Why Firaxis SHOULDN'T upgrade the editor (Attn: Firaxis)

TCO · November 14, 2001, 22:27

Firaxis,

In your recent release we noticed 3 interesting things.

1. The editor can not be used to make scenarios.
2. There were no scenarios in the game (not even the historic 2 like in 2.4.2)
3. No mention of the outcome of the "dozen" scenarios you admitted to already working on.

Now it's pretty obvious that we're going to be able to milk Civ for some good expansion packs. And scenarios will be part of or maybe even a complete expansion pack...remember CiC?

So, let's NOT upgrade the editor until we've got our own scenarios on the market. This will do several good things:

-Corners the market on scenarios for a while.

-Prevents those pesky Scenario League hot shots from making better stuff than us and showing us up.

-Leaves room for including good editor later (in a couple years) as part of a "Civ3FW" pack. (That way we make more money.)

I seriously think all of this is the best way to go, providing the base game is selling well. If our sales fall, we'll have to give more stuff away as part of the base game (and the suckers...err...early purchasers) will get a free ride. But hopefully this will not be the case and we can milk this thing effectively for a decent return on investment.

TheDarkside · November 14, 2001, 22:34

my sarcasm meter is broken, so i have to ask, are you being sarcastic?

TCO · November 14, 2001, 22:39

Quote:

Originally posted by TheDarkside
my sarcasm meter is broken, so i have to ask, are you being sarcastic?

Well I started that way. Then as I wrote it down, it started making sense and I shifted into conspiracy mode. As I finished up, I realized it was a worthwhile idea. I mean they MIGHT make more money this way.

TheDarkside · November 14, 2001, 22:45

yeah thats what i figured... had to make sure though

CygnusZ · November 14, 2001, 22:45

Well, let's put it this way. If they make an expansion pack something has to sell it. I really don't think the scenario market is really going to tbe the "make or break" factor for the expansion pack so much as multiplayer is.

Infogames would have to be pretty dim-witted to give out the multiplayer code to CivIII for free knowing that a great number of people are going to buy it. That said, there's no real reason keep the breaks upon the Scenario community, as it makes only a small fraction of the civ community.

Come to think of it, why waste capital on a better Scenario Editor when you could just not make one at all?

CygnusZ · November 14, 2001, 22:48

I, just realized in my last point that I made the insinuation that Firaxis current editor is so terrible that it's like having no editor at all! It really is a terrible piece of work, Firaxis can't be proud of putting such a piece of crap in with their final game.

TCO · November 14, 2001, 23:12

Cygnuz, they managed to sell both FW and CiC...don't you think they can make at least one expansion sans MP?

DinoDoc · November 14, 2001, 23:17

Quote:

Originally posted by GP
Cygnuz, they managed to sell both FW and CiC...don't you think they can make at least one expansion sans MP?

The market has changed since Civ2 was first released.

TCO · November 14, 2001, 23:37

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

The market has changed since Civ2 was first released.

backup? which direction has it changed?

d_dudy · November 14, 2001, 23:52

firaxis is in debt, isn't it? would it be so bad for them to make money? now, they still shouldn't have lied to us but if they need the money, and you guys want more civ in the future i guess we gotta put up with it. or wait for ctp3!!!
(yippee)

really, if you pay $45-$55 for this game and you play it hours and hours and hours, didn't you get a good deal? better than $8 bucks for a movie, even a really good one? because that's what civ is, really good entertainment. and arent you getting it pretty cheaply when you think of it.

ok, i haven't played civ3 yet, i want to say that upfront, but the hours i spent on civ1 and 2......it was worth whatever i paid for them (actually, my brother got civ1 for christman like 10 years ago and i started playing then, when i was 7! i was in 1st grade and i still got that game!)

i love civ, and i would pay by the hour if i had to.

TCO · November 15, 2001, 00:05

Quote:

Originally posted by d_dudy
firaxis is in debt, isn't it? would it be so bad for them to make money? now, they still shouldn't have lied to us but if they need the money, and you guys want more civ in the future i guess we gotta put up with it. or wait for ctp3!!!
(yippee)

really, if you pay $45-$55 for this game and you play it hours and hours and hours, didn't you get a good deal? better than $8 bucks for a movie, even a really good one? because that's what civ is, really good entertainment. and arent you getting it pretty cheaply when you think of it.

Great points!!

Yin and Dinodoc need to understand that a company like Firaxis can go under from UNDERpricing just as easily as from overpricing. And what we're talking about is a pricing issue. Should we charge for expansions or not?

DinoDoc · November 15, 2001, 00:08

Quote:

Originally posted by GP
backup? which direction has it changed?

Name a successful strategy game that has to wait for an X-Pac that provides features that were to have been included in the original game.

TCO · November 15, 2001, 00:12

Quote:

Originally posted by d_dudy

i love civ, and i would pay by the hour if i had to.

looks like there's a market for the pay per play plan that Markos, Jeff Briggs and I are concocting...

TCO · November 15, 2001, 00:15

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Name a successful strategy game that has to wait for an X-Pac that provides features that were to have been included in the original game.

