Cunobelin Of Hippo
Site Pachyderm
Yes, ala SMAC where the 'Non-lethal methods' special ability gave a unit x2 police powers. Let's call them 'Peacekeepers.
Hot news!Multiplayer will come with in an official add on!
- Thread starter Fayadi
- Start date
Yes, ala SMAC where the 'Non-lethal methods' special ability gave a unit x2 police powers. Let's call them 'Peacekeepers.
I for one have been sadly disapointed with the entire Civ III experience. The initial release was buggy and seemed to lack some fundamental playtesting. Corruption and other bugs really made me question the product.
However, I just stopped playing and waited for the patches in the hopes that the game would improve. Now, they are talking about charging for a feature that is considered mandatory for almost any modern game, and shipped with their prior title. This is the Civ pattern, release a partial game, then charge for the features to make it complete. Remember Civ Net? Bought that and then Civ II comes out (with no MP) a few months later making that title obsolete.
Well, I am going to see if they will refund my money sice the retailer will not. I have gotten little to no use out of this game which I really wanted to love. However, after playing through Alpha Centauri, which is a wonderfully deep and complete game, I feel that this is just a quick attempt at marketing a cash cow.
Perhaps later after the game is rebundled into some gold pack and selling in the bargain bins, I'll look at it again. Until then, for those of you enjoying the game, have fun. I will not be one of you.
However, I just stopped playing and waited for the patches in the hopes that the game would improve. Now, they are talking about charging for a feature that is considered mandatory for almost any modern game, and shipped with their prior title. This is the Civ pattern, release a partial game, then charge for the features to make it complete. Remember Civ Net? Bought that and then Civ II comes out (with no MP) a few months later making that title obsolete.
Well, I am going to see if they will refund my money sice the retailer will not. I have gotten little to no use out of this game which I really wanted to love. However, after playing through Alpha Centauri, which is a wonderfully deep and complete game, I feel that this is just a quick attempt at marketing a cash cow.
Perhaps later after the game is rebundled into some gold pack and selling in the bargain bins, I'll look at it again. Until then, for those of you enjoying the game, have fun. I will not be one of you.
OneInTen
Darkness bound
And thanks for being totally intelectually dishonest by quoting my reply to a completely different point as though I was replying to a post about multiplayer.
AustralianJerem
Chieftain
For those who are saying "oh, it would have taken too much time to do multiplayer, and it would have meant more bugs"...
MP WAS in Civ2 and SMAC; it's not like adding MP means coding a new AI or anything like that; MP in a Civ game just means having one of the other civs take its orders from another computer. It should not be that difficult to code. Civ3 SHOULD have had MP. MP IS standard now, Firaxis knows it's possible, and it wouldn't have been that difficult to implement in Civ3.
What we have here is simply an attempt to screw over their dedicated customers for extra money. Let's be honest here; MP is NOT worth another $50. Civ3 without MP is worth maybe $70, and MP $20 if they're going to do it like that. It'd be like releasing the monopoly board game with just enough money for 5 people, for whatever a full board game costs, say $60, and then releasing "add-on Monopoly" with enough money for another person to play for $30. It's a GOUGE, folks! How much are they planning on charging for MP? Half the original Civ3 cost? They're not going to spend half the hours they spent on Civ3 again! MP is going to be a tiny fraction of the original development cost of Civ3; it should be a tiny fraction of the price of Civ3. Free, for example.
I *will* be downloading MP from the net when it comes out, anyway. Hopefully as a free patch, but if not...
MP WAS in Civ2 and SMAC; it's not like adding MP means coding a new AI or anything like that; MP in a Civ game just means having one of the other civs take its orders from another computer. It should not be that difficult to code. Civ3 SHOULD have had MP. MP IS standard now, Firaxis knows it's possible, and it wouldn't have been that difficult to implement in Civ3.
What we have here is simply an attempt to screw over their dedicated customers for extra money. Let's be honest here; MP is NOT worth another $50. Civ3 without MP is worth maybe $70, and MP $20 if they're going to do it like that. It'd be like releasing the monopoly board game with just enough money for 5 people, for whatever a full board game costs, say $60, and then releasing "add-on Monopoly" with enough money for another person to play for $30. It's a GOUGE, folks! How much are they planning on charging for MP? Half the original Civ3 cost? They're not going to spend half the hours they spent on Civ3 again! MP is going to be a tiny fraction of the original development cost of Civ3; it should be a tiny fraction of the price of Civ3. Free, for example.
