A case for forum members easing up on 2K a bit

Guys and Gals... A little perspective needs to be reached here. I'm starting to see a level of entitlement bordering on gradeschool level tantrums throughout the forums. I can think of very few successful games ever who have worked with the Civfanatics community as closely as 2K has. They have, in my opinion, excelled in comparison to other game developers when it comes to direct contact, Q&A, taking suggestions, implementing desired changes, and evolving the series so as to remain true to the spirit of the game but not remain "too safe" to keep the future titles from being interesting. Please give 2K some credit, and a little gratitude, for reaching out like they have.

Not every one of us is going to get everything they ask for. Some of us might not even get anything we ask for. It would be impossible to make a game AND run a company in such a way that could please everyone all the time. If they were trying to make something that would appeal to the broadest number of people possible, they'd make the next Civ a rehash of Farmville (or whatever the hell it's called). Instead, they are trying to reach out and give an inch to y'all, and many of you are trying to take a mile, and complaining about it the whole time.

Let's just relax and try to appreciate that we're getting Civ5 this fall (in theory), and that they've actually tried to create it with the wishes of their most hardcore fans -considered- along with all the other myriad of demands along the way. That's a helluva lot more than I can say for my other favorite game devs.

DISCLAIMER: No, I'm not a 2K or forum employee, nor have I been asked, paid, or compensated in any way to say this. I'm just an adult fan of Civ watching something very unpleasant happening by otherwise good people to other good people.

A simple "Let there be no misunderstanding. We chose Steam as our cost-free DRM solution, it offering more to our fans than Gamespy or XFire. They were happy to provide the service in exchange for a new audience for their advertising of other games , alone. We threw Babylon in the Deluxe edition to appease the people who were working on that stuff, because they lost the in-house election as to what was to go in the game. We were originally going to go with a throne room instead. WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF ABANDONING OUR PROVEN CIV BUSINESS MODEL OF GAME, EXPANSIONS, and GOLD EDITION. WE WILL NOT GIVE CIV THE BIOSHOCK 2 TREATMENT"..... would have gone a long way, I'm sure.

The backlash is necessary for 2K Games to understand that their decision upsets a significant portion of their most dedicated fan base.

Nobody is faulting 2K Games for trying to enhance the game, but their choice of action matters just as much as the spirit of the action it was made with. There are a variety of ways 2K Games could have chosen to better integrate the community into the game; they simply chose one that carries additional restrictions which are not appreciated. To not say anything is to say that nobody minds.

As the old saying goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

I don't care about their intentions one bit. I care about the results- and they delivered a result I find unacceptable.

Meh.

5chars

I haven’t seen single rude post here. (or better, mods were doing their job quick and well)
I would like to hear from them that they got ill treatment here.
People post some facts and ask questions and they are here to answer them.
There’s no whip above their head. (at least not from our side)

And yea, intention is to sell the game. That much we know already.

myturn said:

I haven’t seen single rude post here.

Click to expand...

Do a forum search on ********

Moderator Action: Warning for Trolling

2k dropped the ball on this in a big way. So they, the publisher, dictates various elements of the game to the developers (Firaxis). Fine. Sucks, but thats the way it is for many, but not all developers. One of the things that 2k takes away from the developer is advertising and community relations. So 2k makes it their job to release teaser info and to interact with the fans. Firaxis isn't fully free to do this. They have limits on what they are allowed to do and say. So 2k rightly takes all the flak for PR failures.

So 2k decides to go with steam. Then, when the time is right for them, they release this knowledge to the public. 2k totally failed in how this came down. One result of their failure is already evident in how it has affected the tone of this fan site. Issues such as forced updates breaking save games, mods, HOF, GOTM etc should have been painfully obvious. And they had to know that questions relating to internet access would be near and dear to many of Civs fanbase. And more. I trust that the Firaxians knew exactly the ramifications of steam; and could forsee those things that the fanbase would be most concerned about. But PR is 2k's job. And decisions such as steam are ultimately 2k's.

When 2k announced that steam was required for Civ5, they should have been ready with some answers. They weren't. They just dumped the info and left us to deal with the mess it caused here. As these questions from the fanbase began heating up they should have put some of the fire out with some actionable information. Instead 2k Elizabeth strung us along with a load of marketing hollow talk. Eventually she announced they'd hired one of our fellow CivFanatics to get answers to our most pressing questions. More than 2 weeks later there is still nothing! Bah!! 2k words of caring about the community etc are a farce. The proof is in the pudding. Yet they continue to use that hollow marketing talk to tell us how much they care about their fanbases and how hard they work on our behalf. BAH HUMBUG!!

"2k dropped the ball on this in a big way."

And i'm almost 100% sure that they knew what some of reactions would be.
Aaand i don't see them as much troubled with this.

White Elk said:

So they, the publisher, dictates various elements of the game to the developers (Firaxis).

Click to expand...

The choice to use Steamworks was a decision by both 2K and Firaxis. Although really it's silly to even make a distinction between the two; we're both parts of the same company and we work as closely together as, for example, different groups at Firaxis do. We're all the same team.

Steamworks is a great thing for the developer; it allows them to make a better game. It's a lot like why most people use DirectX or OpenGL instead of writing their own 3d renderer from scratch.

So, even if you don't plan on using the specific features that Steamworks allows the developers to implement very easily (like multiplayer,) it still gets you a better overall game because those features (which would be there no matter what framework, if any, was decided on) took less time to implement.

