09-01-2002 08:03									#1
	Civ sery's history saying why there's no mp? Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Here's my new discovery, coming from GameSpot's biography of Sid (http://www.gamespot.com/features/sidlegacy/civn.html):

quote: Worse, MicroProse tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the fans of its most storied franchise by releasing CivNet a mere four months before Sid Meier's Civilization II, without letting anyone know of the latter game's impending release until after the sales curve of CivNet had flattened. The controversy deepened when Civilization II shipped with no multiplayer options, but with some evidence of multiplayer hooks buried in the code.

Don't say me it's the same thing again with Civ III... History is useful to disguise the future. Well this seems to be History of Civ... Is it okay? Is it not? Well it's marketting. Anyone knows more about this MicroPose thing? Refutations? Comments?

I feel that if it's the case here, it should have been said, or it's not honnest enough to me.

(BTW, this Sid biography is nice)

	09-01-2002 09:09									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

It's just marketing, plain and simple. Video games and other software companies are almost forced to take this approach to make money. It's not like Coke... "Buy our product, the same one we've been selling for years," it's "this is the hottest new title and it renders all past titles obsolete." Honestly, would you buy something that says on the box: "This game will have a sequel out in four months that will render this product unnecessary for you to own?"

By that same token, and all things being equal, would you sell a product for $45 when you can sell it for $75?

I'm not sayin' that it's ethical, mind you. It's just one of the many luscious fruits of capitalism.

	09-01-2002 09:34									#3
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Yep, and Warez is buyer's insurance. All I can say is that if a company conditions me to treat them like thieves, I will.