Shock! Gasp! We're the beta testers!

[Romtos]

Barely applicable generalizations in first graph. Naive, somewhat sycophantic drivel in the second. Pure opinion in the third. I gave facts and supplied evidence to back up those facts.

sycophantic [ˌsɪkəˈfæntɪk]
adj
using flattery to win favour from individuals wielding influence; toadyish; obsequious

There you go, I looked it up. I learned a new English word. In retrospect, the context should've made the meaning clear.

 

[anandus]

Barely applicable generalizations in first graph. Naive, somewhat sycophantic drivel in the second. Pure opinion in the third. I gave facts and supplied evidence to back up those facts.

I didn't say that there weren't any bugs or glitches did I? I just elaborated on the fact that a game with such larges sales are bound to create a large number of technical difficulties, it are simple numbers.

And about the sycophantic drivel: Plenty of game developers that do not support their games properly after they came out, so yes, nowadays we need to be glad with that. Unfortunately.

 

[Le Roi Soleil]

It's a really fun game, but it does feel like a beta that's like two or three months from release or more.

I wonder why they pushed it out in this condition?

I think there are several reasons for this, but first my take on the facts of the matter.

1) The game is basically stable on a machine that can run it. I have experienced the after save crash bug a couple of times, which is really not that bad because the save is successful and the game can then be reloaded. Other than that, I've only seen one crash bug that appeared to be a race condition error caused by my clicking around too much in between turns. Whatever. In terms of priority A1 bugs on machines that are up to snuff, the after save crash bug is the only one I've identified in 40 or so hours of play.

2) Yes, there are a lot of little errors, most of them balance issues or holes in the AI. This is hardly surprising for a game of CiV's complexity, even in a "clean" initial release version.

Why is the game in this condition (which I don't find particularly objectionable)? First, it is a question of hitting a release date. The date was set a long time ago, and the firm had a large financial interest in hitting it. Delays to game release these days can be poisonously expensive, especially for relatively small development studios like Firaxis. So they set a date for a release version and hit their date quite successfully, I would say. The game is not perfect, but software is rarely in a state of perfection when planning to a fixed release date. It is not fair to the programmers to expect them to synchronize their development perfectly with the plans of the salesmen. Programming at this level simply does not work that way.

The second, and, I think, more important reason that we're essentially functioning as "beta testers" for CiV is that this is the most efficient model for beta testing. Players are excellent beta testers, and in a game of CiV's size and complexity, it makes a lot more sense to let the players provide the "high level" beta testing en masse after initial release rather than employ the fleet of QA guys you'd need to work out every little bug in the system (because in a game like CiV, "late beta" testing requires more quantity of testing than quality). With the game handled over Steam, the update process is also greatly streamlined, meaning that users can report a bug one day and get a patch for it within a week if it's problematic enough. We have already seen this. End-user level (read: free) beta testing is actually an excellent business model and one that is not used only in the gaming community.

I say all of this as a developer, although one who hasn't worked for a games company in the last decade, so take my opinion for what it's worth. Is it a little bit sneaky to sell a "high-beta" game and then collect free testing from customers? Sure, but it is also quite sensible, and I can't say that I mind because CiV is a truly excellent game which will only get better as the kinks are worked out.

 

[bernlin2000]

I haven't bought the game, but from the demo alone, it seems as though the game is a beta version.

No more please: buy the game, and then you can make cute threads about us being the beta testers: they already closed the beta phase awhile back (even if they shouldn't have) and the game is definitely what Firaxis considers to be "initial release" state. I don't know if I agree (not units paths...cmon now!), but that's the official word.

The internet disagrees with you. Look up Civilization V and bugs in google.

It is fun.

It is not even close to finished. It has many technical and gameplay bugs and glitches.

See a short list here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=381414

The AI is almost non-existent. Firaxis should be absolutely ashamed that they pushed it out in this state and fans should indeed be angry with them for doing so.

Gasp! The game has bugs and glitches in its initial release: this is unprecedented in gaming history!

It's not up to the standard I would have expected from a company with such a strong history of quality, but the game is very much playable. An unfinished game would not be. It hasn't crashed once for me: most of the bugs and glitches are located within the context of gameplay, unlike the memory issues of vanilla CivIV. I already know you enjoyed the game, Auncien (I saw your initial review), so your position on this puzzles me.

 

[Songkok]

No, they did not cut half the game out to sell back as DLC/Expansions. It's a ridiculous argument that has being whispered among paranoid freaks every since the first DLC pack came out, and it's STILL a load of crap.

Any content coming out, be it free patches, paid expansions or DLC, will have been made after the release. Now take off your tinfoil hat and SHOVE IT.

Um... Starcraft 2 anyone? A single game cut into 3 portions? Yes. Game companies does it to earn money. Do they not?

 

[bernlin2000]

Um... Starcraft 2 anyone? A single game cut into 3 portions? Yes. Game companies does it to earn money. Do they not?

Oh take it to the Starcraft 2 forum: the first portion is a full game unto itself. You can't say they cut it into portions to make a quick buck: then why haven't they raised the monthy subscription of WoW ONCE in the entire 6+ year history of the game. That has been there cash cow since 2004, and they haven't touched the subscription model.