Business and Software Development perspective on Civ 5

[babo78]

This is not a another post to oppose or support about how crappy or good Civ 5 is. It's to say what's been on my mind about Civ 5 and decisions that led to current state of Civ 5. Skip the background paragraph if you don’t want a narrative but do not skip note. This is a long post so please bear with me or just ignore this entire post.

Background
I’m been a fan of Civ series since Civ II and played/own just about every release except CivRev and Civ 2 Fantastic worlds. I’m in my early 30s and I work as Software Development Project Manager at mid-lvl management position (5+ years) and my college major was accounting/finance/business mgt. Video games is my hobby amongst others and been involved in beta testing here there. Last game I was lucky enough to beta test was for Starcraft 2. My other interest is stocks while I don’t invest in gaming companies I do keep tab on them because it has my interest and to buy if I see an opportunity.

Conclusion
Civ 5 is the way it is now because business made the decision to get it out for their bottom-line in 2010 even though it lacked many nice to have features and extras (and they knew it).

Note
ATVI: Activision Blizzard, subsidiary of Vivendi.

TTWO: Take-Two Interactive, parent company of 2k games and Firaxis is subsidiary of 2k games. I do not refer to Firaxis at all because to me, TTWO is the parent company and they are the shot callers. Not Firaxis or 2k games. TTWO is not so big like ATVI or Vivendi that their small subsidiary can make these important calls like when to release their products. TTWO has about 2,000 employees. ATVI alone has 7,000 employees so you can imagine Blizzard making their own calls instead of their parent company Vivendi (VIV.PA). Smaller company like TTWO won't have a subsidiary of a subsidiary making the calls on when they will release products.

All of financial numbers I am throwing around are based on 2009 and 2010 data and are publically available. Easy place to look them up is yahoo finance. Also these numbers are top off my head so it is not exact figure so don’t quote me on it.

Push technology: Simply put it's where server is sending data to client without client requesting it. Example, when you are online in steam or log into Battlenet and a patch was put out. You will start downloading the patch.

Supporting statements
Business aspect-
In my hobbist opinion, Civ 5 was pushed out the door early and it was due to decisions made by business side of TTWO. In 2009 TTWO lost about USD 140 mil NI (net income) and their sales dropped pretty big too. If I recall it right, their sales dropped at least a third. If you look at their stock chart, you’ll notice a significant dip in Dec 2009 around the time they reported their loss and was downgraded to hold or sell rating. Price went from like 11 bucks to 6-7 range about 40% drop in a day or two. It’s back up to like 10ish now. Anyhow, TTWO’S quarterly report for July 2010 was NI of USD 6 mil so they squeezed out a positive number. I should mention that TTWO’s fiscal year ends in Oct.

Now that I said all that…if you look back Civ 5 was released in Sept 21 so whatever money TTWO made from then till end of their fiscal year will be part of their 2010 numbers. Meaning had TTWO released Civ 5 after Oct (end of their fiscal year) it would not count for their 2010 income.

Bottom-line is that I’m sure that head honchos at TTWO do not want to repeat another big drop like last year and want to continue to maintain their upgraded rating status from earlier this year as they climbed back to 10 bucks range. Hence business decions was made and Civ 5 went general availability (GA) to be sold to us the consumers to boost their 2010 numbers.

Technology aspect –
In my professional opinion, Civ 5 GA build they released was probably a solid beta or release candidate (RC) build in testing when business made decision to push Civ 5 out and functionalities that was going to be added was cut for this release. Civ 5 could have used at least another 2-3 months for more polishing.

Reality is that it happens all the time in software development world. Need to get the product out to market and there’s not enough time. That means you either cut out features/bug fixes that are nice to have but not a must, you add on ton of resources (which usually detrimental due to ramp up time required and lack of time), or you work through day and night and weekend. Usually combination of all of the above to get the product out…

It’s just getting a product out there at certain point and doing quick iterations. Apple is great example, they release a new product and follow up very quickly with patches and then new versions of the same product. Iphone 1 was released what in 2007 and now we’re up to iphone4 in 2010 with rumors of iphone5 for 2011. Same for Civ 4, first one came out in 2005 then warlords in 2006 and BTS in 2007. It’s just how tech sector nowdays.

Anyhow, the clues that brought me to this conclusion for Civ 5 is that while there are bugs and a few crippling bugs. There was not so many that it ruined the game experience for vast many people. This means the build did go through good rounds of testing and core functionalities were there. That said it lacked many intuitive and added functionalities players would ask for. The ‘extras’ that they didn’t have time for that was cut out in this version.

