Why Firaxis hold back Civ5 info?

[Louis XXIV]

Because the game is still in Alpha. Most info they could give about the game wouldn't be set in stone.

Anyways, if they did give all the info at once, that would kinda be boring. They want to keep us on our toes, excited, trying to get the next little drop all the way until they release the game.

Pretty much both reasons sum it up. I know one company that was praising a new feature for a long time. Then when they released the game, it wasn't there. It turned out to be more complicated than they were expecting and they didn't have time to complete it before the game was released (there was some issue with the game being rushed about by the publisher as well, which probably contributed to this feature being dropped). They admitted that it had been a mistake to mention this feature before they were sure they would put it in because it got people's hopes up for no reason. (EDIT: I wasn't talking about Peter Molyneux, but that's a good example).

As far as the info drop. I do think they need to add something more to keep our interest going, but they also want the big reveal at E3, so it's hard to find a balance. I believe Civ4 had one amazing IGN article where all the Civs were revealed and it blew me away how much info they were willing to give out. But, then again, it turned out the game had so much more to offer that they had actually held plenty back.

I'm hoping a similar thing will happen here, but we've got a long way to go.

 

[Willem]

I agree with the OP, The game is not in alpha if it will be out in 6 months,

That leaves lots of time to make some changes, so it's pointless to reveal too much in case they decide some feature needs tweaking. And they're no doubt watching the public responses to what info we do have very carefully.They want to see if there's going to be strong opposition to any of the features mentioned in the game, so they can tweak if necessary.

 

[King Kalmah]

Its to build up anticipation....duh

 

[Tomice]

No, it isn't. It is just a pessimistic look at the issue.

Why don't you think it the other way round?

When Firaxis announces a new feature or change, besides those who do not support the change, there are also many who supports it... Isn't annoucing new feature is a cheap (or even free) advertisement?

Afterall, one can always buy Civ5 few days/weeks after it is released, by doing so he can obtain every info of the game from those who can't wait... then only decide whether or not to buy the game.

What I mean is, Civ5 publisher can delay revealing the game details only before it is released but they can't stop people from learning about what the game has to offer before buying it... then what is the point of delaying?

I think, the more they hold back the game info, the more people will delay buying it... and that is definitely a bad marketing outcome.

Well, people can inform themselves before buying, that's right. But it's more about the mood in fanpages.

The complainers are always more vocal, no one starts threads about "1upt-it's such a great idea! Thx firaxis!!!" But people who hate a feature can get very annoying on the boards! That's human psychology.
Many great but controversial gameplay ideas sound stupid BEFORE you play the actual game and see how nicely it fits in.

I've seen these things happen before...

 

[hclass]

That leaves lots of time to make some changes

is contradict with

so it's pointless to reveal too much in case they decide some feature needs tweaking.

and

That leaves lots of time to make some changes, so it's pointless to reveal too much in case they decide some feature needs tweaking.

is contradict with

They want to see if there's going to be strong opposition to any of the features mentioned in the game, so they can tweak if necessary.

 

[Ataxerxes]

I think they said it all very succinctly.

It's a marketing move to keep people's interest up. And it's working! Look at all the posts in the Civ5 section! As one previous poster said, even those who hate it will probably buy it to prove themselves right.

 

[Osaka]

I wish they would just release system requirements.

 

[Yakk]

When you hear something neat, you get excited by it.

This makes you want to, for example, buy the game.

If the game isn't out, your excitement fades over time. It can be boosted by later exciting facts about the game.

If they go and release all of the exciting information now, and you cannot buy the game, they won't be as able to sustain excitement. By the time the game comes out, you won't be "oh my, I must have this", but maybe you'll be "hmm, I was really excited over that. Maybe I should think about... wait, that other thing looks shiney!"

They want you to buy the game. So they want to meter excitement to you at a rate that peaks when the game releases, which will make you desperate to buy the game ASAP, and then that will generate free publicity if they have high sales figures.

