the ea-sports model

what would think if instead of 2-3 years, we had a new civ version every year? that would mean smaller changes but new versions sooner

comments?

[DarkCloud]

hmmm... if the games were not buggy... then yes, but they should have some notable improvements. And every 2 years redesign the engine/ this would make the release list like so:

1 year
1 year
2 years
1 year
1 year
2 years
etc. ad infinitum

[raingoon]

Hmm... Interesting idea, sort of keep scaling it up. Pros -- an on-going dialogue between users and programmers, constantly improving the model. Cons -- an on-going dialogue between users and programmers constantly improving the model.

I think this will exist in the alternative civs, such as Slick6 or Guns, Germs and Steel, etc. But with a flagship game, I would think you set out to paint the Sistine Chapel in one stroke, because a) you're the only one with the resources to try, and b) you just might reach perfection, whereas the constantly scaling model, by definition, never will.

[DarkCloud]

Yes, the problem is it might not sell enough if it comes out every year with few innovations as the fan base may not be strong enough.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by DarkCloud on 12-17-2000 04:50 PM Yes, the problem is it might not sell enough if it comes out every year with few innovations as the fan base may not be strong enough.

Infact, i think the exact opposite. Just because the fan-base are so specialized and dedicated, they are likely to buy such mini-upgrades anyway.
What i would like to see is enhanced scenario-packs, that also contained some nice mini-changes, tweaks and additions, that went far beyond small bug-patches. The price-tag would be lower then a fullprice game, but yet higher then a standard scenario-pack.

[Adm.Naismith]

The concept is far from silly: in fact I was thinking to write about this two months ago, after reading an interesting analysis by Gartner Group.

Keeping short, the article was about Just In Time business software, suggesting a model of small modules, no beta, pay per use, fine granularity.

You should build the package you need, chosing from a list of available little modules, of course with a good messaging system for linking them.

Translating it to a CIV game, we can dream of a main game structure (e.g. the graphic engine and map model, just to fix a common background) where you can chose the diplomacy model, the research model and technology tree, the production model, the unit workshop model, the economy model, etc. etc.

Properly balancing all that mix can become a nightmare, as mastering the resulting game every time you change a module, but if trimming and fine tuning can be done externally (i.e. at the player level) and the messaging system perfectly developed, this game can fit everyone taste and really kill every other product founded on the old "monholitic" model.

I can imagine team ("tribe" or "gild") of players sharing the same kit of module and flaming others choice at every forum and newsgroup

I can also imagine a different selling model (basic game on conventional shops, list of modules availabel on Internet only at reduced price, as Ralf suggest.
Before flaming me about download trouble and cost, please consider that a JIT module should be a lot smaller than a full game or a main patch: something under one MB, according to Gartner Group (about business software, I must underline).

MarkG, this is quite different from EA sport games, where AFAIK the software is still monholitic, and update are mainly a "cash cow" excuse, just for patching some part and adding last rosters and statistics.
This instead is a whole new approach that can be the next best thing after sliced bread or the worst "flop" after _______ (please fill the line as you like)


------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[yin26]

Markos,

Good question. Personally, I enjoy TBS in phases. I'll go for long, dry spells without *any* TBS. In fact, I haven't played a TBS since SMAC (though I bought the super-edition of HoMM3...just never got into it).

However, after all this dedicated RTS-ing (AoK) and giving Ultima 9 another chance (works well now, guys, give it a try)...I'm ready for a solid TBS like Civ3.

So in my mind, I think every 2-3 years is good enough for a new game as long as proper support in terms of patchs, maps etc. are doled out in between. That way you get a true step up with each new game and just enough goodies to keep you interested in the previous title while waiting.

