posted 06-08-99 10:35 AM ET        

Serious question, then, Jeff--or whoever trips on the keyboard at Firaxis and accidentally reads this:

Why put yourselves through all the hassle of even making a patch this late in the game if you guys are determined to let silence be your response for weeks on end only to pop up like some Firaxis-in-the-Box when we least expect it? Now don't get all bent out of shape on me. Yeah, your response every fourth odd-numbered Tuesday buried deep down in God knows what thread is great. But take a look at the posts that actually deal with SMAC. How many are really active anymore? Part of the reason for this slow death is Firaxis' REFUSAL to keep us better informed and, as a consequence, more inclined to keep the game alive on our computers.

Now, I'm the list coordinator for the Civ3 list, as you may or may not know. I can only hope that Firaxis will give us die-hard Civ fans enough respect to at least give credit where it is do when the time comes, and to hopefully INCLUDE the fans in certain decisions, like how borders will work, etc...What do you lose by doing that? What do you sacrifice by gathering some feedback from us and then following up on the game you guys made and we paid for? Listen, your best hope for making Civ3 a success will come from engaging with your fans. And unless you want SMACX to be the most expensive two-week shelf filler in gaming history, you might want to spend a little more time here, if you catch my meaning...

I realize you all have this "I'm a programmer, not a PR guy" attitude over there, but it's biting you in the ass. Trust me. Watch what will happen to Civ3 if you make a SMACtastophy out of it. Just watch. Oh, it'll make money, sure. But FIRAXIS' credibility is on the line with Civ3. If you're not careful, I think you'll see a lot of "Civ3 is the last game I'm ever buying from Firaxis" syndrome going around.

Actually, let's think a little about this young, start-up company, built on one man's name, shall we?

1) Gettysburg was an awesome game (thanks to Sid), but (can you guess?): Bad PR meant relatively few people played (or even knew about) it. RESULT?: Great game. Who cared?

2) SMAC? Again, nearsightedness and only token efforts to get input from the fans (oh, but asking for feedback on the 'novel' was moving, really) resulted in a game that requires people several hours "to get used to the graphics and futuristic mumbo-jumbo." RESULT?: Countless people tuned SMAC out like a low-budget NOVA special on Chaos Theory. "But SMAC was made by the people who made Gettysburg!" "Gettysburg? Is that some kind of Furby's screen saver?"

2.5) SMACX is just a patch you pay for, so no points there. RESULT?: Numerous fans will hide their heads in shame and buy SMACX simply out of curiosity, only to load it and say: "Hmmm, this is more like what SMAC should have been to begin with. I'm never going to pay to be a beta tester again."

3) Which leaves Civ3. Screw that up by ignoring your fans and FIRAXIS might have to sell its name to a line of 3rd rate purfumes at KMART.

posted 06-08-99 11:47 AM ET            

FIRAXIS: As you may have already concluded, a lot of people listen to this guy (including myself), & even watch for his posts, so it might behoove you to do so as well.

As for myself, I can definitely say that the only reason I find myself wandering back here to check on the 4.0 patch is because that Civ:CtP, despite its potential to be a great game, has too many inexcusable (& if UBB or HTML were enabled, I'd bold that) flaws (game not recognizing CD, saved games for maps ??? that aren't compatible with modified game files, a faulty map editor, etc.). I've actually dusted off Civ 2 & started playing it again rather than the recent aberrations that consume the market these days.

posted 06-08-99 11:51 AM ET            

Valtarien: I would never recommend doing anything less that involved your money. Spending your income on things, be them computer games or television sets, need to be based on sound and descriminating information.

jkm

posted 06-08-99 12:07 PM ET            

Once again I'm impressed by your prompt response. Thank you. Perhaps my own angst lies more in Activision's court than your own. However, owing that this is a Civ-type game, the "bleed-over" is perhaps inevitable.

I do look forward to downloading this upcoming patch & giving SMAC another whirl, & perhaps even SMACX, depending on the features, etc. It has been pretty silent lately, however & this inevitably seems to have detracted from some players' interest in SMAC's development. This is frustrating not because I dislike your game, but because I *do* like SMAC & wish to see it flower into all it can be.

Being on the consumer-end, I tend to see things in this perspective, although I do try to be understanding when you tell us that there's no one to fill the capacity as Webmaster/ PR person. Perhaps it's time to start taking a more serious look at that dilemma?

posted 06-08-99 01:18 PM ET            

If they don't, I will not buy Civ3. Period.

I still think SMAC has great potential and is an unfinished product.

Let me appeal to Brian's honor as a game maker. Brian, please insist that sufficient resources are retained to finish this product.

posted 06-08-99 01:47 PM ET            

BrianB: Check the patch 4.0 thread below this one for my reponses. It's the same I'd give here.

jkm

posted 06-08-99 02:30 PM ET            

I think Yin26's concern is what it has always been... that of worrying and losing heart. With everything on Firaxis's plate (SMAC patch, SMACX, Civ3, and Mystery Sid Game X), there is even more reasons to worry about the patch getting done and released. After all, SMAC is playable. Since Yin is a vocal person, he posted his thoughts, worries, concerns and opinions in this public place, hoping to draw official (Firaxian) attention and get some sort of response. This is not really unusual. He has a history of doing this since he started playing SMAC and venturing in these forums. And you (or Chris or Brian) have a history of posting a response. Which relieves his concerns that we, the customers who bought and play SMAC, have not been forgotten.

Now, please don't try to hide behind the smoke screens of "Its complex!" or "Its hard to get all the bugs!". You will just insult our intelligence. Many of us are in the business of producing computer OS'es, applications, and even games. We have all been in teams and projects where testing, Q&A, and debugging time wasn't what we would have liked. We all know SMAC has a lot more bugs and slips than anyone would like. We are just asking you to please continue correcting them. Some bugs are much more important than others, and I am sure that you and everyone associated with correcting things wish to make them right. "There is always time to go back and do it right AFTER the first die-hard deadline." is all too common mantra throughout the business and enforced by the business.

We, the players of SMAC, can only hope the ALL bugs are corrected one day, but I don't expect for patch 4.0 to do so. The sheer number of bugs and odd/inconsistant behavior implies that it will be a long process. But SMAC would seem to be a product deserving of the time to correct as many as possible.

No program is perfect. And rare is the program that is allowed to be follow its own schedule. But our jobs as customers are to pick on SMAC's faults, complain about the bugs, and demand perfection. You know that as well as I do Jeff.

So, early estimates that a web master would be able to handle the forums as well has proved to be off the mark? Well, good luck in finding such a person. I think it would really help in settling the nervous posters down, and be helpful to all those experiencing common problems or game play issues.

Truly, thanks for posting Jeff.

posted 06-08-99 02:59 PM ET            

I'm trying to figure out how to achieve this goal, a "bug-free" game. Nobody else seems to be able to do it to any measurable degree, but there must be room for innovation and improvement. If you have any suggestions, please post them and let's figure how to deliever this rarity.

jkm

posted 06-08-99 03:58 PM ET            

I do not have the time to respond in the depth I would like. I appreciate the discourse, please continue.

Let me make several points.

We, or at least I, do not expect zero bugs, or that all system problems are going to be solved (sorry Darkstar). But, there are many common bugs in the game that are not related to hardware conflicts. Do you dispute this?

If not, then you must agree that the game is not a finished product.

All we want is an admission that Firaxis recognizes this and will continue to work on them, AS WELL AS A LIST FROM FIRAXIS OF THE BUGS BEING WORKED ON.

It would help if we knew what "bugs" Firaxis considers hardware related, related to user error, or not bugs, but "features". We could then contribute a little investigative work to confirm. We could be a partner to Firaxis in the process.

Many of the underdeveloped or unbalanced aspects of gameplay, the AI weakness, etc. can, and should be addressed through SMACX. Here again, we would be pleased if Firaxis would say, perhaps, that for SMACX we are looking at tweaking the combat system, or, just say, we can't tweak the combat system because it is simply not feasible.

We are by and large devoted to the game and able to take the bad news with the good.

But we don't understand why Firaxis will not let us know if they are or are not looking at the various issues.

I have not confirmed, but, understand that the AI will trade bases regardless of size, situation. Sorry, if this has been fixed, but, what would be the harm of saying to the SMAC community, we are aware of this and we are looking at a way to correct this.

Or, is this supposed to be a hardware problem? Either way, a little communication would make many of us eager to support Firaxis on the boards and in the stores.

I love SMAC and just want to see it improved.

posted 06-08-99 03:58 PM ET            

Unfortunately, when a game uses certain features that the hardware's driver thinks it can do and crashes, it is the game that gets the blame. As the Game Maker and Supplier, Firaxis will always have this problem. It�s the same the world over in computers that use such arrangements until the individual user learns different.

