Numdydar
Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote:
ORIGINAL: Numdydar quote:
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets February 1, 2009 Status Report for Matrix Games’ MWIF Forum AI Opponent I decided that one way to reduced my task list for creating the AIO is to limit the number of different scenarios that it can play when the game is first released. I’ll do 4 of the 11 scenarios for first release and then add the other 7 as patches in subsequent months. What this removes from my task list is figuring out alternative setups for thousands of units in the 7 scenarios that start late in the war. Each of those scenarios has hundreds, if not thousands, of units on the map at the start of the game. If the AIO always uses the same setup, it becomes too predictable and easy to defeat. But to do a respectable job of designing alternative setups for thousands of units will take time and effort. The 4 scenarios that will be ready for first release are the ones that will be played the most: the two introductory scenarios (Barbarossa and Guadalcanal) and the Global War scenario (which is virtually the only scenario ever played in over the board games). The fourth scenario is Fascist Tide, which is the European half of the Global War scenario, so it can use the same setups. The bolded section definately implies that at least for 4 scenerios AT RELEASE was to have an AI since in a previous report you stated that Netplay, PBEM, and solo (against an AI) were the three methods that WiF was going to be able to do at some point. PBEM has been eliminated. Now you are saying that we will have to pay an additional cost for an AI? Are you serious? I was REALLY exicted to see this game have a release date since I have been following it for a while now. However, I definately will not be buying this at release (or anytime soome with or without an AI) if this is the path you and Matrix are now taking. I have no problem paying for the full game WITH an AI that is part of a FREE patch. But I have NO interest in paying for a game twice. Whomever thought this STUPID way to sell should be sent back to school to figure out marketing. Because in case you could not tell, you have royally pissed off a long time Matrix customer and supporter with this stupidity. I cannot wait until people find out the game is realeased for X amount, but without an AI. Then if you want an AI at some future point (1 year, 2 years, etc.), later you have to pay more if you want an AI? Do you honestly think this is going to fly? You just lost one buyer. I wonder how may more you will lose? It took too long to get everything ready. You are quoting a post from over 4 and half years ago (when I was young and naive). Rather than have everyone pay full price now (i.e., as if the AIO and PBEM were included) for the initial release, a reduced price was decided upon. As I understand it, customers who have already purchased MWIF (i.e., the initial release) will get full credit for that purchase price against the price of the second release - which includes the AIO. PBEM may or may not be part of the second release. I will try my best to make that happen, but time rules over all. I totally get that things change as time passes and decisions made then may not be accurate any longer. The issue is it is hard enough to sell an item once versus trying to get the same people to buy it again based on something that many feel should be in the initial release of the game to start with. You make a good point on where is your financial incentive to make an AI for the game if no increased revenue steam is associated with it. The problem is that I personally feel (others may or may not feel the same) that by going down this path you are forcing us to buy a 'pig in a poke' (Google it if you do not know what that means ) I realize that you, ADG, your new partners want something to show for all this time and effort. I do not blame any of you for wanting that. However, I feel (and again this is just me speaking here) that et el is NOT putting your supporters and customers first by going down this path. So we have the following choices as customers under the current plan 1. Buy a copy of the game at release for X dollars for a game without an AI. 2. At some indetermined point in the furture which is still undefined, the game will be re-released?, Version 2.0? for Y dollars. Anyone who bought it for X dollars will still need to pay Y-X dollars for the 'new' version with an AI. An AI that many people here feel very strongly that should be part of the initial release. 3. New purchases will then from this point forward will now cost Y dollars Considering the time it took the get the game ready to release WITHOUT an AI, why should ANYONE here buy this at the initial release when no one can say with authority when the AI version even will be ready? Even if you say the AI will be ready in a year, why should we belive that versus what you stated in 2009? After all you state very clearly that things changed since 2009 so there is nothing to prevent things from happening that delay the AI even after you provide a date for it to be ready.So if you say a year or less, it could take 2 becasue 'things change'. If the AI takes longer that planned where is our (the customers) revenue stream for any delays? So as customers Matrix et el wants us to buy a game without an AI, pay extra for whenever an AI is ready, at some point in the furture whose date of completiion may or may not change. This sure makes me exicted about getting this on release, NOT. What SHOULD occur (if everyone is worried about revenue streams post a non-AI release) is just suck things up until an AI is ready. Even if it takes another year to get it done. This way everyone involved still has an incentive to get the game working AS IT SHOULD from the very start. Instead of the absoultely BS way things are set up now. Another way (which again makes a lot more sense from a customer point of view so I know it will not be considered) to help with a revenue stream is to charge Y cost for the game with an AI and provide the AI free as a patch. However, the parties involved only get the revenus stream from the X cost without an AI, The difference is set aside and does not get paid out until the AI is done. To me this is the way it should work. Not pushing off development, revenue stream, etc. issues onto the people, i.e. customers, supporting the companies involved. It is just sad to see the direction this has taken so close to release. I wish you luck with this approch, but I will definately not be along for the ride.
|