MonteCristo CEO Jerome Gastaldi interview

[LordOscar 0]

Direct link to the interview :

www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/09/02/the-talk-of-the-town-cities-xls-jerome-gastaldi/

Some interesting parts :

"The corner-stone is a solid city building game. We’re going for the Sim City 4 spot."

"The second challenge is to give easy access to the genre. (...) But we did a survey of 70,000 [City Life] registered players and we discovered that 83% told us that the game was too difficult [to get into]. (...) The unique challenge is to ease the entrance to the game (...)"

"We’re integrating it with full social network functionality (...) We want a guy to fail to make the contracted resources, and then receiving an angry e-mail from someone else. We want that kind of thing to happen. (...) I think it’ll be like natural selection."

"[solo players] may not play for a few weeks, (...) They’re not willing to spend three hours a day playing. We don’t want to push them into an experience where their progression is limited to the time they have to put in. That’s not this type of game. These people have more money than they have time. (...) The business model must reflect what people are willing to buy."

"Journalist : [With Cities XL], everything you pay for is extra on top of what a traditional City game would be. Jerome Gastaldi: If we were leaving out content from a soloable game, we could have a back lash. But we’re not going to do that."

[Chptrk 86]

I wonder if this guy has read anything we've said here or on the old Cites XL forums. It would help him a lot.

[Cleaner475 150]

Originally posted by: Chptrk

I wonder if this guy has read anything we've said here or on the old Cites XL forums. It would help him a lot.

quote>

I was just wondering that......

Richard

[soldyne 111]

Originally posted by: LordOscar

Some interesting parts :

"The corner-stone is a solid city building game. We’re going for the Sim City 4 spot."

quote>

WTF?  you cannot compete with SC4 if you remove mass transit, only give us 5, non-linkable maps and no ability to add custom content.  What were they thinking?

"The second challenge is to give easy access to the genre. (...) But we did a survey of 70,000 [City Life] registered players and we discovered that 83% told us that the game was too difficult [to get into]. (...) The unique challenge is to ease the entrance to the game (...)"

quote>

Did they ever ask what was difficult about it, perhaps it was that whole social web thing they had going on there and had nothing to do with city building part, but, I guess people will make up what ever statistics they want to hear.

"We’re integrating it with full social network functionality (...) We want a guy to fail to make the contracted resources, and then receiving an angry e-mail from someone else. We want that kind of thing to happen. (...) I think it’ll be like natural selection."

quote>

no comment on this... not sure what he is talking about here...

"[solo players] may not play for a few weeks, (...) They’re not willing to spend three hours a day playing. We don’t want to push them into an experience where their progression is limited to the time they have to put in. That’s not this type of game. These people have more money than they have time. (...) The business model must reflect what people are willing to buy."

quote>

*blink* *blink*  what "solo players" are he refering to?  I play my games every day and on the weekends I may spend 5-8 hours at a time on the computer playing my games and I work a full time job.  my games are my stress relief; my hobby.  I have more money than time?  when did this happen?  Why don't people tell me these things?  perhaps he should have stressed who he was refering to by "these people".  I am 'willing to buy' a complete game, not some hyped up demo version which is what the single player is turning out to be.

"Journalist : [With Cities XL], everything you pay for is extra on top of what a traditional City game would be. Jerome Gastaldi: If we were leaving out content from a soloable game, we could have a back lash. But we’re not going to do that."

quote>

your not going to do what?  take mass transit out of single player?  ok, thats nice of you for being honest with us *end sarcasm*.

[geek12 0]

This review was done on Wednesday, so it's not like this was done before we started to really rip into the games flaws (no mass transit, etc).

[MTA3479 0]

@ solodyne, and bascially everyone else; I agree! No wonder it seemed like NOTHING was ever getting read on the forums. The countless mass-transit threads we made and nothing!

[LordOscar 0]

Originally posted by: LordOscar

"[solo players] may not play for a few weeks, (...) They’re not willing to spend three hours a day playing. We don’t want to push them into an experience where their progression is limited to the time they have to put in. That’s not this type of game. These people have more money than they have time. (...) The business model must reflect what people are willing to buy."

quote>

I may have misunderstood something when trying to quote (if so, my bad). It may not be [solo players] but [Casual players] instead. Can someone confirm? Reading it again it's not that clear to me.

Anyway the interview took place in January so they knew they wanted a simplified game at this time.

--

RPS: Also, you give blueprints to solo players, which can be given away. That’s a way to bring them into the main game, I guess.

