Strategy 1st fucks up - big time.

[Aszurom]

From TK at Thirdwire -

Hi Folks,

Strike Fighters: Project 1 is still in beta testing. We still have beta testers putting in good comments and suggestions on our bug tracking system, and we believe we still have anywhere from 2 weeks to 2 months left to go on this project, depending on how fast we can fix bugs and how many of these suggestions we decide to implement.

But unfortunately, we do not have much control over the release date, and we cannot prevent our publisher from putting it in the box and getting it out early. And as I understand it, we do have a version released now, based on late-June beta build, that were sent out to select retail chains. We were assured that the number of this run is very small, and that there will be a full CD-exchange program made available to anyone who bought this version.

We apologize for any confusion and inconvenience this might have caused. All of us at Third Wire were extremely saddened to have to see it go out this way, as we certainly didn’t want it to happen this way. None of us wanted to see our 2 years of hard work thrown away like this.

If you have purchased this version, we encourage you to contact customer support at Strategy First at

[[email protected]]

to ask about the exchange program.

For further inquiry and comments about this release, please contact Christina Ginger, Director of Communications at Strategy First, at

[[email protected]]

Once again, we sincerely apologize for having this released on such an early state. We’d like to assure everyone that we’re still very focused on our beta testing, and working very hard to ensure that our main release is as clean as possible.

Thank you for your continued support and understanding,

TK
--

ps. So all you guys who were asking to be a beta testers, here's your chance

-------------------
Here's something else...
The readme.txt file on the cd:

Third Wire Strike Fighters: Project 1 Preview README.TXT 4/29/2002
================================================== ==============================

* This package is provided for press preview purpose only, and may not be
distributed without permission.

[Tyjenks]

Jeez! Poor guys. That post is seriously depressing. All that work may be destroyed because of a title being rushed to stores.

OTOH, Strategy First may have given them a generous amount of development time and Third Wire did a little too much dicking around.

What else do you know about this *IX*? I have built up a healthy respect for Strategy First and their many quality games of which I own a bunch. I hope there is more to this story.

[Aszurom]

Well, thus far it's only been confirmed at being available at Walmart. Since I don't know Walmart's purchasing department (not since Westmoreland left way back-a-when) I can't really get a straight answer from them. Strategy First isn't talking, and Thirdwire is sending out a form-mail reply that basically says "no, this is a special release for Wal-mart and not a beta" which is bullshit CYA verbage.

This is mainly Gordon Berg's fault. Well, Tom Chick too.

[DennyA]

That's insane. Even the July build is still obviously a beta, with many features still in need of work.

To release based on an even earlier build? What the heck was Strategy First thinking?

[JeffL]

I got an "official" response from Strat First that says this isn't a beta release, it's a full feature playable "special" release. And that they know it's got a lot of problems, and they'll send you a CD with the fixed version when it's ready. :roll:

And simultaneously TK is saying the program is still in the middle of development.

Does WWII Online come to mind?

[Anonymous]

From TK at Thirdwire

Which message board did that TK post come from Azsurom?

[DennyA]

I got an "official" response from Strat First that says this isn't a beta release, it's a full feature playable "special" release.

"Special" as in "Special Olympics," maybe.

The game looks really promising. But there's NO confusing the most recent build with a complete, shipping product.

I guess Strategy First must be in deep financial Kimchee and needed a cash infusion? I can't see any reasonable explanation for doing this.

[Aszurom]

Guest...

Perhaps respect me enough to declare who you are, and I'll respect you enough to post a link :-)

simhq.com

--------

Jeff & Denny,

Special Release? Hehe. It's pretending to be the full-on version as far as Wallyworld customers are concerned. $39.95 doesn't say "demo version" to me.

Worst.marketing.tactic.evar -- if it's true, which it ain't.

[Gladguy]

Wow... this is an unusual move from a publisher that I respect. They usually cover their bases well and have released some really solid games.

If this is indeed a "special release for Wal*Mart" I might suggest that the rush was not purely financially driven. Wal*Mart has some... err, interesting? ... buying practices. :?

They do a "reset" every quarter. If you can't ship in time, you lose your slot on the reset to a competitor and you might have a hard time getting it back. Not to mention the fact that you lose an entire quarter of selling. Only exceptions (AAA titles) can get inserted into the reset mid cycle.

This might very well have been a case where Strat.First said "we'll ship in time" and Wal*Mart said "you better." So they did.

They will have to spin this quickly or lose a lot of credibility. Sounds like they've already pissed off the developer.

[Bernie_Dy]

No kidding, this whole thing stinks. But as a sim fan, I have to hope it gets worked out somehow. The sim genre doesn't need many more fiascoes.

[JeffL]

Well, remember that Strategy First also released WWII online in beta stage. It's hard to figure out why they would do this, and in particular why do it for just one retail chain? The explanation that someone proposed wrt to Wal-Mart buying practices actually makes some sense - it doesn't excuse the release in unfinished form, but it at least provides a rationale for doing it this way (unfinished to one retailer.)

I just turned in a news piece to a magazine on this, and now the question is whether you do a review on the version that is released in limited form or wait for the finished and presumably wide release form.

[DennyA]

You run a news story in the next issue on what happened. Then you wait for the real release, while noting the Wal-Mart alpha fiasco in a short sidebar.

At least, that's what I'd do if I was still running a game mag. :-)

(Lovin' the handheld gig, and appreciating having more time to play the games I *want* to play, but I have to admit missing being in the thick of things at times.)

[rdarnese]

I would guess the contract with the retailer is what forced their hands (even though that doesn't take SFI off the hook). It can be a vicous cycle if you miss milestones and the publisher and retail alrady have set dates for PR to move out for a product launch. WWIIOnline is a perfect example of that in action.

Yet again why US retail is evil :).

Yeah I know I'm beating the same drum lately....

[JeffL]

You run a news story in the next issue on what happened. Then you wait for the real release, while noting the Wal-Mart alpha fiasco in a short sidebar.

At least, that's what I'd do if I was still running a game mag. :-)

(Lovin' the handheld gig, and appreciating having more time to play the games I *want* to play, but I have to admit missing being in the thick of things at times.)

Denny - you sound like someone who's done this kinda stuff before. :wink:

Actually, that appears to be the way it's gonna go at CGW - I turned in the news story to Ken this morning, and it appears that the review will be the "real" release.

[Sean Tudor]

It's fairly obvious that Strategy First didn't consult with the developer. What a fiasco. How to destroy a sims rep in one easy step.

[Jason McCullough]

Well, remember that Strategy First also released WWII online in beta stage. It's hard to figure out why they would do this, and in particular why do it for just one retail chain? The explanation that someone proposed wrt to Wal-Mart buying practices actually makes some sense - it doesn't excuse the release in unfinished form, but it at least provides a rationale for doing it this way (unfinished to one retailer.)

I just turned in a news piece to a magazine on this, and now the question is whether you do a review on the version that is released in limited form or wait for the finished and presumably wide release form.

You review the release to Wal-Mart on the merits. If the point of a review is to influence a buying decision, you should discourage purchases.

In a larger scope, raising living hell about this sort of thing ensures it doesn't happen. Can you imagine the outrage if Sierra, or any other less-loved company than Strategy First, pulled this?

[Scott Udell]

The message from TK was over at SimHQ: http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/Forum55/HTML/000482.html

There are reports that it's at Best Buy too?

Here are a couple of follow-on messages posted to the thead (where a PR rep indirectly calls TK a liar):



AlphaWhiskey
Member
From:
Registered: Mar 2002
posted 07-23-2002 01:10 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's an email exchange from just this morning...
Mine:

"Christina Ginger -

I got your email from Tsuyoshi Kawahito at a SimHQ forum.

I understand your company has released Project1/Strike Fighters - but that it is not entirely
finished to the developer's satisfaction and that a the company *knew* about this beforehand, work
continues on the sim and that there will be a CD exchange program in the future.

?!?!?!?!?!?

I don't know who made that decision but hopefully you do and you can forward my comments on to
them.

You *really* don't understand what you're doing by releasing this sim so early. The flight sim
community prizes well-programmed simulations. There are frequent charges/accusations of
prematurely released software directed towards simulations that *are* released when the devs say
its ready. How much more maligned will the reputation of P1/SF be when it is released knowing
full well that such is the case!?!

I am writing because I so longed for this sim. And I only hope for the best. But I am now very
worried that this sim's reputation will be so maligned that you won't sell as many copies as you
need to continue additional products after this one's run is through. That's what we're always
hoping for - a good sim followed by a sequel that elevates the standard set by the previous (and
on it continues).

But that legacy is in jeopardy when something like this happens.

Sincerely,

[my name]"

And her response:

"Hello [my name],

Thank you for your email. I have forwarded your comments to the
appropriate decision makers and I am sure they will take the time to
read them. However, please let me take this time to assure you that the
game is a commercial release, special for WalMart, and not a beta copy.

We do realize that there are some gameplay issues, and we are working
with the developers to address these issues in a patch which should be
ready for release in the coming weeks. If people do not want to download
the patch, we will be more than willing to send them a CD when it is
ready. Future patches and updates will be released through the regular
distribution channel and we are confident that the game will meet the
expectations you and your fellow gamers have for this game.

We appreciate your comments. We are working hard to ensure that the
game meets the standards that it was intended to meet.

Best regards,

Christina Ginger
Director of Communications
Strategy First Inc.
147 St. Paul West, Suite 300
Montreal, Quebec (Canada)
H2Y 1Z5
(514) 844-3040 ext. 240
(514) 844-4337 fax
[email protected]
www.strategyfirst.com

Just so you know - this *is* intended to be a full release.

I just don't think flight sim fans will see it that way.

We'll see.


***************************************

DoubleUgly
Member
From: Panama City
Registered: Nov 2001
posted 07-23-2002 02:19 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All,
I also had an e-mail exchange with SF this morning and it was very similar to the one that AlphaWhiskey posted ... though there is one large difference as you will see below ... and I hesitate to post it because of the difference. I am ESPECIALLY troubled that they did not address my concerns regarding how an unsuspecting customer will know that they can patch or trade the CD before making a coaster out of it. That alone makes me think their entire reply is BS.

Lots of good ideas are being thrown around here. I especially like the one about us buying the early copies before someone who is uninformed can get them. I think the solution should be more about helping (and thanking) TK rather than trying to make a point to the publisher. Two wrongs don't make a right.

It may be impossible now ... but we should also try to make sure that nothing happens that would cause SF to just pull the plug on the whole thing.

Anyway, here is the reply from SF:

Thank you for your email. I have forwarded your comments to the
appropriate decision makers and I am sure they will take the time to
read them. However, please let me take this time to assure you that the
game is a commercial release, special only to WalMart, and not a beta
copy.

We do realize that there are some gameplay issues, and we are working
with TK to address these issues in a patch which should be ready for
release in the coming weeks. Despite what TK and his colleagues have
said, the WalMart release was a joint decision made by both developer
and publisher.

Future patches and updates will be released through the regular
distribution channel and we are confident that the game will meet the
expectations you and your fellow gamers have for this game.

We appreciate your comments. We are working hard to ensure that the
game meets the standards that it was intended to meet.

Best regards,

Marketing
Strategy First Inc.


****************************************

Cage28
Junior Member
From: Houston, TX, USA
Registered: Jul 2002
posted 07-24-2002 01:06 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I picked up the press release version from my local walmart this evening. I asked the electronics cashier how many copies of this game they had originally, and he said he believed 4. I bought the last one on the shelf. I wanted to go ahead and pick up this copy for my collection, but have no reserve about buying another/final release version. Even though I have broadband, I still hope there is a final boxed version, and no truth in having to download everything like WWII Online. Who knows exactly the Strategy behind this release, but hopefully buying it helps ThirdWire in some way.
This version seems to do alright for me, just a couple of key commands that dont seem to work that i have noticed ATM (haven't done anything but fly yet). And I am new to SFP1, and not aware of its capabilities for final product (haven't followed the game to much). I say this in meaning, I don't have the trouble that others are having. I am able to fly and kill enemy aircraft. I always start in flight (no runway trouble as stated by someone else). I have flown in the single missions as the F100, A4, F104, and different variants of the F4.
Anyways, I just wanted to post a few things that the readme states as info for those who might be interested:
* This package is provided for press preview purpose only, and may not be
distributed without permission.
* The preview build is based on a pre-release code, and as such, it is not at the
level of performance and compatibility of the final product. The pre-release
code may not operate correctly and may be substantially modified prior to first
commercial shipment.
* The preview contain three missions - one Instant Action and two Single
Saved Missions. Instant Action has F-4E Phantom II as the player aircraft,
while the saved missions have F-100D Super Sabre and F-104G Starfighter
as the player aircraft.
KNOWN ISSUES

* All sound effects and music are temporary place holders, and are due to be
replaced with new audio files created by Meatwater Studios for this project.

* On some machines, fonts in UI screens may not display correctly.

later,
Cage

[Jason McCullough]

Hol-ey crap.

[Sean Tudor]

Ditto.

[mtkafka]

Will they be manhandled like Derek Smart was with BC3k? Sounds like a similar situation...

Anyway, I'd actually buy this game now if the beta was playable!

etc

[Mark Bussman]

Unbelieveable. :shock: :roll:

[Anonymous]

Strategy First (as well as others; they aren't alone) is well known among their affiliates for stuffing the channel, even when they know a game needs work or has show-stoppers present. The whole goal apears to be 'paper' booking of short term cash flow before the end of a quarter and before returns are posted.

A more interesting question might be how they book those returns in later quarters and whether any jiggery-pokery is going on with the accounting. Not saying there is any; just be interesting to know.

[Greg Lannes]

Alas the great devolution of proper working product is at hand and worse is in fact getting out of control.

