Insane Civ IV System Requirements announced

[AlanH]

Maybe Civfanatics could pitch in a few game saves. Say from different world sizes and different time frames so we could experiment - I would hate to see it work well at 4000bc but be unusable in the later stages of the game (I tend to get to nuclear age). I would think there are plenty from GOTM by now.

You can already find plenty of saves in the SG forums. The new C-IV SGOTM 01 is also accumulating saves at a rate of knots - go to the C-IV SGOTM Progress page, in "List of Saves" format to find links to over 300 saves submitted by the 19 teams playing that game. Also, by the time anyone has access to a demo or the real game the results for GOTM 6 should be out. There are typically 300 entries for each GOTM, and the final saves for all those players will be available to download and test. There are already plenty of saves for previous games, which were played in earlier patches of the Civ4 software.

 

[Akhhorus]

You can put me in the camp that doesn't believe that these will be the final requirements. There is no way Aspyr or any game publisher can put out a game that is an engine to drive sales for more games with such restrictive requirements(unless they don't want anyone to buy it). They're basically cutting out half the market. I think that the speed and memory requirements are going to drop.

 

[Dalmuti]

I'm going to agree that Aspyr will do whatever they can to broaden the market, it's a business after all. But As I said a few posts back I think that Fraxis dropped the ball on this one by designing a poor product. Not poor in the sense that the game is bad, just not well programed. The PC version also has performance issues, (I've been playing on and off on my friends PC and it's a 2.5ghz with an 256mg ATI graphics card and still has less then optimal performance), so it's unlikely that anyone at Aspyr can do a whole lot.

I vote the Technical Director and the Project Manager(s) off this island.

D

 

[Beamup]

If you believe that the requirements are going to go down, you're deluding yourself. There is absolutely no credible possibility that will happen. Sysreqs are set very carefully, based on real-life testing, after extensive optimization. The fact that Aspyr has stated requirements at all, given what they are, demonstrates pretty much conclusively that everything they could do to reduce them has already been done.

It's not a case of "Aspyr will do whatever they can to broaden the market," it's a case of "Aspyr has already done whatever they can to broaden the market."

Maybe it will be possible to get it to work on systems below the requirements. Maybe it won't. But realistically, you've got a better chance of taking out 50 Modern Armors with a single Spearman than the sysreqs coming down, IMO.

 

[Akhhorus]

If you believe that the requirements are going to go down, you're deluding yourself. There is absolutely no credible possibility that will happen. Sysreqs are set very carefully, based on real-life testing, after extensive optimization. The fact that Aspyr has stated requirements at all, given what they are, demonstrates pretty much conclusively that everything they could do to reduce them has already been done.

It's not a case of "Aspyr will do whatever they can to broaden the market," it's a case of "Aspyr has already done whatever they can to broaden the market."

Maybe it will be possible to get it to work on systems below the requirements. Maybe it won't. But realistically, you've got a better chance of taking out 50 Modern Armors with a single Spearman than the sysreqs coming down, IMO.

Then Aspyr is a corporation of fools. They aren't in the business to put out a great game, they are in the business to make money. They won't make money with CivIV for mac with the requirements the way they have it now. They exclude far too many potential buyers. I bought my iBook 6 weeks ago and its a new model, and it can't handle the requirements(it will struggle to work on the new MacBooks). If they are going to keep the requirements the way they are, they should pull CivIV for mac for a year for any reason and wait for the prospective mac buyers(or a big enough percentage of them) to have powerful enough computers. Now, they might put out CivIV for mac as is, but if sales drag(which they will), expect some sort of patch or new version to bring those requirements down. There is no way they just put it out with the requirements they have unless they are trying to kill mac interest in Apsyr games(and the Civ Franchise in specific). Which is a possibility.

 

[Beamup]

Oh, so you're saying that it's a BETTER idea to pull a brand-new highly anticipated game that doesn't even have terribly high requirements overall? That would be possibly the single stupidest and most destructive thing they could possibly do. It would completely and utterly destroy their reputation. Releasing a game with high sysreqs for its genre (but not overall) will not.

They did their best to bring requirements down. They could only get it down to a fairly typical level for a big new game, rather than a typical level for a big new TBS. Some sales are greatly superior to no sales, so they sell it.