2K Greg said:

So, even if you don't plan on using the specific features that Steamworks allows the developers to implement very easily (like multiplayer,) it still gets you a better overall game because those features (which would be there no matter what framework, if any, was decided on) took less time to implement.

Click to expand...

This is the bit thats important to me. Everyone asking for a Steamless version is asking for a worse game.

2k dropped the ball on this in a big way.

Click to expand...

I agree that the initial handling of this was a bit off; an announcement that the game would require Steam should have been accompanied by a clear official FAQ. (Things like: does Steam force auto-patching? Will Steam allow me to play offline?)

Senethro said:

This is the bit thats important to me. Everyone asking for a Steamless version is asking for a worse game.

Click to expand...

I don't see why it's better. I won't own a copy of the game as movable property; it's being treated as a service, which I cannot sell or transfer, and which can be taken away from me if I break arbitrary rules.

It's like saying that having to pay full cover price to get a book out of the library is "better" than just owning the thing for the same price.

As everyone keeps saying over and over again, no one has a problem with all the good things Steam does... talk with friends, etc.

The issues those have with Steam is well known to 2K. 2K has implemented barbaric DRM in the past; and to them, Steam probably seems like doing everyone a favor compared to their custom SecuRom with irremovable rootkit for instance.

What 2K Greg said is correct: Steamworks is a great thing for the developer. And it is only great for the developer; it's not so great for the consumer, and in the direction Steam is heading, it only gets worse for the consumer down the road.

Steamworks allows easier multiplayer. If that is one of the sole reasons, why not make it so Steam is required to play multiplayer, and not required for single player? Too much work involved? Valve doesn't want to?

DRM (Steam) allows them (Firaxis) to make a better game? Yea, I'm sure it does. The game would be sub-par without Steam.

I seriously doubt Firaxis was the driving force behind Steam... I can make a bet that 2K was that force, along with Valve there pushing it with all their 'Transparency'.

-----------------

Per Valve, and implied statements of Steam future, Data-Mining (including no opt-in customer demographics) and Consumer non-ownership of any portion of the game (including intellectual rights... purchasing the game = game rental to Valve) is some of the main DRM ideas that are in force now, or will be in the (near?) future. These are draconian ideas for such a non-draconian DRM scheme. If Steam had none of the user-friendly UI or features; people would see it for what it actually is.

I dislike dependency on Steam. Much in the way going to the bookstore and cracking open a fresh, new book right off the shelf is an unforgettable -albeit small- moment, I love going to a videogame store and purchasing the game physically, encased with a real instruction manual with a plastic seal to be broken open upon one's return home. Besides that, Steam download times can be infuriatingly long.

tom2050 said:

What 2K Greg said is correct: Steamworks is a great thing for the developer. And it is only great for the developer; it's not so great for the consumer[...]

Click to expand...

What I'm trying to say is that it's good for the developer because it allows them to make a better game overall. The singleplayer experience in Civilization V is better than it would have been without Steamworks, because it allowed them to implement all of the Steamworks-supported features a lot quicker and easier.

tom2050 said:

I seriously doubt Firaxis was the driving force behind Steam...

Click to expand...

I wish I could say something to convince you otherwise. In the end you can choose to believe me or not, but I am telling you the truth when I say that the use of Steamworks was something the developers wanted.

Centurio said:

I dislike dependency on Steam. Much in the way going to the bookstore and cracking open a fresh, new book right off the shelf is an unforgettable -albeit small- moment, I love going to a videogame store and purchasing the game physically, encased with a real instruction manual with a plastic seal to be broken open upon one's return home. Besides that, Steam download times can be infuriatingly long.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's this symbolic thing which I will miss the most, it feels so unceremonious to just get out the debit card and then download it all sitting at home. I loved the act of going to the store and actually buying a physical thing. Then ripping off the plastic and cracking it open, flicking through the manual while it installed, and the lovely new manual smell even...

All the same, I still think quite a few people are particularly angry at Steam because they are still under the false impression you have to be online to play Steam games, whereas all mine simply enter offline mode and I go on to play them.

2K Greg wrote:

I wish I could say something to convince you otherwise. In the end you can choose to believe me or not, but I am telling you the truth when I say that the use of Steamworks was something the developers wanted.

Click to expand...

Argueing over who decided to use steam is kind of pointless now. Its there and has made CIV V too unattractive to buy. A confirmation post, from a developer, would make your statement more believable though.

2K Greg said:

So, even if you don't plan on using the specific features that Steamworks allows the developers to implement very easily (like multiplayer,) it still gets you a better overall game because those features (which would be there no matter what framework, if any, was decided on) took less time to implement.

Click to expand...

Hey Greg I appreciate your wading into the discussion with these points, it's helpful. Specifically what are the Steamworks features that allow the developers to implement very easily that would be in the game regardless? Will you please list them all if you can?

2K Greg said:

The singleplayer experience in Civilization V is better than it would have been without Steamworks, because it allowed them to implement all of the Steamworks-supported features a lot quicker and easier.

Click to expand...

Good news in a way I suppose meaning the game will be released sooner (but not cheaper); however I'm still puzzled why you require Steam as a condition of play? Is that Steam's demand? The DRM scheme? I don't use multi-player, I loathe DLC and shun auto updates, why must Steam be mandatory for me?

Honestly, I'm more annoyed about the potential they went with dumbing down the game or delivering civ 5 as a game lacking replayability and the civ franchise's characteristic gameplay. Steam isn't a huge concern of mine, but it's not like people being upset by DRM-related things is unexpected, it's happened everywhere for a couple years.