What do we think of PTW now?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Are you always so fast in judging people?

Fact is, I did a search for the PTW thread with the most replies, read through it, and agreed the most with Coracle (though I am even still less impressed with CivIII the original). I will not buy PTW, before it is down to $5, and perhaps not even then. To charge anything at all for a patch is an effrontery (though it is exactly what I expected from Firaxis). Still no real editor, MP not quite working, few new features, I mean: what is NOT bad about this? Enlighten me, o wise one!

No apology Comrade Tribune. The guy is a study in self inflicted suffering. You wished to quote him and adopt his tone (including CAPS).

I would hazard a guess that you do not play Civ3 that much. If I am correct, then I agree with you, the SP improvements are not that much for you.

However, if you like Civ3, and lets face it, a million copies of Civ3 were sold so there's gotta be a few of us out there... then even the SP enhancements would be worth the price to a lot of us.

Let's not stop there. Let's continue on shall we? Civ is an SP game. SP is what has sold copies of this game in the past. SP is what will keep Civ going for more years than I'll live (I'd bet). Yes, MP was missing from the original, and yes the XP is very much named to draw the MP crowd. It ain't finished. Just like a lot of other products of the computer industry (not just games) core functions of the product are being flashed or patched after release.

So do me a favour, save your chortling till after Firaxis says they are done. In the mean time it just sounds like more trolling by a guy who never liked Civ3 in the first place. Right?

[The Pioneer]

Right on notyoueither

What surprises me is that these people still buy the game or plan to buy the game if the price drops

So long...

[woody]

Originally posted by notyoueither
So do me a favour, save your chortling till after Firaxis says they are done. In the mean time it just sounds like more trolling by a guy who never liked Civ3 in the first place. Right?

Well, I like Civ3 (1.29 patch), but I think Firaxis deserves all the bashing they get for repeatedly releasing crappy games on the initial release.

When they start charging money, the game is done. I don't see anything written on the retail box that says, "This game is not yet finished. Please buy it, and we might release a patch to make it work in a few months." They are selling crappy software. Period.

I learned my lesson with Civ3. Never again will I buy a Firaxis product until several months after it is released. Civ3, after all the patches, is a fantastic game and worth every penny. But they never should have released it a year ago. It only became playable after the first patch (when fighters started working).

[-proletarian-]

To be honest, the SP additions alone were what enticed me to but PTW, and I paid $50 for it. (Cdn$)


I don't regret my purchase, and once MP is fixed it'll all be gravy.




However, I do think that Infogrames is a bushleague publisher, and would be very happy if they went bankrupt tomorrow. Maybe then a REAL publisher would step up and buy the rights to Civilization and we'd all be a lot happier.....

[player1]

Originally posted by -proletarian-
However, I do think that Infogrames is a bushleague publisher, and would be very happy if they went bankrupt tomorrow. Maybe then a REAL publisher would step up and buy the rights to Civilization and we'd all be a lot happier.....

Just not it be Activison.
They are 10x worse then Infogrames.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by woody


Well, I like Civ3 (1.29 patch), but I think Firaxis deserves all the bashing they get for repeatedly releasing crappy games on the initial release.

When they start charging money, the game is done. I don't see anything written on the retail box that says, "This game is not yet finished. Please buy it, and we might release a patch to make it work in a few months." They are selling crappy software. Period.

I learned my lesson with Civ3. Never again will I buy a Firaxis product until several months after it is released. Civ3, after all the patches, is a fantastic game and worth every penny. But they never should have released it a year ago. It only became playable after the first patch (when fighters started working).

Point, but...

It is very common in the computer industry for products to be released with major problems and fixed afterwards by means of patches and flashes and various other updates. It happens every day.

I guess I am a bit more patient with this than most. However, I see no reason to hold Firaxis to a higher standard than MicroSoft, Asus, Intel, ATI, nVidea, etc.

I will grant to those who waited for MP that the initial release and the first patch must be cruelly frustrating, but it is being fixed just as many other products are fixed after release.

Your approach of not buying a product before you have reliable reports of it being fixed and working on the whole is the proper solution for those who do not want to be bothered. The people who rush out to buy the latest products as soon as they are released do not joke about 'the bleeding edge' for nothing, and bleeding does not just refer to the pocket book.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by woody
I learned my lesson with Civ3. Never again will I buy a Firaxis product until several months after it is released. Civ3, after all the patches, is a fantastic game and worth every penny. But they never should have released it a year ago. It only became playable after the first patch (when fighters started working).

