Truth Comes To Light For Take2

[Mitch2676]

I like many here have issues with CivIV but the fact it is running so bad and in mine and many other cases not at all for a few days was quite unreal. I was somewhat surprised at the move up in the ship date and heard all the legal talk of Take2 and it's current issues.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6136974.html

It just appears they shipped the game early to get it on this years numbers to lessen the blow at the stock market, these reports make it official. This says to me QA did take a short cut to meet the new date at our expense for their own means, this is quite unforgivable.

In the very next Gamespot story we are told of another big Take2 game moved back to next year, being Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6136973.html

So what that makes me belive is Firaxis has a responsibility in all this as Bethesda Softworks can stand up and say our title is not up to scratch but Firaxis can not?

As a side note, are we getting new discs from Take2? I have to unpak a file to get it running every time I install, what if I dont have net access at install to down load it? As I say, its all very unreal

 

[MeteorPunch]

That's sad that gaming and the quality of games has to be put behind for the sake of profits, or in this case, the perception and speculation of profits.

...and Oblivion is delayed? That is huge.

 

[AsnoT]

that would explain a few things.
it WAS the first time ever that i heard of a game's release date being moved FORWARD, and i was wondering about the reason(s) at the time (in august or so).

 

[zonk]

The world has turned upside down.

Years ago - the complaint was that company management didn't have a large enough stake in the company (think Gordon Gekko's speech in Wall Street) and the shareholders were getting screwed by management more concerned with satisfying, or at least serving, it's customers.

Nowadays - management's compensation is mortgaged to the hilt in stock and stock prices, so the customer gets the royal screw job -- because your $50 means virtually nothing; it's all about stock price support.

I work for a publishing company that produces a fair amount of niche business and legal software -- and I'm sure plenty of folks working for similar companies can say the same -- but the constant attention paid to stock prices is hardly surprising. Additionally -- arguments about releases between the R&D side and the S&M side are certainly nothing new. Unrealistic deadlines are just part of the business - and heaven forbid you need to push back a launch date. However, if the foundational values of the organization are good -- it becomes a workable give and take. On the development side, there's no doubt we're sometimes overcautious, and in many cases, if the developers set the timeframe alone --- nothing would ever get released because products would be nearing the point of being obsolete by the time every last bug had been tracked down, every last system supported, etc. On the marketing side - they're usually trying to set release timeframes before the first line of code has been written (or even the initial whack at a project plan) and delayed launches generally scare off sales, so they're fought tooth and nail.

Even with all that, though, it can work so long as neither side of the coin becomes over-dominant in the discussions. For us - this usually means we release solid products, but perhaps a month or 2 (or 3) after marketing might be hoping. As long both sides negotiate through the process and learn to trust the other side - a good product can emerge at the end of it all.

Here - it looks like that wasn't the case. Bugs don't bother me as much as some -- I stuck with EU, bought EU2, HOI, HOI2, Victoria, etc -- that whole series was bug central. But in the end, post-patches - they were very fun games (once you could play without saving every 5 minutes).

What bothers me is the fact that it wasn't a matter of hitting a release date -- it was a question of BEATING it because they needed to blunt some bad news from other product lines. That's a decision that was made SOLELY for the shareholders. It's one thing for bugs to exist -- it's another entirely for bugs to exist because the company needed to ship X units by date X…. and date Y, the original release date, was too late.

It bothers me that the requirements were understated to cast the widest sales net possible. I don't think there's any question the rec'ed requirements should have been the minimums, and the real rec'ed were probably a notch above the stated recommendations. That, too, was done solely for purposes of sales numbers rather than the interests of the customer.

I wish no ill will on Take2 -- or any of the Firaxis developers -- but I won't be sad as this blows up in their faces. Heck, when Wall Street doesn't even buy the smoke and mirrors charade right off the bat -- your long term isn't looking much better.

Here's a novel concept.... How about focusing your energies on pleasing the customers, rather than the investors? Sure, you'll lose the quick buck artists and the speculators - but long term, companies that provide good products end up becoming solid investments for the type of shareholders a company should be after anyway.

