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

[Mr. Do]

The problem is you usually go on about stuff that we already know through common sense and accept is how computer game companies work, however, so it comes off as preaching. Also sometimes your replies are to people's personal opinions that they don't like how "the inner workings of the game development process" (e.g. unfinished/ untested games being released, much-needed patches being cancelled) happen, so it seems like you're telling people to stop complaining and just accept this is how it's done. Even if you're not.

 

[warpstorm]

If people already knew it, then why does every thread mention something like "Blizzard releases their products when they are ready"?

 

[Mr. Do]

Because they wish that civ games got the same treatment, even if it's not possible. For example, note how BasketCase said in this thread it is hard for a company to do things like Blizzard, but got the essay explaining why Firaxis can't do it anyway, despite the fact he'd indicated he's aware of the differences between the companies.

 

[Longasc]

Blizzard has content customers and is highly regarded, not only for quality by them. Even after some dubious Diablo II patches.

I must agree with Mr. Do, warpstorm, you always explain WHY games suffer from the problems people complain about.

Neither the bugs will go away by that nor will people stop complaining about them.

Ultimately this will still fall back on the gaming companies itself, even if they blame for good reasons their publishers.

How can one be content or happy with that? Just accept it? Yeah...

-> Blizzard earned a reputation. And others will be judged by it. The argument that smaller and less successful companies cannot compete with that is right - but this makes me still not shut up and accept bugs.

Customer: My game has some minor/medium/major bugs.
Customer Support: Due to economical reasons, we cannot offer a bug-free product, as we have to develop the next product.
Customer: Could you please fix some really broken things?
Customer Support: All our men are working on the new project, and the old programmers no longer work for us. You surely understand our situation.
Customer: Yes, I do.
Customer Support: Thank you.
Customer: <vulgar cursing>
Customer Support: We already explained you why your product has these bugs. Why do you complain?
Customer: <cries> Please forgive me, I am unworthy!

 

[warpstorm]

Well, I didn't give the lecture this time. :shock:

I hereby pass the torch on.

 

[punkbass2000]

Blizzard has content customers and is highly regarded, not only for quality by them. Even after some dubious Diablo II patches.

I must agree with Mr. Do, warpstorm, you always explain WHY games suffer from the problems people complain about.

Neither the bugs will go away by that nor will people stop complaining about them.

Ultimately this will still fall back on the gaming companies itself, even if they blame for good reasons their publishers.

How can one be content or happy with that? Just accept it? Yeah...

-> Blizzard earned a reputation. And others will be judged by it. The argument that smaller and less successful companies cannot compete with that is right - but this makes me still not shut up and accept bugs.

Customer: My game has some minor/medium/major bugs.
Customer Support: Due to economical reasons, we cannot offer a bug-free product, as we have to develop the next product.
Customer: Could you please fix some really broken things?
Customer Support: All our men are working on the new project, and the old programmers no longer work for us. You surely understand our situation.
Customer: Yes, I do.
Customer Support: Thank you.
Customer: <vulgar cursing>
Customer Support: We already explained you why your product has these bugs. Why do you complain?
Customer: <cries> Please forgive me, I am unworthy!

So what do you propose? Boycotting any smaller company that tries to make a game so a nice monopoly gets formed and we get nothing but Microsoft? A business needs to make money. If a game will sell, a game will sell. That's that. When you buy a game you are buying it 'as is' for all intents and purposes here.

 

[Dearmad]

I propose they FIX the frekaing SUB BUG! How hard could that be!?!? Just throw a flag that the AI won't run over invisible uinits- it was IN THE GAME at one point.

And this bug has NO workaround that I know of except removing subs entirely. And it cause the AI all sorts of problems with each other in the later game as they hit the other civ's sub and declare war... constant warfare that only hinders the AI.

I once modded making them non-nationality but that made the game ridiculous as far as sea war went... subs EVERYWHERE sinking everything! yuck.

 

[Justus II]

Well, you could always just make the subs non-invisible? That would at least solve the problem of accidental wars. Let them use stealth attack, and maybe give them a much higher defense factor (to represent being harder to kill). Obviously makes them less useful, but it's A workaround.