I *will* be downloading MP from the net when it comes out, anyway. Hopefully as a free patch, but if not...
OneInTen
Darkness bound
Why do people keep insisting Civ 2 has multiplayer. Civ 2 was not released with multiplayer, it came later. Just like it seems will be the case with Civ 3.
CyberChrist
You caught my attention
Why do you and others keep refering to the irrelevant fact that Civ2 was not originally released with MultiPlayer support?
Civ2 was released in 1996 and at that time games with MP support was not that common, but it WAS planned that Civ2 should have MP support from the first release - they were just never able (or willing) to get it to work. If you don't believe me then check your GAME.TXT file from the first Civ2 release and you will find several menu texts specifically for MP - both for local and internet play.
Now 6 years later MP support is almost essential and games without MP support are often looked down upon as unfinished/incomplete. Of course Civ2 HAVE had MP support for almost 4 years now and I can't think of a Firaxis(and Hasbro) Civstyle game since that haven't had MP support from the first release.
Anyway, I don't think people are upset that Civ3 was not born with MP support - we all wanted to play the game ASAP
, but people ARE upset that it appears we will now have to pay extra to get the MP support that Firaxis said would (and by the market standards today SHOULD) be a part of Civ3 to begin with.OneInTen
Darkness bound
Multiplayer is absolutely required these days? The Sims was released without any multiplayer what so ever, and even after 3 expansion packs still doesn't have multiplayer, yet it consistently got 90%+ reviews (and won a game of the year title or two).
So I don't think your assertion that multiplayer is absolutely required in a modern game has any basis in reality at all.
As for Civ 2 being released in 1996, well, looking back to 1996 most games I played back then had multiplayer (Doom, Quake, Warcraft, Duke Nukem 3D to name a few). So once again saying 1996 was a different era when multiplayer was uncommon is misleading also.
So I don't think your assertion that multiplayer is absolutely required in a modern game has any basis in reality at all.
As for Civ 2 being released in 1996, well, looking back to 1996 most games I played back then had multiplayer (Doom, Quake, Warcraft, Duke Nukem 3D to name a few). So once again saying 1996 was a different era when multiplayer was uncommon is misleading also.
Impossible. Large map - 16 civs on the highest difficulty (deity) and I was at least a 10 city jump on the largest empire. Basically my game is a "rapid expand" with little or no time for anything else but defense and settlers. My military advisor always keeps me informed on how my army is viewed by other empires and if there is any accuracy to that system then my opponent almost always "fears" my military, not to mention the "you outnumber your opponent, that is good" message. So in other words, no I'm not delusional, I'm not making this up, and I definately know what I'm talking about. I was playing "Rome" and I was 3 times the size of "Greece" and they still walked through my territory under a peace treaty, I told them to leave, they left, and a few turns later they crossed my borders again forcing me to threaten and declare war. I outnumbered them 3 - 1 with my "offensive" alone. It doesn't matter how strong you are, it doesn't matter how large you are, and it definately has nothing to do with strategy. Simply (in my opinion) the game was designed this way to make the AI blood hungry and vicious to add to the difficulty. And I find that just a tad too unrealistic, and for a coding point of view that's a pretty lame "easy way out" to design the AI challange factors. It's rediculously unrealistic, and takes away from any solid strategy or dealings with the AI, because you simply (under any circumstance) cannot trust your treaties. I wonder if it's like this in the reality, I guess China, Russia and the "Northern Alliance" attacked the US forces in Afghanistan shortly after the fall of the "Taliban" right? Gimme a break.
Charles.
First of all, and I hope this is the last time I have to explain this to you. "Reviews" are bullsh_t. They were bought, paid for and over exagerated. Any real gamer knows this. And for one simple reason, the review NEVER shows bad reviews. It's one-sided for a reason... and one reason only, to promote game sales and brand names. If you can't figure that concept out by now, this is a lost cause with you. I know this because I've read through these halariously rediculous review sites laughing to myself, because I've spent countless hours playing the game, and definately do not agree with the reviews. Example...
