Civ3 - The Marketing Plan

[Kull]

I'm not going to hurl epithets, but it's pretty clear that Firaxis has decided to maximize their profits by following the (unfortunately) successful Civ2 version release path. For the longest time the October release date made no sense to me - since it's really too early for the Christmas buying frenzy - but then it hit me:

1) There's a large latent market of individuals who will buy Civ3 no matter when it comes out, so the first release in October will sweep in a nice wad of cash.

2) As the "Conflicts in Civ" and "Fantastic Worlds" versions proved, there's also a good sized crowd who will spend cash for the tools necessary to make good scenarios - specifically a macro language. By building in backward incompatibility, you also ensure that owners of "vanilla Civ3" will have to upgrade in order to play all the scenarios created (at no expense to Firaxis) by the horde of modders.

I suspect that a macro language DOES exist, but it's being held back for a later, pre-Christmas release.

3) At some point - and the timing is likely to be based more on cash flow concerns as opposed to development issues - Firaxis will release a 2nd upgrade, this one containing the Multiplayer capability.

I'm guessing that Firaxis won't slavishly follow the Civ2 model (which would require the release of TWO macro language upgrade versions before the first multiplayer edition), but in general this is what we can expect.

One thing that's worth looking into is that Firaxis has probably designed the base game to handle both multiplayer and a macro language (if only because it's cheaper to add code than to completely redesign). So for those so inclined, it may be possible to discover these inactive "hooks" and come up with some workarounds of our own.

[dainbramaged13]

elaborate more on the first one. after the october rush, they will hvae ANOTHER rush at christmas right when the game is reduced $10-20 bucks in price ( or maybe not, look at AOK - its stll $50 in some stores.
AND GUESS WHAT!?!? I SUPPORT THEM! THEYRE A ****ING COMPANY! THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY DAMN WELL PLEASE

This thread reeks of libertarianism gone awry.

[Kull]

Originally posted by dainbramaged13

AND GUESS WHAT!?!? I SUPPORT THEM! THEYRE A ****ING COMPANY! THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY DAMN WELL PLEASE

What's with the attitude? I'm simply offering a possible explanation for the otherwise inexplicable omission of a Macro Language and Multiplayer capability. If you want to cheerlead, at least do so with a modicum of thoughtfulness.

[Nemo]

Originally posted by dainbramaged13
AND GUESS WHAT!?!? I SUPPORT THEM! THEYRE A ****ING COMPANY! THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY DAMN WELL PLEASE

ummm....NO. just becuase they are a company does NOT mean that have the right to do whay ever they want (dispite their current belief in this)

so you are saying that a coorperation should have more rights that the individual? this is BS.

[Nemo]

Originally posted by Kull
What's with the attitude? I'm simply offering a possible explanation for the otherwise inexplicable omission of a Macro Language and Multiplayer capability. If you want to cheerlead, at least do so with a modicum of thoughtfulness.

i agree.
kull: it is an insightfull (but i guess some do not agree ) post. nice.

[Akron]

No, I don't think Firaxis is gonna exploit the civ players the same way Microprose did. They were very reasonable with SMAC and patched it quickly, also adding other things (landmarks, PBEM). I think Firaxis will deal with Civ 3 the same way they did with SMAC. I'm pretty sure that multiplayer will either be available in the initial release or will be patched into the game.

[Nemo]

Originally posted by Akron
No, I don't think Firaxis is gonna exploit the civ players the same way Microprose did. They were very reasonable with SMAC and patched it quickly, also adding other things (landmarks, PBEM). I think Firaxis will deal with Civ 3 the same way they did with SMAC. I'm pretty sure that multiplayer will either be available in the initial release or will be patched into the game.

if firaxis was the publisher i would agree. but that is not the case here. infograms is teh publisher. and judging on their PR so far...i think they are even worse then microprose

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Nemo
if firaxis was the publisher i would agree

they werent the publisher with smac either....

