MOO3 4 January: marketting suicide?...

Trifna · December 9, 2002, 13:42

I'm concious that I'm not a marketting pro or anything but something seems paradoxal to me:

Assertion 1:
The reason why MOO3 is delayed is multiplayer and multiplayer plays mostly on Internet.

Assertion 2:
The way to arrange this is a patch and patches are from Internet.

Errrmm... isn't it paradoxal when you have the single player to push the date while people that will play multiplayer in fact are the people that will be able to get the patch? Isn't it simply to delay a game when in fact the only part that's not perfect is a part that can easily be arranged for people who will use it?

Losing the hollidays seems a catastrophy to me... I would easily accept to not have multiplayer right now if anyway the singleplayer is ready and would just be same in 2 months. Simply say that you release MP in January!! NO?? For MOO3 it's

and may influence MOM2 or anything else.

PS: I do not pose this as a thesis but as an hypothesis. I'm seriously wondering and a little confused.

Don K Hotay · December 9, 2002, 13:54

Please, I hope you're not implying that other parts of the game are faulty (or the game itself), because your logic and deductions certainly could....Thats a mean thing to do for those of us just barely dealing with fact that the game is not out yet

Xentax · December 9, 2002, 14:46

If it was a situation where it would *auto* patch, I'd agree (e.g. Battle.Net).

But I don't think "internet" play (Gamespy Arcade) would require or even support auto-patching, so they'd be worried that people wouldn't patch.

Plus, people using LAN or direct TCP/IP for MP would be harder to direct to a patch...

moomin · December 9, 2002, 15:06

If you read the beta tester articles over at the official forum, I think it's pretty obvious that they feel Moo3 isn't really ready for prime time yet - and it's seems to be more than a MP issue.

I much prefer a solid release than another Civ3-esque rushfest, but I'm sad it's gonna cost'em the x-mas sell rush.

Randolph · December 9, 2002, 15:11

Quote:

Originally posted by moomin
If you read the beta tester articles over at the official forum, I think it's pretty obvious that they feel Moo3 isn't really ready for prime time yet - and it's seems to be more than a MP issue.

I much prefer a solid release than another Civ3-esque rushfest, but I'm sad it's gonna cost'em the x-mas sell rush.

Actually many of them said they thought it was ready for release.

MarkG · December 9, 2002, 15:27

great games dont need christmas periods!

Unspeakable Horror · December 9, 2002, 16:03

Well said Mark!

MarkG · December 9, 2002, 16:31

i mean just look at sims(true, an extreme example, but still) or civ3: sims has been selling for over 2 years. civ3 has kept it's 40$ price for over a year

Xentax · December 9, 2002, 16:45

Quote:

Originally posted by moomin
If you read the beta tester articles over at the official forum, I think it's pretty obvious that they feel Moo3 isn't really ready for prime time yet - and it's seems to be more than a MP issue.

I much prefer a solid release than another Civ3-esque rushfest, but I'm sad it's gonna cost'em the x-mas sell rush.

Interesting...why do you say that? I'm one of those beta testers, and I'm leaning in the opposite direction. I think that's actually the opinion of most of the beta testers -- that SP is ready to go, MP "could" go now but if they want to wait and get it better and more stable first, that's their decision to make.

There's nothing in the SP game that I can point at and say "we need to wait and fix this". I mean, I know there will be things that need patching -- balance issues will be discovered that we couldn't flush out, for example -- but I don't think there are any remaining significant things we can discover in a reasonable time period without a lot more eyes and minds on the game.

moomin · December 9, 2002, 17:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Xentax
Interesting...why do you say that?

It was certainly the impression I got reading. Stuff along the lines of "it was awful at first, but it's coming along very fine now, a couple of more rounds and it'll be great" or like "Moo3 is a good game, and with some more polish it'll be great". Seems to me as if some - if not all - of you think there's some tweaking still to be done. We don't know when the texts where written of course, if was a while ago it could be fine by now. But I read them as current reports.

In your opinion, is the MP late game bug the only thing holding back a release right now?

