Letter of JEFF BRIGGS to the CIV COMMUNITY

[Raion]

Actually, a game that is complicated takes a longer time to test. Notwithstanding, how long could it be for a game that plays as long as CivIII or PTW?
I would think almost impossible. Fix it later is fine with me for most things in the game do work.

I simply do not see any small company having the resources to thoroughly test every little detail.

It just is not possible or practical.

[MarkG]

The critics of Firaxis are mostly long gone from here.

if someone has stoped visiting this sites, it's because people tend to find the things they like doing and do them(!), instead of spending their time on something they dont enjoy

I can't even blame Mark G. - he has a business to run and this site primarily gets hits from Civ fans, so the game has to be promoted and critics of it attacked. Just business.

if you think that i have the power to make people believe their gaming experience is great (while it's not) you're overstimating my powers

and last time is checked, there is tons of criticism on all games we cover all over the site(forums, news reports). one difference though: this kind of criticism is backed by arguments and fact....

[Guardian]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
JoeDaddy, 'whining' about something will get you on Firaxis ignore list (see Coracle for example). At this point your message (and any future message) has been lost.

Talking rationally to Firaxis and telling them what is wrong with their titles without resorting to insults does wonders to getting changes made. Sending cases of beer works even better I hear (nye). I've probably told Firaxis more things wrong with CIV3 and PTW and suggested more changes than anybody here and they still answer most all of my requests (sometimes the answer is NO).

The tone does matter.

Ooooh yes!

Personally, I think I know a thing or two about these matters, because even though my work is not in any way related to the gaming industry, I am quite familiar with the business of working with computer systems and dealing with customers... Like most companies, the one I work for depends 100% on its' customers. However, contrary to what some people believe, the customer is NOT always right. Nobody wants @ssholes for customers, and guess what, it's really not that big of a loss if they take their cr@p elsewhere, even if they do take their money with them. There are plenty of other people out there whom we can deal with, and we can provide better service to the majority of our customers if we don't waste our time trying to appease a few @ssholes. Why should we go out of our way for people who are just going to give us sh*t no matter what we do?

Let's take an example:

Customer A has a problem. He brings it up in a "civilized" manner.

Customer B has a problem. He gets mad and starts throwing insults and verbal abuse around.

For customer A, I will bend over backwards to help him any way I can.

For customer B, I will do exactly what I have to do, and not one bit more than that.

If customer A asks for something that's not in the contract, I will help him as far as I can, possibly taking a special order and following it all the way through. I'll work my buns off every day until the customer's happy, and then I'll start working my buns off to keep him happy. That's how it should be, of course.

If customer B asks for - or more likely demands - something that's not in the contract... well, he can shove it up his ass as far as I'm concerned. It's not my job to keep him happy when he himself insists on being an ass. I did my job as I was required to, and if that didn't satisfy him... well, that's his problem, not mine. If he wants to leave, fine. Good riddance! Now I'll have more time for the likes of customer A and they'll get better service, or I'll be able to serve more of them. Plus, I have a better time at work too!

So, it's really not that big of a loss if the "@ssholes" and "whiners" get up and leave.
It's a win-win situation really.

[Velociryx]

I'm a masochist I guess....just plowed through this entire thread. Some good stuff here....some valid points and observations, and some of the typical whining on both sides of the fence (fans of the game whining about critics, and critics whining in general).....expected, I suppose.

I must agree with Stoo (Frustrated Poet) though....sadly, the release of PTW *is* pretty much what a growing body of folks have come to expect from Firaxis.

What? Do we expect finished, highly polished games? Is that what the recent string of evidence would reasonably lead us to look for?

Of course not. If we use history as a guide, then what we expect is....exactly what we got. Bug-ridden, unbalanced releases, with promises to fix "as much as possible" via patches down the road (after we write them more love letters in the form of royalty checks, of course). THAT is Firaxis.

Much as I admire the company FOR their policy of after-sales support (witness four Civ patches, and already a PTW patch), to say that fans of the series have come to expect quality *releases* from Firaxis flies in the face of reality. Before the release of Civ3, those expectations were certainly there, yes.

Those expections were not met WITH the release itself, however. Rather....finally.....months after the initial purchase, extensive patching did the job (and rightful kudos for the company for that).

Vondrack makes (as always), exquisite points in his post regarding the state of the software industry, and I believe his message to be exactly on target.

I also believe though, that there ARE ways to change the current system.

When Firaxis sold the rights to the game to Infogrames, it was not in a state of completion.....which of course, put them under the gun immediately. Having lost control over the product they were creating, they were at the mercy of the guys with money. Infogrames said "jump," and Firaxis had little choice but to do exactly that.

