Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

QS screwed up the MOO3 project by being too ambitious

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Thanks, Lemmy. It looks like just the ticket. But here it is May 6 and no demo.

    "In the end, I challenge you to provide examples of the "big mean publisher" helping out, rather than screwing everything up, for both themselves, and for the developers."

    EA has had a good track record across the gaming spectrum. The developers may think they're too hands on, but they have demonstrated success with their model.

    I certainly don't advocate a hands-off approach. Management must manage!
    Last edited by DanS; May 6, 2002, 12:11.
    I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by GP

      The issue isn't with IG. It's with Firaxis for either making a poor estimate of time/money required to do the project. (Or more likely for having a personell dispute, i.e. Reynolds departure, which set the project back.)
      Now that I would tend to disagree with. Predicting a completion date a couple of years in advance can't be easy. Personell disputes, as with everything else in life, cannot always be resolved. I don't pretend to know what happened but I don't think blame can be arbitrarily lumped on Firaxis for not using "all necessary means" to keep the team together, regardless of the possible cost.
      IG chose to release on time (Mid Nov IIRC), no matter the cost in consumer satisfaction, regardless of the bugs still present (some of which should have been very easy to catch), and whats more in a package that still (falsely) advertised features that weren't present. That last (IMO) is pretty much unforgivable.
      Delaying for a couple of weeks shouldn't (and I admit I am guessing here) have seriously impacted their distribution or their Xmas sales, either in the US or elsewhere, and could have seen a large portion of those bugs fixed.
      The point as to whether Firaxis should have been testing/fixing in advance of when they were is open to debate, (maybe they were hoping for a delay? - I don't know) as is IG's decision to release a faulty product on schedule.
      What you can't debate though is that the advertising and packaging surrounding it were blatantly false. This isn't even touching on the LE issue.
      This was solely and wholely IG's responsibility as the publisher/distributor, and they made the choice to deliberately sacrifice both their own and Firaxis' reputations for the bottom line "money-in-the-bank-on-time".

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Eurhetemec
        GP - Age of Empires.

        One good game out on time, and not a particularly original game, at that. Not only was it not original, in fact, it was technologically primitive, being 2D, low-colour (256, IIRC!), and generally extremely simple.

        That's at one end of the spectrum requiring almost zero R&D, because of the technological simplicity, and the stolen gameplay (typical RTS). All they needed to do was tune the gameplay.

        Compare and contrast with a game like Black & White, which takes massive technological steps, is largely original, and requires significant R&D, and maybe even dramatic changes of direction, because you're venturing into uncharted waters. Such a game would be unlikely to be financed by a company such as IG, especially given the dev time.

        So you can't compare the two very well, and if AoE is the only good game to come out on time and fully-featured of late, then that rather proves what I'm saying: truly innovative and technologically complex games need longer dev cycles, and need to be able to slip to accomodate technological changes, or reach their full potential.

        When companies fail to realise this, that's where the problems start. You can't mindlessly blame it all on Firaxis for making a bad estimate of the time and finance required (if they even did), because IG are an experience company, and should have checked those figures, and got some of their own, to see if it was reasonable.

        Indeed, they may simply have said: Make Civ III, you have until X, which is a foolish proposition for a TBS game, especially a prestigious sequel.

        The main problem, though, is that companies like IG are *only* looking at the short-term bottom line. This is why they fold, change hands or have massive financial troubles almost as often as the independant dev studios!

        I can't think of any risky games that have bankrupted any larger companies, or even, really, smaller ones (apart from Cavedog, perhaps, if you remember them). More often it's mass-producing some piece of crap that predictably fails to sell that does the damage.

        Determining what is going to be a hit, and what is not, always seems to be difficult for big games publishers, but the fact is, almost all the "big hits" financially, of late, have been either entirely original and somewhat risky games (The Sims, for example, has raked in insane profits), or *proper* sequels with very long dev times (like Diablo II).

        In the end, I challenge you to provide examples of the "big mean publisher" helping out, rather than screwing everything up, for both themselves, and for the developers.

