The end of planet offer

[Kazuo12 0]

It makes no sense at all for MC to not allow internet-independent single player.. Unless you think they're evil or something like that

[dgarlock 0]

I seem to be in the minority here, but I see the end of the Planet Offer to be a good thing, as it will allow proper development of the solo game. I had trouble getting into the PO anyway. I was difficult to keep up with the trades when the minimum number of shares available was five. Also, the lack of a pause button was annoying, as it made me feel that I couldn't take my time to plan the best strategy. The expiration of trades was also annoying because I don't play any game every day without fail. In the long run, it is possible that Cities XL could be transformed into a very enjoyable stand alone game. Freeing resources that MC was using for PO might make this more likely.

[dedgren 830]

Liv- I'm not trying to stir the pot here. I am just so incredibly frustrated that it is seemingly impossible to get a straight answer from Monte Cristo on anything. The current situation continues a track record that dates back now almost two years, and if you believe the conspiracy theorists among us, even further than that. It strikes me as funny that EA's method of communicating with the SC4 fan base, which is to not communicate at all, seems somehow preferable to being serially misinformed.

MC would appear to be in a terrible situation. Without a revenue stream, there is no new content developed by MC for the game. Without interest in the game, there is no revenue stream. Without new content, there is no interest. The only way out of that circle- actually a spiral of decline- would be for MC to do something that it is demonstrably not good at, and that is to think outside the box. This community, imho, is the only possible potential source of rescue out there, and that would only be possible if MC was to take SP CXL and open it completely to us. An active contingent of MODders and BATters making worthwhile content and changes to the game would create the buzz that MC so apparently can't. On the other hand, MC likely feels it can't do that, because every BAT and MOD release competes (and, in truth, with a totally unfair advantage- it's free!) for the dollars that MC needs to earn selling the same thing. The company would have to take the very long view that, if it put CXL's fate in the hands of this community, we could be trusted to do the right thing.

I don't know how anyone who has followed this situation since the Cities Unlimited days, as many of the commenters on this thread have, could possibly see things any different. Trusting MC to live up to any "promise" at this point concerning this game is just misguided, in that MC has no track record whatsoever of honoring commitments to the many who were the game's potential purchasers and to the unfortunate few who actually bought CXL.

My prediction- CXL 2011 will be a kludge of whatever stuff MC has sitting around on the shelf today. Not a single new development dollar (or Euro, I guess) will be spent. A year from now, CXL will have the same size following as SimCity: Societies, and all the rest of us will be enjoying all the new stuff that's been developed in the meantime for SC4.

David

[Kazuo12 0]

Sounds like I should hold a grudge against MC or something like that..?

[LadyKate 0]

Originally posted by: dedgren

Liv- I'm not trying to stir the pot here. I am just so incredibly frustrated that it is seemingly impossible to get a straight answer from Monte Cristo on anything. The current situation continues a track record that dates back now almost two years, and if you believe the conspiracy theorists among us, even further than that. It strikes me as funny that EA's method of communicating with the SC4 fan base, which is to not communicate at all, seems somehow preferable to being serially misinformed.

MC would appear to be in a terrible situation. Without a revenue stream, there is no new content developed by MC for the game. Without interest in the game, there is no revenue stream. Without new content, there is no interest. The only way out of that circle- actually a spiral of decline- would be for MC to do something that it is demonstrably not good at, and that is to think outside the box. This community, imho, is the only possible potential source of rescue out there, and that would only be possible if MC was to take SP CXL and open it completely to us. An active contingent of MODders and BATters making worthwhile content and changes to the game would create the buzz that MC so apparently can't. On the other hand, MC likely feels it can't do that, because every BAT and MOD release competes (and, in truth, with a totally unfair advantage- it's free!) for the dollars that MC needs to earn selling the same thing. The company would have to take the very long view that, if it put CXL's fate in the hands of this community, we could be trusted to do the right thing.

I don't know how anyone who has followed this situation since the Cities Unlimited days, as many of the commenters on this thread have, could possibly see things any different. Trusting MC to live up to any "promise" at this point concerning this game is just misguided, in that MC has no track record whatsoever of honoring commitments to the many who were the game's potential purchasers and to the unfortunate few who actually bought CXL.

My prediction- CXL 2011 will be a kludge of whatever stuff MC has sitting around on the shelf today. Not a single new development dollar (or Euro, I guess) will be spent. A year from now, CXL will have the same size following as SimCity: Societies, and all the rest of us will be enjoying all the new stuff that's been developed in the meantime for SC4.

Davidquote>

I agree with the frustration, but I think it goes even a bit farther than how you put it.  In some peoples opinion. not only did MC not deliver on promises made, but it seemed like they consciously went against, and did the opposite of the very input they activey sought.

City Builder programs are inherranty niche programs.  They can be made to appeal to wider audiences for sure, but the long term survival, of any game really, but especially a game that by its very nature is niche, depends on the niche market, and I'm just afraid in this case, apparantly very poor decisions by MC has poisoned that long term market to the point that they will not be able to ever recover in the City Builder niche.  I only hope that they haven't poisoned the wider niche market with the debacle that is Cities XL.

[MadBrahms 0]

Originally posted by: dedgren

Liv- I'm not trying to stir the pot here. I am just so incredibly frustrated that it is seemingly impossible to get a straight answer from Monte Cristo on anything. The current situation continues a track record that dates back now almost two years, and if you believe the conspiracy theorists among us, even further than that. It strikes me as funny that EA's method of communicating with the SC4 fan base, which is to not communicate at all, seems somehow preferable to being serially misinformed.

