Holy S***! NO Multiplayer Until Spring! - Page 5

dexter4dxm · September 9, 2001, 06:58

there is no difference. if what he said is true, civ3 will be released without multiplayer . that has nothing to do with whether it will be added on later, it just means that it won't be included in the initial release, which is a complete dissapointment because of what Firaxis has been saying since the beginning

Rasputin · September 9, 2001, 07:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Ralf

They have only postponed it. Theres a difference.
They add it later together with the expected expansion-pack instead.

providing this later release is free (which i higlhy doubt) that may be fine.. If they charge for the MP patch I will DL it !!! I make no bones aobut that.. I wont pay for the game twice !!!! How would you feel if they released a MP only game and then later on released an Expansion pack allowing SP play (unrealisticx I know) But you hav eto pay for it!!!

Ralf · September 9, 2001, 08:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Rasputin
providing this later release is free (which i higlhy doubt) that may be fine.. If they charge for the MP patch I will DL it !!!

You only get bug-patches with minor gameplay-adjustments added downloadable for free. A complicated feature like MP will obviously be bundled together with the reduced price Civ-3 expansion-pack.

Quote:

I wont pay for the game twice !!!!

Pay twice? What do you mean?

You pay a reduced price for a great Civ-3 expansion-pack with all kinds of cool stuff, where complete multiplayer-support is only one added feature amongst other things.

If your planning to pirate yourself a copy, at least constrict yourself to the expansion-pack. You DO at least want to "pay once", do you? At least that. I would highly recommend to pay both the main game and the expected expansion-pack as fully legal copies. Otherwise theres no incentive for them to add anything.

reds4ever · September 9, 2001, 08:53

i'm going to download one or the other, but i will be buying a copy and i think thats fair enuf! there is no chance the MP expansion will be free, so F*&k 'em! i don't understand why they feel the need to rush the game out for christmas, it's not like Civ depends on impulse shoppers, people have been waiting for 6 years for this game, theres a commited community, sales don't depend on o load of spotty 8 year olds going "gee mom, that looks neat! can i have it for christmas?"

tniem · September 9, 2001, 11:38

Quote:

Originally posted by reds4ever
it's not like Civ depends on impulse shoppers, people have been waiting for 6 years for this game, theres a commited community, sales don't depend on o load of spotty 8 year olds going "gee mom, that looks neat! can i have it for christmas?"

Agreed. Had they waited for spring they would have had the market to themselves and WarCraft III. So they beat WarCraft one week when all of ACS go out and buy it and the talk of the industry is Sid. The buzz will generate and next Christmas it will still be a hot seller. I guess though Infogrames stock holders are more important than us. Ah the corporate world

Leonidas · September 9, 2001, 11:45

If this is true, then it sounds like the game is being "rushed" to meet a deadline date, rather than it being polished to include all the "extras", one would expect in a strategy game of this type.

A chill runs down my back every time I hear a game is being released on a certain date because of a deadline.

What else will be missing from this game? What type of bugs are we likely to encounter? I for one am tired of downloading patch after patch for a game, that should have been made to work properly in the first place.

Who's going to pay full price for the Special Edition now that we have suspicions about it missing some game features?

The more I hear about this game, the more worried I become.

Nemo · September 9, 2001, 13:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Rhysie
People saying they are going to download it just because it doesn't have MP support are cheap idiots.

If someone d/l's it with intent on buying it when MP comes out I think that that is not being cheap, but a want to not get ripped off and have to buy the SP 2 times. If there is no intent on buying it, then I agree that they are cheep idiots

Quote:

Originally posted by Rhysie
Don't use this issue as a cover up to hide your low morality.

If a company purposely leaves a critical aspect of a product out with intent to make more money at a later time, then who really has the low morality? In times like this I think that the companies who cry out "they infringed our copyrights ..blah, blah, blah, by downloading a warez" are only being hypocritical, because they do not see the rights their customers have...the right to not be conned, to not be ripped off, the right to not have their hard earned money taken from them twice for the same product.

Imagine if you paid for a fully loaded car, only to get a stripped down model, and have the dealer tell you, "you can get all the extras in 6 months, we just didn't have time to put them in right now. we are too busy" then in 6 months you go back and they say "oh, yeah, you'll have to buy a whole new car of the same make and model, but this time we'll give you the extras." I will guarantee that if this happened, car vandalism would sky rocket, too! People don't like being conned out of their hard earned money

, the government already does it once each pay check

So, if this gamed gets its profits cut due to warez, I think they have Infograms' marketing department to thank for it. And I would feel bad for Firaxis for picking the wrong publisher, a publisher which seems to have shafted them on their reputation for producing quality games.

