Cities XL is NOT an MMO

[wondergreat 0]

Originally posted by: 0wn3d

Would you prefer to have every city viewable from the planet view, and then when your done loading all those buildings a year later you can play the game? 

quote>

Yes, and it would definitely inspire more interactive gameplay design. But it is technically too consuming to our hardware making it impossible to develop.

The goal for a MMO is give the player an impression that other players are virtually around him/her, allowing direct interaction between these participants within a limited range (which is usually limited by the estimated hardware and server capability). You build your city without the appearance that other neighbouring cities are around you, not to mention the direct interaction with these neighbouring cities  (except in the planet view that your dot is surrounded by other city slots. But the geographical presentation is arbitrary and completely void to the gameplay) So that doesn't make CXL an MMO.

[moaku 74]

My opinion about persistent world on cxl: Not present...

Yes, the planet do store your cities on the server and it's staying even if frozen only...

Persistent for me means that it's server-sided and seen the same way for everyone...

But... let's have an hypotetical scenario...

Player A builds his city and just added tons of new zones / buildings / landmarks / whatever since his last server-save... Next server-save should occur, let's say, about 10 minutes after that... Player B visits Player A's city before those 10 minutes end, so before the "save upload" is done by Player A... Will Player B see things Player A just built ? No ! Even if they're able to chat together, they will not see the same city until the save has been uploaded by Player A, so the world is NOT persistent, since not everyone sees it identically...

Anyway i'm fine considering it as an MMO, even if I see it more like a capped single player game with paying multiplayer option yet.

[dedgren 830]

0wn3d... hmmm. Interesting nic, my friend.

I guess the question is- by who?

David

[autumnsolace 0]

i think you can call cities XL a game with massive multiplayer elements, it's just a pathetic excuse for one. a very, very tiny step in the direction of citybuilders going the way of the web. probably the wrong step, too.

[Androv 6]

How about other people visiting your city..... that would *almost* fit the MMORPG description rather than just an MMOG ... so the argument that it isn't an MMOG/MMORPG doesn't really hold water *at all*.

I had someone visit my city and comment on my industry placement etc, and I'l visit theirs when they are back online.

[Renobe 0]

The cities XL home page stated the game is now orderable. Because the web page makes no mention, or how to find out if the game is playable without a internet connection, one must assume the game has DRM.

[moaku 74]

@Renobe: There are other threads about that, but short answer: You install the game then you need to activate your copy online. Once this is done, you can play offline without connecting... You'll just need a connection if you wish to retrieve lastest patch(es). There is also an "online check" each 1-2 months that could mean "reactivating your game online".

See threads about the need of internet connection for more infos on this.

[Rob86 34]

Go on and search the web for FREE MMOs, and you will see that there is more of a multiplayer aspect to it than CXL.

It is easy to see whether or not a game is an MMO or not. Plug out your internet cable and see if the game still offers about the same quality of play when offline.

I'll bet there isn't much of a diff in CXL.

Now, IMO, if CXL was to be a real MMO, it would at least enable simultaneous play of 1 city with 10 players(with each player at the same time playing their own cities with another 10 people), with each player in control of a a certain zone, utility, GEM(restaurant empire plugin, theme park plugin.......), transportation(rail & bus companies, airport & seaports.....) or any combination of controls in the game. AND enable cause and effect of that particular city on another neighboring one i.e micro-managing disaster response, pacifying Godzilla, sending rioters to cause a nuisance in your enemies city....or whatever the company can surprise us with. (it's sad when fans can come up with a more interesting premise than the experts themselves)

Can MC do it? Sure they can. Get another EU10million loan and hire 5x more programmers.( which probably only stands at 2 at the current state of affairs)

[mechamind 0]

When I first read that Cities Xl is an MMO, I was expecting the game to have the feature to allow players to build cities that will interconnect visually with other players on the map.

After playing Cities Xl, the game feels like a single player game to me.

In fact, I decided to play solo mode instead of planet mode because loading PO gives me problems when there are more than 3,000 cities.

[sparky66 0]

if only they would realise that the MMO thing doesn't suit the game and solo mode should be the main focus. a bit of multiplayer interaction would be nice, but you shouldn't need to pay a subscription to keep playing. if only they would sell the PO content and mass transit to solo players...