My complaint, which I have posted many times, is the sheer number of bugs that slipped through in the rush to meet that first deadline. Sure, some of these things are simple user error and misunderstanding (i.e. "What? I am supposed to be able to terraform Volcanic terrain? Just can't put a whatever on it? But I thought...") but I don't think most of the bugs reported by the SMAC community are such things. "I can't build a skunkworks on citizen (level 1) or specialist (level 2)!" can be viewed as a user error (its stated in the manual) or misunderstanding (on citizen, if you turn off auto-design the game celebrates you building a prototype. Makes for misleading conclusions as if you make prototypes, then you must be able to do skunk-works), or simple outright bug (if I get charged to build a prototype, then I should be able to build a skunk-works). But there are certainly other game code issues that are not dependent on user interpretation. Was Transcendence meant to have a 66% energy decrease? Was the AI meant to be able to build AAA Transports when AAA got eliminated as a human player option for transports?
Why will the auto-design option crop up Clean Planet Busters and Clean Conv. Missiles when the Human can't design it? Why do Interceptors use their Weapon (and not get Air Superiority bonus) when Scrambling (and the aggressor air unit uses its weapon strength) yet a normal Interceptor attacking an Air unit is Interceptor Weapon (+ Air Superiority bonus) versus Air units armor? [I'm not asking about particulars, just using these items as examples that typically show up in within a few games of play.]

The only ways to prevent such oversights and errors are the ways that have always existed since writing Software became a real business. Through consistency (which is the heart of all software design mythodologies, er... methodologies ) and extensive consistent testing. As the head of Q&A at Firaxis (and so many other things! However do you find the time?), I am sure you are familiar with many proposed systems. The trick is consistency. That makes it easier for you to bring others in and show them how to test, for instance. They can see what things are and how they have been done, and if they continue with that onward, it�s easier to pick it back up again.

The problem with consistency is that it wastes time. If ships haven't been able to move onto land in the last 20 passes, then why bother wasting the time on that when you NEED to test the latest change to Air units? The problem is that the programmer might have slipped. Most coders test the changes they made (if they haven't just dropped a monster load into the app in question) but since the other parts weren't changed, don't check them. Especially when you have testers. (That is what they are for, after all). If the testers haven't time, then you are betting on the coder to have done it right, and they were betting on being told if they hadn't. Never a nice situation. And all forced by that solid deadline that can't slide.

I don't MEAN to be coming across as an arrogant putz. I am detailing a few common stances for those reading this that aren't in the business.

Consistency is the only true tool in helping cut down the number of mistakes and oddities that will otherwise slip by. Hopefully, in Firaxis upcoming products, you won't get pressured to release in Christmas Holiday 2001. With Hasbro and EA in on Civ3, that should be able to be parleyed into a "It will be delivered when it�s ready" granting the company the time to do it "right". I expect there will be bugs. But they should be a lot fewer and a lot further between.

Would you like the bibles and specific ways to achieve code that is delivered with less bugs? You are going to need a beta team between 100 and 300 anyways, if you are going to try and make sure your products run on the common hardware configs anyways... or be hope that in a smaller set you can get the diversity of hardware, drivers, and play styles/levels. And it�s always good to have a couple of "brain dead idiots" on the testing team. Users, whether meaning to or not, will as a group, try things that ever "brain dead idiots" wouldn't but at least you had the bases covered... [And for you sensitive folks, I have commendations from several companies while doing contract Q&A as "The best brain dead idiot that can write and enhance test plans and product quality!"]

Seriously Jeff, how much help do you need? I know its always good to get an outside observer at times to help evaluate how things are going and what might be right and wrong. It doesn't mean they are right, but it can be a good way to help evaluate the product or the process. You guys do pull in a few unknowing eyes from EA, don't you? I am sure you do.

But aside from shutting up, is there anything else I can do to help?

posted 06-08-99 04:08 PM ET            

I don't think anyone here is asking for a totally bug-free game, and in fact I think Darkstar outright said he didn't expect one. If that's /really/ what they want, I will for one throw my two cents in: dream on, folks.

I don't /even/ think people are really asking for the bugfixes to come out more often -- or, rather, I don't think that's the /main/ concern.

I think what people are saying is that with the bugfixes coming at slow and unscheduled pace, on /top/ of having absolutely no idea if their bug reports are really being read, on /top/ of having no idea if their bug reports are being addressed in the patch being worked on, on /top/ of not being sure if they're going to be addressed at /all/, on /top/ of the number of "that's a problem in your setup, not the game" responses in the troubleshooting forum (I am /not/ getting into whether or not that's really the case, okay? Just pointing out they exist)... er, well, they're a little unhappy with the combined situation, that's all. Disappointed.

And I can understand that from the point of view of, well, being one of your customers, too. I /also/ understand that you may not personally have time to do these things... and, in fact, would tend to agree that tracking bugfixes and tending to the web site require a full-time person.

/My/ question is... is Firaxis really suffering a huge dearth of applications for this spot, or dragging their feet on hiring the absolutely perfect person?

If it weren't for the fact that I refuse to relocate, I would have applied. As a techie myself who also has done project management and documentation, not to mention someone who has been designing web pages since '94, I think I'd love the job. Pity.

posted 06-08-99 04:27 PM ET            

Jimmy: Many of the bugs that have been found since Yin26's informative list could not make it into v4 because of time constraints. Quite honestly, that type of bug submission (a trickle over time, regardless of their quality) cannot be successfully incorporated into a patch for a number of reasons. The main one is that patch will never be finished. The amount of time it takes to generate a release candidate patch for 5 languages is staggering. If we reissued a new version everytime a new bug is reported, v4 would most likely slip beyond SMACX (which it currently will beat by many months). We made as good a guess about what the major problems were around the time of that list, and locked it at that. It's the only way it could be achieved in any sort of timely manner. It's what the customers requested. I'm sure that more fixes will be made to SMACX, and it seems only fair that a free version of those fixes would be made available. I for one will strongly promote that process.

Darkstar: You're talking about very serious money. QA department's rarely get the funding or the time required to satisfy all parties. I have never had the please to work in an evironment where that kind of tolerance for testing concerns existed. It's akin to the bugless game in my mind. An wonderful ideal, and certainly the goal we strive to achieve. But at the same time, it's acutely divorced from reality. As far as inexperienced testers are concerned, I'm in total agreement. One of the great mistakes make with the SMAC public beta test was having a outstanding group of testers during final, that could finish a game in 200 turns. The final version of SMAC needed inexperienced hands on it throughout, and fortunately that is something that can be easily implemented.

Eris: I'm simply following the flow of the conversation. We've hired the person, but everybody here has ambitous plans for the poor soul. What Firaxis has not currently decided to do however is hire a customer relations liason. When (or if) such a person would ever be recruited is beyond my scope here. I'll get my turn to unload responsibilities with the webmaster, nevertheless.

jkm

posted 06-08-99 05:26 PM ET         

I was one of the 25 public beta tester. I figure I would give my 2 cents worth:

My experience with the public beta test was mostly positive but with the following frustrations:

1) None of us were given a list of common terminology to facilitate communications (definitions of what constitutes a fatal crash, bug, design issue, etc.) as well as a formal way to report problems.

2) Only a few of us were given access to the "bug" database that the FIRAXIANS and professional testers had access to. I for one seem to find "bugs" that were already found/documented. We ended up using a private forum to communicate our findings (which did prove fairly effective...but was very unstructured. Fortunately it did not suffer from the "blah blah <game> blah blah" and other non-relevant threads )

3) Our initial roles as public beta testers were not well defined. From some of the early E-mail received from Jeff, it seemed that we were supposed to do some "serious" bug hunting. However as the test progressed, FIRAXIS decided we were wanted more for "initial" reactions and thoughts about the various SMAC beta releases.

4) Jeff is quite correct that the public beta testers as a whole became way to experienced with the game by the late beta releases. Having new "mind worm" fodder injected into the mix would of probably rooted out some of the design issues that new players face today. (During the beta, quite a few of us complained about the ugly graphics. Believe me, what you SMACers have now is far superior to what we had during the beta test).

5) The manual (or draft game notes) should have been given to us much earlier in the beta test (say about beta release 2 or 3). I think this would of helped a lot of us with balance issues.

As far as patch 4 is concerned, it IS being worked on. As a suggestion to Jeff and/or the new webmaster, put up a "Patch" page. This page should lists what each released patch fixed and what the future patch will ATTEMPT to fix (with the usual legalese about FIRAXIS makes no promises to the suitability of the software doing anything and will not be held liable for the consequences of people using the code.)

posted 06-08-99 05:51 PM ET            

Thanks for the reply. But if you guys can't afford to test each X of major builds from the ground up, following a live, evolving test plan, then all the games you deliver will be in the same boat as SMAC was... playable, but bugs everywhere to the user community. I know its impossible to get a game engine to respond the same with to every "test", which would be why saved scenarios/games that test certain logic forks would be critical. Of course, those suck to build (or capture in a repeatable game set-up), and sometimes you can't migrate old save data to the new form (rarely, in my case of old data files, but you got to do what you got to do).

