Now, if YOU were the Firaxis PR person...

[tniem]

Markos: Brilliant display of PR, turning yin like that.

jglidewell: I also never worried about MP in Civ I but I thought it would be cool to play my friends in it. Since then I have played MP in various games including Civ ones (Civ2 MPG and SMAC). Without it how can they claim the best civ experience ever? I find MP as one of the best experiences that I have played. But of course only when I find the time.

So yes I know worry about things like graphics and MP that I didn't before. And let me tell you I had an early build of Civ I where it wasn't even a wagon yet for the settler. It was some face with two pointy ears.

MacTbone: I do believe the average consumer will at least read something about the game before buying it. That or have heard something about it from a friend. So yes maybe the actual website isnt that important. But good PR to get the good reviews is important. As is building a quality game so that you can have word of mouth spread the game. Without MP it is going to be harder for word of mouth to spread the game. And if anything else is going to be cut because of lack of time, then I will spreading the glories of Civ3 a whole lot less.

Leonidas: I agree with you that most of it is a group of fans that have given a bunch and just want a good experience. That is my problem with the announcement. I just want my time to be rewarded with a good game. I also agree that this forum could possibly be very important to the sales of the game. Just by posting here I have about six guys in my dorm interested in Civ3. They might buy it if I like it when I buy it. They can then go home and get others as I will. I really believe that word of mouth is the most powerful sales engine and that does require good games and good pr.

[Leonidas]

tniem: You should be in public relations

I am amazed how game companies, that ignore their fan base, take shortcuts, and produce sloppy, buggy games, are surprised to find that they are soon bankrupt. . .

Maybe the average gamer is starting to sit up and notice after all. . .

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by tniem
I really believe that word of mouth is the most powerful sales engine and that does require good games and good pr.

Too bad it is slower than the later two. (CTP1)

[mactbone]

Man, where'd you find six people. I've only got one guy who cares about Civ3 here at Purdue, and he's played all the civ games by Meier. It's hard to get people interested in a game that won't be out for at least 36 days.

[tniem]

Originally posted by MacTBone
Man, where'd you find six people. I've only got one guy who cares about Civ3 here at Purdue, and he's played all the civ games by Meier. It's hard to get people interested in a game that won't be out for at least 36 days.

Simple, I have a bunch of friends and they were interested why I spent so much time posting on this forum. They noticed it and started asking things about it. I explained what Civ was and why I love it so much. Then I showed them Civ 2 explained it came out five years ago and a little of SMAC and they understood why it could be so addictive.

So then they asked are you buying Civ3? I said yes, before this whole MP thing, and they asked if they could play it when I got it. And I said yes. And that is just the guys on my hall - how many others could the word of how great this game spread to if it is good? But now that MP might not be released and the game appears rushed to me I am less likely to spread praises without either the game in my hand or a great PR response.

[Leonidas]

tniem: That was a very wise, balanced response.

Word of mouth is a very powerful force, whether it applies to computer games, movies or books. . .

[Chow Yun Fat]

Let me forewarn all the readers that the following is just a guess. There may be quite a few wrong assumption. I won't bet a lot of my money on this guess. But I do want to learn something from you. If my assumption is incorrect, please state so. I do not want to initiate a war within forum.

tniem and others:

Assuming that I would like to MAXIMIZE PROFIT from selling a game and:
1) MOST of the buyers of this game won't play MP.
2) SP portion of the game is nearly finished. From all indication, it will sell a lot.
3) Developing MP portion of the game requires spending some money and time. The additional sales generated from this portion is yet unknown.

What I will do is:
1) Sell the SP part as a game as soon as possible to get cash.
2) If I know that there are sufficient demand for MP (Base on the sales of the SP and user feedback), I will continue development of MP, most likely charging some money for this portion.
3) I will release MP as a free patch if only I see a unexpected low sales due to MP unavailability.

My options now are:
1) Keeping silent, so that I can decide whether to develop MP, and whether to charge for MP at a later time. The initial sales loss is unknown.
2) Stating that MP will be available as a free patch. This commits me to develop the MP portion. The additional sales generated is unknown.
3) Stating that MP will be available later, not stating that whether the user needs to pay again. This commits me to develop the MP portion. I don't know if this will result in a loss or a profit.
4) Delaying SP release until MP is ready. The additional sales generated is also unknown. But I lose the opportunity in this X'mas sales season.

Pretending to be an executive who faces quite a few unknowns, I will choose option 1 to keep my option open and get the known returns.

The questions:
If I choose option 1, what additional measures can I do to ease the enraging fanatics ?
If I choose option 3, how do I respond to the questions on "Will you be releasing the MP patch free of charge?"

Answers? Leave your examination script before you leave the hall.

[yin26]

QuickSilver has no qualms about being up front. Please see my thread on the topic. I can only say: I know which developer is respecting the gamer more...

[tniem]

Chow Yun Fat:

I would still choose option number 4 delay release until the game is finished. Blizzard has done it and told us why. And I will be buying WarCraft III based on this.

Now, I understand that is not what they are going to do. I would be fine with that, but I just wish they would tell us. That is all they really need to do. Tell us what is going on and I would accept it.

[Leonidas]

5th day and still no word about MP, Jeff's interview notwithstanding. . .

Do I hear: "We don't want to hurt pre-order sales", somewhere?