You are, like so many others, falling into the two great fallacies that afflict so many about this topic. You simultaneously attribute omniscience, precognition, and stupidity to Aspyr. When all the evidence indicates they thought they could get the requirements down. And you persist in comparing the requirements only to other TBSes, instead of to such other new games as CoD2.

 

[Akhhorus]

Oh, so you're saying that it's a BETTER idea to pull a brand-new highly anticipated game that doesn't even have terribly high requirements overall? That would be possibly the single stupidest and most destructive thing they could possibly do. It would completely and utterly destroy their reputation. Releasing a game with high sysreqs for its genre (but not overall) will not.

Its too late to pull it(which I never said they should do-they should delay it and it looks like they are), but as soon as they saw the minimum requirements, they should have held off on releasing it and stopped all promotion of it until they figured out a solution.

They did their best to bring requirements down.

Unless you work there and were involved in the project, you can't know that.

They could only get it down to a fairly typical level for a big new game, rather than a typical level for a big new TBS. Some sales are greatly superior to no sales, so they sell it.

Then you have no clue how to run a business. Some sales aren't better than no sales, since a bad sales run can hurt your brand name and the franchises you run. Which will hurt all yours sales from then on. If they waited on releasing CivIV until a majority of the mac gaming community could run it, then the delay wouldn't be remembered. Now, CivIV looks like it will be a total bust for Mac and will hurt the image of Aspyr and the Civ franchise. Which is the last thing that Aspyr and Firaxis want.

You are, like so many others, falling into the two great fallacies that afflict so many about this topic. You simultaneously attribute omniscience, precognition, and stupidity to Aspyr.

I don't think it was any of those things and only the third one is remotely relevant. They knew how much hard/soft ware it took to run it on the Windows version(and have similar examples of what similar games took to run on Mac) and they can easily find out-through market research-what their target demographic runs in terms of hard and software on their Macs(for example, what mac users who bought C3C have on their computers) and could have easily made the decision to try to make the requirements more inclusive or held the game for a predetermined time period until a big enough percentage of their target demographic ran powerful enough computers. Now, that sounds complicated, but businesses do that thousands of times every day. Its called good business. Aspyr is failing to accomplish this with the mac version of CivIV. They're asking for major sales problems with this version. And what's funny about this whole conversation is that Aspyr looks cautious with the release of this game. They still haven't announced a release date, although its supposed to ship this month. They announced the release date for Mac C3C a couple months ahead of time(then delayed it a couple weeks).

When all the evidence indicates they thought they could get the requirements down.

Oh really? Like what? And don't try to wave some press release as evidence of that(in fact, if they issued a release about that it means they realized how much of a CF this is going to be).

And you persist in comparing the requirements only to other TBSes, instead of to such other new games as CoD2.

I haven't compared the requirements to any other games. Don't put words in my mouth. My view is on strictly business lines. Aspyr is asking for major headaches from the mac community in a business sense.

 

[Beamup]

Its too late to pull it(which I never said they should do-they should delay it and it looks like they are), but as soon as they saw the minimum requirements, they should have held off on releasing it and stopped all promotion of it until they figured out a solution.

Oh really? What part of

they should pull CivIV for mac for a year for any reason

is NOT saying they should pull it? Additionally, you're assuming there is a "solution." The odds are overwhelming that there isn't, since they most certainly would have done everything possible already.

Unless you work there and were involved in the project, you can't know that.

Unless one attributes far more idiocy and stupidity to Aspyr than is even marginally credible, there is no possible way it could be otherwise.

Then you have no clue how to run a business. Some sales aren't better than no sales, since a bad sales run can hurt your brand name and the franchises you run. Which will hurt all yours sales from then on. If they waited on releasing CivIV until a majority of the mac gaming community could run it, then the delay wouldn't be remembered. Now, CivIV looks like it will be a total bust for Mac and will hurt the image of Aspyr and the Civ franchise. Which is the last thing that Aspyr and Firaxis want.

Which might be a fair point, if not for the fact that any other option would do far worse to their reputation.

I don't think it was any of those things and only the third one is remotely relevant.

In order for your accusations to be even marginally credible, yes, all of those things are necessary.