Jerome Gastaldi: The only constraint we put on the solo players… we give them an avatar. We give them a webgame. We don’t have their data, because we don’t store their data, or any of the things which cost us money, because they don’t pay… but we still really want them to be part of the community. We want to see what other people are doing. By giving them the blueprints to trade, we’re giving them a purpose to talking to people in the communities.

RPS: So building a community is essential to what you plan?

Jerome Gastaldi: The day we’re successful will be the day we’re in the fabric of those guys. Those 15 webpages to check every day. They may not play for a few weeks, but the spouse is going away for the weekend and… they figure they’ll give it a crack. They’re not willing to spend three hours a day playing. We don’t want to push them into an experience where their progression is limited to the time they have to put in. That’s not this type of game. These people have more money than they have time.

[bixel 1,224]

gonna post a direct copy of what I said in another thread - because its exactly the reply I want to give.

Why so little to start with?

It took years and several upgrades for Eve online to really become a mega success...

Initial knee-jerk reactions

A lot of people look at the online fee and wonder what it is they are getting that is worth that much (myself included). Persistent data, cooperative building and trading, and a community... but this still does not seem to justify it because we are now in an era of free web-based online games that are free, but have micro transactions.. (Evony, Secret of Solstice, The West)

Yet CitiesXL is a much bigger game than these casual genres, so why do I compare CitiesXL to them, it is because right now - these online features have yet to come into its desired complexity, content, and uniqueness.

If all of this doesn't seem ready - why release it now? MC is not the multi-million dollar company Blizzard or EA is, they are financing everything themselves and they are pretty small. All this content and programming takes huge man hours to achieve, and people need to be paid eat and live.. this all costs huge amounts of money. MC is still generating sales for their City Life games... but the the development of this game is really eating away at their budget - which in tangent eats away at the time they have to get what is needed to have a playable game done. MC needs revenue and quickly - I've worked briefly with a lot of people in San Francisco and met many small developers, it would seem like but these guys literally live off of a huge gamble. They pay everything with credit - in hopes they can get a project finished quickly enough to pay off the debt of credit they accumulated during production. Remember - during development the company is not making any money - it only loses money (even if you factor in the small sales of previous games).

Why take a risk and make a game then?

If people with great ideas and dreams do not take these risks - then you wouldn't have great games. Its just that simple. Especially now when investors are becoming more control oriented over their investment - making demands and stifling new ideas in favor of whatever format sells most you have cookie cutter FPS shooters that are completely forgettable, MMOs based on the same formula as WoW and a gigantic series of the same game released over and over Madden 2010, NeedForSpeed, NBA, Halo4...

What does this boil down to?

A lot of prospecting players will argue - that is not worth the fee, where is the huge expansive world and mega gobs of content? It will come with time, MC is jump starting a very small engine, they are setting ground rules now (whether it seems justified or not) but they know that if they change these rules later it was have cataclysmic effects on their customers/players. The plan is - set the rules now, regardless of how harsh (or greedy it may appear) now. Those that do not want to pay on these rules, but still want to play get a fully playable solo game. I will most likely fall into this category because I really want to play the game and I want add content to it.

Solo players get everything that regular community SC4 get, blog based web page featuring themselves and their City Journals - and additionally a 3d Avatar.

MC needs to set up their online plan now... development on this game will be constant just like Eve and WoW. Some players may sign up for the online membership now, this will do only one thing - allow MC to more effectively make the game better. Solo players will be doing the same thing by playing the game and being an active community member. Most likely many players may not become online members until much later (perhaps a year). In the past I was really hesitant to pay for a online fee, I waited until the 3 expansion pack to Everquest (the 1st one, I know! Im old skool) to come out before I signed. I had a lot of fun and it was a great experience. But I waited for the online fee to justify it.

The main argument for or against

What is the point to this? The main thing to think about is to come to decision whether you will go sign up for the online membership and pay the fee or not. But if you decide not to do this - base your decision on these factors. Is the online value add considerably more than the solo? Do I really want online play anyway? Will I meet friends and be more actively involved in the community than before? If all of these answers are no, and yet you still enjoy the solo experience. Then please tell people CitiesXL is a great game - but I only participate on it in solo. If you still do not like the solo version, say the game is not for me - but maybe in the future I will consider it. Remember it wasn't until Expansion #3 until I got Everquest. The game is not a failure if people enjoy playing - the those people are not stupid or dumb for enjoying a game - after all it is just a game."

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Very good points.

[cirugo 1,889]

but they ARE leaving out content you would get from a traditional city game.

And why would they be surveying what City Life people want?

Was the "success" of that game what they want to emulate?

[Ryster 0]

Originally posted by: cirugo

but they ARE leaving out content you would get from a traditional city game.

