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

[Collock]

My thought's

I think at lest in America it was 60% to 70% distribution. I bought HOI in Best BUY. I do not know of Bust Buy or any other major retailer that has VIC. I don't have any real evidence to back this up , but what people have posted and vague recollections of past post on EUII and HOI. Strategy First screwed you over Johan they didn’t even try to sell the game. I mean not including the appendix with the game? I bought my copy two weeks after the release and I had an appendix. But I could tell that the box had been resealed so it looks to me that the appendix had been included after production. I don't know how many were sold without the appendix, but not including the appendix is way beyond incompetence at an unacceptable level. Ditch Strategy First or at lest sell the games via the internet. I know your agreement with Strategy First probably does not allow it since they sell paradox games via the internet. I don't claim to know the computer gamming distribution industry, but walk away if they the restrictions they dictate hurt you. On the other end I know there are many great games made by European companies that never sell in the U.S. that sell reasonable well in Europe. Heck I know when EU came out it took awhile to find a distributor for NA.

I will agree with what has been said previously the game itself is not the problem it is an initial image problem, and marketing issue ( distribution falls under this). I think there a large market for this game despite it still being in a very niche market. I will agree with what has been said hundred’s of times: because of the complexity of the game, a tutorial, a large good game manual, and difficulty level's that actual make the game significantly easier for learning purposes, are needed. I think the product is of very high quality when you considered the complexity and that it is a historical game. Add in the limited resources of Paradox, I think there is large areas for improvement, but paradox is at the top of its class. Quite possible with no one above them. It is marketing(distribution, advertising, packaging, support), marketing, marketing, and tweaking the product(game manual ect.) for marketing that is needed not less complex games.

 

[Darkrenown]

I have NEVER seen it in more then 30 playings of Victoria with many powers, including the USA, and Spain.

FYI, I see it in about half my games. Have you been looking out for it in every game? No offence meant, but in the "Vic got trashed" thread you did show that you had missed a couple of features I thought were fairly obvious.

 

[unmerged(16676)]

I have been, yes.

As an aside, the two things I mentioned in the other thread, one was a misunderstanding (worded poorly by myself, about production queue) the other, I simply never saw before.

In my games I always set the messages for pop-ups when a new war begins, just to keep abreast of what is going on in-game, and I tell you in all honesty, I still have never seen a USA/Spain war.

 

[Darkrenown]

I have been, yes.

Odd. Here is the event for the USA's files:

#########################################################################
#  Yellow Press and the sinking of BB Maine
#########################################################################
event = {
	id = 14193
	random = no
	country = USA

	trigger = {
		event = 7707
		NOT = { exists = CSA }
		NOT = {
			peace_treaty = { country = USA country = SPA }
		}
	}

	name = "EVT_7707_NAME"
	desc = "EVT_7707_DESC"
	style = 0

	date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1898 }
	offset = 31
	deathdate = { day = 1 month = january year = 1900 }

	action_a = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME14193A" # Declare War on Spain
		command = { type = war which = SPA }
		# Cuba
		command = { type = addcore which = 1728 }
		command = { type = addcore which = 1729 }
		command = { type = addcore which = 1730 }
		# Puerto Rico
		command = { type = addcore which = 1749 }
		# Phillipenes
		command = { type = addcore which = 2038 }
		command = { type = addcore which = 2039 }
		command = { type = addcore which = 2040 }
		command = { type = addcore which = 2340 }
		command = { type = addcore which = 2341 }
		command = { type = addcore which = 2342 }
	}
	action_b = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME14193B" # Investigate
		command = { type = prestige value = -20 }
	}
}

Action A is the one the AI will pick most of the time. Of course this event does depend on there not being a CSA and most of the time there isn't in my games. Do you see the CSA surviving a lot?

As an aside, the two things I mentioned in the other thread, one was a misunderstanding (worded poorly by myself, about production queue) the other, I simply never saw before.

Actually I was counting the F1 key and page one of the ledger, were you aware you can sort in either direction of by any of the colum headers? That seems to be just that you were looking for.

In my games I always set the messages for pop-ups when a new war begins, just to keep abreast of what is going on in-game, and I tell you in all honesty, I still have never seen a USA/Spain war.