[Myself.or.? 5]

Originally posted by: knightrider

When I first heard that they were going to make this game MMO, my initial reaction was disbelief. Then I got to thinking, how could one actually make a city builder into an MMO?

First of all, there would need to be a spirit of cooperation. Cities on the planets could be grouped into countries. Each city within the country would share resources automatically. Why? Because mayors don't trade in commodities like offices and manufacturing, the free market should do this. Thus, it would be handled by the simulation. Distance would also be a factor. For example, if you have a shortage of fuel, it would not be a problem as long as a close neighbor within your country has fuel, because it can be assumed your sims would seek out the supply of fuel like people do in real life, not wait around for the mayor to provide it. This shared bond between cities would become less efficient with distance. Neighbor connections should also be realistic... a road connection lets you connect to other cities by road. An airport lets you go farther. An airport in a nearby city could also service yours.

Secondly, the population should move in and out of cities and not just spawn/disappear magically. In this manner, a city that sucks might have people move out in favor of another city. Because of this, you would actually have to compete with others, even within your own country, to make your city appealing. This would encourage everyone to make the best city possible. It would also be possible for sims to commute from your town to another for work if the cities are close. Careful, though. If the commute gets too grueling, they'll just move closer to work.

Trade between countries would also be possible. This would have to be done through trade deals, no automatic sharing here.

Some other cool ideas: Sports teams between cities and countries could face off and the game could provide updates on which teams are playing and who wins the "game". Also, there could be special buildings, like capitol buildings, where only one is allowed per country. Little roads would start to develop on the planet view for cities that are linked by road. Planes would fly around to/from cities with airports. Ships in the oceans, too.

That's just my take on how a city builder MMO should work, but let's see what CXL has:

A trade window

A chat box

Even worse, the location you choose on the globe affects nothing, the globe is just a pretty graphic. There are no realistic distances. A simple neighbor connection allows trade with the other side of the globe.

One could come up with many ways to make a city builder MMO.  Unfortunately, CXL doesn't do any of them.

quote>

As much as I do agree with you (the way you imagine it would be just great), could it be that we're in front of something different altogether??

After we've built a bunch of lovely and ugly cities, could this turn into a new 'second life'?

A few folks that build houses, create jobs, offer holiday options..., and a lot of people that pay a monthly fee to live in our cities and chat with others? Paying taxes, rent, shopping to help us earn money to keep constructing?

[niloluiz 21]

Originally posted by: Androv

How about other people visiting your city..... that would *almost* fit the MMORPG description rather than just an MMOG ... so the argument that it isn't an MMOG/MMORPG doesn't really hold water *at all*.

I had someone visit my city and comment on my industry placement etc, and I'l visit theirs when they are back online.quote>

It can meet your personal criteria for being called a MMOG or even a MMORPG, but that doens't turn it into a true MMOG in the broadest definition of the term, much less an MMORPG (that was really funny).

But the MMOG definition is not wrong per se. Adopting the basic criterias it can, technically, be considered a MMOG. But that's not the point of argument in this topic. What matter is if the gameplay "feels" like a true MMOG for most of people.

The hand-painting above say all.

So again, it's not about strict technical definitions, but the true gameplay feeling and if enough people aren't convinced about the MMO aspect of the game, MC will have either to improve things a lot, or drop the idea altogether.

Given that they didn't managed to put even ambient sounds in the game, I doubt that they will have the resources to make significative changes to the gameplay, before the public interest in the game vanish.

[John-SJ 13]

Originally posted by: niloluiz

Given that they didn't managed to put even ambient sounds in the game, I doubt that they will have the resources to make significative changes to the gameplay, before the public interest in the game vanish.

quote>

That's a good point.  Somehow I get the feeling that MC, not to mention the majority of game developers these days, has never heard the old adage, "You only get one chance to make a good first impression".

It is beyond my why game developers think it's okay to ship a game that is only partially finished and obviously under-tested.

And, to contribute to the main topic, apart from considerable play time with city simulation/builder games, I have also spent a lot of time in MMORPG games.  To consider CXL with PO an MMORPG is way beyond a stretch.

[PyroMancer 0]

Originally posted by: knightrider

When I first heard that they were going to make this game MMO, my initial reaction was disbelief. Then I got to thinking, how could one actually make a city builder into an MMO?

quote>

The closest game I ever saw to this, which was actually pretty good, was a game called Starpeace. Except instead of being the mayor of a city you were the owner of a corporation. It also took place on a planet and there were multiple cities on the planet but they were seamlessly connected, sorta like regions of SC4 only you didn't have to load between them.