They knew how much hard/soft ware it took to run it on the Windows version(and have similar examples of what similar games took to run on Mac)

You assume FAR too much. It's nowhere near that simple. Nobody can know what the requirements will end up being until very late in development - this is a simple fact that's universal throughout the industry.

and they can easily find out-through market research-what their target demographic runs in terms of hard and software on their Macs(for example, what mac users who bought C3C have on their computers) and could have easily made the decision to try to make the requirements more inclusive or held the game for a predetermined time period until a big enough percentage of their target demographic ran powerful enough computers.

The fallacy here is that nobody knew for sure. Again, you're requiring them to be omniscent and be certain what the sysreqs would have been before they even started development - which is ludicrous.

Now, that sounds complicated, but businesses do that thousands of times every day. Its called good business. Aspyr is failing to accomplish this with the mac version of CivIV. They're asking for major sales problems with this version. And what's funny about this whole conversation is that Aspyr looks cautious with the release of this game. They still haven't announced a release date, although its supposed to ship this month. They announced the release date for Mac C3C a couple months ahead of time(then delayed it a couple weeks).

No business in history ever has, or ever will, know ahead of time what the sysreqs on a port will be. There are simply far too many factors involved.

Oh really? Like what? And don't try to wave some press release as evidence of that(in fact, if they issued a release about that it means they realized how much of a CF this is going to be).

Brad's various comments over the development cycle, most prominently.

I haven't compared the requirements to any other games. Don't put words in my mouth. My view is on strictly business lines. Aspyr is asking for major headaches from the mac community in a business sense.

Not explicitly, but implicitly, you most certainly are, insofar as the only basis on which the requirements could be described as "high" is relative to other TBSes. Games with similar requirements, relative to the systems available at the time, are released quite frequently, and do quite well. They're just FPS instead of TBS.

I might also inquire what, exactly, you think gives you the authority to claim that you know so much more about the Mac game porting business than people who do it full-time, very successfully, and have been doing so for many, many years? Because that's what you're doing, when it comes right down to it - insisting that YOU obviously know hugely more about it than everyone at Aspyr put together.

 

[azzaman333]

I've had the PC version of Civ 4 since release in Australia, and it has been plagued with frequent crashes, extremely poor performance, cant even play wonder movies without crashing, running out out memory, an meny more problems with the original product. If you saw the Civ 4 Tech Support Forum in the first 3-4 months after release, there were so many people with the recommended specs who couldnt play the game for one reason or another. In the end, this would give a lot more BAD publicity than setting the specs higher and having fewer people able to play the game, losing some sales for a while.

 

[Akhhorus]

Oh really? What part of

is NOT saying they should pull it? Additionally, you're assuming there is a "solution." The odds are overwhelming that there isn't, since they most certainly would have done everything possible already.

They're a difference between delaying and pulling off the shelves. I was advocating delaying it now since its too late to pull it. Badly worded, I grant you. Pulling something means that it would be gone forever, pulling it for a year-which I said-means a delay(which ironically, they're doing for CivIV). And if I'm assuming, then you're right next to me in the assumption junction.

Unless one attributes far more idiocy and stupidity to Aspyr than is even marginally credible, there is no possible way it could be otherwise.

You assume a lot. And you're going on pure supposition, not fact. We don't know if they could make it more compatable or not. You assume they couldn't. I don't believe that a corporation in the business of making money would limit their abilities to make money knowingly unless they are a poorly run company.

Which might be a fair point, if not for the fact that any other option would do far worse to their reputation.

If they delayed it, even for a year: and it worked for 80% of their target demos, no one would complain about the delay. Keep in mind that Mac Users are used to delay and long delays between a PC version and a Mac Version.

In order for your accusations to be even marginally credible, yes, all of those things are necessary.

Not at all.
omniscience: The capicity to know everything. They don't need to know everything, just to know their audience and target demographics, which would be easily acquired with one phone call to a market research firm. If they don't do market research(which I highly doubt), then they deserve the bad sales they get. I run a company with 10 employees, and I do market research even for the smallest things.

precognition: Knowledge of the future. This is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Whether they would know what the future held, in this case, I assume you mean the requirements for the Mac CivIV(which I take issue with). There's no way they didn't have a good idea what would be required for this program.

stupidity: They don't need to be stupid to make this big an error. They can be lazy, greedy or pernicious towards mac gaming.

