Well, the game was likely originally scheduled for release on the Christmas holidays, where it would have been a more-polished finish. But there is strong evidence that Take-2 pushed the game late September, to make their 2010 financial reports look better.
Can you link any source for this "strong evidence" ?
Can you link any source for this "strong evidence" ?
I said likely, didn't say it was fact, and 'likely is IMO', because unless the company itself makes a definite statement, it will always be unknown; but I see no other major reason why they release it at the time they did in such a state.
Here is the thread by another member supported with data: Business and Software Development perspective on Civ 5
Until every company has a profit generator like World of Warcraft that will never happen. Blizzard can afford the attention they give to each and every one of their games because they have revenue stream that is unparalleled to anyone else.
A sadness indeed the fact that nowdays every game hitting the shelves is still on beta..... this way companies save betatesting money and they have for free a result 1 milion times better than if they would hire betatesting men.
Well, the less bugs there are at release, the better a product will do in regards to sales and sales of extra products like DLC and expansions. Word of mouth does alot; Civ 5 has without a doubt lost alot of sales due to conflicting reveiws here at CFC and given a 64% average rating. So it would have ultimately paid off for them to release a better polished product. I don't know the cost difference of fixing bugs before or after though, for Firaxis. That is mostly just a guess someone could make.
There is something wrong into your starting point because you assume that a game could be cheaper if bugs are fixed before its release. True, but how many games have you seen on on last 10 years with a good quality without at least 1 patch ?
We are therefore obliged to assume that nowdays at least one patch is mandatory so my theory is more correct unless you show me that a game may be good without at least 1 patch.
Most Civ fans are here for the long run.
I also hate this new trend of releasing beta-version games (Worms Reloaded grrrrrr), and if I could go back in time I would not pre-order, but Civ is less affected by this then other games. Five years from now we will still be playing Civ, which can't be said for many other games.
That's just a plain cop-out. If Civ V took a common sense approach and didn't try to include everything under the sun they would have done fine. That's how Blizzard does it. Most people complain about the simplicity of their games, but they are reliable and entertaining enough to play.
Just my two cents here: it's absolutely unfair to compared SC2 to Civ V. Blizzard is the behemoth of PC gaming, and Civ V is much more niche than SC2, so it obviously has much lower budgets, preventing it from having a "When it's done" release date.
Also, saying that Starcraft 2 is incomplete is absolute overreaction. The game is well worth the US$60, the campaign is very satisfying, with the same number of missions that SC1 campaign had (and each mission is very well balanced and fleshed out), and the multiplayer is a blast. There's nothing incomplete about SC2, and the fact that they split the singleplayer (which is not the main course of the game) in 3 full sized campaigns for the expansion packs doesn't make it so.
For the record, I also think that Civ V, even in its current state, is well worth the US$60, but I agree this is a more debatable point.
I am NOT saying that no patches will be required, even the best QA team may miss things. Despite gamers being legion in the peanut gallery of development - it is not an assumption about costs on my part, it is a readily accepted precept by people actually in the industry, backed up by a lot of professional studies by IT and QA engineers.
Yep, I already told your point of view is " true " as I stated.
I simply also told that because at least 1 patch is mandatory, pc-game companies do not spend money anymore on betatesting them, letting the job to thousands customers.
Doing that , their money saving is definitely higher than patching before the release.
The problem doing this way is that , we , customers are obliged to fiddle with beta releases and this practice is common. Results are clear, despiting the quality of the product, we therefore have major bugs that even a traffic light would notice after playing the game for 5-6 seconds.
Are you kidding? Every time a feature is removed, scores of people complain that the game is being dumbed down. Every time an expansion is released, plenty more complain that we're paying more to finish an unfinished game. Civilization has always been a series that does it's best to include everything possible, which makes sense considering the delays between releases. It's not something people will be happy with simple gameplay.
True, but how many games have you seen on on last 10 years with a good quality without at least 1 patch ?
I'm very surprised at how many people defend beta releases. I see it all the time. This is the #1 reason we get lousy releases, I mean if you tell them it's OK to release a broken game then they will!
Also, beta testing is free. At the best they could have offered a beta key for pre-orders way back in June at the very least, then they could have had an open beta early August and then by release day this game could have been polished enough for release.
also, the issue isn't 1 patch, the issue is fewest patches. This thing is so bug ridden it will soon be delegated to a single programmer fixing things. they can't afford to pay a team much longer, especially with losing money from a bugged release that some people aren't going to buy. soon the game will be in the dollar bin and that isn't going to pay for much at all. so not beta testing will cost a lot more money in the long run.
This is exactly what's been done. There have been things already removed from the game that were suppose to be in it. If they were more focused they could have had what's currently available ready for release. With the more modular design of this multi-threaded game, they could have added, and probably will, add it in at a later date either in an expansion or patches.
You simply can't have it all. Ask Sony and the Everquest franchise. WoW overtook them because in EQ2 they tried adding too much in a short time and released a buggy system and everyone went to WoW. Hopefully this doesn't happen to Civ, but is there really an equivalent game? I think all have turned to real-time instead of turn based. Right now the only thing selling this game is the Civ name, let's just hope this is enough.