Letter of JEFF BRIGGS to the CIV COMMUNITY - Page 7

Velociryx · December 5, 2002, 18:21

No.....I was not meaning to be a jerk, but c'mon....a patch on the day the game was released and another so far, and yet...and yet you would still argue till you're blue in the face that the game wasn't broken or incomplete?

If that were so, then why a patch on day one? Why a second patch to fix apparently nonexistent 'net connectivity issues?

Could it be that perhaps....just *perhaps*....the game wasn't.......done yet? Maybe....didn't work as advertised, and so had to be patched?

Don't worry....if you admit that the game was not in a state of polish or completion upon release, you won't fall from the light and join the dark side or anything, you'll just be telling it like it is.

-=Vel=-

PS: And yes, I found the PTW patch on civ3.com, posted on December 2, 2002.....not under the PTW Download section (which of course, is high on the page, and likely to be more frequently viewed.....hey! but on the other hand you can watch the PTW advertisement there!), but rather, waaaaay down on the page in the general download section were the "Q4 type shopper" would not likely see.

Velociryx · December 5, 2002, 18:26

PS to my post above....just so we're clear on it, Asleep....*you* said it, not me.

I can't very well help it if you give me ammo....can't say I'll shy away from it, but dayum....that was a gimmie if ever there was one.

-=Vel=-

asleepathewheel · December 5, 2002, 18:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
PS to my post above....just so we're clear on it, Asleep....*you* said it, not me.

I can't very well help it if you give me ammo....can't say I'll shy away from it, but dayum....that was a gimmie if ever there was one.

-=Vel=-

I concede all points to you Vel.

Clearly I have no idea what I'm talking about. What do I know, I was deluding myself that night I bought and played PTW (both sp and mp). I see now that I was lying to myself and others. I wasn't actually playing the game, I was actually staring at a blank screen for those hours.

Clearly I should follow your beliefs even though you have never actually played the game. Only you have knowledge of what the patches do, how they took the broken game and have fixed it. Before I thought they were just to address certain issues some were facing, but I see now that I was horribly wrong.

I have no desire to play your headgames anymore Velociryx, my time is more valuable than that. I can see that you somehow feel personally slighted by Firaxis. I don't know why nor do I care.
At the end of the day, I will go back to playing a game that I like and you will still be bitter.

Good day, this is the last you will hear from me in this thread.

Velociryx · December 5, 2002, 18:54

::shakes head sadly::

Nowhere in any of my posts has that EVER been my point.

I am not bitter toward Firaxis. In fact, I have stated repeatedly that I got my money's worth from the last product I bought from them.

There was a time when I was one of that company's vocal, ardent supporters. A true believer. A defender of the faith, as it were.

Firaxis/Infogreed's own actions made me wary of buying another product from them (the LE Tin thing, followed the commie implosion 'fix,' followed by a series of PR gaffes, followed by a bad PTW release), but in no way would I describe myself as bitter.

YOU, on the other hand, are upset with yourself for giving me the blade that struck the killing blow.

I can understand that, but don't try to put it off on me. That was among the most beautiful self-eviscerations in a debate that I have ever seen, but that was all you, my friend.

I had zip-olah to do with that one....much as I'd like to take credit for it....that was pure you, bro.

And by the way....don't get into all the pouty "I was delusional" junk....the freakin CEO of the company SAID there were problems with the game.....the CEO of the company spent money to fix problems with the game....companies don't do that for show....if they spent money, it was because there were problems with the game.

The CEO also stated that those problems were with the MP component of the game.

MP happens to be the most touted feature of the expansion.

Conclusion: No matter to what degree, PTW did not work as advertised upon release. If it had, the company would not have patched it, and Jeff would not have written the letter that began this thread.

You can deny it all you want....what? You're saying that Jeff imagined the problems he spent money to fix? That you, for whatever reason, have such an impossibly hard time admitting that the game didn't work as advertised on release that you'll deny any problems with it EVEN WHEN the company's own CEO says there are problems.

*sigh*

Self-evisceration.

player1 · December 5, 2002, 19:15

The thing is that WAS is NOT same as IS broken.

MP, and ONLY MP was broken in 1,01f version.