All I can say is the event exists and I have certainly seen it.

 

[unmerged(16676)]

I don't dispute it, but I still haven't seen, nor do i deny its existance.

 

[Claude Luster]

I didn't say that we would never do another EU2-complexity game again. I said that it was more likely we would aim for that complexity than for Victoria complexity.

And this thread shows exactly why its not worth it to make super-detail, since there's always someone bringing up some little detail from his nations past we were not aware off.

And no, the game was not released in US first It hit Scandinavia and Russia first.

I would just like to say that Victoria is an excellent game. I love playing it. My friends love playing it. Thank you for making such great games.

C.L.

 

[Mozart41st]

I am very sad that it has come to this Johan. I still have hope that you can make games fun and historical, without having to become Risk/Age of Empires.

 

[unmerged(1104)]

I would just like to say that Victoria is an excellent game. I love playing it. My friends love playing it. Thank you for making such great games.

C.L.

Agree, as I stated in another thread, just bought Vic as a present for my Uncle (his 60th birthday.)

I have always maintained there is a much bigger market for this type of game. Many new potential owners - I see the problem as people who might want it don't know it type of game exists. That is, many folks who would enjoy Vic don't follow gaming - they see too much FPS, or kiddie games marketed and just don't give it another thought. Most reviewers cater to that market so they don't follow gaming mags. I don't know just a random thought - perhaps my Uncle will help strengthen this theory.

I bought it when it first came out from GoGamers.com on a tip from this forum. However, I remember it was VERY difficult to find those first several weeks on the brick/morter market and online.

 

[Mozart41st]

Let me just say that I still have great faith in the Paradox team. Let's not forget that EU II and HOI weren't very complex, and they were a lot of fun, and were big sellers. Even COTN was a lot of fun in a beer and pretzels way. And who knows? Paradox may create a masterpiece the quality of Victoria yet again one day.

 

[unmerged(24517)]

So many things to say so little time. I think if I say everything I wish to this post will become uninteresting and unreadable. I will focus then on what I see as the most surprising issue.

Theodotus1- I would like to respond to a few of your posts. I hope you will take the time to give my comments due consideration. I apologize for adressing you individually, as there were others who expressed a similar opinion. I hope that you do not feel as though I am singling you out in any way.

A part of the 30th post of this thread, written by Theodotus1.

I often conclude that Europeans have no accurate conception of how truly awful the public education system is in the U.S. -- the mass majority of potential U.S. customers wouldn't even be able to tell you who Queen Victoria was or when WWI took place. (This is not hyperbole.)

A part of the 110th post of this thread, written by Theodotus1.

Some years ago the Rameses exhibit came to Dallas (I think it was) and I asked a co-worker if she was going to go see it. She was an accountant, and an educated woman. Her reply was, "Why should I care about that? I don't live in Egypt."

In America, people like games in which you can shoot things. (We like real life to be that way, too, judging by our gun laws.) Plain and simple. And that's not Victoria.

From your tone, It sounds as if you believe the current mindset and lack of historical knowledge by the American public is a deplorable thing. That is my interpretation of your statement. If I am wrong in my interpretation of what you said, then please disregard the rest of this post.

I would like to make a small suggestion that I hope you find helpful, maybe not now, but in years to come. I suggest that you consider refraining from making value judgements about society in general. I have found that my own broad, sweeping value judgements about the world or society tend to be wrong most of the time. How can you back up your claims? Why is the lack of some historical knowledge by some Americans such a bad thing?

To me, history is important and interesting. There are lessons to be learned in history. I find my own knowledge of history to be helpful in many situations. However, I do not believe that I can make the assertion that a better knowledge of history is absolutely necessary for all other Americans. It might be helpful for them, it might not. Only the individual can decide that.

Also, I believe that making value judgements based on what games a person choses to buy or not buy, is not advisable either. If the majority of Americans want to buy graphic-intensive first person shooters, so be it. It is their choice. If it makes them happy, then so be it. A booming first person shooter business is no better nor worse than if the majority of America suddenly started reading books of philosophy on a regular basis.

