The "too big to fail" mentality is the bane of AAA gaming.

[mystemacc]

That's all they aspire to be, they want to be able to change things, minimum effort, sell the product in parts, subs or whatever they fancy, they don't consider feedback, double down against people that critisize them and STILL sell good.

There are only a handful of games that can do that and they still respect their player base more, but every other company is now chasing that high and for some reason they're pretty sure that THIS time it will certainly work.

Here's a $90 mount an artist designed in his weekend off and we pay him 70k a year, we want $1bln for it pure before taxes profit.

Civ VII changes make no sense, they knew the feedback but they didn't care. And what do they do? Minimum effort and they were so sure we'd all just buy it and buy 2 eras as DLC and 20 civs as DLC and be grateful for the opportunity.

If I was a shareholder I'd be pissed that people gamble with my money when they could've just stayed true to the spirit of the game's success and make a ton more.

What's up with that? Who hires these people and who greenlights their changes and risks, and then lets them part ways with huge bonuses.

I don't see what these people's problem is, why can't they just make a proper game?

Thanks for reading.

[Rhapsody]

You mean they knew the feedback of players not finishing their games, hating on religion micromanagement, wanting to play different leaders and civilizations, and then... they acted upon that feedback? Wow.

[Esau]

Originally posted by Rhapsody:

You mean they knew the feedback of players not finishing their games, hating on religion micromanagement, wanting to player different leaders and civilizations, and then... they acted upon that feedback? Wow.

Great! Now even fewer players are finishing their games --because they're just not playing them! They "fixed" religion by making it so barebones it can barely even be said to be there, and they actioned on the 10 people saying they wanted to have Asoka playing as America that they drove away everyone else that finds that incredibly jarring. We did it Patrick! We saved Civilization!

[ParabolaWaVe]

Originally posted by mystemacc:

If I was a shareholder I'd be pissed that people gamble with my money when they could've just stayed true to the spirit of the game's success and make a ton more.

What's up with that? Who hires these people and who greenlights their changes and risks, and then lets them part ways with huge bonuses.

I don't see what these people's problem is, why can't they just make a proper game?

The problem with shareholders is having all current and future revenue already priced in the stock. Once that happens, the stock is stuck... dead in the water for, maybe, years... and they need positive surprises to move it further up. That's why you see the CEOs doing this kind of stupid experiments over a venerable franchise, trying to capture an even broader market that perhaps not even exists.

[Steve]

Originally posted by mystemacc:

I don't see what these people's problem is, why can't they just make a proper game?

Well, that's simple enough to answer. 2K Games/Take-Two Interactive does not concern themselves with the opinions of gamers. This is a publisher that makes games purely for their investors.

All Take-Two cares about is whether you're throwing your money in the hole. They don't care about a quality, stable product that provides value for the consumer -- case in point, Grand Theft Auto Online (esp. on PC).

GTA Online is a well-known cheaters' haven. You cannot find a public lobby without at least one cheater in it. But Take-Two never did anything about it because people keep throwing their money down the Shark Card hole anyway, so despite the glaring fact that there's severe performance and security issues with one of their best-selling titles, nothing meaningful has ever been done to address those problems.

To get a good game, a developer has to be making the game for the players -- not the investors.

[Steve]

Originally posted by Rhapsody:

You mean they knew the feedback of players not finishing their games, hating on religion micromanagement, wanting to play different leaders and civilizations, and then... they acted upon that feedback? Wow.

And this is a hallmark of Take-Two's PR efforts (and other similarly-structured developers). The idea is to frame significant/controversial changes in the lens of "listening to player feedback" -- never mind that not a single player has ever asked for the removal of "One More Turn" or the addition of a mid-game Switch-A-Civ™ feature, let alone a majority or even significantly-sized minority for either -- so that a semblance of cover is provided.

Another approach for this is in the name of long-term playerbase/game stability (see; Planetside 2's merge of Emerald server with its buggy, DOA empty West Coast server, Connery).

[ParabolaWaVe]

Originally posted by Steve:

Well, that's simple enough to answer. 2K Games/Take-Two Interactive does not concern themselves with the opinions of gamers. This is a publisher that makes games purely for their investors.

All Take-Two cares about is whether you're throwing your money in the hole. They don't care about a quality, stable product that provides value for the consumer

Many decades ago, shareholders expected to win money from dividends, which come straight from the company profits. So they actually cared more about the product being delivered and the consumer being satisfied.

However, in our time, shareholders win money not from the company itself but -only- from other investors. from big swings in the price of shares which pay little to no dividend at all, so they couldn't care less about the fundamentals of the company. They're speculators, who want big headlines in the news, and create market hype around their shares to unload them on top of the fools for more money than they originally paid for. These guys are there only for the very short run, only for sucking money like overweight mosquitos for a little while, make millions or even billions of dollars, then leave for another company and repeat the process.

