Will Firaxis sign an agreement before making Civ 4

Yolky · November 10, 2003, 17:55

Will the memeber of Firaxis signan agreement like politicians did here in Ontario (stating they would do this or that, like a contract)

What I am asking is that they do what they said will do. As we know from Civ3 alot of things weren't there that were stated would be there(not promised but stated), and not release it in a later patch or expansion pack.

I am sick and tired of buying games and then later have to download a patch for a finished game.

Let them sign an agreement for us that when they make Civ 4 it will have what they said will have.

eg, don't say there will be multiplayer and just before the game is released that it will be on a future patch, then later it will be on an expansion.

Maybe this way we won't be so dissapointed when Civ4 comes out like Civ3 did.

What do you guys think?

Davor

MarkG · November 10, 2003, 18:20

never was it said that MP would be a patch....

beyond that, what you ask cant be done....

Saint Marcus · November 10, 2003, 18:38

Quote:

I am sick and tired of buying games and then later have to download a patch for a finished game.

The wonders of DSDM. if you can't meet all your goals before the deadline, change the goals.

WarpStorm · November 10, 2003, 19:46

Maybe they should just not talk about their future plans at all. That way nobody can claim they didn't live up to promises.

What do you guys think?

TechWins · November 10, 2003, 19:52

Better yet only talk about future plans that are likely to occur or are minor in detail (i.e. don't discuss MP being in the original Civ 4-5 months before release when it must have been fairly obvious that it wouldn't have been considering it wasn't till a year after Civ3's release that MP became available). I understand that not all plans can be met by deadlines (i.e. MP in Civ3), so that's why I'm saying only discuss plans that are likely to happen and be honest about those that aren't (again i.e. MP in Civ3).

I think this should hold true for all games.

alva · November 10, 2003, 20:14

Quote:

Let them sign an agreement for us that when they make Civ 4 it will have what they said will have.

You might be able to persuade them on this if,
you can get 2 or 3 million people to sign that same paper promising
1. to buy the game
2. not to complain if it takes a year longer for the game to come out.
3. you're ok with it costing a 100$ or 200$

Yolky · November 10, 2003, 21:23

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
never was it said that MP would be a patch....

beyond that, what you ask cant be done....

I could be wrong but am shure either by reading the forums or somewhere in a magizine article that it might be in a patch. This was just a month before the game came out.

Why couldn't it be done? Politicanse do it (at least in Ontario)

I was just thinking if they did this it could be a new trend in games so people get a complete game when they buy it. A patch is a fix that they didn't fix during development and fixed it after being shipped.

If all those fixes they made for Civ3 weren't fixes but enhancements then it's not a patch. I forgot the name for that.

Davor

WarpStorm · November 10, 2003, 21:31

Are you willing to wait longer for your games and pay more (these go hand in hand as Firaxis actually pays its employees, imagine that)? This is the alternative.

MarkG · November 11, 2003, 01:04

or Firaxis could be forced to sell us stocks

Alexander's Horse · November 11, 2003, 02:32

I hope firaxis doesn't make civ 4 - give it to BHG!!!

TechWins · November 11, 2003, 02:36

Quote:

I hope firaxis doesn't make civ 4 - give it to BHG!!!

Was RoN a success?

Alexander's Horse · November 11, 2003, 02:39

was civ 2 a success?

vmxa1 · November 11, 2003, 02:51

By then there may not be a BHG.

Alexander's Horse · November 11, 2003, 03:23

was there a problem with RoN?

Tiberius · November 11, 2003, 03:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Yolky
Will the memeber of Firaxis signan agreement

Yes, with Atari.

Tiberius · November 11, 2003, 03:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
was there a problem with RoN?

Yes, it is RTS.

Alexander's Horse · November 11, 2003, 03:53

well if they did civ 4 i assume it would be tbs

Tiberius · November 11, 2003, 04:08

I remember Brian Reynolds saying in an intervoiew after leaving Firaxis that they were absolutely in love with RTS games such as AoE. Hence they tried to do a civ-like RTS game (without too much success if you asked me; I played only the demo and it was enough for me).

So I doubt they would like to make a TBS again.

Besides Civ2 isn't a better game than Civ3; nor is RoN. (even if you think the opposite).

dexters · November 11, 2003, 04:11

It also sold at a premium when it was released. Really expensive game.

DrSpike · November 11, 2003, 06:45

Hehe I like the agreement idea. Unfortunately it is hopelessly naive.

The Slayer · November 11, 2003, 10:08

I don't think they will do such a thing. They just must be quiet and later give to us the sorprises in Civ4.

(but, if we're asking and asking about the new realise... how they will be quiet??

)

Paddy · November 11, 2003, 10:26

I too like the idea... but can not see them coming to the party...

Inverse Icarus · November 11, 2003, 10:34

it's not like firaxis wanted to disappoint us, they just didn't have the time. they were under pressure from their publisher (evil frenchie infogrames, who has besmirched the name Atari) to get the game out, and they did, at the cost of various other things.

There were remnants of MP in the civ3 installation that several people found, we know they were trying to get MP in, they just ran out of time, and had to take it out. believe me, if they needed the better part of another year to get it working (and even then, it wasn't so hot

) i'm glad they didnt wait.

asleepathewheel · November 11, 2003, 12:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
was there a problem with RoN?

runs like a wounded animal. poor video card support.

even when I managed to get a good frame rate it was disappointing, probably will just collect dust on my shelf.

Boris Godunov · November 11, 2003, 12:24

Welcome to the corporate world.

A company is under no obligation to adhere to its original plan for a product. While saying Civ3 would have MP and not including it (and not saying that until the release) was incredibly bad from a PR and maybe ethics standpoint, I don't think there was any malfeasance.

However, so long as the developer is up front with design changes before release, such an agreement would be unneccesary and, in fact, probably detrimental. Being hamstrung by original intents is not a good idea for a software designer. Designing software is built a great deal on flexibility, after all. The simple fact is that initial plans are often based on some pie-in-the-sky visions, but once the actual coding starts, stark realism sets in.

While I think really good initial planning can avoid most problems in this regard (and I honestly think Civ3 suffered from poor initial planning and a scattershot "we'll try to please everyone!" mentality), changes in design and intent of function will be inevitable.

Arrian · November 11, 2003, 12:25

@ this thread.

-Arrian

Cort Haus · November 11, 2003, 13:53

I think some people are unaware of the complexities of software development. It only takes a second to have an idea, but it can take weeks to implement and months to test.

A similar misconception is the idea that workers in this industry should be singled out to work for peanuts or as slaves. Not directly expressed, of course, but nevertheless implied by shrill demands and expectations.

Boris Godunov · November 11, 2003, 14:44

Well, never let it be said there was a shortage of game fans with a misplaced sense of entitlement.

The Templar · November 11, 2003, 16:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I hope firaxis doesn't make civ 4 - give it to BHG!!!

Brian Reynolds is overrated. Just look at the AI in SMAC.

FrostyBoy · November 11, 2003, 16:18

I blame the publisher