I hope that you find my suggestion helpful, or at the very least informative about my personal beliefs. I find, personally, that living with the belief that people are basically enlightened, worthy, and intelligent is much more enjoyable than living with the belief that people are stupid and ignorant.

Once again, I apologize if I misinterpreted your comments. Please tell me if I did.

 

[Judge]

Well, when it comes to advertising Victoria, there might be more market to be reached by advertising in history magazines than in game magazines, frankly. (That's just a hypothesis, I have no data to support it.) There are several such magazines that appear on the shelves of major American bookstores, and their readership would probably be more interested in Victoria than the readership of, say, Computer Gaming Monthly. (I could be completely wrong about this, which is why market and advertising research is necessary in business. Perception can be very, very wrong.)

Interesting idea. In Sweden one of the leading historical writers happen to be a huge fan of strategy games (not I am not talking of myself). A lot of persons interested in history would probably be very interested in Paradox games. Couldn’t be that expensive to make advertisements in historical magazines

 

[Derek Pullem]

I used your post because YOU said it was judgement call, you had best learn to take constructive critism if you want to be taken seriously.

See my above statement.
This is an extremly immature comment, if you wish to speak for Paradox, you had best learn to control your emotions, lest they make a fool of you, as you did with the first two comments.

Are you aware that by 1900 that better then 40% of THE WORLD's manufactured goods were produced in the USA?
That by the end of the great war, the USA's manufacturing potenial was higher then the next three powers combined?They are just as significant, in fact more so, then many of the in-game events.
I don't dispute this in the least, but some MAJOR factors of the world's development are not in the game, and the designer bemaons poor sales. This is part of the reason for it, as well as this attitude your displaying. Like it or not, if Paradox wants a larger chunk of US dollars, it had best cater somewhat to the USA's development.

I only use this example because it usually leads to a string of rediculous USA/Mexican wars that are as pointless as they are ahistorical. If Mexico in the game accepts the same treaty as in reality, a large chuck of pointless wars end.
I have NEVER seen it in more then 30 playings of Victoria with many powers, including the USA, and Spain.

That would certainly be true if I had, but I did not.

You read it that way, take a tip from me, step back and try to be objective in the future, being defensive and throwing out childish insults serves no purpose.

1. I do not speak for Paradox.
2. My only advantage over you is that I was privy to the beta discussions and I am bug forum mod. Which does not entitle me to "speak for Paradox".
3. If you chose to attack someone's personal credability you should expect a strong reaction

A BAD JUDGEMENT call Derek, going toward a pattern.

..................
Your judgements are heavily flawed as to what is important historically.

4. US GDP as % of UK GDP (£ basis, source www.eh.net)

1836 14%
1861 26%
1881 38%
1914 59%
1920 108%

The US was important but not the world dominating power it was to become for most of the period of the game.

5. Your opinion is that we have to boost the US content at the expense of other nations (when it is not historically relevant to do so) to increase sales? That sounds an odd thing to do in a historical game

6. As many have pointed out the Spanish american war is in and does fire. Unless you always play the CSA I don't understand why you have not seen it.

7. The Mexican settlement can be achieved by the player by Satelliting Mexico in a peace deal. The AI does not do this and a change to force the AI to settle for satellite status through event is being being discussed in beta. Satellite status would also stop the string of Mexican American wars

8. If you really think that I'm here to be a verbal punchbag for you then forget it. I suggest that you temper your language in the future if you do not wish to recieve a robust response.

 

[unmerged(11437)]

I am going to try to express my opinion here.
I think Paradox policy of patches is really good,I don´t see anything bad in it,since it had made great changes and renewals in their games,just see how EU,an "old" game in the world of games,is now still a fantastic game and adictive as ever.And what to say about the week to week betas,it was a great time for EU,and had made it a more perfect game.Over all,the patches are the consequences of the desires of the players,and there is no other company that do that.

What is the problem with Vicky?I think that is really more secure in terms of CTDs that the firsts EU and HOI.But...but EU and HOI were really more adictive in their beginings,and Vicky could be boring as a resolt of some simple problems.(the lackness of goods,factories in a strange places..)