[Grumbold]

I think it comes down to whether you want to play a truly 'new' TBS every so often or would be happy to keep replaying the 'best' one with occasional rule changes and expansions. Personally I'm happy for Civ to be on a longer development schedule provided there is some core support for recognising and distributing the best user developed scenarios and mods either from the company itself or a well recognised fan site[hello, Apolyton]

If Firaxis does what it did for SMAC, e.g. wrap up their own tweaks, fixes and expansions and combine it with the best of the user mods and scenarios for a Civ planet pack 12-24 months after the original release then they can be spending more of their time taking a much more ground up approach to Civ 4.

[Adm.Naismith]

MarkG, you raised the question, do you mind to reply anything, please?

Are you still flattened just for three bmp Firaxis give at us as Christmas present?

reply: interesting responses, not much time to get into really replying

one thing i would definately not want to see copied from how ea does things btw, is the adding and removing features idea: they had the great idea to be able to see the goals and the important phases at the end of the game in euro2000 and took it off in fifa2001
drives you crazy

[eNo]

Well I think the EASports model works because the nature of the game supports a fast reincarnations of the game. It's a graphics oriented game so new versions are needed to take care of the latest technology. Second the teams in real life change, with new players, rostes and occasionally whole new teams and stadiums. The new versions have to keep up with the real world.

Personally I'd rather have Civ every three years. I woudln't buy Civ every year because I don't have time to play that many versions nor the money.

And just for the well-being for Firaxis woudln't that make them too dependant on the one game for their livelihood? I'm assuming of course that the same team works on the game each time.

some stuff cancelled, time for posting on apolyton


in a sense, activision used the "ea sports model" for ctp2: about 20 months between the two versions, around 18 months of development

good stuff:
- same engine=less bugs
- time to balance many concepts that were new for civ games in ctp1(combat model, unconvetional units, etc)
- backwards compatibility in mod making(ctp1 unit sprites work in ctp2, most of the formats of the text files are the same, etc)
- enough time to add new/existing-in-other-games features(borders, new diplomacy model, etc)

bad stuff:
- the "it looks the same"/"it's a patch" accusations/feeling(depending how you look at it)
- not enough time to do even more balancing
- not enough time to do a better product(pbem/hotseat, more scenarios/editors, even less bugs)


so, i think in the case of ctp2, this worked well. still, if they decide to do a ctp3, it would be time to be "bold" again and try bigger changes, which would mean bigger development time


btw, some confused my original question with add-ons. i'm not talking about add-ons or "gold editions", but about sequels...

btw(2), i agree that beyond the graphics, ea changes very few things in the fifa series(which i follow, i dont know about their other sports games). there lots of things that could be done with the interface for example or other features. but the graphics in each new version are always making me go "wow"(compared with the previous version)
[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited December 24, 2000).]

[Kumiorava]

How about the Microsoft OS release model: New engine every 10 years, with every inital release costing $140 while being buggy beyond use. In between, bugfixes every year or two for $85 ($180 if you don't own the previous version), each time with a new name or version number that doesn't make any sense, as well as some more color in the interface so that the package looks like an "upgrade" ("Civilization HG173S, now with new and improved mouse pointer that morphs into "Mr. Civass", who read tooltips to you in full 128bit audio. 512M of RAM required."). A 48-digit registration code is required to install the game.

This thing should sell like anything to the types who bought "Barbie's Interactive Riding School" and "Who Wants To Be a Milionaire, PC edition". Firaxis will be instantly roling in greenbacks.

[MacUser]

quote: Originally posted by Kumiorava on 12-26-2000 02:54 AM How about the Microsoft OS release model....

Or, taking a page from Apple's playbook, charge $20 for the privledge of being a beta-tester, and then charge full price when the final version is available!

Actually, depending on the pricing, I would pay for short "beta" like installments. I'm thinking of the old shareware prices like $5 per release, with a final version at a steep discount depending on the number of releases that you bought. I know that's not the model MarkG was refering too, I'm just musing out loud, running on caffeine and too little sleep.

------------------
Be what you is and not what you is not. Folks who do that are the happiest lot!
- Mr. Wizard the Lizard,