Anyway one player could be elected as "Mayor" of each city and they were allowed to "zone" and do the other government type stuff. There were some restrictions though to being mayor so you weren't completely in control like in SimCity where you can doze established businesses and houses because you "feel" like it . 

Anyway the players could setup businesses and housing of many different types. They then ran those companies by adjusting the wages, prices of goods, and etc. The businesses did require raw goods which could either be made themselves or by other players. You could get them either via contract or simply put a max bid out and it would find the lowest price available. The only risk with that was if someone didn't sell goods for what you were willing to pay the business might stop production because it ran out and then sit their costing you lots of upkeep while you were away since it was a MMO that ran in real time. Which is why most people did contracts or made themselves thus making that "open market" not so open and a bit scarce at times.

One of the major down points of the game though was the "progressive tax system" they setup. Much like the Real Life tax system where you pay a larger percentage the more you make. The problem with it was that it was WAY to steep. If you made like 1B per Quarter (3months in game time) then the tax rate jumped from like 20% to 90%. So if you made $1 less then 1B you only paid 200K in taxes and made 800K profit. If you however made $1 over 1B you suddenly paid 900K in taxes and only made 100K in profit. 

This tax setup though applied to EACH industry in the game though. So I'll makeup 3 industries for this example. If you had a lumberyard, papermill, and book maker industries they all could make up to 1B before hitting that tax mark. If however you sold really cheap with the first 2 so the profits were high on the book marker that you went over 1B you had to pay more taxes. This mean you had to end up doing what REAL LIFE companies do which is creative accounting by charging more when selling to YOURSELF so the profits are lower for curtain companies and thus you pay less taxes.

Besides the hassle this tax system created is also meant that almost no one specialized in the game so it greatly limited trade since in order to maximize profits you had to be a jack of all trades. Of course the excuse of the developer was that they didn't want someone forming a monopoly and muscling out the competition.

The main source of competition came from the "consumers". As you had movie theaters, restaurants, car dealers, apartment buildings, and etc which were all marketed directly to the NPC citizens in the world. This did however still endup causing a bit of that muscling out the competition. Since in the game you could see the stats, including wages, price of goods, profits, and etc. of ANY building in the world. So new players would often look for industries that seemed profitable or good locations. They would then setup a rival car dealership, movie theater, or etc. across the street and often times slightly undercut the price of the company.

This of course did not go unnoticed by the owner of that business as they would login to see their profits had taken a dip. And then they would go look to see why and spot the offending new player's buildings. You could also view players stats in the game so they would easily see that it was a new player. They would then tell them to close down the business and go move to an undeveloped part of town or find a new city to build in. If the player refused the cut throat tactics would begin. The established player could afford to take a loss in that business and a few others because they had plenty of other profits else where. So they would sell at a huge loss forcing the new player to be unable to sell at a profit at that business and eventual close it down.

Some players went as far as to track down all the businesses the new player had setup rival business across the street and undercut them as well forcing the player to near bankruptcy. Though usually this was only within the confines of a single city to force the new player to move to another city. In the end the only "safe" way to start was to make raw goods and sell them to other players then when you got wealthy enough try selling to customers because even if you weren't new it was still a very cut throat competition .

Anyway I know the game wasn't really a CB since you ran individual companies but on a whole the players working together did eventually build rather large cities. And honestly I can't really think of another way you could really do a MMO CB. Since things like zoning and such would come down to people voting on how things should be laid out. Which does remind me that despite all the cut throat tactics it seems the mayors of most cities were the nicest of all the players and helped out new players a lot of times. I think it was in large part because their "re-election" depending on having the other players like them hehe.

Though in the end ironically the thing that said was their to help "protect" the game and keep players was what caused me to leave. That progressive tax designed to "punish monopolies" meant once I had reached the max income from all the industries there was no reason to expand any further since I'd have to build like 8X what I had to get back to the same profit I was before I hit the increase tax point. So I ended up quiting when I had gotten to that point cause I didn't feel like taking 20 steps back just to take 1 foward.