I do hope you aren't saying it�s impossible to make your programmers be consistent though. You want them consistent not only for maintenance issues, but so that they have all the right habits. That way, when they are deep in the crunch and haven't slept in 30 hours, their particular coding habits have them continuing to be consistent on basic programming issues. Sometimes, it has to be done right the first time, no matter if it means passing out at the keys an hour later, or 10.

I don't REMEMBER suggesting anything impossible in the business sense though. Unless you guys can't get your superiors to allow the time. You are going to have a testing staff of some type in house. Out of house testing should have its own concerns and methods (which are best if different from yours so as to cover things from a different approach). The front line testers are always the coders. Most people don't count them but its true. Second line is in house reviewers and testers. Third line is out of house and beta testers. You can do this on a shoe string, and still wring out most of the bugs. The issue then become is it worth it to revise? Most game-play and general code issues should be catchable BEFORE localization so that you only have translation errors after localization. This way, you don't pay the projected expensive for localizing except (at worst hopefully)twice... Once for the candidate release to your local beta testers, and a second time if any major issues have to be fixed/corrected in the localized translation. We did this at Pheonix when we did Microsoft's Q&A and localization for the French, German, Italian, and Portuguese MS-DOS 4.1 and MS-DOS 5.0. I don't see what would make it any different for Firaxis, because that literally WAS a shoe-string budget.

Jeff, tell me you were talking to someone else about "no can do" though. I find it truly unbelievable that Firaxis isn't been given the golden goose to do Civ3. You guys might not have bottomless pockets, but you shouldn't have time constraints as long as it�s less than 4 or so years. [Its going to take 2 at a minimum, especially with the talent split, and if you guys want time to eat and feed the dog, that closes on 3. Serious testing, allocating waste space for those unexpected sicknesses and show stopping bugs/issues, and getting everything times with marketing across EA and Hasbro should put you at 3.5 years... so within 4 would be safe. Humm... then you have to tell them 2.5 and hope you can slip it... humm... or so I have been told. :]

But the real key is consistency, coding and testing. It won't matter how great and how many wizs that you have coding and testing without that. It�s the only way to maintain quality.

posted 06-08-99 06:27 PM ET            

Darkstar: Yes, I am saying that I can't MAKE Brian Reynolds or Sid Meier or any other programmer here change there styles. Nor would I assume that their method is anything other that the absolute best way to develop software. One of the pre-requisites for programming positions here is that you can adopt their style. Right or wrong, they're the ones who have made million sellers and they make the rules that facilite that creation. And I think needless to say, we don't have anything like 4 years to make this product. Again, ideal but not our reality.

jkm

posted 06-08-99 06:44 PM ET            

Please let me plead my case one more time: Let's assume a bug-free game is either A) impossible or B) too costly to make out the door. I'll grant it for argument's sake (though SMAC has many issues that could and should have been resolved by now, but let's leave that alone).

Facing this situation, you as the QA guy have to either A) start actually doing the impossible or B) convince Brian(?)/Hasbro(?) that spending some more money to get closer to this elusive animal will MORE than pay for itself in total sales and having to deal with far fewer headaches later on (not to mention you'd being buying increased morale for you and the fans--also a good idea).

OR C):

Failing to get more money and time (but try, Jeff, I'm begging), you have to realize that angry/disappointed/anxious fans will be the rule, not the exception. Realizing this, NOT having a full-time customer relations guy (JUST ONE GUY!!!) is like shooting yourself in the head. Without that one guy keeping us up to date on patches, bugs, and just generally keeping the connection with Firaxis open--you're basically setting your own time bomb. Use it as a bargaining chip, Jeff.

"If we can't afford more time to QA the game before the release, we MUST hire a full-time customer relations person who can keep the fans happy and informed long-term. We HAVE to invest in consumer happiness somewhere in this process, otherwise we're dead in another title or two."

That's basically what I would say. If you want, use your research to prove that a bugless game is a miracle these days, thus the consumer relations guy is the new cash cow. Every time he makes a fan feel listened to or informed, he makes Firaxis money.

Now, we've discussed before that once the "Reported Bugs" "Bugs to be fixed in the next patch" etc. stuff is up an running, the consumer relations guy will be left with mainly 'trivial' things to say: "The French version of patch 4 is being held up because the translator ate a bad pastry." This seems infinitely trivial to you, but to the fans it's a gold mine of concern from Firaxis that we stay informed and proof that--understandable problems aside--Firaxis has put at least some of its resources toward seeing its loyal fans through the entire process of buggy-to-near-perfect game.

We don't want perfection, Jeff. We want dialogue. Your research on the bug-free game is missing the point entirely, if not actually feuling the cop-out fire: Yes, you have a tough job. Don't make it tougher by leaving the bugs to do all the talking for you.

posted 06-08-99 07:02 PM ET            

jkm

posted 06-08-99 07:11 PM ET            

Even if the new bugs found are more important???

For instance the one that gives you decreased maintainence for your buildings on the higher levels was not reported before the Yin list. What are you going to do about it? Leave it there?

And there are some more... I suggest you have a look at my bug list, there are more than a hundred listed there; most of them are real.

It's on the troubleshooting section and yes, it's "easy to read"

Even if you don't agree I have the right to have my opinion so I' ll just put it here.

posted 06-08-99 07:30 PM ET            

jkm

posted 06-08-99 07:35 PM ET            

Something has to give. Or Brian and Sid aren't going to sell units. What I was describing wasn't necessarily having your coders change writing styles Jeff, but if you can't catch it in testing and Q&A, that HAS to be where it changes. Or you will deliver another flop. Considering SMAC has cost Brian and Firaxis its golden aura of awe, another repeat will guarantee only the new Strategy Gamers will buy it.

Now, having been a prima donna that couldn't be replaced and a primary designer and coder on apps that have sold well past any dreams, although not in the entertainment software... [yes Jeff, we are out here. And we play games when not working on anything important.] It can be done. If you so think its Brian behind the coding side that is a problem, you had better get together and have one long serious talk. If you think its Sid, once again, its talk time. I know you are good friends, but as the guy with the QA hat, you are suppose to be the heavy and whack the coders for being bad or lazy or keeping too much to themselves. What is the difference between Civ2 and SMAC? The Civ2 I bought wasn't nearly so visibly bug ridden as SMAC. (I bought it the day I saw it on the shelf in the software store.) It had to be near level of complexity. What has changed in your design and review processes? If I was you, that would be what I'd be examining. What was so different that time around and with SMAC? Different people? Different testers? Different attitude? Different Time?

Jeff, you are either going to have to do something to gain serious test time, change the process for code reviews and fixes, or waste money paying somone to go in and do basic code clean up. Or... sell all your stock and jump ship after the release of Brian's or Sid's next game.

I know you aren't going to get the ideal, as you can only do that when no money or goverment money is involved, but you should be able to get a good deal, and be left alone to simply do it in the best way possible according to what the team comes up with that it thinks it can squeeze in.

Now, I hope I have misunderstood you. I am sure I wasn't suppose to interpret that a large part of the bugs or code oddities was due to any particular person that can't be done without as founding signature members. Must be the headache I have making it easy to misunderstand... Yeah. That's it. Had to be.

Thanks Jeff, but I am going to take a break for a while and see if I can lose this migraine. I hope you find the answers you seek and that they are things you can implement.

posted 06-08-99 07:40 PM ET            

Try not to get mad. Its the way things work. You can bet that the next time the source code for SMAC is touched, it will be fixed. But with their testing and localization (as Jeff has explained), they just can't release a bunch of small patches. Its not how the beast is set up.

posted 06-08-99 07:51 PM ET            

jkm

posted 06-08-99 08:16 PM ET         

By the way I love the Asimov's Nemesis, thinking planet type theme but noticed the book wasn't mentioned in the suggested reading in the manual. Yes that's right, I looked and looked and that's the best complaint I could come up with.

Keep up the good work Firaxis! Walk with Planet!

posted 06-08-99 08:59 PM ET            

When Sid first started cranking out games that changed the market forever, the Internet was not a part of the equation--and platforms were more stable. This meant that he could reasonably expect to make a quality product that performed well out of the box. Retailers were his primary link to the consumer, and he did amzingly well 'simply' by programming a great game. Firaxis is still trying to follow this model, but, as your own research tells you, it ain't that simple anymore.

As times have changed, I hope you take the chance to tell Sid and Brian that Firaxis is missing a golden opportunity--perhaps sowing the seeds of much larger problems--by not realizing the importance of the Internet in gaming today.

