virgin DW - continuation?

[Kayoz]

I have a concern:

Are the changes made to DW-RotS being rolled back into virgin DW? Or is virgin-DW being all but abandoned and any development being restricted to DW-RotS, in the hope that consumers will buy the expansion pack because of the bug fixes?

This seems to be the current trend, with the lack of any patches since 1.06. I question the wisdom of the lack of virgin-DW patches. If DW is to expand its consumer base, it must be able to stand on its own as a game.

[lordxorn]

I disagree with your statement that DW does not stand on it's own, especially at the current price point.

However I agree they should continue to support it.

[Erik Rutins]

We've said a few times that at least one more update for DW is planned. This will not roll back all the features of the expansion, but it will include bug fixes and performance improvements, as well as some gameplay and AI fixes.

Regards,

- Erik

[Kayoz]

Sorry, I didn't mean that it can't stand on its own. I believe that it has some distinct weaknesses that have been addressed in RotS and subsequent patches.

But how would you feel, if you bought a game, and the company is making fixes - but the only way you can get the fixes is to buy the expansion packs? Basically, you're stuck with a buggy game - unless you fork over more cash.

[Kayoz]

Erik -

I believe the problem is that much of these announcements are scattered throughout the forums. Unless one is willing to dig through hundreds of posts, there is no way of telling.

Or have I missed something? Is there another manner I am not aware of, in which these announcements are being made and easily accessible by the consumers?

[Data]

Please don't think I'm trying to ignite the topic here, I'm just trying to understand something:

1) If I like DW so much why not buy the expansion that brings a huuge improvment to it? Since this will continue to be patched than this is the way to go from a DW standpoint also.

2) Why should money be the problem, if I like it I want the guys that code and support the game to continue to do so. But they in turn need our support, I cannot code or support the game but I can support the ones who do.

more ranting comes to mind but I think this is enough to underline the idea. Again, I'm not blaiming or judging anyone, just trying to understand why would you want to remain on DW alone.

[Kayoz]

Data -

I believe the first statement needs comparison to industry norms. Supporting the continued bug-fixing and such of the core game in addition to the expansion packs is the behaviour of most successful game companies.

Look at BioWare - they released NeverWinter Nights in 2002. They followed this up with expansion packs in 2003, 2005 and 2006. Their last update was 1.69, which afaik, was released July 2008. The 1.69 patch updates ALL expansion packs, including the core (virgin) product. Yes, this means that bugfixes, AI improvements, scripting additions and such get rolled into each and every one of their released products of the NWN family, benefiting each and every one of their customers. Let me repeat this in case you missed it. They continued to improve on their core product for SIX YEARS after its release. Go to your computer game shop. Look around it and you'll find NWN somewhere there. How many games are STILL on the shelves EIGHT YEARS after their release?

Now look at the repugnantly popular Warcraft by Blizzard. Each and every one of their patches, updates and constant reworking of the skill points system rolls back into those who choose to play their core product. No, you do NOT have to buy the expansions to receive the fixes. If you can point to a more successful MMO, then please do so.

Next, let's look at those greedy whores at CA - no, not them - I mean the soulless b*stards at Creative Assembly, who made the Total War series. (Did you figure out yet that I'm no fan of Activision?) they follow the same model as BioWare - each update rolls changes into every branch of the product - core and expansion. When they release a patch, it applies the fixes and improvements to ALL branches of that product, regardless of the presence or absence of expansion packs. Look at Medieval War II - you can get the Kingdoms expansion - but it isn't necessary, in order to be able to access the changes and improvements they made between the initial release of MWII and now. What you DO get with the expansion pack, is extra campaigns, maps, etc. The core game itself is very capable of standing on its own. You can play it all you want - and if you're still thirsting for more, then you can buy the Kingdoms expansion. Nowhere on any Total War forum, have I ever heard anyone suggest buying an expansion "for the bug fixes it contains".

That's the sort of business outlook that results in success. Make your customers WANT to buy your expansions. Make it so those who choose not to, aren't punished by withholding fixes or improvements. All that results in is any "new" customers bring driven away, because they see a product that's buggy and weak - and the only way they're going to get what'd advertised on the box, is to cough up more money for the expansions. If you can point to successful games which have restricted their bug-fixes and improvements to expansion packs - then please do so. All I see when I survey those companies, are failures and names that are listed as "abandon-ware".