So....Infogrames gets in a bit of a pinch, and starts seeing all those Q4 dollar signs that Civ represents (and given the legacy of the game, that was quite a tempting lump of dollar signs, to be sure), and they order it out the door, no matter it's state of completion.

They get the Q4 sales, the fans get p*ssed, but so what? They don't represent the majority of buyers in any case.

The problem, however, could have been averted, but to do so, requires a step back along the chain, and to KEEP stepping back until you arrive at a point of correction.

Obviously, it's too late to do anything to really FIX the problem once the rights to the game are sold to Infogreed. It's not Firaxis' baby anymore at that point, and they have zero control over the production schedule. No, at that point, they're the hired guns doing the work behind the scenes, but IG is holding all the cards.

So...before then. Before the game was sold to IG.

And what could have been done differently?

Well....lots of stuff, but one of the most important would have been to not sell the rights to the game until the game itself was ready to go out the door.

Ahhh, but that flies in the fact of business logic, doesn't it? Cos after all, you have to sell the product before it really exists to get the money to pay the people to work on it.



And that....THAT is where the computer biz is a very different animal.

When I write a novel, I don't take it before a publisher before it's finished. I write, I polish, and when it's ready, I roll it out on display.

When a band forms to make a new album, they go to the studio, MAKE the album, and then take it to the producers (I'm not sure on this, but I daresay that the music industry would not survive long if it were any other way....I can hear it now...."Yeah, sorry about track number four on the latest Aerosmith album.....he had a sore throat that day, but we'll patch it later....maybe.")

I don't think so.

A car manufacturing outfit (which is far, far more complex an undertaking than software design, if for no other reason than the vast numbers of infinitely fallable humans involved in the process), buys materials from all over the globe and has them shipped to an assembly plant.

They do not, however, expect dealerships to buy their cars before they have rolled off the assembly lines.

I think then, that the software industry as a whole could learn a thing or two about quality control FROM other (sometimes related, and sometimes not) industries, and a key component in that control is to not offer something for sale before it exists.

To do that is to lose both creative *and* production control of the product itself, and the result is.....what we get from MOST software companies out there today (Firaxis is by no means alone in this).

The Civ name alone is enough to make any publisher out there drool in anticipation. Had Firaxis kept control of the product till it was ready (and simply said...hey...it ain't ready yet, we'll call you NEXT fall), companies would have still been lining up a mile deep, falling all over themselves for a shot at publishing the game.

How to do that though? What about the money problem?

Well, Civ is not the only game that Firaxis has ever released, and royalties/earnings from earlier games can fuel the fires for later releases, just like what happens in....pretty much every other industry that makes up our economy.

Not enough? Then perhaps diversification is in order....something else to give the company a means of supporting itself till the next big hit is ready.

And why would that be important?

Because although disgruntled fans of the genre are certainly not the majority of purchasers, negative advertising is far, far more effective than positive. It has been estimated that one bad "word of mouth" can cost a company up to ten sales.

That adds up quickly, and a company that gets too much of a reputation for producing bug-ridden games (even IF the initial release is followed by a promise to fix stuff via a series of patches), then said company will find itself with a smaller market for their NEXT product.

To summarize my ramblings:
When Civ3 was released, I was one of a vast wave of ardent, and vocal supporters (don't believe me? do a forums search), but the state of the game as released, and patches that sometimes created as many problems as they solved REALLY turned me off.

I still think Civ is a good, solid game.

Does it do justice to the civ legacy? A subjective question, and largely a matter of opinion. In my mind, it does not. Good game, but not that good.

And so, when PTW came out, I voted with my wallet. Firaxis did not get a follow up love letter from me. Not after the fiasco with the LE tin, and not after the fiasco with some of the patches (admittedly, 1.29 makes the game quite good).

Had I purchased PTW though, I would have gotten.....exactly what I expected.

-=Vel=-

[Alexander's Horse]

The thing that gets me is civ 2 came out in like 1996 (?) and its got a better MP interface than Civ 3 PTW that comes out in 2002. You'd expect MP would have improved over that time

[Tiberius]

Just one small observation, Velocyrix. You've said that "When Firaxis sold the rights to the game to Infogrames, ... Having lost control over the product they were creating,...". Now, AFAIK, Firaxis didn't own the rights for the Civ series, not even for a second. The owner was Microprose, who was bought by Hasbro Interactive who was bought by Infogrames. So, by the time civ3 came in discussion, it was already owned by Infogrames. Firaxis didn't have a chance. They were hired by IG for civ3 because of Sid Meier (I think), because the game is still known as "Sid Meier's Civilization" and I doubt they would have sold 1 million copies without Sid's name on it.

