Was there undue pressure to realease the game while not ready?

[Arado]

This question may seem irrelevant, but out of curiosity, I would like to ask the folks representing the inner circle if the folks from Paradox that decide when to release a game, forced the programmers and developers to release Vic when it was obviously not ready. Thanks

 

[trevorscott]

umm... aren't the programmers and the management people one in the same?

 

[Belissarius]

This question may seem irrelevant, but out of curiosity, I would like to ask the folks representing the inner circle if the folks from Paradox that decide when to release a game, forced the programmers and developers to release Vic when it was obviously not ready. Thanks

Ahh I'd have to disagree with you there this game is obviously done what it has are bugs and a few balance issues which are being addressed. This game isnt anywhere near to being "incomplete". You may not like the game as it stands but it is a finished product. This isnt like HOI which definetly wasnt finished.

 

[Theodotus1]

I expect there was a contractual deadline involved.

The game is not unfinished, however. It just needs to have certain salient issues addressed.

 

[mcicet]

it's questions & threads like this that slow down the releases of the patches

 

[Dinsdale]

it's questions & threads like this that slow down the releases of the patches

Why?

Strangest conspiracy theory I've ever seen :wacko:

 

[unmerged(16585)]

Why?

Strangest conspiracy theory I've ever seen :wacko:

Actually Johan stated on the HOI board that he no longer worked on that game in his spare time, which would slow down the release of the patch, because of posts that complained about the game, either not saying what specifically is wrong, or in the case of balance issues, not giving any ideas how it can be fixed.

I would put this post in the first catagory. Anyways, Paradox needs the Christmas rush to make enough money to make more great games. I'll spend $50 to beta test for a month (no more) if thats what it takes to keep them around, at least I know that they will fix the problems, unlike almost every other company in existance. That being said I only recently upped to 1.02, as I did not see much reason to change from 1.01, with the exception of China

 

[Dinsdale]

Actually Johan stated on the HOI board that he no longer worked on that game in his spare time, which would slow down the release of the patch, because of posts that complained about the game, either not saying what specifically is wrong, or in the case of balance issues, not giving any ideas how it can be fixed.

That was after several patches and IMHO meant that he would not code for free as he did with EU, not that he would not finish the game.

I don't think threads like this serve much of a purpose, but if everyone thinks that Paradox staff are such shrinking violets then read their comments of professional reviews; no run away and hide mentality there.

 

[roadkill47]

I would put this post in the first catagory. Anyways, Paradox needs the Christmas rush to make enough money to make more great games. I'll spend $50 to beta test for a month (no more) if thats what it takes to keep them around, at least I know that they will fix the problems, unlike almost every other company in existance. That being said I only recently upped to 1.02, as I did not see much reason to change from 1.01, with the exception of China

A couple of things.

I don't pay for beta's.

If a company has a history of its games needing to be heavily patched out of the box after a while I will stop buying the game right away. I am 2 for 2 on this with Paradox and I am not going to let it become 3 for 3.

I am most upset by the fact that some aspects of the patches made the game worse. The Partasian nonsense in 1.02, the save game issues with the 1880 campaign, etc. Not to say the patches are worthless but at times the bad out weighs the good in my mind.

My own experience with Victoria at this point is such I don't play the game anymore but I do keep going to the boards in the hope of a patch. Some people clearly have a lot of fun with the game and thats great for them. I have other things to do with my time then deal with bugs. Especialy when I paid cash for the priviliage. For the next Paradox product that I consider buying I think I will wait till its on sale or hits the $10 bin before I buy it. In the end we have to see if people like me out number the people that like the game as is. If its the former that could cause Paradox to put out better products or perhaps drive it out of business (if this happens such is life, PC companies come and go). If its the later then to be blunt things are not likely to change much because Paradox has no reason to as the market they target has told them what its wants / willing to put up with.

Michael
Just my $0.02 worth

 

[unmerged(1924)]

Paying for beta isn't exactly wasting money. Sure bugs can be frustrating, but I would've bought this game regardless. To me, buying an unfinished product in December and playing it sparingly until it's fixed is slightly better than buying the product in May.

A tip for you, if you don't like buying betas(very common in the game industry I think), I'd suggest reading reviews. Vic got pretty awful reviews because of the bugs. You are aware of Paradox's supporting their game long after release i'm sure. So you could've made a fairly logical conclusion that the game would be ready after 5 patches or so and waited to purchase it then.

 

[Johan]

The game was ready when it was released. We had fixed all reported bugs, and were convinced that it was great. However, we did not play every single country in all campaigns ourselves, so we had to acknowledge that there would be imbalances at times.

However, it does not seem that we were right, as the reviewers disliked the game, and hardly anyone bought it.

So from now on, we'll focus on games easier to play, and where we can put down enough inhouse testing time to make the games super-balanced before release.