If there had been a poll in october 2001, asking what would you chose:
1. Release an almost finished Civ3 and patch it later or
2. Wait another 3-6 month until the game is perfect and bugless
I'd bet all my money that the results would have been something like:
1. 75% (at least)
2. 25% (at most)

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Tiberius
If there had been a poll in october 2001, asking what would you chose:
1. Release an almost finished Civ3 and patch it later or
2. Wait another 3-6 month until the game is perfect and bugless
I'd bet all my money that the results would have been something like:
1. 75% (at least)
2. 25% (at most)

An that result would explain a lot about world raising trouble and growing brain disease... (Just Kidding... almost).

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by Tiberius
If there had been a poll in october 2001, asking what would you chose:
1. Release an almost finished Civ3 and patch it later or
2. Wait another 3-6 month until the game is perfect and bugless

I know which way I would have voted. You could count me in the 75% group. If people answered honestly it'd probably be even higher than 75%.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Tiberius
If there had been a poll in october 2001, asking what would you chose:
1. Release an almost finished Civ3 and patch it later or
2. Wait another 3-6 month until the game is perfect and bugless
I'd bet all my money that the results would have been something like:
1. 75% (at least)
2. 25% (at most)

Yes, but while the release version of vanilla Civ3 was 'almost finished' (broken air superiority being a major bug), Civ3/PTW is still not 'almost finished' after the first patch (MP, the main selling point, still doesn't work as advertised).

[woody]

Originally posted by Tiberius

If there had been a poll in october 2001, asking what would you chose:
1. Release an almost finished Civ3 and patch it later or
2. Wait another 3-6 month until the game is perfect and bugless
I'd bet all my money that the results would have been something like:
1. 75% (at least)
2. 25% (at most)

That might be the result if you asked people here, which are of course much more addicted to Civ than most people who bought it. But Firaxis has to be careful of their reputation to the vast majority of gamers, not just the ones who post in dedicated Civ forums.

Most people here will eventually buy any Civ game, regardless of past experience. So, Firaxis can release utter garbage and still get 75% of us to buy it. But they make there real money from selling to the rest of the world that doesn't even know Apolyton exists. And, Firaxis is digging their own grave with all these buggy releases.

How many people who buy games actually even download a patch? I'd bet that most do not. I'd also bet that most of them won't be buying Civ4, based on their experiences with the 1st release of Civ3. After the 1.29f patch, Civ3 was an excellent game, but it took 9 months to get there! And now... they've gone back to the same bug-ridden release style with PtW.

Contrast Civ with something like Age Of Empires. I bought AoE, and I never even bothered checking for any patches, because it worked just fine out of the box.

[Argos65987]

Originally posted by woody


How many people who buy games actually even download a patch? I'd bet that most do not.

I would take this bet. I think most computer gamers (especially the type that by Civ style games) would know about patches and check before just writing it off as a learning experience.

Contrast Civ with something like Age Of Empires. I bought AoE, and I never even bothered checking for any patches, because it worked just fine out of the box.

A valid point. AoE worked fine for me out of the box, so I never looked for patches either. However, any game that I had trouble with I would usually check the developers/publishers pages for FAQs and Downloads.

Just my 2 cents

[MosesPresley]

quote: "If there had been a poll in october 2001, asking what would you chose:
1. Release an almost finished Civ3 and patch it later or
2. Wait another 3-6 month until the game is perfect and bugless
I'd bet all my money that the results would have been something like:
1. 75% (at least)
2. 25% (at most)"

Here is a poll for you:

1. How many people prefer free beer?
2. How many people prefer to pay for their beer?

I would bet that %100 percent would choose number 1.

[kittenOFchaos]

I think most people that fumed at PTW on release don't appreciate that Firaxis isn't blind to the problems and are also blind to the Firaxis track record on providing patches.

I am POSITIVE that subsequent patches in the near future will bring a significant improvement to the multiplayer aspect of the game. I agree completely with Warpstorm that Firaxis are a small company, pursuing a grand vision within an extremely tight deadline set by a domineering publishing partner.

What annoys me most of all is people who have no conception of the limitations of their internet connection in providing seamless play...56k modem and you don't expect lag?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Argos65987


I would take this bet. I think most computer gamers (especially the type that by Civ style games) would know about patches and check before just writing it off as a learning experience.

I second that. Patching has been a cultural norm for gamers. Especially in Online multiplayer gaming where often latest patch is almost required everywhere. Most hard core console-only gamer are often culture shocked by this fact.

