2 page interview with Soren and Barry in April issue of PC Gamer

[Sahkuhnder]

Complete BS.

The programming company (Firaxis) and the distributing company (Take2) typically have a contract, including the delivery date. If one of the parties is to change this contract, the other one has to agree. Period.

So, Firaxis accepted the shift of the release date. Furthermore, it was shifted by just 14 days. And this was half a year ago.

If this 14 days did cause that much problems, time would have been more than sufficient to fix the issues resulting from the shift.
The problems obviously are caused by other reasons.

As it has been reported that the late game never was really tested by humans, but was tested "by extrapolation", this simply means they didn't meet their own schedules.

If they really would have had a running build after six months already (what I doubt) than they have a severe management problem.

Don't try to excuse Firaxis at all costs. They - once again - have proven to face severe problems in managing projects of this size. Almost the same story as with Civ3 and its expansions.

Repeated for emphasis:

How would you like to be a Firaxis programmer and suddenly have your project due date moved up at the last moment?

That's not even the worst of it. Because the product was rushed by Take-2 before it was ready everyone now blames Firaxis for the problem!

Not the boss, but a programmer. Just a grunt doing his day to day job. As in it would be frustrating to work hard on your project, with a due-date already rushed in order to catch the Christmas season sales, and then have that due date moved up by two more weeks.

Now imagine that same normal-Joe programmer listening to everyone slam your product and call you as black_mischief did a "C-minus level development team". How would you feel?

I pointed out that the regular guys that actually do the coding aren't the bosses that make decisions like release dates or corporate sales.

Just me expressing empathy for the actual guys that made IMHO a very enjoyable game.

 

[Commander Bello]

[...]Not the boss, but a programmer. Just a grunt doing his day to day job. As in it would be frustrating to work hard on your project, with a due-date already rushed in order to catch the Christmas season sales, and then have that due date moved up by two more weeks.

Now imagine that same normal-Joe programmer listening to everyone slam your product and call you as black_mischief did a "C-minus level development team". How would you feel?

I pointed out that the regular guys that actually do the coding aren't the bosses that make decisions like release dates or corporate sales.

Just me expressing empathy for the actual guys that made IMHO a very enjoyable game.

Although I am not a programmer, I am working in the software industry at the frontline since years. I am an international acting senior consultant and I am working together with our customers day by day.

I perfectly know that marketing sometimes makes promises which are hard or even impossible to come to live.

But, this is part of my job, so I don't complain about this - externally. I complain about it, internally, though.
On the other hand, what I do, is to communicate with my customers. And believe me, they sometimes really fire quite some salvoes at us.
Well, put on your helmet and explain the reasons. After some time 95% will have calmed down and start to understand.

Firaxis, though, doesn't seem to feel the necessity to do so. Maybe a Thamer or a Soren Johnson are indeed too much occupied by fixing the code.
Well, then they should wake up their customer relation person.
I expect their turnover from this game to be somewhere between 5 to 10 million US $. I don't think it would be too much to ask them to communicate to people who have spend their money for Firaxis' profit.

At the bottom line: if the programming grunt can't bear the criticism, he should have done a better job or look at the local superstore for another job. Whining about how "mean" the customers are, doesn't help much.
Quality is the first means to stop people complaining.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

@ Commander Bello -

Sounds reasonable.

I certainly don't envy anyone working in customer service as you mentioned you do. I have no doubts that what you say about incoming salvoes is anything but the truth and it doesn't sound pleasant to deal with.

Perhaps I am being too easy on the worker programmers but I don't see them as being the real cause of the problem. If black_mischief had simply expressed dissatisfaction with the game or addressed his attack at the management I probably wouldn't have posted at all. His hubris and vanity to make himself an expert and assign a grade to a development team he no doubt knows absolutely nothing about just seemed beyond absurd.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Originally Posted by black_mischief
This patch is long overdue. It is amazing to me that Firaxis takes almost a quarter of a year to fix, what should have been done right the first time. But, I guess we should keep our expectations low from a C-minus level development team to begin with...

Do you play the game?

To Roland Johansen:

I've played with everyone from Tommy, SirPartyMan, RP, to even the noobs and racists that pilfer your Gamespy Internet lobby.

Why are you spending so much time playing a game developed by a C-minus development team? I don't quite understand you.

 

[black_mischief]

Moderator Action: black_mischief - warned for language.

This is a family oriented site, please keep the language as such.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

The forums auto-screen out foul language/words, which you should be aware of. There is also nothing in the rules about inappropriate language, just behavior inappropriate for a public place.

I've said nothing here that is inappropriate for a public forum. And I can assure you, that shareholders and stakeholders of Take Two have accused the company of far worse things, and used far worse language in public forums, than I have.

