Discussion about Always-On Connection to Origin

[Xyloxadoria 1,098]

Now that we are getting closer to the release date, I wonder given the fact that EA would prefer players to buy off origin, how would the servers cope when all those who pre-order and those who purchase on day of release start to download what I assume would be several GBs of data files almost simultaneously? I have never purchased anything from origin before and definitely have not purchased online games on day of release before.

I would imagine that if the servers buckle under the number of downloads on day of release, EA would have loads of unhappy and pissed customers. Thus it has always been my preference to purchase physical copies of games. Unfortunately in EA's case they have made it abundantly clear that they would prefer u purchase from origin (from the point of the exclusive deluxe version).

If Origin works the same way Steam does then you can start the download of the game before the actual release date. You just wont be able to activate your download until the actual day of release. Not every steam game works like that though, and some games even let people who preordred the game activate it earlier than everyone else.

Thats all steam stuff though I have no clue if Origin works that way.

[macvirt 361]

Original blog by Lucy Bradshaw, Senior Vice President of Maxis:

Hi everyone – I’m Lucy Bradshaw and I lead the Maxis Label here at EA. Last week, we held a Reddit Ask Me Almost Anything (AMAA) where we gave fans a chance to speak directly to the development team creating SimCity. First off, I want to personally thank everyone who asked us questions and participated in the event –the team really appreciates your feedback. We received some great questions on a range of topics, including the city size, the GlassBox engine powering SimCity, and even how many splines we’ve reticulated over the years (short answer: a lot).

One particular topic that was brought up during the chat was our decision to require an online connection to play the game. I’ve also been talking to fans directly on this subject and I wanted to put some of my thoughts on this here on our blog. I understand why this may be a concern for fans who have been playing SimCity for decades now. Like all of you, I’m a long-time SimCity fan. But it’s not just me – we have several veterans from previous versions of the game here at the Maxis studio, and we are all proud and excited about the game we’re making and we think you’ll really love it.

Creating a connected experience has always been a goal for SimCity, and this design decision has driven our development process for the game. This is easily the most ambitious game in the franchise and we’ve taken great care to make sure that every line of code embodies the spirit of the series. To do this, we knew we had to make sure we put our heart and souls into the simulation and the team created the most powerful simulation engine in its history, the GlassBox Engine. GlassBox is the engine that drives the entire game -- the buildings, the economics, trading, and also the overall simulation that can track data for up to 100,000 individual Sims inside each city. There is a massive amount of computing that goes into all of this, and GlassBox works by attributing portions of the computing to EA servers (the cloud) and some on the player's local computer.

Perhaps Ocean said it best when he said that real cities do not exist in a bubble; they share a region and affect one another. GlassBox does more than just segregate computing tasks, it also allows us to make it so that you can create specialized cities that are visually unique and personalized, and that can be economically integrated into a larger region. You’re always connected to the neighbors in your region so while you play, data from your city interacts with our servers, and we run the simulation at a regional scale. For example, trades between cities, simulation effects that cause change across the region like pollution or crime, as well as depletion of resources, are all processed on the servers and then data is sent back to your city on your PC. Every city in the region is updated every three minutes, which keeps the overall region in sync and makes your decisions in your city relevant to any changes that have taken place in the region.

Running the regional simulation on our servers is something we also use to support features that will make this SimCity even more fun. We use the Sim data to update worldwide leaderboards, where you get to see your city or mayoral standings as compared to the other cities in your region and between all of the regions in the world. And since SimCity is a live service, we're also using the data to create weekly global and local challenges for our players that keep the gameplay fresh and surprising.

We think this is the best SimCity ever and it wouldn’t be possible without the technology that powers our game. SimCity was designed to be connected from the ground up. We built the game around GlassBox, which takes the game to another level. And, we’ve given the player control over how to play. You can set your region to private and never interact with other people, or you can play exclusively with friends or join a public region.

We’re entering the final stages of development. We're still tuning and refining the game but already it has that special magic that sucked me into the franchise in the first place. We really look forward to seeing what you will create and how you will Mayor come March 5th.

Thanks,

Lucy

Link

Thoughts?

It's just "lolmarketing". Nothing is actually said in her message. It does not address concerns nor issues, it does not even contemplate the divide between the voiced perspectives of customers and the presented design paradigm. It's just marketing talk.

[K-os 30]

That blog post sounds like a bunch of excuses for their design choices. "The game is processing so much stuff even we have to help out! Please be amazed by that.."

It seems their staff is in damage control mode. Another similarily lol worthy set of quotes from Kip:

"One thing about large cities in SC4," says senior producer Kip Katsarelis, "I often found myself repeating the layout of my city as it grew out. There's basically a formula for where you place buildings and zone to get the right balance."

