The (un)fulfilled expectations?

[baertooth 330]

My disappointment with CXL is the very obvious and unnecessary tying of many of the core game components to the Planet Offer just to justify the PO's price and necessity. My question, why not make the PO offer worth the money unto itself instead of trying to milk the player base? All that's being offered in the PO right now that's worth it to me are the things that have nothing to do with online play. I feel like that's greedy and it makes me resist. I learned my lesson after watching Microsoft and their subscription licensing model.

This has nothing to do with Simcity 4 and my expectations for Simcity 5. This has every thing to do with what I feel is 100% shady actions on the part of MC.

I have, or is it had, hope for CitiesXL. I played the beta. It was ok but the PO was next to completely unnecessary for me. I liked the game. I could see getting into it. But I'm not getting onto the subscription gravy train and pump all sorts of money into a game that does more to limit me than I care to permit.

And this part really bugs me. It's not like a WoW character, which could be created just as easily in a short time with a character editor as one would spend 1000hours into playing. Some of my cities are like a living story to me. From the first Simcity to the last, I play some like they are growing, compensating for the engine when it can't do it. Some like were mutations based on hacking the game engine. Some were experiments. Some were visual works and unpractical for simulation. The point is few of these cities could be recreated in a single sitting, or a hundred sittings. There are real investments of time and effort. But the best part is I still have many of my cities from Simcity 1 to 4. And if I want to load one up, I can. But what about those cities online, where MC wants me to play, or at least be tied to? What about those hundreds of hours and my works of art? Or if I play solo, all my cities will be busted for lack of the add-ons.

But the cherry is they will can and might use my work, without my permission, to further their interest. I'm not so rigid that I wouldn't allow them to, but doing so without permission is rude and offensive. I might have reasons for not sharing and by not simply asking, they would just roughshod over me but I'm the one who paid for the insult. How is that right?

The problem here isn't unfulfilled expectations. It's MC's crappy business model. They want my money, make me a product I want. CitiesXL is pretty close but it's got a pretty huge caveat that's making this wallet a no-sale.

[Soviet779 1]

Originally posted by: soltangris

Commanderkai, you have definetily proven that you have a problem with communication. I think we all agreed already that it is exactly the communication that landed MC in the jam - they have failed to communicate that they're not making the successor of SC5. I (and others) keep stating it not only in my orriginal post, but also in the ensuing dialog. So.... you actually agree with me while hotheadedly disagreeing.... it's funny, really.

Hoping that you'll spend more time in the future analising those posts that go deeper than pure expression of emotions, I conclude our dialog, and from now on I won't answer your posts anymore.quote>

Even if cities XL wasent meant to be SC5 that still dosent change the fact that its a pretty lousy unfinished game. Its a game, its meant to be fun, its failed at that for the majority of people.

[mentarman 14]

Originally posted by: Soviet779

Originally posted by: soltangris

Commanderkai, you have definetily proven that you have a problem with communication. I think we all agreed already that it is exactly the communication that landed MC in the jam - they have failed to communicate that they're not making the successor of SC5. I (and others) keep stating it not only in my orriginal post, but also in the ensuing dialog. So.... you actually agree with me while hotheadedly disagreeing.... it's funny, really.

Hoping that you'll spend more time in the future analising those posts that go deeper than pure expression of emotions, I conclude our dialog, and from now on I won't answer your posts anymore.quote>

Even if cities XL wasent meant to be SC5 that still dosent change the fact that its a pretty lousy unfinished game. Its a game, its meant to be fun, its failed at that for the majority of people.

quote>

What do you base that on? I don't think there's any way of knowing what the "majority of people" think of the game, at least not a way for us to know. I'm sure the majority of people who closely followed the development of the game are disappointed in one aspect or another of the game, but I think that can be said for most games? every game? and I think it is a bit much to say the game has failed to be fun for the majority of people.

There are some loud people who complain on here but that doesn't mean they represent the majority.

The vast majority of people who play the game we don't hear from either way on here.

Constructive criticisms of things that could be improved would be more helpful then broad generalizations that don't get us anywhere. Unless you are just venting, in which case, carry on I suppose, it is just a bit vexing for those who'd like to see this game carry on and improve to have every thread weighed down by such venting.

[soltangris 42]

The problem here isn't unfulfilled expectations. It's MC's crappy business model. They want my money, make me a product I want. CitiesXL is pretty close but it's got a pretty huge caveat that's making this wallet a no-sale.