- bm

 

[Civrules]

The forums auto-screen out foul language/words, which you should be aware of. There is also nothing in the rules about inappropriate language, just behavior inappropriate for a public place.

I've said nothing here that is inappropriate for a public forum. And I can assure you, that shareholders and stakeholders of Take Two have accused the company of far worse things, and used far worse language in public forums, than I have.

- bm

Moderator Action: Public discussion of moderator actions is not allowed. Make contact either through PM or email if you have something to say.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[tombeef]

black mischief, don't you have something better to do besides pick a fight with moderators and swear on a public forum?

Look, Civilization does have bugs, as do most computer games do these days, unfortunately. Could some have them been fixed? Yes. Should Firaxis have considered a different distributor besides Take Two? Yes. And yes, Firaxis is partly to blame. But seriously, is the game really that bad?

And give the programmers who are regular employees a break. They don't have any control over what Firaxis and Take Two do. Sure, you always know something like being rushed could happen, and you know you will get criticized for what you do, but, in the main scheme of things, they have little control. Being a high school student who works in fast food, I am constantly put down by employees and customers, because they think I'm just another ignorant teenager. Some of the stuff I've seen customers do and say is amazing. From throwing food at employees to pulling out a gun. Give the little guys a break.

Oh, and props to Civrules, representing Michigan. And black mischief, I'm sure the moderators are aware of the rules, and, in most cases, swearing is considered inappropriate behavior in a public place.

And don't consider this message an attack on you personally, just an attack on your opinions, which we are all entitled to.

I am out.

 

[warpstorm]

Some of you don't really get the situation on developing Civ. Firaxis doesn't own the rights to make a game of Civ. Atari did (how they got them is a long story) and (recently) sold those rights to Take2. If Firaxis wants to make a Civ game they have to do it with Take2's blessing. (This is a moot point, now, since Take2 besides buying the rights to Civ aslo bought Firaxis).

 

[Sirian]

Now imagine that same normal-Joe programmer listening to everyone slam your product and call you as black_mischief did a "C-minus level development team". How would you feel?

Honestly, it doesn't bother me.

I've been in both positions now -- critic and developer -- and I appreciate both sides of the story. Critics have their points. Some of them are valid. Developers have their boundaries. Sometimes they get too cozy inside those boundaries and do not push on them as hard as they might, but pushing them is not easy. The boundaries are there for a reason.

Nobody gets everything they want. You can't do that even if you own your own company, including publishing and developing.

Unless you have a reasonably thick skin, you shouldn't be leading any effort of any size anywhere. It's hard enough to get five or six people on to the same page. Expecting 100% of customers from a customer base over a million in size to all line up and praise a particular game is pie in the sky.

Even angry and hostile critics have their role. In the end, it all comes down to whether or not they know what they're talking about. What matters is whether the judgements are fair and informed. Do they take everything of importance in to account? Do they describe legitimate problems that the developer could solve by doing things differently? Do they point the way toward solutions? ... If all they offer is misemotion and negativity for its own sake, then developers tune them out and move on.


- Sirian

 

[King Flevance]

And then there is me...

I am just happy that after 2 patches in 4 months, possibly five if they still delay it for another week or two, they have finally decided technical issues need to be addressed.

All I have to say is it's about time.

 

[tombeef]

Honestly, it doesn't bother me.

I've been in both positions now -- critic and developer -- and I appreciate both sides of the story. Critics have their points. Some of them are valid. Developers have their boundaries. Sometimes they get too cozy inside those boundaries and do not push on them as hard as they might, but pushing them is not easy. The boundaries are there for a reason.

Nobody gets everything they want. You can't do that even if you own your own company, including publishing and developing.

Unless you have a reasonably thick skin, you shouldn't be leading any effort of any size anywhere. It's hard enough to get five or six people on to the same page. Expecting 100% of customers from a customer base over a million in size to all line up and praise a particular game is pie in the sky.

Even angry and hostile critics have their role. In the end, it all comes down to whether or not they know what they're talking about. What matters is whether the judgements are fair and informed. Do they take everything of importance in to account? Do they describe legitimate problems that the developer could solve by doing things differently? Do they point the way toward solutions? ... If all they offer is misemotion and negativity for its own sake, then developers tune them out and move on.


- Sirian

To put it simply, exactly right.

 

[Geddy]

One only needs to look at the large numbers of people in the tech support forum to see how, for the first time, a civ game has failed its loyal fans. The first thing they need to fix is the fact that this game crashes and locks up with monotonous regularity. If this is not done quickly there will be no civ 5.

