Alarming silence of Firaxis

[Lt_Kain]

I have to say, what a ...<Snip>... long post and all for nothing.
If you are not happy with the game, i could advice you to do like i do, use some basics XML, the work of the pro modder and do your civ4 of your dream.
For example take the last unofficial patch, Varietas, and Revolution and you got an hell of game ^^ ( My friend have linked all those mods and its rock!)

I think Firaxis made an hell of a Job, and i thank them for that ... the game is playable and it can be modified, change and customized, what can i say.

Regards,

Moderator Action: Please don't use the language. It's against [rules]forum rules[/rules] and isn't needed to make your point.

 

[wwassme]

I was at a seminar yesterday where a speaker on corporate public relations said, in the context of responding to allegations of corporate misconduct:

10-15% of the people will hate you no matter what you do or say.
10-15% of the people will love you no matter what you do or say.
The rest will decide if you are a villain or not based on all of the available information. Accordingly, your concern should be the 70-80% of the people in the middle.

This thread seems a good proof of her point.

Personally, I don't think Firaxis has done a good job of keeping its customer base advised or responding to concerns and complaints. I certainly understand the difficulties of software development pointed out by various posters. This is mostly a public relations issue and failure. An occasional update on the official CIV IV website, or on CFC and Apolyton, on the status of patches would have (and probably still would) work wonders. The majority in the middle would be satisified with a target date and, if it gets close and that target date isn't likely to be met, a note in advance that the target date needs to be extended and why.

 

[r_rolo1]

I was at a seminar yesterday where a speaker on corporate public relations said, in the context of responding to allegations of corporate misconduct:

10-15% of the people will hate you no matter what you do or say.
10-15% of the people will love you no matter what you do or say.
The rest will decide if you are a villain or not based on all of the available information. Accordingly, your concern should be the 70-80% of the people in the middle.

This thread seems a good proof of her point.

Personally, I don't think Firaxis has done a good job of keeping its customer base advised or responding to concerns and complaints. I certainly understand the difficulties of software development pointed out by various posters. This is mostly a public relations issue and failure. An occasional update on the official CIV IV website, or on CFC and Apolyton, on the status of patches would have (and probably still would) work wonders. The majority in the middle would be satisified with a target date and, if it gets close and that target date isn't likely to be met, a note in advance that the target date needs to be extended and why.

Wise words, my friend.... I'm in the same boat as you.

 

[King Flevance]

I'll third that.

 

[arstal]

I think the real problem- is Securom. They charge companies for patches, and this reduces the frequency of patches. Other devs has used this as an excuse before, so I'm sure that it is part of the problem.

If Firaxis didn't get gouged by a third-rate malware company (I have no problem with certain copy protection schemes, such as Stardock's, but I do with most.) there would likely be more patches.

If I was Firaxis: here's what I'd do:
1) Switch to Stardock's Game Service- it's likely cheaper then what they're paying Securom- in fact, the publicity would probably make Stardock not charge much of anything. (I dislike Steam but that's an option as well)

2) Release Beta patches on an "as-is, unsupported" basis. You'll get QC done quicker and establish better goodwill.

I know I would likely not play the game much if it wasn't for the unofficial patches, but I do find it sad that most of the effective QC work so far has been done by fans and not Firaxis.

 

[grommit5]

I think the real problem- is Securom. They charge companies for patches, and this reduces the frequency of patches. Other devs has used this as an excuse before, so I'm sure that it is part of the problem.

If Firaxis didn't get gouged by a third-rate malware company (I have no problem with certain copy protection schemes, such as Stardock's, but I do with most.) there would likely be more patches.

If I was Firaxis: here's what I'd do:
1) Switch to Stardock's Game Service- it's likely cheaper then what they're paying Securom- in fact, the publicity would probably make Stardock not charge much of anything. (I dislike Steam but that's an option as well)

2) Release Beta patches on an "as-is, unsupported" basis. You'll get QC done quicker and establish better goodwill.