First, the Internet (alonside word of mouth, of course) is the most powerful tool gamers have now when deciding to buy a game or not. Particularly in a market were the "bug-free" game is seen as a miracle, gamers increasingly don't want to waste time and money on something that's just going to frustrate them. So they check the Internet. And wise gamers only give passing regard to 'professional' reviews written by people who clearly spend very little time playing the game. How many complete games do you think the magazine people played before writing their reviews for SMAC? Very few, judging from the evidence. Thus, the Internet is a better (if flame-ridden and idiot-laden) source for the 'truth' about a game.

Second, the Internet allows unprecedent and extremely cheap avenues for generating consumer interest and feedback. I once read a study about how much money it takes a publisher to get a game into a prime retail sales spot at the stores. Add poster boards in the windows, enter the bidding process for prime shelf location and so forth, and the cost of catching people's eye at the point of sell is staggering. Done well, however, an Internet campaign can accomplish just as much or more than shelf placement at a fraction of the cost and without a middle man: Look at 3D0, for example. They have created a "Community" for fans to come and talk about the game, join in game-related trivia contests, gain higher rank the longer they stay, etc. They also invited gamers to send in a pic of themselves that will all be added on the final CD of the game, allowing the gamer to use his/her own pic in the player portrait! (Descent3 is doing the same sort of thing, if I'm not mistaken.) These kinds of things give the company immeasurable latitude when it comes to the bugs that eventually show up. If you create this kind of community for Firaxis, wherein, I must emphasize, the staff plays a visible role by answering questions and so forth, you'll create a virtually self-policing, content and growing fan base. I'm watching it happen with other companies, and I'm sure you are, too. Increasingly, a weak Internet presence is seen as a sign of a weak company, however false that impression may be. In fact, I just ordered Might and Magic 7 through Chips and Bits (screw the brick and mortar retailers!) because the sense of community is so strong on-line and because it was soooo easy to just click that little button an order the game 3D0 has got us all cleverly excited about. It was the first time I ever ordered a game on-line (having had a relatively bug-free experience with M&M6, of course, proving that previous titles are your best/worst salesmen, no matter how masterful your Internet drive).

Finally, to make a game these days without thinking about the Internet from day one (as a link to fans, multiplayer, etc.), is a sure sign that somebody at the top is getting old and needs a firm but very dimplomatic (NOT a demanding ) reminder that the way to market a game has shifted tremendously--and the Internet is at the center of it all.

This includes, of course, using the Internet as the 'informal' arena for beta testing (I sent Brian a long-winded plea that the Civ3 alpha and beta tests be broader-based and constantly open to new people at each stage). The answers are all here on the Internet, NOT at Firaxis headquarters. Yeah, it's a pain--but it's good business, and it can be a lot of fun to watch the fan-base continue to grow.

Sid and Brian still seem to think that making a great game is a One Man (Two Man?) show. That kind of outmoded thinking is hurting the company, Jeff, and I truly hope you take the opportunity to express these concerns as a member of the team (assuming you agree with me, of course! ). Done with tact, raising these issues could really mark you as somebody who takes an active interest in the future of the company. I'm quite sure you DO have such an interest, but this lack of Internet saavy from the highest levels at Firaxis should be a point of great concern for all of you.

posted 06-08-99 11:30 PM ET            

Delgath - Yes, I am a perfectionist. Its a positive trait in programming. It makes one pay attention to the details.

Imran - I only patched my Civ2 twice, Imran. I never encountered a bug while playing the version off the CD, or at least recognized it as a bug. However, I was browsing Microprose one day (looking for a MtG patch), and noticed they had a patch. That was 2-4-2.

And to all - I got Jeff to blow his own horn! I win!

Hey Jeff! You asked how could we make suggestions on possibly improving what it is you guys do. That means its not perfect. Or, that you wish to examine it as if it's not. Then you analyze it until its paralyzed! After that, you look at the results, brainstorm, and either go back to analyze or exit the cycle (with results, hopefully). So yeah, I treated the request as if it was a problem. Probably got too caught up in trying to give you suggestions and couldn't step out of analyze. It happens. As I said... I thought I must have misunderstood at the time, and so I did.

I haven't a clue where flop came from. I certainly didn't mean it. I think I was getting ahead of myself. SMAC is the best Empire-and-War game around for mid-to-late 98 to early 99, but the competion turned out pretty light. If CtP had been a better, would people be celebrating so much? Next time, Firaxis might not be so lucky. That is not something I want to see, as Sid and Brian (and everyone that has worked with them) have proved me with so many hours of fun... But if you are checking around about suggestions to improve quality, then I am not the only one that has thought such cold thoughts.

On your point about for every negative, there is a positive, the only thing to say to that is... there seemed to be a lot of negatives. And a whole lot of those positives were "Oh, we like it that way. Go play something else." [or "Don't happen to us!"] I remember. I've posted a few such on both sides.

You and everyone that have worked on Firaxis SHOULD be *proud*. SMAC is a great game, it has a wonderful design (one that I am glad to hear will be carried into the next Civ), and I am glad its such a cash cow for you. That's a hit.

Mind you, you could NEVER satisfy everyone, no matter what. There are always people that will want more (Hey, I think flying bases would be cool!), but SMAC wouldn't score well for Quality, Jeff. That gives a LOT of points for someone to focus on, because many of those oddities spoil some to all of the fun. It scores great elsewhere though, so people put up with it, and even become blind to it in time. SMAC truly is that good. Like a long time friend and lover, one gets use to its unusual looks and odd quirks and flakiness. She's a great gal, and I'm sure we'll get along fine for a long time. (Hey, I got my real girl-friend hooked on it, and she's not a TBS fan as a rule.)

If you are concerned about just the Internet perception... you need a spin doctor, a forum and usenet man, a master (or even apprentice) of PR. Just as Yin has been telling you since he signed that cease fire a couple of months ago.

In some ways, I won't be ragging on the "Darkstar perceived" negative points of SMAC as strong as I would if I didn't figure that no matter what is said and decided *now* about patch 4 being the last actual patch, SMAC will get a focused touch-up when Civ3 gets released IF they are to establish a launching of SMAC when the colonists reaches Alpha Centauri. For some reason, I bet that SMAC isn't ready to take the start command yet. Unless its in patch 4 or SMACX Horrid thought!

posted 06-10-99 01:23 AM ET            

First off, it would probably pay to reiterate that SMAC is amoung the best TBS games ever. Currently, I'd rate it along with HOMM3. NOow - if you want a bug ridden f##ked up patch to complain about, go over to 3DO and check this mother out. SMAC is, comparatively, highly stable compared to this attempt.

This means that, while Jeff isn't perfect, relatively speaking (the only issue that counts from a consumer perspective) Firaxis et al aren't the worst group out there. CTP must have been an enormous relief to them on so many fronts it's not funny. But the point is that firaxis, by and large does seem to feature relatively competant people.

What gets me when reading the comments from Yin and Darkstar (I'll be brutally frank here, and you can flame my ass for it if you must) is that the main point that seems to be repeated everytime this topic turns up is that 'Firaxis isn't listening.' To whom? JKM and Tim Train answer their email, and the work on Patch 4.0 IS being carried out. They don't spend time on the forums, but, as everyone else will probably confess, this is not a place for work.

Yin, let me tell a little story about consumer power. Over at 3DO, they are working on a similar expansion to SMACX for their hit TBS, HOMM3. Information on this expansion was given (and partially leaked) to Gamespot; it was going to include a new type of town, called the forge, which featured an array of high tech monsters and undead. It didn't match the rest of the fantasy setting in HOMM3, it didn't feature as a major part of the expansion campaigns, and it offered virtually nothing useful to scenario developers. In short, it sucked. People said so - the flame war over the forge lasted weeks on the HOMM3 site alone, with a majority of posters (myself included) opposing the idea vehemently. A commerical boycott was threatened. An email campaign was launched as well - in short, there was large scale, increasingly organised consumer resistance to the idea.

A week later, 3DO turned around and scrapped the idea. While they felt this was the wrong this to do, and were unhappy with the way things had been handled (apparently death threats were received over the forge), they still caved into the public opposition. While the actual numbers expressing an opinion amounted to less than 5% of the public who actually bought the game, I guess they could see the writing on the wall.

Personally, I can't see anything like these same throngs of angry customers on the SMAC forums. And I can't see why anyone would walk away in disgust from the product simply because someone from firaxis doesn't spend time on the forums talking to them. When I bought CivII, and read the designer notes, I never expected to talk to Brian (it's nice, but not particularly useful). Nor did I when I purchased SMAC, despite the amount of time I had spent on the forums prior to it's release.

The sad fact of the matter is that SMAC is a highly ambitious project in the hands of a very small company. This isn't an excuse for anything, and I strongly suspect the compatability problems are present on a much bigger scale than JKM is ready to talk about - with the kind of testing he suggested as an ideal, I'm ready to bet there definitely wouldn't be the current problems with the game.