Good example is unit group/stack/autofollow function. Ability to let units like leaders be grouped with a military unit for escort and units autofollow. Say you want general to follow/grouped with your strongest military unit. Or you want range unit to accompany a settler on their way to settle a new city. You get the idea. Any player who went through say 100 turns will want this so they don’t have to make repetitive moves over and over. I’m sure developers and testers at TTWO knew about this as well. If they didn’t, I’m confident beta testers let them know. Its a no brainer but we all know it’s not a must have feature. We can do without it but we will complain about it as are some other extras. AI is whole another matter but that is not an easy fix or enhancement. That takes some serious work…

Edit I'm just probably saying what many of you already knew so don't uhh flame me for writing a long ass post of what you already knew. I hope some who didn't know get a clearer picture.

Edit 2: If more people read this, more people will ask about it so here's the TTWO's income statement.
Annual data for past 3 yrs
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=TTWO+Income+Statement&annual

Quarterly data
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=TTWO

News blurb about TTWO's EOY 2010 reporting
http://www.marketrap.com/article/view_article/91230/take-two-chairman-we-are-reporting-good-results


Edit 3:
Steam Partnership
Another trend for IT is partnerships or vendors. Instead of building a certain component or finding/hiring a subject matter expert, you partner with someone else that does or builds or have. TTWO took the same approach with their direct download, multiplay, authentication, and to leverage push technology by partnering up with Steam. Had they not, TTWO would need to pay upfront on their own to build it and invest in infrastructure to support some of the things Steam can do. It's cheap for them to not to do so as it is for many other companies and ended up partnering with Steam.

That said some companies do not and take the matter into their own hand like ATVI with Starcraft 2 (SC2). As matter of fact, Battlenet (Bnet) and Blizzard store is very similar if not identical to what Steam does. You need to log into Bnet to play SC2 and you can play offline mode for single player. Must be logged in with internet connection in Bnet for any multiplayer game (no LAN). You must log into Bnet and have Bnet running or you can't play SC2 at all even for single player offline mode. You need to register your copy of SC2 to their authentication module and Blizzard store. They push out patch through Bnet, there is friendlist, achivements on Bnet, and you can buy games and download directly from Blizzard store or buy physical copy and install then register. Sound exactly like Civ 5/Steam doesn't it?

However unlike TTWO which is more heavily emphasized on single player or console playing games. ATVI have very big vested interest in what Steam do and ATVI already have built in capabilities/expertise on this matter with their experience with Starcraft 1, Diablo 2, WoW, etc. A notable fact is that ATVI eliminated LAN play in SC2 to make every game to be must played on Battlenet. Doesn't that sound similar to complaints some players have about Civ 5? No hotseat, multiplayer must to be done through Steam, and you have Steam running even if it's running in offline mode.

Personally I strongly dislike the fact that I have to use a third party app/service to play Civ 5 as consumer because its nuisance and fact that Steam offline mode need more work but I can understand it. But "I understand" doesn't mean I have to like it!

Funny side note for SC2. Because Bnet is only way to play SC2 even pro games must be played through Bnet. Some pro gamers already voice concern for slight lag. Really funny side note is during GSL 1 SC2 pro tournament... the tech support forgot to disable windows automatic update and guess what happened. In middle of televised pro game, window popped up and started downloading update hahahaha. An oversight anyone would make considering upon til now all pro games were done over LAN and didn't require internet connection.

 

[Moss]

Great first post.

Moderator Action: Just as a reminder of the forum rules, if your post triggers the autocensor (the ), please go back and edit it to remove the swear word. As cursing is not allowed. Thanks.

 

[Blitz47]

Good post.

I concur assume the information you posted are correct.

The signs of Civ 5 being a rushed product is everywhere. If you say Take 2 made a few million, they really really can save themselves a lot more headaches by hiring a couple competent programmers + QA people, that won't cost a lot, even if you pay each one 100K a year. We'll end up with a much better product than what we have now, you can get a lot stuff done in a year if you have a couple more competent programmers + QA people.

 

[babo78]

Great first post.

Moderator Action: Just as a reminder of the forum rules, if your post triggers the autocensor (the ), please go back and edit it to remove the swear word. As cursing is not allowed. Thanks.

Done and sorry for swearing.

 

[Psyringe]

Nice to have a business perspective in the discussion as well.

Question: When was the Civ5 release date announced? According to your theory, Take2 must (at this time) have had the impression that they need the Civ5 revenue to save them from a ratings drop, so checking their financial status before the release announcement might be interesting.

