1.0.2 (Final version) now available

[jbone]

Tangy,

The Yankees have pitchers in the Gulf Coast League who can hit better than Travis Lee does.

You're obviously just trying to jack up your post rating.

That must be the reason for all those incessant posts about your crush on Nelly Furtado, and how you want to be "The game MVP like Steve Nash".

You don't need to watch soccer to see mold grow. All you need to do is look in the mirror, smile, and check out your teeth.

Jamie

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by jbone

You know, generally when a game comes out, people are excited to play it. The game has been advertised, and folks are excited to check it out and play it. Most people say to themselves "gee, that game sounds exciting, I think I'll buy it." There are very few people who are like "Gee, that game sounds great, I think I'll really enjoy it. I know! I'll wait months to buy it until they have released a final patch."

I have heard other people say this sort of comment as well, and it makes no sense to me. Either there is a fundamental lack of understanding about the process that a consumer goes about to buy a game. Either that, or you have a fundamental lack of understanding about human nature in general.

And anyways, you just don't seem to get it. As a consumer, if a game is released and advertised, one should assume that on whole, it is working correctly. It's not my job to purvey message boards for when final patches have come out; it's my job to read an email that the game has been released, and then pay $35 and play and enjoy the game.

If I need a hammer and walk into a hardware store to buy one, they aren't like "yes, we have a great hammer right here. However, the head of it and the handle aren't attached yet. We're selling this hammer for $35, though, and I hope that you can wait a couple of months for your project so that we can finish manufacturing the hammer."

Whether the final hammer is good or not (and it could wind up being the best hammer in the world), this is no way to do business.

And as far as whether I keep buying their games is my prerogative. It's my money, I can do what I want with it, when I want with it. And am I loyal? Yes. But that loyalty, plus the fact that I have spent the money for this game and have experienced this game, give me a right to speak up about this game, and the practices of SI in general. I don't tell you how to spend your money or your time, please don't tell me how to spend mine. It's none of your business.

The truth is, that I am the customer. When I receive an email advertising a game as a product, with new features, etc, and then go buy the game, I expect it to work properly. This isn't just a complaint, this is a right. If you have ever heard of the concept of "Consumer Rights", this is what they are talking about.

And quite frankly, those who attempt to defend SI on this (by apparently telling me to patient, or telling me to not buy the game, etc.) do so by attacking my buying habits and not defend the ethics of SI itself. These people are not going to improve the game for the future, so that SI stops this ridiculous practice. They are just helping SI perpetuate the cycle - as if SI is faultless for releasing a highly bugged game and it's simply MY fault for buying it and playing it.

Anyways, I'm sure that you consider yourselves very mature and patient and righteous for putting up with all the bugs of SI Games, and acting like I am some sort of lesser, impatient stooge. We'll see if you still feel the same way after ootp2008 is released with all sorts of bugs in it as well - or if by that time you are a little more sick of it - and you will have no one to blame but yourselves. Or perhaps you will just go on complaining about all the incessant posts by the "whiners" (i.e., those who actually expect quality and professionalism), and go on to congratulate yourselves for how mature you consider yourselves for waiting months after a release for a half-finished product to be fixed.

Let me give you hint - if you spoke up about it yourselves, instead of skirt the issue by attacking my buying and playing habits, SI might actually do something about it. And quite frankly, I think that is about the most constructive thing that has been said in this thread so far.

Two problems that I can think of with this.

1. They screw you (in your opinion) every year and you go back for more because the same advetising you saw last year got you excited.

2. You support the way SI does business by buying their games on or near release date. It is your buying habits that feeds this beast not the guy that tells you to be patient. The guy that is telling you to be patient has made his purchase and is evidently happy with it so he's not going to change.
Only if you and others that are unhappy change your habits (and make sure you do this for every game) will you be able to effect change in the software gaming industry, good luck with that.

IMHO if you want to get their attention don't buy the game and tell them why. Control your impulse to buy and don't give them your money. Not giving them your money will get their attention a lot quicker than
posting on any board.