Not so with the new SimCity, apparently. Katsarelis states that thanks to GlassBox Maxis can include "more variety, more change at local levels" and ensure there's "no "right" way to plan your city."

"It's always changing based on your actions, making that 2kx2k space feel big."

http://www.nowgamer.com/news/1728095/simcity_maxis_explains_limited_city_sizes.html

[spa 970]

I think the multiplayer/online component has played a role in Maxis's decision. If you're going to have cities built by different mayors, setting some space between them is probably prudent so that no one feels crowded. In a single player type situation though, that's not really important and it's actually a negative since it prevents you from sprawling things together. Sadly, it's clear which player this game is primarily aiming to attract. Maxis has said that since you can see outside of the tile borders now (+1 for that!) having tiles right next to each other looked silly.... Well I would sacrifice a little bit of visual finesse on what you see outside a tile to avoid that ridiculous looking regional view. The picture posted is very illuminating to this point. It really drives me nuts because I'm enthuised with virtually everything else SC2013 has to offer.

[Hoipus 292]

Wait... so if there's no right way to plan a city, and that there is more variety and change at local levels, wouldn't that make larger city tiles even cooler because you could observe all of these little locales popping up?

[K-os 30]

Well obviously bigger would be better. It's not like it'd be mandatory to fill up the entire space anyways, so he's just trying to sell us on the small city aspect despite the game engine limitations.

I can see why the scale is so small now though. With 100,000 possible sims per city, and 1.6M possible sims in a region, with each essentially being clickable and trackable like citizens from Tropico, and assuming they're able to move around, work and live in any city in the region, the huge amount of processing power does seem necessary. I just don't think the end result is worth the sacrifices made.

Though I can see it being a good framework for the future. If 10 yrs later or so the same game engine and cloud network is able to support much larger tiles, population and regions from the progress in CPU power then I guess it'd be all worth it

[seanmcelholm 2]

Being online wont be a problem for me as my internet is up 99% of the time.

I can't wait for this game!

It will be even more awesome when EA/Maxis releases the Mod Tool.s

[Master_Kainis 0]

Sure, why not. What could possibly go wrong?

So a constant connection is required. The norm these days. Let EA think that it's going to make a difference and you can get away with anything and everything inside of three months. This includes modding among other things.

Day one modding never a good thing because that means someone is making something for a system they don't totally understand. I'd say a good month is needed before any sort of modding can be done with a minimal amount of bugs, even though I'm guessing there may still be a good number.

Now, I'm going to start building up a database for my plugins folder for the upteenth time because I can't seem to remember what goes where for my current backup folder. See you on the other side, I suppose.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Usually, when my Internet connection goes out for my gaming rig, the electricity is down for the entire neighborhood so I would have bigger problems to worry about. So "always online" is not an inconvenience for me.

--Ocram

[macvirt 361]

I can sort of understand if they want to force us to register online ONCE to fight piracy,

That really has not much to do with piracy nor prevent it. it has to do with control and preventing second hand markets.

Correct, that is exactly the prime consideration. The trouble with it is that this comes from a very typical EA but also obsolete US centric perspective. In most other countries consumer law has stipulations enabling second hand transfers and requirements towards access of product. The EU is the more known example, but hardly the forerunner in these matters. Like other industries before us, the gaming industry is on a road towards a conflict there. Law trumps license, simple as that.

[xcorps 6]

Reading the EULA on Origin is enough to turn your stomach. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't believe that anyone should have those kinds of snoop rights on my private machine. What if I had some classified material on here? (I don't, but could have had when I was working.)

In order to keep the snoopers in their place, I could implement SELinux with ACLs and CACLs, and spend a lot of time being the security officer for my own machine. I don't blame them for trying, but if I have to, I will do it, and they can try and scan my box as much as they like. I will send them a rocket if I catch them.

There is also the possibility that, using your firewall and a separate userid for the SimCity game (only) you can defeat them no matter what they do. Just don't give the account Admin permission. Windows has lots of security if you use it.

The Origin connection can be restricted, and you can restrict what accesses can be made from the on-line account. They would have to hack your machine to get across this, and if they did, you have an action in criminal court. It is called computer theft, and unauthorised use of resources. You own your statistics, and its none of their business.

What this means is that people can no longer be naive users, treating the computer like a home appliance. it will be necessary to understand the security features of your operating system.

And if you don't wanna do all this, don't buy this game.

You are/were a computer professional with decades of experiance, right? Your perspective of the "not a toaster" is vastly different than a person who just wants to play a game in their leisure time. I shouldn't have to learn the ins and outs of Winx security features to load a darn game. It's ludicrous. It's like saying you have to know the gap setting on your spark plugs before you drive to the store. Needing to know how to secure your machine from unknown intrusions that you unwittingly agree to is not the hallmark of good business.

