Civ 4, a failure made successful by money and absence of community

[Sorceresss]

I went to a presentation on software development that once presented on the probability of success and failure of a development team. It presented it as a line where the far left is complete and utter failure. The far right is a successful and relatively bug free project. Something like:

Failure |---------------------------------| Success (Perfection)

That's sophisticated analytical modeling !

 

[screwtype]

Why is that a surprise? Did you expect them to be happy to lose money on every game they make? How long would they be in business if they did that? Who would be publishing games at all?Bh

No, I expected that a game company would as a matter of principle look to turn a profit by the quality of its product.

Like I said, it appears I was naive.

 

[Jimbo30]

No, I expected that a game company would as a matter of principle look to turn a profit by the quality of its product.

Like I said, it appears I was naive.

See this is the problem, too many people actually believe that the games industry actually gives a **** about your enjoyment of a game when really all they want is for you to pay whatever it costs to buy the game.

It's gullible muppets like us who are to blame. We keep pre-ordering or rush out to buy games that we think are gonna be great. Both myself and my mate did it with MOO3 and I promised myself then I'd never buy another Atari game until I was satisfied it was a full release.

The really sad thing is, even after the abortion of MOO3 and the disastrous release of Civ4, we'd probably still go out and buy MOO4 and Civ5. Or maybe not next time.

Let's be honest - anyone who is not satisfied with Civ4 only has themself to blame. Next time, don't be in such a rush to buy from a company who has already shown they are more than willing to rush out games that are nowhere near to completion. If you keep buying 1/2 finished games, they'll keep releasing them like that.

We know the score by now, or should do.

 

[Bhruic]

No, I expected that a game company would as a matter of principle look to turn a profit by the quality of its product.

Like I said, it appears I was naive.

If you believed the quality directly impacts profit, than yes, you were naive. Look at any other market. You have products of lower quality that are sold cheaply, and products of high quality that are priced much higher. Who'd stand for that in the gaming industry? If you were required to pay $150 for the 'quality' product, would you do it?

The gaming industry has been 'locked' into a maximum price for a long time now. Since there are only two factors to gross profit, cost and sales, not being able to change the cost means that you have to increase the sales. But if your market is limited, and you can't increase the sales, then your gross profit is relatively locked as well. So even before the game ships, companies can have a fairly good idea of exactly how much the game is going to make. Spending more than that is just going to lose them money, because they aren't going to get any more money because of it.

Now you can complain about the companies 'not caring' about gamers as much as you want, but the reality is, if the companies cannot make a profit on their games, they will not be in business. How much 'caring' about gamers do you think they'd be able to do then?

Bh

 

[GamesMan]

Well, until several years ago, I could return PC games, for any reason, within 2 weeks. I did so quite a few times, when games were released in beta quality, and beleive me, the game companies where well aware that a broken game would cost them dearly.

But because of so much piracy (that's OUR end of the problem, not theirs), you can't return a PC game, and they keep your money reguardless if you got a diamond or a piece of coal

Consoule games seem to have little problem being released without bugs, cause they KNOW they can't tell their users/customers "it's your drivers; it's your OP; it's your sound card; just wait for the patch".

 

[Bhruic]

Consoule games seem to have little problem being released without bugs, cause they KNOW they can't tell their users/customers "it's your drivers; it's your OP; it's your sound card; just wait for the patch".

Gee, maybe that's because there's only 1 driver, only one sound card, etc?

Besides which, plenty of console games get released with bugs. Generally they aren't the 'cause game to crash' variety, but they are still there. Theif 3, for example, always reset the difficulty level to 'easiest' any time you reloaded the game. Of course, the console market didn't really notice, but hey, it was still a bug (it did the same on the PC version, which did get noticed).

Bh

 

[Lizerb]

To everyone that is having trouble with their copy of Civ4, I feel for you. I've been on the recieving end of buggy, nonfunctional software in the past. What's even worse than a publisher/developer's apparent nonchalance in that situation is the disdainful attitude of fellow users, who by some small circumstance aren't affected by these problems.

Just skimming through this thread I've already seen a couple of the typical replies, particularly stating that if the complainers' systems were better then there wouldn't be any problems. This is in my mind akin to contacting helpdesk and being immediately told to reinstall windows. Blah.

I'd like to state, without bragging, that my system runs Civ4 decently - well enough for me at least, especially considering the circumstances. Those being that my computer is somewhat below the minimum specs for the game, particularly in the CPU where it counts.

Small to medium games run very well and without problems. I'm currenly playing the Earth scenario which is I believe a huge map with 8-10 civs. I'm in the early 1800s with the whole world explored, and experience slowdown only when I click somewhere far far away from my cultural boundaries where I spend most of my time. The biggest problem is waiting around 5 minutes for the scenario to load when I begin playing, but I consider it an acceptable tradeoff for my pathetic system and given the amount of time I play. I've never had the game crash or experienced a bug. Maybe I'm just lucky.