This isn't directed at SF or any other company in particular but rather at the industry as a whole. How so much do they depend upon the customer having a quick ISP to download the fixes that are required after the initial fiasco.

I remember much better times. The trend has been set now though and will never end.

[Anonymous]

I remember much better times. The trend has been set now though and will never end.
And I remember games like Darklands not working out of the box, and huge patch files that clogged up my 9600 baud modem or forced me to pay a download fee to Compuserve.

The times are much better today than they've ever been. You just forgot all the buggy games, or managed to avoid them.

[Greg Lannes]

I can quite honestly say I own more games than most. That being said there were indeed better times. Many games worked out of the box and didn't rely upon followup of any sort. You can quite easily point at the odd few that didn't work but on the contrary a vast multitude did work without a hitch.

My primary genre's are, from most to least played;

Wargames,
Strategy Games,
CRPG's,
FPS,
Sports Games,
Real Time Strategy or Faux Strategy as I like to call it,
All others here.

[routlaw]

Ditto on the Hol-ey crap remark. Just when I get around to actually liking a big-name publisher for picking up some excellent games over the last two years, they go and pull this kind of stunt.

No question that they didn't consult with development, and if they did, development's concerns were completely ignored.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Wal*Mart unique in the retail business in that they actually purchase (not cosign) most of the goods that they sell in their stores (including software)? Best Buy, EB, and the like have contracts and don't actually purchase their stock-they agree to use their stores as shelf space and make their revenues off their markups for the products, and have the right to return unsold goods to the manufacturer later. It is, of course, not entirely that simple, but I believe that's the gist of it.

If the above is true, then shipping out copies of the game to Wal-Mart, SF gets money in the bank immediately, SF gets a bit of cash-which would be especially pertinent if that cash was received for goods shipped before the end of their financial quarter (what schedule does SF work on in that regard, anyway?).

Anyway, scary stuff. I was kind of looking forward to this one too, seemed like a nice 'step up' to jet combat from IL-2.

[DennyA]

The fact is, there's NO way this could be considered a "complete game, with a few bugs." There are features that aren't even implemented, such as communications. Strategy First knew what they were shipping was a stable alpha.

It's a real shame. I just got a beta this week and I was impressed. Although my thoughts were "this isn't shipping at the end of August." Looks to me more like a Sept./Oct release to really have time to get everything implemented and fine-tuned.

The least Strategy First could do is give Thirdwire time to really wrap this up to thier satisfaction, at this point, instead of rushing them into release. Because even at this point, the game's going to get bad word of mouth among players who don't frequent the sim boards.

It's time to eliminate financial quarters. Move the stock market to yearly reporting. Less incentive to play money games and ship unfinished products just to make a quick buck for the quarterly report, to the detriment of customers and long-term profits.

[Tyjenks]

SF is going to release Jagged Alliance: Gold which will include JA2 and the Unfinished Business expansion. If that is not trying to get blood from a rock. Who is going to buy that? You can get each for about $4.99 in the bargain bin. Don't get me wrong, I own them both and love the series, but is JA2 not a little gray around the ears to still be released in a new edition?

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

Dear Lord :(

And this is exactly what I spent the best part of two fucking hours preaching about (http://www.igda.org/Chapters/miami/miami_summary_Jun02.htm) at the IGDA.

*sigh*

There goes my hopes for this title. I wish the devs luck. Its WWOL all over again.

Then again, even though there is always two sides to a story - we're talking about two specific developers and one specific publisher in this regard. Draw your own conclusions.

And here I am talking to SF (S.W in particular) about distributing (I said distributing, not publishing. There is a BIG difference. I have money. They [publishers] have NO leverage) BCM Gold and BCG?!?! In fact, I just last week sent them a Beta build of both.

Now where the heck is my phone....time to cut this one off at the pass. Been there. Done that. It weren't pretty. Smells like 1996 all over again.

/shameless plug

new BCG shots (http://www.gamescreenshots.com/smallthumbs.asp?category=PC&game_id=690) are up. This one of the new 12K+ poly Type 4 station. Major graphics overhaul, baby.
350+ model assets to upgrade for BCG.....200 to go. Damn, I love this job :D

[ydejin]

SF is going to release Jagged Alliance: Gold which will include JA2 and the Unfinished Business expansion. If that is not trying to get blood from a rock. Who is going to buy that? You can get each for about $4.99 in the bargain bin. Don't get me wrong, I own them both and love the series, but is JA2 not a little gray around the ears to still be released in a new edition?

Well supposedly the new version will update the original campaign with the improvements from Unfinished Business like the "Coverage Indicator". If it's under $15 I might get it. I don't have Unfinished Business though, so that makes a big difference for me.

[Jason McCullough]

SF gets a bit of cash-which would be especially pertinent if that cash was received for goods shipped before the end of their financial quarter (what schedule does SF work on in that regard, anyway?).


I'm pretty sure they're not public (nothing on their website talks about it), so I have no idea why they'd have an interest in screwing customers for quarterly numbers.

[Robert Sharp]

Ok, but how many copies did JA2 sell in the first place? I'm betting most people who would play this game already have it, and those that don't didn't want it. They better sell it real cheap, or it will be like Merchant Prince, which was just rereleased without any real warning to unwary consumers that it was a 5 year old game (or however old it was). Is the company desperate for money or something?

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

You don't have to be a publicly held company in order to meet qtrly forecasts. What? Are you kidding me?!?

EVERY pubisher/distributor out there - HAS - to satisfy someone in some regard - be it VC, private investors, the bank, the board, Wall st. etc

As far as I know, SF, like some Canadian companies, get subsidized by the govt. in some regard. I don't know the full details but the fact is that SF doesn't have products. Period. Without product, there is no income.

They obvioulsy (and this is pure speculation) needed to put *some* units into the channel in order to derive *some* sort of income from it. And I have heard that P1 is also in other chains. So, that nonsense about a Walmart exclusive, is just that. Nonsense.

They obviously needed the money or they wouldn't have done it. Simple.

[Jason McCullough]

Oh, sure, but they can't blame it on the faceless mass of investors quite as easily as say, GE. Since they're probably self-owned, we can yell only at them.

[ydejin]

Ok, but how many copies did JA2 sell in the first place? I'm betting most people who would play this game already have it, and those that don't didn't want it. They better sell it real cheap, or it will be like Merchant Prince, which was just rereleased without any real warning to unwary consumers that it was a 5 year old game (or however old it was).

True enough. I think the most they could reasonably charge for this is $20. I wonder if they're considering this a test case and if it sells well they'll fund JA3 and if not ... I hope not. I would definitely love to see a JA3.

[Mark Asher]

"They obviously needed the money or they wouldn't have done it. Simple."

Yep. That's it in a nutshell.

I've seen the NPD numbers on their games and most haven't sold well. I think Sudden Strike might have been their biggest seller.

[Anonymous]

I can quite honestly say I own more games than most. That being said there were indeed better times. Many games worked out of the box and didn't rely upon followup of any sort. You can quite easily point at the odd few that didn't work but on the contrary a vast multitude did work without a hitch.
The vast majority of games released today work perfectly without a hitch, you just don't buy them because they're Atari classics, Deer Hunter clones, various Tycoon games, etc., i.e. the simpler games that make up the vast majority of game titles on the shelves.

There are a handful of games, at most, that have serious problems at launch. Always have been, always will be (unfortunately). It's constantly overstated that "every game is buggy."

[Anonymous]

It's time to eliminate financial quarters. Move the stock market to yearly reporting. Less incentive to play money games and ship unfinished products just to make a quick buck for the quarterly report, to the detriment of customers and long-term profits.
How will this stop the process? Instead of it being four times a year for buggy rushed games, you'll have it once a year. Do you really think it'll make for fewer buggy games? I'd guess it'll just push even more releases until the end of fiscal. If that happens to be the calendar year, it means Christmas would be full of the buggiest games, which would be even worse for the industry because it's when the majority of games are sold.

At least a buggy game released in July sells less than one in December.

[Bub, Andrew]

Not to mention the fact that annual results would be, what, at least 4x more damaging if bad. At least if you post bad Q2 results you can, potentially, restore confidence in Q3. Annual results would give shareholders a lot less warning that there's trouble afoot.

[Anonymous]

I know! Abolish financial reporting! Don't post ANY results!

[DennyA]

Guest,

Actually, you're being facetious about the "abolish financial reporting" thing, but SO many of modern business' problems are a result of having to please stockholders every freaking quarter. Some stockholders would probably appreciate it if companies would just do what was best for long-term survival/profitability. I know I would. It's only the people who buy/sell all the time who should be fixated on quarterly results.

As for this game, this isn't a case of just shipping a game while it's still buggy. This is a case of taking a game that's STILL BEING WRITTEN -- not all the features are even in, and check out that readme -- and putting it in a box and selling it. That's bordering on fraud.

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

Oh, sure, but they can't blame it on the faceless mass of investors quite as easily as say, GE. Since they're probably self-owned, we can yell only at them.

/rant

Yes, but guess what, the first party they'll blame are the developers - who, in this case [Third Wire] have no frigging clue what happened. Thats usually the case. Before long, you'll hear all sorts of stories being leaked out. And by the time P1 ships, I'll bet dollars to dimes, that P1 will go out of business. Yet another premier group of sim devs tossed. Oh well, Microsoft is always looking for a few good men.

And when that fails, they can always blame the fanbase (http://www.3000ad.com/archives/soapbox_110501.shtml) for being impatient.

NO DEV. NO PUBLISHER. Should ever be pressured into releasing a product just because a few minority are bitching about its release. At the end of the day, those fuckers will just end up pirating the game and/or bitching about its problems IF you end up releasing it to appease them.

BOTH of the above are blatant cop outs. Pure and simple.

Which is why, in my previous post, I noted that this is the SECOND developer that this is happening with from the SAME publisher.

There isn't a SINGLE high-end game that will be released bug-free in the years to come. As games get more and more advanced and complex, that dream is all but gone. The best that one can hope for is to release a game that

1. Works out of the box

2. Does exactly what the box says it does

3. Gives the gamer what he paid for

Most great games released with bugs these days are OK if they don't detract from the gameplay. Its one thing to be able to NOT play a game because it is buggy as hell. And it is quite another to play a game with a bug that YOU don't experience but which someone else does.

At the end of the day, it is all about the fanbase, your loyalty to them and the commitment therein. Most pubs/devs have this drive-by-selling mentality where once the game is in the channel, thats its - they're outta there. Most pubs don't seem to understand this very simple premise: If you stick with your fanbase absolutely NO MATTER WHAT, they'll be there, regardless of what happens or what anyone says. It really, truly is that simple.

My BC games are a classic example. I know I have a small niche group of gamers who buy and play my games. Sure, they're vocal, they bitch a lot and they all have my home address, home phone number, what movies I watch, whther I'm up at 2am or passed out at 6pm, who the hell I piss off on a weekly basis etc etc, but they're my fanbase. And if something's up, I tell them, bear the consequences and move on. People think I'm arrogant when I say that even if not a single new gamer bought my game, I'd be just fine and be releasing Battlecruiser games until I'm old and Gray (I started this in my mid-twenties - I'll be 40 next year).

When I took BCM Beta in 11/00, I had 250+ beta testers - most were selected because they had never played a BC game before. Each and every bug (www.3000ad.com/downloads/bcm/bcmbetaver.html) was catalogued, documented, fixed etc. The week I was to go Gold, I put up a thread asking everyone if we were in fact, ready to go Gold and if there was anything we needed to address. There were ZERO bugs left in BCM during its last Gold Candidate version which I built in 09/01.

Guess what? As soon as the game hit the streets, no less than two weeks later, a whole new set of issues popped up (www.3000ad.com/downloads/bcm/bcmver.html). These ranged from outright bugs to game balancing issues. And as complex as the game is, usually fixing or tweaking one thing, sparks another problem elsewhere.

Eight months and seven patches later (the final 1.0.08 patch is due out this month, then the free major multiplayer patch follows), there are still tweaks and bug fixes going on. In fact, if you counted all the items marked FIXED (544 during the public Beta + 102 in post-release patches) in the version control files, you'll see that there are more new features and tweaks than there are bug fixes. Why? Well because the folks who buy this game, aren't bloody likely to stick around if they feel like I keep making unilateral game feature and other designs contrary to how they want to play their game. So, I compromise.

What do most companies do when they find that there are still bugs in the game AND they have external testers? They abruptly end the public Beta, throw everyone out and a short while later, release the game. The result, those SAME people who were in the public Beta find that KNOWN issues that were in there, are STILL in there in the final released version!!

At the end of the day, as long as ALL the features are in, the game is CAT 1 (fatal bug) bug-free and it does what it says on the box, you're fine. But this business of releasing games in Beta, with KNOWN bugs, missing features etc etc, really, truly has to stop. And the ONLY people who can stop it are the gamers - by voting with their dollars. Which is why many pubs/devs are either bought out, out of business of leaving the scene.

The bad thing is that no sooner has one dev/pub popped off, another two sprout up. I mean, when I browse game shelves, I see companies I NEVER heard of, making games. And I wonder where the hell all this money is coming from!! It cost me more than half a million dollars, through exactly twenty-two months, to do BCM from start to finish - AND I had to fork out every freeking penny of it AND partially in hock with my bank, in order to get it done and out in retail.

Now, a company with lots of money would do the math and rush it out, knowing that, worse case scenario, they'd only have to throw about 20K units into the channel to break even. Some would release games at low price points knowing that in most cases, its not expensive enough to waste time returning it - especially if you can get some play out it. And even EB, which used to be very flexible in its returns policy, have put in more stringent rules in place. And not just to combat piracy, but to combat this blatant channel stuffing that is going on.