To my mind, the farm readout issue from the first patch tended to show that the testers had been less than Elven in their perception. Moreover, while Sid & Brian's programming styles might not be negotiable, some of the actual technique might be looked at. My favourite example is the weapon attack value effect - changing this number in Alpha.txt changes the actual weapon graphic displayed as well as the attack value - a rather lean-to approach to this algorithm I would suggest (and not very helpful to scenario designers either). But again, this seems to be the mark of a big project in the hands of a small team - where you don't get time to make perfect code (Darkstar - illuminate me on this some more).

To be honest, and to finally get to the point, there doesn't seem to be the numbers on the forums to merit the kind of consumer support that Yin and Darkstar advocate. It seems the vast majority of Intel owning, fire and hearth P.C owners are happy with their product - otherwise we'd hear about it, and Brian would be out organising the damage control (like the CtP designers are now) instead of working on new projects.

It seems as if a few posters are suffering from a bit of egomania themselves, in their desire to be properly acknowledged and catered too by Firaxis. General feedback is nice, but I hazard to guess that the current situation at firaxis makes forum chatter a low priority right now.

posted 06-10-99 02:47 AM ET            

We agree on so many things, it's nice to finally disagree on something.

You are wrong. Wrong about my point. Wrong about what the Internet SHOULD mean.

First, my point has nothing to do with being stroked by Firaxis, and I certainly thought I could count on YOU to see that. My point is that if a bug-free game is 'impossible' to make, a wise company will do something on the order of damage control and clever marketing to build loyalty, realizing that insult and injury are just waiting to pop out of the box--The Internet is clearly their best (not only) way to do that because it's an extrememly cheap, static/semi-fluid medium. They can keep bug lists on-line in static form etc. while engaging in semi-fluid discussions etc. that keep us hyped and pro-Firaxis. I'm surprised you disagree with this because I remember you nearly threatening to kill Firaxis a few weeks back for the combat system and other bugs. Short memory? Manic depression?

Next, more and more people will access the Net. It says so in the Bible. Even my grandmother mumbles in the hallway: "Should have hopped on the Internet bandwagon!" To say: "Look at the numbers of people on these forums now" is very nearsighted and totally overlooks the bigger problem (a very UN-Shiny thing): Are there so few people here because that's how it will always be or isn't it the fact that because this board sucks (version what?) and it's a Firaxis ghost town that nobody is here in great numbers? And look at what's here for the most part...Firaxis' fuzzy Internet thinking somehow told them, "Gee, we need one of those boardy thingies, don't we?" So they paid some kid $10 to set this up and pretty much walked away from it. They are "Internetively-challenged" people over there at Firaxis. But so are most companies, so let's do better!

This doesn't take a fleet of people. One or two dedicated consumer relations people and some creativity. That's it. It's just common sense, Shiny.

Was SMAC a failure? Not by any stretch of the imagination! But I just hope the good people at Firaxis begin to appreciate the power of the Internet in making and encouraging an excited fan-base. Basically, they are on 'business as usual' mode. Doing things now with consumers like Sid did in the beginning:

Release and hope. Well, Jeff himself has told us that there's very little hope for releasing a game that's stable across system configurations. So what's Firaxis' eternal response going to be?

Ten minutes of "It's your fault, not ours" followed by 10 weeks of silence. Good strategy.

Well, Shiny, I think we both want Firaxis to be a better company. Pure and simple. I think the Internet is their weakest link and greatest hope. You disagree. Cheers.

posted 06-10-99 05:12 AM ET            

I think Shining's post was an extremely good one. We don't actually need Jeffrey to respond to threads like this. (and, despite your denial earlier, this thread, with it's provocative title, does look like a blatant attempt to entice a Firaxian into responding to you personally whether it was meant as such or not) or in any thread about suggested features for the game. In fact before SMAC was released I remember having a discussion about the interface graphics from the E3 trailer. A few of us said that we thought that the colour scheme made some of the text a bit hard to read. It was just a discussion which started something like "on frame 112 of the E3 trailer the interface looks a bit hard to read" No "FIRAXIS YOU MUST FIX THE INTERFACE COLOUR!" thread. One of the Firaxis artists (sorry I can't remember who) responded with a one line, 'thanks for your comments keep 'em coming we're still looking at the interface colour scheme' or something and a couple of weeks later there were new screenshots posted with a slightly altered colour scheme which looked a lot clearer.

Now the way I see it that is the way these forums should work. They are not, and never have been a place for fans to get their questions answered by Firaxis. If it was, or is to become that in the future, then I agree with you that they'd need a full time forum guardian to feedback and answer questions. Something that Brother Greg and myself did argue for in the past with the same response or similar to what you are getting now whilst at the time we were unhappy with the situation we were aware that things like this do take time. Jeff's comment that they are aware of that situation and looking into the possibility seems perfectly reasonable to me. Hiring staff is something which needs to be thought about in any small company. After all just hiring some PR person who knows nothing about Firaxis or it's games wouldn't be any use. This web pr person is going to have to be intimate with Firaxis' games and development and aware of exactly what they can and can't tell us. Also there is a danger that the web pr person will spend their time posting things like Patch 4 sent to EA for testing, they say it'll be ready soon, no news since yesterday. That, I'm sure, would solicit great tirades from Darkstar and Yin about how QA ahould be run and when the patch should be ready. Would that be any use to any of us? Actually would knowing when patch 4 is going to be out actually be any use to any of us? Apart from knowing when to look at the website to download it? I don't think so.

To answer your last point "Or do you think we're just being egomaniacs making the list?" Everyone wants to be able to say "I thought of that! They are using my idea!" I remember when the SMAC demo came out Venom found out that one of the Spartan cities was called Hommel's Citadel. General Hommel was one of Venom's characters in the old Chronicles of Future History on the old AC forums. He was so happy. I wouldn't say it was being an egomaniac but I think that anyone who contributes to a forum like this or the Civ3 list has a tiny piece of themselves thinking I hope my idea gets in so that they feel they have contributed something to the development of the game. Sure you want to make a better game but at the back of your mind there might be a part of you thinking It'll be great to tell my friends that that was my idea or I hope they mention me in the credits at the back of the manual. It's human nature.

So when using these forums, post your ideas, talk about the game and if Firaxis responds, well great. If they don't that doesn't mean they haven't read your post. Jeffrey's argument to Greg and myself when we discussed this before was something along the lines of It takes a lot longer to respond to a thread than just to read it. Firaxis, and we are talking about the people making the game now not a PR person brought in to keep Yin from whinging, do read a lot of the posts here but they don't respond often. Perhaps that should be more explicit somehow in the forum name, or in a readme or something.

posted 06-10-99 05:43 AM ET            

I'm being misunderstood again.

Let's take all the names out of this for a moment because it's clouding my point. Forget Yin. Forget Jeff. Forget Darkstar, MikeHII, Brother Greg. Gone.

I AM NOT ADVOCATING AN INTERNET BABYSITTER!!!!

I'm asking: Don't you think that Firaxis can and should use the Internet far better than it has to this point? SOME of that is babby-sitting and hand-holding, sure. MOST of it is just plain-old good customer-relations/hype work.

I'm talking about using the Internet as a PROactive (as well as reactive) tool to better market the game and maintain enthusiasm from the public. I honestly believe that Firaxis stands to benefit financially from doing so. Yes, a full-time staff member is a big deal to a small company, but the Net is a real presence and deserves the attention. Obviously the full-time Webmaster position is a step in the right direction, but I'm not sure Firaxis has any real customer-relations/hype focus waiting for him/her. Another pretty (or ugly) forum just isn't that helpful. There's so much more they could do with the Net.

Do you agree or disagree on THAT basic point? That's my question. Forget the past. Let's talk about good business strategy for Firaxis at it pertains to the Net (and if Brian is reading this, we'll have proof because he won't post ).
__________

posted 06-10-99 08:37 AM ET            

I get what you are saying now Yin, would you agree with me that that's not the message you put across in your first post in this thread? I have to agree with you up to a point. The internet is THE place to find out about games nowadays. As you say Firaxis asking for player input is a great idea.

As for business strategy pertaining to the 'net, well it's a fine line between marketing, forming a good relationship with fans and just becoming a bit tacky.

Personally I would have liked to have the list of names of people who registered for the Unity crew go onto the SMAC CD. Perhaps that wasn't possible because of legal reasons or something but it sould have been a nice touch. I am guessing that this is the sort of thing you are talking about?

posted 06-10-99 12:06 PM ET            

Firaxis and EA are taking the 'few strong patches' approach instead, common in the *professional* software development cycle. I've seen both first-hand at my current job, and *trust* me, the rapid-fire approach is BAD. QA tends to be haphazard, the 'bug introduced by fixing previous bug' problem is rampant, and the customers get angrier.

The other side of it is that we are apparently talking about a small shop here...limited resources--meaning time, people AND money--result in limited releases. Why do you think there's a "we're hiring!" link on the site?