I suspect that the policy we have had of patching games, extending the game with features hurt us more in the eyes of the masses. Of course hardcore fans like it, but average joe just sees patch = broken.

ps. basically, only the sales the first 2 months matter for a game to the developer. The fraction recieved from games in bargain-bin is <0.01$ for us.

 

[unmerged(8775)]

Obviously

This question may seem irrelevant, but out of curiosity, I would like to ask the folks representing the inner circle if the folks from Paradox that decide when to release a game, forced the programmers and developers to release Vic when it was obviously not ready. Thanks

I'm working in the sofware industry myself but unfortunatly not in game industry.
The fact is that there is a deadline for every project.
This can lead to release quite buggy but this is a also a essential to ensure the business and marketing aspects.
Paradox is for sure working hard to release the "best" game while having to deal with many pressure (money one of the main obviously) because we are not in a faery world.

Best regards.

 

[Judge]

The game was ready when it was released. We had fixed all reported bugs, and were convinced that it was great. However, we did not play every single country in all campaigns ourselves, so we had to acknowledge that there would be imbalances at times.

However, it does not seem that we were right, as the reviewers disliked the game, and hardly anyone bought it.

So from now on, we'll focus on games easier to play, and where we can put down enough inhouse testing time to make the games super-balanced before release.

I suspect that the policy we have had of patching games, extending the game with features hurt us more in the eyes of the masses. Of course hardcore fans like it, but average joe just sees patch = broken.

ps. basically, only the sales the first 2 months matter for a game to the developer. The fraction recieved from games in bargain-bin is <0.01$ for us.

Johan, I think you are a bit too hard on yourself there. Vic has many advantages and I have spent many hours playing and enjoying the game. Sure there are some bugs but they don’t make the game unplayable. Perhaps the game is a bit too much micromanagement heavy but it´s not a big deal. If some features should have been toned down I guess the Pop part and the railroad part could have been a bit simplified (would have been great to have a possibility to build railroads state wise to save some time for example).

I find Vic to be a good and enjoyable game though I don’t find it as good as EU 2. I guess the things that made E U 2 so good, the historical aspect, the possibility to create an empire during a long time span are lacking a bit in Vic. E U 2 allows you to focus on the big picture while Vic force you to focus a bit too much on the "low level" as single factories and RGOs. Some more events would possibly have spiced the game up too. As I said in another thread a EU 2 with Vic´s trade system implemented (regional basis) and with Vic´s research and military systems added would be breath-taking and you would get a game easy to grasp. Not to mention the interest the name EU 3 would create

 

[unmerged(11825)]

yeah.. i am seeing a lot of the patch = broken issue all over these boards and reviews.. and that's a sad thing. semantics.. terminology.. bleh. the fact of the matter is, only paradox-gamers think of a patch as improvements to a game. Most people out there see a patch as fixing bugs and things that break.

then there are some games out there that release patches in boxes labelled as expansion packs. The masses see this as a company committed to improving their products and offering the player more. A lot of gamers see it as a company being lazy, and milking a game for more money. and those hardcore gamers see it as charging people for patches.

Compared to the majority of games out there.. (from my experience) EU2 had a fairly average amount of problems upon release. HOI (i have no idea, haven't tried it) and VIC was exceptionally clean and shines in the game industry as having far less than the average amount of problems and bugs.

 

[unmerged(2567)]

Compared to the majority of games out there.. (from my experience) EU2 had a fairly average amount of problems upon release. HOI (i have no idea, haven't tried it) and VIC was exceptionally clean and shines in the game industry as having far less than the average amount of problems and bugs.

Well...I thought Civ 3 and Starcraft were more clean on release. VIC was very crash-free when I first got it, and it's only improved, so in that respect it's good.

On the other hand, there were/are some seriously bizarre things to it: like, Italy and Germany not forming. That's the sort of thing that if you have ten people play the grand campaign that you'd notice...how did that get out of beta testing? That might not have been something the reviewers would have noticed, since they seem not to play complete or more than a few passes at the game, but, I mean...they just aren't there.

The reviewers complain about bits and things here and there but I think their main tone is that it just wasn't documented well enough. More than any other Paradox game this one needed a tutorial...and it wasn't there. Even my brother, who had played EU2, was overwhelmed, and the same with my friend in Portland who was completely vexed. Admittedly, he started with Britain, but...

I think that it was difficult for people to see how great the game was for that reason. (I use past tense because I'm referring to the way it was released.) And since reviewers and people who are only looking at a Paradox game for the first time only see it as released, they could care less or know nothing about Paradox's excellent patching policy. So, they saw a few imbalances and thought that they were permanent.