And why would they be surveying what City Life people want?

Was the "success" of that game what they want to emulate?quote>

Well presumably because they didn't have access to the list of customers who bought Sim City 4

Just playing devil's advocate.

[RegisterST2 0]

Originally posted by: Ryster

Originally posted by: cirugo

but they ARE leaving out content you would get from a traditional city game.

And why would they be surveying what City Life people want?

Was the "success" of that game what they want to emulate?quote>

Well presumably because they didn't have access to the list of customers who bought Sim City 4

Just playing devil's advocate.

quote>

They did have direct access to tons of people who bought and still play SC4 via the forums at CU and CXL.  These people did more than answer a survey.  They were willing, in some cases incredibly eager, to directly tell MC what they wanted in a new city building game.  They spent hours posting, explaining, fleshng out ideas...Telling MC what they wanted, what would make them buy the game and play it for years, and why. 

Based upon the game they ended up building, I have to wonder if anyone at MC ever actually read those forums, though.

[Mathew_MC 0]

Originally posted by: geek12

This review was done on Wednesday, so it's not like this was done before we started to really rip into the games flaws (no mass transit, etc).quote>

Just to get facts straight, this interview dates back from last January, as stated in the introduction, tough it was only published recently by Rock Paper Shotgun

[Tommo 0]

Originally posted by: RegisteringSucks

They did have direct access to tons of people who bought and still play SC4 via the forums at CU and CXL.  These people did more than answer a survey.  They were willing, in some cases incredibly eager, to directly tell MC what they wanted in a new city building game.  They spent hours posting, explaining, fleshng out ideas...Telling MC what they wanted, what would make them buy the game and play it for years, and why.  quote>

Well, I think that this is not really  fair towards MC: how many software house do you know that actually open a forum for suggestions, talk with the user base, investigate "underground" things like NAM?

In fact there are absolutely no SHs that do this, because honestly fan suggestions are often just a mess.

I don't absolutely mean that each single opinion is crap; no, it's that the "average" desires of a fanbase are, in the end, a big and unoriginal more of the same, that often would not even be funny if built.

The massified FPSes that everyone blames, for example, are often tailored to appeal to the most generic user base... while instead many good games were initially blamed by long-time fans because of their difference from what they like most.

So you can't expect that an auto-financed SH just sits there and listen what YOU want to play. It's already a good thing that they changed so much after City Life to please the fan base...

[warrior 169]

Mathew, so why did half the things change?

This is soo aggrevating, you say one thing but you don't do it. Next time this happens I'm getting on the train to France, and going to find out exactly whats going on over there!

"investigate "underground" things like NAM"

Errm, they did not investigate the NAM. Phillip merely said the NAM was an inspiration. the NAM team wasn't asked for inside info. And if the NAM was really an inspriation well CXL would be the best it could possibly be, with the abilty to improve on it constantly.

Jonathan

[Mr_Maison 2,426]

Originally posted by: Tommo

Originally posted by: RegisteringSucks

They did have direct access to tons of people who bought and still play SC4 via the forums at CU and CXL.  These people did more than answer a survey.  They were willing, in some cases incredibly eager, to directly tell MC what they wanted in a new city building game.  They spent hours posting, explaining, fleshng out ideas...Telling MC what they wanted, what would make them buy the game and play it for years, and why.  quote>

Well, I think that this is not really  fair towards MC: how many software house do you know that actually open a forum for suggestions, talk with the user base, investigate "underground" things like NAM?

In fact there are absolutely no SHs that do this, because honestly fan suggestions are often just a mess.

I don't absolutely mean that each single opinion is crap; no, it's that the "average" desires of a fanbase are, in the end, a big and unoriginal more of the same, that often would not even be funny if built.

The massified FPSes that everyone blames, for example, are often tailored to appeal to the most generic user base... while instead many good games were initially blamed by long-time fans because of their difference from what they like most.

So you can't expect that an auto-financed SH just sits there and listen what YOU want to play. It's already a good thing that they changed so much after City Life to please the fan base...

quote>

Over the 2 years I been on the CXL official site (before they deleted it recently) I saw many genius ideas brought to the table by city builder fans. Yes there were some outrageous requests but many great ideas. Besides, MC INVITED those who signed up and shared their ideas with a feeling of "this game cannot fail as long as they listen to even half our ideas". And in the end what do we have? I feel bad for this community.

What are you saying is not fair to MC? I dont understand.

[Tommo 0]

I'm saying that you can't blame MC for ignoring many of the ideas, because most software houses would just ignore them all and do as they want.

