New Civ 4 patch coming up?

[King Flevance]

Sorry for dredging up old news but my internet access is extremely limited at the moment. So, some small replies to what has been said since my last visit here.

Around post #43 the idea is raised that Firaxis will not support vanilla once Warlords is released and it esculates from there. Now, you can say what you will about how today companies don't support 'older' versions of software but this game is only 6 months old and now the people who bought Civ 4 vanilla and gave this company revenue to work with on an expansion are now being forced to buy that new expansion to fix the software they originally bought.

No, a "good" developper team MUST continue to patch stand alones after having made an expansion, see Blizzard, when they do a patch for warcraft III, there is the same patch for both Reign of Chaos and Frozen Throne, but for RoC it's a patch where there are things to patch for RoC, and in FT, the remaining other things that are new for the expansion.
There are still bad things in Civ4, and Firaxis have to fix them, no matter if there is an expansion or not.

I never said Civ 4 had a "good developer team though. I agree on Blizzard. That is a company that more people should pay attention to how well they support their customers. That company alone shines out many of the others in the market.

Which to me suggests you have a company that has no idea what they are going to do because every decision is ONLY based on profit for them. To hell with those of us who have already given them our money.

So why does Blizzard made the 1.14 Starcraft patch some days ago ?
Why do they patch Warcraft III also for remaining multi player bugs?
They don't care of money in these case, but maybe they want to do "good", or maybe as they make tournaments, they don't want there are bugs in their games...

Again, I like Blizzard. This is why I am disappointed in Firaxis at this time. It doesn't matter if it is Take 2/2k/Firaxis's fault. The point is I don't feel safe buying Firaxis products anymore. They should support it, but the reason they won't if they don't is because people accept it. People just don't bother standing up for what is right anymore. I have seen a few people on this board here already say they are ashamed -or whatever- at how Firaxis released Vanilla. Yet, they also say they are still going to buy Warlords. I don't think less of them because of it, but I am mentioning it because this is the reason this kind of thing will not only never change for the better but instead most likely get worse over time until the government HAS to step in.

Because if they release an expansion, they will just drop support for the original and make you have to go get the expansion for any fixes. Basically, only the first couple patches are free. Then you have to pay.

THis is an error, see Blizzard, they still make patches for Warcraft, Diablo II, and Starcraft (10 years after!), so it just shows that Firaxis is not a good team in all the senses you can understand the word "good".

It's not an error I am not speaking of companies like Blizzard I am speaking about companies like EA and 2K. This usually steps in when a publishing company owns a small software design company. Blizzard is its own publisher.


Shigga: If you hear anything post it in this thread. I am curious to see if they ever answer it, as to what theuir answer will be. But TBH, it appears to me that Firaxis's answer to issues like this is to ignore it and it will go away.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

OK, one point The difference between Blizzardan And Firaxis/Take2/2K is NOt that one just wants to make money

Blizzard Just wants to make money, they just have a different Way of making money than Firaxis/Take2/2K does...

some of you are saying, but Blizzard released a Patch how does that make them money??

Let me explain, Blizzard releases a patch keeping all the Warcrafters happy, so that they will be more willing to buy the NEXT game Blizzard releases,

because Blizzard games keep them happy for a Long time.

Now theis works because
1. Blizzard has stayed an active company for a long time
2. The games Blizzard sells sell to a Lot of people, so for the same 50$ game, they can afford a Lot more Programmer-Hours developing programming AND patching it.

The fact is Blizzard is mainstream PC Games, Civ is niche... for a Niche to work you either charge more or make crappier stuff, by tying everything to the expansion, Firaxis/Take2/2K is inherently going the Charge more idea... Civ 4 Costs 80$, so that they can get the money to pay the programmers.


Finally, the government Doesn't Have to step in, these are Games....its not like the 1900s when people were falsely advertising the quality of food.

PC games are Caveat Emptor, you could make an argument that the minimum specs are an advertising that implies that major bugs will be patched, but there's no guarantee the game play will be good.

The fact is if people keep paying money for stuff when they Know how well it will be patched, they are getting What they Want.... If someone will pay 100$ and have a fairly good idea about what that is, it doesn't matter whether anyone else thinks that thing is worth 100$, whether they think it is low quality, etc.