I know I would likely not play the game much if it wasn't for the unofficial patches, but I do find it sad that most of the effective QC work so far has been done by fans and not Firaxis.

stardock would scare off far more people than it would fix problems

as-is unsupported patches would irritate even more people with new bugs

IMO

 

[pikesfan]

Not being an expert in computers, I'm a little wary of private patches and prefer to wait for the official ones (though the fact that so many people use them has made me less wary of them) if only because then I can undo it if necessary. So I wasn't happy to hear that a new patch made things worse in some way and have decided to avoid installing BtS (though I have it) until the new patch comes out.

But I would be happy with a lot of little patches. I know trying to make everything perfect in one swoop is difficult. Is it just not practical to release patches in this way?

 

[r_rolo1]

But I would be happy with a lot of little patches. I know trying to make everything perfect in one swoop is difficult. Is it just not practical to release patches in this way?

The problem with that ( like it was previously said in this mile long thread ) is that if you didn't connected your computer for a day to the web, you simply would be dessincronized of the rest of the civ community. For a normal single player gamer that is not very relevant, but for anyone that plays MPs or that have some kind of online game ( like the SG or the GotM ) that would be pretty bad. And , besides that, it would be more dificult and expensive for the game producer to do a big number of small patches than a few big ones.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

stardock would scare off far more people than it would fix problems

as-is unsupported patches would irritate even more people with new bugs

IMO

If there were Both
as-is unsupported 'Beta' patches
AND
Official supported patches

then It would be ideal... essentially because that is what we have in the Civ community... but the 'as-is unsupported' patches aren't done by Firaxis

If they were, then the 3.13 + "Bhurics" would be getting closer and closer to version 3.29 and Bhuric would be getting paid (even if it was only one day a week.)

 

[theKurgen]

as-is unsupported patches would irritate even more people with new bugs

IMO

Solver and Bhruic's as-is unsupported patches didn't irritate many people. In fact, I'd say we were all grateful for fixing firaxis' stuffups!

 

[MrCynical]

Stardock is really not the answer - however good the actual patches to Gal Civ 2 are, the patching system itself is the worst I've ever encountered. I don't like unnecesary third party programs, and Stardock is little more than spyware. It also doesn't work very well in terms of actually getting the game patched, requiring about 30 times the time and effort that the existing Civ system does, and is bug ridden itself.

I was at a seminar yesterday where a speaker on corporate public relations said, in the context of responding to allegations of corporate misconduct:

10-15% of the people will hate you no matter what you do or say.
10-15% of the people will love you no matter what you do or say.
The rest will decide if you are a villain or not based on all of the available information. Accordingly, your concern should be the 70-80% of the people in the middle.

This thread seems a good proof of her point.

Personally, I don't think Firaxis has done a good job of keeping its customer base advised or responding to concerns and complaints. I certainly understand the difficulties of software development pointed out by various posters. This is mostly a public relations issue and failure. An occasional update on the official CIV IV website, or on CFC and Apolyton, on the status of patches would have (and probably still would) work wonders. The majority in the middle would be satisified with a target date and, if it gets close and that target date isn't likely to be met, a note in advance that the target date needs to be extended and why.

Well put. One of the main criticism of Firaxis has been their total lack of communication with the community. Even in the recent 3.13 fiasco there was no real communication, since Alexman was acting in an unofficial capacity, and in any case provided zero accurate information on when the patch would be released. That was worse than useless - I could have posted random messages every week or so that the patch would be out next week, and it would have been both as accurate and as helpful. The change list was the only piece of information we actually got that was of value.

I have to agree Firaxis ought to give an official ETA, and updates BEFORE it passes if it will not be met, either on the currently pointless official site, or here and at Apolyton. Not doing that just annoys everyone - and the purpose of patches is after all to maintain a good reputation in the community. They can hardly complain at being criticised for poor communication when all we get is "there will be a patch out before the end of time" buried in one thread.

As to not giving an ETA because you don't think you can meet it - when they get free choice of the time frame, and a certain amount of flexibility if you telll us what's going on, again they deserve all the criticism they get, as that level of poor planning is plain pathetic.