MC would appear to be in a terrible situation. Without a revenue stream, there is no new content developed by MC for the game. Without interest in the game, there is no revenue stream. Without new content, there is no interest. The only way out of that circle- actually a spiral of decline- would be for MC to do something that it is demonstrably not good at, and that is to think outside the box. This community, imho, is the only possible potential source of rescue out there, and that would only be possible if MC was to take SP CXL and open it completely to us. An active contingent of MODders and BATters making worthwhile content and changes to the game would create the buzz that MC so apparently can't. On the other hand, MC likely feels it can't do that, because every BAT and MOD release competes (and, in truth, with a totally unfair advantage- it's free!) for the dollars that MC needs to earn selling the same thing. The company would have to take the very long view that, if it put CXL's fate in the hands of this community, we could be trusted to do the right thing.

I don't know how anyone who has followed this situation since the Cities Unlimited days, as many of the commenters on this thread have, could possibly see things any different. Trusting MC to live up to any "promise" at this point concerning this game is just misguided, in that MC has no track record whatsoever of honoring commitments to the many who were the game's potential purchasers and to the unfortunate few who actually bought CXL.

My prediction- CXL 2011 will be a kludge of whatever stuff MC has sitting around on the shelf today. Not a single new development dollar (or Euro, I guess) will be spent. A year from now, CXL will have the same size following as SimCity: Societies, and all the rest of us will be enjoying all the new stuff that's been developed in the meantime for SC4.

Davidquote>

I think you really hit something on the head here with the "straight answer" part. Most of us don't expect games to be prfect, and many of us (I include myself here) are sympathetic to the plight of developers and acknowledge that making a game is a complicated, time-consuming product. As a community, however, we DO expect that companies which promise transparency actually deliver on that end. What we seem to have seen from MC is a near-endless stream of euphamisms, redirections, maybes, and "coming soon" notices that never seem to actually come soon. The CitiesXL twitter is a classic example of a tool that could have been used to give us insight into the development process and team priorities but instead went almost unused or simply parroted back what the website already told us.

It's hard to be sympathetic when the process is such a black box, especially when there's a history of shoving products out the door (and I'm not just talking about CityLife here; if one looks up reviews on MC's other games outside the genre, similar conclusions can be drawn). Indeed, reading the PO closing statement, I'm repeatedly struck by just how vague and non-committal it is, which frankly points towards the worst rather than the best scenario.

MC can still potentially redeem itself on this end if they start straight-talking now. Nothing engenders more ill-will, however, than leaving the door open for hope (i.e. thoughts that CXL 2011 will have massive content additions, or that it will open up to custom content) by wavering about and making nonspecific statement and then simply smashing that hope to bits later.

[soltangris 42]

Just to point out something here:

MC never said that CXL 2011 per se will include massive new content. They said (as I understand it) that this is gonna be the new CXL reworked from the two-fold game into a single one. This means that the features PO had and SP didn't (like trading with multiple entities and between cities, Megastructures) will be merged into a single game, as far as possible. Only AFTER that will any new content (like trains for example) be created. The new content will be SP-only, and purchaseable separately. Modding and custom content will be allowed when they get the coding for it done. I don't see how any of this could be confusing.

Oh yes, timelines:

How the hell do you expect exact timelines from a company that is obviously in difficulties and under a lot of pressure????

I don't know how anybody can read in MC's statements such info as you guys seem to be reading. I know that the passions have arisen again and maybe everybody tends to interpret information the way they would like to, but what are MC supposed to do??? Somebody suggested they should have just stated that 'PO is ending, stay tuned'. I won't even go into how ridiculous that would be, but nevertheless:

Even the attempt at more information that MC did with the FAQ session doesn't seem to satisfy many of you. So, no info is bad, more info is worse?????

After all, accept the fact that they are a company, and a company with problems right now. They're trying to keep in contact with the community as far as they can (which by many standarts is obviously not enough), but they can't spend their entire time chatting on the forums!

I know I'll be the only one here to say this, and I might draw hell on me, but:

BE PATIENT!

Any further cries and pressure are likely to just cause more confusion at this point. We'll get more info when we get more info. And nobody can give info they don't have - or rather they can, but it will be false info. Is this what you want?

[edcase2k4-thugangel1983 1]

Originally posted by: dedgren

Liv- I'm not trying to stir the pot here. I am just so incredibly frustrated that it is seemingly impossible to get a straight answer from Monte Cristo on anything. The current situation continues a track record that dates back now almost two years, and if you believe the conspiracy theorists among us, even further than that. It strikes me as funny that EA's method of communicating with the SC4 fan base, which is to not communicate at all, seems somehow preferable to being serially misinformed.

MC would appear to be in a terrible situation. Without a revenue stream, there is no new content developed by MC for the game. Without interest in the game, there is no revenue stream. Without new content, there is no interest. The only way out of that circle- actually a spiral of decline- would be for MC to do something that it is demonstrably not good at, and that is to think outside the box. This community, imho, is the only possible potential source of rescue out there, and that would only be possible if MC was to take SP CXL and open it completely to us. An active contingent of MODders and BATters making worthwhile content and changes to the game would create the buzz that MC so apparently can't. On the other hand, MC likely feels it can't do that, because every BAT and MOD release competes (and, in truth, with a totally unfair advantage- it's free!) for the dollars that MC needs to earn selling the same thing. The company would have to take the very long view that, if it put CXL's fate in the hands of this community, we could be trusted to do the right thing.

