 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Sherlock01
|
 |
Corpus Christi, TX
Dec 2002
time: 05:24
|
|
I know there have been theories of corporate intrigue going on about the MoO3 release date, and for the most part I've completely ignored them. The only thing that gives me pause is what I read yesterday.
I was reading an article on Command & Conquer: Generals on Gamespot, and it mentioned that they aren't releasing the game until after Christmas because, to quote them -
"As it did with SimCity 4 and the PlayStation 2 version of The Sims, Electronic Arts decided to hold off the release of Generals in order to prevent the cannibalization of its own products--as most gamers are quite aware of right now, there is an absolute flood of games on the market. Rather than compete with hundreds of other games, Generals will be released in February, after things have settled down a bit, so to speak. "*
Insert "MoO3" in that, and it does make a bit of sense. Looking at it from Infogrames' standpoint, it's not a bad thing - they stand a better chance of making money, and gamers get a game that has the bugs exhaustively worked out of it.
Oh well. Working out bugs, corporate decisions at the highest levels, whatever. It'll eventually show up.
*http://gamespot.com/gamespot/storie...2898051,00.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
One of the chief questions is what happens after release. Normally there is a modicrum of post release support even if no expansion is planned. Sound to me that QS is using that up now so what we get will probably be the final product. In which case I wish them mucho well over the next two or so months.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sherlock01
I know there have been theories of corporate intrigue going on about the MoO3 release date, and for the most part I've completely ignored them. The only thing that gives me pause is what I read yesterday.
I was reading an article on Command & Conquer: Generals on Gamespot, and it mentioned that they aren't releasing the game until after Christmas because, to quote them -
"As it did with SimCity 4 and the PlayStation 2 version of The Sims, Electronic Arts decided to hold off the release of Generals in order to prevent the cannibalization of its own products--as most gamers are quite aware of right now, there is an absolute flood of games on the market. Rather than compete with hundreds of other games, Generals will be released in February, after things have settled down a bit, so to speak. "*
Insert "MoO3" in that, and it does make a bit of sense. Looking at it from Infogrames' standpoint, it's not a bad thing - they stand a better chance of making money, and gamers get a game that has the bugs exhaustively worked out of it.
Oh well. Working out bugs, corporate decisions at the highest levels, whatever. It'll eventually show up.
*http://gamespot.com/gamespot/storie...2898051,00.html |
This is definitely the best possible interpretation. I still wonder if EA/IG would make this decision if the game was ready to go.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wahngrok
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GP
There is no immediate impact on me. But ultimately if they are ineffecient, they will go out of business (not making games for me any more). Also, the losses they take will make them less likely to try projects like this any more. |
Yeah, that's a possibility... but then again Microprose and Simtex are no more and this game's still being made. So I wouldn't worry about that too much. 
quote:
The game didn't release because it isn't done yet. I'm sure the publishers have some language int he contract to pretect them when the creators don't manage their project effectively. |
IMO they made the mistake of using external beta-testing very late in the progress of the game. And, yeah, the PR work was horrible. But I wouldn't say the project wasn't effectively managed. Many publishers would have released the game as it is now... maybe even before the redesign in April. We'd have gotten the game on time but it probably wouldn't have been as much fun as it is promising to be now. So I am thankful that they are not being "effective" and trying to make a quick buck.
quote:
Yes. I think a lot of the problem goes back to this. A lot of lost time. |
Setbacks happen in design processes. Ever heard of the dinosaur Sid Meier Game? No? That's because it was stopped about a year in the developement. As they put it it simply wasn't fun. That's what happened with MOO3, too, but I wouldn't fault Alan for that.
Last edited by Wahngrok on 16-12-2002 at 05:28
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kalbear
|
|
Again, to reiterate something I've said before:
The release dates that have been otherwise stated are COMPLETE FICTION.
The only one that has been stated that would not fit this would be the Nov. 26th one, and that is because QS was told that they MUST release it at that time. That time did indeed pass, and now we're on the 'when it's ready' timeline. QS has no choice and little feedback on those sort of dictated timelines. Really, IG doesn't either. It's a date that basically says "If we don't meet this time, it won't be out in time for X-mas". It's not an arbitrary date; it's set by the distributors, marketing, and other evil necessities.
Any dates that have been listed by various online/offline agencies are guesses. They might be guesses by Amazon.com, or ebgames, or the marketing team at IG, or even the product managers at QS, but they are all guesses. Educated or otherwise.
Right now, and I need to stress this, no one truly knows when it'll be out. Testing takes time, and testing a software product of this magnitude with this level of user-interface issues (as is the case with all consumer-level software products) takes a LOT of time. It is quite promising that they're down to one SP and a few MP bugs, but fixing those bugs does not guarantee anything about what else they might find, or even how long it'll be to fix those specific bugs.
The only time we will know, for sure, when it'll be done, is when it goes gold. Until then, it's just a matter of increasingly short amounts of time.
Finally, this sort of thing pisses me off. Does anyone even remember playing Moo2 when it first came out? Do you remember the 1.1 patch for Moo2, and how good it was - but still, how bad it was in terms of crashing bugs and stupid AI? Go read the patch readme to see exactly how bad things were.
You all begging them to release it right now, instead of when it's really well and done, MAKES THIS HAPPEN. If you were a better consumer and didn't buy beta products, or didn't TOLERATE beta products that were released to the public way before they were ready - like, say, Moo3 would have been had it been released in November, with crashing/save game corruption bugs - it wouldn't be necessary for them to justify this sort of thing every day.
Stop asking them when. Ask them for previews, pics, impressions. Ask them details about how the game is, how things work. Ask them how they like it. Ask them about the music. Or the performance on low-end machines and graphics cards.
STOP ASKING THEM WHEN. Every time they answer you is another 3 minutes longer that you'll have to wait.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
You know, I keep hearing over and over about the difficulties of preparing a game for both single and multiple players. Maybe the industry should put their heads together and decide that they simply won't try to offer both in one package. It would not bother me one bit if evferyone who wanted to play on the internet had to go out and plunk down an extra charge to buy th multi-player expansion pack.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-12-2002 10:04
Outrageous. All I can say is outrageous.
But chantz was very specific. No info to neither fans nor retailers, nor online shop untill the game goes gold.
Yeesh. These guys are worse than blizzard.
|