If MP is truly being released separately, then I will only blame Infograms, they are the decision makers here. And Firaxis should think about their reputation (so far, it's good) next time they pick a publisher.

ProfessorPhobos · September 9, 2001, 13:32

Let's think about Firaxis for a moment. They have stated that they feel the Single Player component of the game is finished, and it's pretty darn good. So for the sake of argument, let's assume that's true.

Now, this rumor says that Firaxis might not have full multiplayer support ready by their Infogames deadline, probably forcing them to release it later in an expansion pack. (Certainly containing extra goodies to make up for the extra money)

Now, let's say Firaxis does what the screaming in this forum suggests- and keeps the incomplete multiplayer in the first release. Now they are damned by complaints anyway- you'll ***** and moan about the crappy multiplayer.(Which probably means "Online play", not PBEM or Hotseat.)

So they can either release a working multiplayer later, with lots of extra goodies to soften the blow, or a non-working multiplayer at first, thus slamming them with accusations of "incompleteness."

Reviews will be harder on games with bad multiplayer than with games without multiplayer at all.(Again, this probably means online play. PBEM shouldn't be affected, I think.)

Personally, I'd rather wait for working multiplayer+extra goodies, than get a game with good singleplayer+terrible multiplayer+no extra goodies.

lockstep · September 9, 2001, 13:42

I posted this already in another thread, it´s a quote from civfanatics.com (September 8):

'According to Jeff Vitous of WarGamer.com, an Infogrames representive told him that Firaxis didn't start working on multiplayer until early August.'

dainbramaged13 · September 9, 2001, 14:50

Quote:

Originally posted by reds4ever
it's not like Civ depends on impulse shoppers, people have been waiting for 6 years for this game, theres a commited community, sales don't depend on o load of spotty 8 year olds going "gee mom, that looks neat! can i have it for christmas?"

thats how i got civ2!

of course i was 10, but...

Quote:

If a company purpos++++leaves a critical aspect of a product out with intent to make more money at a later time, then who really has the low morality?

DO you really think firaxis/infogrames is doing it ON PURPOSE!?!

I think firaxis had the deadline, so they made a desicion at some point that they couldn't finish both parts by the deadline in full, so they decided to make SP complete by the deadline, and release multiplayer later, also complete, instead of releasing a half-baked/incomplete version of both on the deadline. The option was NOT there for them to release both at a later date.

Another thing, kind of related to the above staement, is that while everyone here at apolyton and other gaming sites love to trash deadlines, they are important in the world of business, finance, and economics, and you really cant be so selfish as to ask firaxis to follow your orders as opposed to their bosses.

Also, i think that the points I am making have already been made a thousand times, in slightly different ways, and the same thing for the points those opposed to me. We just keeping being lured to pressing that 'reply' button one more time because we believe were going to change someones mind. And so far, i havent seen anyones mind changed. so essentially, after the first page of presenting opinions and backing each other up, this thread is useless. I feel like im reading the same thing over and over again.

just my $0.02

Bugs ****ing Bunny · September 9, 2001, 16:02

Polite request to Firaxis.

Finish the ****er before you sell it. Thank you.

ProfessorPhobos · September 9, 2001, 16:20

<<<,Polite request to Firaxis.

Finish the ****er before you sell it. Thank you.>>>>>

Sorry, but Firaxis isn't selling Civiliazation 3. Infogames is. And Infogames is going to sell it when Infogames wants to sell it, even if Firaxis isn't ready.

Inverse Icarus · September 9, 2001, 16:27

Quote:

Originally posted by d_dudy
quit whining! i always thought civ was a great solitary game. mp is sloooooow. besides, where you planning to play mp right when you got it? i would think you would all like to play the game by yourself for ahwhile. maybe 6 months is a while to wait but i don't think it's that big of a deal

edit:yet another typo

actually, my first game is planmned to be a MP game...