 

[arstal]

The only thing I've found unnecessarily slow on SDC has been downloading and installing the heightmaps. No idea why.

It definitely isn't spyware, since you can open it, check for patch, then close it. It doesn't leave any traces on your system anymore. (It used to in GC1 days, but hasn't in the last two years- they heard complaints and fixed it)

Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about.

As for Firaxis- due to Stardock and a lesser extent paradox- I expect that level of customer service now. While Firaxis's level of service may be "good enough" for most people, it's been substandard to what I expect.

Is that enough to make me stop buying? Honestly, no. The games themselves when fixed are good, and fans fix them well enough to my taste. That said, I'm going to wait a week now in future. Firaxis did lose my absolute trust in terms of reliability, though not to the extent Sega's PC division/CA did with MTW2. If you want bad service, look at that game. Firaxis I still trust to make good games, just with poor QC. Thankfully the fans can do Firaxis's job better then Firaxis can.

(Sega's console division is different- VF5 is a bucket of fun and 360 owners should get that game- best 360 game of the year.)

 

[fizsh]

Not being an expert in computers, I'm a little wary of private patches and prefer to wait for the official ones (though the fact that so many people use them has made me less wary of them) if only because then I can undo it if necessary. So I wasn't happy to hear that a new patch made things worse in some way and have decided to avoid installing BtS (though I have it) until the new patch comes out.

But I would be happy with a lot of little patches. I know trying to make everything perfect in one swoop is difficult. Is it just not practical to release patches in this way?

I was like that with Solver's patch. I didn't download his patch to 3.02 because I am not an computer expert. Plus, I didn't have a big problem with BtS v.302. However, I decided to try Bhruic's patch. I have 3.13 with Bhruic's 1.09 patch. It wasn't difficult to install, and I guess now they even have an installer with it.

As far as a lot of little patches go, I assume based on what I've read that it would be too expensive to keep coming up with little patches, and thus a few larger ones are more cost effective.

 

[occam]

Long ago, in post #158 (first third of this thread)...

Oh really? By your statement if the masses claim someone is guilty of a crime than they are guilty, even if the evidence states otherwise. Truth and fact are not derived from the masses opinion.

(sic)

Methos,

The person (T.A Jones) that you are criticizing is not necessarily suggesting mob rule governs reality. I think that when it comes to evaluating testing, especially in PC games, the final verdict does belong to the masses... and you should not mock that poster.

Because another name for the masses -- the installed base.

<snip>
- O

 

[Padma]

Methos is speaking truth.

Are you suggesting that the tiny fraction of vocal critics who post here actually constitute "the installed base" of this game? I think you overestimate their importance by a huge factor.

 

[Duuk]

Methos is speaking truth.

Are you suggesting that the tiny fraction of vocal critics who post here actually constitute "the installed base" of this game? I think you overestimate their importance by a huge factor.

to be honest, I'd suggest that the vast majority of the people that purchased Civ4/Warlords/BtS have moved on to other games. Such is the short attention span of consumers in the modern world.

Those that are left using this software are the ones more likely to discover bugs, especially dumb bugs like the missing culture icons and the spy issue (from 3.02).

If Firaxis doesn't want negative word of mouth to affect the sales of their next-gen products, they would be wise to better support their current generation.

After all, how many people did it take before Activision was unable to sell grand strategy games and decided to stick with Spongebob FPS games?

 

[T.A JONES]

The fact I was openly mocked by the civ4 mod is not unusual but to have a well respected civ3 mod come to defend his actions on a open Fireaxis commications line only days back from his visit to thier company Headquarters is somewhat more troubling for me.


THank you @Duuk and @occam for defending this realty so elequety in my defence. Occum especially I am truly impressed the resounding certainity and diplomatic rebuttels that resonate from your words here and across the forum (example)

Spoiler :

Powerslave,

Thank you for your reply, and your precis of the recent releases by Firaxis.

I am sorry to say that we seem to disagree as to what qualifies as evidence of design or intent.