I don't know how anyone who has followed this situation since the Cities Unlimited days, as many of the commenters on this thread have, could possibly see things any different. Trusting MC to live up to any "promise" at this point concerning this game is just misguided, in that MC has no track record whatsoever of honoring commitments to the many who were the game's potential purchasers and to the unfortunate few who actually bought CXL.

My prediction- CXL 2011 will be a kludge of whatever stuff MC has sitting around on the shelf today. Not a single new development dollar (or Euro, I guess) will be spent. A year from now, CXL will have the same size following as SimCity: Societies, and all the rest of us will be enjoying all the new stuff that's been developed in the meantime for SC4.

Davidquote>

100% agreement, David. everything i would have said if i could think of the words so eloquently, or be bothered to try since right now this dead horse is just being kicked around by speculation.

but almost all of us who gave our full support and commitment to MC during development know exactly where you're coming from. everything you said is spot-on IMO.

[david1314 44]

Originally posted by: dedgren

I don't know how anyone who has followed this situation since the Cities Unlimited days, as many of the commenters on this thread have, could possibly see things any different. Trusting MC to live up to any "promise" at this point concerning this game is just misguided, in that MC has no track record whatsoever of honoring commitments to the many who were the game's potential purchasers and to the unfortunate few who actually bought CXL.

quote>

Yeah, I remember CU had that unpolished, unfinished feel to it.  This is just another project tossed aside after broken promises.  I'm truly fearful of what CXL11 will entail...I would bet (though certainly not hope) it is another half-effort successor to CXL.  I admittedly have renewed hopes for CXL11, but it is deeply tempered by skepticism.

  I could see somewhat of an analogue here between SC4 + RH and CXL.  SC4 was a stripped down get-it-to-market game in it's original form (a form few of us would recognize or remember today).  It's genesis was Rush Hour.  Having previously written off CXL entirely, I now have some hopes for it (this is without precedent for me...to reconsider a game, that is).  I genuinely hope that I can get a full version of single player CXL with all the networks I could ever imagine and then some (or even open modding of networks....*trembles with unwarranted anticipation*) for somewhere in the neighborhood of $50-80, either as a "Deluxe" version or as CXL with expansion pack.  I'm not talking about some piecemeal-unbundled-airline-ticket of software that I have to carefully consider the value of the purchase vs. my play value and just deal with a semi-functional game.  I want a full, benchmark version that developers can rely upon every end user having (like SC4 + RH) for consistent content creation (like the NAM).

So, my hopes have been raised from the dead, but I'm not holding my breath.  I do think closing PO is a generally positive step though.

[morriswalters 16]

Originally posted by:

dedgren

Liv- I'm not trying to stir the pot here. I am just so incredibly frustrated that it is seemingly impossible to get a straight answer from Monte Cristo on anything. The current situation continues a track record that dates back now almost two years, and if you believe the conspiracy theorists among us, even further than that. It strikes me as funny that EA's method of communicating with the

SC4

fan base, which is to not communicate at all, seems somehow preferable to being serially misinformed.

MC would appear to be in a terrible situation. Without a revenue stream, there is no new content developed by MC for the game. Without interest in the game, there is no revenue stream. Without new content, there is no interest. The only way out of that circle- actually a spiral of decline- would be for MC to do something that it is demonstrably not good at, and that is to think outside the box. This community, imho, is the only possible potential source of rescue out there, and that would only be possible if MC was to take SP

CXL

and open it completely to us. An active contingent of MODders and BATters making worthwhile content and changes to the game would create the buzz that MC so apparently can't. On the other hand, MC likely feels it can't do that, because every

BAT

and MOD release competes (and, in truth, with a totally unfair advantage- it's free!) for the dollars that MC needs to earn selling the same thing. The company would have to take the very long view that, if it put

CXL

's fate in the hands of this community, we could be trusted to do the right thing.

I don't know how anyone who has followed this situation since the Cities Unlimited days, as many of the commenters on this thread have, could possibly see things any different.

Trusting MC to live up to any "promise" at this point concerning this game is just misguided

, in that MC has no track record whatsoever of honoring commitments to the many who were the game's potential purchasers and to the unfortunate few who actually bought

CXL

.

My prediction-

CXL

2011 will be a kludge of whatever stuff MC has sitting around on the shelf today. Not a single new development dollar (or Euro, I guess) will be spent. A year from now,

CXL

will have the same size following as SimCity: Societies, and all the rest of us will be enjoying all the new stuff that's been developed in the meantime for

SC4

.

Davidquote>

From my response to another post of Davids

Originally posted by: dedgren

I guess I just don't buy into all the happy smiley.

MC was told that it was selling tickets to a train wreck well over a year ago.

Everyone here was told that MC was selling tickets to a train wreck well over a year ago.

What is the purpose in trying to sound understanding now that the train wreck has happened?

Anyone that gives this company another dime is in the same boat as someone who's embarking on his or her fifth marriage- the fleeting (and almost certainly completely false) triumph of hope over experience. I'm with the guy who posted that he didn't know whether MC's promise to keep on delivering the goods (in so many words) was a good thing or a bad thing.

There are, at the end, far worse people to take advice from in the process of creating a city builder game than the community of folks who will be buying (or, as happened here and with SimCity: Societies, not buying) the game. This same thing has now happened twice- the wrong lesson to learn is that no new city builder will succeed in the marketplace.

Again, sorry to interrupt the Muzak.

David

?