You assume FAR too much. It's nowhere near that simple. Nobody can know what the requirements will end up being until very late in development - this is a simple fact that's universal throughout the industry.

BS. They have a good idea what the requirements will be. Again, you speak as if you were involved in the devlopment or are a game programmer.

The fallacy here is that nobody knew for sure. Again, you're requiring them to be omniscent and be certain what the sysreqs would have been before they even started development - which is ludicrous. No business in history ever has, or ever will, know ahead of time what the sysreqs on a port will be. There are simply far too many factors involved.

Again: you're full of it here. Any programmer who didn't know the general requirements of porting a program isn't a good programmer. I recall that when they announced C3C was to be released, they had a general list of requirements posted long before it was ever shipped or even went to Beta.

Brad's various comments over the development cycle, most prominently.

Feel free to post someone them. I remember AlanH talking about how the requirements might be high, but nothing like what was released. Brad is a nice and helpful guy around here, but he's been wrong before(still waiting on that patch, going on 4 months....).

Not explicitly, but implicitly, you most certainly are, insofar as the only basis on which the requirements could be described as "high" is relative to other TBSes.

No, I did not. I mentioned that they were high period and would be restrictive against sales. Not in relation to other games. I never mentioned other games' requirements as a comparison. Others have in this thread. Get your facts straight and don't put words in my mouth.

Games with similar requirements, relative to the systems available at the time, are released quite frequently, and do quite well. They're just FPS instead of TBS.

Feel free to stop speaking in generalities and offer some examples. I remember that Republic: The Revolution was released with draconian requirements for the time and sales were extremely poor. The Championship Manager series of games all suffered from the same problems(and the Football Manager games have had poor sales since their requirements have always been high for when they're released).

I might also inquire what, exactly, you think gives you the authority to claim that you know so much more about the Mac game porting business than people who do it full-time, very successfully, and have been doing so for many, many years?

I'm speaking in general business terms. Something I know a lot about. Whether you're selling mac games, cars, toothbrushes, anything; the same principles apply. You can't expect to succeed if you make your product hard to use. If you make a toothbrush 5 feet long, you won't sell many. This is an extreme example, but it is exactly what Aspyr is doing with CivIV. This tact from you is hilarious if this is all you have left.

Because that's what you're doing, when it comes right down to it - insisting that YOU obviously know hugely more about it than everyone at Aspyr put together.

They're programmers, not businessmen(apparently). This(and similar phenomenon) has been the death of hundreds of computer and internet companies since the tech bubble burst. The proof will be in the pudding. If CivIV is released with these minimum requirements, we'll see what the sales are. If they are high, I'll gladly say I was wrong. If they aren't, I hope that you will be as honest also.

 

[Akhhorus]

I've had the PC version of Civ 4 since release in Australia, and it has been plagued with frequent crashes, extremely poor performance, cant even play wonder movies without crashing, running out out memory, an meny more problems with the original product. If you saw the Civ 4 Tech Support Forum in the first 3-4 months after release, there were so many people with the recommended specs who couldnt play the game for one reason or another. In the end, this would give a lot more BAD publicity than setting the specs higher and having fewer people able to play the game, losing some sales for a while.

Sounds like a problem with a poor product and not something where they set the bar too low with the system requirements. CivIV came out pretty quick(relevatively speaking) in relation to the final PC version of C3C. Maybe they rushed the whole program?

 

[azzaman333]

Sounds like a problem with a poor product and not something where they set the bar too low with the system requirements. CivIV came out pretty quick(relevatively speaking) in relation to the final PC version of C3C. Maybe they rushed the whole program?

It has been believed for quite a while that it was rushed. This is because Take Two's other big game for the year, GTA: San Andreas had to be pulled off the shelves because of the Hot Coffee Mod. So people have been thinking Civ 4 was rushed so Take Two could make enough profit to make themselves look better. Something like that at least, ive never been good at finding or remembering details.

 

[Akhhorus]

It has been believed for quite a while that it was rushed. This is because Take Two's other big game for the year, GTA: San Andreas had to be pulled off the shelves because of the Hot Coffee Mod. So people have been thinking Civ 4 was rushed so Take Two could make enough profit to make themselves look better. Something like that at least, ive never been good at finding or remembering details.