I do not believe your outlook on "supporting the developers" is common. We operate in a capitalistic society. People give over their hard earned money for the products because they believe it's worth it - not out of some altruistic belief in game development. If you have the budget to make a game with bigger explosions, bloodier decapitations and realistic twitching of traumatic amputation of limbs, then go ahead - make yet another first-person shooter. CodeForce, however, is very unlikely to have the resources to compete with the likes of Halo or GTA - so they must innovate to attract clients and thus the money of the consumer. What they have now, is a good foundation. It's game that's unique in its genre and has a field almost empty of competitors. That's how business works.

I, for one, didn't buy DW because I saw it as some charity case. I bought it because it's new, innovative and had features that I found compelling. Distant Worlds was also buggy, slow and awkward - but that I can accept due to its innovation. I would hate to see CodeForce fail due to them relying on the income from expansion packs, instead of trying to expand the number of customers who buy DW - and enjoy it so much that they go on to buy the expansion packs.

With respect to promulgation of game mechanics and such, that is still a concern. Really, if you're a novice user coming to the site and picking up DW for the first time - how the hell are you supposed to know why that spiffy ship you've just repaired has just turned yellow - the colour of your enemy? How is that hypothetical player supposed to know? Look in the manual? Look at the patch notes? No, it's not in either one of those places. The explanation for this is buried in some post, somewhere in hundreds of threads on a forum. How many people do you think will have the patience to dig around for the answer? How many people will simply throw their hands up, and return the game to the retailer quoting the "Sale of Goods Act" - "not fit for the purpose for which it was sold"? And how many of the latter group will slag the game off when they tell their friends about the inexplicable bugs in the game?

[Lord_Astraios]

I saw a new patch to the distant world somewhere when i was downloading the beta patch for ROTS,  but mostly the patches will come a little bit slower than the expansion,  but they will come,  if its a roll back,  weird that would happen then you would have all the problems and less features that has been fixed.

[ceyan]

Kayoz:

For one, you used an MMORPG example as a show of how a development life cycle works for non-MMO games. That is just ridiculous on so many levels. Two, I will admit it would be nice if everyone followed a module based approach to development like Neverwinter Nights, however even Bioware doesn't hold that up in their other games. You cherry picked one of the very few games who fits your criteria and held it up as the standard, when that is completely opposite.

Not to say I don't agree with you or that you don't have a valid point, but you make a lot of definitive statements with no actual support for them, even from a common sense level, and that annoys me enough I had to point out at least one of them.

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: ceyan

... you used an MMORPG example as a show of how a development life cycle works for non-MMO games....

...You cherry picked one of the very few games who fits your criteria and held it up as the standard...

I don't understand your opposition to using Blizzard's development methodology as an example is irrelevant. MMO games vs. 4X - you're saying that software development techniques differ drastically? Indeed, so drastically that using Blizzard as an example is "cherry-picking"? I was considering using CaseSoft as an example - are you arguing that since they don't produce games, any observations of their development policies are irrelevant?

I chose my examples off the top of my head. If I cherry picked - then it's unavoidable. I don't have the time or energy to churn out a 200-odd page dissertation on software development methods. This seems to be what you're asking for - which is frankly ridiculous.

If you disagree with me, then I welcome you to challenge my statements - both in accuracy and content. Have I said something that is inaccurate? Am I suggesting that CodeForce take on a policy that would be destructive to its long-term development? My intent in this thread is to highlight what I see as a potentially dangerous policy of CodeForce focussing their development efforts on appeasing their existing customer base at the cost of the expansion of their customer base.

[Rosseau]

Money is tight, but for most of us, time is much more valuable than money. So I would rather pay extra and have the best experience of DW I can get, especially when I am devoting a lot of time to an epic scenario. The patch policy is another matter that's been discussed extensively regarding Harpoon Ultimate. Best to you!

[ceyan]

If you disagree with me, then I welcome you to challenge my statements - both in accuracy and content. Have I said something that is inaccurate? Am I suggesting that CodeForce take on a policy that would be destructive to its long-term development? My intent in this thread is to highlight what I see as a potentially dangerous policy of CodeForce focussing their development efforts on appeasing their existing customer base at the cost of the expansion of their customer base.

Actually it'd be a waste of time since you didn't even read my comment, considering I said you cherry-picked the Bioware game and not World of Warcraft. On top of that, yes Software Development Life Cycles differ drastically between the type of product. I mean you do realize World of Warcraft uses a subscription model for its revenue stream (although in fairness I'm sure Blizzard makes so much money with their other ventures that they could change Warcraft's payment system) and not a one-time purchase? How you think that doesn't affect their development and how they support their customers over a more traditional model is beyond comprehension. Even then since you're talking about a subscription model the player DOES have to pay for the updates because they're still paying their $15 a month, which completely invalidates your original point.