"It's clear that Firaxis has put forth a strong effort to make Civilization III much more detailed than any other game in the Civilization series--and that says a lot."
- Gamespot 2001
Let's look at the bold ... Civilization III has more than it's prior versions, if this is true then why are so many valuble features missing? Great scenario design tool, excellent events control to create realistic historical scenarios, a zoom in/out map editor to see what you're doing when creating maps. Proper starting locations for all Civs, complete control over all graphics; terrain, units, improvements, wonders, cities etc. Not to mention the simply ability to move sound files around and create FX for your scenarios. Civ2 also had a better "corruption" system with more flexability to deal with your empire. And regardless of how long it took Microprose to bring Civ2 to completion the fact remains they didn't plan on charging us for all of that, and most of it was eventually given to us free of charge. Oh don't worry I know what you'll say to all of this. "Oh well Firaxis doesn't have to include those features, those are optional" well not only are they in public domand right now, but without all those features there is no such thing as a "greatly expanded scenario design tool". In other words "false advertising". But we can argue the plea that these things did not have to ship with the original copy of the game, but like I said they promised those features with Civ3's release - 5 years ago when the suggestions starting rolling and now they wanna charge us for them! Gimme a break. (CASH COW)
Oh and lets not forget the obvious here. Firaxis was taking ideas and suggestions from thousands of fans all over the world between 1996 - 2001. That's "thousands" of ideas literally. And it was the hard core fans and devotees that fueled most of the concepts. So not only did they have 5 years to stew over it, but they had a great un-paid team of designers world-wide. And still only half of the concepts were actually used, and they left out the more valuble features, like hotseat/multiplayer/scenario editor. And it is argued that "Oh those were un-realistic concepts, and not possible to code, or would ruin the game!" Not bloody likely, I have a few programmers in my family and nothing is impossible in code, only complicated. But since they started the coding and design in 1999, they still had the prior 4-5 years of feedback plus the following 2 years from 99' forward to actually design the game. And I said it once, and I'll say it again, I know the power of "one" programmer if 35 proffesional programmers can't design one game in 2 years fairly worthy of public demand, then something is really wrong there.
PS. No, multiplayer is not manditory. But MP should have been included with the complete game package accompanied by a great editor with the ability to alter just about anything to suit individual playing styles. But no, all we got was a bare-bone generic civ-clone to suit one general category of people, the blood thirsty un-emaginative kids with nintendo thumbs who are willing to buy any cheap product with a fancy box cover. Well you can count me out, game over man, game over! And this expansion better turn heads otherwise I'll join the mobs.
Nuf sed
Charles.
Readylander
Warlord
I am more of an auto enthusiast than a PC gaming enthusiast so I am going to use an automotive analogy here.
I drive a BMW MCoupe. Prior to buying the car I did some research. I knew that there was a cheaper version available first that didn't have the horsepower or the suspension that I wanted so I didn't buy it. The MCoupe then came out and I was really interested but I waited a few months to see what the initial buyers' experience was. I read newsgroups and webpages and the owners had some minor complaints (e.g. if you keep filling the gas tank after the pump first shuts off the gas gauge will act very weird for a couple hundred miles). Their complaints were minor in my eyes and I decided that this was the car for me and I could put up with the minor bugs. It was the best car for the price for what I wanted in a car. So I bought it. And I love it, it is a daily driver that I can take out to the dragstrip, to a road course or to an autocross and have fun at all of them. Yeah, it doesn't do well in the snow, my wife hates to ride in it on long trips, my tire expense is more than my gas expense and it still has problems if I try to top of the gas tank but it does what I wanted a car to do. After almost three years and over 40,000 miles I am a very happy owner.
Did I expect the base model to have the same performance? - NO, the people buying that model didn't want the same level of performance that I wanted and they shouldn't have to pay the same amount of money that I paid. That is why I didn't buy the base model when it first came out. I wanted something above and beyond the base model and I was willing to pay the extra cost for the extra performace and I was willing to wait for it.
