February 28?!

RolandtheMad · December 15, 2002, 01:04

Outrageous. All I can say is outrageous.

RolandtheMad · December 15, 2002, 01:05

http://apolyton.net/moo3/

AMAZON SHINING RELEASE LIGHT?
(14 December 2002, 23:57 | MoO3) Three separate reports have been received from Amazon.com customers who were delivered an automated email response from the online retailer today in regards to pre-orders of Master of Orion III from their site. The letter begins:

We have contacted our supplier concerning the status of your order for "Master Of Orion 3."

The representative we spoke with indicated that this item has not been released, and is not expected to be released until February 28, 2003. If we receive additional information about this, we will let you know.

The message is continuing to fuel the ongoing speculation over the game`s eventual release date which has been pushed back on several occasions and is currently in official limbo. While not specified, the supplier referenced above is most likely Infogrames, the game`s publisher. Thanks to djaustin, David P. Crandall, and Vorlock for their respective news tips on this matter. - DanQ

TCO · December 15, 2002, 02:36

This is really going to hurt them commercially. IG is going to make a lot less sales. And QS is going to get slapped with a penalty clause. Great work, Alan. The project was really off-kilter. Designers running around too much and the coding not getting done on time.

DRoseDARs · December 15, 2002, 04:08

*Groan...*
If that's really how much they've been pushed back, the bad press is REALLY going to sting. Sure, I have every intention of getting the game whenever it DOES come out and yes, I hope they make good use of whatever time they're given to fix problems that crop up BEFORE release (considering the dual-nightmares of endless patches for CivIII and multiplayer that didn't work out of the box for PtW). But this is getting rediculous. I really hope this isn't going to be another Battlecruiser 3000 AD debacle...surely they WILL fix the bugs, but the bad press...
*Groan...*

vmxa1 · December 15, 2002, 04:50

Where is that icon with the head banging on the wall, when I need it?

Wahngrok · December 15, 2002, 06:42

Quote:

Originally posted by GP
This is really going to hurt them commercially. IG is going to make a lot less sales.

Why do you, like so many people complain about that? I think that is IG's problem. If they lose sales, so why do I care? They won't lose mine.

Quote:

And QS is going to get slapped with a penalty clause.

Why? It's the publisher (IG) who releases the game not the developer (QS). Chatz already stated that there was a policy on IG's side that it would go gold on Nov 28th, no matter what. This has changed for reasons he didn't want to share and probably has to do with internal "politics".

Quote:

Great work, Alan. The project was really off-kilter. Designers running around too much and the coding not getting done on time.

You do know that Alan has left the dev team quite some time ago? And that there has been a redesign?

Lemmy · December 15, 2002, 06:43

Lemmy · December 15, 2002, 06:44

Quote:

Why do you, like so many people complain about that? I think that is IG's problem. If they lose sales, so why do I care? They won't lose mine.

Bad sales could prevent future games from QS being published, and some people would like to see MOM2 be made, and maybe later on a MOO4, this will be hard if the MOO series flops and dies at MOO3

Proteus_MST · December 15, 2002, 07:52

What do you complain about one IG-Representative giving 28.02.2003 as Releasedate?

I wouldn´t trust those statements more than the statements of the Online-Shops about the date. I think IG became simply careful after so many shifted dates in the past.

IMHO the game will go gold as soon as they have fixed the last few bugs and be released shortly thereafter. Maybe it takes as long as Feb. 28th, but maybe we will see the game going gold within the next weeks. It isn´t a thing any IG-Representative can foretell and I think even the Developers aren´t able to do it

Asmodean · December 15, 2002, 08:12

You guys assume that this information came from Infogrames. I find that unlikely. That doesn't mean that late February is a possible release date. It still could be. But chantz has said once and for all that IG will not set any new release date, nor will they release any more ínformation, untill the game goes gold, be it this month, or next month or whatever.

I find it much more likely that Amazon are just covering their collective asses, and issuing a standard message that they have used before in this type of situation.

Of course I could be proved wrong. I am not omniscient.

But chantz was very specific. No info to neither fans nor retailers, nor online shop untill the game goes gold.

Asmodean

TCO · December 15, 2002, 09:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Wahngrok
Why do you, like so many people complain about that? I think that is IG's problem. If they lose sales, so why do I care? They won't lose mine.

There is no immediate impact on me. But ultimately if they are ineffecient, they will go out of business (not making games for me any more). Also, the losses they take will make them less likely to try projects like this any more.

Quote:

Why? It's the publisher (IG) who releases the game not the developer (QS). Chatz already stated that there was a policy on IG's side that it would go gold on Nov 28th, no matter what. This has changed for reasons he didn't want to share and probably has to do with internal "politics".