The worse idea to take from this is that a game can be designed by a committee.  Anyone designing a game could learn one thing from Monte Cristo.  Don't ask anybody anything.  No matter what you say your going to disappoint somebody.  A game requires vision.  It starts with an idea.  And good games are driven by strong people.  None of the ground breakers asked anybody anything, they did it and put it out there.  Look at ID software, look at Maxis.  One possibility that everybody overlooks is that if EA had intended to create SC5 that they would have never released the tools to extend SC4.  Why dilute your own market and compete against yourself. 

Anybody who thinks that MC was a moneygrubbing company is right.  They were, as are all businesses.  They are in business to make money.  Make no mistake.  People don't loan you 12,000,000 million because they think you look beautiful in the moonlight, they want a return on their investment.  And when you have a contractual deadline you better make it.  Dedgren of all people should know that. 

Certainly I will buy the parts of the game I don't already own, and be happy to do it.  I wear no such blinders as David describes I've been married 30 years and intend on dying that way.  However one thing about this whole business that you should think about is the possibility that everything that is going to be marketed in March may be the only things that you may ever see.  If it's in the pipeline it will probably get out, if it's not finished and can't be finished quickly it may never be finished.  What your seeing now may be the creditors attempting to get some type of return on their investment.  I won't say that is what's happening but you shouldn't discount the possibility.

By the way David Muzak went Bankrupt

Reese

One thing I wish to make clear for myself if no one else.  I don't mourn the passing of any company that I don't own stock in.  I've not lost anything, I've had a lot of fun since the beta started and after buying the packs in March I will have some more.  However at least one person at the company may have lost his job, and he may not be the last.  Having been laid off by a company going out of business, and it is hard to deal with, so remember who will suffer most at the MC if this is the end.  And if you find pleasure in getting yours back by punting at people here I say have at it.  I will ignore it and mark you down as somebody not worth knowing.  That's a continuously growing list,  I look and remember that the best way to deal with you is by living well and being happy.

David I posted a previous response to another post to make a point.  I highlighted your posts to point out what offends me.  I don't care about MC but your characterizations of people who don't agree with you as "misguided" or as "same boat as someone who's embarking on his or her fifth marriage- the fleeting (and almost certainly completely false) triumph of hope over experience"  is demeaning.  Take all the shots of MC as you want.  They may even deserve it, not being a sage , I don't truely know.  But whats your logic for demeaning or making fun of people who don't feel as you do.  Even your final prediction is not exactly new,  I've posted it myself at least twice already, but I coached it in terms of keeping expectations low.  I feel no need to make myself fell better at someone elses  expense.  Now I am going to try and follow my own advice and ignore you, as hard as I find that to do.

[BravoGreenONE 120]

Good Riddance.  That's what I had to say about the MMO.

Hi Folks.  I'm one of those who was a regular on the Cities Unlimited/Cities XL forum boards.  Watched the community pour a great deal of thought as far as suggestions went.  And then the Beta. Major disappointment. I knew something was terribly wrong when no mass transit existed, yet there was an option for the avatar to do some absurd monkey dance or whatever that was. And what is the deal with requiring a ferris wheel?  And unqualified- what's the deal with that?

Let me throw a rather hasty summary of the major lacking element

1) No real simulation core - crime, education, environment, land values.  Sure you had the buildings, but there was no dynamic.   It was simply plopping buildings.  It was a virtual North Korea (minus the occult worship).  For those of you who know anything about North Korea and the empty facade of its tourism cities, you can't help but laugh.

2) No immersion factor- whether it be ambient sounds or  ordinances (remember those programs and pollution restrictions you had in SIm CIty 4)

3)No custom Content- It goes without saying why SimCity 4 still thrives

4)Lacking of Extra's- although you may say landmarks are there- Its not the list of landmarks you had with SIm City, and it is totally lacking rewards.

5) Drab- I like the variance in road options, but implementation was horrible.  One road was a millimeter larger than the next.  Total turn-off.  The "game" (if you'd like to call it that)  didn't entertain me much.

But- maybe we have hope here.  I'm not going to invest my time in the development of the new product, as much as what was said fell on deaf ears.  But I'll poke my head in once in awhile as my curious nature tends to get the better of me.

[DazzaDazza 29]

Originally posted by: soltangris

Just to point out something here:

MC never said that CXL 2011 per se will include massive new content. They said (as I understand it) that this is gonna be the new CXL reworked from the two-fold game into a single one. This means that the features PO had and SP didn't (like trading with multiple entities and between cities, Megastructures) will be merged into a single game, as far as possible. Only AFTER that will any new content (like trains for example) be created. The new content will be SP-only, and purchaseable separately. Modding and custom content will be allowed when they get the coding for it done. I don't see how any of this could be confusing.

quote>

100% agree 

this is what the statment say

The avatar mode is tied to the online game, and it will disappear with it. The Bus will be included in the new solo version. The Blueprints gameplay will be redesigned and retrofitted to be part of Cities XL 2011. Actual megastructures will be spread through multiple paid content packs.

Three theme content packs will be released: Europe, America and Asia. Their content will include all of the current Planet offer exclusive contents (buildings and maps), plus the megastructures, as well as new content.

Note:

The Bus will be included in the new solo game.

The packs as well as Cities XL 2011 will be released simultaneously on our site as digital downloads. Their exact content and their prices will be announced in the next few weeks. We intend to keep the prices very reasonable.

 The trade system will be included in Cities XL 2011 so it will become possible to trade between your own cities and specialise them the same way you would do in Planet gameplay. It will also enable you to use Blueprints and build Megastructures. The current map selection system will be redone in favour of a planet system; it will also include 10 more maps.

 

I guess you can try to read into this as much as you wont, but soltangris is right, we wont see a lot of new content with CXL2011, all the content will be “content packs” which is what every one has been saying though out the last 6 month. That they would be happy t5o pay of new content, so this is what we wonted and this is what we are getting.        

