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

[Belissarius]

Nope, you are incorrect in your statement. The pressure to release a game is usually from the publisher side, but even if it was not that they have to release it some time as a company bleeds until they begin to get sell it. If any paradox game would come out perfectly refined then they would need one more year of production time, which is not financially viable. It would be between getting it like it is or not at all.

The inherent complexity of them gives us the situation where there can pretty much always be improvements. As it was, Victoria was fully playable and enjoyable at release.

There is NO REASON for the Critical Bugs to be released! these bugs are 99% gone now it didnt take much to remove them and they were obvious and quick fixes. Therefore a delay of the game was warrented as these very fixes where done with in a few month of release AND they would have been done faster had the game not been released as they would have had more staff of paradox actually working on the game as none would have been transferred to their other projects. LETS GET THIS STRIGHT I'm talking about critical bugs not minor bugs. I'm not asking the game to be PERFECT just not to be released with critical bugs.

Pressure may come from prublishers BUT the decsicion to release is in paradox's hands. They choose to make the x-mas rush twice in a row to the detriment of their customers. These choices are made from short sightedness, they know that customer loyalty is most often NEVER vocalized in forums but they vocalize this through word of mouth. Whats more negative feeling are thus as well. The vast majority of people dont post on forums and the negative sentiments paradox is generating from their MUST make x-mas rush is translating into poor sales. Paradox is also unwilling to admit this, publicly at least. They are making excuses that the games are TOO Complex. Perhaps the game is too complex (i dont think so) but thats not why sales are down Sales are down because people bought HOI and found a crappy unfinished game out of the box. Since MOST as is majority of customers of computer products still dont use patches they still judge their games in the condition out of the box. This results in them feeling that paradox makes crappy games and they dont buy the next one. HOI should have been delayed because WW2 is they most popular era for strategy games and that means alot of new customers ran to buy the game and left with a bad taste in their mouth. Do you honestly think thats not going to effect sales?

People have been brained washed into beleiving games cant be "perfect". and while this statement is 100% true its implied meaning and the one that paradox loves to promote is that this means that games cant be released critical bug free. This is utter false and utter self intrest, if they can make you accept this they can rationalize that they are doing nothing wrong. The fact remains is they dont have to release games with critical bugs (those bugs that cause freezes or crashes a specific type of bug) not refering to failed events those are important bugs that need fixing but i can live with thems as the game still plays it doesnt cause a critical failure to the game.

 

[Spruce]

People have been brained washed into beleiving games cant be "perfect". and while this statement is 100% true its implied meaning and the one that paradox loves to promote is that this means that games cant be released critical bug free. This is utter false and utter self intrest, if they can make you accept this they can rationalize that they are doing nothing wrong. The fact remains is they dont have to release games with critical bugs (those bugs that cause freezes or crashes a specific type of bug) not refering to failed events those are important bugs that need fixing but i can live with thems as the game still plays it doesnt cause a critical failure to the game.

yes, I've been brainwashed to, Patrick said that game Victoria was the most bug free.

My brain has been hypnotised and I don't see the crashes anymore - help!

Most of us have reported Victoria to be a big improvement in bug free-ness. In Eu1 and EU2 the bugs were jumping out of the closet. I got HOI fairly late, so can't judge upon that,

but calling us all brainwashed zombies is a bit over the top, Victoria is an improvement. Patrick gave his word and he was right,

in dust we trust,

 

[Belissarius]

Hey, cool it guys.

I see merits on both sides here.

Just to put it quickly, i myself don't care too much about the releases knowing the patch status with Paradox games.....i have quite a few complaints now and again, but im honestly too much of an old buyer to let it worry me, apart from some of the later EU2 patches...... .

BUT, Belisarius has certainly got something right.....

IF Paradox wants to make sure they capture and retain the market to a level that is financially viable, then they must make sure that bugs are at a low level, HOI was bad in this regard on release, Vicky not so bad(Nothing bad in the bug area for me at all, only some small issues actually) but there have been some that have stated their dislike, and i suggest we see what they have to say before trying to kick them down.

Someone already came up with some good ideas:

Try to iron out all kinks regarding crashes, Freezes, etc as most important.

Provide a decent amount of good balancing as time requires.

Provide Patches for bug fixes AND Enhancement Files in 2 different downloads.

