Creative Assembly Business Practice Discussion Thread (Rome II)

[Cathal]

um, they are delayed to make 2014 revenue for ubisoft look good. op, you bought into it too easily.

Ummm, they took a hit this year because they expected Watch Dogs to be released this year.... I don't think you read it properly.

[Sharpe]

Lol at the fact this thread exists.

[Erik3E]

They are just money whores and con artists F.em.

[Yarkis de Bodemloze]

It's only a fact if it was true. Last I played, pretty sure the game works. It's not unfinished at all. It's buggy, yes, but there's nothing in it that screams "unfinished". It is your opinion, that the game is unfinished.

Well, if the game is finished then it is even worse then I thought, because then it not just lacks polish and proper progressive iteration of game features, but it's badly designed. But in CA's favour I rather assume that a nonexistent siege AI, a pointless political system, and the many balance issues are the result of a premature release, and not the result of a lack of ability on CA's part.

[Yarkis de Bodemloze]

Not related to Rome, but to SEGAs marketing practices: http://sega-addicts.murnaumusic.com/?p=41441
And a youtube video about the reason behind the lawsuit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z2qVebxlUo

[ChairmanCrassus]

My only complaint about their business practices is that they don't listen to their fan base and they don't learn from modders. Why don't they take what the modders produce and distribute it to everyone who owns the game?

CA needs to listen to its fan base more, not focus groups.

[krisslanza]

I'm sorry, but it's also opinion of developers, since they're working on patching battle and campaign AI, game balance etc. (and saying that without player feedback it would take them few months instead of few weeks). Bugs are small issues, those are foundations of the game. They obviously didn't have time to polish it. Sure there's working engine, but that's only half of the work.

I think you vastly underestimate just how difficult bug testing is. It's hard. Mindbogglingly hard. Unless you want to spend years testing every possible variable, it's far better to just release the product and have your customers do it instead. With patches being so commonplace now, bug testing is something that can be put to a lower priority since they can simply have customers to do it, the devs/publishers just have to catch the most obvious/breaking ones.

[Jonoleth Irenicus]

Or that, you know, an actual navy with decent ships in it will defeat transports any day of the week. Transports are not nearly as powerful as TWC claims. Their only strength is in numbers - just don't think your fleet of 3 ships can go beat 20 ships. It's just like any other battle in the game, numbers matter. Even if the 20 enemy units are garbage, you can't honestly expect a significantly smaller number of units to defeat them in the open.

I do actually.

A small number of warships can and should easily sink a large number of troop transports : vessels that are typically slow, have low defense, and no offense.

But if you like the present state of the game, you probably have no issue with the CAI or BAI either.

It's not CA's fault you say : game runs fine on their machines.

It's the customers and their poor computers that are too blame ... Sorry ... Nonsense.

[wulfgar610]

It's the customers and their poor computers that are to blame

Yep, that's the way it is.

[krisslanza]

I do actually.

A small number of warships can and should easily sink a large number of troop transports : vessels that are typically slow, have low defense, and no offense.

But if you like the present state of the game, you probably have no issue with the CAI or BAI either.

It's not CA's fault you say : game runs fine on their machines.

It's the customers and their poor computers that are too blame ... Sorry ... Nonsense.

The transports are ships that are slow with low defense and no direct offense. The only way they can kill you is by ramming/boarding you. Well, and missile attacks if the troops onboard have it - which makes sense. Why would they magically lose their ability to fire projectiles just because they're on a boat?

A small number of warships, proper ones, can still beat a much larger transport fleet - unless you try to board them anyway. Just ram them, or better yet, use artillery ships to pick them off.

[Jonoleth Irenicus]

The transports are ships that are slow with low defense and no direct offense. The only way they can kill you is by ramming/boarding you. Well, and missile attacks if the troops onboard have it - which makes sense. Why would they magically lose their ability to fire projectiles just because they're on a boat?

A small number of warships, proper ones, can still beat a much larger transport fleet - unless you try to board them anyway. Just ram them, or better yet, use artillery ships to pick them off.

I do not wish this to become another naval debate thread, but Transports weren't designed for ramming operations.

