Did Firaxis act dishonestly regardeing MP?

TCO · May 4, 2002, 23:41

1. Firaxis promised MP in Civ3. Then they stopped talking about it. Than people got suspicious. Than Firaxis REFUSED to answer questions about MP. Than it leaked out that MP wasn't going to be in the game. (But the Amazon.com ads still showed MP as a promised feuture for people pre-ordering the game.) Than they launched the game and MP wasn't in it. They never even addressed what had occurred. And it appears that they knew for a long time that MP wasn;t going to make it...and refused to admit it.

Now they are launching XP with MP in it. (Charging for MP.)

BTW: they have a history of dubious actions with MP (Civnet fiasco...)

2. Was this dishonest?

p.s. I think this thread is perfectly reasonable. Mark/Ming, we should be able to discuss this just as much as discussing anticipation of XP. This IS NOT a pro-Firaxis only site. We aren't getting enough of a subsidy for that...

Besides, negative threads are well-known to be popular for the community of BBS's.

Dr. Nick · May 4, 2002, 23:50

Yes. Down with them, burn them all.

TCO · May 5, 2002, 02:22

Like when Peter O'toole yells "no prisoners"!!!

Grrr · May 5, 2002, 02:26

Firaxis is one of those companies that promises everything, yet delivers nothing.

Alexander's Horse · May 5, 2002, 02:28

I wouldn't say they acted dishonestly - I would say they acted cynically - trying to screw as much money out of the consumer as possible.

But since the game blows generally anyway it doesn't really matter. The Civ2 MP community has revived and I'm happy to stick with that.

Chances are they'll balls up MP just the same way they ruined SP. So who cares? They aren't getting any more money out of me unless the MP version is really hot - and I can't see that happening while culture causes cities to change civ. That's an MP game killer.

TCO · May 5, 2002, 02:39

I think it was dishonest for the following reasoning.

Imagine you promise to do something (advertisiments and articles). then you discover you can't make it. Fine. As long as you tell people. But if you don't tell people (and even refuse to answer questions), that is a lie by ommission. You are allowing your earlier statements to stand when you known better.

korn469 · May 5, 2002, 03:35

ok i have a couple of questions before we blame firaxis

1) who was in charge of the marketing of civ3?

2) who sent the press packets to retailers?

3) was firaxis bound by a NDA to only release information approved by infogrames?

4) when was it certain that multiplayer would not make it into the final game?

5) at that point was there any talk of a retraction or an updated press packet being sent to retailers?

6) when the fans began to suspect multiplayer wasn't going to make the final cut, was there a decision made to withhold that information (if a NDA did not exist)?

7) with a full team working to implement multiplayer how much would that have delayed the game?

asleepathewheel · May 5, 2002, 03:41

Quote:

Originally posted by GP
I think it was dishonest for the following reasoning.

Imagine you promise to do something (advertisiments and articles). then you discover you can't make it. Fine. As long as you tell people. But if you don't tell people (and even refuse to answer questions), that is a lie by ommission. You are allowing your earlier statements to stand when you known better.

FWIW, I'm not sure how easy it is to change the adds on all of the websites selling the game. I may be foolish, but I would say, like everything else, that Infogrames screwed this up as well. Since they are the publishers, they would take care of all the selling details, and I could see how something like this woudl get caught up in the bureacracy and not get changed as quickly as we would have liked. Like the memo saying no MP ended up on some cubicle jockey's desk, who didn't pay attention to it for weeks.
this theory is only with regards to the online advertisements. As to the other stuff, I don't have any ideas.

you can slap me for being a fanboy.

notyoueither · May 5, 2002, 03:41

I think your full of it on this one GP. The major users of MP are on these boards. Just about anybody who cared knew MP wasn't in it.

I really doubt that the casual gamer that picks up Civ3 on an impulse in BestBuy gives a damn about MP. He will probably be very happy to go to Civ3.com and find patches that make SP much better.

asleepathewheel · May 5, 2002, 03:59

I don't understand this problem at all.