 

[hclass]

When you hear something neat, you get excited by it.

This makes you want to, for example, buy the game.

If the game isn't out, your excitement fades over time. It can be boosted by later exciting facts about the game.

If they go and release all of the exciting information now, and you cannot buy the game, they won't be as able to sustain excitement. By the time the game comes out, you won't be "oh my, I must have this", but maybe you'll be "hmm, I was really excited over that. Maybe I should think about... wait, that other thing looks shiney!"

They want you to buy the game. So they want to meter excitement to you at a rate that peaks when the game releases, which will make you desperate to buy the game ASAP, and then that will generate free publicity if they have high sales figures.

When you hear something bad, you get annoyed by it.

This makes you want to, for example, convince Firaxis to drop the idea.

If the game isn't out, your annoyance grows over time. It can be boosted by later bad facts about the game.

If they go and release all of the bad information now, and you cannot buy the game, there still stands a chance of getting someone to change your mind on board - bad thing is actually good.

By the time the game comes out, you won't be "ARGH....! I won't buy it", but maybe you'll be "umm, it is not that bad as I initially thought. Maybe I should think about... why wait? let me buy it and try!"

They want you to buy the game. So they don't want your annoyance to accumulate and grows at a rate that peaks when the game releases, which will make you turn down buying the game As Soon As it is released, and then that will generate bad public impression if they have low sales figures.

As you can see my belief is exactly opposite with yours...

 

[Willem]

is contradict with



and



is contradict with

It's not contradictory at all. They release a few details, see what the reactions will be and adjust if needed. In the meantime, some of the features they're not quite sure of will be tested to see if it works in a gameplay setting, rather than just on an ideas board. There's no reason to release any details on those features until they're reasonably sure they're actually going to work as planned, then they release the info to see how the players are going to respond.

 

[Willem]

I wish they would just release system requirements.

Well you can be sure it will be somewhat more demanding than Civ 4. That's just the nature of new games. So if your computer is struggling with Civ 4, it's going to be even worse with 5.

 

[hclass]

It's not contradictory at all. They release a few details, see what the reactions will be and adjust if needed. In the meantime, some of the features they're not quite sure of will be tested to see if it works in a gameplay setting, rather than just on an ideas board. There's no reason to release any details on those features until they're reasonably sure they're actually going to work as planned, then they release the info to see how the players are going to respond.

I am trying very hard now to follow your logic.
I think what you mean is:
1) For features/changes they are "sure" (your word), they will release few of them to test the fans's reaction.
2) Unsure features/changes (not even know whether it will be working in a gameplay), they have to seal them from the public.

For 1), why "few" instead of "all"? Afterall, their intention is to test the fans's reaction right?

For 2), couldn't they put it in something like, Unconfirm features are:
....
....
....
and they are subjected to changes or discard in the release game.

What is the harm of listening to fans's opinion on something they themselve are testing?

 

[frekk]

When Firaxis announces a new feature or change, besides those who do not support the change, there are also many who supports it... Isn't annoucing new feature is a cheap (or even free) advertisement?

Yes ... that's why they announce some features.

Afterall, one can always buy Civ5 few days/weeks after it is released, by doing so he can obtain every info of the game from those who can't wait... then only decide whether or not to buy the game.

What I mean is, Civ5 publisher can delay revealing the game details only before it is released but they can't stop people from learning about what the game has to offer before buying it... then what is the point of delaying?

Because people's perception of things are often shaped before they've even experienced it. The experience itself might change those perceptions - or the perceptions might change the experience. If you're determined something will be awful, then it will be. Not releasing all the details mitigates this problem - people won't be listening to months of complaints from a few vocal critics who are trying hard to convince anyone who will listen that this or that change will suck. Instead, they are more likely to experience it themselves and form their opinions based on the experience rather than forming their opinions beforehand.

What is the harm of listening to fans's opinion on something they themselve are testing?