 

[Jon Shafer]

I propose they FIX the frekaing SUB BUG! How hard could that be!?!? Just throw a flag that the AI won't run over invisible uinits- it was IN THE GAME at one point.

Which is the point - you don't know how hard it would be to fix it. Neither do I. Or anyone else here.

Do you think if it was such an easy fix Firaxis would have attended to it already? Or do you think they like tormenting players?

Because they wish that civ games got the same treatment, even if it's not possible. For example, note how BasketCase said in this thread it is hard for a company to do things like Blizzard, but got the essay explaining why Firaxis can't do it anyway, despite the fact he'd indicated he's aware of the differences between the companies.

So what is the point in ranting and complaining and saying "I'm never going to buy another Firaxis product again?" It disrespects the company and the people in the industry who work very hard on the products for people to belittle their work.

Things are the way they are not because they're lazy or they don't care. Which is how some of the posts here sound. Just as posts from people "on the inside" may sound preachy to people on the outside, posts from the latter sound disrespectful to those in the former group.

As far as everyone knowing all of the "obvious" nuances about the game industry - you yourself just asked a question about Blizzard so that statement is only partly true at best.

Blizzard has content customers and is highly regarded, not only for quality by them. Even after some dubious Diablo II patches.

I must agree with Mr. Do, warpstorm, you always explain WHY games suffer from the problems people complain about.

Neither the bugs will go away by that nor will people stop complaining about them.

Ultimately this will still fall back on the gaming companies itself, even if they blame for good reasons their publishers.

How can one be content or happy with that? Just accept it? Yeah...

-> Blizzard earned a reputation. And others will be judged by it. The argument that smaller and less successful companies cannot compete with that is right - but this makes me still not shut up and accept bugs.

So who does it help by coming here and decrying Firaxis for it?

Does the group commiseration in bashing them make people feel better?

Really, I'm serious. If it's so obvious that this information is known and people are aware that things aren't going to change, then why post here with such vehement statements? The only reason WS and I respond to such comments is to give them a fair answer and to inform people who may not have been privy to information prior (the community isn't made up of only the same 5 people, ya know).

What do people actually expect in response to such posts?

 

[TheEvilCheater]

A patch for the sub-bug maybe trip?

 

[SirPleb]

Do you think if it was such an easy fix Firaxis would have attended to it already? Or do you think they like tormenting players?

You seem to be suggesting that it is probably very hard to fix because if it were easy they'd probably have fixed it. If that is indeed what you are suggesting, I strongly disagree. Clear counter-evidence exists in the case of the Conquests barbarian bug, which many people have ranked in the top four bugs along with the sub bug for a very long time. It turns out that the barbarian bug can easily be fixed by changing a single parameter's default value ("NoAIPatrol") back to what it was before Conquests. There is no reason to assume that any of the other top bugs are any more inherently complicated than that. They might be, but the natural assumption that they must be hard or they wouldn't still exist clearly does not apply in the case of Conquests.

Things are the way they are not because they're lazy or they don't care.

I disagree. Things are the way they are because they don't care. Maybe I need to qualify that to say "don't care much". Perhaps they care a little, maybe even enough to think "too bad". They don't care much though. They don't care enough to have made even the relatively small effort it would take to clear up the worst bugs. (And I do make the assertion that I know enough to say it would be a relatively small effort to fix ten or more of the worst bugs.)

 

[Longasc]

As long as Civ games are sold and accepted in the way they are, nothing will change.

They will continue producing games and willingly accept quite a high margin of bugs, as long as people accept them and buy the game.

I will no longer buy games just because I liked the predecessor - I know it had bugs that really annoyed me, and I am not going to buy CIV4 e.g. during the first days where enthusiasm often overshadows fundamental problems and bugs.

I will wait and buy it when it is okay or when it is cheaper. I do not support this policy of low quality assurance, dropped fixes of economical reasons and whatever.



To refer to similar questions asked by some posters:
It is the other companies who create strong market leaders -> the described policy will only strengthen the trust in Blizzard, and lower the trust in the others.

BTW, sidenote, I wonder where the social issues with small companies suddenly come from - am I not usually the left-wing oriented guy in social issues?