No baertooth, the problem is exactly that you don't expect such a business model applied to a city-building game. You wan to have access to all your cities, all the time - fair enough. But you won't get that with CXL's PO, at least not now (I persist in my optimistic opinion that the wind of change is blowing).

Let me ask you a question: if MC develops the game to the level that you expect, but keeps the business model, are you gonna be happy paying monthly, or you're still gonna wish for another business model? If your answer is YES, I'll be happy to pay, than you have objective and specific in-game expectations that are not being met as of now.

If your answer is NO, I still don't wanna pay montlhy for a city-building game, than ?you're simply disliking their business model, and this game can't satisfy you whatever it becomes.

[Tuscan 20]

I must admit, I came very close to purchasing Cities XL even after its mainly negative reception I was almost fooled by the publicity stunts you all speak of, I held it in my hand in EB Games. Its only the feedback I read on Simtropolis that really prevented me from taking it to the checkout, and im kind of glad I didn't because I know I would have been somewhat disappointed. Its going to need some vast improvements before I go anywhere near it again, im talking mass transit, public transport and better trading to name but a few.    

[DazzaDazza 29]

Tuscan, it not that bad of a game, it has its problems abd bad points, Like every game, but single player is still a pretty good game, it not the best CB game you will ever play, but its better then some others that are out there.

This is what made me buy the game.

Think of the worst game you purchased, how long you play that game for, 1 day, 1 week maybe. If that

Now work out in your head the average time you take before you stop playing a game you just purchased

I can guaranty you will play CXL for about amount of time as you do any other game that you buy. I can also say (in my opinion) it is not the worst game you have ever played, matter of fact, it probably wouldn't be in the top 50 (depends on how many games you have played).

If you play the game with a negative view on it, all way picking out the bad points, and letting it consume you enjoyment of the game, then I guaranty you will hate it.

If you play it with an open mind, like you do with every other game you play, that has had 50/50 reviews. You will enjoy it.

[baertooth 330]

Originally posted by: soltangris

The problem here isn't unfulfilled expectations. It's MC's crappy business model. They want my money, make me a product I want. CitiesXL is pretty close but it's got a pretty huge caveat that's making this wallet a no-sale.

No baertooth, the problem is exactly that you don't expect such a business model applied to a city-building game. You wan to have access to all your cities, all the time - fair enough. But you won't get that with CXL's PO, at least not now (I persist in my optimistic opinion that the wind of change is blowing).

Let me ask you a question: if MC develops the game to the level that you expect, but keeps the business model, are you gonna be happy paying monthly, or you're still gonna wish for another business model? If your answer is YES, I'll be happy to pay, than you have objective and specific in-game expectations that are not being met as of now.

If your answer is NO, I still don't wanna pay montlhy for a city-building game, than ?you're simply disliking their business model, and this game can't satisfy you whatever it becomes.quote>

The problem wasn't my expectations about them offering an online game, I was very aware of the PO way before I started to complain.  I don't have a problem with that.  What I do have a problem with is what they finally came up with for online play is weak.  But in order to justify the weak gameplay of the PO, they tied many of the elements that would make their solo mode play worth getting to the online portion of the game to justify the subscription and to get people to ride the subscription gravey train regardless of online play or not.  I'm not a fool.  It's a plain as day that's what happened.

Monte Cristo is very similar to Maxis when it came to developement of their respective products.  They both conceived games that were possible to make, but not really possible to make if your running a business.  Both were too ambitious and got caught with a partially complete product when it came time to have something to sell.  Maybe if CitiesXL would have had another two years of developement, they would have come up with a decent offering for online play.  I don't know.  But what I do know is when I played the beta I was left with a "this is it?" feeling.  That's what I'm going to pay a monthly subscription for?

Basically, what's offered in the PO that is directly related to online play has about zero value to me.  I'm talking about trading, chatting, and visiting other's cities.  What's offered in the PO that is not directly related to online play is worth the price of the solo mode game but not a subscription.  So I'm stuck with a problem caused by their business model.  Do you see now it's not unfullfilled expectations but instead the fault of their crappy business model?

They should have started off with the intention of creating the CitiesXL community first, and then building a business model on that.  I think they would have been far better off to create a solo mode game first, much like the community wanted in the first place, and then build an online component for the game to soak the playerbase who wants more later.  Instead, they created a niche product which appeals to fewer people and allienates much of the existing Simcity 4 fanbase they were trying to tap.  Now they're fighting an uphill battle where if they did it the other way, it would be at least a more level field.