        Also, can I ask, what industry do you work in?
        I'm a management consultant.

        Wonder which made more money, AOE or Black and White? That should tell us something...

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by ravagon


          Now that I would tend to disagree with. Predicting a completion date a couple of years in advance can't be easy. Personell disputes, as with everything else in life, cannot always be resolved. I don't pretend to know what happened but I don't think blame can be arbitrarily lumped on Firaxis for not using "all necessary means" to keep the team together, regardless of the possible cost.
          IG chose to release on time (Mid Nov IIRC), no matter the cost in consumer satisfaction, regardless of the bugs still present (some of which should have been very easy to catch), and whats more in a package that still (falsely) advertised features that weren't present. That last (IMO) is pretty much unforgivable.
          Delaying for a couple of weeks shouldn't (and I admit I am guessing here) have seriously impacted their distribution or their Xmas sales, either in the US or elsewhere, and could have seen a large portion of those bugs fixed.
          The point as to whether Firaxis should have been testing/fixing in advance of when they were is open to debate, (maybe they were hoping for a delay? - I don't know) as is IG's decision to release a faulty product on schedule.
          What you can't debate though is that the advertising and packaging surrounding it were blatantly false. This isn't even touching on the LE issue.
          This was solely and wholely IG's responsibility as the publisher/distributor, and they made the choice to deliberately sacrifice both their own and Firaxis' reputations for the bottom line "money-in-the-bank-on-time".
          No doubt that personell issues may be unsolveable. They are still Firaxis's responsability. IG has no role here. that is internal to the subcontractor. (Firaxis.).

          WRT to the LE. Agreed. That was IG responsability. Still would not surprise me to know that Firaxis was guilty of some of this problem as well. For instance, did Sid give IG the designer's note adn than IG lied about it. Or did the two decide mutually to have a flimsy designer's note. Or did Sid just under-deliver.

          If anybody has a right to be mad, it's IG. They paid good money to a subcontractor and he's delivering shoddy goods.

          hitting the Xmas rush was the only way top go. doing otherwise would be crazy form a retails sales standpoint.

          Comment


          • #50
            Black & White vs AoE1?

            I'd be shocked if B&W didn't make considerably more money, myself, it sold very well indeed, where AoE1 was something of a slower hit.

            AoE2 did very well, though.

            B&W2 is still in production.

            One key difference is that AoE is made my Microsoft, who have insane budgets and big advertising ability, whereas B&W was made by Lionhead (I forget who published it), and needed more hyping, and to actually be a good product.

            MS' advertising machine can sell even a mediocre product, which puts it under less pressure to deliver quality games. The only reason to do that, really, is prestige, and the idea that your company "makes good games", which is priceless, because, whilst it's hard to maintain at a high level (again, only Blizzard, id software, and a few name designers like Warren Spector or Peter Molyneux manage it), it pretty much guarantees sales, and definately guarantees industry hype, which further helps sales.

            A management consultant, eh? No wonder you're keen on painting the boss-types who'd be paying you as saints and the contractors as sinners. They wouldn't be too happy if you said it was the other way around...

            In the end, if profit is concern #1, you should get out of the TBS business (not you personally, I mean, in general), because they are simply not the most profitable games out there, being hard to develop, requiring some patience to produce quality products, and having very finickity fans who actually do have some influence on sales...

            Further, whilst you can bang on about how a Christmas release was the only sensible thing (despite the fact this matters far more to console games than it does PC ones, sales-wise, and to action games more than strategy and RPGs), by releasing an inferior product, they lose future sales.

            Take the expansion pack, for example. Given the quality of Civ III, I have precisely zero interest in buying it, where I am normally the sort of person who buys every expansion pack for any game he owns, even ones I only play a little.

            Then look further ahead, to say Civ IV. Had Civ III been a massive success, and well-liked, it could have come out fairly soon, maybe after a couple of add-on packs, and Civ spin-offs could have been devised, and profits would have been had by all.

            Now it's unlikely to happen for several years, and if it happens any time soon, then it will have the stigma of Civ III to deal with.