I personally made my choice NOT to support low quality products and the policy that leads to this,

and I personally do not trust too much in many software companies, with Firaxis having a better but still not good reputation (hear, hear), that they deliver quality or at least quickly fix problems with their products.

Many people will still rush to buy Civ4, as their acceptance of bugs is rather given or they expect a patch.

Still there are many people left disappointed with unfinished business, flawed or non-made and often quite necessary patches and the general quality of the product in the end.


But still "A LOT" of people will buy Civ X as soon as it hits the shelves.

As long as they do, there is no real reason for software companies to adapt. I am not supporting this policy, and I hope many more people do, this will companies make listen to the demanded higher quality standards.

Fix Civ3, but I will still buy Civ4 unseen is probably the reason why Civ4 might end up like Civ3 - some issues left unpatched for Civ 5.


We must make companies CARE for our worries. I fear that Civ4 will sell well, and that nothing will change.

I have a serious problem with the attitude "no need to complain, things are as they are". Along the irrational lines of "I understand the reasons - and because of this, it is OK to me".

This does not help to improve the quality of games. It will even lead to a decline in quality, till people REALLY start complaining and no longer support this development.


As long as people accept low quality, higher quality will be uneconomic if it costs too much and nets no better results.

But may QUALITY not pay off in the long run? Blizzard is very protective about their good image, they scrapped a Warcraft-style adventure in favor of more promising products. Minor companies cannot do that.

They should still try to deliver better quality, this might help differentiate them on the market and pay off. A real win-win situation: both sides are happy.

Finally: I am the customer. Must I really care for the problems of software companies? I care even less about their problems as they do take care of final patching and the quality of their games! -> semi-economical spoken...

 

[Mr. Do]

As far as everyone knowing all of the "obvious" nuances about the game industry - you yourself just asked a question about Blizzard so that statement is only partly true at best.

Yes, I didn't know about it, that's why I've never brought up Blizzard, and why I wouldn't compain about your helpful response to my post

The rest of your post just completely sums up what I'm talking about- you might as well have just posted, "Everyone complaining about Firaxis just shut up and stop being ungrateful", as that is the message it gives. I don't think you really mean that, and the complaints about there being no final patch can quite repetitive, so I don't begrudge you or warpstorm from responding to them, I just think such responses could be phrased a little more tactfully, however much you might be tired of hearing such whines. Explaining how the system works is all well and good, but treating someone like a petulant child for it isn't going to convince them...

Maybe people say things like, "I'm not buying Civ 4 after the way they treated Civ 3" because that's their OPINION. You know what they say, opinions are like *******s, so maybe you shouldn't be sticking your nose into them [<--not being serious]

 

[punkbass2000]

You seem to be suggesting that it is probably very hard to fix because if it were easy they'd probably have fixed it. If that is indeed what you are suggesting, I strongly disagree.

I'll give that Trip's reasoning isn't Ironclad, but I feel fairly certain that in a chat or some such someone (probably Soren) mentioned that the sub bug is rather embedded and fixing it would require massive changes to the the entire program combined unpredictable gameplay changes and unexpected AI behaviour.

Clear counter-evidence exists in the case of the Conquests barbarian bug, which many people have ranked in the top four bugs along with the sub bug for a very long time. It turns out that the barbarian bug can easily be fixed by changing a single parameter's default value ("NoAIPatrol") back to what it was before Conquests. There is no reason to assume that any of the other top bugs are any more inherently complicated than that. They might be, but the natural assumption that they must be hard or they wouldn't still exist clearly does not apply in the case of Conquests.

The barbarian bug may be easy to fix, but finding the solution was not easy. It was, as far as I know, serendipitiously found. Again, I seem to recall a quote from a Firaxian that they had no idea where the barb bug came from or any idea what was causing it. Also the solution was not exactly intuitive. I feel this analogy falls short.

 

[Jon Shafer]

A patch for the sub-bug maybe trip?

Well, you're not going to get it, so where does that leave you now? More bashing of Firaxis to make you feel better?

You seem to be suggesting that it is probably very hard to fix because if it were easy they'd probably have fixed it. If that is indeed what you are suggesting, I strongly disagree. Clear counter-evidence exists in the case of the Conquests barbarian bug, which many people have ranked in the top four bugs along with the sub bug for a very long time. It turns out that the barbarian bug can easily be fixed by changing a single parameter's default value ("NoAIPatrol") back to what it was before Conquests.