Civ2.

Now I'm still waiting for some evidence (or at the least expanded description) of the changed market between 1997 and 2001...

TCO · November 15, 2001, 00:19

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Name a successful strategy game that has to wait for an X-Pac that provides features that were to have been included in the original game.

By the way is this the way you normally respond to being called to back up your statements? Made me laugh when I figured out your trick...

DinoDoc · November 15, 2001, 00:21

Quote:

Originally posted by GP
Civ2.

Ok, I'll bite. What feature that was listed on the box of Civ2 was virtually inoperable out of the box but was later fixed in an x-pac?

Quote:

Now I'm still waiting for some evidence (or at the least expanded description) of the changed market between 1997 and 2001...

I think the fact that that released MP for SMAC without charging their customers more money is proof enough.

TCO · November 15, 2001, 00:25

Dino (btw are you Squaladon/Baryonyx/etc.?):

Think for a second....

We know that expansion packs do exist.

This tells us a few things.

1. Gamers are willing to pay "double" for added features.

2. Some gamers are willing to play games with limited features. (the people who buy the basic game and not the expansion.)

You can use whatever term you want to decide wether a feature is core (MP) or tangential (scenarios) to a game. But the bottom line is what will the market bear?

TCO · November 15, 2001, 00:28

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Ok, I'll bite. What feature that was listed on the box of Civ2 was virtually inoperable out of the box but was later fixed in an x-pac?

MP was added in the MGE XP. AND they charged for it!! And made money!!!

DinoDoc · November 15, 2001, 00:32

Quote:

Originally posted by GP
MP was added in the MGE XP. AND they charged for it!! And made money!!!

Was that listed on the box as the editor was on the Civ3 box?

TCO · November 15, 2001, 00:39

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

I think the fact that that released MP for SMAC without charging their customers more money is proof enough.

Ok...very interesting example. (And more responsive.)

Let's think about this more deeply:

-Why did they decide to do this? Was it in response to marketing surveys? Was it in response to failures of games that lacked MP? Was it because the market for a space game was smaller? (and thus they needed to pack more into the game to induce people to part with dollars.)

We don't know all the answers but we can look at some interesting data.

How do Civ2, SMAC and Civ3 sales compare? If Civ3 is selling better than SMAC, that tells you something. Either that MP is not required or that the two games have different characteristics that complicate comparison anyway.) If Civ3 is selling comparably to Civ2, than that argues that the market HASN'T changed. Let's wait for some of Markos's best-seller list reports. That should help us out here...

If it were me, I wouldn't be so quick to asume a market changing...it sounds more like you're thinking with your heart rather than head. (You don't want to pay for MP so you make the argument that Firaxis is better-off from a business perscpective tossing MP into the basic game.)

TCO · November 15, 2001, 00:54

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Was that listed on the box as the editor was on the Civ3 box?

1. I don't know(honest)? Did they advertise an editor in 2.4.2? Kinda tangential to our earlier posts...

2. You're confounding two issues. Ethical one of "truth in packaging" and the business one of "best pricing/release schemes." Both are interesting but let's be clear which we discuss at which time. Fair?

This whole PC-boosting discussion started (for me) in reponse to your single remark "but the market has changed". Let's not shift to this new consideration of fair advertising unless we do it cleanly and hopefully finish the earlier one off.

3. As it is, your current tack is more along the lines of "market hasn't changed"! And it doesn't address the question of whether market will pay for FW or CiC equivalents. (That's what we started with...)

4. By the way, I think the "fair advertising" issue is relavant to the overall decision of "patch or pay".

5. New point: I notice that you also think MP should have been included (from other threads). Surely the "fair advertising" argument doesn't apply here except for a very small portion of buyers who bought before MP was dropped...

Moral Hazard · November 15, 2001, 01:07

My opinion is that the best policy for Firaxis is to fix the editor somewhat to allow placement of cities, troops, and flat map support, as well as the ability to add new unit graphics etc. This would be given out free in a patch.

Firaxis would then later add a better toolkit (which allows things like event editing etc.) The toolkit would be bundled with about 10 professionally done scenarios and be sold as an X-Pack. It is important however that the new tool kit provides real advantages that would be used by scenario developers, like a unit graphics creator similar to the one downloadable for the sims. If this is done right it can satisfy both groups (as in reduce bad impressions allowing the original game to still sell well via word of mouth, and bring in extra revenue from those who want really nice scenarios) It is essential that the X-Pack is not 100% compatible i.e new units created on it couldn't be used in the original game.

This would cost more than GP's all or nothing approach, but will I think create greater revenues; assuming scenario developers switch to the X pack. Either way they need to ensure that the X Pack sells enough to create a viable market (Unlike Ctp2)
Of course I'd rather have it all for free

DinoDoc · November 15, 2001, 01:13

Quote:

Originally posted by GP
1. I don't know(honest)? Did they advertise an editor in 2.4.2? Kinda tangential to our earlier posts...

I don't know. I bought Civ2 when the MGE came out.