Instead, they came up with a business model that makes it so the most of their community is subscription payers.  OOPs.  That was a little short-sighted.  And it's going to cost them instead of profit them.  Why?  The more I look around the more I realize that if your not in the game, there's little going on otherwise.  I went to the other CitiesXL fansites and they're ghost towns.  Simtropolis is about 90-99% of the community outside of the game and it's not that busy here.  The paying community is reliant on new paying meat but as CitiesXL sales drop off, so will the new meat.  See the problem?  They made a tactical error because of greed and now it's costing them.

I'm hoping they come to their senses.  Christmas is here and if they act fast enough, they might be able to retain more of that rush.  But I expect they won't and in the end the CitiesXL community will shrivel instead of flourish like it did with SC4.

And believe me when I say I do not enjoy this.  I hate EA and what they did with Simcity and many other franchises.  How they jerked their loyal customers around time and time again.  I want MC to succeed.  I wanted my city building desires to be fullfilled by someone other than EA.  MC seemed committed to that.  But it's a real shame it's turning out this way because it seems like MC made many bad choices that severly dimished the splash CitiesXL could have had.  In fact, the more I crunch the numbers the more it seems like CitiesXL is going to be a investment loss and there won't be any profit from it.  That might mean the end of MC if they can't secure more investor money.  Seriously I do not relish these thoughts.

[Tuscan 20]

Originally posted by: baertooth

Originally posted by: soltangris

The problem here isn't unfulfilled expectations. It's MC's crappy business model. They want my money, make me a product I want. CitiesXL is pretty close but it's got a pretty huge caveat that's making this wallet a no-sale.

No baertooth, the problem is exactly that you don't expect such a business model applied to a city-building game. You wan to have access to all your cities, all the time - fair enough. But you won't get that with CXL's PO, at least not now (I persist in my optimistic opinion that the wind of change is blowing).

Let me ask you a question: if MC develops the game to the level that you expect, but keeps the business model, are you gonna be happy paying monthly, or you're still gonna wish for another business model? If your answer is YES, I'll be happy to pay, than you have objective and specific in-game expectations that are not being met as of now.

If your answer is NO, I still don't wanna pay montlhy for a city-building game, than ?you're simply disliking their business model, and this game can't satisfy you whatever it becomes.quote>

They should have started off with the intention of creating the CitiesXL community first, and then building a business model on that.  I think they would have been far better off to create a solo mode game first, much like the community wanted in the first place, and then build an online component for the game to soak the playerbase who wants more later.  Instead, they created a niche product which appeals to fewer people and allienates much of the existing Simcity 4 fanbase they were trying to tap.  Now they're fighting an uphill battle where if they did it the other way, it would be at least a more level field.quote>

I got to agree 100% there. Using PO created a niche product, it was the worse move MC could have possibly made, and the timing was incredibly bad. If they concentrated more on a decent solo game first like you said, build themselves a solid fanbase first, and then released PO as a later expansion pack they may have snatched the crown from SC4 as the king of city builders.    

[bluespottedhorse 49]

Should of, could of...would of...no one is a mind reader and can say why MC choose one option over another, that's just pure speculation on anyones part and therefore pretty useless. Ya I agree at first I was very disappointed with the game but I got over it. I am still hopeful that they will continue to evolve the game based on players advice. The newly released bus interface looks very well done and I hope that when trains are implemented they also perform similarily well. I like the planet offer but I think it's too much money to ask for given what you get.

I still haven't purchased the game and will let my pocket book do the talking to MC!

[soltangris 42]

Yeah, bluespottedhorse, that's how one should behave , I think. I absolutely don't have a problem whit anybody not buying the game, anybody hating it, as long as they express their opinions moderately. What I have a problem (and I'm not alone here) is the continuous and repetitive wining about it. Tell me, what right has anybody to condemn a game repeatedly without even owning it? Most of the worse 'flamers' confess they've only played the demo and read about the game in the forums and reviews.

But what's even worse is that they keep barging in the discussions of people that do play and enjoy it, interrupting the constructive ideas (and even criticism) being changed with the same old arguments, opinions and meaningless condemnation?

Even the moderators of the forum got tired of this behaviour and started deleting whole threads.

