Hi,
I'd like to offer some thoughts. I'm a game developer, I've been making console games for the past 10 years. I've nothing to do with Firaxis but games like Civ are why I chose to work in this industry. That said, here's my take on some of what's been said above:
- What developers can do is always limited by money, which comes from publishers, who are interested in making money by selling games.
- Patches are not a direct money maker. Yes, they help retention, build fans, build reputation and expectations of long term quality, but they don't typically sell more boxes. If what went out was seriously buggy then a patch is a band aid needed to counter bad press and word of mouth, but short of that, they don't do much for sales.
- I think many Col players will take the game as is, think it's hard, think they are bad at it, and maybe not enjoy it as much as thy might have. What shipped does not realize the potential of the game of 15 year ago. However, most consumers won't know that.
- A publisher, especially one needing to lay off a few hundred or thousand people, wont be looking for ways to make past buyers of their product happier right now about their past purchase. Sure, they'd like to, but getting money to make payroll and continue to exist as a publisher is more important right now. They will be looking for a way to sell something asap.
- I would expect a patch to come in the form of an add-on. Most of you will want it. You want the official patch (just look at this thread) and you'll want the new content. It's a horsehockey move, but it's how the industry often works.
- Add ons are very cost effective. Making a game costs a lot. Adding content is relatively cheap. It takes less time (the core engineering is done, the game design is done), takes cheaper talent (art is often outsourced) and iteration is quick (you already have a stable engine to work off of). Best of all, you can sell it for $20 or $30 a copy, yet it only cost 3m to make, whereas the original product was 20m for $50 a copy. The downside is you'll only sell to a subset of the people who bought the first product. Still, it's a good deal for a publisher. (Which is why there's a gazillion Sims add-ons to buy).
- Developers want to make awesome games, always. Well, 80% of us do at least. Who's the other 20%? Some of the art people, some of the vfx guys, some tools or core system engineers, some UI people- they're just doing a job. I have found this to be true in the larger companies, as they hire out of other industries more the smaller studios. However, the other 80%, the designers, the game play programmers, the level artists, the producers not solely involved in money and schedules, they really care. They really really do. They are making games by choice, because they are really into games, and they want to be making good ones. Typically, making a game is 2 years of your life of doing nothing else. It's really long hours, it's fun, and it's all consuming. The last thing you want to do is spend 2 years making some crap you'll be embarrassed to have your name on.
- Patching is an expense. Not only are you employing a team of designers, engineers, UI artists, producers, development directors (schedule/project management people), web guys and maybe some PR folks to make it, you also have to test it. You have to put that patch through QA, and on a PC game the QA costs are high as they have to test everything on a gazillion different system configurations. So, that takes time and money. And then the patch will bring in almost no revenue... sucks for us, and it sucks for the devs who want to make their game better.
- Good game AI is bad AI that looks good. Writing AI that can beat the player every time is much easier then writing AI that looks smart and lets the player win. The desired outcome is that a competent player always wins and feels smart for having managed to do so. The goal is fun, always. It can be tricky because time is always limited, and what you really need to strike the right balance is time. Time to observe people who don't know how the game works as they try to play it and then time to make changes and then observe a brand new set of people who don't know the game try to play it...and so on. Worst of all, this usually is only possible near the end of the dev cycle, when the game is actually playable, so time is tight. This is part of why patching is so much the norm. There's no substitute to having a few hundred thousand people play the game and comment.
Bottom line: the old adage is still true. In games you can have only two of the following: on time, on quality, on budget. Publicly traded companies, like pretty much all game publishers, need predictable revenue, which means getting games out in their scheduled financial quarter. That means On Time rarely slips. So, then it's a trade off between dollars and quality- and the calculus is always, will x% more quality return the extra money is cost to add? For that answer they look to the size of the market they think a product (to them, games are products) can appeal to and then consider, how many of those guys are buying it anyway, how many will never buy it, and how many more consumers are up for grabs if we can get 5 more points on metacritic. And then they ship it, because it's a money looser to make it better then it is or the schedule demands it be shipped as is. And they ship it expecting to patch it, since that is normal...
Anyhow, that's my perspective, as someone who makes games. Again, I have nothing to do with Firaxis, I don't know anyone there, I'm just speculating.