The things that were good about Victoria you can't really notice until you've played it a lot. This has to be the most replayable game ever made, for one thing. The AI is great (I just got my ass handed to me by a bunch of Frenchmen.) The events system is powerful and adaptive. The breadth of foreign policy options is extensive, and the economic system is the most advanced out of any game (of similar genre) yet produced. And the geographic scope similarly excels.

But you don't really appreciate these things while you're learning the game. Indeed, most of these elements come off as "Holy shit, there's something ELSE!?" when a message pops up saying that...someone's mobilized, or something like that. And, while playing France or England in that first game, for instance, when you're still trying to figure out how to balance the budget, build and man industries, or put leaders to armies...it's bloody insane.

I've had six people I know play the game, four of whom never played EU/HOI, and without exception, when I asked them what they thought about it, they said (or very nearly,) "It's so complicated."

I wouldn't want Paradox to give up the spirit of their games because they don't sell. I think the _sole_ biggest problem with Victoria was just that it had no documentation and that destroyed first impressions. But, if it really was about balance issues, then there's really no choice but to mortgage complexity and (ultimately) replayability.

But, still, how did they release it without catching Germany and Italy?

 

[Derek Pullem]

Well - the problem with Paradox games is that they gave to meet three criteria.

1. Be as bug free as possible
2. Be fun to play
3. Be historically accurate

It's the third one that is killing the games IMHO.

Now before you flame me, consider this. When a new game or patch comes out there are literally hundreds of posts about how this feature or that feature is crazy because it does not follow history to the letter (or the posters interpretation of history). There are very few on how good or bad the gameplay is. So, although we are all trying to be constructive by assisting Paradox in improving the game, the impression given by the boards is that Victoria is full of bugs and flaws and must be patched "because it is unplayable". That impression, that Paradox games are buggy, gets back to reviewers and the public. So the - "I won't buy it until they patch it" mentality rules and Paradox's income is badly hit.

The "best" game that Paradox have released is probably also the least "historical" in its gameplay. EU2 is a true classic, not because its historically accurate (its not) but because its fast, fun and has a veneer of history on top. And most players wouldn't really know much about renaissance history anyway to argue.

HoI and Vicky on the other hand are castigated by historical pedants on release instead of judging it by the gameplay. Victoria patch 1.01 is a beautiful example of this. Loads of players enjoyed the easy game with thousands of units and world conquest a real possibility. But it wasn't historical and there were loads of complaint. Then 1.02 is developed to bring the game back more in line with the historical roots and everyone complains that it is too difficult (oh, and also not historical - "nude empires" etc.).

So - before we say it was released too early perhaps we ought to ask ourselves what we were expecting.

A fast moving, empire building game with a historical flavour a la EU2

Or a simulation of 19th century social development, economics and technological advancement.

Cos you don't get both.

 

[Spruce]

The game was ready when it was released. We had fixed all reported bugs, and were convinced that it was great. However, we did not play every single country in all campaigns ourselves, so we had to acknowledge that there would be imbalances at times.

However, it does not seem that we were right, as the reviewers disliked the game, and hardly anyone bought it.

So from now on, we'll focus on games easier to play, and where we can put down enough inhouse testing time to make the games super-balanced before release.

I suspect that the policy we have had of patching games, extending the game with features hurt us more in the eyes of the masses. Of course hardcore fans like it, but average joe just sees patch = broken.

ps. basically, only the sales the first 2 months matter for a game to the developer. The fraction recieved from games in bargain-bin is <0.01$ for us.

oh man, that's really disappointing and it seems that the bad reviews did hurt Victoria.

Johan, for what it's worth = Victoria was a SUPER release - I don't care what fun I had when it was 1.00 or 1.01. The thing is that it's - at this moment - so addictive and fun to play,

and the game is so stable, I can't believe my eyes compared to earlier releases!

I think the Victoria is quite a challenge, but still realistic and it's a pitty that game magazines prefer fast food - a hamburger has the same taste everywhere on this world - and dislike the cherry on the pie,

please man I hope that you were speaking hypothetically, I guess Victoria deserves a new lauch,

somebody should take initiative and break this bad spiral - enough is enough,

 

[unmerged(10564)]

There are very few on how good or bad the gameplay is. So, although we are all trying to be constructive by assisting Paradox in improving the game....

Then 1.02 is developed to bring the game back more in line with the historical roots and everyone complains that it is too difficult (oh, and also not historical - "nude empires" etc.).

I agree with most of what you say here Derek, and would like to point out my impressions...

I played version 1.00 (the ORIGINAL) for more than 1 1/2 month learning the basics and forging an empire with Prussia. I learnt how to build proper factories, which units to build and such. For me, version 1.00 was PERFECT except for quite few minor bugs (like a CTD from time to time when you checked your province factories or not being able to release slaves or dismiss generals).