[MarkG]

kull, here's something to get you going: firaxis hasnt said a thing about the included scenarios
a world map is confirmed but nothing more.
even the extra scenario of the limited edition seems to be cut

[Nemo]

Originally posted by MarkG
they werent the publisher with smac either....

dang, i'm busted. i hadn't realized that EA was the publisher oh well, then i guess i like EA better than infograms

p.s. hey mark - since you ignored my emails, i would like to make another formal request to put the avatar thingy back to a time limited duration rather than a post count...pleeeeease? all i wanted to do was to put a US flag for an avitar...now i am SOL

[Grim Legacy]

Hmmm this is a very depressing scenario that I hope will not unfold. Not only because that would make me regret feeling spiffy and buying the Limited Edition when Infogrames/Firaxis plans to suck more dollars from me in this sort of way, but also because it would be unacceptable at this point in time.
It's not 1996 anymore. You can't bring out a game that lacks basic features without at least being verbally and publicly raped by Magazine reviewers and a critical 'fan'-base.

[Executor]

Originally posted by Nemo
so you are saying that a coorperation should have more rights that the individual? this is BS.

A corporation employs a lot of individuals. So you're saying one individual should have more rights than a hundred?

A corporation employs a lot of individuals. So you're saying one individual should have more rights than a hundred?

A corporation is an individual of sorts unto itself. Besides, individuals cannot add their rights together in order to create bigger rights - rights are not vector-like in that respect.

And someone give Nemo is g*d*mned custom avatar back already!

[Nemo]

Originally posted by Executor


A corporation employs a lot of individuals. So you're saying one individual should have more rights than a hundred?

huh? i dont get it? how does 1 individual have more rights that 100 individuals? that is insane.

like misterpleasant said:

Besides, individuals cannot add their rights together in order to create bigger rights - rights are not vector-like in that respect.

---

And someone give Nemo is g*d*mned custom avatar back already!

woohoo! thanks misterpleasant!
hey mark: thats 3 votes so far in favor! and my hands are getting tired of typing so many posts! i like reading better than writing

[Melios]

No one from Firaxis/Infogrames has given any official statement that MP is not in the initial release so I don't see any reason to assume there's no MP.

If someone at Firaxis said in an E-Mail that they supposively delaying MP, that does not mean Firaxis is 100% certain of it.

Since nobody from Firaxis has confirmed it, that means there is a very good chance it is going to be in release, because otherwise they would've just said MP is going to be delayed already or else be false advertising. But since they're silent its obviously because MP is still in testing and they don't want to give out any details that could change at any time before release, such as multiplayer modes (e.g. Hot Seat, PBEM, TCP/IP, etc.).

[Simpleton]

I think this lack of MP rumor has been started by Firaxis. They know it's going to be in but they just wanted to stir up talk among Civers so they can surprise us when the game comes out. I have no doubt that it will be in the game.

[dainbramaged13]

Originally posted by Kull


What's with the attitude? I'm simply offering a possible explanation for the otherwise inexplicable omission of a Macro Language and Multiplayer capability. If you want to cheerlead, at least do so with a modicum of thoughtfulness.

sorry about the 'attitude.' ive just seen so many related posts lat++++and it makes me mad...

the macro uninclusion (word? dis- maybe) is perfectly explainable... they have a good editor instead. Reasons: they want this to be a game for the public, not just for programmers. And even on this site, an overwhelming majority of peopel on a poll preferred editors

Multiplayer is also explainable - they just didn't have time for it within the release date...

of course im not saying your theories are wrong, in fact their probably right, im just critisizing the fact that your critisizing them for doing it. If you've ever studied economics, the whole point of a company is to make money, and to do that they make a price that maximizes profits (where the supply and demand curves meet)

from a post by connorkimbro

I hate this argument. If it makes you unhappy, then don't buy it. If it's not worth your money, then don't buy it. They're not forcing you to buy it. They are the ones making the product, they get to set the price. YOU, the consumer, get to decide if you like the price or not. Why should they ask one cent less than you are willing to pay for it? If they ask too much, and people don't buy it, then it's their loss, but so what? It's still their right to set the price. Marketing is about finding the point where profit is maximised. It's not about "how to get this product to whoever wants it for free." This argument is like them setting a price, you NOT buying the game, and the firaxis complaing, saying that it's not FAIR that you didn't buy the game, after they put all that hard work into it.

I see someone got their custom avatar back . . .

I think this lack of MP rumor has been started by Firaxis. They know it's going to be in but they just wanted to stir up talk among Civers so they can surprise us when the game comes out. I have no doubt that it will be in the game.