As soon as I realized that doing a multiplayer component - HOW I WANTED IT - for such a huge community based game would be a major undertaking (I had NO intentions of releasing some piss-poor mp component just so that I could say I had mp in the game), I IMMEDIATELY commented out the entire code module and told the Beta testers and the fan base. This allowed us to focus on the single player game itself - and without compromise. Yes, a bunch of people bitched and moaned. But I didn't give a toss because at the end of the day, they have lots of games to buy and play if they felt so pissed about it. I, on the other hand, had more of a risk and even if 20K people had bitched about it, I STILL would NOT have just put in a pure deathmatch mp component just to appease them. Nor would I have risked another half year and approx $150K in doing it. There is a big difference between 22 months and 28+ months. For a small indie company, every one month of slippage can be a death knell in itself. And sometimes when you think six months, before you know it, you're into month nine and further into debt.

What did I learn? Well, I completely restructed the next game's multiplayer kernel from the ground up. This allows the majority of the focus to be on mp, all new high-def assets, new features etc (www.3000ad.com/downloads/bcg/bcgfeatures.html). Since BCG is a sequel to BCM, all the lessons learned from BCM are intact and its smooth sailing - while the fanbase wait for their free download BCM mp patch which, in fact, like some of the freebies already released in BCM patches, is built on technologies designed and developed for BCG.

At the end of the day, without customer loyalty, you can't expect to be around for long. The decisions I made for BCM, in themselves made it possible, for the first time, for me to be able to work on more than one project at a time. Sure, a limited release doesn't have as much impact as a wider release, but at the end of the day, its all about math. I knew how many units I needed to sell. And I sold them; quite easily in fact. And next time around, a wider release (by going through a distributor) means more units out there and hopefully more money. And if I don't get the deal I'm looking for, well then, there's always my cushy EB gig. I'd do it all over again if I absolutely HAD to. You only take those kind of risks when you know your fanbase. If you don't, you might as well pull a stunt like what SF and so many others do, and call it a day.

Sometimes, I truly hate this industry. But alas, you have very few choices when you have no other marketable non-game dev related skills. Having lost all what I knew [of other computing technologies] back when I was consulting, by focusing on gaming-specific technologies, very little choices remain. I swear, sometimes I just feel like quiting (and possibly going back to college and doing a traditional Ph.D program and then on to scientific research or something) - like so many before me who have done the same thing, in disgust.

/rant

[Bub, Andrew]

That Read.me is a smoking gun. It doesn't necessarily mean they knowingly released an unfinished product (though I think it's pretty clear they did) but it does indicate they were too rushed to update the freaking Readme file. Which is just plain embarassing.

Even Daikatana had an updated Readme... one where Romero actually wrote: "Now that you've rushed home, opened the box and smelled the manual..." italics mine.

Anyway my guess is that Wal-Mart was going to put the hurting on them if they didn't get their exclusive copy of the game by a certain date. Some contractual penalty is likely. The developer couldn't meet the deadline and SF decided it was less costly to harm the consumer than miss that deadline. Sigh.

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

That Read.me is a smoking gun. It doesn't necessarily mean they knowingly released an unfinished product (though I think it's pretty clear they did) but it does indicate they were too rushed to update the freaking Readme file. Which is just plain embarassing.


Its just plain fraudulent. Forget about embarrassing. Thats the easy part.

[Tom Chick]

Anyway my guess is that Wal-Mart was going to put the hurting on them if they didn't get their exclusive copy of the game by a certain date.

It's not exclusive to Wal Mart. You can also get the special limited commercial release at Best Buy.

-Tom

EDIT: screwy quote tags

[Mark Bussman]

I was just there (Best Buy) and didn't see it. Was the "game" supposed to be on shelves already, or just very soon in its incomplete state?

[Sean Tudor]

Strategy First seems to be one step removed from a used car dealer. This is a response to an email I sent to Strategy First :


Hello,

I understand your frustration. There is some serious confusion surrounding Strike Fighters right now and I hope that my statement will clarify things for you and your fellow gaming community.

The release of Strike Fighters that everyone is talking about is a limited commercial release, special only to one specific retailer, and is NOT a beta copy as some have insinuated. The release is a "basic
version" that is targeted towards that specific retailer's audience. We admit that we have discovered more bugs than we thought and we are fixing them as quickly as we can in a patch that will be released shortly. The next release which is the "fully featured" version will be released in September and will be distributed through the regular distribution channels.

Those who have bought the "basic version" will be able to upgrade to the "fully featured" release for free. If they do not want to download that patch they will simply have to contact Strategy First at [email protected] and we will gladly send them the upgrade on CD directly.

Strategy First supports TK and the developers in this project and we have not gone against what was discussed and agreed upon. The release is targeted to a specific retailer and its audience, while the next
release is targeted to the rest of the distribution channel for a more hard-core gaming audience.

Best regards,

Christina Ginger
Director of Communications
Strategy First Inc.
[email protected]
www.strategyfirst.com

[Tyjenks]

I wonder if those consumers are getting a "basic version" price. I bet it is a "fully featured" price and they are getting "fully screwed" up the 'ol "poop chute".

After this last bit that Sean posted, it will make me very hesitant to buy another SF product. At minimum, waiting for a post-release patch before picking anything up would seem prudent.

[Tyjenks]

After reading it a second and third time, I find so much wrong in that reply that I am speechless on the subject. Well.... after this sentence. Well.... that last one. OK.....I am speechleeeeeeessssss........now.

[Anonymous]

The release is a "basic
version" that is targeted towards that specific retailer's audience.

This is apparently the TPC* release of Strike Fighters. Ok, I was mistaken. All is well.

* Trailer Park Cretin

[Aszurom]

Strategy First supports TK and the developers in this project and we have not gone against what was discussed and agreed upon. The release is targeted to a specific retailer and its audience, while the next release is targeted to the rest of the distribution channel for a more hard-core gaming audience.

Allow me to provide a visual aid as to how they are working directly with the developer on this release, and the treatment of Wallyworld customers in general -

http://www.coregamer.com/stuff/danceallnight.jpg

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

Strategy First seems to be one step removed from a used car dealer. This is a response to an email I sent to Strategy First :


Dear Lord :x

Then they're STILL talking crap about it being Walmart only?!? How the FUCK did it get into Best Buy then?

And since when did Walmart have a sim audience?!?!?! What'd I miss??

*sigh*

ps: does anyone have that readme file they can post please? I'd like to take a look at it.

[Tom Chick]

The email Sean got has been sent out quite a bit; I imagine it's their form letter. The last paragraph about 'no disagreements with TK' was only added in the last day or so.

Derek, here's the readme.txt from the game (cut and pasted from another forum as I don't have the game):

================================================== ==============================
Third Wire Strike Fighters: Project 1 Preview README.TXT 4/29/2002
================================================== ==============================

* This package is provided for press preview purpose only, and may not be
distributed without permission.

* The preview build is based on a pre-release code, and as such, it is not at the
level of performance and compatibility of the final product. The pre-release
code may not operate correctly and may be substantially modified prior to first
commercial shipment.

* This preview requires Microsoft Windows 95/98/ME/2000/XP operating system
running DirectX 8.1. The run-time component of Micorsoft DirectX 8.1 is not
included with the preview installation package; it can be downloaded instead
from:

<http://www.microsoft.com/directx/homeuser/downloads/default.asp>

* When first starting the preview, please go to the OPTIONS screen, select
GRAPHICS sub-option, and make sure the game has properly detected Display
Device and Display Resolution. If no display driver is listed, you must
install proper DirectX 8.1 driver (see above).

* The preview contain three missions - one Instant Action and two Single
Saved Missions. Instant Action has F-4E Phantom II as the player aircraft,
while the saved missions have F-100D Super Sabre and F-104G Starfighter
as the player aircraft.

INSTANT ACTION

* Once in flight, the game can be paused/un-paused anytime by pressing "ALT-P".

* To view aircraft object, press "F6" to cycle through the aircraft objects.
(shift-F6 will go back to the previous aircraft). Mouse can be used to pan
the camera around. Pressing "F1" will return you to the cockpit view.

* The aircraft can be controlled using either the joystick or Arrow keys on
the keyboard. The throttle control or +/- key (not the ones on the numpad,
but the ones at the top of the keyboard between 0 and backspace) controls
the throttle.

* Pressing 't' key will cycle through the visual enemy aircraft targets. 'F4'
key will padlock to the current target if you're in cockpit view.

* Preessing the 'space bar' down (or button 1 on joystick) will fire your cannons.

* Pressing 'backspace' will select your air-to-air weapon. (AIM-9 Sidewinder
or AIM-7 Sparrow). AIM-9 locks onto target in boresight - ie, target straight
ahead in the gunsight. Once locked-on, the "growl" will increase in volume to
indicate it is ready to be fired. Note that it does not necessary lock on to
the target player is looking at. (EASY option will be provided, but not currently
implemeted). You can press the 'enter' key (or button 2) to fire the missile.

* You can change the time by hitting "ALT-C". This will advance the time by
15 minutes.

* PrintScreen key will take screenshot. Screenshots are saved in the ScreenShots
folder, with filenames "img00001.bmp", "img00002.bmp", etc.

* Once you're finished, hitting "ESC" will abort the mission and takes you back
to the debriefing screen. Or "ALT-Q" will take you back straight to desktop.

SINGLE SAVED MISSIONS

* PreviewTankBattle mission has a on-going tank battle on the ground. The
player flys F-100D Super Sabre in support of ground units.

* Pressing 'e' key will cycle through the ground targets and visually targets
one. Once visually targeted, ground target can be padlocked by hitting F4.

* "F7" (and shift-F7) cycle through the ground objects in external view.

* Pressing "\" key (between Enter and Backspace in most keyboard) will select
air-ground weapons. In this mission, your F-100 is armed with 4 rocket pods.
Selected weapon is fired using 'enter' key (or joystick 2).

* PreviewBombers mission is similar to Instant Action, except you're in F-104G
Starfighter.

KNOWN ISSUES

* All sound effects and music are temporary place holders, and are due to be
replaced with new audio files created by Meatwater Studios for this project.

* On some machines, fonts in UI screens may not display correctly.

CREDITS

Third Wire Productions, Inc.

Programmeing:
Tsuyoshi Kawahito

Design:
Tsuyoshi Kawahito

Art:
Tsuyoshi Kawahito
Jamie Richards
John Trivelli
Dan Waldrep

Special Thanks
Ken "MajorLee" Golden
Francesco "MIX" Missarino
Sidney "Scroll" Mayeux

================================================== ==============================
Strike Fighters: Project 1 ----- Copyright (c) 2002 Third Wire Productions, Inc.
================================================== ==============================

[JeffL]

I don't think anyone has actually seen it at Best Buy (it hasn't been at any Best Buys around here) - I think that this was started because some folks saw something online about it being at that chain.

I picked up a copy at Wal-Mart and played it this weekend, for a news article. It's definitely unfinished. There are all types of graphic glitches, placeholders for items that aren't yet finished, crashes, commands that don't work, features not implemented, etc. $39.95.

Sad, because it is so cool to be able to fly a big ole ugly Rhino. We followed F-4's all around the world when I was a kid (Air Force family) and I remember watching them take off and land all during the school day out the windows of the base schools.

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

Derek, here's the readme.txt from the game (cut and pasted from another forum as I don't have the game):

Thanks Tom. The first few paragraphs confirm what I already suspected. Seems like they took a preview copy of some sort, polished it up [somewhat], shoved it in a box and stuffed it into the channel.

*sigh* :shock:

[Aszurom]

Yes, this dumping of things in the Channel... people don't realize what happens when you dump unfinished games in the Channel.

First, they float around before being picked up by a strong current. Then they wash up on the Northern shores of France. UBI and Infogrammes send out trucks to pick them up, where they are taken back to their game factories and allowed to dry out.

Folks, this is why UBI and Infogrammes and the rest of those nasty French people own all our games now. This shit must cease. If Germany gets frisky again, France will surrender, and then we'll be totally without any good games. We can't fight a war without pilots, and IL2 and Lock On are both coming from UBI... thus, we have nothing to train on. We're SCREWED.

uh... you did mean the English Channel, right Derek?

[Anonymous]

According to Janitor Bob I believe (folks who know him from PC Arena) the readme is a leftover from an early beta/late alpha and has been all of the recent beta tests, so the readme is a lot older than the rest of the game. He claims the game beta is newer than the press ones passed out recently, but I have no way of knowing either way.

--- Alan

[Tom Chick]

I don't think anyone has actually seen it at Best Buy (it hasn't been at any Best Buys around here) - I think that this was started because some folks saw something online about it being at that chain.


Their web site (http://www.bestbuy.com/software/Detail.asp?m=1023&e=11170876) says it's available for shipping. EB (http://www.ebgames.com/ebx/categories/products/product.asp?pf_id=223563) and Gamestop (http://www.gamestop.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=644958) also seem to think they're getting in on that "limited commercial release" action.

-Tom

[JeffL]

Tom, I'm keeping my eye out at the Best Buys and EBs around here. If this version does show up at stores other than Wal-Mart, more than one person has lied to me. (Not that I would be shocked.)

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

uh... you did mean the English Channel, right Derek?

LMAO!!! Yep, I sure did :lol:

[Jim F.]

omfg... idiocy of this magnitude leaves me numb.

After watching what happen to Ultima X, how can any publisher think that dumping a buggy product on the market is a good idea? It's penny wise, pound foolish. Get your 2k copies out the door, sully your good name, and cost yourself 20k in hard sales of the "finished" version.

Once the word gets out that the game sucks, sales are gone. Joe Gamer is going to buy it not knowing that it's the coverted "basic version", he's going to get frustrated, and at the next Shoot Club he's going to rant for an hour about it. The 7 other folks at Shoot Club are going to warn their friends and suddenly the entire market is sour.

Meanwhile, a great sim is being released to an audience that already has preconceived notions that it's a buggy and not worth buying.

