 |
| |
|
|
BigBen
|
|
First time poster here. I played CTP back in the day, and have seen countless hours of my life sucked away by Civ3. Actually, now that PTW tells you how long each game lasts, the hours aren't countless anymore, just embarrasing. As are my scores, but I digress.
I just wanted to make an outsider's observation on the community. I've come from a year long obsession with the BBS for a totally unrelated game (Motor City Online), and am struck by some similarities.
1. The developers will never do enough in the eyes of some
2. The developers will do no wrong in the eyes of others.
3. These two groups will have the same arguments regardless of the game, developer, community, state of the world, etc.... For example, there's always someone saying the developer is near folding due to their ineptitude, and there's always someone else saying that everything will be fixed in the next patch.
This biggest difference in the Civ3 community seems to be in its grammar and vocabulary. No one here has said that Frixas SuXX0rz in the threads that I have read. Yet. I'm not holding my breath.
The gaming industry has established fast paced, "release and patch" pattern that will last as long as we all keep dishing out money for nearly done games (which I will keep doing, as the alternative is to not game at all).
We could save a lot of time if we consolidated all complaints and defenses of the way devlopers handle games to a single unified BBS, and leave Apolyton to what it does best, which is provide a dynamic, wonderfully deep, discussion of, and improvement of a game which is good enough to stir this many emotions in this many people. I mean, any game that generates this much discussion has to be pretty good. They don't get this hot 'n heavy on the Mario Cart boards....
Sorry, terrible tangents. Great game, glad for the patches (and the public statement).
BigBen
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by woody
Perhaps you should take off your fanboy glasses and see that not everyone who criticizes Firaxis hates Civ. (That was a shot, but clearly you deserve the favor in return.) |
 Do people have reasons for criticizing Firaxis apart from Civ3? I don't see how the two are distinguished, unless there is some festering hate leftover from SMAC or Simgolf.
My point is: if you don't have a problem with Civ3 (as you state), then why do you have a problem with firaxis? Why do you care what they do or say? I don't. I don't "know" firaxis apart from their games, nor do I care. If I like the product, it doesn't matter to me if the producer is an *******., I dont' think about them while I'm playing the game. I don't think "damn that jeffrey morris for blah blah blah." If I did that, then why would I waste my time playing at all, i have better things to do than that.
I just want a game thats enjoyable, which for me PTW is. Call me names for that opinion or whatever, I don't care. I'm going to enjoy myself with a game now while you continue to complain, who's getting the better deal?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gaikokujin
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
I hold the opposite viewpoint.
They owe us absolutely nothing. If we don't like their games we don't buy them.
|
A lesson in logic is required here.
Clearly this is not true, and further, is contradicted by Firaxis' own apologetic tone in the message that began this thread. "If we don't like their games we don't buy them." would seem to imply that, if we bought the game (and, therefore, supplied them with revenue), we must like the game, both before and after the purchase.
But the real issue is, having bought the game for multiplayer over the internet, we find that this key functionality doesn't really work. Since they already posess the revenue in exchange for the game as advertised, they most certainly "owe us something". The CEO of Firaxix agrees, and is to be commended for recogizing a simple reality.
quote:
If you bought Civ3 or PTW and don't like it then return it to the shop for a refund. That is your right as a consumer.
|
This is also not true: there are no real "rights as a consumer". Try taking a game back for a refund at CompUSA, for instance.
quote:
Nobody is forcing us to play Civ3 and nobody is forcing Firaxis or Infogrames to keep funding the development team.
|
Nobody forces us as adults to eat or breathe, either, but if we stop, we die. In this case, of boredom.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Coracle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by asleepathewheel
Do people have reasons for criticizing Firaxis apart from Civ3? I don't see how the two are distinguished, unless there is some festering hate leftover from SMAC or Simgolf.
|
That's a fair point. I will clarify.