So assuming someone is willing to buy Warlords/Civ V, etc. after having bought Civ IV, and having seen how it was patched, then Everyone (Firaxis, the Buyer, etc.) is getting what they want and it is no one else's business.

 

[Commander Bello]

I have checked with the thread in which DShirk made his comment as well.

The statement was given as has been quoted by King Flevance and I remember that even at that time I was astonished how people could read "future patches" for Civ4 (vanilla Civ4) into it.
As far as I remember, patching Civ3 stopped with 1.27f or something like this. Not all issues were solved, but PTW was on the shelves.
Patching for PTW stopped with 1.29 or something like this, and again not all issues had been solved. Yet, C3C was on the shelves.
Patching for C3C stopped with 1.25 and not all issues had been solved. Yet, Civ4 was in the queue.

Was I really the only one to identify a certain pattern?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Yes, Civ relies on "Paid Patches"... not surprising given the size of the fan base, and the amount of money made from a single Patch.

Some "Patches" (like Civ 2,3,4) are so massive that they essentially eliminate all previous problems and result in massive new problems, fortunately they don't require the purchase of the previous Patches

Other "Patches" (Like Warlords, PTW, Conquests, Fantastic Worlds) require some previous Patches to be purchased, and fix some bugs while introducing others

Finally there are Patches that are so simple and Basic that they give them away for Free.


Think of Civ like a Subscription, ~$50 every 2-4 years to have an up to date copy of Civ... Bugs are continually being eliminated, and features added gameplay streamlined and balanced ... of course sometimes added features add bugs, and sometimes streamlining or balancing gameplay removes features, and any change made makes the AI worse...unless it is a change specifically designed to help the AI.

[That is the basic problem with Civ AI, Human players can adapt to changes in Civ faster than an AI can...]

For the Record I also personally think it stinks*, but it is why I waited to Christmas to get Civ 4, and will wait till September sometime to get Warlords, this way at least the first Free patch is out and I can avoid the basic, significant problems.

*I also think poverty, war, and inefficient democracy stink but I realize they will never be eliminated and that some alternatives are much worse. So if there is a better, Realistic option that I see I will take those.

Perhaps Civ Fanatics should have a specific 'Complaints' Section with subforums for Unbalanced, Unhistorical/Realistic, Discriminatory, Technical Bugs, AI Stupidity, Interface... a Way for Bello's sig to be lived out

 

[Jorunkun]

Firaxians, take note. This ...

Think of Civ like a Subscription, ~$50 every 2-4 years to have an up to date copy of Civ...

... would IMO be a perfect solution. Turn CIV from an in-the-box product to a service, updated (or even playable as a client/server architecture) online. It would secure the CIV customer base, solve the patching / updating hassles and allow for the game to be improved in incremental steps, ad infinitum.

J.

 

[KeldorKatarn]

Civ4 must have been the first PC game you'd ever installed. Several games, especially strategy games, are downright frightfully bad out of the box.

Off the top of my head, I can think of Imperial Glory, MOO3, Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds, Paradox's Diplomacy, Hasbro's Diplomacy, SSI's Steel Panthers... [edit: I forgot Superpower! How could I forget that?]

At least Civ4 worked for most people right from go. However, due to the Civ niche, there are some very interesting, very vocal complaints. Search for the polls done though and you'll find that 90%+ had little to no trouble at all with the game in 1.00 state (I'm among those people). People running Windows 98 in 2006 deserve everything they get. That OS is 3 (and a beta) generations behind and fading fast. People running a video card with 64M of video ram when even budget PCs ship with 128M video card... deserve everything they get. Spend $20 and upgrade to a new video card. Spend $50 (note: the original price of this very game!) and upgrade to 1G of RAM. Your Civ4 will stop having issues.

I promise.