Quote:

2. You're confounding two issues. Ethical one of "truth in packaging" and the business one of "best pricing/release schemes." Both are interesting but let's be clear which we discuss at which time. Fair?

Since the topic of the thread is the editor and MP is tagential to that discussion, let's deal with truth in advertising issue if you don't mind.

Quote:

3. As it is, your current tack is more along the lines of "market hasn't changed"! And it doesn't address the question of whether market will pay for FW or CiC equivalents. (That's what we started with...)

I actually do think that the market would pay for an x-pac that provides good value for the money. However, I don't think that a TBS game can get away with out either having hotseat of PBEM modes to day as it could in the past.

Quote:

5. New point: I notice that you also think MP should have been included (from other threads).

Yes, I do think that MP should have been included. However, I don't think that its ommission is as egregious as what they did with the editor.

TCO · November 15, 2001, 01:37

Dino,

I guess to summarize all this.

You: say that the market will not pay for scenario packs (like FW and CiC) and ALSO think that the editor should be patched regardless because of "truth in advertising".

I: Think you have a semi-decent case wrt to the "false advertising" claim. (on the editor, not MP.) BUT haven't done much to show that the "market has changed" and won't support scenario packs. Or MP packs.

Unless there are significant new points, we seem to know where each other stands...

BTW: Why'd you change your name so often?

ravagon · November 15, 2001, 03:40

Quote:

Originally posted by TheDarkside
my sarcasm meter is broken, so i have to ask, are you being sarcastic?

Its GP.
Asked and answered.

yin26 · November 15, 2001, 03:59

Quote:

Yin and Dinodoc need to understand that a company like Firaxis can go under from UNDERpricing just as easily as from overpricing. And what we're talking about is a pricing issue. Should we charge for expansions or not?

Well, since I already understand that, is there still a 'need'?

Anybody who thinks clearly about the Civ series will know we have at least one X-pack coming and perhaps other spin offs. I have said a million times that I want Firaxis to make lots of money so they can make better and better games. I'm not against a steep price, either. I would have paid $80 for an LE that actually delivered the spirit of the LE promise.
So for me, money is not an issue. I just don't like being d!cked around. Stare me straight in the face and say: "Sorry. You're gonna have to pay for MP." It's O.K. I can take it. Or stare me in the face and say: "We have no idea if MP will be free or not." In fact, this is what Firaxis finally did in their less than stellar way, but the message to me is clear on Civ3: There are no promises about anything.

In fact, I prefer the no promises approach as opposed to botched PR that hypes one thing and delivers something else or nothing at all. So I say to Firaxis: Make your money. Make lots of it. Just remember that Civ was a cash cow. It's gonna get much harder from here, and messing with the public (even if it's just a perceived messing) could be the kiss of death.

ANY developer is no more than 2 failures away from bankruptcy. I don't care who your top guy is.

Dev · November 15, 2001, 04:14

Of course Civ3 will sell better than SMAC, a lot better too.

They could make an ASCII game and call it Civ4 and it would sell better than SMAC....

Just too bad that SMAC in fact is a better game than Civ3 but marketing > quality.

/dev

TCO · November 15, 2001, 05:03

Quote:

Originally posted by ravagon

Its GP.
Asked and answered.

I like your style...

TCO · November 15, 2001, 05:11

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26

Well, since I already understand that, is there still a 'need'?

Anybody who thinks clearly about the Civ series will know we have at least one X-pack coming and perhaps other spin offs. I have said a million times that I want Firaxis to make lots of money so they can make better and better games. I'm not against a steep price, either. I would have paid $80 for an LE that actually delivered the spirit of the LE promise.
So for me, money is not an issue. I just don't like being d!cked around. Stare me straight in the face and say: "Sorry. You're gonna have to pay for MP." It's O.K. I can take it. Or stare me in the face and say: "We have no idea if MP will be free or not." In fact, this is what Firaxis finally did in their less than stellar way, but the message to me is clear on Civ3: There are no promises about anything.

Nope, need is gone, Yin. And I agree with the rest of your comments. I would only add that I think even Firaxis understands what is different/possible with Civ vs with other games.

Ozymandous · November 15, 2001, 09:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Dev
Of course Civ3 will sell better than SMAC, a lot better too.

They could make an ASCII game and call it Civ4 and it would sell better than SMAC....

Just too bad that SMAC in fact is a better game than Civ3 but marketing > quality.

/dev

Hmm, SMAC is better than Civ3? Well maybe for you but not for everyone. I think Civ3 is better than SMAC, simply because I couldn't get into the "feel" for SMAC. I don't know if it was because of all the "future" tech's, the fact that SMAC seemed to compound many of the "Argh!" factors of Civ2 instead of fixing them or what.

I honestly don't know, but don't baldly state that SMAC is better than Civ3 because for you it may well be better, but for me and more than likely a lot of other people, Civ3 is the best TBS that Sid has been involved with to date.

To judge what you think the market for the game is based on your own perceptions, or the views of the loud faction here who wish it were SMACIV with better graphics, would be hasty and illogical to say the least.

IMHO.

(Note, this is not to say Civ3 is "perfect" just better than the rest, IMHO).