Letter of JEFF BRIGGS to the CIV COMMUNITY

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Velociryx
YOU, on the other hand, are upset with yourself for giving me the blade that struck the killing blow.

Killing what?

The patch was up on firaxis.com on Oct 30.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Yes....it IS IG's baby and ballgame, but as I said earlier, $hit rolls down hill, and that means, right onto the shoulders of Firaxis.

They're the indians, and IG is the Chief. When the fit hits the shan, it's the indians who take it on the chin, not the chief.

No, it is flamers and lamers who will continue to flame Firaxis after being given information that is inconvenient for their whining. It is something Coracle does.

I am very sorry to see some of the other people who wish to do the same. And I am very sorry to type these words in reply to you Vel, but you're coming into a 'fan' forum on a 'fan' site and insisting on talking trash about a product and it's developers when many people here-abouts like the product and like the developers. I hope you aren't surprised that things aren't going smoothly.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by FNBrown
Here's my theory:

The problem is that software publishers like Infogrames (again, I ask... what's an 'Infograme'?) take the Internet for granted.

Ten years ago, this wouldn't have happened. Software, once it was released, was very expensive to patch. If a company had unleashed such a buggy game upon an unsuspecting public, the following would likely happen:

1. Most consumers would simply take it back.
2. Those who didn't buy it right away, but read magazine reviews on the product would shy away, as the reviews would be negative.
3. Even if the company wanted to save face, the patch would have to be issued via mail. The expense would likely be prohibitive enough to negate any possible profit margin.
4. The software company would either a.) go bankrupt or b.) learn to release software at a later date following more thorough testing and internal bug-fixing.

Fast-forward to 2002. You're a fat executive at a software publishing company who is pushing for bigger, quicker profits so that your stock options increase in value, your profit sharing plan becomes more lucrative, and that promotion you wanted becomes more available. You know nothing about the product you're publishing since you're not even programming it in-house, but you know that your target audience is primarily Internet users who want to play online over high bandwidth connections. Hence, large patch downloads shouldn't really be a problem, should they? Why not push for an earlier release of the game? Get it out the door THIS quarter, enjoy the profit NOW as legions of fans run out to buy it, then make the programmers take the hit and scramble to patch the bugs later.

Pretty close to accurate, I would say. Except in this case Infogrames is scrambling for survival, or so it seems.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Then the answer would be no. Not out of the box.

Yes...with patching, but that's not the same thing.

Different question.

-=Vel=-

One more time Vel. I am in Edmonton, Alberta. That is just west of the Rockies and a ways north. About 1000 miles north of Denver (I'm guessing a little).

With 1.01 and 1.04 I was playing games with people on the Eastern sea-board of the United States, as well as a couple of people in Europe.

With each patch things have gotten better for more people. It has become easier to get into games, and lag has decreased. However, there have been people 'Playing the World' since before the boxes ever hit the shelves. And no, it was not perfect. It was not polished. And one more time, there were problems with GameSpy Arcade.

There will be problems when the publisher decides to take an early release candidate and sell it before the developer says they are done. That is what happened AFAIK.

[Velociryx]

In the midst of debate and discussion, sometimes there are some points that get lost in the shouting. Some things have not been said in some time, and deserve repeating.

Among these are:
* I admire and respect Firaxis. They have released good games. Soren's Civ3 AI is top notch, and Sid is a masterful designer. The company is a powerhouse of creativity.

* I enjoy Civ3. Took it off my HD for a while, but put it back. Why? Cos it's a good game. Not my favorite game, but a good, solid game. Any issues I have with Civ3, I resolved a long time ago. The 1.29 patch makes the game a solid play. Worth every penny.

* Firaxis has an excellent reputation for after-sales support. Note that NONE of their after-sales support comes from any sort of legal obligation. They do so because they are committed to the gaming community, and that is awesome.

* Firaxis is not calling the shots with regards to Civ3, OR PTW. IG sets the production schedules and ship dates. If they don't give Firaxis enough time to do the work correctly, the game will ship when IG says, but it will ship in a state of incompletion. They do the best they can under these conditions.

That's the good stuff. Stuff I've said before, and stuff I believe to this day. There is NOTHING I have seen that would lead me to even the slightest doubt from any of the above, however:

* It is not, I don't believe, standard policy to patch a piece of software if there are no problems *with* that software.

* That Civ3 and PTW have required multiple patches indicates that there were things not working properly (ie "broken") or missing (ie "incomplete") when the game shipped.

* That this thread is headed by a letter from Firaxis' CEO *stating*(not guessing, not blindly shooting in the dark, but *stating*) that the PTW expansion to Civ3 had problems upon release is in my mind pretty compelling evidence that there were, in fact, problems with PTW upon release. That there are scathing review of unpatched PTW only serves to further cement this position (as if the word of the CEO wasn't enough).