Building on your theory, one might even speculate that Civ5 was originally planned for a Christmas release (that would have been the 2-3 months that, in your opinion, the project still needed), but pulled forward to save the balance.

Another explanation that crossed my mind is that Civ5 was slated for a September 2010 release for a long time, but that Firaxis couldn't deliver by that time (may have asked for extension), and Take2 was unwilling to let it slip into their next fiscal year.

All speculation of course, but an interesting line of thought.

 

[troytheface]

i am not sure what i read

Civ5 is a game that was made to make money and there are deadlines?

and its unfinished because there are no great generals?

 

[stealth_nsk]

It was obvious what Civ 5 was pushed to be released, but it's good to see some background here, thanks.

 

[Leif Roar]

Conclusion
Civ 5 is the way it is now because business made the decision to get it out for their bottom-line in 2010 even though it lacked many nice to have features and extras (and they knew it).

Sounds like a reasonable analysis to me. Civ V doesn't feel so much rushed or hurried as it feels scaled back: what's there is mostly completed and works well enough (known bugs and the A-not-so-very-I notwithstanding) but they don't gel property together and some things, like diplomacy or city states, feel completed only in the "attitude of the knife"[1] sense.


[1] “Arrakis teaches the attitude of the knife--chopping off what's incomplete and saying: 'Now, it's compete because it's ended here.'” -- Frank Herbert

 

[Bad Brett]

This is kind of what I suspected... Though it doesn't explain why they simplied the core game elements such as happiness and the tech tree. These are the things that should be decided in the beginning. Wouldn't it have been better to skip leader animations and that intro video...?

Yes, I'm sure the game was rushed. But I'm also convinced that they wanted to design it for a larger audience. Animated leaders and cool intro vids attracts players who aren't familiar with the series. Check out most new game trailers. Very few shows how the actual gameplay works, most of them are just explosions and people flying in the air.

 

[Richelieu Rex]

Very nicely argued, and rings true. the connection between the release date and the end of their FY is indeed pretty obvious. Makes you wonder, though, why they didn't just plan this project in a way that would have allowed for a comfortable September release... I mean it's not like they suddenly realized in June that their accounting period would end pretty soon.

 

[dannythefool]

Very nicely argued, and rings true. the connection between the release date and the end of their FY is indeed pretty obvious. Makes you wonder, though, why they didn't just plan this project in a way that would have allowed for a comfortable September release... I mean it's not like they suddenly realized in June that their accounting period would end pretty soon.

That's probably exactly what they did and why there are glaring omissions in Civ V. They didn't suddenly realize in June that their accounting period would end soon, but they probably did suddenly realize at some point that they wouldn't be able to finish all the planned features. So they took some out, like victory movies, in order to be able to release before the end of the fiscal year.

At least that's pretty much the way it worked at every software company I've worked so far. The only one that didn't do this had trouble releasing anything at all because even the smallest bug or missing feature would delay a release another month.

 

[babo78]

Question: When was the Civ5 release date announced? According to your theory, Take2 must (at this time) have had the impression that they need the Civ5 revenue to save them from a ratings drop, so checking their financial status before the release announcement might be interesting.

Building on your theory, one might even speculate that Civ5 was originally planned for a Christmas release (that would have been the 2-3 months that, in your opinion, the project still needed), but pulled forward to save the balance.

Another explanation that crossed my mind is that Civ5 was slated for a September 2010 release for a long time, but that Firaxis couldn't deliver by that time (may have asked for extension), and Take2 was unwilling to let it slip into their next fiscal year.

All speculation of course, but an interesting line of thought.

I think we are on same line of thought here. Sept release date was set and announced early I think Q1 of 2010. It's definitely was more of come Sept and lot of features and extras were not ready for GA delivery. Then decision was made by business to get it out the door anyway instead of waiting few more month to polish and squeeze in the features/extras players will complain about due to their bottom-line and TTWO knew it.

 

[babo78]

Wouldn't it have been better to skip leader animations and that intro video...?

For gameplay and time investment wise, it would've been better choice. However for marketing and selling the product, animation of leaders and intro video is sexy. If I recall right, in the past when we have seen early Civ 5 previews or demo. Lot of these animation was up in front and center to attract attention. Without it...it wouldn't grab attention of non-Civ fans. If I wasn't fan of Civ series, a preview or demo of bunch units moving around in hexagon map with city view with build queues would be boring and wouldn't grab my attention. Importantly I wouldn't remember it when I was in stores or online looking for a new game.