When I bought the game, I looked at the box. Didn't say anything about MP, I didn't care, I purchased it. If the only thing i wanted was MP, I wouldn't have purchased it.

I think some people are taking this was too personally. Don't take this as a flame, but I think some people are jealous that others are happy with just the SP game. They feel like the SP players got the game they wanted, but the Mp's didn't get what they wanted. Firaxis ripped them off.

What I think: If you require MP in a game-then don't buy civ3 when it comes out, knowing that you will be pissed off. It is clear from the box, that it is SP, so I don't understand the gripe. Wait the 9 months till the XP with MP comes out (which will probably be bundled for around the original sales price!) If you feel ripped off because others are enjoying the game, well, that's your prerogative.

Oh, one other thing. I've seen a lot of posts saying that they wished that firaxis had delayed release for 9 months or a year to get the kinks out, MP and editor in. Well, the XP will come out around that time, so treat that as the true release date if you want.

Alexander's Horse · May 5, 2002, 04:01

We're not taking it personally - the game sucks - I couldn't give a flying f*ck what Firaxis does from here on in.

asleepathewheel · May 5, 2002, 04:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
We're not taking it personally - the game sucks - I couldn't give a flying f*ck what Firaxis does from here on in.

Ouch. Sounds like a jilted lover. And, perhaps you aren't taking it personally, but it appears that some are. Why else would someone post ad nauseum attacks on a game they didn't like. I have better things with my life than hang around and spam a board of a game I don't even like.

TCO · May 5, 2002, 04:14

notyou,

They knew MP was gone well beofre telling us. And they refused to discuss it.

notyoueither · May 5, 2002, 04:17

They, Firaxians, are not at liberty to freely discuss this product. That much is fairly obvious by this point.

You can blame that on Sid, or you can blame it on the people who own the name and who paid Firaxis to develop the game. It's your choice I guess.

Alexander's Horse · May 5, 2002, 04:18

Quote:

Originally posted by asleepathewheel

Ouch. Sounds like a jilted lover. And, perhaps you aren't taking it personally, but it appears that some are. Why else would someone post ad nauseum attacks on a game they didn't like. I have better things with my life than hang around and spam a board of a game I don't even like.

Troll the troll? LOL.

2.5

asleepathewheel · May 5, 2002, 04:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

Troll the troll? LOL.

2.5

I would have rated your troll a little lower, perhaps a 1.5.

Alexander's Horse · May 5, 2002, 04:36

Thanks for the feedback

I give GP 3.5

TCO · May 5, 2002, 04:39

Quote:

Originally posted by korn469
ok i have a couple of questions before we blame firaxis

Since Firaxis releases information selectively and in their interest, it is reasonable to make evaluations without complete information.

Quote:

1) who was in charge of the marketing of civ3?

rehtorical question...

Quote:

2) who sent the press packets to retailers?

I assume IG. I also assume that product descriptions were based on the contract and the ongoing project between IG and Firaxis. I have a freind in this industry and it is very normal for the publisher to have large input into design parameters and to get status reports. Iw ould also remind you that MP was disucussed verbally and in posts as being part of the game by Firaxis. Do you really contest this?

Quote:

3) was firaxis bound by a NDA to only release information approved by infogrames?

I'm sure they had some sort of agreement like this. But Firaxis gave interviews, etc. They did talk to the media and the fans.

Quote:

4) when was it certain that multiplayer would not make it into the final game?

Well if Firaxis has nothing to hide, they can tell us. But it's prety Clintonian over there...

Quote:

5) at that point was there any talk of a retraction or an updated press packet being sent to retailers?

There was a long period where there was discussion, rumors, etc. about MP being cut. These weren't addressed for a long time. I remember people who actually continued to believe MP would be in the game...becuase Firaxis wouldn't say anything on this issue...refusing to address it! REal open...and forthright, yeah!

Quote:

6) when the fans began to suspect multiplayer wasn't going to make the final cut, was there a decision made to withhold that information (if a NDA did not exist)?

They refused to answer questions about it. And they also did not bother going and amending their earlier statements.