I mean, hell, this is WORSE than the Pool of Radiance pice of crap debacle. At lease PoR was released in all stores on the same day and managed to con enough people to buy it to make some cash. Strategy First releasing a limited edition shit-in-a-box version causes them to lose the long term AND impulse buying market.

Morons

Oh well, I'm not saying anything we don't already all know. Just sad to see a developer get so soundly pounded into the ground by an accountant giving the go ahead on an incomplete product...again

[rdarnese]

<vent mode>

The basic version? So you mean that we are going to start SELLING Beta's to the fans who want it RIGHT now. First the 60 dollar impulse buys, and now this.

Maybe we'll be laughing 5 years from now when we have to buy alpha's and in order to play the game (after we pay for it) we have to spend 20 hours playtesting it :).

There is a clear difference between releasing a game that has bugs that slipped into the last load or were missed in the beta, and intentionally releasing a pre-gold beta to an audience as a finished product.

And as Derek said we have talked to SFI in the past ourselves, glad we didn't go forward with any of that....


Strategy First seems to be one step removed from a used car dealer. This is a response to an email I sent to Strategy First :


Hello,

I understand your frustration. There is some serious confusion surrounding Strike Fighters right now and I hope that my statement will clarify things for you and your fellow gaming community.

The release of Strike Fighters that everyone is talking about is a limited commercial release, special only to one specific retailer, and is NOT a beta copy as some have insinuated. The release is a "basic
version" that is targeted towards that specific retailer's audience. We admit that we have discovered more bugs than we thought and we are fixing them as quickly as we can in a patch that will be released shortly. The next release which is the "fully featured" version will be released in September and will be distributed through the regular distribution channels.

Those who have bought the "basic version" will be able to upgrade to the "fully featured" release for free. If they do not want to download that patch they will simply have to contact Strategy First at [email protected] and we will gladly send them the upgrade on CD directly.

Strategy First supports TK and the developers in this project and we have not gone against what was discussed and agreed upon. The release is targeted to a specific retailer and its audience, while the next
release is targeted to the rest of the distribution channel for a more hard-core gaming audience.

Best regards,

Christina Ginger
Director of Communications
Strategy First Inc.
[email protected]
www.strategyfirst.com

[Sean Tudor]

Oh well, I'm not saying anything we don't already all know. Just sad to see a developer get so soundly pounded into the ground by an accountant giving the go ahead on an incomplete product...again

Quite a few people have commented that Strategy First is in deep financial shit and may not be around much longer anyway. This was the rumour before this latest Project 1 fiasco. This latest release only confirms my suspicions. I'd say Ms. Ginger better start looking for another job soon.

[Dave Long]

Here's the link to the EBGames listing. Looks like they're getting something in a week.

http://www.ebgames.com/ebx/categories/products/product.asp?pf_id=223563

--Dave

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

Quite a few people have commented that Strategy First is in deep financial shit and may not be around much longer anyway. This was the rumour before this latest Project 1 fiasco. This latest release only confirms my suspicions. I'd say Ms. Ginger better start looking for another job soon.

You'd think that some folks would have gotten that message by now? I suppose not. Unless of course them [SF] recently signing Robin Hood and Inquisition meant little or NO money upfront.

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

I spoke to a very good insider contact and learned that they [SF] did in fact release this title due to them not wanting to miss the Walmart sales 'slot' which they had already scheduled. Had they not shipped it to Walmart, they'd have lost their allocation and got a bad rap with the retailer.

Yep, its nonsense. They shipped an incomplete version of a game in order to meet with an MDF deadline (or some crap like that).

The game is not due out until later this year. And currently, only Walmart has it.

Apparently, Third Wire knew about it because there was a conference call in which this decision was discussed (between all three parties) and approved of.

Oh what tangled webs we weave

[Gladguy]

heh heh... what'd I tell ya? Thanks for confirming that, Derek.

And I have nothing to do with Strategy First.

FWIS, that was a bad BAD BAD business decision.

[Dirt]

You have to weigh the odds. My understanding is that it's very, very, very good to be in Walmart.

[Ben Sones]

It's good to be standing on stage as the star of a Broadway play, too. Less good if you only remember half your lines.

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

heh heh... what'd I tell ya? Thanks for confirming that, Derek.

And I have nothing to do with Strategy First.

FWIS, that was a bad BAD BAD business decision.

Yep, its a total pisser that one.

The good thing about this industry is that pretty much every one in the know, knows every other person in the know. All it took was a single phone call and a heavy display of astonishment to find out what really happened.

I did this inquiry particularly for my own peace of mind because I've been in talks with them to distribute BCG, since they are affiliated labels of Infogrammes (whom I dealt with for BC3K v2.0 before they bought GTi who had the European rights to that game) and I have no immediate desire to be an affliated anything to anyone.

*sigh*

[mtkafka]

I hope this release isn't indication of SF's other releases... because some of the games in there catalog look cool.

I dont think Walmart (and SF) should REALLY make a big deal out of a game that won't even crack the top 20 and is headed to bargain bin (not to say the game is bad, just is likely never going to be a top seller). So why the premature release? Will they (walmart and SF) make that much more money than if they delayed a game thats barely advertised and hyped? more like shovel it out the door, let the fans sort it out.

Fuckers. Bunch of friggin money grubbing bastards... but thats business.

etc

[Mark Asher]

All Wal-Mart wants is product. If you can't deliver it when you say you will, too bad. They'll fill that slot with something else.

They're a business and they expect their suppliers to behave in a business-like manner and fulfill their contracts.

At some point some of the blame has to be shouldered by the developer. They obviously didn't hit their date either. Maybe they foolishly agreed to something they couldn't deliver out of desperation -- many of these small studios exist on the edge of financial doom.

[Qenan]

Unless you are willing to put out crap, estimating dates for software development is exceedingly difficult. This problem is in no way confined to games.

The best approach for games is "it's done when it's done". If Wal-Mart can't live with that, they shouldn't be selling games -- because the alternative is to give their customers a crap product.

[JeffL]

At some point some of the blame has to be shouldered by the developer. They obviously didn't hit their date either. Maybe they foolishly agreed to something they couldn't deliver out of desperation -- many of these small studios exist on the edge of financial doom.

Let me jump in here and say that in this case, it wasn't Third Wire's fault for not meeting a deadline. Without violating any confidences, I can say that Strike Force: Project 1 was never intended to be ready at this point, but other products that were supposed to be ready, which were expected to be the products shipped to Wal-Mart, weren't and SF:TF1 was the "most" finished at the time. In fact, you could say they were victimized because they were so far along in their development.

[Sean Tudor]

In fact, you could say they were victimized because they were so far along in their development.

Still it's not good for the Project 1 team and it will certainly damage the games reputation. But being a specialised simulation it probably won't even sell above 10,000 copies anyway.

I don't see this incident affecting the overall sales of Strike Fighters.

[Anonymous]

They're a business and they expect their suppliers to behave in a business-like manner and fulfill their contracts.

At some point some of the blame has to be shouldered by the developer>>>

But did the pubisher's money problems force them to contract for an unrealistic date??

[Jason McCullough]

Cases like this is why I really think there should be liablity for defective software. Ok, ok, the bar should be set pretty high to make it recoverable, but good god, they shipped knowing a) the game did not match the features on the box, b) the game was in practically an inoperable state, and c) they damn well knew it.

[Dave Long]

I'm actually less concerned about the game being on shelves than I am of the publisher knowingly lying about the state it's in and calling it a finished product "special edition". Given that the readme in the final at Wal-Mart clearly states that it's a beta, the outright lies by Strategy First put a big dent in their reputation with me.

If they had to make a deadline because of some arbitrary ship time that Wal-Mart sets, they should just say so and be done with it. Haven't they been watching the news? People that consume products don't like watching companies lie.

--Dave

[chet]

the outright lies by Strategy First put a big dent in their reputation with me.


Is that a dent in the crater left by WWII Online?


Chet

[DennyA]

Well, if the Fatbabies story about Strategy First cutting salaries by 30%, after layoffs, in their Ottawa offices is true, it would explain them shipping the alpha code to Wallyworld...

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

Let me jump in here and say that in this case, it wasn't Third Wire's fault for not meeting a deadline. Without violating any confidences, I can say that Strike Force: Project 1 was never intended to be ready at this point, but other products that were supposed to be ready, which were expected to be the products shipped to Wal-Mart, weren't and SF:TF1 was the "most" finished at the time. In fact, you could say they were victimized because they were so far along in their development.

Quite correct.

Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned that the developers said that they had no prior knowledge of this happening. From what I'm told, they did. But as you said, they are the victims of this farce because everyone knew that this title wasn't due out last month. At all.

Its all part of the biz we're in. Crap like this happens all the time.


Well, if the Fatbabies story about Strategy First cutting salaries by 30%, after layoffs, in their Ottawa offices is true, it would explain them shipping the alpha code to Wallyworld...

Its true.

[Anonymous]

Even if they did have knowledge (they claim they didn't), what could they really do about it? Say no?

Derek, you did mention one thing previously I wanted to ask about.. SFI from what I understand doesn't do distribution at all, only publication -- Infogrames handles all of their distribution and hence earns the right to have their logo on the box. So why are you talking to SFI about distribution?

--- Alan

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

Even if they did have knowledge (they claim they didn't), what could they really do about it? Say no?

heh, EXACTLY


Derek, you did mention one thing previously I wanted to ask about.. SFI from what I understand doesn't do distribution at all, only publication -- Infogrames handles all of their distribution and hence earns the right to have their logo on the box. So why are you talking to SFI about distribution?

--- Alan

Because SF, like several other small devs, are affiliated labels of Infogrammes (where I have contacts). I don't meet the criteria for distributing directly - and I don't want to be an affiliated label (which comes with its own baggage). So, I have to go through one of the affiliated labels. Those (for IG) include SF, Xicat etc etc I was directed to those affiliates accordingly.

I am talking to several other distributors who have different criteria. Its all about the numbers, the level of exposure and the amount of points involved, chances of ever getting paid etc etc

Most games these days go through the primary distributors. These (mainstream) including Infogrammes, UBIsoft, Activision, Vivendi, Navarre, Take Two etc And believe or not, they all have different policies, rules, regs, payment schemes, finance models etc etc. Its a frigging mess and with no standards whatsoever.

Any n00b small time dev, who doesn't have a clue how the industry works, will sign on the dotted line on any given day of the week. I'm not one of them because I know how the industry works and I can afford to pick and choose.

Seeing SF pull a stunt like this - justified (which it isn't) or not, is a Red flag. At least now we know about the financial woes, it all makes sense I suppose.

I wrote an entire piece on how the industry works (http://www.3000ad.com/archives/soapbox_030601.shtml); as well as a piece on how BCM went from concept and design to being an exclusive to EB (http://www.3000ad.com/archives/soapbox_110501.shtml).

Yes, its a frigging mess. And its not getting any better. Thats why indies and third party devs, are falling left and right.

[Qenan]

Cases like this is why I really think there should be liablity for defective software. Ok, ok, the bar should be set pretty high to make it recoverable, but good god, they shipped knowing a) the game did not match the features on the box, b) the game was in practically an inoperable state, and c) they damn well knew it.

As a software developer, I have no problem with this, but... you do realize serious liability would raise your prices, don't you? A lot.

It's not like writing bug-free code is impossible; the Space Shuttle code supposedly comes pretty close. But it is much, much more expensive to produce. And the customer pays the bill.

[chet]

I don't pirate software, but if I see a strategy first game I want - I would pirate it. As far as I am concerned, they still owe me a game for WWII online.

Chet

[Jason McCullough]

Cases like this is why I really think there should be liablity for defective software. Ok, ok, the bar should be set pretty high to make it recoverable, but good god, they shipped knowing a) the game did not match the features on the box, b) the game was in practically an inoperable state, and c) they damn well knew it.

As a software developer, I have no problem with this, but... you do realize serious liability would raise your prices, don't you? A lot.

It's not like writing bug-free code is impossible; the Space Shuttle code supposedly comes pretty close. But it is much, much more expensive to produce. And the customer pays the bill.

Why would it be "much, much" more expensive? I'm not talking bug-free code, just games that are completely lie about their state. The only games I can think of offhand that qualify as "shipping defective" are this game, Ultima Online, Ultima 9, and BC3K (sorry, Derek).

[milo]

As a software developer, I have no problem with this, but... you do realize serious liability would raise your prices, don't you? A lot.

It's not like writing bug-free code is impossible; the Space Shuttle code supposedly comes pretty close. But it is much, much more expensive to produce. And the customer pays the bill.

It's worse than that, actually. The STS avionics suite can be made almost defect free because there is an iron-clad requirements spec (probably in MIL STD 498 format) that defines what it means for the software to work properly. (And it is written in well-defined programming languages, and designed to run on controlled systems.) In ultra-reliable systems like that, writing the software is almost the "easy part." It's getting the spec right that is hard.

In commercial software for consumer apps and games, there is no way to have a clear definition of what "working properly" means. Each end user gets to decide for him- or herself what constitutes a defect and how important each defect is. Each gets to decide what the ideal trade off is between features, defects, and price. And then they can vote with their wallets.

--milo
http://www.starshatter.com

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

I don't pirate software, but if I see a strategy first game I want - I would pirate it. As far as I am concerned, they still owe me a game for WWII online.

Chet

No you won't. You just like to think you would. And thats only because you haven't yet seen an SF game you want. :D


The only games I can think of offhand that qualify as "shipping defective" are this game, Ultima Online, Ultima 9, and BC3K (sorry, Derek).

No offense m8, you're quite right. The first release of BC3K was a farcical mess. I shudder, just thinking about it actually.

[Jason McCullough]

Oh, I forgot about Anarchy Online and WWII Online. Anyone have other suggestions?