Edit: ATVI done same thing with SC2 when they were doing commercial blitz. They showed their cutscenes for Wow and sexy factor with few gameplay scenes.

 

[VGT]

Yes, it would be great to not waste time for intro and leader's movies. Because then all these 3d modelers and animators would magically get programmer skills and start some serious AI coding.

There are separate groups in every company, that are responsible for different things in product.

About OP: It was obvious to me that civ is released earlier then planned by developers and this infomations give some better perspective, why this happend. Thanks for sharing with this info.

 

[babo78]

Yes, it would be great to not waste time for intro and leader's movies. Because then all these 3d modelers and animators would magically get programmer skills and start some serious AI coding.

There are separate groups in every company, that are responsible for different things in product.

100% agree. 3D modelers, animators, graphic artists, etc. won't magically get programming skills. That said if decision was made for less budget to be allocated for 'sexy' aspect (intro vid and leader animation). It frees up budget for other area like to add-on more technical roles like developers, AI engineers, architect, designers, etc. In trade, you'd get lower quality and finish of vids and animations.

 

[Thimble]

Makes you wonder, though, why they didn't just plan this project in a way that would have allowed for a comfortable September release...

They mostly likely did plan for a comfortable September release!

 

[Thormodr]

Excellent analysis and precisely what I suspected as well.

 

[el_hidalgo]

I wonder if this is the real reason why religion got the axe... Obviously at some point they were planning to keep it as the files are there, and they are different religions than those in IV, so the decision was not made at the very beginning of the design process. Maybe they had to cut it in order to do a Q4 release. If so, then it seems likely to come back in an expansion.

 

[Quueg]

Conclusion
Civ 5 is the way it is now because business made the decision to get it out for their bottom-line in 2010 even though it lacked many nice to have features and extras (and they knew it).

I think Civ V is what it is because they designed it that way.

In previous iterations of the Civ series, the new edition added new features and removed a few, but the new game was essentially an evolution of the old. Some editions were more evolutionary than others, but few people generally wanted to stick with the old game once the new one came out.

Civ V is a fundamentally different game than Civ IV, and it seems to me they set out to make it so. Perhaps they concluded that the Civ IV model had advanced as far as they reasonably could take it - that the evolutionary steps one expects to see in a new edition (as opposed to an expansion) just weren't there to be made.

Whatever the reason, Civ V may be one of the few new games in history to prompt an increase in sales of its predecessor. Come to think of it, maybe that was part of the business model too.

 

[Axxon]

I'm sorry but I don't buy into the whole idea it's all Take Two's fault and the big bad mean publisher forced Firaxis to do something evil. I work in the videogame industry, and although I'm sure the bottom line was certainly a factor, the responsibility for the product still lies with Firaxis. The fact there is a fixed buget and schedule is no excuse.

First off, it should be very obvious they've completely rewritten the entire game from ground zero instead of taking a more cautious approach of only rewriting core parts. Certainly Civ IV's graphical engine could use a rewrite. Everything else? probably not.

As a business, one of Firaxis' big competitive advantages is they already had years of tech developed for a Civ game. Any other company would have been at a disadvantage as they didn't have the same - yet they threw that advantage out the window; they took a big risk, and they should owe to the fact that risk now means dozens of trivial features from the previous iteration are now missing.

Second, Firaxis seems to have staffing & retention problem. The lead designer is the most crucial person for a game of this type. As developer for a well know multi-million unit franchise, Firaxis can advertise to a large pool of designers in the industry for hiring purposes, and can easily afford to pay said designer a large salary commensurate with the importance of the position. Finding experienced, passionate designers for this position should not be a challenge. Soren was their star designer and somehow they managed to lose this key talent to EA. That has an impact on the product.

When development on Civ V started in 2007, lead designer Jon Shafer had only two years of industry experience. This isn't a knock on Shafer himself - but generally you don' t hear about companies handing over the leadership of their flagship product to the guy who just started working two years prior. It's only fair to think a designer with a decade of experience may have seen the design issues more clearly than Shafer could - you can only learn so much in two years. I'm sure Shafer has learned a lot from this experience and will improve, but a flagship title is not the place for these kinds of trials. Sid likes to give a chance to modders and the likes, but he should be aware he's taking a big risk in doing so.

So I don't buy the whole "Take Two made them do it". What happened is TTWO gave them a fixed budget and a three year schedule in advance to make this game, which is a pretty standard amount by industry standards. A three year schedule is not a rushed schedule by today's game industry standards. It was Firaxis' responsibility to make that finished product within the specific time and cash constraints, and they didn't quite make it imho.