Aha... when will you guys finally learn, that only because the game is running perfectly on your PC it doesn't say ANYTHING about its performance on another one.
And that has in most cases absolutely nothing to do with the PC as long as that PC is up to the minimum specifications.
About your Win98 or <128MB cards:

WinXP SP2, 2GB RAM, GeForce6800 256MB, 60GB free diskspace, 3GHz Pentium IV.
This system laughs about a game like CIv IV, it doesn't even increase temparature more than 5 degrees. Yet the game freezes the entire PC after a few hours of gaming and then after a few minutes after reload.
I've seen very few game engines with such a bad performance at the same hardware needs and at the same time this buggy and unstable.
And most of the crash reports I found around the net came from people with roughly the same high specifications which are way above what this game needs.
It's memory management is buggy and it's graphical and sound engine are buggy. That's all.
I am sick and tired of folks who run games smoothly accusing other gamers who are having problems of being to stupid to use a PC or to have crappy hardware.
I've run games without problems myself which were known to be the buggiest ever, and I was always happy to be an exception, but I never laughed about the people who were having problems.
And you know what? All those games which got those amounts of error reports... they all turned out to be buggy. There was not even one case where the customer or its hardware was always the cause.
The reason is simple. If a game, or any application, is programmed well and stable, it cannot crash. If the user makes an error or his PC isn't up to the specs, the game simply pops up a warning or informs the user of that fact during installing or playing. No well programmed application simply crashes the PC.
I study computer science at a university which is right now specializing in bug-free software and programmer assist utilities, so I will just say for now, that I think that I know what I am talking about.
Firaxis simply published a buggy game. They know that, and anyone with a little experience in gaming knows that.
That 75-90% of the customers don't have any problems doesn't mean anything. THat many costumers have the standard out of the shelf PC which a game can be tested and optimized for easily. Any idiot can write a program that runs stable for those. But those 10% which are having problems are a huge number. Do you think the ones reporting back here are the only ones? Do you know what a small percentage of all customers does even know about this forum, as well known as it may be?
So if so many people do have a problem HERE already, guess how many are having problems out there and try to contact Firaxis by calling the support hotlines or something else.
I've seen stuff like this over and over again. A company with a lot of experience in one field of work, tries to do something new, in this case, using a 3d engine. It always ends up like this.
Same thing with Darkstar One, first Space Shooter Ascaron ever made. Perfect game for most of the customers, for the rest a buggy piece of crap.
I just hope that Firaxis will keep working on this till they got it right. I wish the publishers would plan more testing budget for titles which include trying something new. No company has ever been able to do something new immedately right without intensive testing, be it software development or engineering or anything else that comes to mind.

 

[LordRahl]

I'm also one of those people that never got the game running fine on a desktop. Coincidently it was also sporting a GeForce card. I pre-ordered the game the day it came out and was all excited to play it, and after spending hours trying to get the whole thing to work, I gave up, and put it on my shelf. I haven't touched it for almost a year. The funny thing is, two months ago, I got bored and decided to install it on my relatively crappy laptop (compared to my PC's specs), and the game runs smooth as hell, on pretty much max settings. I figured it must have been the patches, but when I tried the patches on my PC - I was still having the same problems as 1 year ago. I'm actually happy right now, as I can enjoy my civ, but I can sympathise with the unlucky ones. I think, that the company should simply make a list of all the cards that are supported - hopefully picking the most popular cards, a few high end, and a couple low end ones. Testing thoroughly on them, and then guarantee that the listed cards will work no matter what. If you have a different video card, you're either not wasting your money on the game, upgrading your card, or crossing your fingers that it will be compatible in the end. I'm pretty sure Rome: Total War used this approach - they do have a list of supported cards - which is a big help.

 

[KeldorKatarn]

Guess what, I recently changed cards, from good (and already way over the needed specs) to an even better one. Guess what changed... absolutely nothing.

 

[Duuk]

I think that I know what I am talking about.
Firaxis simply published a buggy game.

90% of people don't experience the problems you experience.

Ergo, it is not a universal bug and is more likely a compatibility problem with something in your system.

My 1st guess is your sound card.

A bug is something that can be expected to fail every time it occurs.

A compat issue is something that deals with specific interactions of hardware, often due to poor IRQ responses, onboard video or sound, or non-standard system enhancements. It could also be a response to an invalid installation of any number of Windows patches (such as the Windows patch that made Black and White crash like a New York Cab on ice).

A bug is something that is reproducable on multiple machines. IE: If I do the same things you do, it will crash the same way.

A compat issue is "Your system features something that doesn't work and play nice with Civ4".

