Holy S***! NO Multiplayer Until Spring! - Page 8

Leonidas · September 13, 2001, 21:27

The attacks were horrible, and we all still feel the pain. But after a while it becomes very depressing, especially hearing all the individual stories and news items all day long.

In a way it's a nice break to come here for a few minutes and at least get your mind on something else for a while - even our emotions deserve a rest too. . .

As for MP, by Firaxis allowing these "rumours" to continue, they are hurting pre-order sales. After all, word spreads fast.

If it wasn't true, I would tend to think that just plain common sense would dictate that they dispel the rumour ASAP.

What else are we to think?

tniem · September 13, 2001, 21:42

MarkG, they had Monday to respond.

I would think it is in their best interests to say something. And hey this disaster could be the perfect excuse. "We were working hard but the disaster due to the pain it caused our developement team in fear of our fellow Americans is forced to postpone the game two weeks as a tribute and we are donating x dollars to the Red Cross to aid in the recovery effort."

I mean it isn't likely but I really don't believe the disaster is stopping their response.

Swissy · September 13, 2001, 22:20

Checking out the three pre-order sites:

Amazon.com says "Fully integrated multiplayer system"
ebgames.com and gamestop.com have no mention of multiplayer.
No mention of multiplayer at Infogrames.com
In fact the EB and Gamestop Civ3 game feature descriptions are the bullet points from the Infogrames site.

If Amazon changes their ad in the next week, we will have our confirmation.

Alexander's Horse · September 13, 2001, 23:03

I know they have form for cynically releasing multiplayer versions of the civ games after the single player release but times have changed.

I find it hard to believe they would risk the sort of consumer backlash that brought down Activision.

For example, if I bought the single player version and then out of spite returned it as defective, Firaxis would have sell at least 5 copies just to make up that one loss.

Think about it Firaxis - this is part of what happened with Call to Power I and II!

Swissy · September 13, 2001, 23:56

I am amazed that people still post here as if Firaxis has the final say as to when, where and in what form Civ3 will be released. Infogrames calls the shots on all these issues. If Infogrames says they are releasing Civ3 in october (and the product line list at the Infogrames site still says october), there will be a Civ3 game on the shelves Oct 31st. It may not be the Civ3 we want, but it will be there. Cut Firaxis some slack, they are only doing what they are told they must do.

MarkG · September 14, 2001, 01:43

Quote:

Originally posted by isaac brock
I don't think its unbelievable, but should the administrator of a civ site be saying theres no reason to talk about civ after stopping wtc threads? It's curious that he should be keeping the community from continuing with their lives

when did i say all that?

MarkG · September 14, 2001, 01:46

Quote:

Originally posted by tniem
MarkG, they had Monday to respond.

what if they weren't sure what to respond?

tniem · September 14, 2001, 10:11

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
what if they weren't sure what to respond?

I thought a similar thing, but isn't that pretty scary? That Firaxis or Infogrames or whatever a month and a half from release have no idea what is going to be in the final game. That is even worse in my mind than not including MP. That they just have no idea.

OzzyKP · September 14, 2001, 11:38

Civfanatics interviewed Jeff Morris from Firaxis, he was asked directly about Multiplayer and he dodged the question! Another clear sign they are ignoring us and don't care about the players.

Quote:

CivFanatics: What is the current status of multiplayer?

Jeff Morris: We're still working out all of the details around multiplayer and will give you more information later.

To read the full interview go here:
http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3inter...rris_913.shtml

Its True Its True!!

E-mail Firaxis! Tell them to include Multiplayer!

Leonidas · September 14, 2001, 14:15

At least now we know

Whitestar718 · September 14, 2001, 19:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Swissy
Cut Firaxis some slack, they are only doing what they are told they must do.

I'm sorry, but that excuse is unacceptable, whether it be true or not. It seems to be a very popular excuse coming from developers releasing unfinished product. Developers CONTROL who they sign with. Developers AGREE to a product deadline. If they can't deliver the full product in the timeline they agreed to, then the management team is not doing their job and must accept at least some of the blame.