[Matthew Gallant]

Speaking of AO, I love Anarchy Online so much, I have an account (still works as of about two months ago when I last tried to give it away) that I don't get charged for (no idea why) and I still don't play. So, e-mail me if you want to give it a try.

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

I, I, I'm speechless. Last night I was curved up on the futon in my study, going through my new mags when I came across the CGW story (p54) that Jeff Lackey ran on this farce. It was all well and good, until I got to the closing paragraph. I quote :



Those who bought Strategy First's WWII Online upon its initial (and very buggy) release may get a sense of deja vu from this. But the real culprit here appears to be the power of the nation's largest retailer and not negligence on the part of the publisher. Regardless, for the sake of consumers, developers, and retailers, we hope that big retailers reconsider such heavy-handed policies.


What did I miss?!?!?!?

Lemme see if I get this. SF decided to box an unfinished game, ship to retailers, claim that, for all intent and purposes, it was finished and this becomes the fault of Walmart?

Let me explain something to you folks, Walmart is NOT going to sell ANY significant numbers of a niche product, enough to warrant this farce by SF.

It has NOTHING to do with WalMart. At all. It was up to SF to (a) ensure that BEFORE committing to the Walmart's stocking schedule that they could in fact MEET that schedule (b) miss the slot and just NOT do it. After all, any simmer who was going to buy this at Walmart, knows where there are HUNDREDS of other stores that would carry it if Walmart didn't at THAT time.

SF have done this SEVERAL times. One of those times being with WW2OL. The only difference being that ALL the retailers got the same shafting. Which is why they're not stocking the recent re-release. sheesh.

This is just plain ludicrous. And I would hate to think that Jeff was making excuses for SF - but thats how I read that paragraph. So, can someone please dissect that for me please? Pretend I'm stupid and don't get what Jeff wrote. :roll:

[Dave Long]

I read it too and thought the same thing. How you can see that the box has a beta copy of a game inside of it and then extrapolate that because there was a hard and fast shipping period mandated by a retailer causing that unfinished game to be in the box is beyond me. It clearly shows the willingness of the publisher, developer and the retail chain to deceive the customer, but my guess is Wal-Mart didn't know and likely still doesn't know the game in that box is not complete.

Strategy First should shoulder the blame. Not only that, they should be held accountable for lying to the customers both during and after the game was discovered to be incomplete. Wal-Mart has every right to set a period for receipt of shipment. If the pubilsher cannot meet that, they can most certainly miss that opportunity. Therefore it's their job to finish the product and meet that timetable. Just because developers, in general, like to work on their own "when it's done" schedule, doesn't mean that the retailer (or publisher) should abide by that. But it also doesn't mean that we should get the unfinished game sold as a complete product sitting on store shelves either.

If the report wanted to find fault with someone, it should have been with all three parties. That's especially true if (in this case) it looks like the article wanted to put the blame where gamers are most likely to expect it and least likely to complain about the reporting. It's a conclusion that seem tailored to fit the definition of the retailer which is usually as a snake just wanting your money and nothing else. That may be true of Wal-Mart in general, but to pin blame on them this time is simply a distortion of the facts at best and blatant disregard for the truth at worst. I'm sure we'll see a bunch of letters in the next issue eating it up and saying how horrible Wal-Mart is to set a shipping period and leaving no room for change.

--Dave

[JeffL]

I didn't write the part after the deja vu sentence. I haven't see the article as published yet, so I have to say that surprises me. It must have been added by the editor. I'm a little puzzled as to why that was added, but perhaps the editors found out some info beyond what I had.

[Dave Long]

Well, I can confirm that Derek has that last paragraph exactly as it appears in the magazine.

--Dave

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

I didn't write the part after the deja vu sentence. I haven't see the article as published yet, so I have to say that surprises me. It must have been added by the editor. I'm a little puzzled as to why that was added, but perhaps the editors found out some info beyond what I had.

Now you understand my skepticism and concern, because, for as long as I've known you (and the other credible media folks), not once was I prepared for something like this. I was actually going to send you email about it. You've just saved me the trouble.

Now to ping ol' man Green and find out wtf went on.

Jeff, you don't have to post nor defend it (knowing the risks), but quite frankly, REGARDLESS of what the editor(s) found out that you didn't already know, it does NOT remove the facts as presented by Dave and I.

Again, I am quite shocked

Now, if this were that other mag and the publisher was, say, EA, Sierra etc, some would be screaming pay off and all that age old rubbish. But SF? I mean, no matter how anyone tries to splice, dice or spin it, that paragraph is a load of bollocks. Even if the editor(a) got fed a load of horseshit (as they probably did), I expect them to know better - even given the argument and the premise therein!!!

Even the screen shot of the TODO item in a game graphic was a clear and present clue. In fact, now that I think about it, whoever added that last paragraph, just shot themselves in the foot because of your including that shot - which effectively carries the argument of your entire article....right up to that last paragraph. Good job for including those smoking gun shots!!

Yes, I'm fucking pissed because this is just absurd. :x

Isn't this what we were disussing here (http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=532) and here (http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=397)? Who knew!?! :shock:

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

but my guess is Wal-Mart didn't know and likely still doesn't know the game in that box is not complete.


I'm with you 100% this Dave. I have a sinking feeling that because Walmart pays net-30 to net-45 on receivables, SF needed the cash flow and decided to do a sweet deal with Walmart in order to have that revenue within a certain period. After all, wasn't it just recently they were in a financial furor?

Its not like we're talking a huge mainstream title here. As such, Walmart have NO incentive to stock and ship an unfinished product unless some really nefarious went on -----> all pointing to money changing hands.

[JeffL]

Well, and this sounds a bit wishy-washy, if CGW really wanted to avoid offending SF, the simplest thing to do would be to simply kill the article. That would have avoided showing potential buyers that they were getting an unfinished product (which was precisely the point of the screens and the main body of the text, which I assume remained intact.) So I'm not sure what the purpose of that line was, unless it was to point out some of the practices on all ends of the chain that readers may not be aware of.

[Sean Tudor]

Firstly I am pissed at CGW for editing Jeff's article.

Secondly I can see that Strategy First's back is to the wall and they are getting desperate. I pity any developers signing up with them to distribute and publish their titles.

Strategy First is hereby awarded Spin Doctor Of The Year.

[JeffL]

Um - do remember that it is CGW's article. Their right to edit it. And they did run it, screen shots and all. They also gave me double the original word count (and thus the room for the screen shots) once we got into what was going on.

I wouldn't have written the last line that way, and I'm surprised that it was added. But do give them credit for running the article.

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

Not one to beat a dead horse, but.... (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/Forum55/HTML/000988.html)

[Alan Dunkin]

Bad horsey! Bad! <whap>

--- Alan

[Anonymous]

]Not one to beat a dead horse, but.... (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/Forum55/HTML/000988.html)

It's not beating a dead horse. I wonder if the CGW editors reading this board have any comment................

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

]Not one to beat a dead horse, but.... (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/Forum55/HTML/000988.html)

It's not beating a dead horse. I wonder if the CGW editors reading this board have any comment................

heh, good luck. Apart from Jeff's comment (which is fine by me), you'd have better luck waiting for hair to grow on your ass, than for the CGW folks to come here and explain wtf that was about. Can't say I blame them either. It was a goof (no matter *how* you splice and dice it) of epic proportions.

Notice how the usually vocal media types, are strangely silent? There's your cue.

[Nick Hyle]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but; Strategy First buys ads in CGW, and Walmart does not.

In an ad market as tight as today's, I imagine that's all the payoff needed.

One of my other hobbies is knives. A few years ago, there were four consumer magazines in that market. Only one of them, Fighting Knives, would actually run negative reviews of specific American made production knives. The other did publish good articles, but no "stay away from this knife, it's a stinker" pieces.

American Blade, Knives Illustrated, and Tactical Knives are still making money and being published; Fighting Knives is not.

The PC game article market isn't quite that bad. But I can't see any other way to read the editing on Jeff's article.

Nick

[DennyA]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but; Strategy First buys ads in CGW, and Walmart does not.

In an ad market as tight as today's, I imagine that's all the payoff needed.
Uh uh. Doesn't work that way. When I was at CGW, I was personally responsible for stopping at least two companies from advertising for a time. Three, if you count Novalogic doing it twice. :-) The editors don't get any pressures from the ad folks.


The PC game article market isn't quite that bad. But I can't see any other way to read the editing on Jeff's article.
Might have been a matter of the editor calling Strategy First for their side of the story and making too severe an edit to accomodate that, or any number of other things. I dunno, but I'm certain it wasn't "appease an advertiser." Doesn't work that way at CGW or CGM. (Not saying it does at other mags, those are just the only two I worked for and can say that for sure about.)

[Ben Sones]

Yeah, CGM has seen it's fair share of advertiser temper tantrums, and lost business from a few big companies once or twice. They always seem to come back, though--probably because an ad blackout hurts them as much as it hurts the magazine.

[Anonymous]

I myself am responsible for a number of advertising "blackouts", and I have, at times, been physically banned from at least one major game publisher.

As far as Jeff's story goes: I was not involved in the editing of this piece at all, so I can't say what were the *exact* circumstances of that last paragraph. Certainly I didn't advocate or physically make that change. Actually, the first time I saw the article was on a page proof, where the text already appeared as you saw it. I did *read* that line, though, and left it (not knowing it wasn't Jeff's), because, in essence, I agreed with it.

I know that we did in fact talk to Strategy First to get "their side of the story", and they were in fact strongarmed by WalMart. "Either give us that build RIGHT NOW, or we don't carry your game later" was what they were told. If it's me, well, I don't give them the game. I tell them to fuck off. Just like, if I was Richard Garriott, I would have told EA to fuck off when they tried to get me to release Ultima IX early. But, hey--easy for me to say. I'm just a gaming hack--I don't have all that money at stake, all that time, all those stockholders, all those other people's jobs on the line. So, of course I think Strategy First bears huge responsibility here--because they COULD have said no. Looking at that last paragraph now, I would personally re-edited to say "IN ADDITION to the negligence of the developer" or something to that effect. Because they made this choice. A cold business decision, which in the long run may or may not have been the right thing--I don't know. I think Strategy First probably gets cut too much slack here, yes, but it's not like they actually come across looking GOOD. If they're not incompetent, then they're weak. Not exactly hero material. And the strongarm tactics of places like Walmart I think are lame realities of the gaming industry worth exposing and discussing.

[Alan Dunkin]

Maybe the CGW editors (Jeff Green I suppose) thought it wise to put it in, or maybe a lawyer advised it, who knows. Unrelated points:

* Strategy First does a fair share of advertising in most magazines.

* Single advertisers pulling ads from a magazine is not a huge threat, even in today's market, as A) they are probably coming back at some point and B) if a magazine depends on that advertiser in the first place it's got more problems than putting nice neutral addendums to news pieces.

* SFI wouldn't be gone for long, because they need the exposure. The company seeks out to make money on games that frequently sell under 50,000 copies (20-30k total boxes sold is a nice haul for them from what I've been told, depending on what went into it) and believes that's their market. They can't afford to waste too many months on missing ads in a 300k circulation magazine.

* There's no doubt some companies, usually the smaller ones, get all miffed and leave for a time. Jim Rose once confronted me at E3 after Gamespot produced an extremely low score for Tribal Wars. Note that I was a freelancer for the most part at Gamespot at the time and didn't even have anything to do with the review, but he pulled advertising because of it (he pulled me aside because I knew him someone and up to that point had a somehwat decent relationship with him). Apparently it was partially because it was the lowest of the low scores or something similar to that. Doesn't have to do with anything, but it does happen (as Denny says). Not sure if they ever came back, though. Haven't talked to Jim in awhile though, I have no idea what he's doing these days.

--- Alan

[Anonymous]

err, actually, that first sentence should say that "at one time" I was physically banned from a game company. They didn't do it to me multiple times. :)

[Alan Dunkin]

Strategy First is an odd duck; in our dealings with them, at times they seemed on the ball, others they seemed pretty distant. Commitments go awry, things promised get delayed, and weird decisions abound. Their office space has been described as the most cramped imaginable, and they have a lot of people working there. At times they seem to be on the ball and other times they'd have a hard time hitting the floor even if they fell out of bed.

--- Alan

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

I know that we did in fact talk to Strategy First to get "their side of the story", and they were in fact strongarmed by WalMart.

uhm, right but thats third party information. And as a credible journalist, I would assume that you knew this. Why? Well, unless you actually spoke to Walmart and they gave their version (which would amount to them pointing the finger at SF), you only have to take SF's word for it.

So, given that - and trying to be logical here. WHY oh WHY, give SF the benefit of the doubt instead of Walmart? Who - I might add, don't exactly need that title. And most especially not in an unfinished form. Given SF's history (see WWOL) I see NO reason to give SF the benefit of the doubt. Who can forget that whole SF/CR/PlayNet three ring circus over WW20L. Which, as it turns out, ended up being that SF decided to ship the damn title anyway?


I'm just a gaming hack--I don't have all that money at stake, all that time, all those stockholders, all those other people's jobs on the line.

Jeff, with all due respect ol' boy, this is IRRELEVANT (as you very well know). What? the stiffed gamers are the ones who should always end up LOSING money and time? wtf?!?! Haven't we learned anything??


Looking at that last paragraph now, I would personally re-edited to say "IN ADDITION to the negligence of the developer" or something to that effect. Because they made this choice.

EXACTLY


I think Strategy First probably gets cut too much slack here, yes, but it's not like they actually come across looking GOOD. If they're not incompetent, then they're weak. Not exactly hero material.

Indeed :roll:

Anyway, it was nice of you to drop by and give your thoughts :)

[Jason Cross]

As far as Jeff's story goes: I was not involved in the editing of this piece at all, so I can't say what were the *exact* circumstances of that last paragraph. Certainly I didn't advocate or physically make that change. Actually, the first time I saw the article was on a page proof, where the text already appeared as you saw it. I did *read* that line, though, and left it (not knowing it wasn't Jeff's), because, in essence, I agreed with it.

bZZZZTT... Sorry Jeff, you're Editor in Chief. You are ultimately responsible for the editing and content of EVERY article. The buck stops with you.