That explains a lot about the draconian requirements for CivIV. And it also means that even if you bought a new Mac to use this(which appear to be the only macs you could run this on), it wouldn't be that great a game. It was years between the versions of CivIII and C3C to come out for Mac, and CivIV is coming out for mac 6 month(ish) after C3C was released. I still find it interesting that CivIV is still in Alpha production and they will not give a vague release date for it. Its supposed to ship this month.

 

[yellow_roast]

I am also quite disappointed about the high level sys requirements, as i have a dual 1.25ghz G4 Powermac with 23" Cinema display which I am sure to be happy with for my uses another 4-5 years. It has a radeon 9000 so even my video card doesnt meet the requirements.

Regardless, i just want to comment on the people that claim to have better knowledge about the mac software business than the company that is releasing the game.

Just maybe, they are looking long term, and that is a major factor on feeling confident when making the specs so stringent, cutting out possibly 80% of the current mac user market (figure just a guess off the top of my head). I have only just stopped playing Civ3 in the last few months, so i do not doubt that Civ4 will remain available for some years as it would seem pretty obvious Civ5 will not be coming out hot on its heels.

What would be most helpful however, is a statement saying if us G4 (and Radeon 9000) users are locked out altogether, or if the specs are only a suggestion only. I say that as i usually only play on small or normal sized worlds anyway, so it isnt important to me if my computer can run a large or huge world effectively or not. I would considering getting a graphics card upgrade to play Civ4, but im certainly not going to buy a new computer just for this purpose, when for the most part, a dual 1.25 is still a rather decent machine for any other application.

Peace.

 

[Beamup]

They're a difference between delaying and pulling off the shelves. I was advocating delaying it now since its too late to pull it. Badly worded, I grant you. Pulling something means that it would be gone forever, pulling it for a year-which I said-means a delay(which ironically, they're doing for CivIV). And if I'm assuming, then you're right next to me in the assumption junction.

Good grief. I can't believe you are now arguing "when I said they should pull the game, I didn't mean they should pull the game." For the record, we were using the same definition of "pull," BTW, i.e. temporarily.

You assume a lot. And you're going on pure supposition, not fact. We don't know if they could make it more compatable or not. You assume they couldn't. I don't believe that a corporation in the business of making money would limit their abilities to make money knowingly unless they are a poorly run company.

EXACTLY!!! The folks at Aspyr are quite competent programmers and businesspeople. They have demonstrated this time and time again. Hence, one must inevitably start from the assumption that they aren't idiots.

If they delayed it, even for a year: and it worked for 80% of their target demos, no one would complain about the delay. Keep in mind that Mac Users are used to delay and long delays between a PC version and a Mac Version.

You are flat out, 100%, as wrong as it's possible to be here. There's a HUGE difference between not porting a game for a while and pulling it temporarily. The latter will do HUGE damage to your rep.

Not at all.
omniscience: The capicity to know everything. They don't need to know everything, just to know their audience and target demographics, which would be easily acquired with one phone call to a market research firm. If they don't do market research(which I highly doubt), then they deserve the bad sales they get. I run a company with 10 employees, and I do market research even for the smallest things.

They certainly know this, nobody denies that. I was referring to...

precognition: Knowledge of the future. This is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Whether they would know what the future held, in this case, I assume you mean the requirements for the Mac CivIV(which I take issue with). There's no way they didn't have a good idea what would be required for this program.

There is no way they DID have a clear idea. I mean, sure, they could be certain that it wouldn't work on a G4/450. But there is no credible way they could know it wouldn't be fine on a G4/1.4, for example. The uncertainties are just too great. This is a simple fact of porting that has been stated by, that I can recall, Glenda Adams, Brad Oliver, Chris Jacobson, and others.

stupidity: They don't need to be stupid to make this big an error. They can be lazy, greedy or pernicious towards mac gaming.

Or have no better option available.

BS. They have a good idea what the requirements will be. Again, you speak as if you were involved in the devlopment or are a game programmer.

I speak as if I've read many statements on the subject from people involved in such porting projects. Which I have.

Again: you're full of it here. Any programmer who didn't know the general requirements of porting a program isn't a good programmer. I recall that when they announced C3C was to be released, they had a general list of requirements posted long before it was ever shipped or even went to Beta.