[jbone]

I have said on previous posts that I do enjoy this game and that is why I buy it. SI does a lot of great things, and can release great products, and I always look forward to them. I'm always eager to buy the game and experience it. And I did hope that the ootp release would be different. And that is a rosy-eyed view perhaps in retrospect, but I always do hope for the best, it's my personality. But I do think it is unethical to release a beta-version of the game and call it the real thing. That is all, that is the bottom line, there is nothing else to it.

Is there anyone who disagrees with that?

If there is, please tell me why, as opposed to bashing my buying habits or insulting the game of soccer. I just want to know why you think you are right; who knows? Maybe then I'd change my viewpoint.

Is there anyone out there with a rational argument that they can give me as to why SI Games release practices are ethical? That is all I want to know at this point.

Jamie

[targy]

Hey jbone, first of all I do not need to jack up my post rating I am not mired in the minors. On that point I am done with this post. Man now I know why I go to work. Even work is better than this. I think I will go read some posts that have to do with playing the game or learning more things about the game, those posts have merit.

jbone don't take things so pesonal. I don't hate soccer, but it was fun watching the reaction I got from you. All those comments were not meant to hurt. As for the Devil Rays, oh well I live here I will support them, unlike the Red Sox and Yankee fans that live here and only show up to support there local team when the Yankees and Red Sox play the Devil Rays

I was born in Los Angeles and lived there for 40 years but do not support the Dodgers and Kings anymore because I am a 10 year resident of Florida in the Tampa area.

But really the Rays are hard to watch and if it was not for players like Kasmir, Crawford, Lugo, Cantu, Baldelli, and Gomes it would be like watching mold grow, which grows here on a daily basis. Oh wait there goes a palmetto bug across my floor (roaches with wings).

Life is to short not to joke even about where you live. jbone you have a great day and may your life be blessed.

targy OUT!!!!!

[jbone]

Targy,

Dude, chill out. I was just messin with you. I apologize if you took the Nelly Furtado comment seriously!

Jamie

[jbone]

Originally Posted by targy

Hey jbone, first of all I do not need to jack up my post rating I am not mired in the minors.

Apparently, though, on further review, you actually do care about something as trivial as your post rating... I was right in that respect.

...it's interesting that every time to talk about peace or getting along whatever, you also make provocative comments that don't actually advance that goal.

I was just having fun with the Nelly Furtado and teeth insults, but nevertheless, we can end it if it suits you best.

Jamie

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by jbone

I have said on previous posts that I do enjoy this game and that is why I buy it. SI does a lot of great things, and can release great products, and I always look forward to them. I'm always eager to buy the game and experience it. And I did hope that the ootp release would be different. And that is a rosy-eyed view perhaps in retrospect, but I always do hope for the best, it's my personality. But I do think it is unethical to release a beta-version of the game and call it the real thing. That is all, that is the bottom line, there is nothing else to it.

Is there anyone who disagrees with that?

If there is, please tell me why, as opposed to bashing my buying habits or insulting the game of soccer. I just want to know why you think you are right; who knows? Maybe then I'd change my viewpoint.

Is there anyone out there with a rational argument that they can give me as to why SI Games release practices are ethical? That is all I want to know at this point.

Jamie

I can only speak for me so FWIW.

I agree that ootp 2006 should have been delayed or perhaps preorders offered a beta build a week or two earlier. My probelm isn't calling out on this issue though I think everyone has commented, including Marc Duffy, saying it was a mistake. Kind of a dead horse and time to move on IMHO. Too me it's more of a question of where do we go from here?

I take issue with you in you seem to think that FM and EHM of this year were in the same release state as ootp and I don't think that is true at all. FM and EHM, at least to me , were playable and enjoyable out of the box. Some of
EHM's issues were due to the new labor agreement in the NHL. Riz was upfront on that issue and said since nobody outside the NHL really knew what was in or out of the agreement there would be some problems. YMMV but neither were any where close to the state ot oopt 2006.