Some of the things you mention could be further symptoms of poor implementation instead, like the broken Gandhi.

Some of the things you claim about the market in general would certainly require a further reference. I did play SMAC but I did not know that it was notorious for selling poorly. Is Firaxis on record as regarding SMAC as a failure?

I have some skepticism that you are accurately reading the situation due to to the risk of confirmation bias (you have displayed a remarkably disparaging attitude towards one side of this issue). Have you taken any steps to guard against this? If not, I can't help but discard your anecdotal and inexpert insight into the developer's strategies.

============

This could go on forever, you presenting your 'deductions' about designer intent, and me debunking them as poorly reasoned or unofficial, but the cycle stops here. I'm not debunking the next round. I feel confident that anyone who has understood my previous points has learned the process and can carry it out for themselves.

I posted this to show my confidence in your sound reasoning and example of the type of great character I am lucky to have in my corner this particularly most important instance.


I worked in a fancy hotel resturant were they taught us to listen to that one custumer who is taking the time to complain. Usually they represent a much larger silent audience/patrionage who shares this veiw but will instead simply move on I was told. LIke @Duuk said, they go somewhere else and all the while tell anyone who listens the problems they ran into.
Is it that hard to assume this has merit and can apply elsewhere aswell? Surley not in fact I bet many are in agreence but how many of those will actually speak up

 

[Bhruic]

Is it that hard to believe this can passover to other industys? Its funny to hear someone suggest 'Well its only these loud annoying minority on the forums who complain. The ones who don't know about civfan must all be loving it (bts)'

That's a strawman argument. No one said that everyone not on these forums is loving the game.

Further, you don't speak for the masses. Nor do these forums represent them. Therefore you are in no positition to claim what the masses think or say, which is clearly what you are trying to do in the part quoted in post #158. In fact, you aren't even in the majority on this forum. It's one thing to speak about your personal gripes, it's another to claim to speak for everyone.

Finally, on the internet, there is almost always a vocal minority that is openly hostile about anything. That's true for things other than computer games, check some of the imdb threads for movie examples. Having a bunch of people screaming "X sucks" is entirely too common. No rational person would conclude that every X product does suck. Nor should anyone conclude that about BTS based on the vocal minority here.

(Please note, that I am not saying there are no issues with BTS, or that people with constructive criticism aren't being helpful - they are. People making baseless accusations such as this individual poster are who my comments are aimed at)

The fact I was openly mocked

You were not "openly mocked". Your false statement was called out as a false statement. If this bothers you, you need only refrain from making such unsubstatiated comments in the future.

Bh

 

[T.A JONES]

That's a strawman argument. No one said that everyone not on these forums is loving the game.

What is? I must have agreed with you or, you never gave me enough time to rephrase and grammer check my final post like I do after putting it up momentarly. Just look at your posts lenght and time then compare to mine after the 'just edited' line ( my bad habit/pref sorry for inconvinence)

You were not "openly mocked". Your false statement was called out as a false statement. If this bothers you, you need only refrain from making such unsubstatiated comments in the future.

WHatever you say boy Besides, who made you the judge. <deleted>
If I didn't have thick skin like I hope you do, I would have been long gone from this side monthes ago. Sure im a disgruntled with issues over my paid product but I wear a flame retardent suit when dealing with you fans. I always want whats best for the game when I head into the flame.

Guys who don't like hearing the hurtful version of the facts are free to ignore or dispute. Just keep the ignorance in check if your modding the sceane. I think thats what the poster means. I apploud how he does a better job of touching on it. Why you failed to mention what he said and instead quoted what I repeated I don't understand, or mybe I do lol)

 

[Smidlee]

Long ago, in post #158 (first third of this thread)...

(sic)

Methos,

The person (T.A Jones) that you are criticizing is not necessarily suggesting mob rule governs reality. I think that when it comes to evaluating testing, especially in PC games, the final verdict does belong to the masses... and you should not mock that poster.

For me I see what he is suggesting from all of his posts can be sum up with " Civ4 sucks and Civ3 rules".