Now back to the very similar Civ environment. I bought the base Civ2 game many years ago and have played it very happily for many, many hours without needing any MP capabilities, and didn't expect, or want, MP in the base Civ3 model. And when I bought Civ3 (on the first day it was available) I didn't see anything on the box, or on www.civ3.com, that said it would have MP capabilities. I also knew that buying an early release of a PC game that there would likely be patches necessary to fix some minor bugs. (I also had to get the software in my car upgraded after about a year so that it would run smoother in cold weather, so this isn't unique to PC games.) I have been playing Civ3 very happily since the day I bought it.
I am glad that I didn't have to pay for the extra programming that is necessary to add MP to Civ3. I don't want that capability and I don't want to pay for it.
If you have already bought Civ3 expecting it to have MP capabilities, shame on you for not doing your research. If the cost of the game is enough to make you complain that it doesn't meet your needs then it should have been enough to get you to do some research before buying it. You paid for the base model, don't expect to get the upgraded model for the same price or in the same time frame. And please stop blaming someone else for your mistake. Instead, accept it as a lesson of life, at least this mistake was far less expensive than a mistake in auto purchasing.
Tom
A CPA for 15 years who has no problems with Firaxis' business practices. They didn't promise me anything I didn't get and didn't make me pay for anything I didn't want.
I drive a BMW MCoupe. Prior to buying the car I did some research. I knew that there was a cheaper version available first that didn't have the horsepower or the suspension that I wanted so I didn't buy it. The MCoupe then came out and I was really interested but I waited a few months to see what the initial buyers' experience was. I read newsgroups and webpages and the owners had some minor complaints (e.g. if you keep filling the gas tank after the pump first shuts off the gas gauge will act very weird for a couple hundred miles). Their complaints were minor in my eyes and I decided that this was the car for me and I could put up with the minor bugs. It was the best car for the price for what I wanted in a car. So I bought it. And I love it, it is a daily driver that I can take out to the dragstrip, to a road course or to an autocross and have fun at all of them. Yeah, it doesn't do well in the snow, my wife hates to ride in it on long trips, my tire expense is more than my gas expense and it still has problems if I try to top of the gas tank but it does what I wanted a car to do. After almost three years and over 40,000 miles I am a very happy owner.
Did I expect the base model to have the same performance? - NO, the people buying that model didn't want the same level of performance that I wanted and they shouldn't have to pay the same amount of money that I paid. That is why I didn't buy the base model when it first came out. I wanted something above and beyond the base model and I was willing to pay the extra cost for the extra performace and I was willing to wait for it.
Now back to the very similar Civ environment. I bought the base Civ2 game many years ago and have played it very happily for many, many hours without needing any MP capabilities, and didn't expect, or want, MP in the base Civ3 model. And when I bought Civ3 (on the first day it was available) I didn't see anything on the box, or on www.civ3.com, that said it would have MP capabilities. I also knew that buying an early release of a PC game that there would likely be patches necessary to fix some minor bugs. (I also had to get the software in my car upgraded after about a year so that it would run smoother in cold weather, so this isn't unique to PC games.) I have been playing Civ3 very happily since the day I bought it.
I am glad that I didn't have to pay for the extra programming that is necessary to add MP to Civ3. I don't want that capability and I don't want to pay for it.
If you have already bought Civ3 expecting it to have MP capabilities, shame on you for not doing your research. If the cost of the game is enough to make you complain that it doesn't meet your needs then it should have been enough to get you to do some research before buying it. You paid for the base model, don't expect to get the upgraded model for the same price or in the same time frame. And please stop blaming someone else for your mistake. Instead, accept it as a lesson of life, at least this mistake was far less expensive than a mistake in auto purchasing.
Tom
A CPA for 15 years who has no problems with Firaxis' business practices. They didn't promise me anything I didn't get and didn't make me pay for anything I didn't want.
Before I begin, slightly off topic. I love cars. I own/drive a 1979 Buick full size (gloss black) all restored, tires/mags, Turbo400 Hydromatic Tranny with a shift kit, powered by a 425 Olds-Rocket BB V8 with perf. pistons and valves. It's horrible on gas, but even with the 3500-4000lbs of weight on the car it still pushes just over 400 horsepower. Lays patches, and nothing imported has matched it yet in the quarter mile.