 

[Bountytaker 0]

Originally posted by: mrdazza_460

Originally posted by: soltangris

Just to point out something here:

MC never said that CXL 2011 per se will include massive new content. They said (as I understand it) that this is gonna be the new CXL reworked from the two-fold game into a single one. This means that the features PO had and SP didn't (like trading with multiple entities and between cities, Megastructures) will be merged into a single game, as far as possible. Only AFTER that will any new content (like trains for example) be created. The new content will be SP-only, and purchaseable separately. Modding and custom content will be allowed when they get the coding for it done. I don't see how any of this could be confusing.

quote>

100% agree 

this is what the statment say

The avatar mode is tied to the online game, and it will disappear with it. The Bus will be included in the new solo version. The Blueprints gameplay will be redesigned and retrofitted to be part of Cities XL 2011. Actual megastructures will be spread through multiple paid content packs.

Three theme content packs will be released: Europe, America and Asia. Their content will include all of the current Planet offer exclusive contents (buildings and maps), plus the megastructures, as well as new content.

Note:

The Bus will be included in the new solo game.

The packs as well as Cities XL 2011 will be released simultaneously on our site as digital downloads. Their exact content and their prices will be announced in the next few weeks. We intend to keep the prices very reasonable.

 The trade system will be included in Cities XL 2011 so it will become possible to trade between your own cities and specialise them the same way you would do in Planet gameplay. It will also enable you to use Blueprints and build Megastructures. The current map selection system will be redone in favour of a planet system; it will also include 10 more maps.

 

I guess you can try to read into this as much as you wont, but soltangris is right, we wont see a lot of new content with CXL2011, all the content will be “content packs” which is what every one has been saying though out the last 6 month. That they would be happy t5o pay of new content, so this is what we wonted and this is what we are getting.        

 quote>

Seems strange that some folks are allowed to "speculate" around MC's statements, while others can't.  It seems to follow along some sort of positive/negative pattern.  Not sure why.

Here's a question that is neither positive or negative, but is unclear thanks to MC's statements:  Will CXL 2011 come out in 2010, 2011, 2012, or later.

Based on MC's statement, and their follow up, no one can give a solid answer on that question yet...right?

[Craig-Abcvs 1,595]

Mod note:   Read back to Liv's post.

Just a gentle reminder folks...   lively discussion is OK but please discuss the topic and not each other.

Tootles.  

 

[dedgren 830]

I have nothing but abundant respect and esteem for everyone here, whether he or she (or, as the case might be, you) completely loathes CXL with every ounce of being or loves the game more than life itself. I have looked at several folks' CXL MDs and have seen really good work, although I would tend to give far more credit to the artist than to the medium. I certainly don't mean to have anyone take what I say as intending to indicate that any particular person is misguided (or, for that matter, is a serial marrier). I do think that strong and concrete criticism of CXL is needed so that nobody is left wondering at the end of the day what at least some thought went wrong. I believe that someone who will be a decisionmaker in creating a city builder game down the road is almost certain to be reading threads like this- I'm taking my shot at getting across what I believe we've learned from the situation in argument framed in a way that I feel is best calculated to do that.

Whether those, like Reese, who find this off-putting believe it or not, I was all for MC's success back in the early Cities Unlimited days. I was a "founding member" (or some such) on the original site and was really hopeful in those initial months that MC actually intended to act on all that outreach to the community. When it became apparent that the company was going to do no such thing, I took that pretty hard. I've been hooked on playing city builder games for over 20 years of my life. Up through SC4, I could always count on a company, first Maxis, then EA, to come along and raise the bar. Monte Cristo had big shoes to fill, but it certainly talked the talk for a while. Does my personal sense of disappointment show? You bet. Do I mean to direct my feelings personally toward anyone here? Absolutely not, and it is sad that some would raise that issue in what, at bottom, appears to be nothing more than an effort to discredit what I gave to say. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, or anyone, for that matter. I'm just expressing my opinion about something I feel very strongly about.

David

[DazzaDazza 29]

Seems strange that some folks are allowed to "speculate" around MC's statements, while others can't.  It seems to follow along some sort of positive/negative pattern.  Not sure why.

What’s positive or negative about what I said, I’m just stating what the information MC gave us, so there is on confusion about what we will get and what we won’t. So we don’t get the same thing that happened the last time, people getting upset about something they where never going to get in the first place.    

 

and also do we have to take sides? I didn’t know we had to be so narrow minded about CXL, 

Here's a question that is neither positive or negative, but is unclear thanks to MC's statements:  Will

CXL

2011 come out in 2010, 2011, 2012, or later.

Based on MC's statement, and their follow up, no one can give a solid answer on that question yet...right?

 

Dose it matter?

 

Did you know when rush hour was coming out when SC4 was released? There are many uncertainty in life,  

I don’t see what the big deal is, if it comes out we get CXL2011,  if it doesn’t we get CXL and we would be able to mod the game as much as we wont.   It is a game, if MC goose under,  I still have my copy of CXL.     

?

[Kittani 1]

Ok so I bought the game a little while back... didn't like PO, and SP had no content to speak of. Am I going to have to pay AGAIN to get the content from the PO? Pay AGAIN for when 2011 comes out? PLUS pay for bug fixes in future "content packs". ?

I think Cities XL is fail...