But, for the sake of argument, lets look at Bioware? For a supposedly amazing company they are guilty of something similar to what you're putting on CodeForce in Dragon Age. Not only did Dragon Age have bugs acknowledged by Bioware (since release) which have still yet to ever be patched, but they flat out dropped all support for their DLC after it was released except for their big expansion pack.

Also, to nip the other thing in the bud, non-gaming software development companies either A) don't have lifetime support or B) maintain a subscription style revenue model based on maintenance & support for their product over time. What few companies do offter lifetime support usually drop it when they become successful (example, Winzip).

But, for the sake of it, lets look over some other things:

I do not believe your outlook on "supporting the developers" is common. We operate in a capitalistic society. People give over their hard earned money for the products because they believe it's worth it - not out of some altruistic belief in game development. If you have the budget to make a game with bigger explosions, bloodier decapitations and realistic twitching of traumatic amputation of limbs, then go ahead - make yet another first-person shooter. CodeForce, however, is very unlikely to have the resources to compete with the likes of Halo or GTA - so they must innovate to attract clients and thus the money of the consumer. What they have now, is a good foundation. It's game that's unique in its genre and has a field almost empty of competitors. That's how business works.

If that were true then many name brand products would be off the store shelves. Product loyalty, belief in a higher quality (sometimes true, sometimes not), ease of access, and tons of other crap make up purchasing decisions. So yes, supporting a developer who you believe can put out a good game, or will eventually make a game better over time via patching is perfectly reasonable.

That's the sort of business outlook that results in success. Make your customers WANT to buy your expansions. Make it so those who choose not to, aren't punished by withholding fixes or improvements. All that results in is any "new" customers bring driven away, because they see a product that's buggy and weak - and the only way they're going to get what'd advertised on the box, is to cough up more money for the expansions. If you can point to successful games which have restricted their bug-fixes and improvements to expansion packs - then please do so. All I see when I survey those companies, are failures and names that are listed as "abandon-ware".

So if you claim you didn't cherry pick an example and really just brought it off the top of your head, name 10 more games in addition to Neverwinter Nights (I'll even let you use NWN2) that fit your description as games that had additional content/expansions released for them but did not require you to purchase the new content to continue receiving updates to the base game. Hell, I'll even give you an out if you can name one company that fits that model consistently across all its games. Of course even if you were able to do that, which I highly doubt, then you're still talking less than 1% of the released games and/or game development companies out there.

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: ceyan

Actually it'd be a waste of time since you didn't even read my comment, considering I said you cherry-picked the Bioware game and not World of Warcraft.

Uh? Your statement about cherry-picking came as the closing sentence to a paragraph which made two points. Now you're saying it applies to one of those statements but not both? You need to learn to structure your paragraphs so that you're not mashing multiple issues together. Or if you insist on mashing your points together, then explicitly state which you're referring to.

Sorry if I didn't interpret the sentence the way you wanted me to interpret it, but that's a weakness of your writing style. Learn to write clearly, and perhaps you can avoid this sort of thing in the future.

ORIGINAL: ceyan

I mean you do realize World of Warcraft uses a subscription model for its revenue stream (although in fairness I'm sure Blizzard makes so much money with their other ventures that they could change Warcraft's payment system) and not a one-time purchase?

I'm afraid that your original statement was not the same as what you're complaining about now. You said:

you used an MMORPG example as a show of how a development life cycle works for non-MMO games

The issue raised was support methodology. You complained that the support methodology doesn't apply because it's a MMORPG as opposed to non-MMO game. Now you've completely dropped your original objection based on product life cycle and moved on to a comparison of their business models.

Do you see my confusion? You're complaining about one thing in one post - then turn around and raise a completely different issue in the second - and all the while complaining that I don't read. I can read perfectly well - you're not writing in a comprehensible manner.

ORIGINAL: ceyan

...which completely invalidates your original point.

You've changed points - the original point was the company support for the product - not the business model.

ORIGINAL: ceyan

But, for the sake of argument, lets look at Bioware? For a supposedly amazing company they are guilty of something similar to what you're putting on CodeForce in Dragon Age. Not only did Dragon Age have bugs acknowledged by Bioware (since release) which have still yet to ever be patched, but they flat out dropped all support for their DLC after it was released except for their big expansion pack.

