When does the full game come out?

[Kudos]

You all need to read Scatters post above.

This complacent logic is disgusting and the "game economics" post is completely unreasoned. You pay money for a product, the product is meant to work. Taking more time to test the game does NOT necessarily cost more money then an earlier release. You think the subsequent patches just fall from the sky? They have to pay someone to wokr on that too.

It's attitudes like yours that allow this trend to continue. The current price tag has absolutely NOTHING to do with it, since you fail to realize that the company is ultimately at the mercy of the consumer. $50 means they compromise on profit margins, not quality, since, in theory and in a world where everyone wasn't a lame duck, poor quality would quickly mean poor sales. How long development takes doesn't determine the price of the game. You think every game costs the same to make? Of course not. But the market doesn't allow for anything much higher then $50.

I'm all for the free market, but what this trend in video games is with games such as Age of Empires 3 and Black and White 2 having patches out before they hit store shelves, or games like Battlefield 2 or Civ4 barely out of beta, is a catering to the publishers share holders. Take 2 needed this game up in October to stay consistent with their revenue ambitions. And that's fine, they have an obligation to do so, but eventually the paradigm will shift and sales will drop and such tactics will have to be reversed.

And just because your particular copy is working doesn't refute these points. If the sales base having technical problems is in the double digits (or theres something so glaring, like the ATI problem, that affects a likely 40%) then there were not enough steps taken to ensure a quality product.

 

[Kudos]

Also Take Two has already begun to run into consequences for rushing games out the door with the "Hot Coffee" issue in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. Their stock took a hit after that fiasco.

 

[CokeHead]

seems like an overclocked VPU. use some utility to either reset to factory setting or try to underclock and see if helps your problems if already factory default.

 

[Shakes]

You think the subsequent patches just fall from the sky? They have to pay someone to wokr on that too.

That's not a good argument, for a number of reasons:

1) You usually employ only a "skeleton staff" of people to maintain a release once it's out. If at all: many games remain unpatched once released.
2) Your game that's out there is generating marketting for the expansion you plan to release and make money on. An unreleased game is not.
3) You want to release a game before similar games are released, since people aren't as likely to buy a game if they feel like they've already got something equivalent.
4) If you wait a couple of years doing internal patches to iron out more bugs by the time your game is released it's going to look dated and not sell as well.
5) Money now is worth more than money later anyway, due to inflation.

Getting to market is absolutely essential. Delaying it is very expensive, far more so than hiring a couple of people to work on patches.

 

[Kudos]

That's not a good argument, for a number of reasons:

1) You usually employ only a "skeleton staff" of people to maintain a release once it's out. If at all: many games remain unpatched once released.
2) Your game that's out there is generating marketting for the expansion you plan to release and make money on. An unreleased game is not.
3) You want to release a game before similar games are released, since people aren't as likely to buy a game if they feel like they've already got something equivalent.
4) If you wait a couple of years doing internal patches to iron out more bugs by the time your game is released it's going to look dated and not sell as well.
5) Money now is worth more than money later anyway, due to inflation.

Getting to market is absolutely essential. Delaying it is very expensive, far more so than hiring a couple of people to work on patches.

The problems with the current build could have been fixed by releasing it on it's original, late november , release date.

When the money comes in, as I said, only really matters to meeting quarterly expectations. I think your understanding of inflation may be flawed...because even if inflation rose at an astronomical rate and a months difference was instantly felt...consumer prices would also rise. Infact if you were an inflationphobe you would want to delay the money as long as possible...because once it's in the bank THAT's when it's susceptible to the negative sides of inflation.

 

[Shylock]

I havent had any probelms at all, except for a crash in World builder.

 

[Tarascan_King]

That is crazy how often does it do that?

 

[Venger]

I could dazzle you with graphic glitch screenshots - in fact, I think I posted some in the bug thread.

Kudos is on the money here - and for those of you whom the game is working for, that's great. But I paid $50 for the game to run on MY computer, not YOURS, and if my computer meets the requirements on the box, in fact exceeds the recommended requirements, there is NO VALID EXCUSE for it not running.

PERIOD. To argue to the contrary is an exercise in stupidity. Nobody is expecting perfection, Kudos surely isn't - in an almost infinitely complex system made my humans, there will be things that don't work quite right. But many are arguing systemic, game design bugs. For instance, the first Civ3 had a problem with fighters not intercepting. This was a UNIVERSAL bug - what we have here is a game engine that is simply insufferably prone to system crashing. It works on this computer, but not on that one, with almost identical specifications. The bugs we are seeing in Civ4 are not traditional bugs - even Civ2 had some, such as the money rollover bug. Civ4 is simply not a stable product.

It's the last Civ game I buy, sight unseen. That bridge is burned. And I have owned and do own every Civ game made - from Civ for Windows to Civ2 to TOT to Civ3, PTW, and Conquests...

Venger - give me battleship loses to phalanx every time over a buggy game engine that crashes to BIOS

 

[The Q-Meister]

My question: Where were the BETA testers on this issue? We read from all these elaborate previews from all these different sources for weeks if not months now, and did ANYONE hear a word about bugs, crashes, unstable game, or any of the other glitches that we now know about just a few days after release?

I am very disappointed in the beta testers. They were supposed to be our eyes and ears to what is going on with the game - both good and bad- instead, all we got was this rose-colored, extemely, glowingly positive previews with hardly a word of anything that might be wrong with the game.