The game is 95% playable as is, and the hours of play/money spent ratio is well over 1...a few fixes will HELP but are not VITAL to enjoyment. [as opposed to something TOTALLY broken out of the box] Complex programs running on Win32 are GOING to be unstable, period, in any event, thanks to the flakiness of the windows engine. [hint hint hint. Linux port?]

I've rambled enough for a lurker. Firaxis has my support...and probably that of a LOT of other 'quiet' people willing to wait a bit for the RIGHT THING to be done. Nothing about the SMAC experience has me contemplating a Civ3 boycott, especially if Firaxis is increasing their staff to cover the size of such a project better.

posted 06-10-99 02:00 PM ET            

I can surely attest for myself, that I log on to the Internet to find information. When dealing with commercial entities of whom I patronize, I expect just that. Timely & concise information of the sort that I require. I don't ask for miracles, nor absolute perfection, nor excuses either. All I want is a little information. Period. When I come & check on this site every couple of weeks or so, I'd like to be able to check on the status of the work-in-progress, so to speak. What, I ask, is wrong with that? Surely no one here is implying that this is asking too much?

Granted, Jeff answered the 2-or-3-odd posts that I made in an extremely timely manner. As such, I applaud him for his vigilance, & have made note of it for future reference. However, the same dissemination of information could be handled in a much more efficient & visible manner by simply posting what several other people in this thread have suggested: a brief summary of the work being carried out on the upcoming patch, even if it's just to say: "the patch is now out of our hands since it has now entered EA Q/A; here's what the [projected] bug fixes/enhancements are:..." This page could be updated weekly, which would strike a decent balance between timeliness of information & cost-effectiveness. Also, being done this way would let anxious gamers know that they'll always be able to find the latest in information that they require every <insert day of the week> without having to repeat the same question that's echoed in 10 other threads scattered about the forum.

posted 06-10-99 04:06 PM ET            

Second, Jeff asked for suggestions and comments on how could they improve the 'perceived' value of their current and future products. The common point of lost value being 'bugs', he wondered if the Customer community thought it should get a 0 bug product (answer was split) and general comments for improving things if possible. I chimed in with a few general suggestions, although not put as well as it should have been. Most software companies, big and small, have looked into improving the customer perception of their products and the company. I gave him a few of the common ways that you hunt and kill bugs from the code to out the door. He himself listed how to try and eliminate many, and then stated they can't do any of the common knowledge ways. Which only leaves spin control (Public Relations).

Jeff was doing personal research on the value of spin control, generated by (my guess only so no real value) the Net buzz over other games on these very forums. A couple of side comments or personal reviews about BotF, Imperialism II, and other products (and the replies) by posters to posters offer examples why he is concerned. Most industry game reviews seem to be "Plays great/good/ok/lousy. Buy it." You get on the boards or the Usenet and its a different story. You get a lot rounder reviews... although you can toss the less than two or three sentence ones out. Those vocal 1% (or less) of the people greatly affect the general opinion that is undecided. If I was in Jeff's shoes, I'd be concerned as well. You can't make everyone happy, but you want to be seen as keeping the social, articulate, or just loud mouthed by not highly emotionally stunted, as happy with your product. When you as a potential customer hear 20 people say "Yeah, that's great!" and maybe one going "But *this* stinks!", you are still left with a general favorable impression aren't you? If its a 100 happy to 1 unhappy, you think you might be on to something don't you? That is what all the concern with "Perceived value/reputation" is over. That is why they want/need a spin doctor, so that when a new customer goes somewhere and asks "Yang keeps slamming me with missiles. What do I do?" someone nice answers "Try steps X-Y-Z", not "Return the game to store and use the money to buy an enema! Its faster and more satisfying over fighting this piece of [silly terms of non-endearment]. They aren�t ever going to fix it." and start a discussion on the perceived lack of merits of the company and why they like to bend people over. I am sure many long time lurkers are familiar with such.

Claiming the Win32 platform isn�t stable is showing your general lack of knowledge or general prejudice. It�s as stable as any other commercial available OS for the platform, and yes that includes UNIX (I know Solaris is available for the x86). When you strap on the toys to a UNIX box that are in the typical PC, you get the same problems. Improper use of drivers, improper implementation of standards, yadda yadda yadda. No one platform is overall superior to the others. It�s all a matter of taste. But while you can�t control the hardware that the customer might have in the box, you can control the quality of your product. When you cannot change anything about the product itself, you have to turn to its perception. Hence, Marketing Hype. The problem with Hype is that it generally leads to disappointment, as people can ALWAYS dream up more imaginative things than you can implement in 20 years of designing and coding. It�s just the nature of Human Creativity.

About Public Pressure - How many people lurked over at the CtP places (Activision, Apolyton, and elsewhere). There was tremendous outcry against the Park Ranger, Lawyer, Neural Ad, Slaver, etc etc etc (all the unconventional warfare units). The only thing Activision changed was a name (from Park Ranger to Eco-Ranger). So, public pressure isn�t much. Its only worth what the company thinks it�s worth.

Remember when the boards lit up about how bad SMAC sucked because Firaxis sucked? All of that was due to the �Missile Bug �part 2� Firaxis DID pay attention to that outcry. The problem is still there, but they managed to give us enough pats on the back and pacifiers with nothing but spin� Now, it�s a dead issue. It either SHOULD have been a dead issue from the start, but it turned hot. Why? Because the customers suddenly �perceived� it to be. There is no reason the same thing won�t happen on the next projects. And how load are all the long time customers going to put up with waiting on Patch 5(!) to fix the issues that bother them, whether its something small or large?

I doubt Firaxis is using the large patch system. They �seem� to have only spent a couple of weeks tops in making each patch (messing with the code). It seems as if the part that takes time is for things to go through official EA channels. This I base on purely what has been posted by Firaxis itself here. Although if you look through the IRC chats and other interviews given and released, you find collaborating statements to that effect. [Another reason they need a spin doctor. In the constant inescapable curiosity of their fans about �how do they do their magic, what can be expected in the future, and when are they going to kill a few more bugs in the games we HAVE while we wait impatiently for our next new Sid or Brian drug addiction� they say things they probably don�t mean in the context it gets represented. You need a crusader or spinmeister to make sure people don�t jump to the wrong conclusions, especially like me. ]

Bugs bugs bugs - To everyone that says, but X is doing worse� this isn�t a bell curve grading system people. You have to demand perfection to have a hope of getting it. Consider the 200+ bugs in SMAC� does this mean that you are going to be happy if Civ3 only has 400 bugs found by you, the customer, in a mere 3 months of play? That is the signal that is being sent though� �sure, skip the Q&A. Just put the game on an Internet site, let us charge it to a credit card and download it. Then send us the updates� one a week, You can even charge us a subscription price for it.� Don�t laugh--- this is a serious business model now being considered at several corporations, a few of which do entertainment software. It seems very reasonable when people talk as they do here� for example �What�s a few hundred bugs? I�d pay to have it, and keep paying you while you fix it.� [Imran, Goob, and Aredhran have said this (IIRC). Who else has said this in the last 2 weeks here?] Hope you have a cable modem or DSL then� Heck, as a Project Manager, I�d cut the budget on Civ3 for testing and Q&A, so that I could use that money ELSEWHERE with the way some of you carry on. Except that I would want to play it myself, and not be able to stomach the product that resulted.

Shining1 � Did I say Firaxis isn�t listening? Yin has, but I am a bit more patient. I do believe in the strong value of customer feedback, and think Firaxis does as well. I also find, as a customer, that its nice to be able to see that �it�s gone gold�, or �went to the translators�, or whatever. But I know how glacial things can be. If I haven�t seen anything in 6 months on an issue such as the 4.0 patch, I�d probably be ranting, but that�s not what we were told is the time period that Firaxis has told us to expect to wait. They hope its less, and expected between 1 month and 3 months depending on the currents in the great bureaucracy and game stopping issues that might pop up.

Programs are like essays or songs� never perfect, nor complete.

Finally - Yes, I think as an entertainment product provider, Firaxis is doing better than most in the last year. But since they have the *Legends Of Game Design* I am more critical of them than I am of the �no-names�. But they are, after all, the best in the business, and the "perception" that they have impressed upon me isn't that it's business as usual for them. It's that it's barely a business. That is the way it is in a new business, especially one so small. I can only hope that with Gettysburg and SMAC out, that they are being given ALL the leeway they need so that they can settle into the business they know so well, and have done so well at... Make incredible games that have to be played to be believed. I can only hope that Civ3 and Sid3 will deliver on the in-built expectations that these Legends and Old Friends of 'Just a little longer...' will deliver.

More later � Got to go, building about to blow up..

posted 06-10-99 05:59 PM ET            

Yes, my first post in this thread was too strong and worked against seeing my overall argument. I have a habit of cooling toward rationality. Sorry.