With regard to oopt I have found every version up 'til now to be both playable and enjoyable out of the box (been buying since v4). I too look at things as the glass being half full so am willing to understand a lot of issues are because of the rewrite. I fully expect and will be surprised if we don't go back to playable out of the box next year.

Maybe you are more picky than I on what is playable or unethical. I can understand your argument on this years ootp, I think we all wish it was different. This is my first year buying SI games after many years of hearing how good FM was, so it's all I have to go on. But I found nothing unethical about the release of either FM of EHM. Both were playable, enjoyable, and patched in a timely manner using feedback from players of the games. I'm afraid in today's world with the complexity of the new games that is going to have to do. If a guy is unhappy with the patch process (this is all games not just SI) of getting games in shape it is then indeed smart to just wait IMHO.
That is not bashing your buying habits (which I'm really not trying to do, just trying to understand if you feel so burned why you come back or at least don't wait) its simply advice and something I know many here do.

If you want unethincal take a look at Maximum Football. No demos, no refunds, and as far as I know one patch and then let it die.

[Raidergoo]

Originally Posted by jbone

Raidergoo,

My ethics are my concern. My question to you is: what do you think? Do you think that the way SI releases games is ethical or unethical? If you think that they are ethical, please explain why, so that I can know and learn a new way of looking at things and not feel this repeated sense of frustration surrounding their releases. You know that I respect your opinion.

If I was uninvolved with the beta testing, I would have bought the game last week, with the final version of patch 2 released. It is my personal policy not to buy a software product until the second patch.

SI's policies seem better than the industry norm to me. Honestly, I am a poor judge of this as I've only purchased Front Office Football ( cant tell which version) Civ II - Civ IV, and OOTP 4- 2006 over the last decade. One telling thing may be that I never bought OOTP 6.5. Today, I am particularly peeved at the CIV IV to the point where I'll buy CIV V when it has a Gold Edition on sale at Wal Mart 3 years after it goes gold. These guys don't seem to care about patching or support. FOF has disappeared for the time being; their boards chased me off from caring about the game more than once a year. They have quoted me on what I thought of their board ( summary : gleefully foul ); they never got my summary on their criticism of the game ( accurate ).

I see the designers and developers here far more often than these other places. I see them work in public far more than the others. I am also allowed to see them work behind the scenes, too.

For a small company to survive, they have to sell you the same product each year. To persuade you to do this, they have to add functionality.

OOTP 2006 added functionality by scrapping the old and rebuild with new. They have to make money, so they released it when they did. Was it perfect? Nope, but I'd be protected by my 2 patch policy from the brunt of missed things or irrational hope.

Is this version the perfect game? Nope, that would require weather, single season Lahman imports, AI that does not freebase Ritalin, one role for pitchers, tracking records for managers and GM's, CSV's that use commas instead of semicolons, a stadiums.txt file, a retired.dat file to reduce what is loaded to memory, a body/mass coefficient to have smaller players in the 1890's than the 1990's, logos that are front and center instead of askew, a shop player feature, an advance scout, the ability to schedule scouting trips, an unrevealed draft pool where you have to scout players to add them to the visible pool . . .and goodness knows I could write for an hour more.

Am I ticked that there are features in older versions that did not get implemented? Not ticked enough to throw a tantrum over it. I could see that they ran out of time and that the code had to produce revenue.

Would I be ticked if OOTP 2007 lacked these features? Absolutlely. Probably would not buy OOTP 2008 if that was the case.

I bought into the total rewrite thing a very long time ago, probably the very day the SI deal was announced. The formalized structure SI provides has particularly shined in patching. More bugs got identified and squashed faster than ever before. I am sure that this process could be better, but it is light years better than before.

They seem to add things as frantically as possible. They seem to patch things as fast as possible. The effort shows.