To just say, "The publisher made us do it; we have no control" is extremely weak IMHO, and makes me question the ability of these developers to own up and accept responsibility for their actions. If developers can't deliver on their promises by a mutually agreed upon deadline, then DON'T SIGN THE DAMN CONTRACT!

--Whitestar

Swissy · September 14, 2001, 19:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Whitestar718

I'm sorry, but that excuse is unacceptable, whether it be true or not. It seems to be a very popular excuse coming from developers releasing unfinished product. Developers CONTROL who they sign with. Developers AGREE to a product deadline. If they can't deliver the full product in the timeline they agreed to, then the management team is not doing their job and must accept at least some of the blame.

To just say, "The publisher made us do it; we have no control" is extremely weak IMHO, and makes me question the ability of these developers to own up and accept responsibility for their actions. If developers can't deliver on their promises by a mutually agreed upon deadline, then DON'T SIGN THE DAMN CONTRACT!

--Whitestar

In this case Firaxis had no choice. They sign on with Hasbro Interactive. A year later Hasbro Interactive was gobbled up by Infogrames. Multiplayer may not have been a feature made manditory in the original contract. Seeing that it was an add-on for Civ and Civ2, this is quite possible.

dexter4dxm · September 14, 2001, 19:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Swissy
Seeing that it was an add-on for Civ and Civ2, this is quite possible.

I absolutely HATE that excuse.

Civ2 came out FIVE years ago. It's 2001 now, and multiplayer is a staple of strategy games.

Swissy · September 14, 2001, 20:44

Quote:

Originally posted by dexter4dxm

I absolutely HATE that excuse.

Civ2 came out FIVE years ago. It's 2001 now, and multiplayer is a staple of strategy games.

But Hasbro Interactive was a division of a toy company who had no idea how to make computer games. Nothing published by Hasbro Interactive was really great, mostly passable translations of their popular family games. They butchered the wargames, Axis & Alies and Diplomacy. The two best things Hasbro Interactive did for computer gaming was to hire Firaxis for Civ3 and sell-out to Infogrames. I think it is highly likely Hasbro Interactive gave little thought to making multiplayer a manditory feature.

I can imagine this discussion, right after Infogrames buys Hasbro Interactive:

Infogrames: How is the Civ3 game going?

Firaxis: we have basically what Hasbro wanted us to do finished, but it isn't exactly the game the civ players want.

I:Oh, well we'll give you another year to make it right.

One year later

I: So is Civ3 finished?

F: Pretty much ready to go gold, except we can't get the multiplayer to work. At least not to the level the civ-players will be expecting.

I: Well, we have to get the game out.. We go gold mid-october, with or without multiplayer.

F: What do we tell the civ-players?

I:Nothing

And that is about what we have been getting from Firaxis, nothing concrete on multiplaying.

Sarxis · September 14, 2001, 21:56

Basically:

I won't buy the game without a MP component, and may not buy it at all if I have to wait for one (my interest will be lost by then).

Hmm, is TBS dying?

Imran Siddiqui · September 14, 2001, 22:20

Quote:

To just say, "The publisher made us do it; we have no control" is extremely weak IMHO, and makes me question the ability of these developers to own up and accept responsibility for their actions. If developers can't deliver on their promises by a mutually agreed upon deadline, then DON'T SIGN THE DAMN CONTRACT!

Uh... without that publisher there WOULDN'T EVEN BE A CIV3! The only reason there is one is because the publisher (which owned the Civ name) wanted to do one!

Sarxis · September 14, 2001, 22:24

Ahh, screw it!

I will probably buy CivIII the first day it is released. I am a chump for new games, especially one that has the potential that CivIII does- the potential to waste more of my precious hours on this planet.

I will still be disappointed with no MP being included with the initial release, but who cares what I think anyhow. But at the same time, I blame Sid Meier for the crap CIV has had to endure the past few years (CTP 1 & 2, ToT, and now CivIII [maybe, and maybe only a little crap]).