Constructive criticism is great. There's nothing wrong with that. That's why I referred to the "knee-jerk" critics and many civ players fall in that category (I myself was a knee-jerk critic of civ4, but I eventually learned to appreciate it). Knee-jerk critics aren't there to be constructive. Unfortunately, they disrupt communication and break the feedback between developers and fans and the game indeed does suffer because of it. But that's the goal of the knee-jerk critic; he doesn't want the new game to be good, he wants it to be a failure.

 

[Yakk]

When you hear something bad, you get annoyed by it.

This makes you want to, for example, convince Firaxis to drop the idea.

Next to nothing, at this point, could change the shape of the game being released. Nothing. It is far, far far far far, far to late in the development cycle to be doing mass feedback from users. If they attempted to do this at this point in the development cycle, they'd be ed.

Moderator Action: If you find you have triggered the autocensor - please rephrase
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Maybe they could change small things, but the resulting game would be haphazard.

If they go and release all of the bad information now, and you cannot buy the game, there still stands a chance of getting someone to change your mind on board - bad thing is actually good.

See, all of this can happen after release.

By the time the game comes out, you won't be "ARGH....! I won't buy it", but maybe you'll be "umm, it is not that bad as I initially thought. Maybe I should think about... why wait? let me buy it and try!"

There are a myriad of games you won't buy. The fact that you hate the game with a little, or lots of passion, doesn't really matter.

If you don't pass the bar of "I like it enough to put down money", your position does not matter to their bottom line.

So the intensity of your hate or dislike is not very relevant: as someone who dislikes the game, you are not the target market of the game, as they won't be making many sales to you in any case (with, at least, this version of the game). But the intensity of your like or anticipation is relevant.

They want you to buy the game. So they don't want your annoyance to accumulate and grows at a rate that peaks when the game releases, which will make you turn down buying the game As Soon As it is released, and then that will generate bad public impression if they have low sales figures.

Mild negative? Extremely negative? Both result in "no sale". Maybe 0.00001 and 0.000001 -- but both are trace numbers of sales.

Same difference to Firaxis.

Mild positive? Extremely positive? One might result in 0.05 sales, the other in 0.25 sales. Huge difference to Firaxis.

Marketing isn't about making a product that everyone wants. It is about making a product that enough people want enough to pay money for. That is why ugly cars work: they look different enough that some percentage of the car buyers want the car, even if most people think it looks ugly.
...

And this isn't just the game industry. That is how movie promos work -- a trickle long before, leading up to a cresendo immediately before release.

 

[Willem]

I think what you mean is:
1) For features/changes they are "sure" (your word), they will release few of them to test the fans's reaction.
2) Unsure features/changes (not even know whether it will be working in a gameplay), they have to seal them from the public.

That's about it.

For 1), why "few" instead of "all"? Afterall, their intention is to test the fans's reaction right?

Why would they mention something that they're not sure about? That's just bad PR, with fans being disappointed when something they were expecting doesn't make it into the final release.

For 2), couldn't they put it in something like, Unconfirm features are:
....
....
....
and they are subjected to changes or discard in the release game.

Again, why should they do that?

What is the harm of listening to fans's opinion on something they themselve are testing?

Bad public opinion. The last thing they want to do is alienate their fan base.

 

[frekk]

There are a myriad of games you won't buy. The fact that you hate the game with a little, or lots of passion, doesn't really matter.

If you don't pass the bar of "I like it enough to put down money", your position does not matter to their bottom line.

Mild negative? Extremely negative? Both result in "no sale". Maybe 0.00001 and 0.000001 -- but both are trace numbers of sales.

Totally and completely wrong. Even if you don't buy the game, you can influence others' opinion of the game, and discourage them from buying. Word of mouth is everything, far more important than advertising. That's why good reviews are so important, but reviewers themselves are influenced by the opinions of others.