            You seem to be all about getting it out the door at any cost, and this is exactly the attitude that is producing crappy games and hurting the whole gaming industry. People like you should be kept very far away from games, I think...
            "You're standing on my neck."

            Comment


            • #51
              There is something to be said for seeing Civ3 as an introduction to the expansion packs, which I would imagine are very profitable. In this, Civ 3 failed for me at least.

              " In the end, if profit is concern #1, you should get out of the TBS business (not you personally, I mean, in general), because they are simply not the most profitable games out there, being hard to develop, requiring some patience to produce quality products, and having very finickity fans who actually do have some influence on sales...

              Boy are you in for a shocker! A game company such as Firaxis can be a money mint. On a project like Civ 3, my model is showing about a 50% IRR for both IG and Firaxis...

              "They are still Firaxis's responsability. IG has no role here. that is internal to the subcontractor. (Firaxis.)."

              Again, this is all part of the risk calculus for IG. Even if it's not their responsibility, it sure is their problem. They should factor in these possibilities to their financial planning and manage Firaxis once it starts hitting the fan.
              Last edited by DanS; May 7, 2002, 15:38.
              I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Eurhetemec



                A management consultant, eh? No wonder you're keen on painting the boss-types who'd be paying you as saints and the contractors as sinners. They wouldn't be too happy if you said it was the other way around...


                You seem to be all about getting it out the door at any cost, and this is exactly the attitude that is producing crappy games and hurting the whole gaming industry. People like you should be kept very far away from games, I think...
                I am not as evil as you think.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Dan, I agree that underperformance of subcontractors has to be (and is) claculated into IG decisions. It was abviously a tough squeeze with BR leaving. IG has a right to be mad. Perhaps even to litigate for underperformance. (For all we know some regnegotiation was owrked out.)

                  Given a problem with the contractor, of course they have to do an independent decision. And in some cases, the right money move will be to give the subcontractor more rope. But obviously if you do that all the time, they will take advantage. Tech developers are noteworthy for last minute crunches. All the more reason to hold their feet to the fire.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    You can never be too ambitious.

                    But you need to know when to start assessing viabilities.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      "It was abviously a tough squeeze with BR leaving."

                      From IG's perspective? If, due in part to your negligence in mismanagement, it gets to crunch time and you aren't "there", just push release out a half year (when you tell Firaxis that this is your decision is another story ).

                      The discount rate is like the confessional. It's all good.

                      "But obviously if you do that all the time, they will take advantage."

                      Assuredly. But this franchise is a valuable asset to IG. This isn't the time to make your point. Wait until QS screws up to burn anybody at the stake.
                      I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        looks like both the Civ3 and Moo3 problems came from the desing team. Desing team should produce on time.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Personally, I don't have any problems with Civ III's design - and I'm pretty confident to see a well done MoO3's grand design since it was well advanced and most of the compounds coded ( at least at a basic stage ) before the sad events we know.

                          My main concern here is more about the impact caused by the cuts upon such crucial gameplay mechanics ( namely IFPs ) at this stage of the project and how this will affect the balance of the game. Toning down the unbalancing elements of a complex game is very hard, and of course not to say the harder but necessary challenge to upgrade the AI ( without IFPs, no more excuses then to have only an "average AI" not too bright...)
                          The art of mastering:"la Maîtrise des caprices du subconscient avant tout".

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            I hope that it gets done well, also. I think that it was obvious that there was some kind of abnormal fiasco. It doens't seem normals to fire the designer.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by DanS
                              Thanks, Lemmy. It looks like just the ticket. But here it is May 6 and no demo.
                              It be there now!

                              R:PM
                              We're sorry, the voices in my head are not available at this time. Please try back again soon.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Site is unreadable black text on dark bg and only marginally navicable… hope game is better.
                                (\__/) Save a bunny, eat more Smurf!
                                (='.'=) Sponsored by the National Smurfmeat Council
                                (")_(") Smurf, the original blue meat! © 1999, patent pending, ® and ™ (except that "Smurf" bit)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X