I don't think this is any good thing, I hate patches, but at least such evil exists to fix a greater evil... :T

What annoys me most of all is people who have no conception of the limitations of their internet connection in providing seamless play...56k modem and you don't expect lag?

I agree. As technology moves foward, those who are left behind will be regarded less and less. More games will consider less about modem users and model games toward broadband online playing. I'm not telling 56kers to suck it up and deal with it or get a broadband, but its just the way it works eventually... (could you imagine a 28.8k whining this day and age?)

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Argos65987
I would take this bet. I think most computer gamers (especially the type that by Civ style games) would know about patches and check before just writing it off as a learning experience.

Actually I have to disagree. We (as in this Civ community) are pretty hardcore about gaming in general, let alone playing Civ. I would almost bet that the average gamer goes to the store and buys a game they are interested in, and don't even give patching a second thought. I remember the first time I picked up Civ in Babbage's. This was like 1991, so forgive my age. But I vaguely remember just being curious to try the game out, based on friends' and salesmen's opinions. IMHO this hasn't changed too much for the kiddie that purchases Civ III.

[notyoueither]

Yes, but any MP player will be introduced to patches quickly. They need it. Others do not.

[woody]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Yes, but any MP player will be introduced to patches quickly. They need it. Others do not.

They only "need it" because of poorly planned patches, that aren't backwards compatible with ealier releases. If a patch is done properly, it should work fine with ealier versions of the game. Only if the player wants to use additional introduced features should he have to upgrade.

New features are stupid things to put in patches, anyway. Just about every new feature Firaxis put in Civ3 broke 2 other things. The game should be complete when it is released, especially when it comes to functionality. Patches are for fixing bugs.

Serious bugs on release are good indicators of a bad development process, and there's a good chance you just wasted your money by buying the game. Civ3 was an exception to this, since it was eventually patched well. (Although it took 9 months!)

[SpencerH]

What is irritating about PtW v1.04 is that even in SP it seems buggier than 1.29. Do I really want to go through 4 more patches like we did with CIV3. I look forward to some PBEM games and maybe some MP duels. I only bought PtW to see if PBEM and MP could revive my flagging interest in this game genre. But unless MP and PBEM is a much better experience than the current SP I will probably not buy another version of CIV. I think that if I had to be selective about where to spend $30 I would not have purchased PtW.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by woody
Serious bugs on release are good indicators of a bad development process, and there's a good chance you just wasted your money by buying the game. Civ3 was an exception to this, since it was eventually patched well. (Although it took 9 months!)

Uhhh, sorry. They are indicative of many things, including rush to market. That is something that happens all the time in IT.

I also think you're missing the bigger picture. Many companies are doing similiar things. Release, feedback, refinement, feedback, refinement...

Admittedly, releasing with a major feature in a mess is very stressful for a lot of people. However, again, it is endemic to the computer industry. The bean counters demand a date. That date cannot be made all the time by the engineers. The bean counters order release anyway.

[woody]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I also think you're missing the bigger picture. Many companies are doing similiar things. Release, feedback, refinement, feedback, refinement...

Admittedly, releasing with a major feature in a mess is very stressful for a lot of people. However, again, it is endemic to the computer industry. The bean counters demand a date. That date cannot be made all the time by the engineers. The bean counters order release anyway.

So then why do many games release a working product in the first release? I'll use AoE as an example, or just about any console game.

It's the small outfits, like Firaxis, that don't have/can't afford a proper development process. In the long run, this hurts them, and will likely result in them going under.

They'll spend the money putting out patches and fixing bugs, anyway. (They did with Civ3.) But it costs far more money to fix problems after a product is released, than to fix them before it's released. So all they're doing is spending more money and annoying more customers. What kind of stupid business plan is that?

[Tiberius]

Console games are in particular a very bad example, since you can't patch them later.

I see nothing wrong in continous patching since this way developers can change the game as they get user input.
Now, I'm not saying that the game shouldn't work out of the box. But patching alone is not a problem.

[woody]

Originally posted by Tiberius
Console games are in particular a very bad example, since you can't patch them later.

They're a good example, because they prove that non-buggy games ARE possible to produce, and still make money. In fact, I bet console games are a lot more lucrative for developers than PC games. One of the reasons is that they don't have to waste money on support and putting out patches.

I see nothing wrong in continous patching since this way developers can change the game as they get user input.
Now, I'm not saying that the game shouldn't work out of the box. But patching alone is not a problem.