You shouldn't buy this game, but not because you don't want to learn how to secure your machine. You shouldn't buy this game (or any other EA title) because you shouldn't support bad business practice.

[macvirt 361]

Reading the EULA on Origin is enough to turn your stomach. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't believe that anyone should have those kinds of snoop rights on my private machine. What if I had some classified material on here? (I don't, but could have had when I was working.)

In order to keep the snoopers in their place, I could implement SELinux with ACLs and CACLs, and spend a lot of time being the security officer for my own machine. I don't blame them for trying, but if I have to, I will do it, and they can try and scan my box as much as they like. I will send them a rocket if I catch them.

There is also the possibility that, using your firewall and a separate userid for the SimCity game (only) you can defeat them no matter what they do. Just don't give the account Admin permission. Windows has lots of security if you use it.

The Origin connection can be restricted, and you can restrict what accesses can be made from the on-line account. They would have to hack your machine to get across this, and if they did, you have an action in criminal court. It is called computer theft, and unauthorised use of resources. You own your statistics, and its none of their business.

What this means is that people can no longer be naive users, treating the computer like a home appliance. it will be necessary to understand the security features of your operating system.

And if you don't wanna do all this, don't buy this game.

You are/were a computer professional with decades of experiance, right? Your perspective of the "not a toaster" is vastly different than a person who just wants to play a game in their leisure time. I shouldn't have to learn the ins and outs of Winx security features to load a darn game. It's ludicrous. It's like saying you have to know the gap setting on your spark plugs before you drive to the store. Needing to know how to secure your machine from unknown intrusions that you unwittingly agree to is not the hallmark of good business.

You shouldn't buy this game, but not because you don't want to learn how to secure your machine. You shouldn't buy this game (or any other EA title) because you shouldn't support bad business practice.

But bad business practices - in the absence of checks & balances which take human nature in to account - make the most money. It's not like there is some magic market concept that fixes itself. The "market", it's human behaviour. Without guarding that against itself any economic interaction is by default a carte blanche. It does not matter whether that is in banking, production or the gaming industry.

People have been nurtured to not recognise their own interests. People will simply buy the game.

[cirugo 1,889]

Reading the EULA on Origin is enough to turn your stomach. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't believe that anyone should have those kinds of snoop rights on my private machine. What if I had some classified material on here? (I don't, but could have had when I was working.)

In order to keep the snoopers in their place, I could implement SELinux with ACLs and CACLs, and spend a lot of time being the security officer for my own machine. I don't blame them for trying, but if I have to, I will do it, and they can try and scan my box as much as they like. I will send them a rocket if I catch them.

There is also the possibility that, using your firewall and a separate userid for the SimCity game (only) you can defeat them no matter what they do. Just don't give the account Admin permission. Windows has lots of security if you use it.

The Origin connection can be restricted, and you can restrict what accesses can be made from the on-line account. They would have to hack your machine to get across this, and if they did, you have an action in criminal court. It is called computer theft, and unauthorised use of resources. You own your statistics, and its none of their business.

What this means is that people can no longer be naive users, treating the computer like a home appliance. it will be necessary to understand the security features of your operating system.

And if you don't wanna do all this, don't buy this game.

You are/were a computer professional with decades of experiance, right? Your perspective of the "not a toaster" is vastly different than a person who just wants to play a game in their leisure time. I shouldn't have to learn the ins and outs of Winx security features to load a darn game. It's ludicrous. It's like saying you have to know the gap setting on your spark plugs before you drive to the store. Needing to know how to secure your machine from unknown intrusions that you unwittingly agree to is not the hallmark of good business.

You shouldn't buy this game, but not because you don't want to learn how to secure your machine. You shouldn't buy this game (or any other EA title) because you shouldn't support bad business practice.

But bad business practices - in the absence of checks & balances which take human nature in to account - make the most money. It's not like there is some magic market concept that fixes itself. The "market", it's human behaviour. Without guarding that against itself any economic interaction is by default a carte blanche. It does not matter whether that is in banking, production or the gaming industry.

People have been nurtured to not recognise their own interests. People will simply buy the game.

And here's where enough people who aren't happy about it making a stink comes in...which is the other side of the coin for the social media that all of these companies are trying to exploit. The idea that you can just market your way into success is running into more and more obstacles. Until a way is found to completely clamp down on "dissent" all producers will have to factor discontent into their plans...whether that be biding their time until people are lulled back to sleep or actually addressing the discontent. Globalization isn't just affecting supply chains and marketing...it's affecting the word-of-mouth effect as well.