Come now Sir Pleb, I thought more highly of you than this.

You seem to be forgetting the first rule of debugging: discovering bugs is easy. Fixing bugs is easy. Finding out what needs to be fixed is very very hard. Why do you think bugs end up in games at all? Because most of the programmers are stupid?

Why do you think it took so many months for the best and brightest of the Civ community to discover the "fix" for the barb bug? As you said, the fix was relatively easy. So what took so long?

And what I was suggesting is exactly what I said. Nobody but Firaxis knows how difficult it would or would not be to fix these bugs.

There is no reason to assume that any of the other top bugs are any more inherently complicated than that. They might be, but the natural assumption that they must be hard or they wouldn't still exist clearly does not apply in the case of Conquests.

This is an extremely unfounded viewpoint. Assuming all bugfixes would be easy because one of them appears to be is completely ignorant. I really don't even know what to say in response to this because it's completely false. People who actually believe that have very little if any knowledge of programming, be it a "natural" response or not, it's not true.

You are a programmer, aren't you? How can you say something like this?

I disagree. Things are the way they are because they don't care. Maybe I need to qualify that to say "don't care much". Perhaps they care a little, maybe even enough to think "too bad". They don't care much though. They don't care enough to have made even the relatively small effort it would take to clear up the worst bugs. (And I do make the assertion that I know enough to say it would be a relatively small effort to fix ten or more of the worst bugs.)

I know for a fact working alongside the group that when people put 80+ hours (yes, that's an 80, yes, that's a +, and no, I'm not exaggerating) per week into a product they care very dearly about it. More than "a little." Or are you saying that you know the intentions of Firaxis better than someone who has worked alongside them?

Who are you to say what pressures are making Firaxis switch?

I already explained above the relationship between developer and publisher. Firaxis is working on Civ 4 now. They have been for over a year now. However, Atari is the company that owns Civ, and they will require progress reports from Firaxis just like every other publisher. If Firaxis doesn't meet benchmarks then they could lose a lot of money. That could further delay Civ 4 and clearly hurts Firaxis on the whole. Even sending a single programmer off of the project for a couple weeks to make a patch might be extremely costly. That could be the reason why they're unable to put any people forward to make a final patch. I really don't know. And neither do you, so don't pretend that you do.

As far as the bugs requiring "relatively little effort" to fix, I think we've already been there.

Do they care? Yes, a great amount, I've seen it before my own eyes. Are they going to make a patch? Almost certainly not. The problem is not that they don't care, so it must be something else. What is it? Would it be too much work to fix the bugs? Would it detract too much from their other projects?

My point is this: NOBODY HERE KNOWS. As much as you "assert that it would be a relatively small effort to fix ten or more of the worst bugs..." - you really don't have any idea unless you've seen the source code. So being critical of Firaxis under those circumstances is rather immature and disrespectful for a company that puts far more man-hours into its games than average.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Yes, I didn't know about it, that's why I've never brought up Blizzard, and why I wouldn't compain about your helpful response to my post

The rest of your post just completely sums up what I'm talking about- you might as well have just posted, "Everyone complaining about Firaxis just shut up and stop being ungrateful", as that is the message it gives. I don't think you really mean that, and the complaints about there being no final patch can quite repetitive, so I don't begrudge you or warpstorm from responding to them, I just think such responses could be phrased a little more tactfully, however much you might be tired of hearing such whines. Explaining how the system works is all well and good, but treating someone like a petulant child for it isn't going to convince them...

Maybe people say things like, "I'm not buying Civ 4 after the way they treated Civ 3" because that's their OPINION. You know what they say, opinions are like *******s, so maybe you shouldn't be sticking your nose into them [<--not being serious]

Yes, and then someone like WS or myself goes on to explain why Civ 3 was "treated" the way it was, and then someone chimes up and says "well, Firaxis just doesn't care." And that is bashing the company.

Why do you think posts like mine and WS' come off so condescending? Because the people we're responding to usually are ignorant to the game development process (I mean ignorant in the sense of the most genuine definition, not as belittement). The answer is because a lot of them sound insulting to people who are familiar with the people and the process.