[RegisterST2 0]

Originally posted by: soltangris

Tell me, what right has anybody to condemn a game repeatedly without even owning it? Most of the worse 'flamers' confess they've only played the demo and read about the game in the forums and reviews. .quote>

Nothing personal,but didn't you do the same exact thing in reverse?  You were continually posting how great the game was, and when I asked you if you were playing PO or SP you said neither....you hadn't bought the game.

You may have bought it recently (I have no idea if you have or not), but for you to condemn people who did the same thing you did for quite a while is a bit odd.

EDIT:  Yes.....Here it is:  https://www.simtropolis.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=370&threadid=110419&STARTPAGE=5#1642403

"You may all laugh at me at this point but:

as a matter of fact, neither. I still didn't get the game....

I base my comments on the demo I played quite extensively, and the info and comments here and on the official MC site."

[cdagger 0]

Originally posted by: soltangris

Yeah, bluespottedhorse, that's how one should behave , I think. I absolutely don't have a problem whit anybody not buying the game, anybody hating it, as long as they express their opinions moderately. What I have a problem (and I'm not alone here) is the continuous and repetitive wining about it. Tell me, what right has anybody to condemn a game repeatedly without even owning it? Most of the worse 'flamers' confess they've only played the demo and read about the game in the forums and reviews.

But what's even worse is that they keep barging in the discussions of people that do play and enjoy it, interrupting the constructive ideas (and even criticism) being changed with the same old arguments, opinions and meaningless condemnation?

Even the moderators of the forum got tired of this behaviour and started deleting whole threads.quote>

No soltangris you are not alone.

As a member of this community I come to this fourm on a daily basis, and have done so since the release of Cities XL. And I am in complete agreememt in that I don't have a problem whth anyone not buying the game, or hating it, as long as they express their opinions moderately.

In regards to this small group of people that you are referring to, I'll say this: I've tried to empathize, but fail to understand why anyone with something better to do with their life, would do this. Again, by their own admission, some have stated they DON'T EVEN OWN THE GAME. I simply cannot fathom from any logical or sensible p.o.v. why anyone would come to a forum for a game they don't even own and behave like this. It would be laughable if it wasn't so blatantly pathetic. Do they actually think they are somehow helping me or the rest of us that don't agree with their p.o.v.?? That they're somehow trying to save us from ourselves?? That we're too naive or ignorant or just plain stupid to know better, or think for ourselves?? I don't need anyone to think for me, I know who I am and I own myself. I don't even have to think about that for one half of a second.

I own a copy of Cities XL, I paid for it with my own money, and while I don't neccessarily like every single thing about this game, or agree with how MC has chosen to do business, I have received much enjoyment from playing this game, and even if I was never able to play this game again, I've already gotten my money's worth out of it.

I've spent thousands of dollars in my lifetime on games and gaming in general. Before there were PC or console games, before there were even arcade games, all the way back to pinball machines, it's been a part of my life from when I was a child and I imagine will continue to be so until the day I die. And never in my life have I had the desire, let alone the idea to come to a forum to tear down a game that I not only didn't play, but that I didn't even own! That I didn't even pay one penny for! And then to top it off, do it on an almost daily basis for..... how long has this game been out for now? Two, two and a half months? For anybody reading this..... Is the point I'm trying to convey sinking in yet? Do I really need to go on?

In regards to this game, I don't need anybody to think for me, or save me from myself, and I'm quite lucid and confident in my cognative abilites to know better.

To these people whose expectations are unfulfilled or are being fulfilled, by continuing to post these negative comments, I say this, you've made your point already, and you made it quite a while ago.To the point that you've worn it out. And (I speak for myself only), the only thing that you're doing is distracting away from and diminishing this point. Your words no longer have any weight. At this moment, looking back I'm not sure they really ever did. They ring hollow. For me, by far, hands down, the worst thing about Cities XL are these complete and utter non constructive negitive post. That memory leak looks pretty good when I compare it to these said post.

Do they actually believe that they are contributing something positive or good here? Or helping this community in some way? Or that the majority of people that come to this forum and read their post don't see them for what thay truly are.. Selfish, self serving, and at our expense?

Joseph Campbell once said; " Revolution is not about tearing something down. It's about bringing something forth."

They come here under the false pretence that they are contributing somthing positive. That they are trying to create change for the greater good of this game Cities XL, the people that have already paid for this game, and the people yet to contribute, and that will continue to contribute their money and time to this game.

You bring forth nothing............ ALL YOU DO IS TEAR DOWN.