They need $30 a year per user to stay afloat. The game is pretty close to the one I was dreaming about when playing with my Strat cards in 1987. I am going to send them that money yearly because they are moving closer and closer to that dream game.

[rwd59]

Originally Posted by jbone

You know, generally when a game comes out, people are excited to play it. The game has been advertised, and folks are excited to check it out and play it. Most people say to themselves "gee, that game sounds exciting, I think I'll buy it." There are very few people who are like "Gee, that game sounds great, I think I'll really enjoy it. I know! I'll wait months to buy it until they have released a final patch." (OH SO TRUE)

I have heard other people say this sort of comment as well, and it makes no sense to me. (I AGREE)
As a consumer, if a game is released and advertised, one should assume that on whole, it is working correctly. It's not my job to purvey message boards for when final patches have come out; it's my job to read an email that the game has been released, and then pay $35 and play and enjoy the game. (DITTO)

You said it all.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Sweed

Control your impulse to buy and don't give them your money. Not giving them your money will get their attention a lot quicker than posting on any board.

This process can actually work. Look no further than Starforce for an example of that. Plenty of folks wanted absolutely nothing to do with that infamous piece of "copyright protection" software, and they got together, put up a list of games which used Starforce, and told anyone and everyone who would listen not to buy games using it.

Guess what? Their efforts are having an effect. Ubisoft, formerly a big user of Starforce, just announced recently they are dropping use of it. A couple of other gaming companies have done the same.

So, if you get enough motivated folks together, and who clearly mark out their plan of attack, they can indeed achieve worthwhile results.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Raidergoo

I am particularly peeved at the CIV IV to the point where I'll buy CIV V when it has a Gold Edition on sale at Wal Mart 3 years after it goes gold.

There are advantages to that system:

1) When you finally buy the game, chances are it'll be quite cheap, saving you money.
2) Since you're buying well after the game came out, you won't need to upgrade your computer until much later. That means, if you pick parts out which you would have upgraded to much earlier, those parts will also be much cheaper, saving you money again.

Personally, when a game hits $20, it'd have to be really awful for me not to consider buying it.

[endgame]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

There are advantages to that system:

1) When you finally buy the game, chances are it'll be quite cheap, saving you money.
2) Since you're buying well after the game came out, you won't need to upgrade your computer until much later. That means, if you pick parts out which you would have upgraded to much earlier, those parts will also be much cheaper, saving you money again.

Personally, when a game hits $20, it'd have to be really awful for me not to consider buying it.

And a disadvantage, it would seem, is that by that time you're also reliant much more on a community of users who have established workarounds and/or mods than you are on any company support. Meaning support is only as good as its community of users.

[Raidergoo]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

2) Since you're buying well after the game came out, you won't need to upgrade your computer until much later. That means, if you pick parts out which you would have upgraded to much earlier, those parts will also be much cheaper, saving you money again.

I've given up on building/upgrading my PC's. It was a hobby, then an obsession; now a profession.

I buy $250 Dell ( I get a big discount via work) boxes nowadays, as cash is plentiful and time is not.

[Kaitiaki]

Originally Posted by Solonor

I guess it assumes that if you're the Commish, you don't need to download your own data file updates.

Which would be a reasonable enough assumption, except that both my leagues have two Commishes in them to lighten the workload, which means that for any given sim there is one Commish that needs to download the file like every other owner.

This feature/oversight makes that a bit more complicated.

- Kai

[jbone]

Raidergoo,

I understand what you are saying, and you are very much seeing it from a developer's perspective. While you have been looking at the experience of the developer, I have been talking about the experience of the consumer, from a consumer's perspective.

Our arguments do not differ greatly - I think it is a matter of extent. To what extent is one willing to tolerate flaws and bugs in a newly released game. Ootp customers have always been willing to tolerate them in the past, though I feel that the extent of the quantity of bugs is the difference in ootp2006, and is what has caused this differed response from previous versions. The heart of the matter is playability - and unlike previous versions, ootp2006 did not pass the test.