* The Civ3.com website describes both of these products in terms that would lead one to believe that both are in a state of high polish and completion out of the box. This is not the case. It IS the case, that thanks to the tireless efforts of the Firaxis crew, the games DO get there. Out of the box....no. With patch attention by the talented Firaxis programmers...yes.

My point from the beginning has been that the descriptions on the box, and on the website do not match up with the product you initially install.

They do not, and I'm not afraid to say so. It's not like I'm insulting the Virgin Mother and all the Holy Saints by saying so, it's simply the way things are out of the box. If that offends some....well, I didn't design the game, and I didn't tell Firaxis to ship it early. Not much I can do about that.

With patches, yes, but then, that's not "out of the box" any more, is it?

And this....this makes me Coracle's evil twin?

(side not to Cyclo: and for the record, I said he eviscerated himself, which he surely did)

Firaxis is a good company that's doing the best they can under pressure of deadlines they have nothing to do with setting. It sucks, but that's the way it is. And the result is that the game shipped is not the game described. Not until they can patch it to completion later. That's the way this particular merry-go-round works.

It doesn't mean that the games are bad, and in fact, if you review my posts, I never said they were.

It means that Firaxis doesn't have time to finish them....which they don't!

It's not their fault that they don't, but it doesn't change the fact that they don't, and that is why the product description does not match with the product.

I'm not judging Firaxis, or condemning them for their work. I haven't been from the start. I simply said that the game as shipped wasn't done. It wasn't ready for prime time.

And because of that...NO! It didn't work as advertised.

It probably will, in the end. 1.14 goes a long way to ensuring that, and I feel confident that there will be at least one more patch.

Again, that was never my point.

But I'm Coracle?

-=Vel=-

[vondrack]

Well, at first I felt honoured to see that Master Vel considered my points on the reality of the gaming industry "exquisite"... even "as usual"...

Sigh.

But now... I feel utterly sad.

If you still remember what I said months ago in the infamous HappySunShine flame-thread... I am sorry, but I guess I could no longer stick to it. All I can see in THIS thread is a man deaf and blind for what others say and show, admitting nothing but his "truth", twisting words only to prove his "point" and "defeat" his opponents, whatever it takes...

...although, despite so many words, I have no idea what your point really is, Vel... what actually do you mind? Who actually is the bad guy in your perception of the world? What shall be done to fix the current woeful state of things? If you've found the points of my post "exquisite", why is that that your follow-up posts seem to completely ignore what I said back then?

Sorry, I feel like I should officially declare whom I side with (as if anyone cared, I know...), but I can't say I would be with you this time, I really can't.

It's just so sad.

[Velociryx]

Cross posted with you, Vondrack. Read above....perhaps it will change your mind?

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

It is my hope that my last post (well, the post before last, actually) made the central message I was attempting to get across more clear.

When I began posting in this thread, I was of the opinion that my central points were fairly self-evident points, and yet, somehow in all that, I found myself in a flame war I really didn't want.

I stand by my points as enumerated two of my posts ago.

I believe that to be an accurate portrayal of the way things are.

But I do apologize to all for the unintentional flame war that erupted over it, and specifically to Asleep, for taking the low road when it presented itself.

-=Vel=-

[notyoueither]

Vel. What do you say when a product works for some, and does not work for others? Do you say it is completely broken, or do you say it has problems that need to be fixed? No one here has suggested that there were no improvements to be made.

For a great many people, it was as advertised on the box. Unfortunately, it was not that for everyone.

Unfortunately, it did not work properly for anyone using the GS Arcade service. Guess what? GameSpy Arcade was not turned on until after release. Yes, that's right, that aspect was never tested prior to release. Don't ask me why, but I doubt it was something Firaxis controlled.

Additionally, some of the cryers are using broken warez. It is not unfortunate that it does not work for them. It is unfortunate that they are or were effecting others.

btw, you have made repeated references to the 'out of the box' product and how that is crucial in the equation. Well, that is rubbish. As Player1 has tried to point out several times, anyone trying INet MP (the bit with the problems) is going to find out about patches real quick. To continue to insist that patches and the ability to improve the product after release is not applicable for Joe Blow public when they must interact via a common lobby is absurd.

That people who would be interested in INet MP and who have the setup needed for good gaming would be unfamiliar with the need to patch games is beyond absurd.