[xcorps 6]

But bad business practices - in the absence of checks & balances which take human nature in to account - make the most money. It's not like there is some magic market concept that fixes itself. The "market", it's human behaviour. Without guarding that against itself any economic interaction is by default a carte blanche. It does not matter whether that is in banking, production or the gaming industry.

People have been nurtured to not recognise their own interests. People will simply buy the game.

Cynical, but true to a large degree.

For its second fiscal quarter ended september 30th, 2012, EA surpassed expectations and posted net revenue of $1.08 billion USD and a profit of $49 million USD, up year-on-year from the $17 million USD in net income it posted during the same period back in FY2012.

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/21277-ea-touts-sports-titles-digital-sales-as-driving-force-for-q2-fy13-results/

Will my 60 bucks make a difference? No. But I look at 1.8 billion in revenue and profit of only 49 million and can see that's not a good return, even though it's double from the previous year.(Piracy and DRM didn't make that difference, but I bet the corporate line says otherwise). So if enough people don't plop down 60$, maybe (though I seriously doubt it) EA will have a management turnover that will begin to turn the ship around to a better business model that focuses on enjoyment of the product rather than exploiting the purchaser.

[macvirt 361]

And here's where enough people who aren't happy about it making a stink comes in...which is the other side of the coin for the social media that all of these companies are trying to exploit. The idea that you can just market your way into success is running into more and more obstacles. Until a way is found to completely clamp down on "dissent" all producers will have to factor discontent into their plans...whether that be biding their time until people are lulled back to sleep or actually addressing the discontent. Globalization isn't just affecting supply chains and marketing...it's affecting the word-of-mouth effect as well.

Globalisation is not the or a cause. It is an effect of human interaction, a variable of progression over time of that. We've had it ever since we crawled out of caves and started to impose a footprint on our environment higher than that of our strictly biological necessities.

The word of mouth factor is tied to speed of communications and the tresholds before utilising means of communication. Globalisation is not a factor of that, it is affected by that. Demographics, of which technology is an active variable for elements like speed / treshold / etc. is what drives this. Look at how smart marketing for example looks for and utilises group dynamics. The higher the demographical pressure or the greater the number of connections and the smaller the boundaries between, the easier it becomes to exert influence. It's energy efficient.

But yes, discontent is a factor in any industry. Increasingly it is an active variable in business models where it is considered an active asset. Used to further productive gain. Dependant ofcourse on only a select few aspects of social dynamics it remains however an increasingly more useful instrument as long as that treshold of "common sense" (the ability to look at private and group interests in balance and over time) is nurtured to reflexively not be used as a motivator of decision making (by consumers).

It is interesting, but this was the topic of an intruiging panel discussion some years ago at a GDC where it was demonstrated how the gaming industry is one of the more reliable testbeds for the transition of concepts like "game theory" as applied science for use in other industries. One of the results of overlap in using accumulated data from this industry is why we today see a growing trend among enterprises to accumulate much more in depth behaviour on human patterning. This is why EA - as example - has such a vested and growing interest in mapping out user profiling using (what some call intrusive) tools like the Origin platform. The monetary value of that data far exceeds the financial gains of the ventures active within the gaming industry of EA over time.

Not that the gaming industry is the sole sector where we can see this. Online advertising and Search are another set of sectors where these trends are very visible. There however there are limitations imposed, implied or increasingly under consideration from legal frameworks in various economic zones (the EU being a distinct forerunner in this). The gaming industry just doesn't have the required perception applied to it in order to get the same sort of attention in these matters. Which is only logical, it's "just games" right?

@Xcorps, the profit value over that revenue volume may seem little. But consider that EA operates not as a gaming development company, and much more as an investment firm with a distinct focus on venture capital management. A lot of money is taken out before that calculation of the amount and value of profit. In a way it is how the industry has learned from the entertainment industry, where seperate ventures are tallied seperately - and where ventures are ran artificially in order to offset profits after "costs". Not that this is something unusual. More generic industries do it as well. Heck, look at how Apple has restructured itself in order to control profit value tied to regional operations. Same concept, different format of execution. It's business. Generally consumers are guided by concepts like dividends and profit margins, whereas in reality those are just parts of instrumentation to maintain appearances. Required for operations yes, but - as long as control is strict - hardly critical.

For EA to fall, you'd have to look at very different scenarios. Personality wars is surprisingly one of the most common. Corruption conflicts another one. The biggest dependancy however for a company like EA is creative flow and ownership of it. If game developers and their ad interim publishers would not follow the typical roads that lead to becoming part of a bigger whole (so to speak) companies like EA would have to completely reinvent themselves. In cases in various industries where such challenges happen, historically barely half a percent make it. A funny ongoing case in that regard in another industry is how a personality war situation in the role of a ceo is forcing a company like Nokia exactly on such a road.