The game didn't release because it isn't done yet. I'm sure the publishers have some language int he contract to pretect them when the creators don't manage their project effectively.

Quote:

You do know that Alan has left the dev team quite some time ago? And that there has been a redesign?

Yes. I think a lot of the problem goes back to this. A lot of lost time.

moomin · December 15, 2002, 10:00

Welcome back, GP. Having your particular brand of corporate hardass cynism around is actually a relief. Could you please go spank the CBs a bit too?

moomin · December 15, 2002, 10:03

And on topic:

I'm happy if its true 'bout Feb 28th. Why?

1) My pool bet on Feb 2003 turns out to be a winner.
2) They might actually have the time to fix the most glaring bugs by then.

All you people crying to high heaven about how this is gonna cost'em a bucketload of sales need to chill... it's not like they aren't eminently aware of that, is it?

TCO · December 15, 2002, 10:55

Quote:

Originally posted by moomin
Welcome back, GP. Having your particular brand of corporate hardass cynism around is actually a relief. Could you please go spank the CBs a bit too?

Just for the fun of it? Or have they been misbehaving recently?

I worry about that project, knowing that Vel published a novel through a vanity publisher. (Did some reading about these things on pro writer websites recently. Vanity presses are a big scam...and a sign of a desperate writer.)

TCO · December 15, 2002, 10:55

You are right. I should chill about the lost sales. Still it's a pretty bad sign...

Kc7mxo · December 15, 2002, 13:07

Yeesh. These guys are worse than blizzard.

TCO · December 15, 2002, 13:44

Oh go back to the jabbering marine AOL (newbie) board.

Sherlock01 · December 15, 2002, 13:46

I know there have been theories of corporate intrigue going on about the MoO3 release date, and for the most part I've completely ignored them. The only thing that gives me pause is what I read yesterday.

I was reading an article on Command & Conquer: Generals on Gamespot, and it mentioned that they aren't releasing the game until after Christmas because, to quote them -

"As it did with SimCity 4 and the PlayStation 2 version of The Sims, Electronic Arts decided to hold off the release of Generals in order to prevent the cannibalization of its own products--as most gamers are quite aware of right now, there is an absolute flood of games on the market. Rather than compete with hundreds of other games, Generals will be released in February, after things have settled down a bit, so to speak. "*

Insert "MoO3" in that, and it does make a bit of sense. Looking at it from Infogrames' standpoint, it's not a bad thing - they stand a better chance of making money, and gamers get a game that has the bugs exhaustively worked out of it.

Oh well. Working out bugs, corporate decisions at the highest levels, whatever. It'll eventually show up.

*http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories...898051,00.html

Capt Dizle · December 15, 2002, 14:58

One of the chief questions is what happens after release. Normally there is a modicrum of post release support even if no expansion is planned. Sound to me that QS is using that up now so what we get will probably be the final product. In which case I wish them mucho well over the next two or so months.

moomin · December 15, 2002, 15:12

I would imagine after-release support will mostly depend on actual sales. This regardless of weather they release now or in two months.

Although, I'd be much surprised if we didn't see some serious purges over there after the release - the bean counters will want someone's head on a plate for the failure to capitalize on the x-mas rush.

TCO · December 15, 2002, 15:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Sherlock01
I know there have been theories of corporate intrigue going on about the MoO3 release date, and for the most part I've completely ignored them. The only thing that gives me pause is what I read yesterday.

I was reading an article on Command & Conquer: Generals on Gamespot, and it mentioned that they aren't releasing the game until after Christmas because, to quote them -

"As it did with SimCity 4 and the PlayStation 2 version of The Sims, Electronic Arts decided to hold off the release of Generals in order to prevent the cannibalization of its own products--as most gamers are quite aware of right now, there is an absolute flood of games on the market. Rather than compete with hundreds of other games, Generals will be released in February, after things have settled down a bit, so to speak. "*

Insert "MoO3" in that, and it does make a bit of sense. Looking at it from Infogrames' standpoint, it's not a bad thing - they stand a better chance of making money, and gamers get a game that has the bugs exhaustively worked out of it.

Oh well. Working out bugs, corporate decisions at the highest levels, whatever. It'll eventually show up.

*http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories...898051,00.html

This is definitely the best possible interpretation. I still wonder if EA/IG would make this decision if the game was ready to go.

H Tower · December 15, 2002, 16:35

I was at the mall today and checked EB's book on relase dates, it still said late january

Wahngrok · December 15, 2002, 19:46

Quote:

Originally posted by GP
There is no immediate impact on me. But ultimately if they are ineffecient, they will go out of business (not making games for me any more). Also, the losses they take will make them less likely to try projects like this any more.