Ozymandous · December 9, 2002, 17:51

I think each of us got what we wanted out of the beta reports. I thought they meant the game was bad when they started and now it's good. If anything some will say that "with a little polish" it would be fantastic, but most of that will probably be "tweaking" done once everyone plays it more and they have a large player base.

From reading the reports I will say I am much more optimistic (still guarded after looking foward to MOO2 only to have it stink compared to MOO) than before.

dac · December 9, 2002, 17:57

It's often worse to rush something out the door that is buggy. Look at what happened to Civ3 Play the World. Civ3 debuted to very good reviews (even if the forums were more divided

) and sold very well. Civ3 Play the World, the multiplayer part didn't work well, and it got creamed, both in the forums, and in the reviews.

For a product like MOO, which doesn't have as big a 'name' among the great unwashed, a series of bad reviews could very negatively impact sales. If everybody on the forums buys the game, and nobody else, then you've got a failure on your hands. You have to be able to reach the audience who doesn't prowl the internet looking for gaming information if you're going to make money, and I want them to make money, so they'll be patches, expansion packs, and maybe they'll take a swing at MoM 2. All this even though I'll never play multiplayer.

vmxa1 · December 9, 2002, 19:05

I won't disagree that great games do not need Xmas, but all games can benefit from it. Many people cruising the EB and others places that offer games will pick up impulse purchases. Some of these people will not be looking at games after xmas, at all. Some non gaming stores will be featuring games in locations that will not be available to games after the holidays. This means sales opportunities will be lost.

Master Marcus · December 9, 2002, 19:07

not very far from my feb 2003 old prediction for an estimated "delayed" release...many sites list it around mid-january now for the NorthAm release. Well, this is a serious game for serious gamers so I agree with those saying that Christmas time is not a topic here. However we must question the time development/efficiency ratio vs technological advances during that time: 2 years and a half, 800x600 graphics.....the team just can't polish that game forever. I'm still optimistic and patient as always, and it's not whining to say that MoO3 CANNOT be released in 2005.....so no christmas smilie here, but a Q1 2003 one

MasterDave · December 9, 2002, 20:00

Blowing the Xmas date is going to negatively impact sales no matter how good the end product turns out to be. A game that releases more than a year after initially projected (remember the ad on the backs of your civ3 manual anyone?) is hardly "rushed out the door." Xentax and other trusted Beta testers say that it is ready, especially for single player.

Assuming that that is true, to hold it back now for "polish" strikes me as very foolish from a business standpoint, not to mention extremely disappointing for the fans who have endured the previous delays and are now looking at a Xmas without Moo3.

MasterDave

Bane99 · December 9, 2002, 20:13

Any big releases in January? I think Galactic Civilizations is due sometime in Feb?

IG has no competition right now so it would be perfect for them to release M003 just before Christmas.

Trifna · December 9, 2002, 20:20

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
great games dont need christmas periods!

Mark, I think it could be true for vast mass market games but MOO3 is pretty oriented to a closed category of player, unlike the Sims or games that goes for everyone.

Quote:

For a product like MOO, which doesn't have as big a 'name' among the great unwashed, a series of bad reviews could very negatively impact sales

Well if they would say that the MP is coming and it is out for Xmas time, reviewers would consider it and say in their reviews that MP is stil beeing polished.

Guess they're the specialists but I stil have a question mark in my face.

gramians · December 9, 2002, 20:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Marcus
not very far from my feb 2003 old prediction for an estimated "delayed" release...many sites list it around mid-january now for the NorthAm release. Well, this is a serious game for serious gamers so I agree with those saying that Christmas time is not a topic here.

I think the XMas rush is key - there are huge sales around this time. That it is a "serious game" doesn't mean anything. "Serious gamers" who like serious games get gifts too. And future Napoleons who usually can't dish out the $$ to buy a game like this can get it from Santa Claus. A whole lot of sales are to be had or missed here.

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Marcus
However we must question the time development/efficiency ratio vs technological advances during that time: 2 years and a half, 800x600 graphics.....the team just can't polish that game forever.