Now, MP is NOT broken, maybe not perfect but NOT broken.

So, what the whole point of this discussion about something which is WAS, and not IS.

Patch came, probelm fixed.

FNBrown · December 5, 2002, 19:25

Quote:

Originally posted by player1
The thing is that WAS is NOT same as IS broken.

MP, and ONLY MP was broken in 1,01f version.

Now, MP is NOT broken, maybe not perfect but NOT broken.

So, what the whole point of this discussion about something which is WAS, and not IS.

Patch came, probelm fixed.

I must respectfully disagree. I still cannot play a complete game via LAN without chronic out of synch errors ruining it by the modern era.

Regardless, Vel's point is that Firaxis farted out this game waaaay before it was ready for prime time, and a lot of folks will buy it right off the shelf, and be completely unable to play it. This is compounded by the fact that there's no "auto update" feature, and if they do happen across Civ3.com, it's not like finding the patch is very intuitive.

All in all, a botched snap and a broken play, if you asked me.

player1 · December 5, 2002, 19:42

Quote:

Originally posted by FNBrown
I must respectfully disagree. I still cannot play a complete game via LAN without chronic out of synch errors ruining it by the modern era.

not perfect IS NOT equal broken

Quote:

Originally posted by FNBrown
Regardless, Vel's point is that Firaxis farted out this game waaaay before it was ready for prime time, and a lot of folks will buy it right off the shelf, and be completely unable to play it. This is compounded by the fact that there's no "auto update" feature, and if they do happen across Civ3.com, it's not like finding the patch is very intuitive.

That's why the patch IS released. To FIX problems on release.
Now you can play PtW right out the shelf very nice. But only in SP.

On the other hand, difficulty to find it at civ3.com is Infogrames fault. Since they manage the website.

And poorly, if you ask me.

And it's Infogrames choice of PtW deadline.
So if games look rushed, it's not Firaxis fault. They did most what they could for time given.

Velociryx · December 5, 2002, 19:57

So.....a Q4 buyer (whom we have already established is NOT likely to be a member of 'poly, and likely has nary a clue of where to go except for civ3.com) can by the *MP expansion* for civ 3 off the shelf, and play it in SP mode without a hitch.

And somehow this translates into an unbroken release?

One mo' time....I'm pleased with Firaxis' track record of after sales support. That was never....HAS never been my point.

The point is that Q4 buyers are generally less-informed buyers (as established earlier in this thread by Vondrack's well-informed post).

If a Q4 buyer goes to civ3.com to check out the latest information on the game, they'll get a whole lot of hype and hooplah, and nary a whisper on any of PTW pages about patches or problems with the game *as it exists off the shelf.*

Nada.

Not word one.

Yes....it IS IG's baby and ballgame, but as I said earlier, $hit rolls down hill, and that means, right onto the shoulders of Firaxis.

They're the indians, and IG is the Chief. When the fit hits the shan, it's the indians who take it on the chin, not the chief.

If Stephen King's next book is badly edited, do you think people will say...."Man! Random House really blows chunks!"

No.

They will say "Man, Stephen King really blows chunks!"

Same principle.

Same exact principle.

-=Vel=-

player1 · December 5, 2002, 20:04

Quote:

Originally posted by FNBrown
This is compounded by the fact that there's no "auto update" feature...

Actually there IS from new patch:

Quote:

The v1.14F patch for Play the World address issues related to some of the online multiplayer features in PTW, including fixes to the matchmaking process via GameSpy Arcade, improvements to overall game speed, fixes for lag issues and “player-drop” crashes, and the addition of Direct IP support. There is also an autopatching ability to alert online players of future patch updates. Check out the readme file for full details on all fixes.

Quote:

Originally posted by FNBrown
...and if they do happen across Civ3.com, it's not like finding the patch is very intuitive.

You click on link Patches, and there is a patch.

Now non-intuitive.

player1 · December 5, 2002, 20:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
So.....a Q4 buyer (whom we have already established is NOT likely to be a member of 'poly, and likely has nary a clue of where to go except for civ3.com) can by the *MP expansion* for civ 3 off the shelf, and play it in SP mode without a hitch.

