Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Pyrkaige, Oct 11, 2010.
80% are happy with it? Are you kidding? Clearly you mean 80% of people at you place are.
I too would be interested in reading about that strong evidence, link please
No strong evidence, but Jon's own comment seems to indicate the release date was set in stone, and the game wasn't ready.
He talks about features getting 'overhauled' like it was still in beta.
Also Civ3 and 4 both debuted in late October (2001 and 2005 respectively) so this game should have been an October 2010 release. 1 extra month of work would have gotten us at least the first few patches plus the upcoming one.
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
..ah ok, thanks for your clarification, so it is in your opinion
I remember pre-ordering and buying Elemental (thank goodness that SD were ok with refunds) and I wondered how that game was released as it was. At first I thought that there might have been for some financial reasons in being rushed out in such a poor state. However after reading Brad's own posts I then realised that it was not for that reason the game was released in such a state. Elemental got heavily criticised by most of the review sites whereas Civ V has been largely praised. In my opinion, although I'm a little hazy, I seem to remember a few problems with the launch of Civ III, and Civ IV was very much unplayable for me until the first major patch, IIRC due to CTD's.
Civ V however as never crashed in any of my games and has played as well as it can in its present form, although there are plenty of things which need fixing (see bug thread) and hopefully, when possible, after a few big patches the AI might be more credible. I am looking forward to this first "big" patch.
After the last two "big" games that I have bought and played (Empire Total War and Elemental) Civ V seems refreshingly good by comparison, at its initial launch. Which is more of a reflection, for me, on how ETW and Elemental were badly bugged, more so Elemental.
...and what about the games before World of Wacraft? Like... Starcraft, Warcraft, Warcraft 2 and Diablo?
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.
We have been quite lucky with Civ V, it is on its beta stage but I have seen games being on thier pre-alpha stage when released ..... we have been quite lucky, trust me.
Which imho is stupid as sin. Everyone who is involved working in the software industry knows that fixing a bug after launch is far far more expensive than squishing it i during development. I believe the problems is not that the "games are released as beta" are not the choices the developers make but rather the money monkeys who like 12 years olds giggle in glee the tinkle of cash coming in from sales. Despite their pressure to launch based upon some arbitrary internal marketing/budget plan they demanded, they feel no responsibility for the condition of the game. Hence that is why post-release support is usually so half-ass it is more expensive than development. These suit pushers just cant grasp the concept of investment - by going for the instant gratification of sales NOW rather than waiting tad longer and investing a few dollars more to make superior product with superior sales.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No one can assume how many civ fans are here for the long run. Many that would have bought the game if it was polished and more bug free (if released in December), have even said on these forums they will wait until the game if fixed. There may be a large decline in DLC sales because why buy DLC when game mechanics are still not sorted out (I don't know if there will be a decline or not). Alot of sales come from people who have not played Civ before also.
Releases that have a bunch of big issues definitely effect overall sales.
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.
i dont have time to read all the pages, so i settled for this quote for now. Sc2 has a lot of shortcomings, smth that we would never have expected from the blizzard "behemoth". The fact that it has xbox live style bnet is ******,it has no chatrooms(although they said they will add that in a couple of months), it has NO LAN, which let's face it, that was the feature that sold Sc1, making friends is almost impossible, and the campaign is useless. Definitely not worth those 50 Euros. and blizz will not get another 50 *2 for the next campaigns from me. I'm playing it for the multi and i'm not paying thrice for the multiplayer feature. And by the comment u made about it i rate you as a casual player of this game.
Now, as a comparison, Civ 5 is the same as Sc2 when it comes to it's shortcomings, because if in the case of blizz, mistakes made by them makes everyone ragequit the scene, int he case of Civ 5, not having that much money to develop it, i was sure there would be some problems, but this is just laughable. I just played it some 4-5 hours at a friends house, and i was disappointed by a lot of things: particularly a lot of stuff missing, including the civilopedia from the menu(at least i didn't find it... i had to go into it from the game), and ofc the battles. Even Civ 4, which i'm not that great a fan of was light years ahead when it was released, compared to this.
Needless to say, i won't be buying it until i see some major improvement. So stop defending whoever owns the Civ Name now.
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.
Personally I don't see much of a problem with gaming houses releasing slightly bugged versions if most of the bad stuff is fixed quickly. Some of the stuff just doesn't come out without the game actually going to prod. PC just has so diverse machine base and the games are getting more and more complicated to code.
The bad thing is when the company doesn't shed out any information and the game is unplayable for the first 2 months or something. Or in the worst case doesn't get fixed at all.
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.
I'd start with Super Mario Galaxy, and Super Mario Galaxy 2, and Mario Cart ... all three worked perfectly. People who make console games don't have the luxury of patching later. They get it right off the bat, or the game is dead. Which means we now have the situation where console games are of a better workmanship than PC games.
No wonder people are switching.
That's the biggest problem. There really is no competition. It's a niche product and PC gaming in general is dying or gravitating towards FPS, MMORGS or simple games.
Firaxis and 2K Games know this and seem to think that justifies such a shoddy release.
This could end up killing Civ. Either we all keep buying this crap and the games get crappier and crappier because there is no incentive to charge or we don't put up with this garbage, we stop buying the product as much and they close up shop in response.
It's a no win situation for Civ fans.
Separate names with a comma.