Compat issues are the #1 cause of CTDs in most games by "large scale" publishers, simply because there are literally dozens of companies making hardware, and gamers in particular are people that tweak their systems.

Did you disable windows video preview, like many people do? Did Civ4 need that dll enabled for some of the animation? Did you ask?

These things are the things that piss off game developers more than anything else. Players that whine when something crashes, when they are using the software in an environment that is non-standard.

 

[Duuk]

Guess what, I recently changed cards, from good (and already way over the needed specs) to an even better one. Guess what changed... absolutely nothing.

from what, to what?

 

[LordRahl]

Guess what, I recently changed cards, from good (and already way over the needed specs) to an even better one. Guess what changed... absolutely nothing.

What I was getting at, is the fact that this may not be an issue of minimum specs, but compatibility. I'm having no problem running Civ on my crappy laptop with horsehockey Mobile Radeon, and yet the game gives me all sorts of video problems when I run it on a high end desktop with GeForce...
Like I said - a list of compatible vid cards that are guaranteed to work with Civ4 would clear a lot of these issues.

 

[Danicela]

I never said Civ 4 had a "good developer team though. I agree on Blizzard. That is a company that more people should pay attention to how well they support their customers. That company alone shines out many of the others in the market.

All teams should behave like Blizzard.

Again, I like Blizzard. This is why I am disappointed in Firaxis at this time. It doesn't matter if it is Take 2/2k/Firaxis's fault. The point is I don't feel safe buying Firaxis products anymore. They should support it, but the reason they won't if they don't is because people accept it. People just don't bother standing up for what is right anymore. I have seen a few people on this board here already say they are ashamed -or whatever- at how Firaxis released Vanilla. Yet, they also say they are still going to buy Warlords. I don't think less of them because of it, but I am mentioning it because this is the reason this kind of thing will not only never change for the better but instead most likely get worse over time until the government HAS to step in.

Why they can't do like Blizzard?

It's not an error I am not speaking of companies like Blizzard I am speaking about companies like EA and 2K. This usually steps in when a publishing company owns a small software design company. Blizzard is its own publisher.

Yes but Blizzard is owned by Vivendi..
Ok so you mean that, for Firaxis (only), the first patches are free, then we have to buy an expansion which do like a big patch.
But I wanted to say that the patchs should remain free, Warlords should have more features, its cost is not justified.

Blizzard Just wants to make money, they just have a different Way of making money than Firaxis/Take2/2K does...

Blizzard => We get patches even 10 years after the game is made.
The expansion costs are justified because they really add something to the game.
One do something good and the other something ... not good.

Let me explain, Blizzard releases a patch keeping all the Warcrafters happy, so that they will be more willing to buy the NEXT game Blizzard releases,

Then, if you are true (i'm not sure of that), Firaxis can do the same ...

 

[player1 fanatic]

Personally, I think that new cusumer law should be added in USA and EU, which would force publishers to print on game box guaranteed patch support.

Something like this:

Game: AAA
Publisher: BBB
Guaranteed patch support: X months

It would really benefit consumers.
Since he would know up front how much publisher is devoted in supporting the game.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

While that sounds like a good idea, you realize why Auto companies are going out of business here, they promised something X years in the future.

If a game company promises X months of support..... how do you know their money wont run out in X-6 months.... How many people will they have working on those patches, one "Patch specialist" that does all the companies games, and so spends at most 2 hours a week looking at each patch.

The fact is the best way to do it would be to have independent reviewers review the quality of a companies patching record...

(or at least have that as part of the Rating for each game.... ie Game X is made by Blizzard so it gets a 10/10 on "Patching" even if everything else about the game stinks... Game Y is made by Firaxis, so it gets a 6/10.... Game C is made by company A so it gets a 3/10)

Unfortunately there aren't any really independent reviewers for games.


Abiout the only way to make it proper is to give people a guarantee that the game will work ~95% of the time on thier machine (assuming their machine meets the specs) and if it doesn't after X amount of time (with free Patches) they are entitled to a full refund (Truth in advertising).

As for gameplay bugs, exploits, etc. those merely say the game is lousy... the company has no obligation to make a Good/Fun/Interesting game. One that runs, yes, but not one that is good... that is the caveat emptor part.