How many games do you know that had a mod as an inspiration?

As i said, it's not fair that you ask them to "Ask NAM team for inside info" or "directly do what user told"...they were already generous in doing what they did.

And in fact is because of these good premises one can be disappointed on how the game (and the community relations) turned out; in fact i am.. they cut off from the fan base in the moment they needed it more... when it had to give them money.

They say they want to make fast cash; i think that selling a stripped down single player version will have exactly the opposite effect turning off player from the game even in the long period.

But some rants around here are just excessive, that's all.

[Numpty Dumpty 17]

Originally posted by: Tommo

I'm saying that you can't blame MC for ignoring many of the ideas, because most software houses would just ignore them all and do as they want.

How many games do you know that had a mod as an inspiration?

As i said, it's not fair that you ask them to "Ask NAM team for inside info" or "directly do what user told"...they were already generous in doing what they did.

And in fact is because of these good premises one can be disappointed on how the game (and the community relations) turned out; in fact i am.. they cut off from the fan base in the moment they needed it more... when it had to give them money.

They say they want to make fast cash; i think that selling a stripped down single player version will have exactly the opposite effect turning off player from the game even in the long period.

But some rants around here are just excessive, that's all.quote>

What do you mean you can't blame them?

If you're going to create a forum with the mantra "help us make this game awesome", giving the illusion that the communitys input matters even a little bit, then create a game that leaves these exact same players scratching their heads thinking "wtf?", who else is there to blame?

Who is to blame for that?

There were so many GOOD ideas provided on the forums that people spent MUCH of their time creating, discussing and developing which have now been destroyed, yet we have a game full of these terrible ideas that not one single person asked for.

Less info? Who asked for that?

Less micromanagement (two sultry tax sliders in the whole game to manage)? Who asked for that?

Paying a monthly fee to be able to build a train station? Who asked for that?

If they weren't going to take peoples ideas, they should have at LEAST realized the IMPORTANCE and PRIORITY on the whole that the community generally felt in regards to certain things i.e. city management/mass transit.

Yet here we are and mass transit and city management are the LAST things to be implemented in the game, and they both come with a monthly fee. Just goes to show how much the communities input/wants really mattered to them.

If someone tells you that your input will help shape a games development in a genre that you like enough to spend so much of your time trying to help out, only to see next to nothing come of your time spent (yes, some people consider their time precious to them) in the end product, who else is to blame but the person who gave you the idea that your (collective or singular) opinion mattered and made you waste your time thinking you could make a difference if you thought up a great idea?

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I did indeed see some things in the game (the demo no less!) that were requested by the community. I also saw some things that were removed somewhere between the alpha and now; the most notable being the lack of 20x20, 20x40, and 40x20m lots; hopefully someone will make RI plopables (commercial is already plopable). The multi-lane tool is another. Elevated rail was in the first screen shot ever released (before cuplanet.com even), and those are not in the demo, HOWEVER there is an overlay that shows citylinks for inter-city rail (not just one for inter-city road). I KNOW FOR A FACT that international airports are in the game, I read iot in a press release and saw it on YouTube! There is an overlay for sea/water city links so seaports are most likely in the game. All this means that the game is not all bad.

[Tommo 0]

 I agree with likeseattle, it's exactly my feeling...maybe the new SC4 is indeed there under tons of marketing and wrong gameplay choices... 

@numpty dumpy

these are exactly the excessive rants i was mentioning - letting aside the money part (which is just awful) the rest of the things are irrelevant features in the broader scope of a game; many are design choices that only look bad for you, maybe... for example i like the less info part, green to red is definitely better of random number that appeared often in SC4 for example.

And you aren't representative of the fanbase, to make money they have (unfortunately) to also address casual gamers!

I think that in the current market, where the most hardcore thing is Halo, and the wii has groundbreaking success with games shallow as a pond, investing everything in a citybuilder is indeed a courageous decision... and you can't (again, unfortunately) expect a game with more options than SC4.

Anyway if this is the price of asking for ideas, don't worry, they won't repeat the same mistake

[LordOscar 0]

HOWEVER there is an overlay that shows citylinks for inter-city rail (not just one for inter-city road).

Maybe you will just be connecting some rail in the blue/green intercity areas to increase your passenger and freight services.

I KNOW FOR A FACT that international airports are in the game, I read iot in a press release and saw it on YouTube! There is an overlay for sea/water city links so seaports are most likely in the game.

Maybe they just increase passenger and freight services, and nothing more. Basically online features. You need more capacity to trade agriculture or water ? Build a seaport. You need more capacity for tourism or workers? Build an airport.