Why don;t they just get together with EA and make an official SC5? MC is very ingenious when it comes to features but they need the Sim City framework and gameplay elements that thier lame token system tried very hard to avoid for it to be a sim city game. Take sim city 4's management and regional concepts, pair it with CXL's graphics and design elements, expand each to fit the other and give even more...bam... awesome game and a ton of work is already been done a dozen times so cobbling it together shouldn;t take more than a few months with EA's massive programmer slave complex.

I'm just saying... take what works from both and make a real game, not a half clone wannabe.

And to the above poster... if MC goes under you won't have access to activate the game, nor will any digital distribution platforms still carry it.  In essence... if they go under, noone will be able to play CXL after they format thier hard drive or the game itself tries to contact an activation server that isn't there.  Those that have it on disc will have a nice set of coasters that will never play and never be able to get any of the DLC they release after the fact.   Congratulations. You've gotten a lesson on the stock market nature of startup companies with products that are DRM'd to death.  Sometimes you get a good buy and a good experience... sometimes you pay money for nothing at all.  DRM is important to maintain sales... but activation and registration requirements from a source whose future is as uncertain as a fart in a hurricane, is not a bet I will ever make again.  I don't care what MC puts out now.  I don;t have hundreds of extra dollars to blow on games I may not be able to play in 6 months.

[Asheroo 53]

All this leads back to the other thread Soltangris started about our expectations, about what we expect, what we think and understand. One major thing that really has let people down is the simple fact that a number of people are completely misunderstanding the words of MC for something higher. "Work in progress" is simply that, no promise. I can hardly recall any "promise" MC made, except for the buses (which they are now delivering upon their promise, kudos to that). Most of the things shown or told of where continuously said to be and very well labelled "Work in progress". Lots of people got too hyped up and misunderstood this for a full on promise, which lead to the promise. A lot of people in this thread have once again stated of "broken promises" but I say, what promises (apart from my listed)? The ML tool was not a promise, nor was the MPT, nor was all the other things. Ok, MC did promise in general a great city building game, but that is in their opinion and it was a general promise, not a very well detailed promise, infact I can hardly call it a promise at all, just an ambition.

[cheuk18me94 0]

I wonder which way does MC try to cheat money from CXL2011.....

[moaku 74]

Originally posted by: Kittani

And to the above poster... if MC goes under you won't have access to activate the game, nor will any digital distribution platforms still carry it.  In essence... if they go under, noone will be able to play CXL quote>

Definitely not true...

if MC go down (bankrupcy or whatever), they'll do a "last patch" disabling that kind of things if they can't maintain the activation server... and if they don't, modding community will, don't worry about that... However, I don't hope that it comes to that point.

oh... and

Originally posted by: soltangris

BE PATIENT!

Any further cries and pressure are likely to just cause more confusion at this point. We'll get more info when we get more info. And nobody can give info they don't have - or rather they can, but it will be false info. Is this what you want?quote>

This is not true either, i'm having a lot of fun by reading some posts inthere

[sthudig 0]

I hope now that all the features promised on the old CXL forums will be put back into the game!

As with many others, I didn't see this working out either. I applaud MC or their pioneering spirit, but city building is an art and not many are willing to put their unfinished masterpieces in a stranger's keeping....

[sthudig 0]

My prediction- CXL 2011 will be a kludge of whatever stuff MC has sitting around on the shelf today. Not a single new development dollar (or Euro, I guess) will be spent. A year from now, CXL will have the same size following as SimCity: Societies, and all the rest of us will be enjoying all the new stuff that's been developed in the meantime for SC4.

In defense of MC, they have some pretty awesome stuff on their "shelf".... Think back to cities unlimited and the groundbreaking things they were working on, items that never made it to CXL.

[Soviet779 1]

Originally posted by: BravoGreenONE

Good Riddance.

[Ellira 0]

Originally posted by: ACEH

I didn't understand one thing - Cities XL 2011 - does this mean the year the game will be released?!?!? If this is true.......quote>

 I dont understand this part either.  and why not just let us trade through the website and keep our city blogs surely tht wont cost them as much

[soltangris 42]

Yes:

All this leads back to the other thread Soltangris started about our expectations, about what we expect, what we think and understand

 

And what else but speculations is all this about? If we weren't speculating as hell, there wouldn't be misunderstanding. I'm never speculating about MC's statements, I try to accept them as simple as possible. It's exactly when you try to interpret the statments and speculate on them when probelms arise. For example, let's take a simple MC statement:

The core solo gameplay will not change a lot but it will see many improvements in Cities XL 2011.

 

When you first read about that, you inderstand that the SP mode that exists now will be improved, without major changes however. Now, you can start interpret this simple statement:

- that we'll get trains, metro

- that we'll get more resources

- that we'll get a number of things everybody seems to think were promised, but not inlcuded.

Any of the above statements may be true, because the original statement doesn't disprove it. But in the same time, it never promises such things! So, if you simply think: 'Wow! The gameplay will imporve' - you will be always right. But if you think 'Wow, we'll get trains and metro with CXL 2011' you might be wrong! And this mistake will come out of an interpretation of the original statement, a speculation....

Anyway, what kinda irritates me about this whole discussion is how so many people call for something I understand as a 'boykot' of the future game. They base their call on MC's previous history of ignoring players' wishes. Yes there is such thing, nobody denies that. But isn't it strange that this call is raised exactly now, when MC finally is following players' wishes????? OK, it might be because PO failed financially, it might be because they're in a tight spot, but the fact remains: we finally have the chance to get a better game! But no, let's boycot it, just becuase I feel infuriated that they didn't do this in the first place! Let's boycot it and kill the last chance of a decent modern city-builder!