[xcorps 6]

Great post, very interesting.

[CaptCity 4,893]

As interesting as the dialog may be, let's remember what the topic is - the online aspect of the game as it currently exists.

[PGHammer 5]

A mod that makes the economy of the game reliant entirely on the in-game region would be a nice community solution to this (in other words, the game could run essentially self-sufficiently), although I don't think EA would want that to be possible.

Do you realize what you are insisting on, compared to the intent of the developers?

You are, in fact, basically insisting that your cities exist in a bubble (which has been the case with SC4 and previous), whereas the developers (Maxis/EA) are taking a more realistic and (believe it or not) honest approach by insisting that the cities be always connected. It has nothing to do with DRM; however, it has *everything* to do with how the agents work in the GBE (Glass Box Engine) and with the core concept (new with SC 2013) of regional/metropolitan play.

In other words, "How dare SC 2013 be different!"

In reality, no city or town exists in a vacuum (unless it's on an island).

If you are that insistent on bubble cities, stick to SC4 or CitiesXL - neither of them are necessarily going anywhere. (However, because they actually ARE *bubble cities*, they are not realistic, either.)

[macvirt 361]

A mod that makes the economy of the game reliant entirely on the in-game region would be a nice community solution to this (in other words, the game could run essentially self-sufficiently), although I don't think EA would want that to be possible.

Do you realize what you are insisting on, compared to the intent of the developers?

You are, in fact, basically insisting that your cities exist in a bubble (which has been the case with SC4 and previous), whereas the developers (Maxis/EA) are taking a more realistic and (believe it or not) honest approach by insisting that the cities be always connected. It has nothing to do with DRM; however, it has *everything* to do with how the agents work in the GBE (Glass Box Engine) and with the core concept (new with SC 2013) of regional/metropolitan play.

In other words, "How dare SC 2013 be different!"

In reality, no city or town exists in a vacuum (unless it's on an island).

If you are that insistent on bubble cities, stick to SC4 or CitiesXL - neither of them are necessarily going anywhere. (However, because they actually ARE *bubble cities*, they are not realistic, either.)

The "realism" argument is just marketing. Nothing more. It can't be used in any value statements or comparisons simply because it is just a marketing term. Beyond that, it is a pointless word to use either way because it is subjective. What is realistic to one, is fantasy shiny to the other.

Look at subways in SC2013. Maxis states it is aiming for ultra-realism, but there are no subways. See? Plenty users will find that a perfect example of dumbing down the game (in methods and manners very similar to what was observed in the evolution of Civ V), others will find it better because they can embrace Kip's statements of how that allows for a more realistic challenge in the dealing with road networks. Yet others will simply try to insert the functionality regardless of reasons, though they may very well find that such deep third party interaction is not allowed.

At the same time, just don't make the assumption that the agent system of Glassbox is a requirement for design goals. It can be turned off, it can be set to local data only. It's just that from a sales perspective enabling that does not make sense if your sales pitch relies to a high degree on making use of social gaming mechanisms.

Cities not being bubbles has nothing to do with how the agents in the GBE work. The agent system is configured for design goals. Those are set by commercial requirements. What you are referring to as "how dare SC2013 be different" is a rather short sighted perspective in terms of commercial considerations. Consider the perspectives of user types who just want to puzzle, and build, on their own and in their own immersion. These are all user types that are incredibly substantial in terms of volume. Even just the state of SC4 today still demonstrates that. Discarding (depending what perspective is brought to the table) these potential customer groups as "not in tune with a new product" or "not interesting" is something somewhere between dumb and oblivious - in a business sense, obviously.

I have seen a lot of deductions from what in reality are nothing more than marketing statements. It is interesting to see each time how consumers run with that, and after purchase find themselves in disappointment they should have seen coming - but because they spent coin most immediately fall prey to the syndrome of "have to defend the product as it equates to defending my purchase". The irony is that where consumers during the release of information (by marketing of gaming products or services) offset such information with reality checks and good communications of expectations and origins thereof back to the studio you tend to see a much easier road for synergy between the studio's efforts pre- and post release (a big example of that is for example Firaxis who are still building upon pre-release communicated required course corrections for Civ V - course corrections in perspectives that want to embrace the product yes, and not simply content or feature injections).

If people just discard or shrug off other people's perspectives, especially those which lie at the basis of how an obsolute product got nurtured to a point where it provided the foundation for the viability of a succeeding product, that is at the least counter productive. If only because it allows marketing elements to essentially decide the interaction between commercial and design goals in a top down direction (as opposed to building something from the ground up, which is a manner that includes ability to both maneuver and complement).