OK, here I was inaccurate. Let me specify - my use of Bioware as an example is limited to their handling of the NWN family - that being NWN, not it's bastard offspring NWN2. That's why I mentioned NWN - and not Jade Empire, NWN2 or Mass Effect.

As for company consistency across games - addressed below.

I agree with you regarding BioWare in terms of Dragon Age - it's a pile of rubbish. The Eclipse engine is laughable. Stuck in a 2D environment still? Loading screens every 5 minutes? It's KOTOR with a couple of bells and whistles - but otherwise the same damned thing.

I'm really not sure what you're complaining about with regards to your statement:

ORIGINAL: ceyan
...they flat out dropped all support for their DLC after it was released except for their big expansion pack

Dragon Age: Origins was released Nov 2009 - and DLC has been released periodically since then, to the last one which was released Sept 2010. I really don't understand the basis for your statement that they "dropped all support for DLC". The facts do not support your statement.

ORIGINAL: ceyan
...non-gaming software development companies either A) don't have lifetime support or B) maintain a subscription style revenue model based on maintenance & support for their product over time. What few companies do offter lifetime support usually drop it when they become successful (example, Winzip).

They don't? Really? Perhaps you've heard of this obscure little American company called, "Microsoft". They don't have a subscription revenue model, yet maintain support for the life of the product. Windows XP is still being supported - granted at a lower level since April 2009, but they still fix critical issues and will do so till April 2014.

Once again, your objection isn't supported by the facts.

ORIGINAL: ceyan

If that were true then many name brand products would be off the store shelves. Product loyalty, belief in a higher quality (sometimes true, sometimes not), ease of access, and tons of other crap make up purchasing decisions. So yes, supporting a developer who you believe can put out a good game, or will eventually make a game better over time via patching is perfectly reasonable.

Paying over the odds because of a belief in the future of a company/product is a minuscule part of overall consumer decision making. People pay for what they get - or what they believe they're getting. You know what the belief in the company name is called in accounting? It's called "goodwill". Look at any company's financial statement - it's less than a blip on the financial statements.

You don't buy a car which stalls every time you change gear, whose wheels fall off and whose brakes work intermittently - on the belief that the manufacturer will improve it over time.

You don't buy a gun which jams ever 2nd shot, because you believe the company will get around to fixing it one of these days.

Businesses don't pay for services which are crap - but they think the service provider might just get its act together over time. No, they go with who provides what services they need, at prices they're willing to pay.

Software is always going to be buggy - it's inevitable. I'm not saying that it needs to be perfect, but if Code Force doesn't improve it, then no matter how fabulous the expansions are, they won't get many new customers. If they want to make the most wonga out of DW, then they need to make DW as appealing as possible to new players. A faster, slicker and more stable core game will ensure that. Slick expansion packs, on the other hand, will only appeal to their existing customer base.

Are Nike shoes really worth what people pay? Well, that's a very deep question. If I buy Nike shoes, I'm paying for the product - and a bit extra because I believe that the quality will be predictable. My knees are worth more to me than the price difference between Nike shoes and the bargain brand. But CodeForce isn't Nike. Nike has a track record for quality. CodeForce doesn't.

But this isn't about business models - I raised the point of CodeForce and Matrix's support policy. How they pay for it is an entirely different matter and entirely outside the scope of this thread.

ORIGINAL: ceyan

So if you claim you didn't cherry pick an example and really just brought it off the top of your head, name 10 more games in addition to Neverwinter Nights (I'll even let you use NWN2) that fit your description as games that had additional content/expansions released for them but did not require you to purchase the new content to continue receiving updates to the base game. Hell, I'll even give you an out if you can name one company that fits that model consistently across all its games. Of course even if you were able to do that, which I highly doubt, then you're still talking less than 1% of the released games and/or game development companies out there.

Ten games in addition to NWN, or one company that fits the criteria across all its games?

Sure.

Creative Assembly. They've consistently maintained that model since day-one.

But it's rhetorical, isn't it? You've already stated you're going to reject whatever I say.

As to your objection that this is "less than 1%" of the games/companies. Well, you have a different view of "standard" than I do.

To you, "standard" is "what's done by the majority, regardless of its success rate" - so if you apply your rule of "standard" to infantry ambush response, then the "standard response" to an ambush is "panic and die".