It's one thing to think its a rumor, it's another thing completely to try to fool yourself inot thinking Firaxis cares about suprising veteran players. 'Simpleton' is right . . .

from a post by connorkimbro
quote:

I hate this argument. If it makes you unhappy, then don't buy it. If it's not worth your money, then don't buy it. They're not forcing you to buy it. They are the ones making the product, they get to set the price. YOU, the consumer, get to decide if you like the price or not. Why should they ask one cent less than you are willing to pay for it? If they ask too much, and people don't buy it, then it's their loss, but so what? It's still their right to set the price. Marketing is about finding the point where profit is maximised. It's not about "how to get this product to whoever wants it for free." This argument is like them setting a price, you NOT buying the game, and the firaxis complaing, saying that it's not FAIR that you didn't buy the game, after they put all that hard work into it.

Someone get ConnorKimbro a prozac . . .
He's about to have a libertarian seizure

[jdd2007]

i think that october is a perfect release date for the already mentioned reasons and the fact that many people will either reccomend it to friends, give it to friends or both. this word by(?) mouth strategy worked for both other civs, and it should work again...

[Sarxis]

October is good.
Marketing is good.
CivIII is VERY good.

I can't say that I blame them for wanting to maximize profits on their product. Hey, it's the Capitalist way!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by dainbramaged13


of course im not saying your theories are wrong, in fact their probably right, im just critisizing the fact that your critisizing them for doing it. If you've ever studied economics, the whole point of a company is to make money, and to do that they make a price that maximizes profits (where the supply and demand curves meet)

you want to study some more advanced economics? - here goes

consumers maximize utility by consuming a product when the utility (benefit, pleasure, whatever) from that product exceeds the price they must pay. Thats the basis for the demand side of the the demand and supply curves you're talking about (marginal cost, the usual basis for supply curves, is problematic for intellectual products like books, software or PC games where variable costs are trivial and fixed costs very high)

Consumers in the real world face the dilemna that they DONT know the utility they will get from a product. They will therefore engage in activities to gain INFORMATION about products before they buy them. While these activities may be costly, they will engage in them as long the benefits ( of the additional info) exceed the cost.

A forum like this exists in part as a place where people exchange such consumer information. Some come here for the info, some gain utility from the process of info exchange itself Kull by discussing Firaxis' possible strategy was attempting to improve consumer information, and thus maximize utility - a perfect example of the free market in action

You, by spamming this thread, are interfering with the efficiency of the free market.

and oh, yeah, i have studied economics.

LOTM

[JellyDonut]

Originally posted by Anunikoba
I can't say that I blame them for wanting to maximize profits on their product. Hey, it's the Capitalist way!

Vy kapitalisticheskija svinja!

[korn469]

all of this talk about economics has so far left one thing out, namely competition

a company could have a good product and sell it at a good price, but if a competitor has a better product and sells it at a lower price then the first company will be in trouble

i personally think that Civ3 will be better than SMAC which was better than Civ2, but lets face it, civ3 is a single player TBS game, certainly not a genre which many people rave about, and games even with a great new graphic overhaul don't automatically sell...look at Emperor: Battle for Dune, great new graphic engine same old C&C gameplay, and it did ok but didn't shatter any records

there are those that say Multiplayer doesn't matter, well as of 1:17am EST october 7, 2001 there are 258,663 users on battlenet at this moment while apolyton has 11,786 registered members total, and 84 people online...Most users ever online was 248 on 11-09-2001 at 15:23

my personal belief is that unlike what kull has predicted that Civ3 will not follow the same gameplan as Civ2, i personally think that Civ3 will release Multiplayer as a free patch if it is not in the game already (from the sounds of it, i highly doubt that civ3 will ship with MP) and that civ3 will have a single expansion

first there is too much competition for gaming dollars in my opinion for civ3 to release key features over a number 30 dollar expansions and gold updates, if they hold back on features they will cut down on the number of customers who think that civ3 and all of its expansions are a good deal

people have alternatives: empire earth, star wars: galactic battlegrounds, MoO3, EU2, WarCraft3 just to name a few of the upcoming strategy games...yes EU2 might not sell a single copy if it and civ3 both cost $50, but if civ3 costs $140 to get all of the parts and EU2 costs $50 then i think customers might think twice before they pick up civ3

