Good lord! "COMPLETE" civ is out and NO FINAL PATCH?

[Dearmad]

I am sooooo disappointed in Firaxis for this. The remaining few gamekilling bugs are sorta small, were mostly INTRODUCED by later patches, and...
oh whatever, I'm getting sick of this hobby and the companies approach to patches...

I want ONE MORE PATCH PAST 1.22!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Apocalyptic]

Well the good news is with COMPLETE you don't need any of the past patches cause they are already built in

 

[Padma]

I thought it was pretty common knowledge that 1.22 was probably the last patch.

 

[Longasc]

I started a similar thread some weeks ago.

They did not bother to take the time to eliminate Army Bug, Sub Bug, Barbarian Misbehaviour and several things that can be fixed manually, player1fanatic did a "data patch" for that, including e.g. Pounder's Transport Window Leftover fix and some fixes to the Civilopedia.

I must agree that the term "complete" is annoying in this context...

 

[KabeDerlin]

And yet we make no efforts to show the company our extreme distaste in regards to the patches and regard;ess of the poor performance they've done in fixing up Civ3 we will all more than likely support them still by buying Civ4 when it comes out.

 

[Longasc]

KabeDerlin, I could not agree more.

It is up to the customers. It will make no difference, but I will not buy Civ4 the day it hits the shelves. Give them half a year to fix the most glaring bugs and wait for the bargain bin!

 

[Alexnm]

KabeDerlin, I could not agree more.

It is up to the customers. It will make no difference, but I will not buy Civ4 the day it hits the shelves. Give them half a year to fix the most glaring bugs and wait for the bargain bin!

I wish I could say that.

I know that I'll buy Civ4 the very day it is released. It's sad, but it's true, I just can't help it.

 

[necrosmith]

I'm with Longasc. I'll just keep playin Civ3 until Civ4 is well patched.

 

[Moss]

Yeah, but it seems that all PC games are pretty much the same. They come out bugged and developers have to add patch after patch.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Yeah, but it seems that all PC games are pretty much the same. They come out bugged and developers have to add patch after patch.

Only because that's what generates the maximum profits - that is, it's how the customers want it. They would rather have a game 5 months earlier with bugs than a bug-free product later.

People who think otherwise are the exception.

 

[BasketCase]

Blizzard has a great deal of success at doing the exact opposite: releasing AWESOME games, behind schedule.

Blizzard gets my software dollars.

Admittedly, it is pretty hard for a company to do this. The instinct to meet deadline is extremely powerful. I think it's genetic.

 

[Jon Shafer]

No, it's not genetic.

The reason Blizzard can delay their games however long they please is because they make tenfold the profits any other company in the business does. When you're rolling in dough it's easy to do whatever you want, because rather than publishers threatening to stop sending money if you don't finish on time, YOU can choose whoever the hell you please to publish your games because any publisher in their right mind would pick up a Blizzard game and its sales in a heartbeat. Developers have meetings with publishers and have to give progress updates. If they don't convince the publishers that they've made satisfactory progress on the game since the last "benchmark date" then the developer gets no cash.

That is the ordinary case (within which Firaxis fits - despite their Civ success, Atari/Infogrames OWNS Civ, so they can do whatever they want with it - even find someone besides Firaxis to make new Civ games). The other case is Blizzard who makes an insane amount of cash for each game. With so much revenue they can do whatever they please because they don't have to worry about having no money if a publisher doesn't feel they've made acceptable progress on a game's development.

Publishers aside, if releasing a game 6 months late costs any company an extra 1 million dollars in production time, who can afford to take that loss: the average game developer which makes an average of 0.5 million dollars per game, or Blizzard, who makes 20 million per game?