If people are making changes to articles that you "certainly didn't advocate," then you need to run a *MUCH* tighter ship. Or personally read and approve every single page of the layout, which is certainly doable.

Sure, you talked to Strategy First to get their side of the story. The problem is, you didn't present it as their side of the story. You presented it as fact, and didn't get Wal-Mart's side (or even try to and print "Wal-Mart was unavailable for comment.").

The article says " the real culprit here appears to be the power of the nation's largest retailer and not negligence on the part of the publisher." That's toeing the line for Strategy First. No "Strategy First claims..." or anything. You're saying it's Wal-Mart's fault. You're picking sides. That's fine for an op/ed piece, but that's supposed to be a news article, and for the first four paragraphs, it is.

[William Abner]

American Blade, Knives Illustrated, and Tactical Knives are still making money and being published; Fighting Knives is not.

There are four knife magazines? Now I have a lot of off-kilter hobbies myself but the name Tactical Knives is priceless. Reminds me of that Robin Williams / Walter Matthau movie. What was that called...hrm.

[Bub, Andrew]

The one thing that's bothering me isn't that this happened - poor judgement happens to the best of us now and then, and to be honest even major newspapers have made this particular mistake (that's what retraction columns are for)- what's troublesome is that it was made without Jeff Lackey's involvement or knowledge. Mistakes happen, but in an article by Jeff Lackey, those mistakes should always be his. He shouldn't be blindsided by them on a message board, or anywhere. For all we know Wal-Mart has sent out that happy face (in it's Zorro costume) to kill him. You've played Berzerk right? Lackey should be very afraid.

This is not editing. An editor should never add facts, figures, or interpretations to an article with another person's name on it. An editor fact-checks, fixes grammar or syntax problems and calls up the writer to get him to make needed additions/changes. When a writer sends in an article it ceases to be the writer's, sure, but it's still the writer's reputation on the line. There's an important trust at work here.

FWIW I'm very surprised this happened at CGW, I haven't done any significant work for you guys but you're very highly thought of by my peers.

Now Jeff Green, cut Lackey a check for $5,000 as penance.

(Lackey, send me 10%) :wink:

[Jeff Green]

bZZZZTT... Sorry Jeff, you're Editor in Chief. You are ultimately responsible for the editing and content of EVERY article. The buck stops with you.

Bzzzzzt----sorry Jason, you didn't read what I wrote. I SAID that I read Lackey's piece, and I said I agreed with it, which is why it appeared in the magazine. That IS having the buck stop with me.

All I was denying here was knowing that that last sentence wasn't Lackey's. It is NOT my job as EIC to read every first draft from every writer and edit every single piece. That's what all the other editors are here for. I don't approve/disapprove of every change/addition they make to a piece because I trust them. I read many articles for the first time on the page proofs...as I did with this piece. I read it, agreed with it, and signed it and passed it on.

You can disagree with other aspects of this piece, or the way CGW handled it, but don't accuse me of denying responsiblity, because I patently DID NOT DO THAT.

sheesh.

[Jason McCullough]

American Blade, Knives Illustrated, and Tactical Knives are still making money and being published; Fighting Knives is not.

There are four knife magazines? Now I have a lot of off-kilter hobbies myself but the name Tactical Knives is priceless. Reminds me of that Robin Williams / Walter Matthau movie. What was that called...hrm.

I'm more interested in Strategic Knifing.

[Mark Asher]

"This is not editing. An editor should never add facts, figures, or interpretations to an article with another person's name on it. An editor fact-checks, fixes grammar or syntax problems and calls up the writer to get him to make needed additions/changes. When a writer sends in an article it ceases to be the writer's, sure, but it's still the writer's reputation on the line. There's an important trust at work here."

Where are you getting all this? Editors just fact-check and make grammatical corrections? That's just copy-editing.

Ideally, when a change is made to an article, the writer should see it before it hits print. In practice, that just isn't going to happen all the time. I have had numerous pieces edited and published without my first seeing the edits. Editors are under pressure to put out a magazine or hit a publishing deadline. There just isn't time to go back and forth over every edit.

[Anonymous]

OH MY GOD!!!!! This is the most horrible thing that has ever happened in the history of the universe. If the world still exists tomorrow, I wouldn't want to live in it knowing that this ATROCITY OF UNIMAGINABLE PROPORTIONS had allowed the innocent dreams of dewy-eyed computer game players to be tossed away like so many used facial tissues.

[Alan Dunkin]

Right, of course, we wouldn't be talking about anything else in a GAMING forum of all places, right?

Creative (I guess is the word) editing happens all the time, and in very professional publications. You should see some of G. Harry Stine's rants about Air & Space sometime.

--- Alan

[Xaroc]

American Blade, Knives Illustrated, and Tactical Knives are still making money and being published; Fighting Knives is not.

There are four knife magazines? Now I have a lot of off-kilter hobbies myself but the name Tactical Knives is priceless. Reminds me of that Robin Williams / Walter Matthau movie. What was that called...hrm.

The Survivors.

"I love the smell of malamut in the morning!"

-- Xaroc

[Bub, Andrew]

Where are you getting all this?


What do you mean "where am I getting all this?"
I've never worked with an editor who has changed facts or added new sentences to anything I've written. I've seen re-writes, I've seen sweeping changes, but never substantative changes or additions to a piece without the writer's knowledge. No edits that change the meaning or add false or innaccurate information. If anything a writer deserves the chance to say "get my name of it then!" I mean, are you saying this kind of editing is commonplace?



Ideally, when a change is made to an article, the writer should see it before it hits print. In practice, that just isn't going to happen all the time. I have had numerous pieces edited and published without my first seeing the edits. Editors are under pressure to put out a magazine or hit a publishing deadline. There just isn't time to go back and forth over every edit.

Sure, I understand all that Mark and of course I've been edited too. I don't mind it because the edits have been minor or just annoying. I'm not married to my work, I'm not like that. But if an editor changes the facts or conclusions without telling me? I don't condone that. Isn't that what we're talking about here?

If there simply isn't time to do it "ideally", as you put it (or at LEAST notify Lackey that you're doing it so he doesn't have to learn about it from Derek Smart on a message board), then the piece should have been run exactly the way Jeff wrote it ... or not run at all. By your logic an editor can add *anything* to a story without notifying the writer so long as the deadline is looming. That's not exactly something I can get behind.

[Anonymous]

Okay, obviously I'm biased, but I have to agree with Mark Asher on the whole editing deal.

Im not unsympathetic. I spent a number of years freelancing well before my current stint at CGW and I've been unhappily edited myself. I one wrote for a now-defunct skin mag called RAVE where I was asked to write a humorous four-page article about women who were loud while having sex. What can I say, I knew going in it wasn't the New Yorker. Anyway, I produced the piece as agreed, it was funny as agreed, and it wasn't even remotely tittilating as agreed--after all, this was an article the subscribers allegedly "read" as opposed to jerking off to the pictures.

When I got my copy of the magazine I was chagrined to see that not only had my editor cut out all the jokes but they had forgone the illustrations they said would accompany the article in lieu of a liberal dose of photos depicting what Kurt Vonnegut once so poetically called "split wide open beavers." But the check cleared and I had to live with it.

Oh, and RAVE forgot to use the pseudonym I requested (apparently I was worried that my bible-thumping mother idly thumbed through RAVE at the adult bookstore she maybe frequented and she would be scandalized at seeing my name there.)

[Bub, Andrew]

Sure Robert, but what if RAVE had added lines that were mysogynistic or racist? What if they had added something slanderous or just, well, really-really awful? And then what if your mother did find it? ;-)

Look, maybe I don't have an accurate handle on what really happened here. Maybe it isn't as big a deal as Derek is making it seem. I was mainly reacting to how quickly Smart and Long jumped on it and how fast Lackey disavowed it. I just think editors should be really careful about making big changes/additions to stories as a matter of policy. But I also pointed out that it does happen all the time and that's what retraction columns are for.

That said, you're right. So long as the changes aren't inaccurate most freelancers would be foolish to get bent out of shape about it. It's your magazine after all and if that means Maximum PC has to add pimp speak to my Firewall article then that means... ahem... but at the same time a professional writer does what he can protect his byline when possible. I can't imagine what it must be like to get in trouble because of something your editor added without your consent.

[Anonymous]

Adding misogynistic or racist material would have obviously angered me, but like I said, I knew it wasn't the New Yorker. I knew exactly what kind of magazine I was writing for and while I wasn't happy that they did what they did, I knew what I was getting into. And I was reasonably confident that they would not do that sort of thing. If I thought they might, I would never have written for them in the first place. That's my responsibility as a freelancer. Oh, and the title of that mag was actually RAGE, not RAVE. Not that it matters.

As it was, I just never wrote that sort of thing for them again. When the editor moved to a new dirty magazine, New Rave, I wrote about cults, karaoke, pinball, and other shit that they could never ever ever litter with blowjob pictures. Then I just stopped working for them altogether because the guy was a nasty crazy fucking bastard and I didn't need to deal with that kind of shit.

[Anonymous]

I can't imagine what it must be like to get in trouble because of something your editor added without your consent.
The writer shouldn't get into trouble, the publication should.

[Kool Moe Dee]

American Blade, Knives Illustrated, and Tactical Knives are still making money and being published; Fighting Knives is not.

There are four knife magazines? Now I have a lot of off-kilter hobbies myself but the name Tactical Knives is priceless. Reminds me of that Robin Williams / Walter Matthau movie. What was that called...hrm.

I'm more interested in Strategic Knifing.

Real-time or turn-based?

BTW, I'll weigh in as being enamored of the name "Fighting Knives"...makes it sound like a magazine about dancing swords... :D

[Anonymous]

How did CGM and PCG handle this issue? Did they write about it at all? I don't have subs anymore, just pick up the occasional newsstand issues. Did they mention the debacle? Review the Wal-Mart release?

[DennyA]

Andrew,

I haven't edited you, but if your work has consistenly seen very few changes, you must be one helluva writer! :-)

If an edit is made that changes the conclusion or tone of the article, then the writer absolutely should be contacted. (Ideally, the writer should be given a chance to make the alteration if there's time, but there usually isn't.) But you say:


An editor should never add facts, figures,
Buzzzzzzz! If a writer omits pertinent, important facts or figures, it's the editor's job to make sure they're added. And there's rarely time to go back and forth with writers.


or interpretations to an article with another person's name on it.
Okay, you're right that they shouldn't add interpretations. When you get into changing the tone or conclusion of an article, it's time to to contact the writer and request a rewrite. Or kill the article.


An editor fact-checks, fixes grammar or syntax problems
No, that's what fact-checkers and copy editors do.

Editors often make far more significant changes than that. I can't tell you how many otherwise good articles I've had to "reorder" a bit to aid flow. Or how many leads I've had to rewrite or punch up -- it's amazing how few professional writers seem to realize how important those first two sentences are to getting a reader's attention. Making changes like this are part of an editor's job, and are done by nearly every professional magazine.


and calls up the writer to get him to make needed additions/changes.
In a dream world where editors have lots of time and fluid deadlines, maybe. The only times I call in a writer is if an article is so off-base, so poorly written, missing a major fact, etc. that it needs a full rewrite, or when the writer made an omission that will change the tone/conclusion of the writing. There's not time to send every article back to writers with a list of requested changes, and to hope the writer gets the revision right the first time.

I've had serious edits made to my own stuff. Usually, they make the articles stronger. And when they do, I'm glad they're made. Most articles can benefit from another set of eyes, and tweaks by an editor who's not invested in having written the piece.

And try writing for mainstream, two-million-circulation magazines. When I wrote for OMNI and Penthouse, my articles would go through a fact checker, a copy editor, a department editor, and the editor-in-chief before heading to layout. I'd see lots of changes, but because those magazines had great editors, the articles were even stronger when the edits were done. It's even worse when you get into more literary publications like Atlantic Monthly, Harpers, etc. where an article may go through five or six editorial steps.

In my first job, I edited Jim Butterfield (a GOD among 8-bit Commodore users) and Orson Scott Card. That was a wild feeling. But both benefitted from editing. Scott Card is probably twice the writer I'll ever be (Minimum! Although I'd have known not to write the third Ender book :)), but I often made significant edits to his columns. Pro writers expect it, and don't mind in cases where the editor doesn't totally fuck up the piece. The REALLY big writers (some of whom I dealt with at OMNI) expect no changes beyond copy edits. But you're supposed to be pulling in seven figures before you get to be that kind of a prima donna. :-)

In the case of this article, I would have wanted Strategy First's side of the story, and contacted Wal-Mart for a "no comment." That's one of the cases where I would actually ask the writer to do it if there was time, but wouldn't have hesitated to do it myself if there wasn't. (The problem here is that the edit that was made results in SF's side coming across as "fact," not the mere fact that an edit was made.)

[Bub, Andrew]

Denny, I have no argument with anything you've written here.
But I don't understand why you'd think I'm claiming I've never been edited. I've just been repeating that I've never been edited like this example. Where a conclusion I made was changed to add inaccurate or incomplete information without my knowledge. In fact, a few times above I've said just that.