Well said! There is a serious difference to designing a game so it can run on at 800x600 and can ONLY run at 800x600. Though the designers and talent at QS have no lack of vision, inspiration and creativity for the game itself, I hope their vision for the implementation improves for MoO4, 5, and 6. Not to mention the prequel.

vee4473 · December 9, 2002, 20:58

Quote:

Originally posted by dac

For a product like MOO, which doesn't have as big a 'name' among the great unwashed, a series of bad reviews could very negatively impact sales. If everybody on the forums buys the game, and nobody else, then you've got a failure on your hands. You have to be able to reach the audience who doesn't prowl the internet looking for gaming information if you're going to make money, and I want them to make money, so they'll be patches, expansion packs, and maybe they'll take a swing at MoM 2. All this even though I'll never play multiplayer.

There's a little contradiction here, if you want to reach the casual gaming audience that doesn't prowl the net for gaming info, then a bad review doesn't matter a hill o' beans, because that same casual gamer will never know about it. (either through the net or a gaming mag).

Personally, i'm in the camp that says release the game if the single player is good to go. I have no plans to play MP, and I think that most people who WILL play MP are going to go thru the single player mode for a while until the get the feel of the game and their new strategies...which will give the company time to polish MP anyway.

And anyone who is into games enough to even think about playing MP, will know how to and be eager to download a patch.

As for the Civ3 comparison, I still don't think most of the complaints have been adressed, but I like the game.

I think Civ3 went wrong in lying to the customers when they said MP was ready when some say it wasn't.

I think if the company just is honest and says "hey, here's the single player that we think is great, but MP needs work...so enjoy the game for now while we work on a patch for mp", they will avoid any negative reviews and everyone will just be much happier.

pmaura · December 9, 2002, 21:11

By waiting till after christmas they definatly lost out on some sales as most people will be paying off credit cards. while in the long run the sales may catch up these companies usualy need the cash imedialtey. Think about it all the programmers artists and etc have been working on this product for years with no money coming in. Creditors and investors want to see there return. They should of released and then had a multuplayer patch. I never once played moo2 mulitplater nor would I want to as the games are far to long. And I am sure the people who want mulitplayer would enojy playing the single verision of the game for a month and wait for the patch to come out. This is all assuming the reason its being delayed so long is because of multiplayer. Eventhough people might say whats another month waiting its just that this game always seems to be just another month away.

Bird-O-Prey · December 9, 2002, 22:42

Any excuse for not releasing during Christmas, is better than no excuse at all, eh...? Like shrewd politicians, they come out of the woodwork to defend yet another delay. I'm all for a good playable game, and I do understand it will ship when its ready- but I get so tired of hearing excuses by those who really know nothing of why it's really being held back, defending the cause just to be on the side of IG, and for no other reason (not including the BT's of course). IG/QSI has done a wonderful job with the game, and answered questions and allowed the BT's to comment. What they did wrong- was miss release dates, after release dates, until a select few decided they didn't want to hear any more lies and so- the rest of the world now waits without a clue as to the current status. This IMO, was a very very bad PR move, considering the lateness involved and the finishing touches put on the game, not to mention the other 4 million of us who would like another status report. Just another opinion.

MarkG · December 9, 2002, 22:55

Quote:

the rest of the world now waits without a clue as to the current status

hmm wrong. the last status report was last week. you can safely assume that the situation is more or less the same

bluemule2 · December 9, 2002, 23:07

Give the moo time. a bettergame is what we want for years of play!

bluemule2 · December 9, 2002, 23:10

Wait, hush, a cry is heard from afar.... MOOOOOOOOO

Capt Dizle · December 10, 2002, 01:04

I was a big fan of Moo and Moo2 but Moo3 I do not happily anticipate.

The guy who put most of the stuff in is gone and so is some of the stuff he put in so what stuff is gonna be in there that will make us want to add this game to all the stuff that we already have? Maybe they are looking for some different stuff to put in it?

When I make chilli I put all the stuff in that I can find and boy, you can tell when people have eaten my chilli from all the stinking stuff that comes out of them later. My chilli is good stuff.

Maybe they should hire me. I could bring my stuff up there and try to stuff some of my stuff into their stuff and see what kind of stuff we can get out of it.

