MOO3 4 January: marketting suicide?...

[Trifna]

I'm concious that I'm not a marketting pro or anything but something seems paradoxal to me:


Assertion 1:
The reason why MOO3 is delayed is multiplayer and multiplayer plays mostly on Internet.

Assertion 2:
The way to arrange this is a patch and patches are from Internet.


Errrmm... isn't it paradoxal when you have the single player to push the date while people that will play multiplayer in fact are the people that will be able to get the patch? Isn't it simply to delay a game when in fact the only part that's not perfect is a part that can easily be arranged for people who will use it?

Losing the hollidays seems a catastrophy to me... I would easily accept to not have multiplayer right now if anyway the singleplayer is ready and would just be same in 2 months. Simply say that you release MP in January!! NO?? For MOO3 it's and may influence MOM2 or anything else.


PS: I do not pose this as a thesis but as an hypothesis. I'm seriously wondering and a little confused.

[Don K Hotay]

Please, I hope you're not implying that other parts of the game are faulty (or the game itself), because your logic and deductions certainly could....Thats a mean thing to do for those of us just barely dealing with fact that the game is not out yet

[Xentax]

If it was a situation where it would *auto* patch, I'd agree (e.g. Battle.Net).

But I don't think "internet" play (Gamespy Arcade) would require or even support auto-patching, so they'd be worried that people wouldn't patch.

Plus, people using LAN or direct TCP/IP for MP would be harder to direct to a patch...

[moomin]

If you read the beta tester articles over at the official forum, I think it's pretty obvious that they feel Moo3 isn't really ready for prime time yet - and it's seems to be more than a MP issue.

I much prefer a solid release than another Civ3-esque rushfest, but I'm sad it's gonna cost'em the x-mas sell rush.

[Randolph]

Originally posted by moomin
If you read the beta tester articles over at the official forum, I think it's pretty obvious that they feel Moo3 isn't really ready for prime time yet - and it's seems to be more than a MP issue.

I much prefer a solid release than another Civ3-esque rushfest, but I'm sad it's gonna cost'em the x-mas sell rush.

Actually many of them said they thought it was ready for release.

[MarkG]

great games dont need christmas periods!

[Unspeakable Horror]

Well said Mark!

[MarkG]

i mean just look at sims(true, an extreme example, but still) or civ3: sims has been selling for over 2 years. civ3 has kept it's 40$ price for over a year

[Xentax]

Originally posted by moomin
If you read the beta tester articles over at the official forum, I think it's pretty obvious that they feel Moo3 isn't really ready for prime time yet - and it's seems to be more than a MP issue.

I much prefer a solid release than another Civ3-esque rushfest, but I'm sad it's gonna cost'em the x-mas sell rush.

Interesting...why do you say that? I'm one of those beta testers, and I'm leaning in the opposite direction. I think that's actually the opinion of most of the beta testers -- that SP is ready to go, MP "could" go now but if they want to wait and get it better and more stable first, that's their decision to make.

There's nothing in the SP game that I can point at and say "we need to wait and fix this". I mean, I know there will be things that need patching -- balance issues will be discovered that we couldn't flush out, for example -- but I don't think there are any remaining significant things we can discover in a reasonable time period without a lot more eyes and minds on the game.

[moomin]

Originally posted by Xentax
Interesting...why do you say that?

It was certainly the impression I got reading. Stuff along the lines of "it was awful at first, but it's coming along very fine now, a couple of more rounds and it'll be great" or like "Moo3 is a good game, and with some more polish it'll be great". Seems to me as if some - if not all - of you think there's some tweaking still to be done. We don't know when the texts where written of course, if was a while ago it could be fine by now. But I read them as current reports.

In your opinion, is the MP late game bug the only thing holding back a release right now?

[Ozymandous]

Impressions...

I think each of us got what we wanted out of the beta reports. I thought they meant the game was bad when they started and now it's good. If anything some will say that "with a little polish" it would be fantastic, but most of that will probably be "tweaking" done once everyone plays it more and they have a large player base.

From reading the reports I will say I am much more optimistic (still guarded after looking foward to MOO2 only to have it stink compared to MOO) than before.

[dac]

It's often worse to rush something out the door that is buggy. Look at what happened to Civ3 Play the World. Civ3 debuted to very good reviews (even if the forums were more divided ) and sold very well. Civ3 Play the World, the multiplayer part didn't work well, and it got creamed, both in the forums, and in the reviews.

For a product like MOO, which doesn't have as big a 'name' among the great unwashed, a series of bad reviews could very negatively impact sales. If everybody on the forums buys the game, and nobody else, then you've got a failure on your hands. You have to be able to reach the audience who doesn't prowl the internet looking for gaming information if you're going to make money, and I want them to make money, so they'll be patches, expansion packs, and maybe they'll take a swing at MoM 2. All this even though I'll never play multiplayer.

[vmxa1]

I won't disagree that great games do not need Xmas, but all games can benefit from it. Many people cruising the EB and others places that offer games will pick up impulse purchases. Some of these people will not be looking at games after xmas, at all. Some non gaming stores will be featuring games in locations that will not be available to games after the holidays. This means sales opportunities will be lost.

[Master Marcus]

not very far from my feb 2003 old prediction for an estimated "delayed" release...many sites list it around mid-january now for the NorthAm release. Well, this is a serious game for serious gamers so I agree with those saying that Christmas time is not a topic here. However we must question the time development/efficiency ratio vs technological advances during that time: 2 years and a half, 800x600 graphics.....the team just can't polish that game forever. I'm still optimistic and patient as always, and it's not whining to say that MoO3 CANNOT be released in 2005.....so no christmas smilie here, but a Q1 2003 one

[MasterDave]

Blowing the Xmas date is going to negatively impact sales no matter how good the end product turns out to be. A game that releases more than a year after initially projected (remember the ad on the backs of your civ3 manual anyone?) is hardly "rushed out the door." Xentax and other trusted Beta testers say that it is ready, especially for single player.

Assuming that that is true, to hold it back now for "polish" strikes me as very foolish from a business standpoint, not to mention extremely disappointing for the fans who have endured the previous delays and are now looking at a Xmas without Moo3.

MasterDave