Patching alone is not a problem, I agree. It's always nice to have the option to patch. The problem is that developers use it as a crutch and an excuse to deliver shabby games.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by woody


They're a good example, because they prove that non-buggy games ARE possible to produce, and still make money. In fact, I bet console games are a lot more lucrative for developers than PC games. One of the reasons is that they don't have to waste money on support and putting out patches.




Patching alone is not a problem, I agree. It's always nice to have the option to patch. The problem is that developers use it as a crutch and an excuse to deliver shabby games.

Dude the issue of console games vs. PC games has been discussed a lot. It's nowhere near a fair comparison, because console games are developed for very specific platforms. Plus, the SDKs are sold by the console manufacturers themselves.

PC games can be configured in a variety of ways and for a myriad PCs.

[woody]

Originally posted by Traelin
Dude the issue of console games vs. PC games has been discussed a lot. It's nowhere near a fair comparison, because console games are developed for very specific platforms. Plus, the SDKs are sold by the console manufacturers themselves.

PC games can be configured in a variety of ways and for a myriad PCs.

Dude, I've already agreed that bugs in PC games due to hardware incompatibilities is different than with consoles. But dude, as I've already mentioned, many of the bugs in Civ3 (such as fighters that didn't work) had nothing to do with hardware. It was just sloppy coding and testing.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by woody


Dude, I've already agreed that bugs in PC games due to hardware incompatibilities is different than with consoles. But dude, as I've already mentioned, many of the bugs in Civ3 (such as fighters that didn't work) had nothing to do with hardware. It was just sloppy coding and testing.

I understand what you're saying about the fighters not working, etc. I was annoyed, too. And in no way am I a fanboy. But you can only put so much blame on Firaxis. The publisher must take some of the blame as well for enforcing a stringent release date.

[woody]

Originally posted by Traelin
I understand what you're saying about the fighters not working, etc. I was annoyed, too. And in no way am I a fanboy. But you can only put so much blame on Firaxis. The publisher must take some of the blame as well for enforcing a stringent release date.

Yes, certainly Infogrames has much of the blame, too. I think they were responsible for final beta testing. It's obvious nobody even played a game through, or they would have easily spotted the non-working fighters (and many other bugs).

It was pretty bad it took them 3 months to release a patch to make the game playable past the middle-ages.

The thing that really bothers me is that no one at Firaxis ever apologized for that. A simple, "I'm sorry, Civ3 never should have been released in that condition, and it was inexcusable for us to take 3 months to fix it." Instead, they smugly act like nothing was wrong, and it's business as usual.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by woody
The thing that really bothers me is that no one at Firaxis ever apologized for that. A simple, "I'm sorry, Civ3 never should have been released in that condition, and it was inexcusable for us to take 3 months to fix it." Instead, they smugly act like nothing was wrong, and it's business as usual.

woody, do you really believe such a thing could happen? Imagine Jeff Briggs apologizing in this way. First: he would most probably be apologizing for something he/Firaxis had no control over. Second: the very first question inevitably following would be WHY? WHY did you release Civ3 in "that" condition. He would not be able to give you any answer. The release date was set/insisted on by Infogrames. He can't say a single bad word about Infogrames, as he'd probably never be able to get another contract (and thus, would have no chance to continue developing the Civ series, as it is owned by IG).

I have NEVER seen anyone from Infogrames visiting these boards, commenting on what was primarily THEIR business, NOT Firaxian. If you contract a company to build a house for you and the roof collapses three days after the house is finished, will you blame the guys that actually did the roof job? Nope, you will sue the company, 'cause that is your contractor (even though they may have hired someone else to do the real roof job).

When you bought the game, you made a deal with Infogrames, not Firaxis. If you are unhappy with the game, blame Infogrames. THEY are your contractors (and, btw, THEY got probably most of your money). NOT Firaxis. Infogrames were, as the publisher, responsible for releasing a working, fully tested product. If they did not care enough, or even worse, decided to consciously release a semi-finished version of the game, THEY are to be blamed. Firaxians were hired to do the design/coding job for Infogrames and that's it. You should blame Infogrames and they, in turn, might blame Firaxis for doing a poor job (however, they would probably just shut up, since it's obvious that it was primarily IG's business decision to stick to the schedule, despite having to rush the product).

OTOH, I have seen countless times that Firaxians had the guts to come here, post here, and take part in online chats. I have seen them commenting on various features, explaining, reading the boards very carefully (and man, THAT must often be a terrible torture!), LISTENING to our ideas, wishes, and requests (can we say "Allow Cultural Conversions"?). What more would you like them to do? Why has calling them bad names and blaming them for this/that become such a widespread habit?