---
Quote:
Buzzzzzzz! If a writer omits pertinent, important facts or figures, it's the editor's job to make sure they're added. And there's rarely time to go back and forth with writers.
---

Granted. If the writer didn't do his job then of course the editor will have to pitch in or kill the article. But I think we're both speaking idealistically here. In my example the writer is a shining beacon of perfection and the editor is a meddler who is adding wrong facts and figures willy nilly. In your's the writer submits poor work and the editor knows the subject well enough to actually add correct information (in the games biz that's pretty common, in the non-game biz I've never encountered an editor that knowledgable on obscure subjects). I think we'd both agree that an editor needs to be *very* careful when adding stats, facts and figures to an article the writer presumably spent more time researching? Because the writer's name is on the piece and any errors then become the writer's once it hits print. If Derek Smart hadn't had this board with which to confront Lackey, he'd be clucking his tongue at Lackey's mistake as much as he would be CGW's mistake. Now, imagine if the editor addition had been slanderous, or offensive? That's what I'm reacting to really.

"I've had serious edits made to my own stuff. Usually, they make the articles stronger. And when they do, I'm glad they're made. Most articles can benefit from another set of eyes, and tweaks by an editor who's not invested in having written the piece."

Of course. I absolutely believe this is true. My own work shows it. Ahem. More often when it isn't edited than when it is, I'll admit....

[Jason Cross]

Bzzzzzt----sorry Jason, you didn't read what I wrote. I SAID that I read Lackey's piece, and I said I agreed with it, which is why it appeared in the magazine. That IS having the buck stop with me.

You're absolutely right. I got as far as "certainly I didn't advocate or physically make that change," and hit the reply button.

Anyway, this thread has made a mountain out of a molehill to be sure, but of course CGW was within their rights to change the article, depending on the nature of your writer's agreement with freelancers. Virtually all the pubs contract writers on a "work for hire" basis, which means they write the article, hand it in, and then it belongs to the publication. If you want to put words in their mouth, add or subtract opinion, or whatever, that's your right.

And if readers get upset, they should get upset with the publication. One of the perils of freelancing is that if a publication consistantly changes your articles into something you're not happy with, you've got to stop soliciting work from them for fear of your reputation not matching your actual opinions.

If, however, your writer's agreement is simply a "first publishing rights" deal and Ziff/CGW does not actually retain ownership of the article but merely the right to publish it before any other publication, then changing it to add, subtract, or the author's opinion or stance or meaning is kind of a stretch. At least, in such a case it should have another byline tacked onto the end (the 'ol "additional reporting by Joe Smith" thing). I doubt it is--most magazines aren't that way.

Anyway Jeff, I'm not trying to jump all over you. I probably would have been a lot less harsh if my Angry Keyboard Powers hadn't kicked in mid-post. :) It probably didn't help that typing out the buzzer-sound is probably the most infuriating thing a person can do.

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

The one thing that's bothering me isn't that this happened - poor judgement happens to the best of us now and then, and to be honest even major newspapers have made this particular mistake (that's what retraction columns are for)- what's troublesome is that it was made without Jeff Lackey's involvement or knowledge. Mistakes happen, but in an article by Jeff Lackey, those mistakes should always be his. He shouldn't be blindsided by them on a message board, or anywhere. :

I agree 100%



Maybe it isn't as big a deal as Derek is making it seem. I was mainly reacting to how quickly Smart and Long jumped on it and how fast Lackey disavowed it.

WOT?!?! :shock:

Anyway, I'm going to resign from this now, before I get myself into even more trouble because its beginning to border on ridiculousness. :(

Nevertheless, as Mark said, mistakes like this happen all the time and thats what editorial corrections are for. Hopefully, we will see some sort of mention in Jeff's next editorial.

[graller]

ummm Perhaps off topic at this point but you all do realize that this is exactly the sort of thing Walmart demands of their vendors? They force the lowest prices, insist on on demand delivery of goods with minimal requirements on their part to carry inventory. The whole business is predicated on just in time delivery, lowest cost, and fast turnarounds. They get away with it because they are the largest retailer in the world and no one can afford to walk away from them. The efficiencies this creates allows them to sell product at razor thin margins and still make a profit. I don't doubt for one moment that Walmart said you guaranteed delivery on x date. You are not fulfilling your vendor contracts and we are nullifying our agreements... But Jeff Green is right - Strategy First could have walked away from the deal, they did not have to "take the money".

[Chris Nahr]

Say what you will about the fine folks at CGW, they are clearly masters of damage control. After a page of discussion about the evil of Wal-Mart and the authority of a magazine editor, the real question in this thriller is all but forgotten:

Who were those little gremlins that secretly added a paragraph to an article, without either the author or the editor-in-chief knowing it? Maybe the butler has has conspired with the gardener? :-D

[Dave Long]

But Jeff Green is right - Strategy First could have walked away from the deal, they did not have to "take the money".

...then why didn't the article say that in addition to this...


But the real culprit here appears to be the power of the nation's largest retailer and not negligence on the part of the publisher. Regardless, for the sake of consumers, developers, and retailers, we hope that big retailers reconsider such heavy-handed policies.

That's the real problem here. Blame was left at the feet of a retailer enforcing their contract. There is NOTHING wrong with that. What is wrong is that there is an unfinished box on the shelves of Wal-Mart that was put there by Strategy First, Wal-Mart and the developer, Third Wire. Then when it was discovered that this was actually a beta product and unfinished, the publisher called it a "Special Edition" and none of the above information on how it got there was forthcoming. In fact, the publisher, not Wal-Mart, went so far as to lie and claim it done and that it would be fixed with a patch. The customers lose all around. All parties were culpable, but the magazine took the easy route and blamed the big, bad, corporate retailer who was just enforcing a contract. Customers now love the magazine for standing up for gaming!

Strategy First should have bitten the bullet and not shipped a known beta product. But instead, we're told it's Wal-Mart's fault... yeah right. They're not the ones missing a deadline or developing the game and shipping unfinished products to store shelves.

Christoph is right to ask his question too...where did the phantom edit come from? Did some guy in the mail room who was just sent packing by Wal-Mart put that in? At least CGW should have gotten the retailer's side of things instead of pinning the blame on them based on the word of the company shipped an unfinished game and then lied about it publically. The article even states that the Wal-Mart info was stated "privately". Here's the lines in question...


So why did Strategy First release an unfinished game? Officially they're reluctant to say. Privately, they say they had little choice but to release the game to meet a critical deadline necessary to get on Wal-Mart shelves.

For those that think SF didn't lie...their words from a company spokesperson according to Jeff's article...


"The release that you are discussing is a limited release to one specific retailer [Wal-Mart] and is not a beta copy, as some have insinuated.... The game is in fact playable. However, we understand that there are some gameplay issues, and we are addressing them in a patch that will be released shortly...If people do not want to download the patch, Strategy First will be more than willing to send them the patch on CD."

Bold text by my choosing in the above paragraph. Enjoy.

--Dave

[Anonymous]

How did CGM and PCG handle this issue? Did they write about it at all? I don't have subs anymore, just pick up the occasional newsstand issues. Did they mention the debacle? Review the Wal-Mart release?
We (CGM) reviewed the "Wal-Mart" edition in our next issue, with a little sidebar about it being this "special Wal-Mart" version, and Strategy First's comments about why it exists, blah blah blah.

Tom Chick loved it, saying it's better than Flying Heroes and Warlords Battlecry 2 combined.

Oh wait, no he didn't.

[Anonymous]

I’m the mystery man who added the offending sentences. At the time I thought it made sense, now it seems clear it was a bad call. I think I was too willing to let Strategy First off the hook, which is ironic because I had supported the idea of this story from the start as a way of exposing what was obviously a bad decision to release an unfinished game. Several members of Strategy First visited us to show us their latest titles, and were adamant that Wal-Mart’s pressure was the culprit since they would miss their window if they slipped, and they couldn’t afford to do that. My thinking at the time was that flight sims are among the most technically complicated products to produce, and that software development is never such an exact science that a developer can always hit their deadline. But Wal-Mart wasn’t the group that packaged and shipped an unfinished game, and I made a judgment error in assigning blame to them. Strat First should have postponed the game and taken their licks.

I didn’t run the story by Lackey for the reasons many of you mentioned: This is what editors do. I edit every story in my section (often heavily), and I don’t have time to run every story by every writer. I actually did a fairly substantial edit to this particular story, rewriting the lead and changing the structure.

It’s not like I’m new to this. I’ve been at CGW over 10 years, and I’ve worked with every writer in our stable. I’ve put a LOT of words in a lot of people’s mouths over the years, and changed a lot of things to try to make sentences stronger and stories more interesting. I’m human, and sometimes I fuck up. But over all I think I have a pretty good record at this kinda thing. If I didn’t I probably wouldn’t be here.

But since I’m pretty sure I’ll continue to be vilified in all this, I’d also like to hold up my section and stand it against those of other consumer/enthusiast publications. I take pride in actually doing news, insight, humor and real criticism in CGW’s news section (Readme). We had the first story in print about the botched launch of WWII Online, and we ripped both Strategy First and Cornered Rat for it. We’ve taken on EA, Gathering of Developers, Microsoft, and others in doing stories that talked about things we didn’t like about their games or their companies. We have departments like Dumpster Diver and Good Bad Ugly where we knock companies and games all the time. We’ve also run previews where we talk about things we don’t like in upcoming games. You’re not apt to find a lot of that in other gaming pubs or websites, or in other enthusiast mags.

So there’s my .02 And the reason you haven’t heard from me until now is sorta reflective of the overall problem. I’ve got a 7-month old kid at home and a wife who works nights, and a lot of things going on during the day. So I’m apt to make a few mistakes. But if you take issue with something in Readme, now you know who to blame. And by the way, it shouldn’t have been that much of a mystery in the first place. My name is right there under the title on the opening spread of the section.

Ken Brown
Editor, CGW
[email protected]

[Bub, Andrew]

But since I’m pretty sure I’ll continue to be vilified in all this

Nah, not if you're willing to be a stand up guy about it. Your first paragraph here says all that needed to be said really. And you're right, mistakes happen and I'll point out again, as I did in my first post, that they happen everywhere. Not just at consumer level glossies.

[JeffL]

At the risk of sounding like a suck-up to Ken, let me verify what he stated in the beginning of his comment: when I first emailed him with what was going on with Strike Fighters and Strat First and the Wal-Mart deal, I was thinking this might be a 3 or 4 sentence news piece. When Ken realized what was going on, he emailed back asking me to expand on the article. He was pretty mifffed at someone releasing a game like this in obviously beta state, and it was Ken's idea to remind people that Strat First did something similar with WWII Online. As we rushed to get the article done (it came up near deadline) Ken came back and doubled the size of the article, which allowed me to include the quotes from TK and Strat First's PR. When I was able to find a copy of the Wal-Mart edition and play it that weekend, Ken gave me room to include a couple of screenshots to reinforce the point that the game was incomplete, in spite of official PR comments to the contrary.

I was surprised by the additional line at the end of the article, but I also know that the whole reason the new item was in this issue was that Ken was pissed at what was being put on the shelves.

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

I’m the mystery man who added the offending sentences. At the time I thought it made sense, now it seems clear it was a bad call. I think I was too willing to let Strategy First off the hook, which is ironic because I had supported the idea of this story from the start as a way of exposing what was obviously a bad decision to release an unfinished game. Several members of Strategy First visited us to show us their latest titles, and were adamant that Wal-Mart’s pressure was the culprit since they would miss their window if they slipped, and they couldn’t afford to do that. My thinking at the time was that flight sims are among the most technically complicated products to produce, and that software development is never such an exact science that a developer can always hit their deadline. But Wal-Mart wasn’t the group that packaged and shipped an unfinished game, and I made a judgment error in assigning blame to them. Strat First should have postponed the game and taken their licks.


And there folks, is was credibility is all about. If it wasn't that my sub had already been renewed (as it has been for so many, many, many years), I'd run out and sub again.

Kudos Ken!!!

If there was any closure to this, that sure is it. Now waiting for ol' man Green's editorial ...am really sorry we goofed on the SF thing last issue. Blame Ken! I was off playing BF1942 when that happened! blurb :D :D :D

ok, I think Jeff deserves an apology (even though what you did is what eds do, it clearly ruined the premise of the piece he wrote) and a reconciliatory check, don't you think? ;)

oh 'ang on, Ken, I still get my kick-ass 1280x1024x32 shots of BCG in the next *Loading... section right, right? right? :D Which means, am not banned, blacklisted, about-to-be-nailed-to-cross or anything for starting this up, right? right?


*I sent you email about that on 09/01 but I don't know who to send the files/blurb to.

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

At the risk of sounding like a suck-up to Ken, let me verify what he stated in the beginning of his comment:.

....nah, why would be even think that? :P

[Tyjenks]

Good enough for me. Thanks for the response in the face of these rabid game gurus. This thread had taken on a life of it's own because folks were so pissed at SF. That one added line in the review was enough to start the avalanche which had been building since all this started.

Now we can all sleep soundly again with the belief that all is right in the world. Accept maybe at Strategy First. :)

[Mark Asher]

"It’s not like I’m new to this. I’ve been at CGW over 10 years, and I’ve worked with every writer in our stable."

The classic Ken Brown is CGW's 10th anniversary issue cover back in 1992. It has the staff on the cover in medieval garb -- Johnny Wilson or Russel Sipe is the king as I recall. Ken is the royal cook and is in a puffy chef hat and has elfin ears. It's a funny picture.

[DennyA]

Wow, Ken, I'll have time to type a message that long just seven months after the baby's born? Awesome, things are looking better than I thought! :-)

The villification and conspiracy theories that go around on topics like this are a riot. It's almost always a simpler explanation, like Ken's. You don't know who many times I heard major companies pull ads when I was full-time with game mags (well, okay, six that I can think of offhand, if you count three pulls spread over two magazines from a certain now-defunct wargame producer), and the general response was "F*ck 'em. They'll be back. Who's up next in the High Heat playoffs?"

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

and the general response was "F*ck 'em. They'll be back. Who's up next in the High Heat playoffs?"