Jaggy
I'd like to offer some thoughts. I'm a game developer, I've been making console games for the past 10 years. I've nothing to do with Firaxis but games like Civ are why I chose to work in this industry. That said, here's my take on some of what's been said above:
- What developers can do is always limited by money, which comes from publishers, who are interested in making money by selling games.
- Patches are not a direct money maker. Yes, they help retention, build fans, build reputation and expectations of long term quality, but they don't typically sell more boxes. If what went out was seriously buggy then a patch is a band aid needed to counter bad press and word of mouth, but short of that, they don't do much for sales.
- I think many Col players will take the game as is, think it's hard, think they are bad at it, and maybe not enjoy it as much as thy might have. What shipped does not realize the potential of the game of 15 year ago. However, most consumers won't know that.
- A publisher, especially one needing to lay off a few hundred or thousand people, wont be looking for ways to make past buyers of their product happier right now about their past purchase. Sure, they'd like to, but getting money to make payroll and continue to exist as a publisher is more important right now. They will be looking for a way to sell something asap.
- I would expect a patch to come in the form of an add-on. Most of you will want it. You want the official patch (just look at this thread) and you'll want the new content. It's a horsehockey move, but it's how the industry often works.
- Add ons are very cost effective. Making a game costs a lot. Adding content is relatively cheap. It takes less time (the core engineering is done, the game design is done), takes cheaper talent (art is often outsourced) and iteration is quick (you already have a stable engine to work off of). Best of all, you can sell it for $20 or $30 a copy, yet it only cost 3m to make, whereas the original product was 20m for $50 a copy. The downside is you'll only sell to a subset of the people who bought the first product. Still, it's a good deal for a publisher. (Which is why there's a gazillion Sims add-ons to buy).
- Developers want to make awesome games, always. Well, 80% of us do at least. Who's the other 20%? Some of the art people, some of the vfx guys, some tools or core system engineers, some UI people- they're just doing a job. I have found this to be true in the larger companies, as they hire out of other industries more the smaller studios. However, the other 80%, the designers, the game play programmers, the level artists, the producers not solely involved in money and schedules, they really care. They really really do. They are making games by choice, because they are really into games, and they want to be making good ones. Typically, making a game is 2 years of your life of doing nothing else. It's really long hours, it's fun, and it's all consuming. The last thing you want to do is spend 2 years making some crap you'll be embarrassed to have your name on.
- Patching is an expense. Not only are you employing a team of designers, engineers, UI artists, producers, development directors (schedule/project management people), web guys and maybe some PR folks to make it, you also have to test it. You have to put that patch through QA, and on a PC game the QA costs are high as they have to test everything on a gazillion different system configurations. So, that takes time and money. And then the patch will bring in almost no revenue... sucks for us, and it sucks for the devs who want to make their game better.
- Good game AI is bad AI that looks good. Writing AI that can beat the player every time is much easier then writing AI that looks smart and lets the player win. The desired outcome is that a competent player always wins and feels smart for having managed to do so. The goal is fun, always. It can be tricky because time is always limited, and what you really need to strike the right balance is time. Time to observe people who don't know how the game works as they try to play it and then time to make changes and then observe a brand new set of people who don't know the game try to play it...and so on. Worst of all, this usually is only possible near the end of the dev cycle, when the game is actually playable, so time is tight. This is part of why patching is so much the norm. There's no substitute to having a few hundred thousand people play the game and comment.
Bottom line: the old adage is still true. In games you can have only two of the following: on time, on quality, on budget. Publicly traded companies, like pretty much all game publishers, need predictable revenue, which means getting games out in their scheduled financial quarter. That means On Time rarely slips. So, then it's a trade off between dollars and quality- and the calculus is always, will x% more quality return the extra money is cost to add? For that answer they look to the size of the market they think a product (to them, games are products) can appeal to and then consider, how many of those guys are buying it anyway, how many will never buy it, and how many more consumers are up for grabs if we can get 5 more points on metacritic. And then they ship it, because it's a money looser to make it better then it is or the schedule demands it be shipped as is. And they ship it expecting to patch it, since that is normal...
Anyhow, that's my perspective, as someone who makes games. Again, I have nothing to do with Firaxis, I don't know anyone there, I'm just speculating.
Jaggy