Yeah, that's a possibility... but then again Microprose and Simtex are no more and this game's still being made. So I wouldn't worry about that too much.

Quote:

The game didn't release because it isn't done yet. I'm sure the publishers have some language int he contract to pretect them when the creators don't manage their project effectively.

IMO they made the mistake of using external beta-testing very late in the progress of the game. And, yeah, the PR work was horrible. But I wouldn't say the project wasn't effectively managed. Many publishers would have released the game as it is now... maybe even before the redesign in April. We'd have gotten the game on time but it probably wouldn't have been as much fun as it is promising to be now. So I am thankful that they are not being "effective" and trying to make a quick buck.

Quote:

Yes. I think a lot of the problem goes back to this. A lot of lost time.

Setbacks happen in design processes. Ever heard of the dinosaur Sid Meier Game? No? That's because it was stopped about a year in the developement. As they put it it simply wasn't fun. That's what happened with MOO3, too, but I wouldn't fault Alan for that.

RolandtheMad · December 15, 2002, 22:01

I suppose everyone that say it is better that they wait is right. It is true that they`re working out bugs that we wont have to deal with. I`m just angry because of the constant setbacks with the release date. They shouldn`t have set one at all instead of continually moving it further and further back like they have now.

kalbear · December 16, 2002, 00:06

Again, to reiterate something I've said before:

The release dates that have been otherwise stated are COMPLETE FICTION.

The only one that has been stated that would not fit this would be the Nov. 26th one, and that is because QS was told that they MUST release it at that time. That time did indeed pass, and now we're on the 'when it's ready' timeline. QS has no choice and little feedback on those sort of dictated timelines. Really, IG doesn't either. It's a date that basically says "If we don't meet this time, it won't be out in time for X-mas". It's not an arbitrary date; it's set by the distributors, marketing, and other evil necessities.

Any dates that have been listed by various online/offline agencies are guesses. They might be guesses by Amazon.com, or ebgames, or the marketing team at IG, or even the product managers at QS, but they are all guesses. Educated or otherwise.

Right now, and I need to stress this, no one truly knows when it'll be out. Testing takes time, and testing a software product of this magnitude with this level of user-interface issues (as is the case with all consumer-level software products) takes a LOT of time. It is quite promising that they're down to one SP and a few MP bugs, but fixing those bugs does not guarantee anything about what else they might find, or even how long it'll be to fix those specific bugs.

The only time we will know, for sure, when it'll be done, is when it goes gold. Until then, it's just a matter of increasingly short amounts of time.

Finally, this sort of thing pisses me off. Does anyone even remember playing Moo2 when it first came out? Do you remember the 1.1 patch for Moo2, and how good it was - but still, how bad it was in terms of crashing bugs and stupid AI? Go read the patch readme to see exactly how bad things were.

You all begging them to release it right now, instead of when it's really well and done, MAKES THIS HAPPEN. If you were a better consumer and didn't buy beta products, or didn't TOLERATE beta products that were released to the public way before they were ready - like, say, Moo3 would have been had it been released in November, with crashing/save game corruption bugs - it wouldn't be necessary for them to justify this sort of thing every day.

Stop asking them when. Ask them for previews, pics, impressions. Ask them details about how the game is, how things work. Ask them how they like it. Ask them about the music. Or the performance on low-end machines and graphics cards.

STOP ASKING THEM WHEN. Every time they answer you is another 3 minutes longer that you'll have to wait.

Sarxis · December 16, 2002, 04:05

I'm willing to wait. But all I am saying is it had better be fricking incredible this game.

MariOne · December 16, 2002, 06:16

Hmmmmm..... would I be cinical (sp?) if I say that I expect the game to rather come out on Feb 29th?
Or maybe even on Feb 30th?

Just a bad pun

Dr Strangelove · December 16, 2002, 13:30

You know, I keep hearing over and over about the difficulties of preparing a game for both single and multiple players. Maybe the industry should put their heads together and decide that they simply won't try to offer both in one package. It would not bother me one bit if evferyone who wanted to play on the internet had to go out and plunk down an extra charge to buy th multi-player expansion pack.

RolandtheMad · December 16, 2002, 13:47

Because you wouldn`t be plunking down that extra bit of cash? Haha. The more I think about it the more I realize that someone in the marketing department must have ok`d this so it is already decided. I just don`t see how they can make up for the xmas sales.

Grumbold · December 16, 2002, 13:57

Having missed Xmas, 28/02/03 (thats 02/28/03 for you Americans ) is no better or worse than any other date.

That said, Amazon typically has no clue about release dates so their suppliers are hardly the fount of all wisdom either. Don't sweat it. Enjoy Xmas and play something else