Sid, you should never have sold or shared the rights to the CIV name! Let it be a lesson to you, and other creators of original ideas, that corporations only see $$$$, and not the true value of any product.

tishco · September 15, 2001, 07:51

hasbro did publish rollercoaster tycoon
so there!

Rasputin · September 15, 2001, 08:38

did it have MP ???

OzzyKP · September 16, 2001, 09:02

Dan,

I am certain you have visited the Apolyton forums and noticed the incredible uproar generated by the leaked information that Multiplayer won't be released with Civ 3 in October.

The gaming community is VERY UPSET. We all are very discouraged to see this lack of concern for the player's interests and the apparent mindset of scrapping everything for your bottom line. We don't like having our interests put on hold for another 8 months and then charged AGAIN for the same product we should have gotten in October.

Many others who weren't even initially angry about the multiplayer decision/rumor are now becoming angry with the delibirate wall of silence you all have crafted around the issue. If you are going to delay it then so be it, but don't hide it from us.

Also there is the question of pre-orders, many people pre-ordered the game with the understanding that Multiplayer would be included as was advertised. Indeed still today Amazon is selling pre-orders with the bullet point mentioning Multiplayer, if you truly have no intention of putting that in, and people who bought that game thinking ther would be MP you could be held accountable by a lawsuit for false advertising.

I HIGHLY recommend you do what you have to do put MP in with the game. If you have to push the game back a month to work on it, so be it, but you are getting very bad PR from all this. You know that word of mouth sells games, and right now thousands of people on here are telling their many thousands of friends that we are being ripped off and not to buy Civ3.

Currently with the disgraceful handling of this by you and/or your publisher I have decided to NOT buy the game I have anticipated for many, many months. I sincerelly hope something happens on your end to convince me to again give you my hard earned money for your product.

-Alex Koroknay-Palicz

Chow Yun Fat · September 16, 2001, 10:11

This is my read on a possible scenario. I have written a similar scenario at other threads. But this time, I would like to find fellows to fight for a cheaper way to get Civ3 with MP.

1) October 2001 - Civ 3 SP release. I trust Firaxis that it will bring us a reasonably polished games. Due to lack of public beta, sooner or later there will be some balancing issues discovered. This most likely won't affect casual players. But diehard fans will cry for patches. If there is a public beta, such issues will still arise but maybe at a later time. Price: US$45

2) December 2001 - The last wave of X'mas sale. Price will be reduced a little bit. People will determine whether to buy it or not based on words of mouth or reviews of gaming sites. Price: US$40

3) May 2002 - Civ 3 expansion pack with MP capability release, hopefully with important bug fixs. This will generate another wave of sales. Price: US$35+US$30

4) After June 2002 - Civ 3 and its expansion pack will have slowdown yet stabilized sales. To acheieve this, Civ3 and expansion pack must be relatively free of bugs and balance issues. Price US$30+US$20

As Civilization fans, most of us will buy at point 1. Due to lack of announcement of free MP, some of us may buy at point 3, and some may not buy at all due to perceived bad image of Infogrames (for not released MP free).

My aim:
Best course: Infogrames release MP as a free patch.
2nd best: Infogrames release MP with expansion (not free).
Worst: Infogrames do not release MP nor expansion.

To achieve the aim, I believe that we must make Civ 3 not selling good between (1) and (2). And we must make Infogrames believe that MP is an important enough issue to make people not buying Civ 3. This means:

a) We have to buy Civ 3 as soon as it release. This allows us to have the ethical ground of writing reviews and to have the time to find out good strategy.
b) We have to write reviews to big game sites fast. We will only say verifiable, true things about Civ 3. But we will select what are the things that we are going to write.
c) We have to amplify the balancing issues of Civ 3. The easiest way to do it is to provide unethical strategy that allows people to win the game easily. We can also emphasise that the computer is stupid. (We can always do that no matter how good the AI is)
d) We have to amplify the importance of having MP. This means stressing the fun of playing with family and friends (don't emphasise that it is hard to play MP for turn-based games!) Comparing Civ 3 to other successful MP-orientated games won't hurt.
e) We can say that "It may be the best game of the time after a few improvements like multi-player capability and a better computer opponents. If I were you, I will buy the game after those improvements are made. Not every publisher is as good as Blizzard (the one who gives us Diablo and Warcraft) for providing improvements to a game" (I deliberately avoid the word "patches". Casual gamers hate downloading patches. They want the thing that comes out of box to be good.)