Next, I'm not saying Firaxis doesn't listen (I've received almost a dozen e-mails from them proving they DO). To followup on Darkstar, however, the IMPRESSION they leave with these long periods of silence counters a lot of their good work.

Though it might seem hard to see it at times, I'm an ardent cheerleader for this Firaxis team. Maybe it's tough love, the way I post sometimes. But Firaxis could truly set the standard on so many levels if they can just get past their growth curve and crank up their QA/Consumer Relations a few notches.

posted 06-10-99 07:45 PM ET            

The internet is nice. But you seem to have missed the main thrust of my post - there isn't enough wrong with SMAC, or enough public outcry, to justify the kind of consumer relations response exercise you are advocating.

The public isn't stupid, Yin. This is such a deeply held attitude of yours that I don't expect you to change it, but the fact remains. While people, particularly americians, do tend to by things on impulse, without waiting for reviews and the like, they ALSO complain loudly when they don't get their moneys worth. In my opinion, it's a good system - the public EXPECTS the business to give them a good product, and are often shocked and appalled (re: CtP) when this assumption isn't met. The business can expect to get their money, but under the threat of negative feedback and even litigation if they don't deliver.

As for the boards being a place that every customer should be expressing their opinions, I think again this is a misguided opinion. The vast majority of consumers aren't REALLY that interested in spending time posting issues about a game on the internet. I played CivII for nearly a year before even looking it up on the internet. The game ran fine, so it wasn't an issue. Likewise, I have posted one comment on the Battle.net forums, and one on the T.A site. If the game works, I might be interested in internet play (but not in Kiwiland with a sh*t modem, alas). Otherwise, there's very little to say. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I doubt there's much the average player can add to the general knowledge of SMAC on these forums right now (and with Victor Galis types running around, these boards aren't the best place for stupid ignorant newbies anyway).

So you're wrong about the need for firaxis to add some heavy duty fire support to their customer relations. It would be NICE, I definitely agree, to have a pet firaxian on the forums to talk to about the game, and it would be good to see Jeff adopt some of the suggestions in the previous version of this forum, and post patch updates every couple of weeks on the main page of this forum (a single message, with information on the basic issues being addressed by the patch, the issues not being addressed, and the stage that work is at, would be an excellent start). As it stands, I think Jeff's stimulous-response approach to forum requests for information isn't the best approach, though he's obviously already acting outside of his brief, and may not be able to edit the main page.

posted 06-10-99 08:28 PM ET            

I see your point better now. I still think that the Internet, if used properly, will become a normal mode for gaming companies (virtually any company, really) to not only make a better product but to service that product better. Maybe I'm a few years ahead of the curve on this, and Firaxis would rather not be on the 'bleeding edge' (they love that term in Australia, don't they?) of the Internet thing. Coupled with their already strained staff, I can see that my ideas are low priority for them. Firaxis is, after all, new to the Internet in any meaningful sense (PBEM was only added at the last minute after great pressure from the fans, IIRC, and its current form was done in a less-than-elegant way--but look at the popularity of PBEM among people here).

Firaxis is going to have to get around to this kind of Internet service thing sooner or later (well, maybe), and I'd just rather see them lead the fans than be pushed by them.

Your other point has merit: If a game works well, there's little reason to go on the Net. However, that's in part because the Net is primarily being used for little else than complaining and the occasional (o.k., fairly common) exchange of strategies and so forth between gamers. In other words, the companies in general are giving us little reason other than each other to come to the sites. And, as you point out, if we only have the other gamers on this board to look forward to, it's a sad state of affairs indeed (minus the notable exceptions). And, let's face it, a bug/patch update page is very little to ask.

But it's more than that: Remeber TA's 'a new unit a week' thing? GREAT IDEA! Firaxis could do that and sustain immeasurable interest beyond the norm. Even silly trivia games and a bi-weekly Fan's Column, integrated as part of an overall Civ3 community approach, would do wonders for the game and the company. Behind it all, of course, has to be a great game or nobody will care.

Stepping into your shoes for a moment, though, a hardcore Net approach might be more trouble than it's worth. I agree that if Firaxis 'simply' makes a killer Civ3, nobody will care all that much if they have ANY web site (but where would we get the inevitable patches? ).

But...but...but it's just so damn EASY to add a little icing to the cake, you know what I mean? They do everything else so well...why not go the extra mile? If a ****ty company tried to impress me on the Net, I'd laugh (I DO laugh). If Firaxis does it, I'd probably cry.

posted 06-10-99 09:34 PM ET            

"No it isn't."

"Yes it is."

"No it isn't."

Although I'm not sure you're 100% right in the final analysis. While telling SMAC stories to Brian and Sid round a virtual campfire might be fun, it's just not practical if we want them to be writing new games at the same time.

I agree with the point about the T.A units thing, and you have a very special company indeed when you look at cavedog, who's games are designed from the ground up to be expandable and who do take care of their fans. Whether you can easily build stuff like this into Sid's games (and I maintain you can, like the minor tech idea for the CivIII list) properly or not remains to be seen. T.A had it's own problems with the new units, mostly coming up with enough ideas to keep the fans happy (it was easy at fire, with the need to counter air rush tactics. But apparently they ended up agonising over whether to include trash like a broken metal extractor). TA:K has promised new units, but not at the rate of one per week, and they have FOUR sides to keep in balance.

Hopefully firaxis will earn a lot of money from SMAC and will grow into a bigger company, able to do more things like this. At THIS VERY MOMENT, however, it seems they don't even have a webmaster, their tiny staff is being pulled in three directions at once (SMACX, CivIII, and SMEG), and, by all accounts, they are working very hard. If I had to make a list of priorities for Firaxis at the moment, it would probably go like this:

* Fix and promote internet play of SMAC at Alphacentauri.com (Battle.net and Boneyards being the best examples of how to 'net' new customers).

* Shore up staff numbers in key areas, like programming and internet stuff.

* Work on SMACX

* Reorganise their web setup - I strongly suspect these boards would be more popular if they were a combined part of the firaxis website, for a start (along with a CivIII board). In addition - well, see the Battle.net comment above. Firaxis needs a central hub to run SMAC from, and the broom of time series as whole. They might as well start now.

* Work on CivIII and SMEG.

So, in short, I agree that the internet is the future. I suspect that a lot of PBEM people would like to play for a whole hour at a time instead of for a couple of minutes a day. I'm not sure, however, that until they get more staff and more control of their situation, particularly the real stuff, like having a top notch game that plays well on the net, that they should attempt the scaled up public relation stuff you want.

Finally Yin, enough of the the 'I'm with you guys at Firaxis. I truly am.' stuff. It don't look good coming in the same thread titled 'How do we kill SMAC - and other pressing issues...'.

posted 06-10-99 09:41 PM ET            

Heard of those galactic conquest type developing games? The ones with huge numbers of players, online funerals for slain major characters (ARM only, though, the bastards.)

Imagine receiving orders from deirdre to fight a 2 hour scenario on a frontier with the hive. Imagine a VERY huge map of planet with this kind of thing going on with hundreds of regular players from all 7 factions, complete with ranks and titles.

Done well, I think SMAC could be very internet friendly indeed.

posted 06-10-99 10:12 PM ET         

WHAT is SMACX and what is SMEG?

And Yin, while I agree with your initial argument that improved Internet PR efforts will help any gaming company over the long haul, it's a matter of perspective on how Firaxis falls on the "PR scale". (I'm not really sure myself.) Some companies are quite good at it. Others like TalonSoft have far less a clue on PR than Firaxis.

Another matter of perspective is that I disagree on your assessment of Sid's Gettysburg! as "great game, but no one cared." The historical-based strategy wargame is never going to sell like the way that Civilization or SimCity does----too limited a customer base. But comparing to other historical wargames, Gettysburg! was a BIG success. I think that Firaxis could've made it a bigger seller by producing an add-on that would allow the creation of any Civil War battle (some editors were privately made, but I never got one that worked right). This kind of links to that PR issue you've been making all along.

Yeah, as you might guess, I'm a historical wargamer by nature. But I like SMAC's premise.

posted 06-10-99 10:12 PM ET            

As for the title, it's tongue-and-cheek. It means, basically, "Dear God, we have so few staff as it is, and Civ3, our biggest project to date, is coming up. How do we kill SMAC so we can focus on Civ3?"

Besides, I've earned enough credit with the people at Firaxis to be able to say "I'm with you guys." They (you, everybody) might not like my tone at times, but the message is ALWAYS the same: Let's do better. And it's not like I just say that and walk away. I say that and try to help in every little way I can from my computer in Korea. I make lists for lack of any other way to really help. And these lists ARE helpful according to Firaxis, so I'm glad for that. If I could do more to help this company, I surely would.

posted 06-10-99 10:22 PM ET            

Yin:

That was beautiful, man. *sniff* Thanks.

posted 06-10-99 10:50 PM ET            

Don't get me wrong about Gettysburg! I love that game. It was the ONLY game to make it off my old computer and onto my new one. The way that flanks were implemented, alongside morale and natural cover, was pure genius. You really have to have some strategy to win battles in that game, otherwise the computer will simply whoop your ass. And I LOVED finally getting pounded by a superior computer opponent. Of course, once I learned how to scare away its artillery etc., it became markedly easier. But I learned a great deal in the process, and could never really just sleep and win.