 

[Mitch2676]

"Here's a novel concept.... How about focusing your energies on pleasing the customers, rather than the investors?"

I would drink to that!

 

[Richosh]

The world has turned upside down.

Years ago - the complaint was that company management didn't have a large enough stake in the company (think Gordon Gekko's speech in Wall Street) and the shareholders were getting screwed by management more concerned with satisfying, or at least serving, it's customers.

Nowadays - management's compensation is mortgaged to the hilt in stock and stock prices, so the customer gets the royal screw job -- because your $50 means virtually nothing; it's all about stock price support.

I work for a publishing company that produces a fair amount of niche business and legal software -- and I'm sure plenty of folks working for similar companies can say the same -- but the constant attention paid to stock prices is hardly surprising. Additionally -- arguments about releases between the R&D side and the S&M side are certainly nothing new. Unrealistic deadlines are just part of the business - and heaven forbid you need to push back a launch date. However, if the foundational values of the organization are good -- it becomes a workable give and take. On the development side, there's no doubt we're sometimes overcautious, and in many cases, if the developers set the timeframe alone --- nothing would ever get released because products would be nearing the point of being obsolete by the time every last bug had been tracked down, every last system supported, etc. On the marketing side - they're usually trying to set release timeframes before the first line of code has been written (or even the initial whack at a project plan) and delayed launches generally scare off sales, so they're fought tooth and nail.

Even with all that, though, it can work so long as neither side of the coin becomes over-dominant in the discussions. For us - this usually means we release solid products, but perhaps a month or 2 (or 3) after marketing might be hoping. As long both sides negotiate through the process and learn to trust the other side - a good product can emerge at the end of it all.

Here - it looks like that wasn't the case. Bugs don't bother me as much as some -- I stuck with EU, bought EU2, HOI, HOI2, Victoria, etc -- that whole series was bug central. But in the end, post-patches - they were very fun games (once you could play without saving every 5 minutes).

What bothers me is the fact that it wasn't a matter of hitting a release date -- it was a question of BEATING it because they needed to blunt some bad news from other product lines. That's a decision that was made SOLELY for the shareholders. It's one thing for bugs to exist -- it's another entirely for bugs to exist because the company needed to ship X units by date X…. and date Y, the original release date, was too late.

It bothers me that the requirements were understated to cast the widest sales net possible. I don't think there's any question the rec'ed requirements should have been the minimums, and the real rec'ed were probably a notch above the stated recommendations. That, too, was done solely for purposes of sales numbers rather than the interests of the customer.

I wish no ill will on Take2 -- or any of the Firaxis developers -- but I won't be sad as this blows up in their faces. Heck, when Wall Street doesn't even buy the smoke and mirrors charade right off the bat -- your long term isn't looking much better.

Here's a novel concept.... How about focusing your energies on pleasing the customers, rather than the investors? Sure, you'll lose the quick buck artists and the speculators - but long term, companies that provide good products end up becoming solid investments for the type of shareholders a company should be after anyway.

Nice Idea but it won´t work. Even if any reasonable gamer stops buying such rushed games, the horde of sheep-like stupids would still buy most of those game and afterwards bloking about how bugged it be just to buy the next one right on schedule. It is a sad world we live in.

 

[monsterfurby]

I once read an article (in the escapist, I believe) about the downfall of Origin (the legendary game company). It's main line was "Origin created worlds. EA shipped games. EA won."
Well, that's pretty much how it works today. Quality simply doesn't matter to most game companies anymore - and to many customers either, unfortunately. So they don't care if they risk the potential quality of a series for profit. Sad, but true.

 

[Commander Bello]

[...]
Well, that's pretty much how it works today. Quality simply doesn't matter to most game companies anymore - and to many customers either, unfortunately. So they don't care if they risk the potential quality of a series for profit. Sad, but true.