My biggest point is that this is not the first time that SI Games has failed this test. It happened repeatedly with CM/FM, and was exasperating for a lot of people - and managed to turn many off to their product.

FM06 is the most playable of SI's recent releases, which along with the fact that ootp has a relatively mild history of bugs, gave me (retrospectively, false) hope I would not have to experience that again. I do not have enough experience with games to know how SI's policies relate to the industry norm, though I gather that if they were indeed better than the industry norm then we would not have the degree of discontent that this board has recently seen. Ultimately, the industry norm is to release a playable game, unlike SI did with ootp2006. Admittedly, there is a probable reality that the type of people who play games such as FM and ootp are likely brighter than the average bear and more able to discover discrepancies in gameplay - but still, an unplayable game is exactly that.

The biggest question is: what can SI do differently to ensure that this type of response does not happen next year for ootp2007?

rwd59 - glad you understand what I'm talking about

[Raidergoo]

Originally Posted by jbone

The biggest question is: what can SI do differently to ensure that this type of response does not happen next year for ootp2007?

That's got to be a simple answer.

Delivering a public beta on or about March 16th, 2007.

[jbone]

Raidergoo,

You're not the first person to mention the idea of delivering a public beta. Personally, I have never experienced that - how would it work exactly? Would people pay for the beta version, or would it be free? I imagine it would be hard to charge for a beta version of a game. Is SI willing to publicly release a beta version of the game?

Jamie

[Raidergoo]

Originally Posted by jbone

Raidergoo,

You're not the first person to mention the idea of delivering a public beta. Personally, I have never experienced that - how would it work exactly? Would people pay for the beta version, or would it be free? I imagine it would be hard to charge for a beta version of a game. Is SI willing to publicly release a beta version of the game?

Jamie

That's a question best addressed by people way above my pay grade.

If it were me, it would be a public beta for those who preordered. That gets the eLicense in people's hands to ensure that the developers get paid. Many eyes would scan many areas in many different ways. The in-house beta team collates trouble tickets in Tech support, and tests new builds that come out once every 2-3 days. A new build goes public once every week. After six weeks, the game goes 1.0.0.

Imagine it this way. Take what happened in late May 2006 forward to mid March 2007. Release a public beta in as good a shape as possible, and call the scrubbed up version ( 12662 in this case ) 1.0.0 over to the public on or about April 13th, 2007.

That gives the public a month on the new code. By dumping 1000 bugs into Test Track, and FTP'ing 100 sets of .dat files to SI, it will profoundly make things better.

Preorder people can either be a part of the sausage making process, or delay for 1.0.0. People that are hard to persuade and are sitting on their wallets can see the sausage being made. TRTR was terribly cool ( and eagerly anticipated here for the upcoming winter ), but I think it would be a fantastic sales tool to have a Tech forum with a bunch of answered complaints and documented fixes.

This gives reviewers a great product to look at when the time comes.

This gives the SI team 2-3 months post release to refine the game once released generally.

I'd throw in a 10% discount around the All Star break, and again in mid Oct.

[turdfurgeson]

Riadergoo, CIV 4 s great. I am not sure about the companies patching/support or whatever, but the work that the modders has done is excellent. You should check it out.

[jbone]

Raidergoo,

Yes, now see that is absolutely brilliant. It would make it so that those who are eager to see the game can play it (and the money is in the bank for the company since they have preordered it), yet the presentation of the game would be incredibly improved, as the (then equivalent of) patch 12662 would be described accurately as 1.0.0 to the public.

Then, when the game is reviewed, it gets a great grade. When it is released, the public that buys into the game will hear the vast majority of reviews on the boards be very positive, and will feel good about buying the game. Those people will tell their friends, etc., and ootp2007 will have the potential to grow considerably.

Hopefully once they return from vacation, some of these other folks who are in control of these matters will be able to read these posts and respond accordingly. All in all, I think it to be much more professional and savvier approach to releasing a game.

Jamie