I understand frustration, I understand non-fulfilled expectations, but this behavior shows nothing less than a stubborn irrational bloodrage. Statements here are vastly exagerated, judgement is being passed, and all this with the authority of someone that history has proven right (that the PO failed). But really, what meaning does all this have now that there's (again) hope for the future? Are you gonna feel better if this hope also fails, just because you've predicted that it will? Probably. For a month, two months.

And after that you'll be left with SC4 again. Wondering which poor game developer will dare to risk MC's fate again.

[Destroyer128 2]

Not even a full month into the new year and this.... Although ending PO may have been a good idea they are still making mistakes! "Until Cities XL 2011 is released no new content or patches will be published either for the current online game or solo game."

What they are telling us is "we give up on the current version of the game and those of you playing it, you'll have to wait an entire year to get fixes to the problems we had since the beta, like graphics problems and all that fun stuff. Although, one thing we will give you is the bus system in March. Thanks for understanding!"

They told us that they were in the process of fixing a lot of the current problems and fixes would be included in upcoming patches, now they expect us to suffer an entire year because of their lack of intelligence. A reason people didn't sign up for PO could be because when they tried the demo, they were hit with a million problems.... Another big contributing factor is word of mouth, people actually look at forums about games to see if its worth getting. If MC spent a little more time fixing these problems before the release, then they wouldn't be where they are today, its as simple as that.

[edcase2k4-thugangel1983 1]

while it may be true that many of the greatest and groundbreaking games (or even over products) didn't ccome out of a committee or public opinions on what they actually want - these make up a very small number of games/products compared to the total number that are actually designed, created, or released (and may not be so great).

someone hitting that sweet spot with a genious idea that is effectively implemented does happen regularly and this is how we have ended up in the world we are in with so many amazing inventions and constant technological advancement. it's all down to human imagination. but for every one great idea, design, or creation - there are like a million other new ideas out there that are pure crap or somewhere in the middle. and for every great-selling game that is released, there are a hundred others released that don't meet the mark. why? because imagination can lead to anything. both ends of the spectrum of "quality" and anywhere in between.

the point about listening to what people actually already know they want is that this helps in "improving" existing products as opposed to merely designing unthought-of or those which have just yet to become creatable. most people know what things would improve their existing products, it just takes someone with the capability to put those ideas in place and market it to the masses. using your own ideas to improve an established type of product for what suits your own vision and totally ignoring what everyone else wants leaves little room for success. it's quite easy for people to imagine what will improve existing products so a company thinking they know better is almost pure fantasy. it's a completely different matter when coming up with completely new types of product because it requires a lot of 'thinking outside the box' and ideas that someone else hasn't thought about themselves.

city-builders are a heavily-established type of game thanks to SimCity, but especially SimCity 4, and as others have said - it is more than just a game but more along the lines of design and virtual creation software like graphical software such as 3DStudio Max or Adobe Photoshop. if the general consensus is that certain new features would be the greatest addition - it makes business sense for a company to try and implement these as it will sell to the established niche market who the product is catered towards.

games developers seem to have trouble grasping these ideals. they all just want to try new ideas which no-one actually asked for but probably have thought of (meaning that they probably aren't that interseted in it), in ESTABLISHED game franchises instead of giving people what they ALREADY KNOW they want. developers try to gamble with the new ideas of their own instead. if they want a more liekly sure-fire way to make money - then those "new ideals" should be used for entirely new games rather than in an established market,,and focus on what the masses are begging for collectively.

the other issue is that developers think they can please everyone (casual and serious players of the genre) - when instead the games never really appeal as much as it could to either side because of this. surely it would make more sense to make entirely seperate game franchises for different types of players of a genre. these games can be heavily catered to what people actually want and both be much more popular as a result?

well, i'm done here for now. time to go to work.

[mr cars 1]

We need to know more about CXL11. Will it be free to current CXL owners? MC said in a support ticket that someone posted that they would reveal more over the coming weeks.... that was over a week ago now.

[Bountytaker 0]

What’s positive or negative about what I said, I’m just stating what the information MC gave us, so there is on confusion about what we will get and what we won’t. So we don’t get the same thing that happened the last time, people getting upset about something they where never going to get in the first place.    

and also do we have to take sides? I didn’t know we had to be so narrow minded about

CXL

, 

 

I didn't point to anyone's statements specifically as being positive or negative, just to be clear.  I was simply agreeing that MC's statements tend to be unclear, and lead to speculation, both positive and negative. 

For example, when Mrdaza says:

 

My understanding is they are doing FREE a Patch in march 8th witch will get rid of the hole PO system and allow buses for SP, don't know about any other features.

CXL

2011 will be a "expansion Pack " like Rush hour is to

SC4

, so you

may

need to buy the original

CXL

game for the new it to work, but you may not. I think it will only came as a digital download, and it won't be available at the shops. But I guess you could buy the "whole" game as well, it would be more expansive.  Unless you have PO then CXL2011 will be free, or just about free.   

that is what I read out of what little info they gave us.......

Or, when he guesses that the "upgrades" to the current game would cost 10 dollars or less to subscribers, it's healthy, positive speculation about what could be coming.  Nothing wrong with that at all...and, as such, no one seems to criticise the statement.  Which is good.

But, it just seems strange that with some recent examples, that do the same sort of "reading" out of the "little info they gave us", but come to different conclusions, the statements are criticised...sometimes quite blatantly.

I just think the discussion could stick more with "Has MC learned from their communication issues in the past" instead of devolving into who can, or can not, "speculate" around the future of the game.

BTW:  So far, it seems to me, they have NOT learned from their past communication mistakes.