Are you another Coracle? God, I hope not. I merely pointed out that continuing to pin the tale on the wrong donkey was something that people like Coracle do quite regularly around here. It gets tiresome correcting them after a while. Will I continue to do so? Probably. See, I like the game. I appreciate the efforts of the developers (as you seem to also). I come here (to this part of Poly) to discuss a game I like with people who are also interested in it. Here I find many people who share the interest with me, but I also find people who have never played it, but who think they are experts on its shortcomings. That is the most absurd thing of all.

Finally, I reviewed your latest post after I wrote this. I have decided to leave it stand. I appreciate that you are a decent fellow, Vel. I especially appreciate your note for atw. I would not mind continuing to discuss these issues with you. It would be nice though, if it is conducted at a higher level.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Velociryx
But I do apologize to all for the unintentional flame war that erupted over it, and specifically to Asleep, for taking the low road when it presented itself.

-=Vel=-

I said I wouldn't post here again, but I will temporarily reneg on that promise.

Thank you for the apology, that is very big of you. I apologize in turn for anything I may have said to offend you.

[vondrack]

Well, yes, partially... finally I can see the point you are trying to make. However...

Originally posted by Velociryx
* It is not, I don't believe, standard policy to patch a piece of software if there are no problems *with* that software.

I have been in the software industry for more than 10 years now. I have been reselling software, mostly registered shareware. It is DEFINITELY the standard policy to patch. Actually, I know of NO contemporary, widely-used (well, I could probably omit the widely-used part) product that would not have a patch of one kind or another available on the website of the author - and that's not just shareware authors, you can start with the market leaders: Microsoft, Adobe, Corel... you name them. The only thing that differs is the significance of bugs and problems that are addressed with patches.

I never even bother trying to run an unpatched version of a program or driver. I look for a patch BEFORE I even insert the installation CD into my drive. Just the time needed to get the box or CD to me is long enough for the author to find out bugs and add little improvements.

Originally posted by Velociryx
* That Civ3 and PTW have required multiple patches indicates that there were things not working properly (ie "broken") or missing (ie "incomplete") when the game shipped.

You must know best that majority of what was added to the vanilla Civ3 were improvements, not bugfixes. The AI itself has improved considerably. Does THAT indicate an incomplete or broken product? No, however it does indicate an undying support of the development team (which you acknowledge).

Originally posted by Velociryx
* That this thread is headed by a letter from Firaxis' CEO *stating*(not guessing, not blindly shooting in the dark, but *stating*) that the PTW expansion to Civ3 had problems upon release is in my mind pretty compelling evidence that there were, in fact, problems with PTW upon release. That there are scathing review of unpatched PTW only serves to further cement this position (as if the word of the CEO wasn't enough).

Sorry, but Jeff said there were "problems" and actually told what kind of problems one might have trying to MP. He said absolutely nothing about how many players experienced problems and how serious they were. Why is that that you think of the worst? Jeff published the letter after quite some time of flaming throughout the fansites. Maybe he just considered it the right thing to publicly announce there is a progress on solving the issues, whatever they were and however serious they were (I can't say from a first hand experience, as I got PtW only recently, shortly before 1.14f, and never been into MPing myself yet). He said it in a very polite manner, actually apologizing for something he most probably had no control over. I can't see how you can use this letter to claim PtW was broken or incomplete. I hear the real betatesters all the time - if you knew how to do it right and if you knew whom you played, you could have played even before the game hit shelves.

Originally posted by Velociryx
* The Civ3.com website describes both of these products in terms that would lead one to believe that both are in a state of high polish and completion out of the box. This is not the case. It IS the case, that thanks to the tireless efforts of the Firaxis crew, the games DO get there. Out of the box....no. With patch attention by the talented Firaxis programmers...yes.

The website carries the latest patch. What good would be to describe the game in the state it was BEFORE the patch - it is quite correctly assumed that one gets the patch from there, if he happens to visit the pages. And before you counter stating the website hasn't changed since the PtW launch... I will grant you that, there might have been a notice about the (1.14f) patch being under development. However, the website is created with the perfect product in mind. One that has zero problems, even if the smallest ones are considered. When you release the product and find out it needs a patch for some reason, you do not rework the website to reflect the current state of the product, you focus on the patch to match the product to the website. Care to look at, say, www.microsoft.com? Their splendid products? You would just RUN into the nearest retail outlet to buy ALL of their software at once. And then, you would be patching like mad.

Originally posted by Velociryx
My point from the beginning has been that the descriptions on the box, and on the website do not match up with the product you initially install.

Vel, just one friendly advice. When you decide to release CB to the public, do NOT postpone creating the box artwork and manufacturing the packaging only after you consider your game finished. You would be SERIOUSLY surprised, how much time it takes.

