A growing body of gamers who are getting a tired of shelling out good money for incomplete products (again, speaking in general....not pointing to any particular company). And....we're not.

We're not playing the game any more.

Voting with the ol' wallet.

-=Vel=-

[Cyclotron]

What I'm against is a company (ANY kind of company, whether they're selling "just a game" or not) hyping one thing, selling an incomplete or patently unfinished version of what they're hyping, taking our money with ZERO promise or guarantee of fixing it later.

First off, you say you aren't against patching, but then knocking Firaxis for selling you an incomplete game as if it was a purposeful action on their part. I think this highly unlikely... most of the beta testers here say it worked fine for them. I think it is a bit of a stretch to accuse Firaxis of "bait and switch" in this case, and more than a little incongruous to then state your approval of patching.

Second, clearly they intended on fixing it later, seeing as they did. As for promises, how do you expect them to promise to fix it before they knew it was broken? Telepsychics? Assuming the "issues" were not premeditated, they would have no way of knowing it was broken until... well, we told them. And then they patched it. How can you accuse them of "zero promise or guarantee" of fixing it later?"