[PyroMancer 0]

Originally posted by: 0wn3d

The only way to make a ton of money is through exports, and the only way to get certain things is through imports if your not on a balanced map.  Obviously in the beginning there is no trade, there isn't supposed to be trade.  The beginning is supposed to be easy, but when you make a big city its very possible to have over 100 trade contracts.

quote>

So it sounds more like Cities XL is a MMO Trading Game with a fancy CB feature to help you organize your "production" facilities. Much like the early Ceaser games were more an Empire Building RTS with CB to manage the main resources of your empire/income. I only played the first 2 Ceaser games but that's how I remember them.

[Wootie 0]

I guess you can argue the semantics until you're blue in the face. In the end, all that matters is that people know what they're getting for their dollar.....or euro....or whatever. In the traditional sense, it's hard to conceptualize a city-building MMO since the definition has been created through role-playing and team-based games. I guess an MMO in my eyes, by its most basic definition, means lots of people are playing at the same time connected to the same server and any interactions happen in real-time. By that definition, it's an MMO. Very limited in MMO-llike (interactive) content, but MMO nonetheless.

[lucifon 0]

I dont think MC have specifically stated 'its an MMO'. Just because it has a subscription doesn't make it one. Aslong as they hold up on their end of the bargain with listening to feedback, patching stuff up, and most importantly keeping a steady regular flow of content coming then I'm happy to subscribe.

[wondergreat 0]

Originally posted by: lucifon

I dont think MC have specifically stated 'its an MMO'. Just because it has a subscription doesn't make it one. Aslong as they hold up on their end of the bargain with listening to feedback, patching stuff up, and most importantly keeping a steady regular flow of content coming then I'm happy to subscribe.quote>

www.citiesxl.com/component/option,com_community/Itemid,136/task,planet_offer/

"A Massively Multiplayer game" (bottom-left)

where you can build up to 5 different cities on persistent planets, trade and collaborate with thousands of players, visit their cities and manage your cities and friends network directly from the website. quote>

Q: MMO stands for what?

A: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMO   "Massively multiplayer online game"

The features which MC advertises for its MM aspect are all considered the "minor" components of a fully featured MMO game.

[Kredit 0]

Interesting article on this general subject:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_223/6641-M-is-for-Massive.3

I think what's happening in this discussion is that people are mixing up "MMO" and "MMORPG". MMORPG's have, by now, been quite well defined. MMO's in general haven't. as new online games are developed, the defenition changes. Put simply, to be considered an MMO, you have to be 2 things: Massively Multiplayer and Online. Multiplayer is simple, online is simple, Massive is subjective at best.

I agree that there isn't a lot of interaction between different players, but in itself that's not what "defines" an MMO. Sure, if you're all online together it makes sense to use that to the game's advantage. And yes, I hope they expand on this in the future in CXL. But that doesn't mean it's not an MMO right now. There's still potentially thousands of players all building their cities on the same planet. They can talk, trade and visit eachothers cities... not exactly a plethora of options, but still.

One thing I'd really like to see them add is some sort of city-linking, so that you could, for instance, have automatic trading with other cities (either your own or another player's). The way it could work is by adding a "trade with " option, where you can make "normal" trades or resources for resources trade...

Some sort of "guild" function would be really nice as well, as this changes the community from a large, unconnected mess into smaller but much tighter groups, which as a whole can form a much tighter community. It would also serve to "bond" people to the game (and the planet offer) as friends are often harder to leave behind than a game.

Something I'm most certainly not holding my breath for though is a "real time" planet, where you can see all cities all the time etc.. Of course this would be wonderful, but I don't think it will be technologically/financially possible to get this done any time soon.

[Androv 6]

It seems possible to make a 'country' (or 'guild') with several players, each exchanging resources so that you can all build big cities / a nation / etc. You can visit each others cities. That definitely fits 'online', 'multiplayer', even the 'rpg' element if you roleplay with your avatars (not that there's anything you can actually *do* with them yet apart from have a chicken dance party)..... and if there are several such 'countries' or guilds then you've got the massive bit down as well.

[wondergreat 0]

Originally posted by: Androv

It seems possible to make a 'country' (or 'guild') with several players, each exchanging resources so that you can all build big cities / a nation / etc. You can visit each others cities. That definitely fits 'online', 'multiplayer', even the 'rpg' element if you roleplay with your avatars (not that there's anything you can actually *do* with them yet apart from have a chicken dance party)..... and if there are several such 'countries' or guilds then you've got the massive bit down as well.quote>

P2P trading, online chatting, visiting other cities and getting togther through the avatars can be counted "multiplayer online" features. The real problem is, if these features justify a subscription model without a more interactive mechanics which would affect the growing of player's city.