 

Here's a question that is neither positive or negative, but is unclear thanks to MC's statements:  Will CXL 2011 come out in 2010, 2011, 2012, or later.

Based on MC's statement, and their follow up, no one can give a solid answer on that question yet...right?

 

Dose it matter?

 

Did you know when rush hour was coming out when SC4 was released? There are many uncertainty in life,  

I don’t see what the big deal is, if it comes out we get CXL2011,  if it doesn’t we get CXL and we would be able to mod the game as much as we wont.   It is a game, if MC goose under,  I still have my copy of CXL. ?quote>

When the statement released seems to say that the game won't be patched between March of '10 and the release of CXL2011, it certainly does matter, IMO.  Current players should have an idea of how long they may go without any support for their game.  Buyers should have an idea of whether its worth buying the current version since a new one (that they MAY have to pay full price for, since MC haven't been clear about non-PO subscribers and 2011) is coming out sooner or later.  Investors, i'm sure, would love to know what MC's plan is for release, since they have money riding on the whole thing.

So, yeah, an "outside" release window isn't a bad thing.  Now, if this was a BRAND NEW GAME, no, the expectation would be different.  But this is a product that's on the shelves, or alread on people's pc's, that's being updated, patched, and reworked.  And, it has a DATE in the NAME.  I think a little bit more clarity on the "outside" release expectations (simply "before 2012) is appropriate, if not straight out necessary. 

And...for MC's benefit, wouldn't an outside window HELP quell a little of the specualtion over what can be done with the revamp.  After all, people SHOULD have a more realistic view on "requests" when they see a window of less than one year than say a window of two years plus.  At least, I would hope.

 

[Bountytaker 0]

Originally posted by:

soltangris

Yes:

And what else but speculations is all this about, Bountytaker? If we weren't speculating as hell, there wouldn't be misunderstanding. I'm never speculating about MC's statements, I try to accept them as simple as possible. It's exactly when you try to interpret the statments and speculate on them when probelms arise. 

For example:

The core solo gameplay will not change a lot but it will see many improvements in Cities XL 2011. 

 

I think you have me mixed up with someone.  I didn't point you out specifically in this thread, no did I make that statement.  And, I don't recall speculating on the last statement either.  Also, not sure about this, but I think both statements, yours and the one you quote, fall under the mod request to keep the discussion on topic, and avoid personal postings.

 

Anyway, what kinda irritates me about this whole discussion is how so many people call for something I understand as a 'boykot' of the future game. They base their call on MC's previous history of ignoring players' wishes. Yes there is such thing, nobody denies that. But isn't it strange that this call is raised exactly now, when

MC finally is following players' wishes?????

OK, it might be because PO failed financially, it might be because they're in a tight spot, but the fact remains: we finally have the chance to get a better game! But no, let's boycot it, just becuase I feel infuriated that they didn't do this in the first place! Let's boycot it and kill the last chance of a decent modern city-builder!

I think, and this is just a guess here, players feel that emotional for three reasons:

1)  There is nothing in MC's statements that suggest they are actually "following player wishes".  Heck, we don't even know the breakdown between PO and SP players.  It could be that they are about equal, with the difference being profitibility, which would mean that "half" the players arent getting their wishes fullfilled (seeing the P.O. cancelled).  Basically, a statement like "following players' wishes" means little to most since it is "speculation" like everything else.  It has not facts to back it up, so many folks probably won't hang their hat on it.  And, if there isn't even concensus on what players want to begin with, you'll never avoid some folks feeling this way.  Again, IMO.

2)  No one knows that the game is going to get "better", per se.  Yes, it appears they will start to "fully" patch the SP game..but that's not a guarantee its going to get better.  If you didn't like the trading system, found it too buggy or too demanding, the SP isn't necessarily getting "better".  If you got bored with the blueprint system after two weeks, and you don't really know how it will be changed (if at all), then that isn't looking like an exciting change for SP.  If you didn't like that the cities were static, nothing says that will change.  If you didn't like the memory leak, the lagginess at higher populations, the bugs with bridges, and the "cheats" coded into the game, then nothing MC has said yet is making you believe the game will get better.  Not everyone sees access to busses as the only thing that will make it better...so, they'll probably be emotional until they get more info.

3)  This, I imagine, is the big one....no one is quite sure what the cost/access to the "improvements" is going to look like.  Bus patch, for free, in March seems clear.  The rest?  Not so much...and MC follow up statements have made it worse.  PO sub's getting a discount?  Possibly.  Original buyers getting one?  Unsaid.  One patch you pay for?  Unknown.  Several patches, each with their own price?  Unknown.  Whole new box to buy?  Not impossible.  I can sympathize with folks that are that unclear on how much their initial purchase really got them.  It would be hard for me to be excited for an "upgrade", that I might have to pay top dollar for, to a game that I already paid full price for, which devs now admit wasn't "full".

Is some of the emotional response "over the top", sure....but the emotion that's fueling it isn't unfounded.

 I understand frustration, I understand non-fulfilled expectations, but this behavior shows nothing less than a stubborn irrational bloodrage. Statements here are vastly exagerated, judgement is being passed, and all this with the authority of someone that history has proven right (that the PO failed). But really, what meaning does all this have now that there's (again) hope for the future? Are you gonna feel better if this hope also fails, just because you've predicted that it will? Probably. For a month, two months.

Goes back to the mod quote...personaliziing the debate really isn't necessary.  Its a dicussion, which means there are plenty of items/topics in it to talk about.  No need to resort to "targeting" groups of folks, I would hope.