Really, my computer is probably the last one that should be able to run this game. That's why I'm saying, despite the fact that a lot of you are having problems, that the game can function well and without bugs. There are definitely more than the supposed small handful of people who can play the game without resizing their swapfiles or some other such solution. Don't let yourself get into a doomsday mentality, constantly thinking of Civ4 as a colossally broken release for everyone and have that negativity bleed over and hurt your game experience once you're finally able to play it functionally.

It is a good game, it's just very unfortunate that you have to be the one to wait a little while longer to properly get your hands on it.

 

[screwtype]

The gaming industry has been 'locked' into a maximum price for a long time now. Since there are only two factors to gross profit, cost and sales, not being able to change the cost means that you have to increase the sales. But if your market is limited, and you can't increase the sales, then your gross profit is relatively locked as well

On the other hand, if you release substandard product, what is it going to do to your reputation and your potential future sales? So I don't think the equation is quite as simple as you make it.

So even before the game ships, companies can have a fairly good idea of exactly how much the game is going to make. Spending more than that is just going to lose them money, because they aren't going to get any more money because of it

In that case it seems to me they should work on reducing their costs. And the most obvious way to do that is to leave out the snazzy 3D engine that no-one needs in a game of this type, and concentrate on good gameplay instead.

IMO there is far too much work going into eye candy these days, and not enough into the underlying game.

Now you can complain about the companies 'not caring' about gamers as much as you want, but the reality is, if the companies cannot make a profit on their games, they will not be in business. How much 'caring' about gamers do you think they'd be able to do then?

I don't recall making such a complaint. I simply expressed suprise that an industry exec would publicly admit that his company is prepared to pass crap onto consumers so long as it comes in on budget.

It doesn't exactly inspire confidence. But then again, perhaps we should give the guy some brownie points for honesty.

 

[Blarg]

I think you're right about this.

This same issue comes up all the time these days, unfortunately. The standards are low and getting lower, and consumers are pretty much going along with it.

I've seen this come up with WoW and with some of the reviews of AOE 3, also. The most recent one I saw in PC Gamer seemed a real travesty, as they didn't mention one thing about the terrible AI - a very important thing in RTS's -- which has been a subject of huge note, and rancor, across the net for weeks now.

Basically, the poor reviews are saved for people not paying substantial advertising revenue. As are, usually, more than the merest peep about even small shortcomings.

 

[Bhruic]

On the other hand, if you release substandard product, what is it going to do to your reputation and your potential future sales? So I don't think the equation is quite as simple as you make it.

Sure, that's a risk. But yes, the equation is as simple as I made it. All you're doing is introducing another factor into the "how many people are going to buy the game" equation. But it still comes down to "gross profit equals how many people buy the game times game price".

In that case it seems to me they should work on reducing their costs. And the most obvious way to do that is to leave out the snazzy 3D engine that no-one needs in a game of this type, and concentrate on good gameplay instead.

You're wrong on that front. Despite what many people wish to believe, it is incredibly hard to sell a game with mediocre graphics to the general public. Not having 3d graphics would have been worse for this game than having all the bugs it has. The days of "good gameplay" selling games is long past.

I don't recall making such a complaint. I simply expressed suprise that an industry exec would publicly admit that his company is prepared to pass crap onto consumers so long as it comes in on budget.

I didn't say you made that complaint - the guy who posted after you did made it.

Bh

 

[FuzzyWeasel]

The bottom line is that right now there is a whole slew of people unable to play at all or playing this game on a diminished level. These are people who paid for this software, they are customers, in every sense of the word they deserve a little respect and support from Firaxis and their fellow gamers who aren't having problems.

....

Xguild... sorry man. You spent a great deal of time on a well-thought-out and intentionally frustrated post in an attempt to get a discussion going. Unfortunately your intelligent, respectful post was immediately followed up by a lame flame of a post by Ubiquitous. Your call for community and comradary was followed by "These fan whores are that gullible and under the thumb..." and "they will simply let themselves be totally walked over for the sake of loyalty."

The topic was hijacked from you. Any intelligent poster on one side or the other had the discussion ganked out from underneath them. Ubiquitous started a ranting flame for which there has been no end to the counter-flames, contiuous flames, and moderator actions.

I agree with some of what you said... and disagree with some and have additional thoughts. While reading your initial thread I was looking forward to joining into the insightful conversation about the state of this game, the gaming community, and the game industry as a whole. However, I wont be joining your thread because it has been degraded into what it is now.

Point of this post? Simply to point out that good threads and real conversations are ruined by the flaming trolls (ie: tards) on both sides of what honestly doesn't have to be a divided issue. We are all gamers... we are all customers... If we can't talk about issues here then we are losing even the little we have.... the "just a bunch of loan wolves that do and say whatever they want with abosulty no thought whatsover."

EDITED: changed "can" to "cant" to make more sense.