I, for one, bow to their patience and devotion.
I, for one (being an SP player only so far), am very happy with what they eventually created.
I, for one, really wish they are given the opportunity to continue working on future versions of the game.

Anyone feeling like flaming Firaxis for what they did, what they did not, or whatsoever should first take a deep breath and then get his thoughts organized - consider the role, possibilities, and responsibilities of Infogrames and Firaxis. And only THEN start posting. He/she may find out that even though there are lots of things we can be - understandably! - unhappy about or even pissed off by, it's not that easy to point a finger at one individual or company (to avoid misinterpretation, I am talking here about both Firaxis and IG as well, since I believe their position was also very difficult - even if I do not agree with what IG did, I do understand the pressure they were/are under).

Repeating endlessly "patches no good", "MP a shame", "Firaxis sucks" et cetera, et cetera... is as effective and meaningful as complaining about that taxes are "too high". There is only one thing you can actually do about it. Take your game back and get a refund (you probably won't, since deep in your heart, you know it will eventually get fully fixed). Vote for a different party next time (you probably won't since you know it will not be any better).

Or, just put up with the fact that it's how the world, gaming industry, and taxes work. You will save yourself lots of posting time and useless fury.

Note: woody, even though I originally started responding to your post, majority of this post (from the second paragraph onwards) is not specifically meant as a response to you.

[woody]

Originally posted by vondrack
I have NEVER seen anyone from Infogrames visiting these boards, commenting on what was primarily THEIR business, NOT Firaxian. If you contract a company to build a house for you and the roof collapses three days after the house is finished, will you blame the guys that actually did the roof job? Nope, you will sue the company, 'cause that is your contractor (even though they may have hired someone else to do the real roof job).

While I might sue the general contractor, I would also certainly blame the sub-contractor that built the roof. So, to continue your analogy of the roofer = Firaxis, I think that's a very good analogy. Firaxis did do a very poor job of developing the game. And, for that, they deserve a lot of criticism.

To their credit, they did eventually fix Civ3. However, they've gone right back to releasing crap with PtW. So have they learned anything? I think not. They even have the audacity to claim that the poor quality of PtW was "not what the customers have come expect from Firaxis". Duh... it's exactly what we have come to expect from them! That's the problem, and they don't even realize it!

[vondrack]

Originally posted by woody
While I might sue the general contractor, I would also certainly blame the sub-contractor that built the roof. So, to continue your analogy of the roofer = Firaxis, I think that's a very good analogy. Firaxis did do a very poor job of developing the game. And, for that, they deserve a lot of criticism.

... still repeating the same over and over... so, to bring the analogy even closer to the Civ3 reality... you would probably not blame the roofers should you know that your general contractor forced them to build the roof in too little time, would you?

Originally posted by woody
To their credit, they did eventually fix Civ3. However, they've gone right back to releasing crap with PtW. So have they learned anything? I think not. They even have the audacity to claim that the poor quality of PtW was "not what the customers have come expect from Firaxis". Duh... it's exactly what we have come to expect from them! That's the problem, and they don't even realize it!

Firaxis released NOTHING. Infogrames did. Firaxis had nothing "to learn" - they have been having the same problem with IG all the time, that's all. I have recently noticed an interesting post by Kal-El in another thread:

Originally posted by Kal-el
You can't blame Firaxis. I am part of the Beta test team and they were trying like crazy to fix the problems but Infogrames, the publishing company, had their own deadlines to meet and apparently don't care what people think. Clearly it reflects more poorly on Firaxis because their name is bigger on the box, which is exactly why Infogrames doesn't care.

Would you like to comment on that?

Plus, notyoueither, another well-known Apolytonian who also beta tests for Firaxis, indirectly indicated on numerous occasions that the problem is/was not with Firaxis, but with IG. Won't you listen to people that have a first hand experience with Firaxis... who actually work with them?

When are you going to finally realize the difference between a developer and a publisher?

The developer develops a product. The publisher releases it. If the product is released incomplete, buggy, or otherwise unsatisfactory, you should blame the publisher, not the developer - even if the developer had time enough, which is not the case here. The final quality assurance is the publisher's part of the business. All the developer can do is to support the rushed product and fix it after the release. And this is something Firaxians deserve a big credit for. Not only they were/are fixing bugs, they actualy keep improving the game (AI, interface, and even such crucial things as corruption levels - which were originally INTENDED to be harsher than what they are now) based upon the feedback from players.

Give Firaxis a break!