Look what happened when Sid let Jeff Briggs stuff his stuff in Civ3. And Soren Johnson put his stuff in their too!

Man, when I loaded their stuff on top of my stuff and ran it I knew it was some hot stuff cause they built in lots of "please wait" messages so we would have time to run to the bathroom to upchuck the stuff we had eaten. Cause like my chilli, Civ3 is guarenteed to ensure that all your stuff will be out there.

Maybe I'll be able to keep my dinner down while playing Moo3 but given its outer space stuff, what the heck does it matter. Its gonna be out there. Great stuff.

vmxa1 · December 10, 2002, 04:35

I will admit that trying to claim MP is coming is a dangerous thing after the Civ3 deal. It required and exp pack and two patches so far. I am not so sure that offering Moo3 with a "mp is coming" statement will be greeted with much joy. Mind you it is fine by me.

fuchs · December 10, 2002, 10:33

At least after christmas all twinkling shiny high-res games that are fast and full of action are shipped, and moo3 could be the one-eyed between the blind.
If its the hit i wish it ll be, there ll be a lot more pages free for it in all the gaming mags.
and with a good multiplayer mode, it might become the halflive of the civ-like (beside freeciv wich is mostly played by linux-guys and is not in the same league), that would stabilize sells.
But i think PR at IG should get a kick in the ass to come up with the support for the game mags. I want to see twenty page specials everywhere i look, just as for civ3.
So, kick em.
A hit has to be made by PR.

Xentax · December 10, 2002, 10:44

Quote:

Originally posted by moomin

It was certainly the impression I got reading. Stuff along the lines of "it was awful at first, but it's coming along very fine now, a couple of more rounds and it'll be great" or like "Moo3 is a good game, and with some more polish it'll be great". Seems to me as if some - if not all - of you think there's some tweaking still to be done. We don't know when the texts where written of course, if was a while ago it could be fine by now. But I read them as current reports.

In your opinion, is the MP late game bug the only thing holding back a release right now?

Yes, it was very rough when we started beta testing. But when I (and others) said it had come a long way since then, that was supposed to mean that "it's no longer rough".

Personally, I think it's more than good enough to release; but I can understand them not wanting to settle for the low standard of stability that's been established by released games for the last few years. Single player is rock solid. MP has (as far as I know) one elusive (read: cannot be consistently reproduced) crash bug. That's *it* for technical issues.

You could keep tweaking and polishing forever, but where it is now is past the point where it could be released and already be less troublesome than PTW was, for example (yeah, I know, that's not saying much). MP is the main and perhaps only thing holding it back, and as I've said before, I can understand why IG doesn't want ANOTHER release with MP problems.

pmaura · December 10, 2002, 12:31

Lets just hope this does not end up like Daikatana a game that would of been revolutionary if it had been released 2 years prior. I am personaly dont think a game company should ever announce release dates until they have actually gone gold. It justs lets people down becuase there looking forward to an entertaining game and then syke its next week, gotch were kidding its next month gotch again its next year. They should either say nothing or give constant weekly updates. So people can understand whats going on

MasterDave · December 10, 2002, 15:33

Xentax, as a dedicated mod of the IG Moo3 forum and beta tester has earned my trust. When he says that the game is solid and there is one elusive MP crash bug (news flash: EVERY MP COMPUTER GAME CRASHES OCCASIONALLY), I see no reason not to believe that.

Thus, I can only conclude that Chantz and Quicksilver are more than likely holding back Moo3 until 2003 because higher ranking suits at IG are telling him to. Whether it is for accounting reasons (cost the project in 2003 to make the company look good on paper, perhaps) or for marketing reasons (don't want to cannabilize sales of the extremely crappy Civ PTW), there is something that Chantz and others are afraid to tell us, and the beta testers are not in a position to know.

It just does not make sense to miss out on Xmas sales for the sake of a single "elusive" bug. Executives of a game company disappointing fans and missing out on real sales to improve some artificial bottom line does, unfortunately, make all the sense in the world.

I really hope to be wrong about all this and see a gold announcement today or tomorrow...

MasterDave