A good example is the current release.
Instead of trying to make Firaxis work even harder (I assume, they do work hard at the moment - at least, people would have the right to expect this) on solving the issues with Civ4, some posters here (assumedly, mostly minors) who have had the unearned luck to escape the renderer and other bugs, are spitting malice and mockery over those, who haven't had this luck.
If people complain - even in a meaningful manner (and I am not talking about featherbrained statements like "Civ4 su...s") - about the current bugs, flaws and weaknesses, they are flamed and bashed by the little fanboy's fraction who cannot tolerate somebody on the other side of the planet criticizing their "beloved" and much adored game.

Granted, there won't be much sense in going for a lawsuit.
Nevertheless, you could read statements like "Thank you so much for your efforts! You rock!" after people had for 24 to 48 hours to put in drivers, to install and de-install, to change their system configuration of running systems.
Well, I think this was the least they (the dev's) should have done.

As long as the audience doesn't accept that this game is neither the worst piece of compiled program code ever nor a materialization of divine programming skills, there is not much hope that software companies will change their policies.

This game runs (for most, and for many after only after having changed above mentioned settings) and it is fun - to a certain degree. Yet, it has many unneeded weaknesses - and I am talking about purely technical issues here, which in principle could have been fixed months ago. Missing links, stuttering sounds and others come to mind immediately.
Game concepts are a different topic as they are mainly subject to personal tastes.

And we as a community shouldn't stop putting Firaxis'/Take2's noses into this over and over again - until they fix the problems. Yet, it has to be done in a reasonable way, stating which and where are errors and not ferociously cursing at them.

And we as a community shouldn't accept another time of stopping to put out patches, as they did for Civ3.

And finally, after they will have fixed the most significant bugs and will have made the game run like one would hope it would have run out-of-the-box, we may applause the game's quality and its more or less hidden treasures.
But until they do so, there is little need to praise them and to cheer and celebrate.

We have paid good and undamaged Dollars, Euros and whatever other currency for this game. There was no need for Firaxis/Take2, to "patch" our money. Now, it is just their turn to deliver the same quality to us.

 

[zonk]

Nice Idea but it won´t work. Even if any reasonable gamer stops buying such rushed games, the horde of sheep-like stupids would still buy most of those game and afterwards bloking about how bugged it be just to buy the next one right on schedule. It is a sad world we live in.

Welllll.... I don't know about "won't work" - it's just tough to do right for game as cutting edge and complex as CIV IV. I actually don't think the problem is with the non-power users. Big publishers in the gaming industry know there's a solid base of users that are comfortable dealing with custom drivers, tweaking advanced OS settings, or don't bat much of an eye at the thought of upgrading a video card/adding more RAM/etc, or even peaking under the config or actual game code hoods. Eventually - the day will come when the non-power users get burned once too often dropping $50 on games they can't play. They'll disappear (and probably get a PS, Xbox, etc... many, many friends that used to be pc gamers, but not quite "power users" have pretty much already jumped ship) -- but that power user base will still be around. FWIW, my guess is that we'll see skyrocketing game prices when that comes to pass as companies try to maintain revenue streams while the number of buyers falls. Since an awful lot of folks don't bat much of an eye at a new card, ram stick, etc -- it'll just be another cost of playing what you want to play.

Thing is -- there are still a lot of smaller developers that put out very good products. It's just that you won't find titles like Civilization from such a small shop. Too much code, too complex. The OOTP baseball sim series is a great example. The graphics aren't much better than what you'd find 15 years ago (though the user community does great work providing backgrounds, etc) - and it's really just strat-o-matic for your desktop (with lots of GM, scouting, minor league, etc bells and whistles).
That said, though - if a text-based sim management sim is your cup of tea, you won't find a better piece of software. The support is outstanding, the releases generally bug free... or at least -- fatal error/CTD bug free, and the developer interacts closely with the community. As a result, he's got a loyal base of both "power users" and casual folks who never go near "advanced settings" tabs that will buy every new release until he either stops building 'em, or changes the way he does business.

Who knows - maybe in 10 years, the type of game like Civ IV becomes as easy for that generation's developers as a text sim is for today's developers and a whole generation of folks get to tell the young guns how things worked "in my day", and get the stuff they love from boutique shops without worrying about some big publisher needing to halt a stock dive.