And somehow this translates into an unbroken release?

No.

He tried playing MP, and then somebody on the net asks him does he have 1.14f.

He said he has not, and ask the other guy where to get it.
Then he gets it from civ3.com or firaxis.com

After thet, he gets "promised" MP experience.

NOT perfect, problematic from time to time with some configurations, but not broken either (at least from 1.14f).

P.S.
And who says that Q4 buyer is infomed about PtW having MP at all.

Maybe he just wants it becaue it's Civ3 XP, which means scenarios and new civs.

P.P.S.
Although "scenarios" in PtW are not realy much.
(more like maps for MP)

FNBrown · December 5, 2002, 20:14

Here's my theory:

The problem is that software publishers like Infogrames (again, I ask... what's an 'Infograme'?) take the Internet for granted.

Ten years ago, this wouldn't have happened. Software, once it was released, was very expensive to patch. If a company had unleashed such a buggy game upon an unsuspecting public, the following would likely happen:

1. Most consumers would simply take it back.
2. Those who didn't buy it right away, but read magazine reviews on the product would shy away, as the reviews would be negative.
3. Even if the company wanted to save face, the patch would have to be issued via mail. The expense would likely be prohibitive enough to negate any possible profit margin.
4. The software company would either a.) go bankrupt or b.) learn to release software at a later date following more thorough testing and internal bug-fixing.

Fast-forward to 2002. You're a fat executive at a software publishing company who is pushing for bigger, quicker profits so that your stock options increase in value, your profit sharing plan becomes more lucrative, and that promotion you wanted becomes more available. You know nothing about the product you're publishing since you're not even programming it in-house, but you know that your target audience is primarily Internet users who want to play online over high bandwidth connections. Hence, large patch downloads shouldn't really be a problem, should they? Why not push for an earlier release of the game? Get it out the door THIS quarter, enjoy the profit NOW as legions of fans run out to buy it, then make the programmers take the hit and scramble to patch the bugs later.

Cyclotron · December 5, 2002, 20:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
There was a time when I was one of that company's vocal, ardent supporters. A true believer. A defender of the faith, as it were.

Well, now that you've adopted Coracle's mantra, I can hardly reason with you...

Quote:

I had zip-olah to do with that one....much as I'd like to take credit for it....that was pure you, bro.

You're right. His stating of facts in a way that could be rhetorically manipulated by you really showed... actually, it showed that all you have is rhetoric, because you don't have any actual facts or credibility for not owning the game. It's actually a shame, usually you are more high-level in your arguments. You are sounding mroe bitter.

Quote:

Conclusion: No matter to what degree, PTW did not work as advertised upon release. If it had, the company would not have patched it, and Jeff would not have written the letter that began this thread.

How was is advertised? As MP? In that case, it did work as advertised, because quite a few people could play MP. It wasn't advertised to be flawless or to work perfectly for people with all pings. Obviously, major issues slipped through beta, and these were subsequently corrected.

Quote:

If a Q4 buyer goes to civ3.com to check out the latest information on the game, they'll get a whole lot of hype and hooplah, and nary a whisper on any of PTW pages about patches or problems with the game

Oh yeah... except for the "patch" section. You seem to be inferring that the poor, helpless Q4 buyers are not only ignorant but also blind and mentally deficient. Well, whatever...

Once again: I see nothing wrong, nothing, with the behavior of the company on this issue...

On the other hand, I do see you telling people here how they were "eviscerated" in your arguments and how you dealt them the "killing blow." How kind of you, Vel. Remind me not to make Asleep's mistake and actually discuss facts in a neutral manner, or I'll be treated to one of your stunts.

Asleep is right, this isn't worth it, there isn't any sense present here. Clearly, you don't live in a universe that accepts the opinions of others. Ah, but at least I can rely on your trusty advice:

Quote:

Don't worry....if you admit that the game was not in a state of polish or completion upon release, you won't fall from the light and join the dark side or anything, you'll just be telling it like it is.

Apparently "telling it like it is" = your viewpoint.

Cool. Whatever. Say hi to your buddies woody & coracle for me, who apparently have the same world view. I hope you enjoy PTW.