Now here is the funny thing, something which many of us in the gaming industry tend to forget. It is not about the intent of the developers. Realistically, the developers never matter unless they manage to capture the perspectives of consumers and cater specifically to those and not their own - while translating that into cases and presentations that keep the almighty suits happy. Without that, it is always the suits that decide. For them neither developers nor customers have any other meaning or weight that resources. So be very careful with statements like "Do you realize what you are insisting on, compared to the intent of the developers?".

[PGHammer 5]

A mod that makes the economy of the game reliant entirely on the in-game region would be a nice community solution to this (in other words, the game could run essentially self-sufficiently), although I don't think EA would want that to be possible.

Do you realize what you are insisting on, compared to the intent of the developers?

You are, in fact, basically insisting that your cities exist in a bubble (which has been the case with SC4 and previous), whereas the developers (Maxis/EA) are taking a more realistic and (believe it or not) honest approach by insisting that the cities be always connected. It has nothing to do with DRM; however, it has *everything* to do with how the agents work in the GBE (Glass Box Engine) and with the core concept (new with SC 2013) of regional/metropolitan play.

In other words, "How dare SC 2013 be different!"

In reality, no city or town exists in a vacuum (unless it's on an island).

If you are that insistent on bubble cities, stick to SC4 or CitiesXL - neither of them are necessarily going anywhere. (However, because they actually ARE *bubble cities*, they are not realistic, either.)

The "realism" argument is just marketing. Nothing more. It can't be used in any value statements or comparisons simply because it is just a marketing term. Beyond that, it is a pointless word to use either way because it is subjective. What is realistic to one, is fantasy shiny to the other.

Look at subways in SC2013. Maxis states it is aiming for ultra-realism, but there are no subways. See? Plenty users will find that a perfect example of dumbing down the game (in methods and manners very similar to what was observed in the evolution of Civ V), others will find it better because they can embrace Kip's statements of how that allows for a more realistic challenge in the dealing with road networks. Yet others will simply try to insert the functionality regardless of reasons, though they may very well find that such deep third party interaction is not allowed.

At the same time, just don't make the assumption that the agent system of Glassbox is a requirement for design goals. It can be turned off, it can be set to local data only. It's just that from a sales perspective enabling that does not make sense if your sales pitch relies to a high degree on making use of social gaming mechanisms.

Cities not being bubbles has nothing to do with how the agents in the GBE work. The agent system is configured for design goals. Those are set by commercial requirements. What you are referring to as "how dare SC2013 be different" is a rather short sighted perspective in terms of commercial considerations. Consider the perspectives of user types who just want to puzzle, and build, on their own and in their own immersion. These are all user types that are incredibly substantial in terms of volume. Even just the state of SC4 today still demonstrates that. Discarding (depending what perspective is brought to the table) these potential customer groups as "not in tune with a new product" or "not interesting" is something somewhere between dumb and oblivious - in a business sense, obviously.

I have seen a lot of deductions from what in reality are nothing more than marketing statements. It is interesting to see each time how consumers run with that, and after purchase find themselves in disappointment they should have seen coming - but because they spent coin most immediately fall prey to the syndrome of "have to defend the product as it equates to defending my purchase". The irony is that where consumers during the release of information (by marketing of gaming products or services) offset such information with reality checks and good communications of expectations and origins thereof back to the studio you tend to see a much easier road for synergy between the studio's efforts pre- and post release (a big example of that is for example Firaxis who are still building upon pre-release communicated required course corrections for Civ V - course corrections in perspectives that want to embrace the product yes, and not simply content or feature injections).

If people just discard or shrug off other people's perspectives, especially those which lie at the basis of how an obsolute product got nurtured to a point where it provided the foundation for the viability of a succeeding product, that is at the least counter productive. If only because it allows marketing elements to essentially decide the interaction between commercial and design goals in a top down direction (as opposed to building something from the ground up, which is a manner that includes ability to both maneuver and complement).

Now here is the funny thing, something which many of us in the gaming industry tend to forget. It is not about the intent of the developers. Realistically, the developers never matter unless they manage to capture the perspectives of consumers and cater specifically to those and not their own - while translating that into cases and presentations that keep the almighty suits happy. Without that, it is always the suits that decide. For them neither developers nor customers have any other meaning or weight that resources. So be very careful with statements like "Do you realize what you are insisting on, compared to the intent of the developers?".

Developers (application, game or otherwise) have targeted customers; what many seem to want from the game isn't what the developers are targeting. Fair enough.

However, that is provided by games that are not only out there - why would (or should) a developer re-invent the wheel?

What the developer and publisher want does matter - as it determines whether i will have any interest in the game or not.