I don't have very many expectations from MC or Cities XL one way or the other. For me, this is simply a game... JUST A GAME. As with all things in life, it's had it's beginning, it's currently alive, and will have it's end. At some point I will simply move on.

 

"Let the dead bury the dead."

Moving on. Going to play Cities XL.

 

[catty-cb 4,411]

There has been alot of comments like this in here and other topics

simply cannot fathom from any logical or sensible p.o.v. why anyone would come to a forum for a game they don't even own and behave like this.quote>

Whether I like Cities XL or not (and yes I was a beta tester) I have been a member of this site long before Cities XL came along, hopefully will still be a member long after Cities XL has gone or found its own site or we have converted to a Cities XL site only, but till that day happens this is still SIMTROPOLIS and its for everyone who plays SimCity 4, SC Societies, the SIMS and now Cities XL and any other City Building game that comes along in the future

 

[soltangris 42]

"You may all laugh at me at this point but:

as a matter of fact, neither. I still didn't get the game....

I base my comments on the demo I played quite extensively, and the info and comments here and on the official MC site."

 

That was months ago, and it was due to a stupid distribution fault . Not only I own the game now, I play the PO quite extensively. And I beg to differ that I was posting any comments of the sort 'Great' - I was adressing from the very beggining the very way how the 'negativists' were bashing the game. The same point that I'm continuing to adress now. Maybe the great difference comes from the fact that I'm giving MC licence where due, something almost nobody seems to be doing. All you do is giving comments about the negative sides, never about the positive ones. Of course that when you compare a comment of mine with such a one, you'll see me almost as an MC employee.

Understand, when you read about something that has, let's say, 10 positive and 10 negative fetaures, it gets really tiring to see only the 10 negative ones repeatedly pointed out and brought forth with a sort of triumphal 'See! I told you!' feeling. And also contiunously getting into discussions about someone that dares to point out one or more of the positive features.... But I suppose somebody will dare me now to point 10 positive features.... Well, go to the 'CXL Reviews' thread and read my review there. Then come and say that I'm blind.  

Again, I don't have problems with anybody bashing the game. I have problems with him/her doing so repeatedly and redundadly. And please stop trying to make me feel guilty that I like CXL and MC!

[baertooth 330]

I post here because I can't post at an official CitiesXL forum. I posted in this thread because you started a thread with a blanket explanation, in your opinion, of what you felt. I posted an answer that, at least speaking for me (and I know there are others who share my view), that your explanation was inaccurate (in fact I felt it was inflammatory). But I posted a level answer. Now you're turning it into a bawwwww thread about people posting in your thread, the one you started?

My advice: Don't start these threads if you can't take the heat.

[soltangris 42]

Baertooth, this thread was intended as conciliatory; sort of a middle ground between the two 'conflicting' parties. I wanted to make the 'flamers' think along some different lines than the simple 'MC betrayed us, they didn't give us what we wanted'; I also wanted to make the defenders get a different ground for their comments other than 'You're prejudiced against this game!"

In short, this wasn't meant to be another flaming thread, where the first party continues posting the same old arguments, while the second continues answering the same old ways.

Unfortunately, it seems people misunderstood and misinterpreted my intentions. I'm starting to regret indeed my starting this thread...

In your posts you say that you don't like the way MC is handling this game, not the game itself. How does this contradict my original post, since there I draw the conclusion that it's exactly the MMO aspect that irritates the old city-building fanbase (it being the way MC went to support the development of the game financially)? And how would my comments be 'inflamatory'? I don't understand why you get so worked up...

[AlemanXL 0]

I'm another who is baffled as to why people who don't own and/or don't like a game continue to post about it. It makes no sense to waste your time on something you don't like. After initial release, yes, feel free to express your thoughtsand opinions, but over two months later. Why? MC aren't going to change things based on a few unhappy peoples moaning.

[Craig-Abcvs 1,595]

It is time to give the reminder...

"to discuss the issues not each other"....

[soltangris 42]

Several weeks have passed since my original post on this thread, we've had some more or less heated discussions, we've also got several wild threads locked, others merged.... I think now I understand a little better the source of irritation in the major part of the fanbase. I'll try to explain:

- Plannet Offer. And more specifically, the way MC has chosen to attract people to it. And even more specifically, the prospect that such an important feature as Mass transit will be tied to Plannet Offer, and forever not available for Solo Mode.