 

[prof_geoff_tate]

Even angry and hostile critics have their role. In the end, it all comes down to whether or not they know what they're talking about. What matters is whether the judgements are fair and informed. Do they take everything of importance in to account? Do they describe legitimate problems that the developer could solve by doing things differently? Do they point the way toward solutions? ... If all they offer is misemotion and negativity for its own sake, then developers tune them out and move on.

Absolutely.

The relevant question here is not simply whether "this situation has been ****ed up," as black_mischief asserts, but whether it "has been ****ed up" in relation to other similar products. After all, if the cIV product and the cIV development/distribution cycle are simply reflective of the industry norm, any "****ed up" results are not merely a criticism of Firaxis or Take-Two, but rather of the entire industry.

So did Firaxis/Take Two deviate from the industry norm (i.e., what PC gamers can expect)?

The cIV development/distribution cycle has been, IMHO, very much reflective of the PC software industry norm. Aggressive timelines and release-and-patch strategies are standard practice -- and help control the costs of a project and get things finished. I don't think the cIV team deviated from industry standards in a way that exposes them to especial criticism.

I also think that the initial product was not substantially more buggy than many other products are at intial release. I can no doubt think of plenty of less buggy releases -- but I can also think of plenty of more buggy releases. I don't think cIV negatively deviates from the norm so much as to give the development team a C-minus.

In fact, cIV represents a pretty good release, IMHO, given the various pressures the competitive PC gaming market places on development/distribution cycles. The cIV cycle stuck to accepted industry norms, and the team turned out an enjoyable product that works for the vast majority of people, that is being patched as is customary, and that will make a decent amount of money. Overall, well done, I say.

In short, cIV has not been any more "****ed up" than any number of other games. Maybe this means the industry needs to change, but it doesn't give rise to particular criticism of the cIV team.

Of course, maybe some of you might think that cIV could have or should have deviated from the industry norms in a positive way. But you can't fault the cIV team for refusing to take abnormal risks, particularly with a big-name franchise.

 

[Commander Bello]

[...]
The cIV development/distribution cycle has been, IMHO, very much reflective of the PC software industry norm. Aggressive timelines and release-and-patch strategies are standard practice -- and help control the costs of a project and get things finished. I don't think the cIV team deviated from industry standards in a way that exposes them to especial criticism.
[...]
In short, cIV has not been any more "****ed up" than any number of other games. Maybe this means the industry needs to change, but it doesn't give rise to particular criticism of the cIV team.

Of course, maybe some of you might think that cIV could have or should have deviated from the industry norms in a positive way. But you can't fault the cIV team for refusing to take abnormal risks, particularly with a big-name franchise.

Forgive me, but your statements are just the ones of an underaged person, glad to have got a nice present from the programming/distributing complex.

So, if the whole industry delivers crap to their customers, we are not to blame a given company for doing so as well?

How, in your opinion, would one make things ever change, if all people would be of your opinion? "Oh, all the other ones are not doing well either, so let us not blame XYZ..."

I say:" Let us blame them!" Let us articulate our anger and frustration about hours, days and in some cases weeks of time spent only to learn that the game doesn't run well (on properly set up machines, meeting the necessary requirements). Let us shout out that loud that they indeed have to fear to lose their customers!
This is the only way to make them deliver what we have paid for. And if the number of a million of copies being sold is correct, we are talking about a turnover of ~40 to 50 million US$. For this amount, I guess, the customer may indeed expect some quality.

 

[dalwand]

Forgive me, but your statements are just the ones of an underaged person, glad to have got a nice present from the programming/distributing complex.

This is not a nice way to say what you want to say (even though you may be right). What I mean is, I would say you think it is a naieve and not very assertive way of looking at things, and that it is better to have the attitude:

I say:" Let us blame them!" Let us articulate our anger and frustration.

And here I must say that I agree. The game has spoiled some of my fun by running so bad on my quite good computer. I have a preference for quite small maps simply because of this reason, since every time I play on larger maps things start to run quite crappy at some point. So I miss out on the grande epic game play!

 

[prof_geoff_tate]

Forgive me, but your statements are just the ones of an underaged person, glad to have got a nice present from the programming/distributing complex.

Ah, yes. An ad hominem response was inevitable. Give me a break, dude.

So, if the whole industry delivers crap to their customers, we are not to blame a given company for doing so as well?

My point is simply that if the whole industry delivers "crap," there's no (rational) justification for singling out Firaxis / Take Two as particularly bad unless its "crap" is worse than the other "crap" being put out.

How, in your opinion, would one make things ever change, if all people would be of your opinion? "Oh, all the other ones are not doing well either, so let us not blame XYZ..."

Simple. Try to change the industry as a whole. That was one of my suggestions -- although you're unlikely to be able to do that unless you are a member of an influential industry standards group. Or try to convince a company to deviate from industry standards in a way that you think will improve its product. Good luck with convincing companies to try out novel methods -- particularly with products that carry easily monetizable goodwill, such as the Civ franchise.