I don't think I'm asking for too much when I call for those embedded beta testers who filled us with so much hope and optimism to give us some kind of apology/explanation.

 

[Shakes]

The problems with the current build could have been fixed by releasing it on it's original, late november , release date.

If that's true I don't see where the drawback to releasing it early is. The majority of people get the game a month early, and the minority it doesn't work for get it at the time they would have anyway, and the developers/publishers get their money.

What possible benefit would holding up the release have for anyone?

 

[warpstorm]

I don't think I'm asking for too much when I call for those embedded beta testers who filled us with so much hope and optimism to give us some kind of apology/explanation.

What can I say? It worked for me on all 3 of my computers (including two with Radeons and one with nVidia). Testers can not complain about bugs that they don't have.

 

[Mors]

Amen.

I think it's not that people really expect a 100% bug-free game. Games are too complex nowadays to ensure that they are absolutely bug-free. It's just that probably 95% of the bugs that are being reported in the bug report forum could have been fixed with a few weeks of beta testing. Also, stuff like the useless Civilopedia would have been removed within the first few days of a standard beta test. Do game developers still beta test their games? No? Well, then the poster who started this thread was right, and we are indeed currently participating in the beta test of Civ 4. And we're paying for it.

As far as I know, Civ4 underwent copious amounts of Alpha/Beta testing before it was released. Do you honestly believe that every potential compatibility issue with a game could be solved before release, especially in a game as large and complex as Civ4? I think its asinine that people post on this forum talking about how buggy the game is when it seems 90%+ of the issues mentioned are clearly compatibility problems, no doubt some of which are due to the posters inability to properly operate a PC in the first place. I saw one poster complaining the game didn't run on his BRAND NEW Geforce 4 MX card, which he claimed to have paid $150 for!. In all seriousness, I don't think you can expect 2K or Firaxis to test every possible system configuration before the game is released, and I think they've been very forthcoming, with some of the Devs themselves posting on the Apolyton forums. People need to relax and not be so quick to place blame...

 

[kefka01]

And if you paid money for the beta that was released last week, do you get a free upgrade to the full version?

LOL!!! It may be the "oldest joke in internet history" (hmmm....), but I'd never seen it before and it made me laugh, so kudos (no pun intended) to the original poster for that if nothing else. It's unfortunate that the underlying message rings so true. Let's hope Firaxis/Take2 get this botched release fixed so that we can all actually play the game we paid our hard-earned money for.

 

[Kudos]

Venger is absolutly right about me been absolutly right.

But he's also right about nobody expecting perfection. I would never dedicate a post to complaining about such and such a gameplay glitch, but these things are much more then that.


Shakes: It shouldn't be released because there is no guarentee that this game is going to be working any time soon, and the money paid for it is so I can play it now, not bring it home, admire the box, and wait a month or more for the patch to make it basically playable. Because if I had known this was how the game was going to work I would have saved my money and bought something else. Then when I knew the working product was out I could go and spend it...anyways I dont think this really needs an explanation because you already know the reasons behind it.

Mors: Those people are in the wrong. I have no sympathy for someone who complains about a malfunctioning game when their hardware is 5 years old or they dont meet the requirements on the box. They should have known that when they made the purchase and as such it was their risk at their expense.

But people like me and Venger are not in that position. Our computers exceed the recommended requirements. It's not especially meaningful but when I ran those "requirement checks" mine was in the top 3% of all PC's tested. If I was ignorant to all things computers then I would take those tests and base my purchase on it. Since I am not computer illiterate I would know that things are not that simple...but thats just the point: anybody should be able to take one of those tests, pass it with flying colours, and know that the game's performance is going to reflect the results. You shouldn't need a computer science degree (though apparently that hasn't helped much either) to get a consumer product running.

And I'm glad you enjoyed the joke .

 

[GIR]

And if you paid money for the beta that was released last week, do you get a free upgrade to the full version?

 

[Mighty Grum]

But threads like this just remind me that I think PC gaming is on its way out.

Well, you keep thinking that. As long as people want better looking graphics, more options, easy modifications and cheap multiplayer options, PC games will still be in demand.

As soon as the newest game console hits the streets, it's capabilities (graphics) are already obsolete. That's because they chips they use to power them have to be determined well in advance. In the time from the decision is made to the system is released, the graphics companies have already come out with one (or more) chips that are superior.

Throw in the fact that the console won't ever be "upgraded" in the 3 years before it's next iteration appears, and you end up with an out-of-date machine that a cheap PC can whip in no time.

 

[Shakes]

Shakes: It shouldn't be released because there is no guarentee that this game is going to be working any time soon, and the money paid for it is so I can play it now, not bring it home, admire the box, and wait a month or more for the patch to make it basically playable. Because if I had known this was how the game was going to work I would have saved my money and bought something else. Then when I knew the working product was out I could go and spend it...anyways I dont think this really needs an explanation because you already know the reasons behind it.

So you'd deny all the people who have got it working their fun, just because you can't get it working? How very selfish of you.

 

[Kudos]

So you'd deny all the people who have got it working their fun, just because you can't get it working? How very selfish of you.

But its not just me, it's a sizeable portion of the market. If CivIV was a car, and it had these sorts of self-destructive problems for this many users, do you know what would happen? The car would be recalled at the company's expense.