 

The evidence is overwhelming: even if you don't want to read every complain post on the forum (where you'll find sooner or later the above mentioned), it's enough to notice the angry, I would say outraged reaction towards MC's removing the 2 and 3 months subscription plans. It means that the people that were PO subscribers against their wish, and also those that were finally screwing themselves to pay for PO against their wishes, probably just to be able to play with busses, were finally pushed over the edge.

I'll again reiterate a previous statement of mine: we don't have the right to verbally dictate to MC what are they doing with their product. But I have to confess that trying to attract customers for the PO by withholidng a core feature of the simulator from SP mode irritates me as well. Not because I'm unwilling or unable to spend money for PO; but because I think it's unfair to use such a bullying method to attract clients. It is a little too much.

I still think the MMO aspect of a ctiy-builder has a future. I still think there should be a paid PO. With the right ingredients, though.

Having said that, I don't think MC is doing all this out of greed, or because they're the devil, or any such ridiculous things. The real reason lies in the fact that the game was launched prematurely.

If there were other PO-exclusive features at the time of launch, such as competitions, or Planets with specific settings (just think of a Planet of the Disasters! hihihi, or a Planet of Crime), there wouldn't have been a need to hold Mass transit as a carrot for people to join PO. But, currently, there are only the Megastructures, and clearly they weren't enough.... So, somebody in MC decided to try out the force method. Was it stupid? Porbably. But it wasn't because he wanted a Porshe for Christmass. 

Why am I so sure? Simply because MC is not EA, they can't afford to throw away couple of millions and years for a wild experiment (SC Societies), and when it turns a blooper just to shrug and continue on with the next Fifa and Sims expansion. MC is a small company (yeah, I know you've heard that, but it IS important), and they've just thrown all their eggs into one basket: CXL. It's a really big gamble, and they can't afford failure. The very fact that they've dedicated all their time and resources to maintaining and developing this single game guarantees that they'll do everything possible to make it successful. Including listening to their potential customers. 

In light of the above, I urge the sceptics to think again about this 'Restructuring of the PO' that MC announced. I know  you'll say that MC's record doesn't show them paying attention to teh fans (which is not completely true either, I think), but at this juncture it is simply impossible to think that MC is not going to do something about their business model. The game's contents is indeed taking off, but now that the initial rush to try it out, including the PO subscription, has passed, I think many people intend not to renew. At least until more features come into play. I also think MC realises that; hence the recent survey. Hence the 'Restructuring of the PO'. You have to be a real fathead to ignore all those signs and continue to write them off as 'Self-centered greedy fools'. Well, the comming months will show if I'm being too optimistic.

To wrap it up: Yes, I agree that withholding Mass transit from SP is a dirty move. No, I continue to disagree that the whole concept of paying monthly for a city-building game is wrong ( so far as the first point is considered). 

The right method for me would be the addition of another Limited PO plan for free - all core features such as Mass transit, plus the ability to trade and chat, minus, say, avatar visiting, special buildings, Old England and future such packs, and Megastructures. This will also remove the need to withhold Mass transit from SP.  

But again, the future will show. Until then, please refrain from demonising and posting old complains for the 100th time. 

 

[morriswalters 16]

Soltangris

I salute you.  Your desire to find the middle ground is laudable.  However in the end it is probably wasted.  These forums are used, at least in part, to vent.  I don't much mind that when it doesn't interfere with my personal goals, but unfortunately it does.  Their appear to be multiple types involved here.  There are the people who looked love SC4 and who are happy with what they get from it.  We never hear from them.  In point of fact they probably sit back and quietly chuckle at all the hubbub.  Then there are people who like SC4, but who are not fulfilled by it anymore.  I'm sure their are other types, but my second group is the one that counts.

The title of your post is the key point.  Expectations.  People certainly have had them about this game.  Unfortunately after a time expectations, at least in some, have become the equivalent of entitlement.  People believe they have a right to have their expectations fulfilled. And MC is not blameless in this.  Their worst trait is that they overpromise and underdeliver.  And so we have this back and forth between supporters and detractors.  It's pointless and wasteful.  Cities XS has become the modding source.  There is contention there but there is also focus.  There are others perhaps here or perhaps elsewhere that are working on custom content, I would guess under an NDA.  I would expect to see something from here sooner rather than later.  In the meantime MC will be driven by the market not by any dialog that we will have here.  Businesses follow the money. This has already moved them to make several changes to the SP mode.  I would love to see some of the intensity from both sides focused on the game experience and moving forward.  I'm to old to learn German.