LMAO!!! Classic DennyA post. :D

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

btw, a page back, I wrote this



heh, good luck. Apart from Jeff's comment (which is fine by me), you'd have better luck waiting for hair to grow on your ass, than for the CGW folks to come here and explain wtf that was about. Can't say I blame them either. It was a goof (no matter *how* you splice and dice it) of epic proportions.

Notice how the usually vocal media types, are strangely silent? There's your cue.

I'm glad that there was enough furor about this to warrant the appearance of the likes of Jeff and Ken to our humble board and the resulting exoneration* (blow me - no way am gonna hurt my head wondering if that spelling is correct or not for US/UK English ) of Jeff of all charges.

I, for one, hope to see them at the next crisis cookout :D

*woohoo, I got it right (http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=exoneration)! Damn, I'm bored.

[Tyjenks]

]
I’m the mystery man who added the offending sentences. At the time I thought it made sense, now it seems clear it was a bad call. I think I was too willing to let Strategy First off the hook, which is ironic because I had supported the idea of this story from the start as a way of exposing what was obviously a bad decision to release an unfinished game. Several members of Strategy First visited us to show us their latest titles, and were adamant that Wal-Mart’s pressure was the culprit since they would miss their window if they slipped, and they couldn’t afford to do that. My thinking at the time was that flight sims are among the most technically complicated products to produce, and that software development is never such an exact science that a developer can always hit their deadline. But Wal-Mart wasn’t the group that packaged and shipped an unfinished game, and I made a judgment error in assigning blame to them. Strat First should have postponed the game and taken their licks.


And there folks, is was credibility is all about. If it wasn't that my sub had already been renewed (as it has been for so many, many, many years), I'd run out and sub again.

Kudos Ken!!!


Actually I had let my sub lapse and think I will re-subscribe. I too am impressed with the accountability and grass roots involvement with other folks in the industry along with game dopes like me.

Is the moratorium on Canada bashing still on? I feel so out of the loop. And how are Jeff Green's kids fairing at gaming? Last I heard his girl had an EQ habit or something. :wink:

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

Is the moratorium on Canada bashing still on? I feel so out of the loop.

Oh very much so. Though that seems to have taken a backseat to the new fad : Wanton acts of Will O'Neal bashing. Kinda like that quintessential The Vede bashing over at PCG :D

One new thing you'd like about CGW (depending on when you left) is that different people now write the opening editorial. I think its cool. But I think Jeff thinks its cooler since his rabid rantings are still safely on the back pages. No way we're going to let 'im pollute our brains from the minute you open the mag to the time you close it. :D

[Tyjenks]

I believe they had just started that, Derek, and my sub ran out. My financial rollercoaster at the time was in a valley. Now, I cannot see how 20 bucks is that big a thing. Crazy how with money everything is relative to your current bank balance.

Jeff being safely tucked in the back where he belongs is only right. That way his ramblings do not taint the enjoyment of the rest of the magazine. :wink:

If Jeff pops back in or if any of you know, is he still writing anything for Gamers.com? I thought he was going to have a regular (whatever that is in the gaming biz) column over there. Haven't seen anything as of late.

[graller]

Don't get me started on the subject of CGW's layout. I have been a sub since 1991. Its always been my favorite mag since day 1. The one I grab open and dig into the minute I see it on my pile at home. But lately it is fading on me. I can't stand the previews/hyping of new games. I wish they could let some of their editors speak out on topics like they did in the past with Sim converage, RPG coverage etc. Big glossy screenshots I can get on the net and every new game gets scads of hype from the net sites like Evil Avatar anyway. Give me some intelligent insight into the industry instead any day....

[Bub, Andrew]

I don't know Graller, I was lukewarm to Green's changes at first but I like the news section. Homebrew, Post Mortem, etc., are all good and placed well in the magazine. I've always liked Greenspeak. I like McCloud's contribution, now that it's shorter. The magazine feels more cohesive, more "led" now than it did before. I think the genre columns could come back but only if they find some really interesting voices. I didn't like them before I admit, but that was more because they were usually done in a "state of the genre" style that seemed to go out of its way to avoid controversy. I normally skip the strat section and I admit I haven't really liked this gimmick before but this time I got a real kick out of the Chick/Geryk diary for AOW2. They were really in synch for that game. Probably because AOW2 leant itself better to their style of writing and combat.

I'm not a big fan of the big pictures and the review wordcount is way too short, but I'm not really the target audience I think those things are aimed at. I think the big pics in particular are probably good ideas though.

[Anonymous]

]I'm glad that there was enough furor about this to warrant the appearance of the likes of Jeff and Ken to our humble board and the resulting exoneration*
An interesting question is whether or not any mention of this so-called "issue" appears in the next issue or just on this board...

[Joe O'Malley]

I don't know Graller, I was lukewarm to Green's changes at first but I like the news section. Homebrew, Post Mortem, etc., are all good and placed well in the magazine.

I like the features that speak to gamers more than just hyping games. Previews really don't impress me. History shows that most of those games are either not going to be finished, or just won't deliver on the fun front. Now you take the gamer's edge section, homebrew, dumpster diving, post mortem, the news section and other things related to gamers getting the most fun out of their games and the best bang for their buck, and that is cool. I mean really, if I wanted an industry flash show I'd just view the color ads that come with my games or visit the web sites. I want a gamer's magazine more than I want a gaming magazine.

So the short answer? I like most of the new changes.

[graller]

Andrew - I should have said I am a big fan of a lot of the stuff you mention. Homebrew, Dumspter Diving etc are very well done and I always liked the Readme section. Here is how I now "read" CGW.

Open the mag, skip the contents page. Read the Editorial and Readme, latters, homebrew etc. Hit the first Preview - flip, flip, flip, flip at most I read the blurps in the screenshots...Oh look ma I have had the magazine for an hour and I am up to page 80 where the reviews start. Go thru the reviews - I wish they gave more attention to the 5 start games and less to the filler games . Then I skim the strategy section, avidly read the dirty tricks and jump to Jeff Green...and done. I am not a part buyer so the hardware stuff does not grab me all that much unless it is one of the issues where they do OS tips/tricks.

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

OK, if you want to see what happens when you let a good and reputable sim columnist write a controversial piece, turn to p150 of the November issue of PC Gamer where Andy Mahood does his take on this farce.

Quite a good read and a lot more detailed than Jeff's earlier take in CGW - simply because more time has passed and more details have now come to light.

BUT....

Me personally? I would NOT have written this final paragraph. I think thats just Andy being Andy - all nice, cuddly and stuff. Man, I would've ripped those SF beeches to shreds. Heck, Andy didn't even mention that it was this very Strategy First that pulled this same stunt with the now forgotten WW20L - and with Cornered Rat (developers) bitching the whole time. Just like the Third Wire folks.

Don't you just LUV this industry? Anyway, I quote the final paragraph of the page long piece :



Coming from a company like Strategy First, which has put out some quality games, this whole sordid mess is especially baffling. On behalf of dedicated flight simmers everywhere, I suggest that everyone at the company roll up this magazine right now and give themselves a good slap.


Infogrames (as the blurb suggests), apparently did a recall of the units from Walmart.

And btw Andy, the reason that Walmart mentions Infogrames is because they are the distributors who get the products on the shelves (like in Walmart) for Strategy First - who are just the publishers. SF are an affiliated label of Infogrames. Just wanted to pass that along, wrt your comment in the paragraph in which you were wondering why the Walmart rep would tell you that they had contacted Infogrames (and not SF) about your concerns regarding this fiasco.

What did I say when this farce started? Didn't I say that EVERYONE is guilty here and they're just passing the buck? SF has no way of putting this product on any shelf without Infogrames involvement. At all. THATS what a distributor does. Distributes.

[Gladguy]

] SF has no way of putting this product on any shelf without Infogrames involvement.

Derek, I might argue that point... but only on semantics. I would suggest that SF (like us) is direct with most retailers where it makes sense: EB, GameStop, Toys R' Us and some others.

Infogrames is the distributor of choice for most mid-range publishers to get into Wal-Mart. Shipping direct to Wal-Mart is a) a pain and b) usually not cost-effective. It's better to let the distributor take their cut and deal with the headache of managing the account. There are other distributors as well, most notably Navarre, who have relationships with other major retailers (Navarre is in tight with Best Buy).

Just a minor clarification, but your post is otherwise dead-on.

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

] SF has no way of putting this product on any shelf without Infogrames involvement.

Derek, I might argue that point... but only on semantics. I would suggest that SF (like us) is direct with most retailers where it makes sense: EB, GameStop, Toys R' Us and some others.

Infogrames is the distributor of choice for most mid-range publishers to get into Wal-Mart. Shipping direct to Wal-Mart is a) a pain and b) usually not cost-effective. It's better to let the distributor take their cut and deal with the headache of managing the account. There are other distributors as well, most notably Navarre, who have relationships with other major retailers (Navarre is in tight with Best Buy).

Just a minor clarification, but your post is otherwise dead-on.

Yes, you are correct. BUT...

if you read Andy's article, it specifically mentions that the Walmart rep who Andy put on the spot, said that she was going to contact Infogrames. Further, Infogrames initiated the recall.

This tells me that whether or not SF can go direct with other retailers, that Infogrames had something to do with this title going into Walmart.

Also, it is very, very, very rare for a publisher to sell direct to one retailer, while going through a distributor for others. This usually happens in the case of international distribution where territories are divided - even within the same company (e.g. UBIsoft US won't have anything to do with a product in the UK. That would be UBIsoft France's ball game).

Right now I'm deep in the middle of a similar hassle in which the distributor wants to deal with EB direct - though I have the ability to deal with EB direct (and we both like it that way). The reason? Well, EB orders/sells large numbers. By me going direct with EB and letting the publisher handling other retailers (the whole purpose of this deal, to begin with), it helps two things (a) I get top dollar from EB sales without splitting it with anyone. Just like BCM, where I got 100% of the EB rev (b) in case something goes awry with the publisher (as it usually does in these cases), my sole revenue stream isn't in jeapardy because I can always rely on EB - who, so far, have been excellent to me, pay their bills etc.

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

LOL!!! Did anyone read Tom's Three Finger Salute column in the Nov issue of CGM?

Man, SF has taken such a flogging over this farce, the final release of this game doesn't seem to stand a chance in retail. Talk about DOA. :roll:

[Aszurom]

Yeah, but Derek I want it not only to come out... I'm honestly hoping it's a GOOD GAME after all of this. I've wanted a good 'nam era sim forever and this is the best chance for that. The game is somewhat playable after the mid-beta patch they handed the wal-mart customers, and I've heard it's still making great strides toward completion.

[DennyA]

Derek,

And that's a damn shame, and not something to take vicious pleasure in, since it means that the developers' hard work ends up not paying off because of a boneheaded move by the publisher. I watched as TK and gang spent all kinds of effort just trying to find anyone who'd even take on a sim in today's market. Then they finally think they're at the point where they can get their original and ambitious sim on the market, and this happens.

Yes, I want Strategy First to reap the consequences of what was a major disservice to consumers and the developers alike. But at the same time, I hope to see Strike Fighters get the support it needs so that the developers can finish it, and support it after release. (And even if TK's crew did sign off on the Wal-Mart release, I'm certain it wasn't a case of them having any real choice in the matter.)

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

Yeah, but Derek I want it not only to come out... I'm honestly hoping it's a GOOD GAME after all of this. I've wanted a good 'nam era sim forever and this is the best chance for that.

Join the club. I mean, I can only play F4 and IL2 for so long. :roll:


Derek,

And that's a damn shame, and not something to take vicious pleasure in, since it means that the developers' hard work ends up not paying off because of a boneheaded move by the publisher.

I'm not taking vicious pleasure in it though. Will all the press on this farce, I just thought that Tom's humorous take was, well, just different. :P

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

uhm, I just read somewhere that this has gone gold. Fer real?

[JeffL]

Yep. And it's quite a bit nicer than the Wallyworld version. :wink:

I've got to hand it to TK - I think he handled this situation with a lot of professionalism and class. Must be tough for a developer to have to deal with that much "mess".

[Aszurom]

So Jeff (and other flightsim press),

Anybody gotten their hands on the "real deal" yet? Any impressions you'd care to offer as for what potential disappointment and elation awaits?

I'm really curious to see if TK&Co managed to make lemonade or not.

Also, I'd really like to know when the "final version patch" will be offered to the walmart gamers. To have it available on or before the shelf-date would be mighty and good.

[Andy Mahood]

Yep. And it's quite a bit nicer than the Wallyworld version. :wink:

I've got to hand it to TK - I think he handled this situation with a lot of professionalism and class. Must be tough for a developer to have to deal with that much "mess".


Hear, hear!

[Tom Chick]

I've got to hand it to TK - I think he handled this situation with a lot of professionalism and class.

I'll give that a 'hear, hear' as well. TK has gone from big budget productions at Origin and Microprose to being a small indie developer on a touch-and-go project. The fact that he's still plugging away at a marginalized genre without showing any bitterness, especially after this fiasco, is a real testament of character.

In spite of the horrid condition of the Wal-Mart release, I'm really looking forward to Strike Fighters.

-Tom

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

Yep. And it's quite a bit nicer than the Wallyworld version. :wink:

I've got to hand it to TK - I think he handled this situation with a lot of professionalism and class. Must be tough for a developer to have to deal with that much "mess".

Excellent!! I'm going to pick it up as soon as it shows up.

Yes, I agree with on how TK and crew handled it. Real class act - even if they were in on it.

Me? Man, I'd have kicked some serious booty. Then again, publishers know better than to pull a stunt like that on me again. I think Ryan Brant remembers the nice little dent in his financials that little 1996 stunt caused. My accountant and attorney are still thanking him for that one. :D

[mtkafka]

If the 'full' release of Strike Fighters is as good as EAW... then all will be forgotten. It'll be hard to top EAW though, thats the last great flight sim I occasionally still play!

etc