Velociryx · December 5, 2002, 20:54

Well said and an excellent point, Master Brown.

As to Q4 buyers not knowing the PTW is an MP expansion.....I think that might be a bit of a stretch....the name "Play the World" rather implies MP in the first place, and in the second, it's plastered all over the PTW section of civ3.com (listed first, because it is, after all, the biggest, most ballyhooed feature of PTW), AND all over the box itself.

Given that most Q4 computer game buyers are at least literate, I think it's safe to say that they'd be expecting an MP expansion to Civ3 out of the box.

And again, I'm very glad and grateful (even tho I do not own PTW) that Firaxis has shown such committment to making the game right. I will once more reiterate however, that this was never my point.

The ONLY question that on my mind is:

Does the product description on the box and on Civ3.com = what you get when you open the box, install the expansion, and run it?

Does it?

Does it really?

Not according to the reviews I've read, and not according to the CEO of Firaxis, per his letter here.

-=Vel=-

player1 · December 5, 2002, 21:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
The ONLY question that on my mind is:

Does the product description on the box and on Civ3.com = what you get when you open the box, install the expansion, and run it?

Does it?

Does it really?

Yes, but only after the patch, not in-the-box.

But since patch was released just 3 WEEKS after the PtW release it's really not big deal.

3 WEEKS, and it's still Q4 season!

New customers would not get game with big MP probelsm, since they would get patch before playing MP.

SP works well without patching.

If anybody wants to play MP, then he WILLL surely hear about patches and install them (probably after first time trying to join MP game).

After that, they would get things promised.

Velociryx · December 5, 2002, 21:21

Then the answer would be no. Not out of the box.

Yes...with patching, but that's not the same thing.

Different question.

-=Vel=-

notyoueither · December 5, 2002, 21:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
YOU, on the other hand, are upset with yourself for giving me the blade that struck the killing blow.

Killing what?

The patch was up on firaxis.com on Oct 30.

notyoueither · December 5, 2002, 21:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Yes....it IS IG's baby and ballgame, but as I said earlier, $hit rolls down hill, and that means, right onto the shoulders of Firaxis.

They're the indians, and IG is the Chief. When the fit hits the shan, it's the indians who take it on the chin, not the chief.

No, it is flamers and lamers who will continue to flame Firaxis after being given information that is inconvenient for their whining. It is something Coracle does.

I am very sorry to see some of the other people who wish to do the same. And I am very sorry to type these words in reply to you Vel, but you're coming into a 'fan' forum on a 'fan' site and insisting on talking trash about a product and it's developers when many people here-abouts like the product and like the developers. I hope you aren't surprised that things aren't going smoothly.

notyoueither · December 5, 2002, 21:56

Quote:

Originally posted by FNBrown
Here's my theory:

The problem is that software publishers like Infogrames (again, I ask... what's an 'Infograme'?) take the Internet for granted.

Ten years ago, this wouldn't have happened. Software, once it was released, was very expensive to patch. If a company had unleashed such a buggy game upon an unsuspecting public, the following would likely happen:

1. Most consumers would simply take it back.
2. Those who didn't buy it right away, but read magazine reviews on the product would shy away, as the reviews would be negative.
3. Even if the company wanted to save face, the patch would have to be issued via mail. The expense would likely be prohibitive enough to negate any possible profit margin.
4. The software company would either a.) go bankrupt or b.) learn to release software at a later date following more thorough testing and internal bug-fixing.

Fast-forward to 2002. You're a fat executive at a software publishing company who is pushing for bigger, quicker profits so that your stock options increase in value, your profit sharing plan becomes more lucrative, and that promotion you wanted becomes more available. You know nothing about the product you're publishing since you're not even programming it in-house, but you know that your target audience is primarily Internet users who want to play online over high bandwidth connections. Hence, large patch downloads shouldn't really be a problem, should they? Why not push for an earlier release of the game? Get it out the door THIS quarter, enjoy the profit NOW as legions of fans run out to buy it, then make the programmers take the hit and scramble to patch the bugs later.

Pretty close to accurate, I would say. Except in this case Infogrames is scrambling for survival, or so it seems.

notyoueither · December 5, 2002, 22:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Then the answer would be no. Not out of the box.