Anyway....I understand your point regarding product standards and level of expecations. But you have to understand that (in fact) thousands of fans have been discussing "Civilization III" since 1996. It's not the point of what should or shouldn't have been included for our dollar, its the principal of raising consumer expecations through exagerated advertising and phony reviews. And it's possible to research cars or various other products but how possible is it to research game product when the only information you have is unrealistic reviews and vague feedback from the company? Believe me I did my research months before Civ3 was released, and the only source of information I had to go on was the magazines and the retail reports. When I consulted Firaxis on several occasions regarding "what is Civ3 going to be like" they rarely answered, and when they did they exagerated everything. Because I've played it now, and it's nowhere near what the magazines and reviews stated it would be. So there is really now way to know what a game is going to be like until you buy it! And thats why people are mad. We could learn to overlook the MP thing and other issues if they only could give us some hope.
Charles.
CyberChrist
You caught my attention
Sigh
...
You either need to take a little more time to stop and try and understand what is actually written in the posts you respond to - unless you are yet another troll adamant to be contrary regardless of facts and attempts of compromise.
Let me highlight what I wrote again:
"6 years later MP support is almost essential and games without MP support are often looked down upon as unfinished/incomplete. "
This does NOT translate to absolutely required in anyway I can see.
Heh, you wont make me come up with a complete list of games published in those days with and without MP support, and then compare it with a list of games published today with and without MP support, to see if the amount with MP support is noticeably higher today than it was then. I got a feeling you would ignore the facts I would be able to present (which I already know would support my statements) and frankly ... I don't really care that much about this subject to spend the time anyway.
The games you mention only had Local Network MP support (no TCP/IP support and Kali came later) Civ2MPG had MP support for Internet(TCP/IP).
Also, Civ1 came out with MP support in CivNet in 1995 for both LAN and Internet(TCP/IP), so there IS already a well founded precedense for MP support in Civilization - even before MP support for Civ3 was promised by Firaxis. But I wouldn't be surprised if you and the others sharing your Firaxis fanatiscism, would read this a precedent for only releasing MP support in a seperate release to justifiably (in your view) milk $$ from us that chose to be only fanatical about the game Civilization itself - and NOT the Company (or the man for that matter) behind the game.
Phew, time for a game
RogueNine
Warlord
First off, I just wanted to state that I agree with how most of you view this multiplayer fiasco. I too had high hopes that multiplayer would come out with the original release.
However, I DO disagree with everyone saying how bad Firaxis is for not including it in the original release. Most games today that come with multiplayer support are action games, or short stradegy games. For example, Caesar 3, one of my all-time favorite games, didn't even try to incorporate MP, and some of the best games I can remember (Master Of Orion 2 for example) I prefered playing single player, even if MP was available. Civilization is a game that is very unique, and I just don't feel that the arguement "All the other games out there today have it" is a very germane one. For alot of people, games like Starcraft, UT, NHL 2002, etc. would get pretty boring if MP wasn't there to extend the life of the game. With Civ 3 though, there are quite a few people who wouldn't even want to try a MP game. Its just different.
Also, I still don't understand how people can be upset about their marketing plan. MechWarrior 4 released a mission pack for the game that cost 35$ Cdn. The original release was very short, so its not a stretch to say that Activision 'milked' consumers for more money by making the game short, and then releasing more missions later. Same for The Sims. Why couldn't all those things that the addons (cost of 25-30$) be in the original release? Isn't THAT milking people for money too? Or how about that Rollercoaster Tycoon, that had a new addon every two weeks it seemed?
I'm not saying that people shouldn't be upset that companies are milking us for money. I personally understand the industry's status right now and know that this 'addon' policy is keeping alot of game software companies from going belly up. I happen to be a business major though and understanding these things is my hobby. I don't expect everyone to know as much about the industry as a whole as do. (Just like I wouldn't know the first thing about actually coding a game, and many here know alot about it...) What I DO expect, is that if your going to be mad at companies for milking you for cash, be mad at ALL the companies that do it! That means Blizzard too folks, unless those Starcraft and Warcraft addons don't count as 'milking you for cash' also. Why you guys have singled out Firaxis in this is beyond me.