But I don´t think that is a problem of complexity,it is a great game!!!The big mistake for me was the enormous expectations that were generated before the game was put for sale,everybody expected more,and then arrived the deception.But i really hope that it is going to be one of the greatest games in history of strategy games,and I encourage you to continue developing things like this,just work on it,you have made so many incredible things that I know you will do it well.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

FFZ - With respect to the Spanish-American War, with what patch are you not seeing it occur? There was a point when the event triggering the war was bugged, but it was fixed either in 1.01 or 1.02 (can't remember which off the top of my head).

 

[roadkill47]

4. US GDP as % of UK GDP (£ basis, source www.eh.net)

1836 14%
1861 26%
1881 38%
1914 59%
1920 108%

The US was important but not the world dominating power it was to become for most of the period of the game.

Just as a FYI

Considering that one of 8 things you are to control about your nation is industrialization I figure this might be useful.

% of World Manufacturing Output

Year.......UK......... France....Germany. Italy.......Russia.... USA....... AustHung
1800...... 4.22%.... 4.22%..............................5.65%.... 0.75%.... 3.27%
1830...... 9.49%.... 5.15%..............................5.59%.... 2.49%.... 3.15%
1860...... 19.92%...7.92%.................2.52%.... 6.99%.... 7.17%.... 4.21%
1880...... 22.90%...7.84%.... 8.56%.... 2.53%....7.65%.... 14.65%...4.37%
1900...... 18.49%...6.80%.... 13.17%...2.51%.... 8.78%.... 23.63%...4.73%
1913...... 13.64%...6.14%.... 14.77%...2.41%.... 8.21%.... 31.97%...4.36%

Source: The Journal of European Economic History
1982, n. 2
P. Bairoch, International Industrialization Levels from 1750 to 1980


USA Rank out of nations shown in above table
1800 last
1830 last
1860 3rd
1880 2nd
1900 1st
1913 1st

Michael

 

[unmerged(12303)]

I would hazard a guess that what Johan means by "easier to play" means less detail, more gameplay. To offer my own (unofficial, non-Paradox sanctioned ) example the POP system in Vicky could be abstracted by % for each class / culture. The player would have no control over the allocation of these wokers to their factories but would recognise that more craftsmen/clerks and more national culture workers would mean more income. More profit would automatically increase the literacy and number of middle class / artisans in the province / state / nation. So the economy is just the EU2 approach of moving 4-5 sliders about. But you've got the added bonus of the government policies and elections etc. No POP management.

And pop management is what I think killed the game for most players. I mean how realistic is is that you play around putting in 100 000 communits in a factory..
Paradox should have concentrated on the general aspect of empire managment - on policies, trade, politics etc - not deciding if you are to buy 50 coal and put 10 000 clerks in your factory.... :wacko:

You have to decide what you want a economic management game, war or political game - you cant have all 3 combined and done so indeapth to make it work (at least not with more testing and time + money). Victoria is a little mismash and doesnt go in one direction... tamagoci as we call it..

F

 

[Derek Pullem]

Just as a FYI

Considering that one of 8 things you are to control about your nation is industrialization I figure this might be useful.

% of World Manufacturing Output

Year.......UK......... France....Germany. Italy.......Russia.... USA....... AustHung
1800...... 4.22%.... 4.22%..............................5.65%.... 0.75%.... 3.27%
1830...... 9.49%.... 5.15%..............................5.59%.... 2.49%.... 3.15%
1860...... 19.92%...7.92%.................2.52%.... 6.99%.... 7.17%.... 4.21%
1880...... 22.90%...7.84%.... 8.56%.... 2.53%....7.65%.... 14.65%...4.37%
1900...... 18.49%...6.80%.... 13.17%...2.51%.... 8.78%.... 23.63%...4.73%
1913...... 13.64%...6.14%.... 14.77%...2.41%.... 8.21%.... 31.97%...4.36%

Source: The Journal of European Economic History
1982, n. 2
P. Bairoch, International Industrialization Levels from 1750 to 1980


USA Rank out of nations shown in above table
1800 last
1830 last
1860 3rd
1880 2nd
1900 1st
1913 1st

Michael

Agreed - but the point being made was that the USA deserves more events than other nations becuase of its dominant position in the game. I was trying to illustrate that Europe was more important than the USA until late in the game. So the current spread of events (USA has more events than most nations ) does not seem to be inconsistent with its status at that time.