This allows those that wish to play with the current model in the first games be happy, and those that want the enhancements be happy.

Ok, lets say person A wants all crashes, freezes, slider fixes, Naval fixes and so on, but not radically change the way the economy works etc.....this should be addressed in the patch.
This doesn't affect the overall difficulty, justs makes sure everything works as per how it should.

Person B wants a harder game, they want a highly tweaked economic model, they want new things not described in the manual......These should come under another download titled Enhancement packs.

This was not my idea, but i forget who said it, but i second it as a bloody good idea.

While this sound great I think it will be very expensive manpower wise for paradox to do this and therefore cost preventative. I think that making the game harder or easier should be the providence of modders. This is where I support paradox in their choices of how to patch the game. Its the most effeicent choice of their resources and it allows their customer base to mod thing as they desire.

Part of the discontent with 1.01 and 1.02 is that the economics were not balanced before release, had they been then this discontent wouldnt have appeared. Also the economics are severly hampered from the lack of a proper manual (which is not the fault of paradox but the publisher) this means that is difficult to get an economy up and running until you truely understand teh process without access to referance material. Also the minor bug of cash reserves disapearing has some seemingly serious effects on the economy. All these things coupled together have hampered the smooth running of the economic model.

 

[Theodotus1]

There is NO REASON for the Critical Bugs to be released! these bugs are 99% gone now it didnt take much to remove them and they were obvious and quick fixes. Therefore a delay of the game was warrented as these very fixes where done with in a few month of release AND they would have been done faster had the game not been released as they would have had more staff of paradox actually working on the game as none would have been transferred to their other projects. LETS GET THIS STRIGHT I'm talking about critical bugs not minor bugs. I'm not asking the game to be PERFECT just not to be released with critical bugs.

Pressure may come from prublishers BUT the decsicion to release is in paradox's hands. They choose to make the x-mas rush twice in a row to the detriment of their customers. These choices are made from short sightedness, they know that customer loyalty is most often NEVER vocalized in forums but they vocalize this through word of mouth. Whats more negative feeling are thus as well. The vast majority of people dont post on forums and the negative sentiments paradox is generating from their MUST make x-mas rush is translating into poor sales. Paradox is also unwilling to admit this, publicly at least. They are making excuses that the games are TOO Complex. Perhaps the game is too complex (i dont think so) but thats not why sales are down Sales are down because people bought HOI and found a crappy unfinished game out of the box. Since MOST as is majority of customers of computer products still dont use patches they still judge their games in the condition out of the box. This results in them feeling that paradox makes crappy games and they dont buy the next one. HOI should have been delayed because WW2 is they most popular era for strategy games and that means alot of new customers ran to buy the game and left with a bad taste in their mouth. Do you honestly think thats not going to effect sales?

People have been brained washed into beleiving games cant be "perfect". and while this statement is 100% true its implied meaning and the one that paradox loves to promote is that this means that games cant be released critical bug free. This is utter false and utter self intrest, if they can make you accept this they can rationalize that they are doing nothing wrong. The fact remains is they dont have to release games with critical bugs (those bugs that cause freezes or crashes a specific type of bug) not refering to failed events those are important bugs that need fixing but i can live with thems as the game still plays it doesnt cause a critical failure to the game.

You may well be wrong in asserting that the decision to release is always in Paradox's hands. As a practicing attorney, I expect that the process actually works this way:

Paradox signs a contract with a publisher. That contract contains release dates. These dates may or may not have been chosen by Paradox, or with any reference to Paradox's preferences. (You have no way of knowing if a Christmas release was Paradox's choice, but since Christmas accounts for a majority of yearly retail sales in the US, publishers certainly like Christmas releases.) These dates can typically only be altered with the agreement of the publisher, regardless of all other considerations. If the release date is not met, Paradox is in breach of the contract, and the publisher has the option to drop both the game and Paradox, and then can force Paradox to pay back some or all of any advance payments previously made to it. Such a development typically means the end of existence for a company of Paradox's size, because the advance payments have usually already been spent to finance ongoing operations.

I think you grossly overestimate the amount of control developers have over things like release dates. It's the contract that controls, not anything else. And the developer may well not have much control over most of the contract terms. The people providing the money typically control that part of the process.

