Biggest Failure of CXL?

[Kredit 0]

Originally posted by: panthersimcity4

Two words: Planet Offer.quote>

Actually, I think the problem is in the inclusion of Solo Play.

It's more than obvious MC designed this game with online play in mind. And although the online options are limited at the moment, I think there's lots of potential here....

However, because PO is "optional" and a traditional offline mode is included, two things happen:

-"Traditionalists" will dislike the PO on general principle and stay away from it.

-People will be unclear on what the game is: Is it an online game, with monthly fee, that you happen to be able to play offline if you choose, or is it an offline game that you can play online as well? 

And that's a problem. Because what this does is create two seperate "communities", with different wishes and expectations... So you have to try to please 2 groups, with basically still one product.

In my opinion, they should have made a choice and stuck with it... Either make a traditional offline city builder, or take a chance and release an online city builder, subscription mandatory and only online play. Not this "we want to make it an online, sub-based, game... but we fear a lot of the players won't want that, so we'll sell it as an offline game as well... but of course we do want everyone to play it online and pay the sub, so we will make the online game more appealing!"

I can completely understand why they did this. Releasing it as online-only would have been a BIG risk. Not including online play would not be an option (I know the majority here thinks MC wants this to be online because they can milk it for more cash then, but I tend to think that they simply thought it would add an extra dimension to city building, making it a better game... thus selling better and making them more money, of course ).

 

So they compromised (I'm sure Marketing and Develepmont had some fun meetings on the subject ) and released it the way it is now. Compromises, while sometimes necessary, are seldom a good thing for quality...

[JakeMD 107]

(thread read)

[chkltcow 0]

Originally posted by: Kredit

Actually, I think the problem is in the inclusion of Solo Play.

It's more than obvious MC designed this game with online play in mind. And although the online options are limited at the moment, I think there's lots of potential here....

In my opinion, they should have made a choice and stuck with it... Either make a traditional offline city builder, or take a chance and release an online city builder, subscription mandatory and only online play. Not this "we want to make it an online, sub-based, game... but we fear a lot of the players won't want that, so we'll sell it as an offline game as well... but of course we do want everyone to play it online and pay the sub, so we will make the online game more appealing!"

quote>

I wish they would have, as it would have $40 more in my bank account now, as there's absolutely NO way I would have touched it with a 10 ft pole.  As-is, I've spent $40 on a game that will likely not be touched again because it's really just... not all that fun.  And there's no way I'm paying extra for a promise of content that's "coming soon" when right now the only thing that money gets me is a chat room.  I REALLY wish they would have just gone MMO only instead of having us "traditionalists" waste our money on a gimped single player experience.

Compromises, while sometimes necessary, are seldom a good thing for quality...

quote>

AMEN!

[smg77 0]

Originally posted by: Kredit

Originally posted by: panthersimcity4

Two words: Planet Offer.quote>

Actually, I think the problem is in the inclusion of Solo Play.

It's more than obvious MC designed this game with online play in mind. And although the online options are limited at the moment, I think there's lots of potential here....

quote>

Can you expand on this a little? I can't think of a genre that makes less sense as a MMO than city building games and other than the very shallow resource trading system that is in the game now what else in Cities XL was designed with online play in mind? This is a serious question...I'd like to know if I'm missing something.

[deanco 0]

It's not the biggest failing, but it's the failing that best seems to symbolize what's wrong with this whole project;

When I play single player, before I can play, I get a nag screen. Actually, I get 3 nag screens, exhorting me to subscribe, and I have to click through each one, and specify at the end that no, I most assuredly do not want to give you money every month for a chat box and promises, before I can play this game I paid 45

[ForceInfinity 0]

Two words.... *cough*Hellgate London*cough*

Originally posted by: Kredit

Originally posted by: panthersimcity4

Two words: Planet Offer.quote>

Actually, I think the problem is in the inclusion of Solo Play.

It's more than obvious MC designed this game with online play in mind. And although the online options are limited at the moment, I think there's lots of potential here....

However, because PO is "optional" and a traditional offline mode is included, two things happen:

-"Traditionalists" will dislike the PO on general principle and stay away from it.

-People will be unclear on what the game is: Is it an online game, with monthly fee, that you happen to be able to play offline if you choose, or is it an offline game that you can play online as well? 

And that's a problem. Because what this does is create two seperate "communities", with different wishes and expectations... So you have to try to please 2 groups, with basically still one product.

In my opinion, they should have made a choice and stuck with it... Either make a traditional offline city builder, or take a chance and release an online city builder, subscription mandatory and only online play. Not this "we want to make it an online, sub-based, game... but we fear a lot of the players won't want that, so we'll sell it as an offline game as well... but of course we do want everyone to play it online and pay the sub, so we will make the online game more appealing!"

I can completely understand why they did this. Releasing it as online-only would have been a BIG risk. Not including online play would not be an option (I know the majority here thinks MC wants this to be online because they can milk it for more cash then, but I tend to think that they simply thought it would add an extra dimension to city building, making it a better game... thus selling better and making them more money, of course ).

 

So they compromised (I'm sure Marketing and Develepmont had some fun meetings on the subject ) and released it the way it is now. Compromises, while sometimes necessary, are seldom a good thing for quality...

quote>

[Greybeard 0]

------

Dear Joe,
 
First of all, we would like to thank you for your interest in the Cities XL. 

We are sorry for the inconvenience, website synch is weekly for the moment, our teams are working on it.

Thanks again for playing Cities XL.

Best regards,

The Cities XL Team.

-----

And I will continue to pay for it... Thanks for your interest in the value I'm getting for my money...(which is very low)
So when will this be what we are paying for? a month? 6 months? A Year? 2 Years?
Will there be any compensation in the way of free planet months for the sub-standard lack of paid service?

On another point, why are these forums so ridiculously laggy and takes 2 minutes to post?

Cheers

[rss334 0]

9 dollars a month?  For what?   To help MC finish the content that should have already been in the game?   Comon MC get your heads out of the sand!  

[gmcausland 0]

That sounds very annoying indeed.  As it stands, I do not want to purchase this game until they get rid of the pointless online system.

[madgazza 0]

I find it amazing that criticism is coming from people who haven't played or purchased the game. How does that work?

To me CXL is an okay game. It's not perfect by any means but then there aren't many perfect games.

I took Sim City 4/ Rush hour off my PC. I can't play something nearly seven years old Talk about boring.

[Craig-Abcvs 1,595]

The issue of whether people are willing to pay for the online Planet Offer, and whether they believe it to be value for money,  has been discussed at quite some length.

There are two points of view.

1.    I am willing to pay for the extra online content and think it is worthwhile.

2.    I am not willing to pay for the extra online content and think it not worthwhile.

Those who hold either view are unlikely to be convinced otherwise.   Continued discussion on this will simply simply be a repetative cycle.

 Thread closed.