Yes...with patching, but that's not the same thing.

Different question.

-=Vel=-

One more time Vel. I am in Edmonton, Alberta. That is just west of the Rockies and a ways north. About 1000 miles north of Denver (I'm guessing a little).

With 1.01 and 1.04 I was playing games with people on the Eastern sea-board of the United States, as well as a couple of people in Europe.

With each patch things have gotten better for more people. It has become easier to get into games, and lag has decreased. However, there have been people 'Playing the World' since before the boxes ever hit the shelves. And no, it was not perfect. It was not polished. And one more time, there were problems with GameSpy Arcade.

There will be problems when the publisher decides to take an early release candidate and sell it before the developer says they are done. That is what happened AFAIK.

Velociryx · December 5, 2002, 23:52

In the midst of debate and discussion, sometimes there are some points that get lost in the shouting. Some things have not been said in some time, and deserve repeating.

Among these are:
* I admire and respect Firaxis. They have released good games. Soren's Civ3 AI is top notch, and Sid is a masterful designer. The company is a powerhouse of creativity.

* I enjoy Civ3. Took it off my HD for a while, but put it back. Why? Cos it's a good game. Not my favorite game, but a good, solid game. Any issues I have with Civ3, I resolved a long time ago. The 1.29 patch makes the game a solid play. Worth every penny.

* Firaxis has an excellent reputation for after-sales support. Note that NONE of their after-sales support comes from any sort of legal obligation. They do so because they are committed to the gaming community, and that is awesome.

* Firaxis is not calling the shots with regards to Civ3, OR PTW. IG sets the production schedules and ship dates. If they don't give Firaxis enough time to do the work correctly, the game will ship when IG says, but it will ship in a state of incompletion. They do the best they can under these conditions.

That's the good stuff. Stuff I've said before, and stuff I believe to this day. There is NOTHING I have seen that would lead me to even the slightest doubt from any of the above, however:

* It is not, I don't believe, standard policy to patch a piece of software if there are no problems *with* that software.

* That Civ3 and PTW have required multiple patches indicates that there were things not working properly (ie "broken") or missing (ie "incomplete") when the game shipped.

* That this thread is headed by a letter from Firaxis' CEO *stating*(not guessing, not blindly shooting in the dark, but *stating*) that the PTW expansion to Civ3 had problems upon release is in my mind pretty compelling evidence that there were, in fact, problems with PTW upon release. That there are scathing review of unpatched PTW only serves to further cement this position (as if the word of the CEO wasn't enough).

* The Civ3.com website describes both of these products in terms that would lead one to believe that both are in a state of high polish and completion out of the box. This is not the case. It IS the case, that thanks to the tireless efforts of the Firaxis crew, the games DO get there. Out of the box....no. With patch attention by the talented Firaxis programmers...yes.

My point from the beginning has been that the descriptions on the box, and on the website do not match up with the product you initially install.

They do not, and I'm not afraid to say so. It's not like I'm insulting the Virgin Mother and all the Holy Saints by saying so, it's simply the way things are out of the box. If that offends some....well, I didn't design the game, and I didn't tell Firaxis to ship it early. Not much I can do about that.

With patches, yes, but then, that's not "out of the box" any more, is it?

And this....this makes me Coracle's evil twin?

(side not to Cyclo: and for the record, I said he eviscerated himself, which he surely did)

Firaxis is a good company that's doing the best they can under pressure of deadlines they have nothing to do with setting. It sucks, but that's the way it is. And the result is that the game shipped is not the game described. Not until they can patch it to completion later. That's the way this particular merry-go-round works.

It doesn't mean that the games are bad, and in fact, if you review my posts, I never said they were.

It means that Firaxis doesn't have time to finish them....which they don't!

It's not their fault that they don't, but it doesn't change the fact that they don't, and that is why the product description does not match with the product.

I'm not judging Firaxis, or condemning them for their work. I haven't been from the start. I simply said that the game as shipped wasn't done. It wasn't ready for prime time.

And because of that...NO! It didn't work as advertised.

It probably will, in the end. 1.14 goes a long way to ensuring that, and I feel confident that there will be at least one more patch.