Base on the beta experience, we will see if this model works after 2-3 months, maybe sooner.

[Craig-Abcvs 1,595]

 

[Kredit 0]

Originally posted by: wondergreat

Originally posted by: Androv

It seems possible to make a 'country' (or 'guild') with several players, each exchanging resources so that you can all build big cities / a nation / etc. You can visit each others cities. That definitely fits 'online', 'multiplayer', even the 'rpg' element if you roleplay with your avatars (not that there's anything you can actually *do* with them yet apart from have a chicken dance party)..... and if there are several such 'countries' or guilds then you've got the massive bit down as well.quote>

P2P trading, online chatting, visiting other cities and getting togther through the avatars can be counted "multiplayer online" features. The real problem is, if these features justify a subscription model without a more interactive mechanics which would affect the growing of player's city.

Base on the beta experience, we will see if this model works after 2-3 months, maybe sooner.quote>

That's the important question. Wether or not this can be called an MMO does not matter one bit in itself. What matters is will people be prepared to pay?

Personally, I don't care about the monthly fee. The amount is about the same as what I spend on lunch at work... each day.

 

Of course, it's not about "the money", it's about "the principle"... Well, I guess you could have objections to buying a game "unfinished" and then having to continue paying for updates and full functionallity, it seems logical to object to that... but is it? 

I think the problem is that while development on games has become much, much, much more expensive in, say, the last 15 years, the price of games hasn't changed that much... Yes, the market has grown, so more copies get sold... but the initial investment is so high, you have to be pretty sure you'll get good sales...

This has a number of results: 

-A lot of companies only release "sure things" (EA being the first example that springs to mind)

-They will try to find ways to make a game earn them more money than simply the shelf-price (add-ons, expansions, online plans, etc.)

-Publishers will push designers to get a game done quickly, as each day it's in development it costs money rather than earn them money. And since "everyone" has an internet connection nowadays, they can "get away" with releasing an unfinished product as they can update it later.

Cities XL is a good example of the latter 2. Which I much prefer over the first.... So I'll pay my couple of euros each month and hope they put it to good use continuing to develop the game 

[loopmystery 0]

Originally posted by: wondergreat

P2P trading, online chatting, visiting other cities and getting togther through the avatars can be counted "multiplayer online" features. The real problem is, if these features justify a subscription model without a more interactive mechanics which would affect the growing of player's city.

Base on the beta experience, we will see if this model works after 2-3 months, maybe sooner.quote>

This. The trade feature is the only multiplayer element that has gameplay consequences. An MMO must be something more than "a single-player game with one multiplayer element".

Yes, Second Life is technically a game. But MC shouldn't have marketed the game as a "next generation city builder" if it actually meant "next generation social game".

[JanYpe 17]

Read this

all of it

kinda wish I hadn't.

[Kredit 0]

Originally posted by: loopmystery

Originally posted by: wondergreat

P2P trading, online chatting, visiting other cities and getting togther through the avatars can be counted "multiplayer online" features. The real problem is, if these features justify a subscription model without a more interactive mechanics which would affect the growing of player's city.

Base on the beta experience, we will see if this model works after 2-3 months, maybe sooner.quote>

This. The trade feature is the only multiplayer element that has gameplay consequences. An MMO must be something more than "a single-player game with one multiplayer element".

Yes, Second Life is technically a game. But MC shouldn't have marketed the game as a "next generation city builder" if it actually meant "next generation social game".quote>

But what if they think the "next generation of city builder'" is an Online city builder?  I agree that the multiplayer facets are limited right now, but they are there.... I'm sure they'll evolve and be expanded upon in the future, but for now, this is an MMOCB, you're online, with "massive" amounts of other players, playing a City Builder

Yes, most other MMO's, especially MMORPG's, offer a lot more "multiplayer" content. But, that's in part because of the type of game (adventuring is much more logical to do in a group than building a city).

I think with a City Builder, it's more about creating the impression that your city is "real", it exists somewhere outside your harddrive. Other people can visit it, even if you're logged off. You can trade with other cities, so there's some interdependency as well, wich adds to the "real" feeling.

