Civilization V Demo Release Date: 21st of september

[Zhahz]

I am not asking for much, I'm asking for "Since Civ IV min reqs weren't accurate, I want some guarantee that the Civ V min reqs are true". I don't even care if there is some silly behind-the-scenes program that tests my computer without any game play at all -- I just need to know it will work first, in light of the specifications fiasco when Civ IV came out.

Civ IV uses gamebryo engine (for graphics) and was kinda slapped together in that regard. Civ 5 is custom with the only 3rd party junk being Steamworks which is mostly for MP and achievements (ie, not really a processing/graphics thing). Civ 5 is using a faster scripting language for mods and mod type tie-ins too.

The Civ 5 min reqs are pretty beefy so I would guess that coupled with the fact that it's a home-grown engine, that they're reasonably accurate.

 

[GlobularFoody]

I guess the good ol' days really are gone for good. I remember demos coming out months before the actual game and we played them to death, UT and RTCW are two prime examples. I guess it could be worse. At least they HAVE a demo, which means they are confident in their game and not like every other developer which won't release a demo at all because they know it will hurt sales.

Looking forward to the 21st to try out the new Civ, only 3 weeks to go!

 

[Thormodr]

I don't care about early sneak peeks, I care about making sure I don't spend $50 on a product that won't work on my machine. I think after the Civ IV release fiasco I can't be blamed for being at least somewhat skeptical of the minimum (or even recommended) system requirements.

Just lost my pre-order.

I am not asking for much, I'm asking for "Since Civ IV min reqs weren't accurate, I want some guarantee that the Civ V min reqs are true". I don't even care if there is some silly behind-the-scenes program that tests my computer without any game play at all -- I just need to know it will work first, in light of the specifications fiasco when Civ IV came out.

I know there is a script to check requirements, but with Civ IV the problem is the requirements were listed wrong in the first place, something a script won't tell you. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

(Well...ok, I do enjoy early sneak peeks, but that is not my primary motivation for trying the demo. That said, I would greatly appreciate if the NDA were lifted so playtesters could post screen shots of their games, similar to what Sully did for Civ IV in advance of its release. Then, I could determine whether the game play is something I'm interested in. Interested + Capable = Purchase. Playtested game bolsters interest by understanding what the game play is like; demo bolsters capability.)

Spot on. I remember waiting for months and months to get cIV to run on my computer properly (I couldn't start new games, I could only load save games) even though my computer met all the required settings. Fiasco describes it very well.

Who knows what ciV will bring? It could be another fiasco too. It would have been damn nice to have an early demo to see if it ran smoothly. Once again, I meet all the requirements but you never know.

 

[GlobularFoody]

Spot on. I remember waiting for months and months to get cIV to run on my computer properly (I couldn't start new games, I could only load save games) even though my computer met all the required settings. Fiasco describes it very well.

Who knows what ciV will bring? It could be another fiasco too. It would have been damn nice to have an early demo to see if it ran smoothly. Once again, I meet all the requirements but you never know.

I had that problem as well. I could play for a little while then the game would just endlessly crash. After 1-2 months they patched it I could play normally, so it wasn't inaccurate min requirements...just a rushed release.

If they botch it again, well that could be bad for 2k and Firaxis financially...

 

[Boris Godunov]

I don't care about early sneak peeks, I care about making sure I don't spend $50 on a product that won't work on my machine.

Er, then you shouldn't be upset at all that the demo will be released the same day as the game, as you can just as easily make sure it will work on Sept. 21st as you could Sept. 18th, or Sept. 15th...

I don't see how your outlook for Civ 5 has changed. If the demo had been released in advance, you'd have downloaded it and, if it worked, ordered the game; if it had not worked, you would have refrained from doing so. Now, you'll download the demo when it's released, and, if it works, you'll buy the game; and it doesn't, you will refrain from doing so... right?

People are talking like there won't be a demo at all...

 

[Thormodr]

Er, then you shouldn't be upset at all that the demo will be released the same day as the game, as you can just as easily make sure it will work on Sept. 21st as you could Sept. 18th, or Sept. 15th...

I don't see how your outlook for Civ 5 has changed. If the demo had been released in advance, you'd have downloaded it and, if it worked, ordered the game; if it had not worked, you would have refrained from doing so. Now, you'll download the demo when it's released, and, if it works, you'll buy the game; and it doesn't, you will refrain from doing so... right?

People are talking like there won't be a demo at all...

The demo coming out the same day is bad since loyal buyers who maybe have computer systems on the edge of the requirements can't test out the game in advance.

By not being able to do that, they lose out on any pre order bonuses.

That hardly seems fair to a loyal buyer. Why bite the hand that feeds you?

 

[isndl]

The demo coming out the same day is bad since loyal buyers who maybe have computer systems on the edge of the requirements can't test out the game in advance.

By not being able to do that, they lose out on any pre order bonuses.

That hardly seems fair to a loyal buyer. Why bite the hand that feeds you?

Obviously, they're not a loyal buyer if they don't buy the game regardless of whether they can get it to run.

 

[Psyringe]

To be honest, it does still sound like a fair deal to me.

I co-ran a business myself for a while, and neither us nor our customers found it objectionable that trust in us and our services was rewarded with extras. If people trusted us, they could pay in advance, and get a bonus. If people were more skeptical, then this was okay also - they would pay after the services had been delivered, but then of course they didn't get the bonus.

I don't see that much of a difference to well-established and accepted business mechanisms (like, for example, a cash discount for customers who pay in advance).