My conclusion (not related to the above) is: I'm not happy the gaming industry (and the software industry in general) works the way it works, but I'm glad Firaxis is devoted to take the development to the end, even if they do this using us as beta testers. At least we can influence the development process with our ideas, requests, bug reports, wish lists, etc. Civ3 is an outstanding game and this pleases me mightlily!

[Guardian]

Originally posted by Velociryx

And what could have been done differently?

Well....lots of stuff, but one of the most important would have been to not sell the rights to the game until the game itself was ready to go out the door.

Ahhh, but that flies in the fact of business logic, doesn't it? Cos after all, you have to sell the product before it really exists to get the money to pay the people to work on it.



And that....THAT is where the computer biz is a very different animal.

When I write a novel, I don't take it before a publisher before it's finished. I write, I polish, and when it's ready, I roll it out on display.

When a band forms to make a new album, they go to the studio, MAKE the album, and then take it to the producers (I'm not sure on this, but I daresay that the music industry would not survive long if it were any other way....I can hear it now...."Yeah, sorry about track number four on the latest Aerosmith album.....he had a sore throat that day, but we'll patch it later....maybe.")

I don't think so.

Well, you do have a point about the computer business.
In more than a few cases, what we actually sell is the concept, whilst the actual product often has to be prepared in a bit of a hurry when the sale is already made.

I really don't think we're that much different from your other examples though.

It's not at all unheard of for an author to receive advance payment from a publisher who wants the rights for a book, in which case the author is in pretty much the exact same situation as we are when preparing a product which we already have a contract for. Technically, the publisher already owns the book, and the author may have to deal with deadlines and stuff just like we do.
Many publishers don't actually demand to see the whole script before deciding whether or not to take in a book. They'll often settle for a summary + the first few chapters. In other words, they buy the concept, and the actual product is not necessarily finished at the time the contract is signed.

Also, I believe it is pretty common that newly-formed bands don't have the funds to make an entire album without a little help from, say, a record company...

So, perhaps they make their first single in the manner in which you describe it, and then go to the producers to get help with the album... Once again, they're selling the concept of an album that isn't actually made yet.

It's really not all that uncommon these days, but you're probably right about it being more visible in the computer business than the other examples. After all, we are the only ones who can actually release an unfinished product and then patch it later.

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by Velociryx
And that....THAT is where the computer biz is a very different animal.

When I write a novel, I don't take it before a publisher before it's finished. I write, I polish, and when it's ready, I roll it out on display.

When a band forms to make a new album, they go to the studio, MAKE the album, and then take it to the producers (I'm not sure on this, but I daresay that the music industry would not survive long if it were any other way....

No, it isn't. Say you were Tom Clancy. The publishers will give you upfront money before you written your first word based on previous sales.

I've been in the computer programming arena for decades and I can honestly say that very few programs would ever be finished at all if it worked any differently than it does now. Why? They are just too expensive to make without upfront cash and the looming contracted deadline to force your people to do work. Sad, but true.

[Velociryx]

I stand corrected on that point. Doing a bit of surfing bears out that IG owned the concept....so, they shot themselves in the foot.

Nonetheless, the point remains that selling the concept and worrying about the actual *product* behind it later is the fundamental problem with the industry today.

And having done the dance in the publishing world, I can tell you that the norm is for an author to finish his work before it ever goes to a publisher. The whole advance routine might work for some upper midlist guys, and for the best sellers, but only because they have a proven track record for both sales *and* on-time delivery.

If it is the case that the bulk of computer programs would never be finished without up front funding, then perhaps computer programming was never meant to be a standalone industry.

If left to its own devices, we get....what we're getting right now, which amounts to shoddy craftsmanship on the vast bulk of games, fixed later via patching.

And point to me any other industry where the final product is sold unfinished and completed post-purchase.

Music?

Autos?

Anybody ever have to wait six months for the final patch on a car they bought?

An album?

New set of clothes?

Nope....only in the computer biz do you pay first, pray that what you get is what they advertised, and if not, hope like hades that the company cares enough to be bothered with patching to make the game more like the concept advertised on the box you bought it in.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Further notes regarding author advances:

Two separate contracts at work here.

In general, an advance payment for a work is made on a *completed* and ready to go work. They money is paid in anticipation of sales, and deducted from any royalty payments that come from sales of the completed work. It's not unheard of for a best-selling novelist to get a cash advance for words not yet written, but if you're anybody but a King, Koontz, Clancy (or whoever the guys are that write the "chicken soup" series), I'd not bet the ranch on it. Publishers don't like paying fat advances, and they won't do it unless you've got a proven track record for both sales and on-time delivery.