Again, that was never my point.

But I'm Coracle?

-=Vel=-

vondrack · December 5, 2002, 23:52

Well, at first I felt honoured to see that Master Vel considered my points on the reality of the gaming industry "exquisite"... even "as usual"...

Sigh.

But now... I feel utterly sad.

If you still remember what I said months ago in the infamous HappySunShine flame-thread... I am sorry, but I guess I could no longer stick to it. All I can see in THIS thread is a man deaf and blind for what others say and show, admitting nothing but his "truth", twisting words only to prove his "point" and "defeat" his opponents, whatever it takes...

...although, despite so many words, I have no idea what your point really is, Vel... what actually do you mind? Who actually is the bad guy in your perception of the world? What shall be done to fix the current woeful state of things? If you've found the points of my post "exquisite", why is that that your follow-up posts seem to completely ignore what I said back then?

Sorry, I feel like I should officially declare whom I side with (as if anyone cared, I know...), but I can't say I would be with you this time, I really can't.

It's just so sad.

Velociryx · December 5, 2002, 23:57

Cross posted with you, Vondrack. Read above....perhaps it will change your mind?

-=Vel=-

Velociryx · December 6, 2002, 01:10

It is my hope that my last post (well, the post before last, actually) made the central message I was attempting to get across more clear.

When I began posting in this thread, I was of the opinion that my central points were fairly self-evident points, and yet, somehow in all that, I found myself in a flame war I really didn't want.

I stand by my points as enumerated two of my posts ago.

I believe that to be an accurate portrayal of the way things are.

But I do apologize to all for the unintentional flame war that erupted over it, and specifically to Asleep, for taking the low road when it presented itself.

-=Vel=-

notyoueither · December 6, 2002, 01:22

Vel. What do you say when a product works for some, and does not work for others? Do you say it is completely broken, or do you say it has problems that need to be fixed? No one here has suggested that there were no improvements to be made.

For a great many people, it was as advertised on the box. Unfortunately, it was not that for everyone.

Unfortunately, it did not work properly for anyone using the GS Arcade service. Guess what? GameSpy Arcade was not turned on until after release. Yes, that's right, that aspect was never tested prior to release. Don't ask me why, but I doubt it was something Firaxis controlled.

Additionally, some of the cryers are using broken warez. It is not unfortunate that it does not work for them. It is unfortunate that they are or were effecting others.

btw, you have made repeated references to the 'out of the box' product and how that is crucial in the equation. Well, that is rubbish. As Player1 has tried to point out several times, anyone trying INet MP (the bit with the problems) is going to find out about patches real quick. To continue to insist that patches and the ability to improve the product after release is not applicable for Joe Blow public when they must interact via a common lobby is absurd.

That people who would be interested in INet MP and who have the setup needed for good gaming would be unfamiliar with the need to patch games is beyond absurd.

Are you another Coracle? God, I hope not. I merely pointed out that continuing to pin the tale on the wrong donkey was something that people like Coracle do quite regularly around here. It gets tiresome correcting them after a while. Will I continue to do so? Probably. See, I like the game. I appreciate the efforts of the developers (as you seem to also). I come here (to this part of Poly) to discuss a game I like with people who are also interested in it. Here I find many people who share the interest with me, but I also find people who have never played it, but who think they are experts on its shortcomings. That is the most absurd thing of all.

Finally, I reviewed your latest post after I wrote this. I have decided to leave it stand. I appreciate that you are a decent fellow, Vel. I especially appreciate your note for atw. I would not mind continuing to discuss these issues with you. It would be nice though, if it is conducted at a higher level.

asleepathewheel · December 6, 2002, 01:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
But I do apologize to all for the unintentional flame war that erupted over it, and specifically to Asleep, for taking the low road when it presented itself.

-=Vel=-

I said I wouldn't post here again, but I will temporarily reneg on that promise.

Thank you for the apology, that is very big of you. I apologize in turn for anything I may have said to offend you.

vondrack · December 6, 2002, 01:30

Well, yes, partially... finally I can see the point you are trying to make. However...

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
* It is not, I don't believe, standard policy to patch a piece of software if there are no problems *with* that software.