Of course, the other (and most powerful) way to make things change is the one that I didn't mention: speaking with your money. Don't buy products you don't like. If you buy the product, you're telling the company that your net utility at the offered price is positive. Or are you complaining -- in that neo-consumerist entitlement way -- that your net utility wasn't positive enough? If so, I don't think anyone will care.

I say:" Let us blame them!" Let us articulate our anger and frustration about hours, days and in some cases weeks of time spent only to learn that the game doesn't run well (on properly set up machines, meeting the necessary requirements). Let us shout out that loud that they indeed have to fear to lose their customers!
This is the only way to make them deliver what we have paid for. And if the number of a million of copies being sold is correct, we are talking about a turnover of ~40 to 50 million US$. For this amount, I guess, the customer may indeed expect some quality.

"What we paid for?" I don't know what you think you paid for, but you paid for what you bought -- caveat emptor. If you expected something beyond with a degree of "quality" beyond what you would normally receive in a PC game, you might think about adjusting your expectations or else you'll be disappointed and angry a whole lot.

I'm not "thankful" for a "nice present" -- I'm just realistic about how the world works. In Derek-Smart-land, where every game is supposed to be what Battlecruiser 3000AD was supposed to be, cIV is a crap product. In the real world, cIV is a decent and enjoyable product from which I derived more utility than the purchase price was worth to me.

 

[zx1111]

I think that game is much like movie in how customer chose product to buy.
We must make a buy- or-not decision before actually see and examine the product. And buyer usually can not refund their product after buying it.
So we depends on game review or opinions of friends or site like here, much like choosing movie to go in saturday night.
One who feel that they are not satisfied with the a game or movie ( Civ , here) has every right to say so and complain about the product here or other BBS.
It is good thing. That will reduce potential sales of the game or movie franchise and promotes developement of competing, better game or movie than Civ4. If enough many of the royal gamer feels that they are betrayed in new products of their royal francise, they will quit to buy it and the compnay will go broke. (It was a case for me and HOMM4 and New world computing Inc.)
This is how the free speech and capitalism works...
I like Civ 4 and plays a lot, but I also complains some deficency or bug of it. I hope that my complaint will be bitter but good medicine to next version of Civ4 or Civ5...
IMHO, Civ 4 is well-designed but poorly implemented game. They could have done better than this.

 

[prof_geoff_tate]

One who feel that they are not satisfied with the a game or movie ( Civ , here) has every right to say so and complain about the product here or other BBS.
It is good thing. That will reduce potential sales of the game or movie franchise and promotes developement of competing, better game or movie than Civ4. If enough many of the royal gamer feels that they are betrayed in new products of their royal francise, they will quit to buy it and the compnay will go broke. (It was a case for me and HOMM4 and New world computing Inc.).

Agreed.

To be clear, I don't think anyone here is trying to dissuade those who have complaints from expressing them. I know I'm not.

I hope that my complaint will be bitter but good medicine to next version of Civ4 or Civ5...

Here is my point: I just don't think it will be bitter medicine.

Again, like Sirian, I think that "what matters is whether the judgements [upon which complaints are based] are fair and informed."

Fundamentally, what I am saying is that I believe the average thick-skinned developer or publisher will form opinions about what is "fair and informed" not based on individual consumer expectations, but rather based on working practices (i.e., whether the cIV team took unusual development or publishing risks that exposed them to especial criticism) and empirical commercial results (i.e., profit).

In light of those facts, if someone criticizes the cIV team for a "situation [that] has been ****ed up," as black_mischief did, I just don't think anyone who matters is going to lose sleep over it. "Nobody gets fired for choosing IBM," as the adage goes, and nobody gets fired for adhering to market-standard practices. Certainly nobody gets fired if there are a number of complaints regarding a commercially very successful product. So, while perhaps the cIV team will be nice and try to respond to complaints in a helpful way (which would also probably be good business practice), the fact that the cIV team turned a good profit without taking undue risks means that complaints like black_mischief's are not going to be "bitter medicine" by any stretch of the imagination, like it or not.

I don't mean to comment on whether those with complaints have the moral high ground -- to do that would necessarily, IMO, evolve into a discussion of whether modern corporations are moral entities (although I will say that I believe more corporate governance reform is appropriate). But I won't bore you with that.

Ultimately I'm just saying it like it is: cIV is a pretty good release by empirical standards. And results are what businesses care about. Complaints (and lawsuits) are part of doing business, but most businesses won't put too much credence in them unless empirical results show something is going wrong. My posts above simply reflect that reality (as well as my take on the situation given that reality).