Gramphos · September 9, 2001, 16:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Wittlich
Doesn't this sound familiar:
a. First there was Civilization - then CIVNET.
b. Then there was Civilization II - Then CivII Multiplayer Gold Edition (MGE).
c. Now it looks like there will be CivIII, and aprox. 6 months later, what? CivIII Multiplayer?

So true, they have always been working on multiplayer before, but it is not finished by the time the game is. Take both Civ2 and Colonization (yes Colonization) for example. I know there is no Colonization Multiplater edition, but the fact is that if you check the text-files containing the menus of Colonization it includes a Multiplayer start menu, just as original Civ2.

Bugs ****ing Bunny · September 9, 2001, 17:02

Cheers, Phobos. It's always refreshing to encounter people who aren't afraid to exercise their pedantry within seconds of joining.

Feel free to substitute "Infogames" where appropriate.

Rhysie · September 9, 2001, 18:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Nemo

If someone d/l's it with intent on buying it when MP comes out I think that that is not being cheap, but a want to not get ripped off and have to buy the SP 2 times. If there is no intent on buying it, then I agree that they are cheep idiots

Sure, you're right. BUT, if you don't think the SP is worth buying, why don't you just wait for the MP version and buy that? Then you have only paid for it once, and haven't downloaded anything.

And if you think the SP is worth buying but you don't think its fair to pay twice for MP, then buy the SP and then make the decision to download or not when the MP comes out. It will probably be free anyway!

Quote:

Imagine if you paid for a fully loaded car, only to get a stripped down model, and have the dealer tell you, "you can get all the extras in 6 months, we just didn't have time to put them in right now. we are too busy"

This is a totally different situation. For a start, you haven't paid for the game yet. If you want the 'fully loaded game' and they are offering you a 'stripped down model', then simply don't buy it! Tell them you'll come back in six months. No one is forcing you people to own a copy of the game, if you don't want to pay for it without MP, then _PRETEND THE RELEASE WAS DELAYED_ and just buy it when the MP version comes out...

ProfessorPhobos · September 9, 2001, 20:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Bugs ****ing Bunny
Cheers, Phobos. It's always refreshing to encounter people who aren't afraid to exercise their pedantry within seconds of joining.

Feel free to substitute "Infogames" where appropriate.

I only joined to offer a more moderate, calm, viewpoint in the face of all this screaming.

I do think it's an important difference- personally attacking the Firaxians solves nothing. If you want to get something done, Infogames is the root of the problem, I think.

Personally, I'd mostly play Single Player anyway, so Multiplayer isn't a big deal. I'd give it a shot though. I think it's telling that 6 months is what's required to get multiplayer done- obviously it's not even close to ready now. I'm willing to wait. Patience, is, after all, a virtue.

Leonidas · September 9, 2001, 20:37

Firaxis should have stood up to Infogrames - Sid's name has to mean something in the gaming world.

Ensemble stood up to Microsoft when it wanted Age of Empires released early. Ensemble convinced Microsoft that they had a hell of a product, but they needed more time and money to finish it properly. And the rest is history. . .

Leonidas · September 9, 2001, 20:41

Sid's name is one of the most respected names in the gaming community.

I thought the last game in the world I would have to worry about being rushed out the door would be Civ3. . .

Urban Ranger · September 10, 2001, 01:58

Am I the only person who found this hysteria hilarious?

LaRusso · September 10, 2001, 03:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Am I the only person who found this hysteria hilarious?

no

Leonidas · September 10, 2001, 11:11

If wanting to buy a quality product means being hysterical - then I'm guilty.

If being tired of downloading patches to fix buggy games means being hysterical - then I'm guilty.

If hoping for the best for Civ3 but receiving less means being hysterical - then I'm guilty.

If buying a game that has left out features because of a deadline means being hysterical - then I'm guilty.

If being a reasonable, thinking person in the face of uncritical acceptance of any game that is released means being hysterical - then I'm guilty.

If holding game companies accountable for their decisions and games means being hysterical - then I'm guilty.

I rarely voice my opinion about a game, except the ones I really care about; you know, the games that have the potential to rise above all the rest, and that offer a unique experience. . .

But on the flip side, there are those who don't care. . . . There are those who laugh, because any game is the same as another. . . any experience will do. . .

Yes, there are those who laugh. But after a while, the laughter becomes so loud and continuous that it becomes hysterical. . .