Then I patched the game to 1.02 (this was last Saturday) and I at the beginning felt overwhelmed because I found out that many provinces all of a sudden had dozens of unemployed clerks who were revolting due to the lack of jobs. So I had to freeze all further expansion (and oh boy! I had plans!) until I could stabilize the internal affairs. My machine parts suddenly were not enough to satisfy my demand so I had to close down my aeroplane factories for a while until I could expand the factories. My daily income was always in red so I had to cut back the military expenses and raise tariffs. But in the end (after 5 years of having my rifles grow rusty) my economy was back in track. Yeah, I was not making 45,000 a day like I used before, but instead a modest 2,000 which enabled to afford modest and well thought military campaigns (before I had conquered all of France in one campaign, which was a bit too easy).

But notice that so far I have not mentioned historical aspects! The game has so much changed that I guess that forming Germany if you only own 1/3 of the original Prussia, for instance, just because you only made a fast squadron to Paris does not sound very historical in my point of view! Imagine that I'm losing a war as Prussia against all of the others German states and from night to day, my former foes are now part of my glorious nation, just because an event says so?!

The game should be as historical as it could be, but should give room for "other aspects", which make the "spice" of the game in the end. Otherwise it would be too predictable, don't you think?

 

[Bastian_Bux]

Ouch.

So from now on, we'll focus on games easier to play, and where we can put down enough inhouse testing time to make the games super-balanced before release.

Johan, I hope this isn't your final decision.

I've bought every game from Paradox up till now. EU, EU2, HoI, Vic, CotN, you name it. Even made the mistake to buy that Slitherin thingy.

Well every Paradox game I bought till now was worth the money. But the main reason was the complexity.

So pls don't completely abandon that line.

One possible solution could be the following:

Lotsa fans put lotsa energy into making your greatest games into truely unbelievable jewels. And your help (free time patching) is highly appreciated.

If the strongest limits on modding (like # of country tags) could be overcome, the modding using the EU2/HoI/Vic engine could be resulting in content spanning the full time period from 1418 (or even 476) to 1946 (or even further).

And I think most of us hardcore fans/modders would definitely have no problems, to see that content used in another Paradox game of a complexity like Vic. Heck, I'd gladly buy that game.

The only thing dearly needed would be a tutorial, written by fans for fans before!!! release.

I know, I know, testing paradox games is logistic hell. But heck, its well worth it.

 

[unmerged(15243)]

Johan,

At the risk of sounding sycophantic and/or elitist...

I sure hope you don't really intend to dumb down Paradox's future games just for the stupider people on the planet. I do understand that you need to make loads of cash. And I understand that magazine reviewers and casual gamers alike can't stand the thought of being smart. But there's got to be some balance in between. Those of us who adore your work are withering inside at the thought of having to lower our expectations to those of the lowest common denominators. Maybe people who are too stupid to immeadiately grasp games like Victoria should be sent to colonize the Moon under the new Bush plan

We need games like Victoria to survive. You can't even know the feeling of awe and wonder i felt the day I found Victoria finally on store shelves (no small task) and got it installed and started it up to be greated with that amazing opening soundtrack on the menu screen. And while one could say I had played previous installments of the engine and thus started out with an advantage... I found both the mechanics and interface EASY to learn.

I know you need money, and sales=money, and good reviews=sales... but remember too that for every mediocre review in the mass market, there are also people like myself who live to get their hands on games like yours.

And you know exactly what people would say if they had to wait longer to get one of your games just so they didn't need patches...
They/We would all scream bloody murder about it's release delay and why we can't just beta it for you after buying it.... like they/we always have done.

If you make a game of near infinite outcomes like Victoria it's impossible to predict and playtest every one of them. I like to think most people understand this, but perhaps they do not... but rest assured, I understand this, and I'm not completely alone in doing so.

I loved Victoria so much that I bought a second copy for my brother (a long time Civ3 fan, but other than that not normally a gamer at all) for Christmas. He played the game all through Christmas break non-stop, and still is going strong. Granted, he is a history major... but he's no hardcore gamer. It's practically the only thing he uses his computer for other than school. I hope that second copy helped your sales a bit

Also, some of the disappointing sales might be due to your distributors more than the game itself. To this day the game Victoria is not on a single shelf of major computer and electronics stores like CompUSA, Best Buy, Microcenter, etc. While it can be found at smaller mall botiques like EB Games, Gamestop, etc. the majority of people who go to those stores go there for console games. The majority of money spent on computer software in brick and mortar stores is in those megastores like CompUSA, despite said stores being horrible at making you feel welcome.

So basically, the only people who bought Victoria (at least in the US) were those of us who went to dozens of stores looking specifically for it. Without it being readily available, it's hard to generate sales with large numbers.

Since most reviews are just coming out now, and the game's been out for months, I'd think the poor sales were due more to lack of distribution than those reviews...

Please... continue to make great games... and we'll continue to buy them. As Flavor-Flav would say "Don't Believe the Hype"

-Andy