I contend that you are misinterpreting my use of "standard" - I'm using it in the context of "what's consistently successful". My idea of a "standard infantry response to an ambush" isn't "panic and die" - but "counter-ambush tactics as trained". Most people caught in an ambush will panic and die - but they can hardly be called successful.

[ceyan]

Uh? Your statement about cherry-picking came as the closing sentence to a paragraph which made two points.

Exactly how does saying "You cherry picked one of..." directly after a statement about Bioware translate into cherry picking WoW? I'll grant you that if this was a english writing assignment, you'd have a point. Instead you're trying to attack my statement instead of responding to it simply because I'm lazy with my writing.

I'm afraid that your original statement was not the same as what you're complaining about now. You said:

So I address your point, then later on make another observation on the same subject and suddenly you completely ignore my everything but the very last statement I made?

And, just for the record, on what world do you live on that a development process doesn't include the support methodology?

Ten games in addition to NWN, or one company that fits the criteria across all its games?

Yay for more not reading, or for pure idiocy. I ask you to name 10 games (or one company) that meets your requirements for supporting the base game after new content is added, and you come back with the one example you used in your original post that is against all those requirements.

[jalapen0]

No offense but you guys have too much time on your hands.

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: ceyan

Exactly how does saying "You cherry picked one of..." directly after a statement about Bioware translate into cherry picking WoW? I'll grant you that if this was a english writing assignment, you'd have a point. Instead you're trying to attack my statement instead of responding to it simply because I'm lazy with my writing.

I'm not psychic - I can't wriggle my nose and divine the meaning of your confusing statements. If your writing skills are as bad as you seem to admit - then stay off the forums.

I addressed your "cherry picking" objection by meeting your demand that you issued later in the post (10 titles or one company). You failed to support your objection to WoW on the basis that WoW is a MMO game - your entire objection is on the business model.

Oh hell - I'll humour you. Ever heard of RuneScape? It's free. So is SilkRoad. There's more out there - MMO games which don't demand subscription fees to play. They make their money from people who like it so much that they want MORE. Your business model objection lacks logical support. Different companies choose different business models. That goes for any genre of game. Some succeed, some fail - and I have seen nothing to support the assertion that the business model restricts or predetermines the support model.

ORIGINAL: ceyanSo

I address your point, then later on make another observation on the same subject and suddenly you completely ignore my everything but the very last statement I made?

I said it in my last post: the business model of Matrix Games and Code Force are outside the scope of this discussion. You've raised an irrelevant point to try to support your objections. If you still think it's the business model determines the amount and type of support a company can provide, then how is it that I can so easily come up with 2 games off the top of my head that offer similar support as WoW, but have drastically different business models?

ORIGINAL: ceyanSo
And, just for the record, on what world do you live on that a development process doesn't include the support methodology?

Development is the process of making the game. Support is after the game is complete and released to market. They're two different things. I quite simply don't understand you on this point - there's no link between the two.

Having a development policy doesn't imply any requirement of the type or even existence of a support policy (is "none" a policy?). You release a game, there's no obligation to provide support. What customers get is what's on the disk - anything beyond that is at the whim of the distributor.

Alternatively, you can use a completely disjointed and inconsistent method to develop a game (eg: Daikatana) and go on to provide brilliant support (not Daikatana).

What's your point?

I live on Earth. Perhaps you might come and visit my blue marble one of these days.

ORIGINAL: ceyanSo
Yay for more not reading, or for pure idiocy. I ask you to name 10 games (or one company) that meets your requirements for supporting the base game after new content is added, and you come back with the one example you used in your original post that is against all those requirements.

Egads - your reading and writing skills are so bad that you can't read your own post? Here's what you said in your 1/26/11 post:

name 10 more games in addition to Neverwinter Nights... I'll even give you an out if you can name one company that fits that model consistently across all its games.

I provided exactly what you asked for - and as I suggested what your reaction would be, you're rejecting it - even after I've given you exactly what you requested.

You seem to have a lot of difficulty with English, so here's some help. You gave me 2 choices:

(A) Identify 10 more games, in addition to NWN, that meet the stated support policy criteria
or
(B) Identify one game company that consistently applies the stated support policy across all its games.

I chose option B - it's quicker. You left the choice up to me.

So you're conceding the point then - as you stated you would, correct?

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: jalapen0

No offense but you guys have too much time on your hands.

Off work with a slipped disk and medication that's playing hell with my sleep. Yup - too much time. I'm going stir crazy.