Quote:

7) with a full team working to implement multiplayer how much would that have delayed the game?

Beats me. looks like they screwed up the project by having an ownership quarrel between BR and Sid...

notyoueither · May 5, 2002, 04:44

Sid doesn't own Firaxis. Jeff Briggs would be the big cahuna.

Grrr · May 5, 2002, 04:47

Jeff Briggs is a Big Kahuna

TCO · May 5, 2002, 04:47

Quote:

Originally posted by asleepathewheel

FWIW, I'm not sure how easy it is to change the adds on all of the websites selling the game. I may be foolish, but I would say, like everything else, that Infogrames screwed this up as well. Since they are the publishers, they would take care of all the selling details, and I could see how something like this woudl get caught up in the bureacracy and not get changed as quickly as we would have liked. Like the memo saying no MP ended up on some cubicle jockey's desk, who didn't pay attention to it for weeks.
this theory is only with regards to the online advertisements. As to the other stuff, I don't have any ideas.

you can slap me for being a fanboy.

1. LOL. I'm not gonna slap you. I slap the whiners more often than the fanboys, anyway. Just feel a little differently on this one issue.

2. The Amazon ad could have been easily changed. Not sure if it was oversight or lack of caring or deliberate. But it was certainly easy to change. Just some HTML text...

3. Yes IG is ultimately responsible. Firaxis is their subcontractor. But that doesn't mean Firaxis is blameless. Surely you can imagine scenarios where the subcontractor screws up a project. It is right to hold the prime contractor responsible...but that doesn't get the sub off the hook either. Also whenever you have these subcotractor relationships it is easy for both sides to point fingers at each other and neither to ever take responsability. (Not that they are doing this...but in effect we are arguing it that way...)

4. Remember the LE designer's notes. They also seem to have been a "screwup"...

TCO · May 5, 2002, 04:50

Quote:

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
I don't understand this problem at all.

When I bought the game, I looked at the box. Didn't say anything about MP, I didn't care, I purchased it. If the only thing i wanted was MP, I wouldn't have purchased it.

I agree that in this case, you, personally have no grievance with Firaxis on the MP issue.

People who bought it through AMazon or other pre-orders based on ads or articles that said there would be MP have a gripe. And anybody who listed to them when they said it had MP has a small gripe. At least for Firaxis wasting their time.

TCO · May 5, 2002, 04:51

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Sid doesn't own Firaxis. Jeff Briggs would be the big cahuna.

Ok, Brian and Jeff, then.

Alexander's Horse · May 5, 2002, 04:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Grrr
Jeff Briggs is a Big Kahuna

No, I'm the big Kahuna - follow the link below

asleepathewheel · May 5, 2002, 04:57

Quote:

Originally posted by GP

1. LOL. I'm not gonna slap you. I slap the whiners more often than the fanboys, anyway. Just feel a little differently on this one issue.

Quote:

Originally posted by GP
2. The Amazon ad could have been easily changed. Not sure if it was oversight or lack of caring or deliberate. But it was certainly easy to change. Just some HTML text...

Probably so, I figured that it was easy to physically do it. Its the getting through the red tape. Amazon's a pretty busy place, not sure how fast they could change something like this, you know?

Quote:

Originally posted by GP

3. Yes IG is ultimately responsible. Firaxis is their subcontractor. But that doesn't mean Firaxis is blameless. Surely you can imagine scenarios where the subcontractor screws up a project. It is right to hold the prime contractor responsible...but that doesn't get the sub off the hook either. Also whenever you have these subcotractor relationships it is easy for both sides to point fingers at each other and neither to ever take responsability. (Not that they are doing this...but in effect we are arguing it that way...)

I agree completely that Firaxis can't shift all the blame to Infogrames (if there is something to be blamed for (Which I'm not admitting!)). I guess i am just thinking more optimistically about everything, funny because in real life I am extremely cynical.

Quote:

Originally posted by GP

4. Remember the LE designer's notes. They also seem to have been a "screwup"...

I don't have much to say about that other than what a pointless piece of paper that was.