Back to the main topic : it was pleasing to see Ubi Soft be bold and hold back from releasing games they considered to be unpolished. If this also helps to make them more money and get a great 2014 result : good for them.

RTW2 was clearly released in an unfinished state and that is very unsatisfactory.

As many people play more than one genre and do not have unlimited funds, Ubi is a competitor of CA / SEGA.

[rakenan]

I do actually.

A small number of warships can and should easily sink a large number of troop transports : vessels that are typically slow, have low defense, and no offense.

But if you like the present state of the game, you probably have no issue with the CAI or BAI either.

It's not CA's fault you say : game runs fine on their machines.

It's the customers and their poor computers that are too blame ... Sorry ... Nonsense.

Boarding was a huge part of naval combat in this time frame. Boarding a transport ship filled with Roman infantry troops is not a trivial endeavor. Winning the boarding action even less so.

Now personally, I consider the ability of troops to produce transport ships at will a serious flaw in the system, precisely *BECAUSE* a troop ship full of soldiers was at least a semi-functional naval vessel in those times, and as such the ability to produce such troop ships needs to be balanced against actual naval vessels. It's not a difficult problem to solve - at a minimum, every Total War game prior to Rome 2 did a better job. In this particular case, CA just completely dropped the ball. Embarking troops on transport ships that don't have to be explicitly built and have no cost is just a bad fit for a Total War game. Having those troops able to actually sink true naval ships if they have a numerical advantage is not particularly unlikely if you are willing to grant the initial bad decision.

This and a few other flaws in the game are just bad decisions that got so far along by the time they were revealed to be awful that nobody in the developer meetings wanted to be the one to speak out and say that the Emperor was naked. CAI, BAI, and bugs are just issues that are hard to fix regardless of team problems.

[DropkickCleary]

No the only blame is with the consumers.

Again I've pointed out dozens of times but none of you want to admit it because you're just as guilty as the next one.

Films like Dredd 2012, Scott Pilgrim, etc. were new films that tried catering to hardcore fans.

They had some internet hype but when they came out what happened? They flopped, they flopped really bad because as it turned out hardcore fans means nothing in the end for businesses.

Look at 2012 for this years top films. All of them are either re-makes or sequels. The only movie that wasn't a sequel or a re-make was Pacific Rim and it underperformed in the US because people preferred to go see Adam Sandler's Grown-ups 2.

You also admit it yourself, for some strange reason you claim that businesses don't know how to run the industry yet here they are making games that are making them millions like CoD and such.

Why did LoTRs and Star trek reboot do so well? Because they bought it down a few notches so it'd be more on line with casual because casuals pays the bills. Not hardcore fans.

Why did Bay make so much money out of Transformers despite the fact that they were barely in any of the movies? Because he knew people preferred sick disgusting jokes and hot girls. That's all it took to make the movie successful.

Mike Simpson admits it himself and it's true for the industry, in order to keep up with the times and such they have to keep pushing and try out new things and unfortunately sometimes it doesn't work out but they have to because WE demand them. They have to make it so that the average joe who doesn't care about games would pick up a copy for himself and play it.

There's a reason why James Cameron and Christopher Nolan were able to make unique films that stands out. It's because they had cash cows behind them (Nolan --> Batman and James --> for being James).

Unlike Blizzard and Valve CA does not have a cash cow and they only release a few products at a time so they have to maintain that balance.

Blizzard and Valve can do whatever they want because they already rake in tons of cash trhough WoW or selling digital hats online so they don't need to answer to anybody.

Ubisoft has several products and hell they make games like AC their cash cow so of course they can take their time and more risks. Not to mention they're in the console market and there's MORE money to be made in consoles than PC.

I really, really do appreciate this viewpoint... but I'd like to point out you're comparing Judge Dredd and Scott Pilgrim to Transformers. Now, which do you think has the larger built in fanbase?

Also, yes, COD makes millions. It's simple. It happens to meet all the requisites that the suits think are important and, for its genre, they absolutely ARE important. It's a clear cut case of a stopped clock is right twice a day. COD and Battlefield are both outstanding games in their own right, but they're also the easiest to understand for people outside the industry. They're the cookie cutters of the gaming industry. There's a template, and it's easy to follow. Strategy and RPG games aren't so easy.