Let me say that you should presume criticism of Firaxis is of that company IN ITS PRESENT MANIFESTATION; that is, in all likelihood it is now a company seriously pressured by its parent company, Infogrames, to market beta, buggy, flawed products to get as much quick cash for the financially troubled Infogrames.
You want us to EXPLAIN all that every time we criticize Firaxis, its products, and poor customer support? That is not feasible.
I hadn't looked at a Civilization site in months, and was amused last week - though not surprised - to see the typical huge number of bugs and patch problems for PTW. So, Jeff Briggs has offered up not just another game with inherently flawed concepts, but one rushed to market long before it was ready.
With tax, the game, and useless "strategy guide", cost me close to $70, not including phone bills for the PC as I downloaded patch after patch, tried to contact Firaxis by e-mail, and in discussing it online. That also doesn't include about a hundred hours of my valuable time expended trying to get working a game with serious conceptual problems besides all the bugs, crashes, slowness, typos, etc.
But Mr Briggs can prove how amazing he is by sending me a personal letter of apology by e-mail through this site, along with arrangements for a complimentary copy of a finished PTW. It will be poor financial compensation, but I will consider it an example of good will - not BS - and I will say no more about Civ3/PTW, especially as I know Infogrames has been pushing them to market buggy beta stuff just before the Holiday buying season. I won't hold my breath waiting for either.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jaybe
|
 |
Las Vegas, NV USA
Sep 2001
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Coracle
...
With tax, the game, and useless "strategy guide", cost me close to $70, not including phone bills for the PC as I downloaded patch after patch, tried to contact Firaxis by e-mail, and in discussing it online. That also doesn't include about a hundred hours of my valuable time expended trying to get working a game with serious conceptual problems besides all the bugs, crashes, slowness, typos, etc.
... |
Let's see, for me it was (chronologically):
Strategy Guide ($15-25?)
Windoze computer system ($1,300), mid October '01
Civ3, "the tin edition" ($65)
Civ3 for Macintosh ($45-50)
PTW ($30)
Figure 20-30 hours per week for the last 13 months. Consistent patches with significant changes/fixes with which to learn new things. I have never had such a fulfilling "waste of time" in my life! 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
KizSmurf
|
|
I love civ 3. I have for a long time, and have probably wasted more time playing it thatn any other game this year. Remember it the game of the year! 
I think that the problem, with ptw, lies with the gaming industry as a whole. As consumers we have become complicet to the gaming industries unfair business practices. (Some people will say its there right to be unfair, or stop whining: Give me a break we need to put pressure on manufacturers to create good products, the alternative is to have games that dont work for 9 months) Where does this road lead us? This should be the question we are asking, not wether or not Firaxis is to be held responsible. I think that we are moving towards an industry that will calculate in the loses to revenue that releasing a game early, that does not work, will incur. In fact I assume that firaxis decided to do this already. "Hmm lets see if we release in october we make a lot of money and piss some people off, or we release in March of 03 and make a lot less money because of the holiday season slipping by and MOO3 comming out." This is probably close to the logic that they used to determine wether or not to release before it was ready for MP. In order to make the game come out in a playable fashion, we as consumers need to take up the fight to make the gaming industry listen. Fighting amongest ourselves does nothing. Even the most dilegent FAnBOy has to admit the game does not play MP and would have been nicer if it was off the shelf playable. (I am not trying to incite Fanboys with that statement BTW) Firaxis PR makes me hold my breath and wait, I hope something is fixed soon. Anyone who is serious about this type of business practice should let firaxis know through an email. Although your email probably won't even be read, it will be tallied along with others. Usually each email is seen as being the opinion of 10 other people who did not right them. Fit that into there calculation, and with enough, they have to change there game plan. 
The real reason probable has to do with Infrogames economic position now, if they make it past 3rd quarter next year they will be lucky. Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but maybe it was realeased early to take some of the financial burden off of infrogames. BTW if they fold firaxis will not have the $$ to work on new patches in the future. 