A lot of people don't realize how fickle the gaming industry is. Go to your local computer game store. Look at all of the rows of games on the wall. Notice how many are poor clones of other games, games you've never heard of or generally obscure products? The guys who make those games generally don't do so well. It's the Blizzards and the ids and the Rockstars that generate the lion's share of the cash while the vast majority of games don't do nearly as well. It's those Blizzards and ids and Rockstars who are the ones who can break the traditional mold and do things there way. They're like the "Microsofts" of the gaming industry (not an entirely valid analogy, but it will do ) who can bend the rules as they see fit.

 

[warpstorm]

You beat me to it, Trip.

 

[MikeH]

KabeDerlin, I could not agree more.

It is up to the customers. It will make no difference, but I will not buy Civ4 the day it hits the shelves. Give them half a year to fix the most glaring bugs and wait for the bargain bin!

I take this attitude with virtually all computer games, you have the added incentive, as you said, that the game will be a lot cheaper if you wait a couple of months as well.

There are a couple of small wargames developers like Matrix and Battlefront where I will buy on release, but for all the major publishers waiting is a sound policy.

 

[Jon Shafer]

You beat me to it, Trip.

I get to them before you occasionally.

 

[Mr. Do]

Is it cause or effect with Blizzard, though? I mean, I would have thought that their games sell so well precisely because they take their time and lots of financial backing for each title they release and they end up making great titles. Perhaps if consumers had similar reasons to have faith in other video game companies then they would be just as successful as Blizzard.

Or they can just keep churning out unfinished messes and yearly sequels and only make really good money with the help of a killer license (FIFA, etc.)

 

[Jon Shafer]

Is it cause or effect with Blizzard, though? I mean, I would have thought that their games sell so well precisely because they take their time and lots of financial backing for each title they release and they end up making great titles. Perhaps if consumers had similar reasons to have faith in other video game companies then they would be just as successful as Blizzard.

Or they can just keep churning out unfinished messes and yearly sequels and only make really good money with the help of a killer license (FIFA, etc.)

It's partly that, but things go deeper than that.

Some genres simply garner more sales than others and often a single company or a couple companies dominate them. If you want to buy a fantasy RTS game, who do you think of first? Blizzard, obviously. That sentiment often causes other companies to have little shot at breaking into the market, even if they have a great game. There are exceptions, but they're just that - exceptions.

Building up a reputation is everything. Blizzard has it, others don't.

Just as you can say that Blizzard's case is cause and effect - they make great games so they have a great reputation - the same is true for less successful companies - they have to have a game done by a certain time in order to get money from their publishers. Rushing games out before their done obviously means the games aren't as good, meaning the games aren't viewed as favorably meaning the companies aren't viewed as favorably: the cycle keeps sucking the companies with no great prestige towards the bottom.

To summarize: if they don't release "on time" then they don't get any money. Paying the bills comes before holding onto a game an extra 6 months to make it better. So it's an endless cycle.

Civilization's success means that Firaxis can escape that cycle for the most part. Most companies release 1 patch AT MOST for their games, usually ones that come at release and that's that. However, since Firaxis doesn't own Civilization they're still bound to agreements with Atari - when Atari pulls the plug and says "it's time to move on," that's what Firaxis has to do.

 

[punkbass2000]

Yeah, Blizzard got in at the ground floor with computer gaming and has stayed consistent. WCII was one of the first really good RTS games of its style to come out, and it outclassed the earlier Dune II, which, though good for its time, was weak in comparison. StarCraft, released relatively shortly afterward had many huge improvements and bolstered this immensely. What about Civ, you say? They had great games that really turned TBS into a popular genre. True, and this is why you still and probably always will see Sid's name on the box, but there were a lot more troubles along the Civilization path. Microprose and CtP fiascoes, and then Firaxis started to make real headway again with SMAC, just in time for the development team to leave halfway through Civ3. Civ3 is thus the buggy result that people will remember.

 

[microbe]

You'd better go and hide somewhere before warpstorm comes and bashes you.

Oops, too late.

 

[warpstorm]

I don't typically "bash" people for this. I prefer "enlighten to the inner workings of the game development process".