Reviewers also don't want to be the odd ones out. If some reviewer is doing Civ 5 and he hears that everyone over at the main fan site (this one) is moaning about how awful all the new features are, those perceptions will shape his experience when he actually plays the game, and thus shape his review of the game. Even if, despite that, he thinks it's the best game ever: he probably will give it a mediocre review, simply because he doesn't want to be the guy that got too enthusiastic over a game everybody ended up hated.

 

[Gliese 581]

It's not just about managing publicity but also about making a good marketing impact and using hype for the game to get sales. People are more interested in new stuff, if they've read a thorough preview a couple of months before release and they're not already interested in the game they're just going to be less likely to investigate it when it actually releases and all that information is displayed a second time, or, even if they read it again, it's not going to be as exciting the second time around.

 

[hclass]

Yes ... that's why they announce some features.

Then why some not all?

Not releasing all the details mitigates this problem - people won't be listening to months of complaints from a few vocal critics who are trying hard to convince anyone who will listen that this or that change will suck. Instead, they are more likely to experience it themselves and form their opinions based on the experience rather than forming their opinions beforehand.

Ah, ah... this seems to be your answer to "Why some not all?" and has nothing to do with my question why delay...

Of course do not release a feature could avoid critics, but let me mind you, it also means no praise... and no advertisement... and no discussion ... and no one know Civ5 is great. At the end, no and no and you got NOTHING ...
That is why, I got a feeling, you are very very pessimisitc!

If I like a feature/change, I see a lot of supporting posts/replies, e.g. the 1upt issue... I find lot of supporting posts (including mine) and the reverse is also true.

So it is back to the foundamental element - the feature itself. Whether a change or feature is more welcomed or disliked by fans depends on the its nature. If the devloper don't test the market, how do they know what is the outcome?
If Firaxis rather choose not to reveal a feature in case it has negetive reaction from the awaiting fans, than they are as pessimistic as you... and the sole reason for that to happen is they lack confidence in what they have done so far!

Constructive criticism is great. There's nothing wrong with that. That's why I referred to the "knee-jerk" critics and many civ players fall in that category (I myself was a knee-jerk critic of civ4, but I eventually learned to appreciate it). Knee-jerk critics aren't there to be constructive. Unfortunately, they disrupt communication and break the feedback between developers and fans and the game indeed does suffer because of it. But that's the goal of the knee-jerk critic; he doesn't want the new game to be good, he wants it to be a failure.

The problem is who determine whether a critic is constructive or so called "knee-jerk"?
I mean who is the judge?

Btw, I have 1 simple question to you:
If I have a list of all new features and changes of Civ5, would you like to read it? NOW?

Aha, don't blah

 

[hclass]

Why would they mention something that they're not sure about? That's just bad PR, with fans being disappointed when something they were expecting doesn't make it into the final release.

When I say "For 1)" I mean for all the "sure" things. You are the one who said, for all the sure thing they only release few (not me)

Again, why should they do that?
Bad public opinion. The last thing they want to do is alienate their fan base.

I am sorry, it is beyond my ability to explain something when it is already too plain and simple. Just like I won't be able to explain what means "colorful" to someone whose world is purely grey.

 

[frekk]

Of course do not release a feature could avoid critics, but let me mind you, it also means no praise... and no advertisement... and no discussion ... and no one know Civ5 is great.

Well now ... they release the ones they think will build anticipation. And what they also do, is try to use language and images to make things appealing - without actually revealing much. I mean, look at the trailer. It says nothing specific about the game. It's just an image-building exercise.

Whether a change or feature is more welcomed or disliked by fans depends on the its nature.

In an ideal world, yes. In the real world that's only true at the individual level; communities impart biases.

The problem is who determine whether a critic is constructive or so called "knee-jerk"?
I mean who is the judge?

Does it matter? Which individuals are knee-jerk critics and which are constructive critics is irrelevant. What's relevant is that there *are* knee-jerk critics - it doesn't really matter who they are.