I have been in the software industry for more than 10 years now. I have been reselling software, mostly registered shareware. It is DEFINITELY the standard policy to patch. Actually, I know of NO contemporary, widely-used (well, I could probably omit the widely-used part) product that would not have a patch of one kind or another available on the website of the author - and that's not just shareware authors, you can start with the market leaders: Microsoft, Adobe, Corel... you name them. The only thing that differs is the significance of bugs and problems that are addressed with patches.

I never even bother trying to run an unpatched version of a program or driver. I look for a patch BEFORE I even insert the installation CD into my drive. Just the time needed to get the box or CD to me is long enough for the author to find out bugs and add little improvements.

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
* That Civ3 and PTW have required multiple patches indicates that there were things not working properly (ie "broken") or missing (ie "incomplete") when the game shipped.

You must know best that majority of what was added to the vanilla Civ3 were improvements, not bugfixes. The AI itself has improved considerably. Does THAT indicate an incomplete or broken product? No, however it does indicate an undying support of the development team (which you acknowledge).

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
* That this thread is headed by a letter from Firaxis' CEO *stating*(not guessing, not blindly shooting in the dark, but *stating*) that the PTW expansion to Civ3 had problems upon release is in my mind pretty compelling evidence that there were, in fact, problems with PTW upon release. That there are scathing review of unpatched PTW only serves to further cement this position (as if the word of the CEO wasn't enough).

Sorry, but Jeff said there were "problems" and actually told what kind of problems one might have trying to MP. He said absolutely nothing about how many players experienced problems and how serious they were. Why is that that you think of the worst? Jeff published the letter after quite some time of flaming throughout the fansites. Maybe he just considered it the right thing to publicly announce there is a progress on solving the issues, whatever they were and however serious they were (I can't say from a first hand experience, as I got PtW only recently, shortly before 1.14f, and never been into MPing myself yet). He said it in a very polite manner, actually apologizing for something he most probably had no control over. I can't see how you can use this letter to claim PtW was broken or incomplete. I hear the real betatesters all the time - if you knew how to do it right and if you knew whom you played, you could have played even before the game hit shelves.

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
* The Civ3.com website describes both of these products in terms that would lead one to believe that both are in a state of high polish and completion out of the box. This is not the case. It IS the case, that thanks to the tireless efforts of the Firaxis crew, the games DO get there. Out of the box....no. With patch attention by the talented Firaxis programmers...yes.

The website carries the latest patch. What good would be to describe the game in the state it was BEFORE the patch - it is quite correctly assumed that one gets the patch from there, if he happens to visit the pages. And before you counter stating the website hasn't changed since the PtW launch... I will grant you that, there might have been a notice about the (1.14f) patch being under development. However, the website is created with the perfect product in mind. One that has zero problems, even if the smallest ones are considered. When you release the product and find out it needs a patch for some reason, you do not rework the website to reflect the current state of the product, you focus on the patch to match the product to the website. Care to look at, say, www.microsoft.com? Their splendid products? You would just RUN into the nearest retail outlet to buy ALL of their software at once. And then, you would be patching like mad.

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
My point from the beginning has been that the descriptions on the box, and on the website do not match up with the product you initially install.

Vel, just one friendly advice. When you decide to release CB to the public, do NOT postpone creating the box artwork and manufacturing the packaging only after you consider your game finished. You would be SERIOUSLY surprised, how much time it takes.

Besides, imagine something slips your attention (yep, nobody's perfect) and you discover a bug after packing the first 10,000 units. Will you stick a shiny note on every box, saying "Beware, there is a bug, but we are working on it and it will be fixed ASAP." Will you? Really? How admirable... just keep in mind that those boxes will be on the shelves perhaps even long AFTER you forge out the patch that fixes whatever issue it was CB had had.

Even more than the website, every packaging is created and manufactured with a flawless product in mind (it would be just plane crazy, if not). You use the packaging throughout the most of the product shelflife. It makes absolutely no sense to use a packaging that gets outdated with a patch. Again, you work on the product to match the packaging, not the other way round.