There's a huge difference between having a general idea and being able to predict whether it'll need a G4/1.4 or a G5/1.8. You're demanding a precision that, quite frankly, is entirely impossible.

Feel free to post someone them. I remember AlanH talking about how the requirements might be high, but nothing like what was released. Brad is a nice and helpful guy around here, but he's been wrong before(still waiting on that patch, going on 4 months....).

Sure. That belief was clearly incorrect. That doesn't make anyone an idiot or malicious, just mistaken.

No, I did not. I mentioned that they were high period and would be restrictive against sales. Not in relation to other games. I never mentioned other games' requirements as a comparison. Others have in this thread. Get your facts straight and don't put words in my mouth.

If you claim that they are objectively high, to the extent that a game will not be successful, you are wrong. I will, again, point out that they are near-identical to CoD2, which is, as I hear it, expected to do VERY well. The only basis on which such claims as you make can be justified in the least is by comparison to other TBS titles. Hence, since I choose to assume you're arguing from the marginally credible angle when it's unclear, I assume that's the angle you're taking. If you're instead choosing to claim CoD2 will be a complete failure, or that Deus Ex (which had perhaps even higher requirements relative to its time) was a failure, then I was apparently mistaken and you are taking the completely invalid tack to it.

Feel free to stop speaking in generalities and offer some examples. I remember that Republic: The Revolution was released with draconian requirements for the time and sales were extremely poor. The Championship Manager series of games all suffered from the same problems(and the Football Manager games have had poor sales since their requirements have always been high for when they're released).

Done. Repeatedly.

I'm speaking in general business terms. Something I know a lot about. Whether you're selling mac games, cars, toothbrushes, anything; the same principles apply. You can't expect to succeed if you make your product hard to use. If you make a toothbrush 5 feet long, you won't sell many. This is an extreme example, but it is exactly what Aspyr is doing with CivIV. This tact from you is hilarious if this is all you have left.

No, you are in fact claiming to know far more about mac game porting. Specifically how precisely it's possible to know sysreqs before you even start a project.

They're programmers, not businessmen(apparently). This(and similar phenomenon) has been the death of hundreds of computer and internet companies since the tech bubble burst. The proof will be in the pudding. If CivIV is released with these minimum requirements, we'll see what the sales are. If they are high, I'll gladly say I was wrong. If they aren't, I hope that you will be as honest also.

Let's be clear here. Our point of difference is not in whether CIV will sell well, or as well as it would otherwise. I am claiming that it's possible it will sell reasonably well, though not so well as otherwise, and that Aspyr isn't staffed by a bunch of idiots, but rather by people who are making the best they can out of a situation nobody is happy with.

 

[dojoboy]

Wow, I've been missing out on this debate in real time. Quite a bit of catching up to do. But hey, I'm on summer vacation. Exams graded, averages totaled, and sun shining! Needless to say, I've got time.

Let's be clear here. Our point of difference is not in whether CIV will sell well, or as well as it would otherwise. I am claiming that it's possible it will sell reasonably well, though not so well as otherwise, and that Aspyr isn't staffed by a bunch of idiots, but rather by people who are making the best they can out of a situation nobody is happy with.

I agree that Civ4 will sell reasonably well upon release. Of course, "reasonably" takes in the higher system specifications.

This game is not geared toward the "get rich quick" model. Long term sales will be its strength, as more and more people purchase new machines (for whatever reasons). Aspyr will make a respectable sum and users will be happy.

Unhappy users will be those who rush out and purchase it in spite of the released system specifcations, then wail in agony as the app runs like a dog on their under-powered machines.

 

[AlanH]

Please can we call a truce in a debate that is clearly not going to change minds? If you guys want to continue then I suggest you do so via PM, as this discussion is not generating any new information as far as I can tell.

 

[Akhhorus]

Good grief. I can't believe you are now arguing "when I said they should pull the game, I didn't mean they should pull the game." For the record, we were using the same definition of "pull," BTW, i.e. temporarily.

Weak. I qualified by use of the word pull with a time period. There's a difference between pulling the game totally and delaying it.

EXACTLY!!! The folks at Aspyr are quite competent programmers and businesspeople. They have demonstrated this time and time again. Hence, one must inevitably start from the assumption that they aren't idiots.

They have? LOL. They've done a terrible job with CivIV for both platforms and CivIII for Mac.