As an aside to the mods perhaps we need a new forum topic or sticky called the soapbox.  Let it be the place for this type of thing.

[Msprintz 25]

Originally posted by: soltangris

- Plannet Offer. And more specifically, the way MC has chosen to attract people to it. And even more specifically, the prospect that such an important feature as Mass transit will be tied to Plannet Offer, and forever not available for Solo Mode.

 

The evidence is overwhelming: even if you don't want to read every complain post on the forum (where you'll find sooner or later the above mentioned), it's enough to notice the angry, I would say outraged reaction towards MC's removing the 2 and 3 months subscription plans. It means that the people that were PO subscribers against their wish, and also those that were finally screwing themselves to pay for PO against their wishes, probably just to be able to play with busses, were finally pushed over the edge.

I'll again reiterate a previous statement of mine: we don't have the right to verbally dictate to MC what are they doing with their product. But I have to confess that trying to attract customers for the PO by withholidng a core feature of the simulator from SP mode irritates me as well. Not because I'm unwilling or unable to spend money for PO; but because I think it's unfair to use such a bullying method to attract clients. It is a little too much.

I still think the MMO aspect of a ctiy-builder has a future. I still think there should be a paid PO. With the right ingredients, though.

Having said that, I don't think MC is doing all this out of greed, or because they're the devil, or any such ridiculous things. The real reason lies in the fact that the game was launched prematurely.

If there were other PO-exclusive features at the time of launch, such as competitions, or Planets with specific settings (just think of a Planet of the Disasters! hihihi, or a Planet of Crime), there wouldn't have been a need to hold Mass transit as a carrot for people to join PO. But, currently, there are only the Megastructures, and clearly they weren't enough.... So, somebody in MC decided to try out the force method. Was it stupid? Porbably. But it wasn't because he wanted a Porshe for Christmass. 

quote>

As consumers we do have the right to call out companies we feel are wronging us, that's the only way companies change ( if no one complains, then there's no incentive to change anything ).  As this is not the basis of the argument however I'll leave that blurb as is. 

On the PO I don't think exclusive features like competitions or settings would really be all that attractive to people.  I think the biggest thing needed is substance.  If they had added in a fairly wide array of natural resources and primary industries, that would add substance to the game.  Couple that with some sort of regional based gameplay, where you can import and export raw materials or finished goods, and you might hit paydirt ( that would probably give something of value to multiplayer gameplay ).  Of course you'd need a good array of transportation options and specailty terminals for those transportation options IE: can't offload coal at the container seaport. 

Features like that would make the game and PO worthwhile to me, and might sway me to actually buy the game. 

As for the game possibly being a failure, I think they have enough of a "European" base to avoid outright failure, it's that global base that they've had trouble attracting.  I feel overall they have so far failed at attracting a larger global base, and that's what they're trying to fix. 

[Livin in Sim 83]

Originally posted by: morriswalters

...As an aside to the mods perhaps we need a new forum topic or sticky called the soapbox.  Let it be the place for this type of thing.

quote>

Hello, morris, thanks for your support in here, and for the suggestion.  If I remember correctly, we've discussed among moderation staff having a "Rant Thread".  Stickying a topic doesn't mean that everyone will use it.  I think this is due to the fact that each original poster is of the mind that there is something unique about his take on the situation, just as most people, including myself, believe they are above average.    Seriously, though, we have just stickied the Cities XL Evaluation thread; it is a poll and commentary.  If some of the commentary was to get a bit soap box-ish, I wouldn't get my knickers in a knot as long as it remained fairly civil, and did not turn into an argument between members that began bringing up personalities, intelligence of other members, etc.

And there is this thread.  There has certainly been some airing out of issues in it, and it has remained open so far.  It hasn't dropped to the second page since it was started.  soltangris has done an awesome job of manning the bridge when it strayed into unknown parts of the galaxy, has so far resisted, and refused to be assimilated.    I think he started with a genuine intent to understand members' frustrations, and that's a good base from which to share perspectives.

We have also taken steps in private to curtail complainers breaking into gameplay oriented threads, and will continue to do so.  Please do PM swat-medic, abcvs, JanYpe, masochist, or myself when you see a high jack.  We will put a stop to it.

And now, soltangris, you have the con. 