 

[Thormodr]

Obviously, they're not a loyal buyer if they don't buy the game regardless of whether they can get it to run.

True. What were they thinking?

 

[Buccaneer]

I guess I don't recall that many problems with Civ4 when it was released. I recall that it was one of those rare games that actually was fully playable (i.e., investing time to play all the way through) right out of the box. That was another reason I still believe, after 20+ years of playing PC games, that it is the best game ever.

 

[Koolhan]

You know, I used to think that the Civfanatics forum was one of the most mature, level-headed gaming forums in existence, period. Many posts in this thread and in the run up to Civ 5 is chipping away at that belief.

Should it be brushed aside because the same exact sort of talk came about when Civ 4 was announced? I'm not sure.

It's just a game guys and gals. Be happy you even get a demo(not as common then or now as you might think). Be happy the game comes out in three weeks. Be happy there is even a Civ 5 and not a Civ Rev 2.

So many reasons to just be okay with all this and not get upset if you just take a step back.

 

[Fin]

It's just a game guys and gals. Be happy you even get a demo(not as common then or now as you might think). Be happy the game comes out in three weeks. Be happy there is even a Civ 5 and not a Civ Rev 2.

So many reasons to just be okay with all this and not get upset if you just take a step back.

 

[Psyringe]

I guess I don't recall that many problems with Civ4 when it was released. I recall that it was one of those rare games that actually was fully playable (i.e., investing time to play all the way through) right out of the box. That was another reason I still believe, after 20+ years of playing PC games, that it is the best game ever.

The majority of players could play the game, though some only at smaller maps and with less opponents as they would have liked to. The number of people who did have problems was too large for comfort though. Civ4 used inefficient graphics code on top of an already inefficient engine (the gamebryo engine is a middleware the sells because of its relatively low price, not because of it's quality). There were also some unforeseen problems with Gamebryo (as a generic engine that wasn't optimized for strategy games). Apparently the developers did expect that a strategy game would be less taxing on the engine than the FPS games that were already using it (and which required far faster frame rates than a strategy game would), however it then became apparent that Civ4 had to display and remember far more polygons and textures at the same time than any FPS. The game was published a bit rushed, especially graphics adapters weren't tested thoroughly (apart from the brand that Civ4 was developed on), and it took several patches until the issues were fixed and halfway optimized. For a while after release, a fan-made mod was very popular which made the game's management of graphics far more efficient (with a rather simple method actually), Firaxis later incorporated a similar fix into their patches.

Apart from that, however, Civ4 was pretty solid. Gameplay had obviously seen much more testing than hardware issues. And the majority of players did not experience the issues mentioned above, though for those who did, it definitely was a very frustrating experience that warrants some skepticism with regard to future releases.

 

[The_J]

...after some time now, i just hope, that they've delayed it, because they've read the cricitisms from the Gamescom and are trying to fix the problems .

 

[Auncien]

...after some time now, i just hope, that they've delayed it, because they've read the cricitisms from the Gamescom and are trying to fix the problems .

agreed.

 

[Buccaneer]

You know, I used to think that the Civfanatics forum was one of the most mature, level-headed gaming forums in existence, period. Many posts in this thread and in the run up to Civ 5 is chipping away at that belief.

Interesting point of view. I had been at Poly since the late 1990s, from height of Civ2 through the Civ3 pre-release and until Civ4 post-release and CFC had always had the reputation for its immaturity (I recall Firaxis stating as much regarding one of the Civ4 patches). Alas, Poly died. But the one thing that has always been attractive about CFC is the SUPERB site design and layout, one of the very best on the web (contrast that to Poly which was one of the ugliest). I like coming here but do take most posts with a huge grain of salt and tolerance and try to find the insightful ones. Every civ release will bring out all of the immaturity here, esp. leading up to release and definitely right after release. Civ5 will be no exception.

 

[Savoir10]

...after some time now, i just hope, that they've delayed it, because they've read the cricitisms from the Gamescom and are trying to fix the problems .

Actually the possibility of a day zero patch, for both the demo and full game is looking more and more likely. I'm guessing that something has been found after it went gold.

 

[ButSam]

Er, then you shouldn't be upset at all that the demo will be released the same day as the game, as you can just as easily make sure it will work on Sept. 21st as you could Sept. 18th, or Sept. 15th...

There are two differences:

#1, I don't know if I even need any new hardware in advance, and hardware takes time and money to invest in

#2, There is a pre-order sweetener small bonus that I just don't see as worth it without knowing whether the game will even run on my machine, but with that reassurance I would pre-order if everything worked well

That said, I'm not over here fuming about it, I'm just somewhat irritated because this reeks of a decision made for marketing reasons and not for technical reasons. At first we were told the demo would be out in advance of the release, then we were told nevermind. There may well be a good technical reason for this, but it is more probable that the people in marketing thought better of it, wanting people to be tempted to buy a game they cannot play, lured in by the splendor of a pre-order...

 

[AlpsStranger]

agreed.

They aren't going to do a 180 on major mechanics Auncien. Sorry

 

[r_rolo1]

Apart from that, however, Civ4 was pretty solid. Gameplay had obviously seen much more testing than hardware issues. And the majority of players did not experience the issues mentioned above, though for those who did, it definitely was a very frustrating experience that warrants some skepticism with regard to future releases.

The main reason why I haven't and will not pre order Civ V is exactly because I am one of those that suffered that "very frustrating" issue in the skin. This time I'll let others be the guinea pigs, thank you