We can of course add miltary power and political influence to the criteria as well and the relative importance of the USA in the nineteenth century world political stage will begin to fall.

Adressing the Luxembourg issue - the event could easily have triggered a war between Germany and France and possibly a general war. The conflict between Germany and france in the 1880's would involve a combined industrial output by your figures equal to that of USA. So if you turn that around and say that we should not include an event that could lead to a war similar in size and status to the US Civil War I think you can see why the Luxembourg question is in and the Alaska purchase and Colorado gold rush is out.

 

[Paradox Interactive]

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

Nope... Totally different!


P

 

[Spruce]

all people - with the exception of Paradox themselves - must be very humble to consider the fact that a small company makes a great game - that's fun to play - that's so close to our human history and society,

they forget it's still a game and everybody must understand there will never be a game in a million years that will cope 100% with our history and related matters,

So Johan is plain right that the concept Victoria isn't accepted by some people, most often reviewers but also by some on these forums,

We all know the threads where the muslims are drinking alcohol beverage, we all know the threads about core provinces and who should get them,

the problem is that people who should be the most objective - like game reviewers aren't. The question is not "will I loose money to give a niche game a high score (loosing customers who don't like it anyhow)", it should be "I'm a good reviewer and know these kind of games and I do believe there are customers for this product and I think it's fun, yeah it's fun so I'll give it a good score",

the situation is very bad and must be corrected,

fact = MOO3 was fun to play during the first 2 days, after that it was total horror. The game has got good reviews,

fact = Victoria is really fun to play during the whole time, in the beginning some things are not yet possible (machine parts f.e. - but that's part of the game). They game has got mediocre to bad review in the biggest magazines,

what will we do about it?

we need to change the attitude with game reviewers - they should decide if they are still capable of reviewing niche games,

they need to consider =

- is there a market for these kind of games,
- what does that market expects? what are expectations?
- will they have fun playing the game = is it worth a second, a third day?
- what's the reference for these kind of games? Is it innovative, what's the set-up etc,
- end conclusion = is this game worth your money (in other words, will you have fun with it?),

I consider many game reviewers to be BAD! they should accept it and either say = for this review we took review from another magazine and give you the end conclusion. We are confident that this other magazine has a better judgement on the matter,

the only solution is that one accepts their own limitations and stops to put the future of smaller companies with niche products at risk



are you all that reluctant? can't you see where it's going wrong?

When sales are bad = more difficult to get published = less market potential = less known product = more risk for game magazines = stupid reviews = bad sales = more difficult to get published, etc. etc. etc.

I call for a revolution - NOW - revolution - darned I'm angry!

 

[Theodotus1]

Not at all my friend.
When you see a game about the 19th century, it is hardly a strech to expect to see some very basic things in it, like the california gold rush, and several other mentioned events.

I don't disagree, I was simply pointing out a salient fact about the game's events.

You can also recreate the german Empire by attacking every little state, or creating small nations like Lux by simply giving them independance.
I'm aware of what the game can do, I like the game very much, BUT, and as always, those are those nasty buts, I'd like to see it get better.

There seems to be a dis-connect somewhere, I know how the game works and simply would like to see some things work better.
I think I covered this earlier.

Ha ha, follow the link in my signature, look up "reviews" and read my Victoria review. I believe you will see, I was and remain a very enthusiastic supporter of Paradox and Victoria.

I could simply code my own game, and build my own rules...do you see how pointless that kind of comment is? The idea is to look for ways for the game to be better, not to say "if you don't like it, make your own."
I have no desire to make my own.

I think my above statement addresses this.

The idea is to discuss ways to improve the game OBJECTIVILY, not respond emotionally, as these to gentalmen did.

I'm on your side here, I love the game.

If you feel there are historical gaps in Victoria, why don't you take a look at Victoria Improvement Project, which is in the process of adding historical detail.