And, let's not forget, there's no traditional Save-Load option (yes, the game save on intervals and exit and loads when you enter, but you can't save, try something silly, ruin your city and then load the old save again... well, unless of course you build an interstate only to find out they are ridiculously expensive and you can't use it yet... so after loosing 1 million in about 5 turns you yank out your internet connection and hope for the best )

Bottom line: This game isn't an MMORPG, whether it's an MMO or not depends on your definition, but it (PO) is an online multiplayer game. For me, that's a plus. For some it won't be. "Luckily you can also play solo!" you might think... I'm not so sure. As is becoming more and more evident, if you want to enjoy the game fully, you'll need Planet Offer. I'm sure MC understand this. I think they included solo play because the city-builder players aren't by nature online players, and would possibly be turned off by having to pay a monthly fee. Why not simply make it an offline game alltogether then? Well... I think they truly believe that Online is the future for city builders, so they will try to get everyone to play that.

Basically, it's the same logic as "zOMG they "gimped" solo mode to force PO on us!", but reversed

Edit: I just came up with an analogy which I think demonstrates the broadness of the "multiplayer" concept.  Imagine a go-kart track. Imagine the following three situations:

-You go to the track with a group of friends. You are the only ones on the track, and race eachother for bragging rights.

-You go to the track by yourself. You are racing the clock, but other people are as well. Though you don't know any of the others, at the end of the day you compare your best time to the overall best time to see how you've done.

-You go to the track with a group of friends. You meet up with another group of go-kart enthusiasts and race eachother as teams.

-You go to the track with a few friends and race eachother and other people you don't know as well.

All of these I would call "multiplayer" in game-terms. But the actuall level of interaction between the players is very different in each situation... sometimes others are just a background to what you're doing, other times you actually depend on others to make you win...

[USA_Pride 49]

Originally posted by: buzzyboy

Offering game CONTENT is NOT an MMO
quote>

One hundred percent agreement!

Funny thing is, I accidentally recieved a CD-Key from MC without paying for it (order, canceled, got a refund, but they still sent me a CD-Key and download links).  So you'd think I'd be building like crazy in Cities XL.  Actually, I was playing SC4 last night despite owning CXL for free.

Cities XL without mass transit is just too inferior for me, even if I own it for free!  And I'll never be held hostage to a subscription that offers very few MMO features and instead allows you to rent game feautes.

I don't rent games, I buy them!  Just say no Planet Offer!

[USA_Pride 49]

Originally posted by: wondergreat

Yes, and it would definitely inspire more interactive gameplay design. But it is technically too consuming to our hardware making it impossible to develop.

The goal for a MMO is give the player an impression that other players are virtually around him/her, allowing direct interaction between these participants within a limited range (which is usually limited by the estimated hardware and server capability). You build your city without the appearance that other neighbouring cities are around you, not to mention the direct interaction with these neighbouring cities  (except in the planet view that your dot is surrounded by other city slots. But the geographical presentation is arbitrary and completely void to the gameplay) So that doesn't make CXL an MMO.

quote>

Your simple illustration is great.  The Planet Offer has no continuity between cities both in terms of road infrastructure and geography.

SC4's regional mode did this much better (however, it's only single player of course, and not coordinating with other players).

So basically the only thing remotely MMOish is the following:

- You can make your awkward looking character appear in other cities

- You can swear at people in a chat box

- You can participate in a very un-rewarding trade system

- You can go to other people's cities

Of all those only the last option has appeal to me.  The ability somewhat seamlessly into someone else's creation is a very cool feature.

[Aurelis 0]

Its actually puzzling that no one defended cities xl>< or rather completely disagreed with whole idea of the thread. Id expect atleast some hardcore fanbase but seems this days peoples getting smarter and think before wasting money to support rip-off schemes.

Can hardly imagine myself paying each month for single player game with chat and promises of discounts and updates in the future... specially since those are supposed to be free to start with.

[niloluiz 21]

Imagine if LEGO released a "City builder kit" but decided that the rail pieces, bus, and other cool pieces would be only for RENT....

It's no different here. They can put under subscription features that only make sense in a multiplayer enviorement, that is, genuine MMO-gameplay elements. This is fine. However use this scheme to turn core-elements of the game into a rental-only scheme is an attempt at insulting the public intelligence. It won't stick...

The reasonable model to adopt would be the release as DLC any content that fit single-player, and work hard to expand the on-line gameplay so the monthly fee is justifiable.

It's simple as that.