I say again, amazing game.

But my exaggerated comment about 'nobody' caring was directed at the mass audience. There is simply no reason why the average gamer wouldn't enjoy that game (well, you see my point). I certainly had no interest in a civil-war game, per se, but I bought it trusting Sid. I was right. However, and maybe I'm wrong, it seems that Firaxis thought the Sid name alone would work its magic on more people. Unless I missed it, the effort to get people interested in the game was lacking. It might be better to call Gettysburg a 'sleeper.'

And that's the trend I'm seeing here with this company. Great games but far less sustained interest than the quality of the game deserves. As a result, as I've said many times, of poor follow-up. This is just a shame to me. Not everybody follows this company from pre-release to patch 5. Most people walk into things mid-stream and try to figure out a little bit as they go.

But drop in on a Firaxis web site and what will you learn about the game or the quality of the company? Generally not good things, which is too bad considering the talent there. A number of people bought SMAC, didn't like it at first, went to the web site to look for some encouragement, and found not much to be encouraged about. I've encountered more and more people who say basically that. SMAC (for most people) takes time to learn to love. But why give it time if the company seems not to? ("Seems." Perception.)

Gettysburg is a good example of a great game that was orphaned (if I'm wrong, please show me the activity from Firaxis so I can feel better). SMAC is next on the orphanage waiting list. Civ3 will bask in Daddy's warm glow for a time and then be sent to the orphanage as well unless something changes. I guess their lack of staff dictates this cycle, and perhaps they are slowly growing into a company that can service their games for the long-haul, thereby generating even more revenue. I hope so.

I'm just curious: Will you buy SMACX? I won't. Why? I've lost interest. Firaxis had me hooked and let me go. And without better effort on their part, they not only will let more and more people go, they might not get nearly the numbers hooked that these games deserve in the first place.

A-la Gettysburg.

posted 06-10-99 11:25 PM ET            

If anything, and I think I said this before, quite a few times, though not always in the same context, SMAC is potenitally the best game ever. Right now, it isn't. Crummy interface, dodgy stability (sometimes), poor combat and a lack of mid game interest. But, like starcraft, I keep coming back to it. That's a good sign, and is something that SMAC shares with only Starcraft, CivII, warcraftII, Total Annhiliation, and Diablo (you owe Sid your sanity? Mine is a straight split bewteen Sid and Blizzard Entertainment.)

It's sad we don't have much info on what SMACX will bring to the game. Obviously, it needs more vehicle chassis. But that's about all. New factions aren't much of a drawcard compared to an improved interface and better combat dynamics (though the variety will be appreciated - just so long as there isn't a 'forge' town in there ).

Shining1

posted 06-11-99 12:15 AM ET            

They still haven't detonated my work building, but they haven't figured out a way not to yet. Fun Fun. I may get tomorrow off, and paid. Yeah!

I love SMEG. That's great. Just a couple of notes...

1) SMACX will probably be the "Patch 5". It will also have new scenarios, 7 new factions, some new chassises, and what else we don't know. And allegedly, the Aliens come back to kick our butt. Hey ho! Of course, things change, so we shall see...

2) Civ3 and Sid3/SMEG should be in production at the same time. Or in parallel, if you prefer. That means that those precious, precious, precious SMAC and SMACX resources will probably suffer pressure to get done in a hurry, so that they can be utilized on the Civ3 and Sid3 projects.

And finally... 3) Yin, you'll buy SMACX. Just cause its SMAC patch 5 with new units to be played with.

And a general observation... Its tradition to "orphan" the old boys and girls in interests of hyping the market place for the new games. That is the way most game companies do it, so that isn't a surprise. That is another reason I so vocally demand perfection... it quickly becomes a drain on a company to make patches, so if the public isn't 'perceived' to be hot about it, it gets forgotten.

posted 06-11-99 04:14 AM ET            

---Before I go, here is my take on the bug issue, in general---

I beleive that programmers put bugs in their software on purpose. Why do you ask? Simple. To throw off those offensive hacker types. The first version is released. Its buggy as hell. Hackers do what they do best, and distrubute the virtually non functional, but hacked, version of said software. Then the patch comes out. Guess what, it doesn't patch the hacked version and makes the software even more difficult to be hacked. Of course, the hacker will hack the new patched version, and attempt to redistrubute it. But the interested parties, who have already downloaded the 100meg++ non functional version, have most likely lost interest, or bought the patchable version.
Only those who have purchased the software will have the patchable, and eventually fully fucntional version of said software.
This is one of two tools programmers have at their disposal to thwart the attempts of hackers. The other being viruses, of course, which is another beast alltogether. Well, thats my take on it. I might be wrong, but it sure makes good fodder for conspiracy buffs.

posted 06-11-99 04:43 AM ET            

If people are interested in contributing to what happens on the Firaxis site, there is a forum called "The Site" on the Firaxis site which Stephen Lee (the new Firaxis web intern) reads regularly. He is asking for ideas for the site at the moment. Go and tell him (or make suggestions I should say)how to make the site better. The "What we would like to see on the Firaxis site" thread is a good starting point as you can see what he has already done after our suggestions.

posted 06-11-99 04:49 AM ET            

"Ahhh, screw the invasion. This species is its own worst enemy. But at the first sign of rational thought among the masses, fire up the space ship!"

100 years later...

"I've got something sir! It looks like rational thought among the Earthling masses...wait...no. Sorry. CBS is running Dawson's Creek reruns and millions of Earthlings simutaneously changed channels. There was mass intelligence for a moment, but that's as far as it went. My mistake."

posted 06-11-99 04:59 AM ET            

We cross-posted. I wasn't talking about you, obviously. (Wait. Do you like Dawson's Creek? If so, I change my answer. ).

And I'm not quite sure why I start so many threads antagonistically just to have to work twice as hard to make my real point understood...must have been all the tipping cows that seeded a deep neurosis in me.

But thanks for the understanding. Imagine what life for my younger sister must have been like.

posted 06-11-99 05:29 AM ET            

I did say however that as long as the bugs do not kill my fun when playing the game, I'll accept them. That does *not* mean I condone sloppy programming (I most certainly do not), and that I won't complain until the bugs get fixed.

posted 06-11-99 07:17 AM ET            

Dawson's creek. Hmmmm. I have to admit that I have watched it once but I did so more out of a morbid curiosity rather than in search of enjoyment. I mean surely there must be something more to the show than a shallow, naive, predictable and sickening treatment of some teenagers emotional lives, but I was wrong. There really is no story to the show, none of the characters are in anyway likeable and they have the combined emotional depth of a lobotomised goldfish. Which would seem to defeat the object of a show based purely on emotional drivel.

Oh no, we are agreeing on something. I'm going to consult a doctor, I suggest you do the same.

posted 06-11-99 03:22 PM ET            

Seriously, sorry about that.

posted 06-11-99 03:42 PM ET            

you suffer its bugs whenever it decides to terraform in ways you can't...

If you play Transcend or Thinker(? Next to top level) you experience the bug CONSTANTLY (Energy bug). If you don't use build queues CONSTANTLY, you get bonus energy all the time.

You have just gotten used to the bugs, I-man. If you haven't gotten the Terrain.exe crash, fabs to you. I have only gotten those crashes a few times myself. Just enough to convince me not to play Ironman.

But to claim you never experience bugs in SMAC can only be truthfully claimed by those WHO NEVER PLAY IT.

posted 06-11-99 09:24 PM ET         

I would agree, Yin, that "sleeper" is a good definition of Sid's Gettysburg! (SMG). Historical-based computer wargames (except maybe flight simulators) will never do much better. I also agree that the SMG game engine quickly went on "orphan" status. LOTS of forum contributors, including myself, BEGGED that Firaxis follow up with a game using the same real-time engine with another historical period. (I argued for ancients/feudal/middle ages as the next to try with the SMG engine.) Ssssiiighhhhhh.

Gibber09: No, the Internet isn't always a fount of enlightened thought. But reading this thread, and reading the logic given by all of you contributors, does a lot more to enrich the mind than to sit in front of the other one-eye monster (TV) and let your skull be bombarded by whatever &#!*@ is thrown at you.

So, Yin, you may have come up with a new "technology" for SMACX called "Crappy TV shows." If you get this, you use it as a "virus" to beam at other factions and watch their productivity go down. Something like "Dawson's Fungal Fields"? Or WWWM (Wide World of Wrestling with Mindworms)?

Other suggestions?