They can't care less if Civilization is burned as an intellectual property... they can now cash out, thanks to sales of the game from preorders, and reinvest their capital somewhere else. This is what too much stock market can do to capitalism. No company has the proper incentives to do something for the very long term anymore... all that matters is the next presentation with the quarterly results, so that there's enough idiots to sell the stock to.

[Bandit17]

Originally posted by Esau:

Great! Now even fewer players are finishing their games --because they're just not playing them! They "fixed" religion by making it so barebones it can barely even be said to be there, and they actioned on the 10 people saying they wanted to have Asoka playing as America that they drove away everyone else that finds that incredibly jarring. We did it Patrick! We saved Civilization!

Criticizing the truth and backing it up with a statement that completely disregards reality comes off looking a little silly. Judging a Civ game so harshly after it's release would be like criticizing a Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Nebbiolo, Tempranillo, or Sangiovese after just a month of aging.

So having Russia build the pyramids, America found Taoism, have religious units zap each-other with lightning and playing on maps that look nothing like Earth is okay but as soon as Isabella shows up as Mexico it's "incredibly jarring".

Anyone older than my dog should know it takes a Civ game a year or longer to even come close to it's potential. There are issues with the game and we will hopefully have a nice patch coming soon to address some of them.

[Rhapsody]

Players have absolutely no problems finishing games of Civ VII, or at least the modern age legacy paths, and then victory is a stone's throw away from there.

[mystemacc]

Originally posted by ParabolaWaVe:

Originally posted by Steve:

Well, that's simple enough to answer. 2K Games/Take-Two Interactive does not concern themselves with the opinions of gamers. This is a publisher that makes games purely for their investors.

All Take-Two cares about is whether you're throwing your money in the hole. They don't care about a quality, stable product that provides value for the consumer

Many decades ago, shareholders expected to win money from dividends, which come straight from the company profits. So they actually cared more about the product being delivered and the consumer being satisfied.

However, in our time, shareholders win money not from the company itself but -only- from other investors. from big swings in the price of shares which pay little to no dividend at all, so they couldn't care less about the fundamentals of the company. They're speculators, who want big headlines in the news, and create market hype around their shares to unload them on top of the fools for more money than they originally paid for. These guys are there only for the very short run, only for sucking money like overweight mosquitos for a little while, make millions or even billions of dollars, then leave for another company and repeat the process.

They can't care less if Civilization is burned as an intellectual property... they can now cash out, thanks to sales of the game from preorders, and reinvest their capital somewhere else. This is what too much stock market can do to capitalism. No company has the proper incentives to do something for the very long term anymore... all that matters is the next presentation with the quarterly results, so that there's enough idiots to sell the stock to.

Although it doesn't benefit gaming, at least I understand something more about how things work and some things make sense.

Good to know, might aswell lower my expectations.

[JerBeware]

Originally posted by Bandit17:

Judging a Civ game so harshly after it's release would be like criticizing a Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Nebbiolo, Tempranillo, or Sangiovese after just a month of aging.

Actually no it wouldn't. If wine was sold for consumption before it was properly 'aged' in this case, the winery would deserve all the negative feedback it gets. Similarly, for Civ to have released in the state it was, it received the criticism it deserved, based upon the product that was provided to consumers at the time of sale.

Now if you want to argue that those wines potentially get better with additional aging, and that Civ should too, I would agree. But you can't ignore their state at the time of release/sale.

[schmonz]

The era system is detrimental to what Civ was all about. It is the worst idea they ever had.

[Bandit17]

Originally posted by JerBeware:

Originally posted by Bandit17:

Judging a Civ game so harshly after it's release would be like criticizing a Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Nebbiolo, Tempranillo, or Sangiovese after just a month of aging.

Actually no it wouldn't. If wine was sold for consumption before it was properly 'aged' in this case, the winery would deserve all the negative feedback it gets. Similarly, for Civ to have released in the state it was, it received the criticism it deserved, based upon the product that was provided to consumers at the time of sale.

I never stated it was "sold" and I think a normal human would understand the meaning in my statement. So no need to inject your own words into it.

Nothing wrong in criticizing a game's release. So go on and give "constructive" feedback but the hyperbolic end of the world stuff, like what I was responding too, is going a little too far.

[mystemacc]

Originally posted by schmonz:

The era system is detrimental to what Civ was all about. It is the worst idea they ever had.

That's extremely bad to me, I can't stand it.

I never played GTA5 just because it has 3 characters instead of one.

I want to invest in one character, one Civilization. I want continuity.

[folgra]

Is there any reason this could not have been added to one of the many other complaining discussions.

[mystemacc]

Originally posted by folgra:

Is there any reason this could not have been added to one of the many other complaining discussions.

If it breaks any rules they can take it down, that's fine.