[Numpty Dumpty 17]

Originally posted by: Ilikeseattle

I did indeed see some things in the game (the demo no less!) that were requested by the community. I also saw some things that were removed somewhere between the alpha and now; the most notable being the lack of 20x20, 20x40, and 40x20m lots; hopefully someone will make RI plopables (commercial is already plopable). The multi-lane tool is another. Elevated rail was in the first screen shot ever released (before cuplanet.com even), and those are not in the demo, HOWEVER there is an overlay that shows citylinks for inter-city rail (not just one for inter-city road). I KNOW FOR A FACT that international airports are in the game, I read iot in a press release and saw it on YouTube! There is an overlay for sea/water city links so seaports are most likely in the game. All this means that the game is not all bad.quote>

If you don't mind paying a monthly fee to place a trainstation, then it may not be that bad for you.

IMO, that's bad.

Also, everything is plopable.

[Numpty Dumpty 17]

Originally posted by: Tommo

 I agree with likeseattle, it's exactly my feeling... the new SC4 is indeed there under tons of marketing and wrong gameplay choices... 

@numpty dumpy

these are exactly the excessive rants i was mentioning - letting aside the money part (which is just awful) the rest of the things are irrelevant features in the broader scope of a game; many are design choices that only look bad for you, maybe... for example i like the less info part, green to red is definitely better of random number that appeared often in SC4 for example.

And you aren't representative of the fanbase, to make money they have (unfortunately) to also address casual gamers!

I think that in the current market, where the most hardcore thing is Halo, and the wii has groundbreaking success with games shallow as a pond, investing everything in a citybuilder is indeed a courageous decision... and you can't (again, unfortunately) expect a game with more options than SC4.

Anyway if this is the price of asking for ideas, don't worry, they won't repeat the same mistake quote>

The point I was making, is that the people they asked to give their product support from the very beginning, and those who have done their best to do so till now are not casual gamers. It was the non-casual/hardcore gamers.

"Casual gamers" don't spend hours of their life coming up with strategies/ideas to publish on forums.

I have no doubt in my mind that casual gamers are who MC are going for (but that was only after playing the game, which is another issue), but the fact is, that they gave the impression that the hardcore players would benefit from providing input.

The point I am making, is that it seems wrong to alienate those who tried their hardest to help, in order to sell to a group of people who couldn't care less and would probably

Noone is moaning because the game doesn't have MORE than SC4, they are moaning because it has LESS and to get to equal grounds you have to pay $20 every three months.

And again with the "this is what happens when you ask for ideas" thing.

This is not what happens when you ask for ideas.

This is what happens when:

-you ask for ideas

-ignore the community as a wholes most desired features

-keep the community in the dark for the most part about their most desired features

-reveal that they will have to pay $20 every three months to have access to their most desired features

If they were more open to the community, this wouldn't happen.

Why is it only now that we find out that we have nothing but buses unless we pay monthly? Why did we need someone to point it out to everyone, who then needed a rep to officially clarify it before we actually knew? That just goes to show how open and straight forward the info being given to us is.

Why is there so much mystery about so many things this close to release? Its just annoying.

[geek12 0]

Originally posted by: Mathew_MC

Originally posted by: geek12

This review was done on Wednesday, so it's not like this was done before we started to really rip into the games flaws (no mass transit, etc).quote>

Just to get facts straight, this interview dates back from last January, as stated in the introduction, tough it was only published recently by Rock Paper Shotgun

quote>

Thats strange that they just published it... Anyways i wish i would have read that before making myself look like an idiot.

[dedgren 830]

In any event, whenever the article was originally written, Mr. Gastaldi and his company will be fairly shortly learning the true meaning of the term "backlash."

David

[ch0c0 13]

they have every right to not listen to any suggestions.....its their game.

however, asking for input...and then ignoring all of it....was a ploy to get some people on board and excited about the game....and it seemed to work.

point? dont ask for advice that you do not intend to heed.

[sthudig 0]

Originally posted by: ch0c0

they have every right to not listen to any suggestions.....its their game.

however, asking for input...and then ignoring all of it....was a ploy to get some people on board and excited about the game....and it seemed to work.

point? dont ask for advice that you do not intend to heed.quote>

I wholeheartedly agree....the last two years of forums and ideas and dreams were nothing but a cheap marketing gimmick. Hence, the forums are down now, they've served their purpose.

[Redhunt 0]

was CIty LIfe hard? Yes for me. Too many population categories which is not only not automatically sorted, but also requires a specific dynamic to work. ACK> That's even more micro-management than the whole Simcity.