To addess someone else Blizzard patches things for 10 years, because it can make 10 x as much money as a Civ Game.... If Blizard made Civ they'd stop patching it after a year or so too. (although their reputation might allow them to sell more copies and extend it the patch time bit more)

Firaxis/2K/Take2 could probably do better, but it would take money that they could do better things with. (according to the investors, whose main goal for their money is to make more money)

If you think the current model of video games doesn't work only buy games from companies like Blizzard (they might not make Civ but there might be a company with a similar reputation that makes a sufficiently similar game) You can't complain about the Known quality of stuff you buy.

 

[dh_epic]

Firaxis ain't Blizzard. If you don't like it, stop buying the games.

Somehow I doubt that will happen. The folks here like Civ a little too much.

 

[jimbob27]

I think it's fair for them to stop support. If you don't support the civ series by buying the expansions... then why should they support you?

 

[Bongo-Bongo]

At the end of the day, it will come down to where the company feels resources are put to use. Having staff working on patches for games, particlularly older games, means having less staff working on future products. There comes a time when supporting older products has to end, else future product development will stutter.

Warlords has been a successful XP, so like it or not, it would make sense to support Warlords and almost forget about vanilla Civ. Why continue to support a version of the game where interest in a patch will be diminishing? It makes a lot more sense to move attentions to Warlords, as that is what a large number of customers will be playing now.

 

[Severus]

If anyone is thinking about starting a rational debate with Danicela maybe you'd like to check this world famous thread first:http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=171049
Where he uses the same argument over and over again to prove a nonexistent point...

 

[Shigga]

Hm I guess Firaxis did release the SDK for more than one reason. Making the game easily accessible for modders assures that the game will be on ppls playlist for a long time, it is a very good sales argument-
and after releasing the patches that are crucial for running the game, they can lean back and let the fanbase modders do the debugging, saving capacities for future projects.
Oh, the fanbase will grumble and complain, but eventually brace themselves and go for it. For examples, refer to

-the cIV consolidation project
-smartmap script
-dale's combat mod
and so on.

With civ V far, far out on the roadmap of Firaxis, what better way to keep us at the franchise over the lean years than a highly moddable predecessor?

Smart move, I have to concede.

 

[Danicela]

Guaranteed patch support: X months

Patchs shouldn't have any "months", but you have to patch a game until it's perfect, you can't leave a game with bugs and unbalancements.

You can't complain about the Known quality of stuff you buy.

Why ? I just see that some behaviours of Firaxis are not good, I just want to show it.

Firaxis ain't Blizzard. If you don't like it, stop buying the games.

Somehow I doubt that will happen. The folks here like Civ a little too much.

Firaxis should act like Blizzard... And not buying their games is not a solution, the solution for the team is to act BETTER.

I think it's fair for them to stop support. If you don't support the civ series by buying the expansions... then why should they support you?

Because they do bugged, incomplete, unbalanced games.
=> Their task is to make the more perfect game as possible.

successful XP

But like people say : "too weak in new features".

it would make sense to support Warlords and almost forget about vanilla Civ.

You can't make an expansion to say after 'i don't make any new patch for the stand alone', this is just a total lact of respect.

Why continue to support a version of the game where interest in a patch will be diminishing?

Why Blizzard do his patches for War3 for Roc and TFT ?
Firaxis can do the same
=> WHen he makes a patch, he do it for the stand alone, AND for Walords.

as that is what a large number of customers will be playing now.

Yes but abandonning the stand alone is just a betrayal.

If anyone is thinking about starting a rational debate with Danicela maybe you'd like to check this world famous thread first:http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=171049

You don't understand anything, I CAN do a rational debate, this topic just show that I can do it.

Where he uses the same argument over and over again to prove a nonexistent point...

I use the same argument because it's THE ONLY AND REAL argument, why do you want I invent new ones? This argument is just pertinent to show you, ignoring it is stupid, and I prove always valuable points, never "nonexistent", you are just lying, you are wrong, because YOU don't know to do a rational debate.

Making the game easily accessible for modders assures that the game will be on ppls playlist for a long time

Doing it only to complete the game is also a reason..