If your sole goal was to point out that the packaging did not mention a possible problem that was not known at the time the packaging was actually designed and/or manufactured, then I believe you've put just too much effort in that. There is perhaps something you do not know or do not realize about the advertising business... or do you actually believe the TV ads?

Respectfully Yours,
Radek Vondracek aka vondrack

Alexander's Horse · December 6, 2002, 01:42

Thread should be re-titled "when fanboys attack"

Ogie Oglethorpe · December 6, 2002, 01:46

Dang it all!

Can't we all just get along

Cyclotron · December 6, 2002, 02:34

Vel, I know we have addressed some issues already, but for a return to civility here I will also comment on your core ideas as presented.

In addition, both Vondrak and NYE have made much better replies to most of your points than I can, so I don't have a lot to say.

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
* That this thread is headed by a letter from Firaxis' CEO *stating*(not guessing, not blindly shooting in the dark, but *stating*) that the PTW expansion to Civ3 had problems upon release is in my mind pretty compelling evidence that there were, in fact, problems with PTW upon release. That there are scathing review of unpatched PTW only serves to further cement this position (as if the word of the CEO wasn't enough).

I agree, but the issues he mentions do not reflect the scale of the problem. To say that nobody could "play the world" is clearly not true, given NYE's experience. Now, nobody is doubting that there were problems, but I think there is insufficient evidence from that letter that the product is either defective or broken. It seems to me possible, and likely, that because of a rushed production schedule certain significant flaws in the product were shipped. I don't think that these were caught by beta testing (they would not have shipped if that was the case), partially because of the limited time for beta testing.

My earlier comments doubting your assertions owed to the above analysis of Jeff's letter, and my knowledge of gaming reviews and the boards here. I concluded, and still do, that your earlier characterization of the flaws of the software was on fairly weak footing given your liberal translation of the letter, and the bias of the boards and gaming reviews.

Quote:

* The Civ3.com website describes both of these products in terms that would lead one to believe that both are in a state of high polish and completion out of the box. This is not the case. It IS the case, that thanks to the tireless efforts of the Firaxis crew, the games DO get there. Out of the box....no. With patch attention by the talented Firaxis programmers...yes.

I disagree. No game, and I mean no game, is packaged without inferring "polish" and that it is the best game ever to grace store shelves. To do otherwise would be economic suicide; that's how the system works and it isn't a problem with the industry... it's universal. I think anyone who expects any game to be perfect, polished, and 100% bug free out of the box is probably more naive than the average game-buying person.

So, if polish is not an issue, than playability is. Out of the box, the game was playable, as per NYE's statements. Perhaps not playable for as many people as Firaxis would have liked, but not even close to universally broken as other complainers here would like us to belive. The patch, as NYE said ( I think), is an attempt to expand that group.

Velociryx · December 6, 2002, 03:40

Very well....to continue.....

If the product works for some, but not for others, then I would say the product is....broken.

Broken does not mean shattered, or absolutely unplayable. It can mean that, sure....but it can mean a lot of other things too....and if something is completely unplayable, then there are much better adjectives to use than "broken," to describe the product, in my opinion.

Broken means....broken. Not working to specs. (If it works for some and not for others, then I would contend that it's not working to specs). That could be anything between a shade off kilter all the way up to completely toasted.

But if it isn't working right, then it's broken.

My heater comes on every ten minutes.

It shouldn't.

The house is nice and warm.

The heater, however, is still broken.

As to patching.....total agreement. Everybody patches, and why the heck not? With the 'net, it's easy.

Maybe too easy.

Would it be fair to say though, that there is a difference between patching to FINISH (that is to say, to bring a product up to the minimum described specs) vs. patching to enhance (that is to say, adding new features, or changing/improving old ones)? Fair to say that there's a fundamentally different mindset at work there?

With regards to the website.....yes, I agree that it's a selling tool. Another arm of marketing.

It is also a place for general product information.

Would it be so hard, then, on the PTW pages, to cross link the patch? Make mention of it in the first, most likely place that a relatively uninformed buyer might go?

Would it be so unreasonable to maybe post the patch readme there too, so that buyers can at the very least see what the latest patch fix, and thereby give them some indication of what's working and what's not when they install the product?

Does that fall outside the realm of what is reasonable?

-=Vel=-