As it is, my interest in SC 2013 is primarily due to it requiring me to take things into consideration that neither SC4 or CitiesXL do - specifically, the needs of other cities. While there has been the *idea* of other cities (and even an an entire SImNation) since SC2000, how well was it implemented in previous titles? The answer, of course, is rather simple - it wasn't. The idea/concept was there - however, there was no method to implement it.

You compensated by building *bubble cities*.

Never mind that it isn't realistic - it was *the only game in town*.

Now, it isn't. You can build *bubble cities* - *semi-connected* cities, and even fully-connected cities (the last two are supported by SC 2013).

The question faced by the long-time SimCity fanbase is this - are we willing to adapt to actually having something that's been hinted at since the early days actually available?

[Shark7 118]

This whole 'intent of the developers' discussion is pointless. The developers have one intent and one intent only...to make money. And too often they forget the basic principle of making money:

You have to make a product the consumer wants to buy. Period.

You can design what you think is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but if no one else wants it you have failed as a business. And alienating or villifying a large chunk of your potential customer base is ALWAYS a bad business decision.

Will the new simcity with its forced online and required EA spyware succeed or fail? Won't know for a while, we'll have to wait and see. They may very well find a new market of players that the game suits just fine. But what I can see just by the number of negative comments is that they have succeeded in alienating a portion of the existing customer base with the Origin and forced online only...and that equates to lost sales and revenue.

You have to keep in mind that SC4 was very successful as it was. The fact that we are here on Simtropolis discussing anything 10 years after the games release attests to that. SC4 has a very healthy online community considering the games age. And part of its success is the sandbox...that is I can sit down and play for a few hours, design a city to my liking, then completely destroy it with disasters if I like. All I need is my copy of the game and my computer...if the internet goes down while I am playing, I just keep right on playing and can still save my game when I'm done. You can't do that with the cloud saves of the new simcity. You simply can't play if the internet is down for any reason, or if EA's servers malfunction. And that is a weakness.

And what it all comes down to is this: The intent of the developers is to make money, that is what influences any product's design. Now did Maxis read their potential customer base right? Time will tell.

[reyemarr 8]

I simply want the option to run the game offline when there is no Internet connection!!! Is that too much to ask??!! There is not need to over complicate the issue.

[CaptCity 4,893]

Once again, a reminder to keep it on topic. Let's not make statements that will divert the thread from its intent...

[macvirt 361]

A mod that makes the economy of the game reliant entirely on the in-game region would be a nice community solution to this (in other words, the game could run essentially self-sufficiently), although I don't think EA would want that to be possible.

Do you realize what you are insisting on, compared to the intent of the developers?

You are, in fact, basically insisting that your cities exist in a bubble (which has been the case with SC4 and previous), whereas the developers (Maxis/EA) are taking a more realistic and (believe it or not) honest approach by insisting that the cities be always connected. It has nothing to do with DRM; however, it has *everything* to do with how the agents work in the GBE (Glass Box Engine) and with the core concept (new with SC 2013) of regional/metropolitan play.

In other words, "How dare SC 2013 be different!"

In reality, no city or town exists in a vacuum (unless it's on an island).

If you are that insistent on bubble cities, stick to SC4 or CitiesXL - neither of them are necessarily going anywhere. (However, because they actually ARE *bubble cities*, they are not realistic, either.)

The "realism" argument is just marketing. Nothing more. It can't be used in any value statements or comparisons simply because it is just a marketing term. Beyond that, it is a pointless word to use either way because it is subjective. What is realistic to one, is fantasy shiny to the other.

Look at subways in SC2013. Maxis states it is aiming for ultra-realism, but there are no subways. See? Plenty users will find that a perfect example of dumbing down the game (in methods and manners very similar to what was observed in the evolution of Civ V), others will find it better because they can embrace Kip's statements of how that allows for a more realistic challenge in the dealing with road networks. Yet others will simply try to insert the functionality regardless of reasons, though they may very well find that such deep third party interaction is not allowed.

At the same time, just don't make the assumption that the agent system of Glassbox is a requirement for design goals. It can be turned off, it can be set to local data only. It's just that from a sales perspective enabling that does not make sense if your sales pitch relies to a high degree on making use of social gaming mechanisms.

Cities not being bubbles has nothing to do with how the agents in the GBE work. The agent system is configured for design goals. Those are set by commercial requirements. What you are referring to as "how dare SC2013 be different" is a rather short sighted perspective in terms of commercial considerations. Consider the perspectives of user types who just want to puzzle, and build, on their own and in their own immersion. These are all user types that are incredibly substantial in terms of volume. Even just the state of SC4 today still demonstrates that. Discarding (depending what perspective is brought to the table) these potential customer groups as "not in tune with a new product" or "not interesting" is something somewhere between dumb and oblivious - in a business sense, obviously.