 

[Hawks9718]

Well, I'm a little late in on this topic but I couldn't agree more with the original posters statement. Many of us have been fans since the beginning and we are sold a game that is (for many of us) unplayable out of the box. $50.00 and all we get is frustration and endless hours spent trolling the net looking for fixes and time on the tech support line talking to people who have no idea on how to help you.

 

[King Flevance]

FuzzyWeasel makes the best post in here along with Xguilds OP. Early on I tried to jump in and help regain control. However, the ignorance level I was met with quickly made me change my mind. Sorry Xguild.
There have been some good posts along the way since then but it seems most posters I felt that held potential in a possible 'regain of composure' for this thread ducked out too.

A stab at attempting to help:
No matter what side your on, pro-OP or anti-OP, try not to read posts with bias outlooks. This is how you neglect learning. I have had my opinions changed by others many times in my life. However, if you have bias towards someone before they speak you will not truly be listening to what they are saying but instead trying to find areas to attack there logic. (Although this can be used as a constructive method, aka Devil's Advocate, if your position is NOT Devil's Advocate from the start you are just exercising ignorance.)
As a side note, none of my own veiws have been changed on this forum to date. Although my veiws can be said to have been minorly altered none have been able to 'change' them. Mostly because they feel derogatory posts about my views and other's makes them the right one. :shakehead

Rule of thumb: A toddler can learn to insult in a day. They can't understand morality though of behaving themselves or practicing holding their tongues in the sake of arguement to possibly learn, about themselves as well as the world. Be an adult if you are arguing not a toddler.

EDIT: Wanted to specify this has taken place on both sides in this thread.

 

[oldStatesman]

Rule of thumb: A toddler can learn to insult in a day. They can't understand morality though of behaving themselves or practicing holding their tongues in the sake of arguement to possibly learn, about themselves as well as the world. Be an adult if you are arguing not a toddler.

Unfortunately, in the US at least, for 30+ years this type of arguing has prevailed in the mainstream public forums; negative political advertising has dominated; we are constantly barraged by sensationalized news magazine shows; and we have been conditioned to employ those tactics rather than spend a few hours in thoughtful, intelligent, meaningful discussions. We have been taught to flame our opponents, to use catch phrases in place of rational arguments; to use talking points instead of thinking for ourselves.

That said, I lend my endorsement to both the OP and to Fuzzy Weasel; to those of all viewpoints who have debated here instead of arguing. Hopefully someone will read this thread and come away knowing the difference. If that occurs, then it is a success no matter the subject matter or it's relative merits or lack of them.

 

[King Flevance]

That said, I lend my endorsement to both the OP and to Fuzzy Weasel; to those of all viewpoints who have debated here instead of arguing. Hopefully someone will read this thread and come away knowing the difference. If that occurs, then it is a success no matter the subject matter or it's relative merits or lack of them.

Amen.

Ignore this: I need to add charactors to make my post valid.

 

[calyth]

You're wrong on that front. Despite what many people wish to believe, it is incredibly hard to sell a game with mediocre graphics to the general public. Not having 3d graphics would have been worse for this game than having all the bugs it has. The days of "good gameplay" selling games is long past.

Funny you said that.
In our CompSci common room, a while ago, there were rants that new gamers are not nearly as patient as those before them, nor do they appreciate gameplay. All they really care is look at the pretty graphics.
It seems that when Moore's law had made real-time 3D graphics possible, at the same time, people's attention span has decreased dramatically (not saying Moore's law caused it), and there's this lack of care for gameplay, as if they are not, or don't care to be intelligent enough to figure out games anymore.
There are people that spend years playing Nethack and trying to win, and yet for almost everything in Nethack, there's an explanation for it. And guess what? Nethack can be played on a text terminal a least a decade ago...
Are the new gamers simply have no patience and only care for pretty graphics? I hope not, but cynicism is telling me that's probabbly the case. Otherwise, game companies can't really get away with a broken game with pretty graphics.

That being said, there is some level in the validity of differing PC hardware, and frankly, the quality of parts and the stablility of said PC. At my last heckdesk (I'm being PG13 here) job, there was at least one machine with a power supply that failed that none of the IT guys figured, and two motherboards with leaking capacitors. And frankly the parts weren't particularly quality. Friend of mine that worked a few years ago at HP wouldn't touch their hardware with a 10-foot pole. I've had RAM that even cause Linux crash inexplicably. These are problems that developers can't really guard against, and the average gamer might not even know. And it is sad, and very frustrating to see zealous tards that goes "it works fine for me, so nah nah nah!".

I had a minor complaint with Civ 4 before I shelled out for a new video card (mine was old enough anyways), and it wasn't any of the crash to desktop, or unable to render terrain or such. But I can at least emphasize with people having more serious problems. Also it is a shame that Firaxis made the game had such a stringent 3D requirement that simply kept a good portion of gamers (fans even) from playing the game. Instead of making everything look pretty, they could have dialed down the 3D requirement, do some more time on debugging, testing, and profiling to make the engine more efficient and there will simply be less dissatisfied people. Too bad dissatisfaction doesn't do much to influence game companies anymore.