Now, before you get into the arguement that mission packs are different than multiplayer, which is a 'core' element, understand that games like Starcraft and The Sims last for a very short time without multiplayer. (Once you've passed the missions, and once you've built your house and gotten the best career you can get... the games get old.) Thats where multiplayer comes in. Its a 'part' of the game that helps prolong its entertainment value. Civ 3 on the other hand already has that prolongment built-in. This game will be played by some for 2 years non stop, just like Civ 2 was, weather multiplayer comes out or not. For THIS game, multiplayer isn't a 'core' element. Things like diplomacy and culture ARE.
Still doubt me? lets compare Starcraft and Civ 3. Lets say both have no multiplayer. So you beat all the campaign missions in SC, and then what? You play them again? That gets boring quick. Now look at Civ 3. You play a game, huge map with 10 civs, and win. Then what? Well, you can start a new game that is different every time. Multiplayer isn't ESSENTIAL to its long-term survival. And THAT is why Firaxis is making it an 'addon'. What else can they make an addon about? Scenarios? People will be making thousands of those for free, who would pay for them? So MP is Civ 3's 'addon'. Why is that so hard to understand?
However, I DO disagree with everyone saying how bad Firaxis is for not including it in the original release. Most games today that come with multiplayer support are action games, or short stradegy games. For example, Caesar 3, one of my all-time favorite games, didn't even try to incorporate MP, and some of the best games I can remember (Master Of Orion 2 for example) I prefered playing single player, even if MP was available. Civilization is a game that is very unique, and I just don't feel that the arguement "All the other games out there today have it" is a very germane one. For alot of people, games like Starcraft, UT, NHL 2002, etc. would get pretty boring if MP wasn't there to extend the life of the game. With Civ 3 though, there are quite a few people who wouldn't even want to try a MP game. Its just different.
Also, I still don't understand how people can be upset about their marketing plan. MechWarrior 4 released a mission pack for the game that cost 35$ Cdn. The original release was very short, so its not a stretch to say that Activision 'milked' consumers for more money by making the game short, and then releasing more missions later. Same for The Sims. Why couldn't all those things that the addons (cost of 25-30$) be in the original release? Isn't THAT milking people for money too? Or how about that Rollercoaster Tycoon, that had a new addon every two weeks it seemed?
I'm not saying that people shouldn't be upset that companies are milking us for money. I personally understand the industry's status right now and know that this 'addon' policy is keeping alot of game software companies from going belly up. I happen to be a business major though and understanding these things is my hobby. I don't expect everyone to know as much about the industry as a whole as do. (Just like I wouldn't know the first thing about actually coding a game, and many here know alot about it...) What I DO expect, is that if your going to be mad at companies for milking you for cash, be mad at ALL the companies that do it! That means Blizzard too folks, unless those Starcraft and Warcraft addons don't count as 'milking you for cash' also. Why you guys have singled out Firaxis in this is beyond me.
Now, before you get into the arguement that mission packs are different than multiplayer, which is a 'core' element, understand that games like Starcraft and The Sims last for a very short time without multiplayer. (Once you've passed the missions, and once you've built your house and gotten the best career you can get... the games get old.) Thats where multiplayer comes in. Its a 'part' of the game that helps prolong its entertainment value. Civ 3 on the other hand already has that prolongment built-in. This game will be played by some for 2 years non stop, just like Civ 2 was, weather multiplayer comes out or not. For THIS game, multiplayer isn't a 'core' element. Things like diplomacy and culture ARE.
Still doubt me? lets compare Starcraft and Civ 3. Lets say both have no multiplayer. So you beat all the campaign missions in SC, and then what? You play them again? That gets boring quick. Now look at Civ 3. You play a game, huge map with 10 civs, and win. Then what? Well, you can start a new game that is different every time. Multiplayer isn't ESSENTIAL to its long-term survival. And THAT is why Firaxis is making it an 'addon'. What else can they make an addon about? Scenarios? People will be making thousands of those for free, who would pay for them? So MP is Civ 3's 'addon'. Why is that so hard to understand?