do i think civ3 will be a hit? yes
do i think customers would pay any price to have civ3? no

if civ3 is priced above what many are willing to pay for it, i think that there is a distinct possibility some customers who would have bought the game at $50 might go and download a warez copy of civ3 instead of paying $140 for it

personally i disagree with warez, i have never downloaded a warez game and i never plan on doing it, but i can see how people are justify it...i believe if a company charges more than what i am willing to pay for a product then i will refuse to buy that product and warn others they are getting ripped off

so what i look forward to is the following

*civ3 comes out at the end of october without MP, to maximize christmas sells
*MP is added on later in a free patch
*the civ3 expansion comes out around june 2002
*august 2002 they release Civ3 and the Expansion bundled together, quite possibly in a new Tin (like the LE edition)

[Moral Hazard]

Kull et al:

I couldn't disagree more; the size pf the market for an expansion pack is determined purely buy the number of people, who purchased the game! Game companies do not pull features from a game to put into an expansion pack later, because you can always improve any game. Take the Sims for example ( a game I'll never understand) by all standards the first release was both polished and finished. EA has gone on to release two expansion packs which have both sold extremely well, because their was a large market already and the player wanted more. Pulling important features from initial release will lower sales for the original game, lowering sales for an expansion pack. Which also explains why patches come before the expansion pack.

As to the market who will buy Civ regardless, they are insignificant compared to the market who with a game like Civ will pick it up later thanks to word of mouth. Not entirely true in the FPS market where sales dip sharply after a few months, due to very short shelf lives.

The reason features are pulled before release is not to increase revenue over a long run, but to meet a release date and get often much needed revenue in the short run, as well as lower costs. Meeting release dates isn't necessarily a short term decision, because if you take too long you'll be outpaced by your competitors destroying LT revenue. Taking too long to release also kills your buzz. Duke Nukem Forever will probably suffer from both of the above.

So Capitalism does work.

LOTM:
To be fair the producer probably has to deal with more uncertainity in maximizing their profits.

[Jamison]

Originally posted by JellyDonut


Vy kapitalisticheskija svinja!

huh?

[korn469]

Moral Hazard

i agree with you completely!
i just wish my post had of been as eloquent as your's
and if features (like MP) did get cut from Civ3 i highly doubt it was (as the conspiracy theorist would have us believe) to increase long term revenue from civ3 by bundling them as seperate features, but it was like you said, time had ran out on the clock and civ3 had to come out

blizzard is the only company that i know of which actually improves their games when they delay them, most of the time when a game is continously delayed it is going to fail, daikatana is a perfect example

[Moral Hazard]

Thought I'd add that the market for expansion packs is not just those who bought the game, but those who bought and are either still playing it, or are interested in playing it again AKA happy consumers.

Oh and why do some people try to misuse economics to tell people to stop *****ing about a companies actions. When as LOTM pointed out the complainers are contributing by improving decision making, which helps an economy. There's nothing in economics which says the producer should be protected from the anger of thier consumers.

[Moral Hazard]

Korn:

Thanks. You also brought up the other key factor: Competition, which will kill crappy addons in todays market.

Yes Blizzard and Maxis are amazing companies and provide the model of how to do business in the brutal PC Game industry.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Kull et al:

LOTM:
To be fair the producer probably has to deal with more uncertainity in maximizing their profits.

They certainly face uncertainties. Thats not the point. I was replying to someone who seemed to think that holding a discussion of Firaxis's strategies here was somehow "anti-capitalist". Firaxis and Infogames face uncertainties, particularly demand uncertainties, and we can be sure they are doing their best to figure out consumer behavior and consumer strategies in order to manage that uncertainty. On our part it is not at all unreasonable to discuss their strategy as we make our decisions - which include not merely the binary decision of buy/not buy, but the decision of when to buy. I can pay $50 to 60 US to get the game right away (not to mention the upgrade costs for my PC) or I can delay several months (by which time there is a likelihood I will have already upgrade or replaced my PC) If there is a significant probability that important features will be released later as part of a follow-on product (a la FW, etc) that adds to the arguments for waiting.


LOTM