 

[Belissarius]

yes, I've been brainwashed to, Patrick said that game Victoria was the most bug free.

My brain has been hypnotised and I don't see the crashes anymore - help!

Most of us have reported Victoria to be a big improvement in bug free-ness. In Eu1 and EU2 the bugs were jumping out of the closet. I got HOI fairly late, so can't judge upon that,

but calling us all brainwashed zombies is a bit over the top, Victoria is an improvement. Patrick gave his word and he was right,

in dust we trust,

The game was still released with critical bugs and for some these bugs where extremely frequent making the game for some users unplayable.
How many times have you heard "oh you expectations are too high the game cant be perfect" used to defend the state of the game out of teh box? And yet not once was that the call from most of teh people complaigning. They asked critical bug free games. Victoria was not this at all.

The context of my stement is that of brainwashed into believing a game cant be released without critical bug. This is possible and I have purchased many a game in this state. Victoria 1.02 is what I call critical bug free. I have had only one crash with it and that cant be 100% atributed to victoria it could be a windows fault as I was multitasking at the time. But i experineced more that a few crashed with 1.00. 1.02 was out pretty bloody quick and are you telling me that it was imposible for paradox to release the game in 1.02 state at least in terms of the stability? Either people are brainwashed or they are being deliberatly deceptive in their statement the game cant be perfect. i personaly believe that these people honestly think that its imposible to release a game without these critical bugs. Well games can and are released without these critical bugs. Your post was full of hyperbaly but doesnt actually address the issue i was speaking to.

 

[Belissarius]

You may well be wrong in asserting that the decision to release is always in Paradox's hands. As a practicing attorney, I expect that the process actually works this way:

Paradox signs a contract with a publisher. That contract contains release dates. These dates may or may not have been chosen by Paradox, or with any reference to Paradox's preferences. (You have no way of knowing if a Christmas release was Paradox's choice, but since Christmas accounts for a majority of yearly retail sales in the US, publishers certainly like Christmas releases.) These dates can typically only be altered with the agreement of the publisher, regardless of all other considerations. If the release date is not met, Paradox is in breach of the contract, and the publisher has the option to drop both the game and Paradox, and then can force Paradox to pay back some or all of any advance payments previously made to it. Such a development typically means the end of existence for a company of Paradox's size, because the advance payments have usually already been spent to finance ongoing operations.

I think you grossly overestimate the amount of control developers have over things like release dates. It's the contract that controls, not anything else. And the developer may well not have much control over most of the contract terms. The people providing the money typically control that part of the process.

These publishing contracts dont have cast in iron release dates. they cant because delays are inherint to the process. Your post gives the impression that delays are not possible or very rare. This just isnt the case in the industry. The industry is riddled with delays and overruns. Its the nature of all creative works. As a writer I'm very much familiar with publishing contracts and I know that the choice to submit is mine and then the publisher chooses to release or not. So paradox DIDNT have to submit an unfinished product to be released. HOI was not forced into an early release and patrick eluded to that when he made the statement that PArdox made a mistake with the release and they wouldnt make the same one again.

 

[unmerged(17657)]

You may well be wrong in asserting that the decision to release is always in Paradox's hands. As a practicing attorney, I expect that the process actually works this way:

Paradox signs a contract with a publisher. That contract contains release dates. These dates may or may not have been chosen by Paradox, or with any reference to Paradox's preferences. (You have no way of knowing if a Christmas release was Paradox's choice, but since Christmas accounts for a majority of yearly retail sales in the US, publishers certainly like Christmas releases.) These dates can typically only be altered with the agreement of the publisher, regardless of all other considerations. If the release date is not met, Paradox is in breach of the contract, and the publisher has the option to drop both the game and Paradox, and then can force Paradox to pay back some or all of any advance payments previously made to it. Such a development typically means the end of existence for a company of Paradox's size, because the advance payments have usually already been spent to finance ongoing operations.

I think you grossly overestimate the amount of control developers have over things like release dates. It's the contract that controls, not anything else. And the developer may well not have much control over most of the contract terms. The people providing the money typically control that part of the process.