I know people are going to read this and get mad, and others are going to like it. I could care less about either group though. My intention here is to try to bring up a discusion that is not centered around bashing eachother left and right. If anyone wants to bash go look at page 1 of the forum, its already been done. If anyone wants to delve into the issues, at more than a surface level I would love to.
This is my opinion now, it may not be my opinion tommorow. It is good to be open to new insights and I welcome them, even when they are in conflict with my said statements. I would appreciate a slowdown on the worthless bashing posts though.
Love Civ 3, Love Single Player PTW, and wish the gaming industry was centered around the consumer and not $$$. LMAO Good chance of that eh!!!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vondrack
|
 |
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:23
|
|
KizSmurf, just one "nit-picky" note to your otherwise fine post: you should replace Firaxis with Infogrames as far as "deciding to do that already".
In one of my other posts, I went to such lengths that I indirectly suggested I would even probably be able to understand IG's reasoning and acting. I feel like this place now is the right one to elaborate on that.
As someone being in the industry for several years, I have already learned what "Christmas season" means. In my particular case (producing and marketing several multimedia titles on history), the sales in the Q4 equal the rest of the year sales combined (Q1+Q2+Q3). This is not from one year, not with one (new) product, this is an average of several years and almost a dozen titles coming out over a period of about four years.
One can only speculate on what all the reasons are, but it's rather obvious the Xmas presents are an important issue. What is very important to realize is that during Xmas time, there's a lot of purchases by people that normally buy no games. A lot of purchases by people that know very little or nothing at all about games. A very common way of thinking is "Remember cousin Joe? He likes that game... Civulization is the name, I think... look, there's some kind of a sequel to it. That might make a great present!"
IOW, lots (in fact, I believe that MOST) purchases in Q4 are made by people making very unqualified decisions. By people that will not even play/use what they buy. You may think I am just plain wrong, but trust me, I know what I am talking about. Q4-buyers behave like a herd of mindless, dumb sheep. I am sorry to say so, but that is reality. Unfortunately, this dumb crowd has an awesome buying power. The buying power is a manyfold-multiple of the buying power of those that actually know what they are buying (most Apolytoners would fall into this group of knowledgeable buyers, I guess).
Now, let's imagine you are in the publishing business. Imagine you are an IG product manager. You can even neglect the fact that your company is in desperate need of cash. The Xmas is coming and you have a decision to make about a Civ3 XP. If you release it as it is, you know you will have to patch later to make it fully work. Bad. OTOH, if you do not release it, you risk losing Xmas sales... If you hold it and let it out in Q1, you miss Q4-sales. And not only that, you seriously threaten next-Q4-sales, as the thing will not be hot new stuff anymore, will get less shelf-space and less people will consider buying it as a present. Many people will not remember that cousin Joe likes the Civulization game (since he does not play it that often two years after the release... besides an extra to a game two years old does not seem as great a present as an extra to the game released "last Xmas").
And if you throw in one more year and plan for "next" Xmas? There may be new, (better) games coming out in the meantime, catching the general attention... when asked for something "turn-biased", a shop assistant may suggest something different than your XP. Unlike this year... unlike this Xmas...
So you, an IG product manager, do the most obvious thing. You release the product "as is", knowing that it may/will inflict a hit on your reputation among "informed buyers" (aka fans). However, you make the sales, you make the money for the company (and that is what your bosses - and shareholders, for that matter - care for). The rep hit suffered is a nuisance, but nothing that would seriously affect your future sales, because most Q4-buyers (which means "most buyers", after all) will never learn what happened. Or do you tell someone you got a Xmas present from, what a piece of crap it was?
Now, why is vondrack telling us what we all know very well. We know that the freaking IG product manager did this. And we know why. And we hate him for doing so.
OK... but do you realize that he is just doing his job, perhaps the best he can? His job is to manage funds, cash-flow, generate profit. IG is primarily about making money, not about making games. The product manager quite correctly evaluates what kind of effect postponing the XP will have and eventually decides to go for a (possibly too) early release. If he decided the other way, sales would be gone... no revenues, no funds for future projects... the whole machine starts losing breath. Am I to blame him for his decision?