I (and I think WS will agree with me here) have no problems with someone saying "I was unimpressed with the way Civ 3 turned out, I will wait to buy Civ 4 until later." That is actually a great viewpoint to hold and it's very productive as well, because if enough people take it to heart then that might change the game industry as a whole and allow for better quality products to get to the market. Not once have I ever responded to a comment like that because I find it healthy.

The issue comes up with comments like "Why didn't Firaxis fix these simple bugs?" or "Why doesn't Firaxis care about Civ 3 any more?" or "I don't care about how Civ 4 turns out, I just want Civ 3 fixed," or even "Firaxis is just lazy to not fix a product like this." If someone made statements like that to most people's work without knowing exactly what was going on, they'd be insulted. It's basically questioning the commitment and the labors of those who are involved. If you're privy to inside information and know exactly what's going on, then feel free to comment. But if you don't know what's happening and can only judge the situation by what goes on in public, then there is no basis to make such comments.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Lots of stuff.

I agree completely.

You see, I'm not busy going around bashing people who believe contrary to me and wish things would change. What I address are uneducated comments which portray Firaxis in a way that I feel they don't deserve.

Comments like Longasc's do not fit into that category, and in fact, are completely true. In the end its the consumers who bear the brunt of the responsibility for how things occur in an open market. It's simple economics. The price and procedure depend on what the market will bear. If consumers were unwilling to buy buggy products, they wouldn't, and companies would have to change. As long as they are, then this is how things will be.

 

[Mr. Do]

Hooray, we're all in agrement now (Hopefully the threadstarter too), so hopefully I won't complain about the people who complain about the complainers again...

 

[Longasc]

Lets start a thread about "how can we make Civ4 a better product?"

 

[SirPleb]

The barbarian bug may be easy to fix, but finding the solution was not easy. It was, as far as I know, serendipitiously found. Again, I seem to recall a quote from a Firaxian that they had no idea where the barb bug came from or any idea what was causing it. Also the solution was not exactly intuitive. I feel this analogy falls short.

Yes it was serendipitously found. But that was by people who did not have the source code. Imagine how long it would have taken Alexman to work out the corruption formula given the source code vs. working from observed behavior as he did.

The barbarian bug, like some others, was not a problem before Conquests. With the source code I believe that this bug would have taken me, with no prior knowledge of the source code, less than two days to find. A "diff" approach is all it would take. The results of the diff would be quite lengthy which is why I say two days. And yes I know that some bugs are harder than others to find that way. But that is THE logical starting point for a number of outstanding issues and the barbarian bug (at least! probably some others too) would jump out like a blinking red light from that approach. I am sure of it in the barbarian case now that we know what is actually causing it, i.e. a changed default value.

You seem to be forgetting the first rule of debugging: discovering bugs is easy. Fixing bugs is easy. Finding out what needs to be fixed is very very hard.

See above reply to punkbass2000. What you say is true in some cases. I think we know enough about the barbarian bug to classify it in an easier category.

Assuming all bugfixes would be easy because one of them appears to be is completely ignorant.

I didn't say that or anything implying it.

I know for a fact working alongside the group that when people put 80+ hours (yes, that's an 80, yes, that's a +, and no, I'm not exaggerating) per week into a product they care very dearly about it. More than "a little."

I believe that some of the people involved in developing Conquests do care very much. Personally I especially feel sorry for the developers of the Conquests Scenarios. Clearly some people put a lot of time and energy into those and many of them are works of art. It is a shame that their loving work suffers due to factors outside their control.

This doesn't change how I feel about Firaxis and Atari. When I say that "they" don't care much I am referring to the corporate entities, and therefore implicitly to the people who make the final decisions regarding what actions those entities take. The corporate entities are responsible for the final result, whatever flaws it has, and whether those flaws get fixed or not. I stand by my statement regarding the corporate entities (and their decision makers), i.e. that they don't care much.

you really don't have any idea unless you've seen the source code.

I am bound by a nondisclosure with Firaxis and beyond that have been asked to not even say how much I have seen. I stand by my statements about how much effort it would take to fix some things.