If we can drive down the Civ 3 sales sufficiently, Infogrames will re-think about their strategy.
a) It may drop Civ 3 altogther.
b) It may rush out MP capability to attract customer.
c) It may also offer to release MP free at a later time.

Hopefully Infogrames is clever enough this time to choose c).

I don't think this will affect SP fans here. But we need their silent cooperation. They are intelligent enough to dismiss the trueful yet one-sided reviews by us. They will buy the game anyway. Infogrames will try to sell a Civ 3 expansion pack anyway.

tniem · September 16, 2001, 10:26

Chow Yun Fat,

If the game doesn't sell because we are trying to make a point to make MP, what makes you think that MP will suddenly be an importnat issue for Infogrames?

If you look at history, if a game doesn't sell, no time is wasted on patches or expansions. CtP2 was released with the promises of patches to fix MP and other bugs. Low selling game, Activision didn't waste time on the few people that bought the game.

If Civ3 doesn't sell with the SP only version, there will not be MP.

Chow Yun Fat · September 16, 2001, 11:04

tniem:

I agree that if the sale figure is WAY TOO LOW, the publisher will drop the game altogether.

However, I believe that if the sale figure is a bit below expected, Infogrames may think differently.

I believe that the reviews that the MP fans writing will affect the buying decision for some other gamers, but not large enough to trigger for disastrous Civ 3 sales. This is a risk that I am willing to take.

In addition, my view is that writing to Firaxis on this issue won't help. The final decision will be by Infogrames.

I had bought CtP but not CtP2. I was not satisfied with CtP so I decided to wait for reviews before buying CtP2. If Activision had provided the MP patches that made fans to write better reviews, CtP2 might have a much better sales. At least I would consider buying it.

Oligarf · September 16, 2001, 11:55

Those Firaxians are probably doing something with my MP idea.
I think the will try to make it more RTS, so it is a probable blockbuster on the net.

And if the MP-addon isn't that expensive, I will buy it.

Oligarf

Inverse Icarus · September 16, 2001, 12:09

Oligarf, there have been rumors that allies can move at the save time, effectievly cutting down time (unless there are no allies)

dennis580 · September 16, 2001, 12:10

Makes me anymore glad that Firaxis didn't waste very much time or resources on MP.

OzzyKP · September 16, 2001, 16:20

Good strategy Chow Yun Fat but how can we expect to hurt their sales if we all run out and buy the game as the first step?

Also I believe everyone here would prefer if MP were introduced at the same time as SP, so if we can convince Firaxis or Infogrames that their sales will be hurt by their decision to not release MP then they might put it in before they release it. That is out ultimate goal whether it is realistic or not.

But yes, solid, well thought out reviews critical of the game are the best way to handle this after the game is released, we certainly need an organizied effort to do so.

Swissy · September 16, 2001, 17:18

I just had a horrible thought. What if Infogrames is french for Activision

Rasputin · September 16, 2001, 17:29

if civ3 SP sells well, there will never be a freeMP patch!!! To get MP included now or later for free, civ3 SP must not sell well!!!!!

TCO · September 16, 2001, 17:49

Fat chow,

Very nice scenario.

I would either buy the game and then buy the addon. In which case, Ive spent an extra 20 or 30 bucks to get SP for 6 months.

Or I would wait until may/june/july and buy it then.

Sid has a history of playing games wrt civ (remember the Civnet fiasco...it came out right before Civ2... or how Civ2 shipped with muliplayer hooks in the game "turned off" like an Intel processor?)

They are just getting the maximum money they can. nothing wrong with it. Civ is an incredible game and they deserve lots of money for it. more than for a normal game.