There's usually a separate contract (and at the very least, a separate clause in the same contract) for an agreement by a given publisher to publish additional works by that author, but in those cases, such an agreement carries with it no firm timeframe. (something like: "Hey! This Stephen King guy might be onto something here...."Carrie" was such a good book, we'll contract with you to publish your next two novels when you write them." (thus, preventing you from shopping the finished product around to other people.....you've got a guaranteed market for your next couple of books, and we (the publisher) get a bit of security....since we know you're pretty good, we can make you "our boy" for at least the next couple of novels).

-=Vel=-

[Stuie]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Anybody ever have to wait six months for the final patch on a car they bought?

I had to wait 8 years for my Taurus Stationwagon to get recalled due to a manufacturing defect. Automobiles are frequently "patched" in such a manner after they are sold.

As for clothing manufacturing, they pull out anything that isn't up to certain standards and send it to outlets to sell at a discounted rate.

And I've bought plenty of albums that I wish I could get patched. Couple good songs, the rest suck. Besides, music is a passive activity - you don't use music, you just listen to it. Clothes and cars and software are items you interact with. Clothing you can see and feel prior to purchase; cars and software may contain defects that later require fixes. Ford and Firaxis test their products to the best of their abilities, but once released to a wider audience additional defects often become apparent.

Oh, call me a fanboy. I like PTW and don't have a problem with patching it a couple times. Then again, I also stick to SP, so.... whatever.

[MarkG]

When I write a novel, I don't take it before a publisher before it's finished. I write, I polish, and when it's ready, I roll it out on display.

you cant patch books Vel.

it also very dangerous(risk of much higher costs) to release cars with "bugs"

but you CAN patch games, EASILY. that's where the whole difference starts...


lets not compare apples with oranges

want more?

And having done the dance in the publishing world, I can tell you that the norm is for an author to finish his work before it ever goes to a publisher.

a single man(author) can probably survive on way or the other while writing his book without geting anything from a publisher.
a closed group of 30-40 people can not....

and if you say "ok, you just need investors for the start when you have to pay people but have no product to sell" then you're back to square #1. instead of a publisher, the development team has a investor on it's neck asking for an early release....

[vondrack]

Originally posted by MarkG
and if you say "ok, you just need investors for the start when you have to pay people but have no product to sell" then you're back to square #1. instead of a publisher, the development team has a investor on it's neck asking for an early release....

Exactly. The vicious circle.

The main problem is the magnitude of gaming industry. It is far too big to be able to operate on the same or similar basis as, e.g., book market does. However, it is far too small, changing so rapidly at the same time, to be able to focus on and invest in the quality assurance the way car manufacturers do (especially considering the profit made with a single gaming title - compared to the profit made with a single model of a car). Maybe in something like 80 years, the gaming industry will operate just as smoothly as the automobile industry does nowadays.

[Velociryx]

Don't get me wrong....I'm certainly not saying that other industries don't have their problems with production quality, but the central point is valid.

Precisely *because* you cannot see or feel or touch or test a software product prior to its purchase, the ONLY mechanism you have of making an informed purchase decision is the buzz that the software generates and the description on the box.

If the software you install differs markedly from the description the folks that are MAKING it are giving it then the ONLY conclusion you can possibly reach is that you did not get what you paid for.

That's all.

There IS no other conclusion to be reached.

Here's a quote, just to use as an example:

our main goal with Civ III: Play the World was to provide the ultimate Civilization multiplayer experience. This meant taking what worked from previous incarnations of the series, and mixing them with new and innovative features.

This comes from the Civ3 site, regarding PTW.

Is this what you got when you plunked down your money for the expansion?

Not according to the reviews I've read.

Yes....sometimes cars have manufacturing defects, and when they're found, the response you get from the company is not...."well, we'll patch it....maybe. If enough people buy our cars to make it worth our while to patch it."

No. You get a fix. Sometimes it takes a while, but you get a fix.

If you don't get a fix, guess what company you'll prolly NOT buy your next car from?

That's the way the rest of the economy works, but we, the consumer ALLOW the software biz to get away with thumbing their noses at this notion.

We allow it cos we continue to buy unfinished products, with the hope that patching will turn them into finished goods.

Patching has its uses, to be sure, but I put forth the notion that using patching to FINISH a product is probably not the best use for the idea.

Enhancing, tweaking, changing, perfecting....yes.

Finishing a product so that it more-or-less resembles the buzz, hype, and product description?

I'm not buying it.

I didn't buy it, good game or no.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

And Stuie....I'm not razzing anybody for liking the game....a forum search will reveal that I was once a quite vocal supporter of the game.

Just so you know....

-=Vel=-