You are flat out, 100%, as wrong as it's possible to be here. There's a HUGE difference between not porting a game for a while and pulling it temporarily. The latter will do HUGE damage to your rep.

Not if you don't publicize that the game is coming out. If Aspyr had waited to mouth off about the game coming out until they saw what the vague requirements would be, then they wouldn't be in the fix they are in.

They certainly know this, nobody denies that. I was referring to...


There is no way they DID have a clear idea. I mean, sure, they could be certain that it wouldn't work on a G4/450. But there is no credible way they could know it wouldn't be fine on a G4/1.4, for example. The uncertainties are just too great. This is a simple fact of porting that has been stated by, that I can recall, Glenda Adams, Brad Oliver, Chris Jacobson, and others.

I don't buy that with confederate money. If they didn't have a vague idea of what the requirements would be, then they aren't involved with the porting or aren't telling us the full truth.

Or have no better option available.

No, they have a better option. Sit on the game until the sales of macs that can handle the game are high enough. Right now, the only macs that can operate this game are the next generation of macs that were just released.

I speak as if I've read many statements on the subject from people involved in such porting projects. Which I have.

You'll believe anything you're told then.

There's a huge difference between having a general idea and being able to predict whether it'll need a G4/1.4 or a G5/1.8. You're demanding a precision that, quite frankly, is entirely impossible.

Thats not that big a difference. They knew the graphic card requirements long ago and the vram requirements. Processor speed is something that wouldn't be known until the final productions, but the graphic card and vram requirements had to be well known and what is equally as well know is that it would have been difficult for the vast majority of mac to operate the software just on those requirements.

Sure. That belief was clearly incorrect. That doesn't make anyone an idiot or malicious, just mistaken.

I didn't say that he an idiot or malicious. I think he was mistaken. Which means that you can't take what the Aspyr people say as the Gospel truth.

If you claim that they are objectively high, to the extent that a game will not be successful, you are wrong.

They are high in comparison to hardware that a majority of their target demo runs.

I will, again, point out that they are near-identical to CoD2, which is, as I hear it, expected to do VERY well. The only basis on which such claims as you make can be justified in the least is by comparison to other TBS titles. Hence, since I choose to assume you're arguing from the marginally credible angle when it's unclear, I assume that's the angle you're taking. If you're instead choosing to claim CoD2 will be a complete failure, or that Deus Ex (which had perhaps even higher requirements relative to its time) was a failure, then I was apparently mistaken and you are taking the completely invalid tack to it.

So, you admit that I didn't say what you said I said; but thats what you assume I meant? Did you suffer head injury sometime last night?

As for Call of Duty 2: its sales have been poor. Amazon has it(the mac version) as the #58 best Computer game in sales. Its sold extremely well on XBox and PC, but Mac sales seem low.

Done. Repeatedly.

Thanks for avoiding to offer any real examples of your blather.

No, you are in fact claiming to know far more about mac game porting. Specifically how precisely it's possible to know sysreqs before you even start a project.

No, I'm claiming to know more about business. Thats the basis of my whole complaints. Mac game porting is part of it, I don't buy that Aspyr had no clue what the requirements would be. Since they knew what Windows required for it to run in terms of Vram and video card. So, what your saying is that Aspyr is full of total incompetants who can't be bothered to check out the windows version before they port it? LMAO, that contradicts most of your entire argument on this point.

Let's be clear here. Our point of difference is not in whether CIV will sell well, or as well as it would otherwise. I am claiming that it's possible it will sell reasonably well, though not so well as otherwise, and that Aspyr isn't staffed by a bunch of idiots, but rather by people who are making the best they can out of a situation nobody is happy with.

Wow, are you chickening out now. Aspyr has great programmers and designers, but as businessmen? I don't see their competance. Especially if they insist on releasing CivIV with these requirements in the next few weeks. Unless they plan on offering discounts on upgrades for people to run it.

 

[AlanH]

Moderator Action: I tried to be polite, but I repeat:

Please can we call a truce in a debate that is clearly not going to change minds? If you guys want to continue then I suggest you do so via PM, as this discussion is not generating any new information as far as I can tell.

 

[Akhhorus]

Moderator Action: I tried to be polite, but I repeat:

Sorry, I didn't see that until after I posted. I apologize.