[TCO]

Let's assume that Firaxis does develop MP by late spring and at that point starts including MP as part of the normal game sold.

Would you:

1. Wait until spring to play the game?
2. Buy the SP version now and play MP when it comes out. (not knowing if you will have to pay for MP later)

If Firaxis waits until spring to releae the game, aren't you being deprived of a valluable option? What do you gain from having Firaxis dleay MP for everybody when you could just wait yourself?

[TCO]

Fat,

Very nice analysis. Actually I think the key issue is that by separating MP and SP into seperate games they can extract more total money from people. It's analahous to a pricing decision. Should I price lower to get mroe sales volume and will the revenue go up or down. In this case, they have good experience from Civ1 and 2 to show that they can make several different expansion pack releases to generate more total dollar income. I don't see why they should be scared not to have MP in the game...

[Leonidas]

GP: the problem as I see it, is not that MP will be excluded from the fall release; rather, the problem is that the game is being pushed out the door by Infogrames, and therefore, several things are being left out of the game to meet the deadline.

Thus, the game we buy in Oct will not be the finished game that Firaxis had intended to release.

I would imagine that within another 6 months to a year, Civ3 will be released as a "Gold Edition" that will include MP, all the patches, more civs, etc. basically, everything that was inteneded for THIS edition of Civ3.

So it's not an issue between MP or SP; the issue is between: a complete game vs a rushed game. . .

[TCO]

OK Leo,

Than just wait!!! I bought Civ2 after it had been out for a while and was totally patched. You can do the same.

Why deprive those who are willing to play with the stripped down version now.

[Sarxis]

It was mentioned earlier in this thread that CivIII could do well simply because of Sid Meier's reputation. To be honest with you, I had never even heard of Sid Meier before I bought SMAC.

I don't think 'Sid' is as big a name as many of us think it is- at least not anymore.

[tniem]

Originally posted by Leonidas
tniem: You should be in public relations

Well thank you very much.

I am amazed how game companies, that ignore their fan base, take shortcuts, and produce sloppy, buggy games, are surprised to find that they are soon bankrupt. . .

The gaming industry is still an evolving industry. I hope that in the years to come it will move towards better and better service to the customers. If it doesn't than the industry is in trouble. Companies must start treating those that buy their games better. And that starts with the publisher.

Maybe the average gamer is starting to sit up and notice after all. . .

One can always hope.

It was mentioned earlier in this thread that CivIII could do well simply because of Sid Meier's reputation. To be honest with you, I had never even heard of Sid Meier before I bought SMAC.

It has to still be a powerful tool otherwise why put his name on the box? Strategy gamers (Civ, Colonization, SMAC, Gettysburg, others) have heard of him and so has those that have played sims (Railroad Tycoon, early flight sims, and soon SM's Sim Golf). I still believe it is a valuable commodity or why else would his name be on the box.

[Admiral PJ]

I'm willing to buy civ3 just with the Single player version.. hoping that the multiplayer version (which I wouldn't be quite as interested in maybe ) will come soon. The multiplayer side should need a lot of work to make the simultaneous and diplomacy systems etc work well, I don't know any multiplayer TBS game thats had good multiplayer yet so it could do with some effort put into it.
I see single player and multiplayer games as 2 separate things, though most of the coding is the same normally (just some server /networking/interface extras) so having only 1 at a time seems fine.

I don't accept that inhouse testing with the small development team will make a good Betatest (finding all the mistakes in the project) for THE most complex game ever created. At least they will be able to understand what they are testing, as they made it, but bugs after the release are a niggling problem .

AdmiralPJ

[OzzyKP]

Plays Nice With Others


Hello,

Let me first say that my wife and I are really looking forward to Civ 3. I introduced my wife to Civ 2 and CTP2 and she absolutely loves turn-based strategy style of game play. Not a week goes by without her asking me when Civ 3 is going to be released!

The only difficulty we've discovered with turn-based games like Civ & CTP is that multiplayer games can be slow and cumbersome, especially at later stages in the game. I've always envisioned the next great Civ-style game to introduce simultaneous turns in multiplayer. I'm sure this would introduce quite a few technical challenges though. So my question would have to be how is Civ 3 going to address this issue?

Best regards,

Joel Dudgeon



Joel,

Thanks for your email! We're working on some cool multiplayer concepts that will take a fresh approach to the challenge of making multiplayer for a turn-based game fun. We're not yet ready to give details, but stay tuned. When we have more to report, the site will be updated and our fans, as always, will be the first to know!

New Ask the Civ Team has been posted on the civ3 site, they "address" multiplayer and they say absolutly nothing. What the heck is it going to take to get these people to respond to us?

Everyone who cares send your concerns to:
askthecivteam@firaxis.com

Tell them exactly how you feel. Tell them you are very upset with their decision to ignore the interests of multiplayers. Tell them you are very upset they are trying to screw us out of money. Tell them you are very upset that they have been stonewalling the entire community regarding multiplayer.

When we have more to report, the site will be updated and our fans, as always, will be the first to know!

Bull Freaking shiit! As bold faced a lie i've ever seen. Of course we aren't the first to know, they are intentionally keeping this deep dark secret from us.

E-mail Firaxis everyone. Tell them what you think as strongly worded as you feel necessary. askthecivteam@firaxis.com

Don't expect them to visit here, you have to contact them directly.