[DropkickCleary]

I wouldn't trust that Ubisoft's delay is purely altruistic in the slightest.

No, I'm sure it wasn't, but that doesn't mean it wasn't done for the right reasons. Situations where games do get delayed usually involves either an exceptionally strong personality representing the development team or an exceptionally game savvy exec in the right position.

Delaying a game is a reputation hit... now the question is whether that hit will be worse than releasing a buggy game. Keep in mind, there's actually some practical business value for releasing a less than perfect title but providing exceptional service post-market provided the company generally releases quality and it can be played off as an isolated incident.

Ubisoft probably knew this stock dip was coming. Maybe not the extent of it, but they knew they were gonna take a hit. They've already dumped a ton of hype into Watchdogs already... they were one of the earliest Gen 4 titles to show gameplay, they are one of the most anticipated titles ever for a new generation, and absolutely the most anticipated new IPs on Gen 4. Expectations for Watchdogs is astronomical. Ubisoft cannot afford to screw it up, period. They're trading at $2.42 a share right now and expect to post a $95 million loss for the year (which, incidentally, would hire about 6-7 million good Q/A Testers).

There is a third possibility. There is this kind of arcane section of the regulations that govern corporations dealing with revenue reporting. If the company states without doubt that a certain feature will be included in the game, and that feature is not there at all (there's some leeway here) then they will be unable to report the generated revenue until the following quarter. Facing that possibility, the company might be attempting to manage revenue expectations. Having revenue but being unable to report it can be crippling, and they may be better off simply delaying if they're in danger of having to leave out something they've already announced.

[DropkickCleary]

Kinda feel bad since this thread's name has been changed to "CA Business Practice Complaint Thread" now... I don't wanna seem like I'm bashing CA or even Sega. I'm talking about a structural problem with the entire industry. I love CA, I have an immense amount of respect for the team that makes the Total War games. I've been where they are right now, and it's not fun. They're not sitting back with cigars going "Whelp, another job well done!" They're buckling their asses down and trying to figure out how to get around those structural problems in the future. If it's anything like what I've been through, there are a lotta engineers missing their spouse and kids right now but working their asses off to get those patches out every week.

I guess what I want to avoid here is people saying the devs are lazy, the devs don't care, etc.. I don't know anyone on the CA team that I know of, but I know what they're going through. It sucks. It takes a lot of professional pride just to get through an alpha, you have to love what you do to put yourself through that.

[TheCenturion24]

Just walking around my local EB Games store (because y'know, I'm still loyal to the CD) and I catch sight of the Rome II cover on the stands... wow... they really only care about the marketing, don't they? Draped pathetically across the center of the cover like tape is four large awards ranging from strategy game of the year etc etc... it just frustrates me how they're continually trying to get across to those unaware that the game is some 'incredible masterpiece' when in reality it's no better than any previous game, if not worse due to its persisting issues.

Who would be responsible for that part of marketing, anyway? SEGA or CA?

[Turkeys!]

You honestly believe they're going to stop advertising their game because of some design flaws and bugs? Come on now, This is something all game companies do; If you impulse-buy based on some stupid banner and a couple of awards, then you deserve to get ripped off.

[wulfgar610]

Who would be responsible for that part of marketing, anyway? SEGA or CA?

Sega is the parent company and the publisher,. marketing is its job. They consult with agents in CA about marketing.

I picked up a game for $12 from EB early in the year,. Anno 1404, quite good.

[AlyssaFaden]

Wait, wait ... which crooked organization gave this any level of reward only 6 weeks after release and in the state that it was released? Unless one of those ribbons was for "most patches fixed in a 4 week period," those organizations and awards are as crooked as Bob Hoskins in The Long Good Friday.

[krisslanza]

Rewards are given to good games. It only makes sense. Just because Rome 2 is not the game TWC wants, does not mean Rome 2 is not the game other people want. It is, admittedly buggy, but its like a Bethedesa title - it's buggy because the game is HUGE. The bigger the game, and the more complex it is, the more bug prone it is. I can't think of any grand strategy games that are even on the same scope and scale of Total War - not even Paradox titles, given they are huge, but relatively simple.