CyberChrist
You caught my attention
It's isn't hard too understand why at all, I just don't see it as a valid reason for not delivering what they orginally promised they were going to deliver. Not being able to finish all of the parts in time I can understand, but asking further payment when you deliver the last parts late is plain rude.
Do construction contractors get extra payment if they don't finish the house in time?
Do they get to add that roof later as an AddOn for double pay?
No! They get fined for being late as well as being able to look forward to bad publicity by word of mouth by the disgruntled customers.
Your lack of imagination about "there being nothing else than the MP they could do for and AddOn" frightens me a bit(lets hope they don't think like that at Firaxis), there are plenty of things they could do just have a look at this thread Civ Add-on/Expansion Pack Ideas for a few suggestions of what they could do.
I don't mind paying for AddOns and Expansions at all, in fact I hope there will be a few for Civ3.
I just wont accept being asked to pay extra for something that was planned to be a part of the original deal.
customer: "I am here to pick up that goose for christmas I picked out this summer"
butcher: "Certainly, here you go"
customer: "Hey wait a minute, this is only half the goose?"
butcher: "Yes, it got too big and fat, so if you want it all you will have to pay extra"
customer: "WTH!"
ahmen cyber crist :s .. i dont think it could be said any better and pretty hard to defend fraxis on this one .... i like fraxis ... and i love sid ... but it is so disheartening to see MP come out as a pay for an addon type thing .... they DID tell us it was going to be multi .... and any halfwit in the world would assume it becasue the last game in the civ series (AlphaCenturi) had it ... and all the civ clones have it (CTP,CTP2) .. and i must say that CTP did have GREAT multiplayer .... is was sooo easy to find a game! stable and all that ..... hell ... even free civ which was made god know how long ago ... off corse there was civnet ... so mp civ has been around for soooooooooo long!! .... it really is unforgivable to not have multiplayer ... im no multiplayer demon ... i only played civ2 a few times .... AC quite a bit more on a lan though ... but i have a friend come over ... a civ fanatic also ... and here we are playing civ3 in the same house ... with a lan ... playing our seperate games ... that sux!!
XPav
Chieftain
Hint #1: Game designers don't need ideas. They've got enough.
Civ3 has 7 programmers credited, and a whole pile of artists & other folks.
Pure and utter speculation.
XPav
Chieftain
How do you know that? You're making assumptions without any idea of the technical requirements behind them, in addition to overly simplfying the entire process.
Do you even know if Firaxis has the rights to use the multiplayer code from SMAC? That was, after all, an EA project. Maybe, maybe not. Civ2 was done by Microprose -- who knows if that code even EXISTS anymore.
You'll pirate it, because you feel that for some reason, it is "owed" to you.
Why is it owed to you? Exactly what moral high ground can you claim? MP was never promised, and was never in the game.
XPav
Chieftain
Please find a list of things that Firaxis promised. I want a link.
Then I'll listen.
RogueNine
Warlord
Thats pretty much my POV too XPav. I AM dissapointed that there is no multiplayer, and I feel its a shame that it has to come out in a pay-pack.
HOWEVER, I STILL do not understand these people who say Firxas 'promised' MP, or how easy it is to make it MP work. If it was THAT easy, someone would have made a multiplayer-mod by now for free. Its simply not that easy. There are alot of things to take into account, and obviously Firaxis couldn't work on it enough before the Infogrames imposed release date came. So they put it off, and are working on it now. Pretty easy to understand. Also, since they they're working on Civ 3 longer than they had anticipated, they have more bills, more techs to pay, etc. That means they have to CHARGE for this product. Be mad about it all you want, but try at least to understand the basic economics of it all.
HOWEVER, I STILL do not understand these people who say Firxas 'promised' MP, or how easy it is to make it MP work. If it was THAT easy, someone would have made a multiplayer-mod by now for free. Its simply not that easy. There are alot of things to take into account, and obviously Firaxis couldn't work on it enough before the Infogrames imposed release date came. So they put it off, and are working on it now. Pretty easy to understand. Also, since they they're working on Civ 3 longer than they had anticipated, they have more bills, more techs to pay, etc. That means they have to CHARGE for this product. Be mad about it all you want, but try at least to understand the basic economics of it all.
Similar threads
- Poll