[Craig-Abcvs 1,595]

And now, soltangris, you have the con.  quote>

Aww...   why does he get the con?  

[LivingInThePast 364]

I read this entire thread. I used to think MC was a bunch of back-stabbing jerks, but now I think that MC merely made a series of poor decisions that they will deal with.

[Livin in Sim 83]

Originally posted by: Kevin Ar18

Originally posted by: abcvs

And now, soltangris, you have the con.  quote>

Aww...   why does he get the con?  

quote>

Wouldn't you rather have the helm instead?

quote>

soltangris now has the helm.  Craig, before I reliquish the con, take us to warp 5, Mr soltangris....and...engage.

(Sorry, I've always wanted to say that, as you were.)

[soltangris 42]

Ai ai captain!

Morris, I feel ya! MC indeed overpromise... But unfortunately, that's how things are done in business nowadays - you do whatever is legal to attract customers, including stuff that a normal moral person wouldn't think of doing.... In short, it's a Dog Eat Dog world out there. When's the last time you've seen a movie trailer or a game ad that doesn't promise the works? And then you end up in the cinema wondering why exactly you spend those 10 bucks.... or at home with yet another game on the shelf that dissapointed you....

In CXL's case we have at least the hope that they'll someday fulfill the promises. And , we have to confess that they ARE moving in the right direction. Slow as a turtle, granted, but still (I started a snow map today, anticipating the Ski Resort GEM - O my! this Mountain looks spectacular!)

Mks, I think what you're describing is more of an economic tycoon than a city-building game. I personally wouldn't like it if they go in this direction... But again, it's personal opinion - maybe a future  'Resource GEM' ?

Anyway, may the Force be with us all! And let's not forget that it's just a game after all - it's not the global warming (now HERE's where even I get heated!)

[Asheroo 53]

Well, with promises, you need to remember one thing which I think everyone basically forgot - It's only a promise, not a definite answer. Promises are always bound to be broken as it's only a work in progress status, but promise is just a more stronger word to use, but is more to use if it's near certain, but it's still not absolutely certain. MC stated several times throughout the 2 years of the forums that all their work is bound to change, that it's only work in progress and may or may not be in the game. Unfortunately, a lot of us were too hyped out and didn't quite get it all into our heads, thinking that MC will implement most of our ideas, even if they are the most popular. Overall though, MC did word it a bit too much hyped out, whereas if they used different and more weaker wording, we could of had not been so hyped out. But, just on a last quick think note, MC didn't actually promise so much, and they kept saying in several threads they are not going to promise all this stuff. A lot of the work in progress we were shown was just that, just work in progress, they didn't say they promised it. Only the ML feature and the MPT did they really promise to bring out at release and never did. They may have said though that they promise to make the game a good city building game or something like that, but that really depends on the independent's opinion.

I remember a lot of times, some of the admins kept telling us in the forums and in the unofficial chat site - Ideas are only ideas. They are not solutions/coding for the game. - Unfortunately, plenty of members still didn't get this through, some even arguing and complaining about MC's coding and their engine.

In another way, an example is like the government says they want to satisfy citizens by fulfilling their wants, and asks you what do you really want and you say back "I think every Australian should get a free HD widescreen TV" and they go back "Ok, we'll have a look into it, but we'll see what we can do".

[soltangris 42]

In another way, an example is like the government says they want to satisfy citizens by fulfilling their wants, and asks you what do you really want and you say back "I think every Australian should get a free HD widescreen TV" and they go back "Ok, we'll have a look into it, but we'll see what we can do".

 

Hahahahaha, cudos for this example Asheroo, this is exactly what I was talking about!

It happens so often in reality (especially in pollitics) that I won't even bother to bring out other examples. ?

[Msprintz 25]

Originally posted by: soltangris

Mks, I think what you're describing is more of an economic tycoon than a city-building game. I personally wouldn't like it if they go in this direction... But again, it's personal opinion - maybe a future  'Resource GEM' ?

quote>

Honestly that's the only way to really give substance to the PO, and it appears the direction they wanted resources to go in.  Just my personal opinion based on what I've seen.   

Mangaging the economics of a city is part of a city simulation, and a fairly important one indeed.  That aspect if done well would also attract attention to the PO. 

[CNA 0]

But how do you say 'Well, we're sorry, but what you're asking for is impossible" ?

Here's how: "We're sorry but what you asked for and what we promised is impossible."

Edited for derogatory comment.

--Liv

CXL Forums Moderator