Why I am telling you all this? Well... in my very case, we decided to postpone our releases (as we were missing the schedule as well) until they were perfect (or, rather, until they were as good as possible). And, guys, it hurt. We ended up barely getting our investment back. There will be no more titles, as the final balance is just woeful. We did it the "proper way" from the consumer point of view, but effectively buried the whole project in the end. Our customers will get no more titles. Was that right? Was that wise?
I seriously don't know... all I have learned is that I am quite careful to jump on others that decide for the other way.
Yes, they kind of screwed the original Civ3 release. But it was fixed. It works just fine now. We would pay the same price this year as we paid last year. If you wish to consider the time-related value of money, well... add one more mean buck of interests. Yes, they screwed the PtW release. But it will be fixed, I am quite sure it will... we would pay the same price in six months as we pay now. So what is the difference? OTOH, if the only focus was to release a perfect game, we might easily end up getting it MUCH later or never at all. Imagine IG going broke... how long would it take until someone acquired the Civ merchandise and actually started/continued Civ3 development... what would Firaxis do? Would they wait or just start working on something else? What would happen to the incomplete/unfinished Civ3 code?
Reading through all the flame/whine/complaint threads and taking my part from time to time, I often think of this: all those people saying rushed releases are bad are quite right. But we can hardly hope that it could change. The more money flow into the industry, the more money go from the pockets of casual, uninformed, sheep-like buyers and the more publishers have to consider them. That's how it works.
The publishers have learned that the way to make money is to consider how the Xmas season works. Do they force people to spend their money in Q4? No, they don't. But people still spend money in Q4, whatever the publishers do or don't. I can do nothing about it. We can do nothing about it. Firaxis can do nothing about it. IG can do nothing about it. Sorry, folks, nobody can.
Companies like IG introduced the mechanics of big business into the gaming world and brought big money with them, allowing for (much) better games. But they did not come to make great games. They came to make money. To make money, they must be(have) "greedy".
If you want me to draw an analogy, look at democracy. It is arguably the best form of government developed so far. Do you consider it fair? Perfect? Great? I do not. IMHO, patching would be quite appropriate (and actually sort of takes place in the form of ever-evolving laws). But I have to put up with the fact that even though it is far from perfect, it is the best deal I can have.
And that's how I feel about the gaming industry. Feel free to disagree with me here, but all I can see is that everything works just the way I would expect. Actually, there is one thing that I consider pretty good, or a bit better than I would expect. I can see that Firaxis (or even IG, who knows) does care about if their product ends up bug-free and playable or not. OK, they (whoever "they" are) played a dirty trick that was kind of "necessary", considering the laws of the (X)mass (gaming) market, but they are still struggling to deliver a fine product eventually. That's great.
And that is the reason why I consider it safe to buy any future Firaxis game. Knowing that if there are problems, they'll get fixed, is more important for me than knowing the game will work out-of-the-box. I do understand the developer and the publisher must consider things and laws beyond my, our, their... anyone's control. It's fine with me as far as I get a fully working game eventually. That's what matters to me.
Call me an easily pleased consumer. Tell me it's just people like me that actually let greedy publishers go with rushed releases. Feel free to come up with ideas how to change what I perceive as pretty much given.
But I believe I am just soberly realizing the reality.
EDIT: typos
Last edited by vondrack on 26-11-2002 at 05:39
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
WarpStorm
|
 |
Right down the road
Nov 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
The testers and Firaxis were well aware of what state it was in when Infogrames decided it was going to ship. It was their money, it was their right.
Last edited by WarpStorm on 28-11-2002 at 04:26
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-11-2002 00:28
Great sentence! I'm considering to grab it and use it as a signature. It's just a bit meaningless, out of this thread. Oh, well: nothing is perfect. 
Mr Briggs tell us something we dont already know, please
|