I am sorry, but this explanation does not hold any water, in my opinion. When my boss assigns me a task and gives me a deadline, he expects a high quality, polished product devoid of any egregious errors, at the very least; he does not expect anything otherwise, and why should he? In real life, everything is a careful balance and juggling act of resources, time, and labor, and it is one's duty, as a professional, to carefully weigh these factors and give high-quality products. Similarly, no one forced Paradox to sign the contract with Strategy First if it was obvious that the deadline is unreasonable. And put it in another way, it is the job of the 'planning/development' people at the company that is suppose to carefully determine whether they can get the job done in the time span. If the resources are insufficient, hire more people or whatever; if the task is absolutely impossible, then take your product and sign with a different publisher, since if the game is good then there must be people willing to take it on and in the long-term it is probably detrimental to associate yourself with publishers with unreasonable demands. But in the case of Paradox, they again and again release poorly finished products (products that cannot by any stretch of imagination even near perfect) to consumers. The result is a resounding and definitive response from consumers (less sales of the game). To me, whether a company is practicing the right ethics/practice is not determined by what a handful of fanatics say on their company forum, but what the silent masses say with their wallets. In the long run, the nonsensical defenses of the fanatics undoubtedly hurts the company, because they refuse to see the issue eye-to-eye and brand any critic who does voice their opinions poor names.

 

[owenstarkiller]

nope, I still believe complex equals bad reviews equals bad sales,

complex has a negative conotation,

That is not born out by reviews. EUII got rave reviews. In fact, it eclipsed some RTS games of the same period (much, much, much less complexity). Victoria failed.

Why? One, it was far more complex than it needed to be. EUII economy had a lot of complexity but a good level of abstraction (if I *were* running a country I *would* have a finance minister after all). Two, it was *buggy*. My copy still crashes.

 

[owenstarkiller]

In defence of paradox.

As it is well known i take paradox to task for its failings BUT as i understand the nature of he business the manual is not paradox's fault. The size of a manual is determined by the publisher they limit the number of pages and this ment that the manual wasnt large enough to be of any value.

Why would a publisher do this? Because they want to control the market so that they can publish the third party strategy guides. If the developing companies publish a really comprehensive maual there is less that a stragegy guild can offer and the less likely it will sell. So paradox cant be blamed for teh manual, lake of a tutorial well thats a different story.

I understand that. The problem is Paradox *can* control the manual by including a PDF. They essentially do that with release notes now. Production manuals (my quick start quide) are controlled by the publisher. Not what you include in software.

I mean, take a look at the hints. In EUII they were just dead wrong in some cases. In Victoria I think some of the event results don't display properly (ie as Japan people are describing results I don't remember seeing in the events description).

 

[Dinsdale]

Most of us have reported Victoria to be a big improvement in bug free-ness. In Eu1 and EU2 the bugs were jumping out of the closet. I got HOI fairly late, so can't judge upon that,

EU1 was very solid on release. I might not have noticed bugs as I had the German version and was using an online translator to figure out what was going on Some strange things were introduced into the game while Johan was experimenting with badboy; same result as 1.02 of Victoria, Kamikaze AI dow's, but by 1.03(??) even that was fixed.

I do not understand why Victoria is considered not to have been complete on release. 1.01 had 2 main bugs; the colony destruction and industrial output bugs. Aside from that, I can't understand the fuss, and I am usually very picky with bugs.

 

[unmerged(24565)]

Why do people feel that they need to "take Paradox to task?" Does anyone posting here actually think that it is their criticisms that are making Paradox improve the games?

 

[Aetius]

EU1 was released in Sweden first, which gave Paradox time to fix bugs for the other releases

 

[Aetius]

Why do people feel that they need to "take Paradox to task?" Does anyone posting here actually think that it is their criticisms that are making Paradox improve the games?

Well its not a matter of improving the games its more a matter of improving game releases.

 

[unmerged(24565)]

my point is that Johan says he is LESS motivated to work on patches when people are critical in these forums, and therefore the criticisms are not helping.