Besides, imagine something slips your attention (yep, nobody's perfect) and you discover a bug after packing the first 10,000 units. Will you stick a shiny note on every box, saying "Beware, there is a bug, but we are working on it and it will be fixed ASAP." Will you? Really? How admirable... just keep in mind that those boxes will be on the shelves perhaps even long AFTER you forge out the patch that fixes whatever issue it was CB had had.

Even more than the website, every packaging is created and manufactured with a flawless product in mind (it would be just plane crazy, if not). You use the packaging throughout the most of the product shelflife. It makes absolutely no sense to use a packaging that gets outdated with a patch. Again, you work on the product to match the packaging, not the other way round.

If your sole goal was to point out that the packaging did not mention a possible problem that was not known at the time the packaging was actually designed and/or manufactured, then I believe you've put just too much effort in that. There is perhaps something you do not know or do not realize about the advertising business... or do you actually believe the TV ads?

Respectfully Yours,
Radek Vondracek aka vondrack

[Alexander's Horse]

Thread should be re-titled "when fanboys attack"

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Dang it all!

Can't we all just get along

[Cyclotron]

Vel, I know we have addressed some issues already, but for a return to civility here I will also comment on your core ideas as presented.

In addition, both Vondrak and NYE have made much better replies to most of your points than I can, so I don't have a lot to say.

Originally posted by Velociryx
* That this thread is headed by a letter from Firaxis' CEO *stating*(not guessing, not blindly shooting in the dark, but *stating*) that the PTW expansion to Civ3 had problems upon release is in my mind pretty compelling evidence that there were, in fact, problems with PTW upon release. That there are scathing review of unpatched PTW only serves to further cement this position (as if the word of the CEO wasn't enough).

I agree, but the issues he mentions do not reflect the scale of the problem. To say that nobody could "play the world" is clearly not true, given NYE's experience. Now, nobody is doubting that there were problems, but I think there is insufficient evidence from that letter that the product is either defective or broken. It seems to me possible, and likely, that because of a rushed production schedule certain significant flaws in the product were shipped. I don't think that these were caught by beta testing (they would not have shipped if that was the case), partially because of the limited time for beta testing.

My earlier comments doubting your assertions owed to the above analysis of Jeff's letter, and my knowledge of gaming reviews and the boards here. I concluded, and still do, that your earlier characterization of the flaws of the software was on fairly weak footing given your liberal translation of the letter, and the bias of the boards and gaming reviews.

* The Civ3.com website describes both of these products in terms that would lead one to believe that both are in a state of high polish and completion out of the box. This is not the case. It IS the case, that thanks to the tireless efforts of the Firaxis crew, the games DO get there. Out of the box....no. With patch attention by the talented Firaxis programmers...yes.

I disagree. No game, and I mean no game, is packaged without inferring "polish" and that it is the best game ever to grace store shelves. To do otherwise would be economic suicide; that's how the system works and it isn't a problem with the industry... it's universal. I think anyone who expects any game to be perfect, polished, and 100% bug free out of the box is probably more naive than the average game-buying person.

So, if polish is not an issue, than playability is. Out of the box, the game was playable, as per NYE's statements. Perhaps not playable for as many people as Firaxis would have liked, but not even close to universally broken as other complainers here would like us to belive. The patch, as NYE said ( I think), is an attempt to expand that group.

[Velociryx]

Very well....to continue.....

If the product works for some, but not for others, then I would say the product is....broken.

Broken does not mean shattered, or absolutely unplayable. It can mean that, sure....but it can mean a lot of other things too....and if something is completely unplayable, then there are much better adjectives to use than "broken," to describe the product, in my opinion.

Broken means....broken. Not working to specs. (If it works for some and not for others, then I would contend that it's not working to specs). That could be anything between a shade off kilter all the way up to completely toasted.

But if it isn't working right, then it's broken.

My heater comes on every ten minutes.

It shouldn't.

The house is nice and warm.

The heater, however, is still broken.

As to patching.....total agreement. Everybody patches, and why the heck not? With the 'net, it's easy.

Maybe too easy.

Would it be fair to say though, that there is a difference between patching to FINISH (that is to say, to bring a product up to the minimum described specs) vs. patching to enhance (that is to say, adding new features, or changing/improving old ones)? Fair to say that there's a fundamentally different mindset at work there?

With regards to the website.....yes, I agree that it's a selling tool. Another arm of marketing.

It is also a place for general product information.

Would it be so hard, then, on the PTW pages, to cross link the patch? Make mention of it in the first, most likely place that a relatively uninformed buyer might go?

Would it be so unreasonable to maybe post the patch readme there too, so that buyers can at the very least see what the latest patch fix, and thereby give them some indication of what's working and what's not when they install the product?

Does that fall outside the realm of what is reasonable?

-=Vel=-