Strait jacket anyone?

yin26 · September 10, 2001, 11:18

Leonidas: Do you have a copyright on that? I especially like the "any experience will do" reference. So true. So sad and true. I think most of these people wanting the game yesterday are prepared to delete it off the HD the day after...because a new experience just got shrink wrapped.

Robert Plomp · September 10, 2001, 11:24

Leonidas, you forgot one.

If several people start several threads because of one statement of an email containing an unconfimred rumor and hundredsd of people start to speculate over it means being hysterical...... then we're all guilty.

Leonidas · September 10, 2001, 11:51

yin: no copyright. Thanks for the feedback

cybershy: if the lack of MP is just a "rumour", where is Firaxis' PR person to quash it?

The issue is not just over MP - that is just something else that MAY have been left out of the game. The issue really is over ALL the things that have been left out of this game. There are probably many other things that have been left out that we don't know about.

Again, I repeat - the issue is not about whether MP is in the game or not. The issue goes far deeper - it goes to the attitude that is being displayed towards the release of this game. Cuts are being made, compromises are being instituted, testing has been reduced. . . and all of it because of a deadline.

Remember, this is all happening because Firaxis is trying to meet a deadline date. You can bet this game will have bugs. It's just way to complex of a game not to have extensive outside testing.

Personally, I'm tired of paying full price for a game, only to be used as a beta tester for the "Gold Edition" that is released 6 months to a year later.

If you want to see an example of this, just check out Europa Universalis. This game has fantastic potential. But this game has also been through NINE patches. Yes nine. And it still crashes on many computers. The coming release of Europa Universalis 2 this fall, is basically what EU1 should have been.

General Ludd · September 10, 2001, 11:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Leonidas

cybershy: if the lack of MP is just a "rumour", where is Firaxis' PR person to quash it?

If it is more then just a rumour where is the Firaxis PR person to confirm it?

Robert Plomp · September 10, 2001, 12:03

[qoute]The issue really is over ALL the things that have been left out of this game. There are probably many other things that have been left out that we don't know about[/quote]

I'm sure there are hundreds of things being left out.
I'm sure every game has more not included features than included features.

Pherhaps Firaxis had to decide between:
- good but slightly unbalanced SP and MP
- very balanced SP without MP

and they chose MP. We don't know.
Pherhaps MP will be included *and* balanced SP.

But the lack of 800x600 support and a demo doesn't mean the game is rushed or unbalanced. It just means that they don't think a demo will be good and 800x600 will be needed by much people.

If it'll cost $500,000 to make the game 800x600 while there are only about 1000 people left over with such a screen...........

Pherhaps they thought the time they need to build a demo could be better used for beta testing...........
Pherhaps they thought Civ3 is that excellent that any demo would only ruin the view people have about it because it's not complete.

the thing is that we just don't know anything.
Of course I'm really dissapointed that Mike from Firaxis was reading the forums for 30 minutes and didn't give any reaction.

That pretty sucks.
but we can't learn anything from the quality of the game through these things.

CyberShy

mactbone · September 10, 2001, 13:06

Yay!!! The voice(s) of reason! I'm not alone! I've been arguing in a lot of threads about taking a wait and see approach on the MP/ noMP issue. Not everyting is cut and dried, give the developement team a break, it's not like every Civver on the planet isn't expecting the best game ever or anything.

Leonidas · September 10, 2001, 13:19

No one is saying anything about the development team or even Firaxis.

Infogrames has set the deadline date. Period.

In turn, the people at Firaxis have had to decide what they can or cannot implement in the game by that deadline date.

Will things be left out of the game? Duh. . .

Will a series of patches be released to fix all the things the in-house testers did not find or have the time to fix? Duh. . .

Will an expansion pack be put out 6 months from now that will include many of the things that didn't make it into the game because of this release date? Duh. . .

Mergle · September 10, 2001, 14:12

Well, I never play multiplayer (I simply don't have the time), but this scenario has got me very worried. The point (as many are saying) is that it suggests many other things are being left out.

Those who are saying "don't blame FIRAXIS, blame infogrames for setting the deadline" are missing the point. FIRAXIS should have negotiated a contract that they could fulfill. If they failed to judge how long it would take them to code their game, that's their lookout.

I will say I am dismayed by FIRAXIS' failure to confirm or deny this rumour. It would be so easy to deny, so I suspect it is true. It's a bit shoddy of FIRAXIS not to come clean with us now the cat's out of the bag, if it's true.