 

[Aetius]

I am sorry, but this explanation does not hold any water, in my opinion. When my boss assigns me a task and gives me a deadline, he expects a high quality, polished product devoid of any egregious errors, at the very least; he does not expect anything otherwise, and why should he? In real life, everything is a careful balance and juggling act of resources, time, and labor, and it is one's duty, as a professional, to carefully weigh these factors and give high-quality products. Similarly, no one forced Paradox to sign the contract with Strategy First if it was obvious that the deadline is unreasonable. And put it in another way, it is the job of the 'planning/development' people at the company that is suppose to carefully determine whether they can get the job done in the time span. If the resources are insufficient, hire more people or whatever; if the task is absolutely impossible, then take your product and sign with a different publisher, since if the game is good then there must be people willing to take it on and in the long-term it is probably detrimental to associate yourself with publishers with unreasonable demands. But in the case of Paradox, they again and again release poorly finished products (products that cannot by any stretch of imagination even near perfect) to consumers. The result is a resounding and definitive response from consumers (less sales of the game). To me, whether a company is practicing the right ethics/practice is not determined by what a handful of fanatics say on their company forum, but what the silent masses say with their wallets. In the long run, the nonsensical defenses of the fanatics undoubtedly hurts the company, because they refuse to see the issue eye-to-eye and brand any critic who does voice their opinions poor names.

1. Software companies have a long history of releasing buggy products and still selling. Ask anyone who has tried to install the vanilla versions of Oracle's enterprise software. Not that is much of an excuse, but it is the way it works.

2. Paradox's contract between distributors and themselves cannot be compared to a situation between an employee and a employer.
-> a. Paradox will mostly likely have to pay penalties for releasing late, but not pay penalties for releasing buggy games
-> b. Paradox is likely to be more dependent on the distributor than the distributor is on them, giving them a rather crappy negotiating position if they want to move a release date or change marketing or have a better manual
-> c. Changing distributor is easier said than done, first of all you have a timelimit imposed by the cost of your employees and how much cash reserves you have, second breaching the contract is fraught with legal problems that can drag on forever, third the new distributor might be as crap as the old one

3. Paradox's freedom to do what it wants is limited by the need to support its employees: it probably needs to release 1-2 games a year. It is also in a niche game game industry with a very small customer base (relative say Deer Hunter), which sometimes can have hits like Civilization, but probably usually means selling less 100 000 copies even at the best times. If a release is postponed for a month it you lose about 8% of the year, the potential upside of the postponement must outweigh the lost sales opportunities and the wasted marketing money and the penalities imposed by the distributors and the alternative use benefits for the programmers (e.g. making new games). The interesting question is if one year's development time instead of perhaps 9 months will result in dramatically increased sales.

4. I think Paradox is well aware of the problems caused by the releases of HoI and Victoria, and will try to make more evolutionary changes to games than revolutionary. The release of HoI was better than EU2, Victoria was better than HoI. Hopefully CK will be better than Victoria, and EU3: The Wrath of Khan (or whatever) will be better than CK.

 

[unmerged(17657)]

1. Software companies have a long history of releasing buggy products and still selling. Ask anyone who has tried to install the vanilla versions of Oracle's enterprise software. Not that is much of an excuse, but it is the way it works.

2. Paradox's contract between distributors and themselves cannot be compared to a situation between an employee and a employer.
-> a. Paradox will mostly likely have to pay penalties for releasing late, but not pay penalties for releasing buggy games
-> b. Paradox is likely to be more dependent on the distributor than the distributor is on them, giving them a rather crappy negotiating position if they want to move a release date or change marketing or have a better manual
-> c. Changing distributor is easier said than done, first of all you have a timelimit imposed by the cost of your employees and how much cash reserves you have, second breaching the contract is fraught with legal problems that can drag on forever, third the new distributor might be as crap as the old one

3. Paradox's freedom to do what it wants is limited by the need to support its employees: it probably needs to release 1-2 games a year. It is also in a niche game game industry with a very small customer base (relative say Deer Hunter), which sometimes can have hits like Civilization, but probably usually means selling less 100 000 copies even at the best times. If a release is postponed for a month it you lose about 8% of the year, the potential upside of the postponement must outweigh the lost sales opportunities and the wasted marketing money and the penalities imposed by the distributors and the alternative use benefits for the programmers (e.g. making new games). The interesting question is if one year's development time instead of perhaps 9 months will result in dramatically increased sales.

4. I think Paradox is well aware of the problems caused by the releases of HoI and Victoria, and will try to make more evolutionary changes to games than revolutionary. The release of HoI was better than EU2, Victoria was better than HoI. Hopefully CK will be better than Victoria, and EU3: The Wrath of Khan (or whatever) will be better than CK.

1. Sorry, but even though a lot of publishers put out games that have bugs, only a few have put out games with as many critical bugs as Paradox has. Again, this goes back to diversionary tactics often employed by defenders; they always point to the fact that most games out there have bugs, but they ignore the critical fact that Paradox games have more critical bugs than most of those games out there. *That* is the crux of the debate.

2. Again, this is over-rationalizatinon, and something that should have been carefully thought out beforehand by the 'planning/development' people. Just because Paradox won't be paying for a buggy release does not mean that the consumers are the ones to be exacted the costs. And no bargaining position for a company is stronger than one who puts out good, polished games that sell well.

3. Sure, perhaps there are seasons which are more likely to produce sales than others, but the most convincing reason for anyone to buy Paradox' games is not because it will be Christmas, New Year's or whatever, but whether the game is good and whether he/she will derive enjoyment out of it. With that said, it is quite logical to say that the one criterium for good sales, above all else, is to have a good product so that professional reviewers recommend it and one who can urge people to pass by word of mouth. Marketing a game with obvious flaws is a very myopic practice, to say the least.

4. I hope so, although I doubt very much whether I will be purchasing their next game, or at least not at the launch anymore. I do question the your 'evolutionary' claim, as HOI as judged by most people I know to be far worse than EU at launch.

 

[unmerged(1129)]

These publishing contracts dont have cast in iron release dates. they cant because delays are inherint to the process. Your post gives the impression that delays are not possible or very rare. This just isnt the case in the industry. The industry is riddled with delays and overruns. Its the nature of all creative works. As a writer I'm very much familiar with publishing contracts and I know that the choice to submit is mine and then the publisher chooses to release or not. So paradox DIDNT have to submit an unfinished product to be released. HOI was not forced into an early release and patrick eluded to that when he made the statement that PArdox made a mistake with the release and they wouldnt make the same one again.

Generally correct. It all depends on the language in the contract, which varies from publisher to publisher in both the book and gaming industry. There is no such thing as a standard template, so it's anyone's guess what the language in the legal documents that describe Paradox's relationship(s) with Strategy First.

One of my contracts, for instance, stipulates a "twenty-four month window" within which my publisher has rights to release my book, but no specific release or publication dates are in the contract, and the contract is with an industry standard publisher.

 

[unmerged(1129)]

That is not born out by reviews. EUII got rave reviews. In fact, it eclipsed some RTS games of the same period (much, much, much less complexity).

Too true. If anyone wants to read my old 4000+ word Wargamer review, you can check it out for nostalgia's sake here.

Why? One, it was far more complex than it needed to be. EUII economy had a lot of complexity but a good level of abstraction (if I *were* running a country I *would* have a finance minister after all). Two, it was *buggy*. My copy still crashes.

1. Keep the complexity, add optional auto-ministers or AI governors, or whatever...and just make sure they're reasonably well designed.

2. My copy hasn't crashed yet after several lengthy sessions, fingers crossed.

 

[unmerged(1129)]

my point is that Johan says he is LESS motivated to work on patches when people are critical in these forums, and therefore the criticisms are not helping.

As I said earlier, just stop calling them patches and start calling them service releases or service packs, or separate the patches from the enhancements.

There's no way you're going to please everyone when it comes to the fidelity of a certain historical situation, say in terms of power balance. Scholarly historians can't agree (and write books on popular and obscure history contradicting each other yearly) so why should we?

Matt

 

[unmerged(1129)]

Well its not a matter of improving the games its more a matter of improving game releases.

The thing that needs the most improvement in all of Paradox's games, and has since the beginning though it's clearly worsened with the release of Victoria, is good, comprehensive documentation of The Way Things Work.

It absolutely *killed* MOO3, which had it neither in the manual nor the game itself. With Victoria, quite a lot of it is actually in the game to the game's credit, but without enough "this affects this" 1:1 or 1:12 or whatever correlation.

We either need a strategy guide, which I would gladly shell out money for if it's well written and comprehensive, or we need more out of the box. There's enough development effort in a game like Victoria that I would gladly pay full price for a manual-lite game, and another twenty bucks for a strategy guide so long as it hits all the salient relationships quick and easy to grasp.