I have seen a lot of deductions from what in reality are nothing more than marketing statements. It is interesting to see each time how consumers run with that, and after purchase find themselves in disappointment they should have seen coming - but because they spent coin most immediately fall prey to the syndrome of "have to defend the product as it equates to defending my purchase". The irony is that where consumers during the release of information (by marketing of gaming products or services) offset such information with reality checks and good communications of expectations and origins thereof back to the studio you tend to see a much easier road for synergy between the studio's efforts pre- and post release (a big example of that is for example Firaxis who are still building upon pre-release communicated required course corrections for Civ V - course corrections in perspectives that want to embrace the product yes, and not simply content or feature injections).

If people just discard or shrug off other people's perspectives, especially those which lie at the basis of how an obsolute product got nurtured to a point where it provided the foundation for the viability of a succeeding product, that is at the least counter productive. If only because it allows marketing elements to essentially decide the interaction between commercial and design goals in a top down direction (as opposed to building something from the ground up, which is a manner that includes ability to both maneuver and complement).

Now here is the funny thing, something which many of us in the gaming industry tend to forget. It is not about the intent of the developers. Realistically, the developers never matter unless they manage to capture the perspectives of consumers and cater specifically to those and not their own - while translating that into cases and presentations that keep the almighty suits happy. Without that, it is always the suits that decide. For them neither developers nor customers have any other meaning or weight that resources. So be very careful with statements like "Do you realize what you are insisting on, compared to the intent of the developers?".

Developers (application, game or otherwise) have targeted customers; what many seem to want from the game isn't what the developers are targeting. Fair enough.

However, that is provided by games that are not only out there - why would (or should) a developer re-invent the wheel?

What the developer and publisher want does matter - as it determines whether i will have any interest in the game or not.

As it is, my interest in SC 2013 is primarily due to it requiring me to take things into consideration that neither SC4 or CitiesXL do - specifically, the needs of other cities. While there has been the *idea* of other cities (and even an an entire SImNation) since SC2000, how well was it implemented in previous titles? The answer, of course, is rather simple - it wasn't. The idea/concept was there - however, there was no method to implement it.

You compensated by building *bubble cities*.

Never mind that it isn't realistic - it was *the only game in town*.

Now, it isn't. You can build *bubble cities* - *semi-connected* cities, and even fully-connected cities (the last two are supported by SC 2013).

The question faced by the long-time SimCity fanbase is this - are we willing to adapt to actually having something that's been hinted at since the early days actually available?

No, as stated before, the aim of the game is making money. Nothing more, nothing less.

The question is not that of adaptation. It is simply to what extent Maxis will cater to those fall in the user types of builder and puzzle solver who also fall in the category of solo player and less in the categories of casual or leisure player.

  Edited December 31, 2012 by CaptCity  

[Urban Cartographer 601]

There have been discussions about having SC2013 be on the Apple App Store that has something similar to that of a 100% offline single player mode, just like with the Apple App Store version of Civilization V (also the only legal non-Steam version of the game).

If these discussions were true, then I would get a Mac and play SC2013 without Origin.

[Skyrunner27 23]

[

No, as stated before, the aim of the game is making money. Nothing more, nothing less.

The question is not that of adaptation. It is simply to what extent Maxis will cater to those fall in the user types of builder and puzzle solver who also fall in the category of solo player and less in the categories of casual or leisure player.

When was the point of making a game not about money. Developers have to eat too. Simcity is a game designed to be able to pick up and play,while having to have to think about what your doing. Not everybody who enjoys strategy enjoys Solo-Player. How do you think chess got invented.

[Hoipus 292]

[

No, as stated before, the aim of the game is making money. Nothing more, nothing less.

The question is not that of adaptation. It is simply to what extent Maxis will cater to those fall in the user types of builder and puzzle solver who also fall in the category of solo player and less in the categories of casual or leisure player.

When was the point of making a game not about money. Developers have to eat too. Simcity is a game designed to be able to pick up and play,while having to have to think about what your doing. Not everybody who enjoys strategy enjoys Solo-Player. How do you think chess got invented.

Nobody is saying the multiplayer/online features are bad. People are disappointed that there is no option to not be online without pursuing not-quite-legal means.

[Spatzimaus 77]

I'm going to try to not sound like a fanboy, since I don't actually like the always-on part in general and don't care about leaderboards and such. But the way I see it, Origin's effect here is as an anti-stagnation effect; more specifically, it destroys the idea of an optimal strategy, without the need for excessive interference by the developers. This is not a bad thing.

In most games the players parse the numbers better than the developers did, and find some optimized playstyle that lets them easily defeat the AI and/or other players. Or maybe they find that choosing path X is just inherently better than choosing path Y, even though the two were intended to be comparable. So you get a patch that changes the values to make path Y a bit better, but now someone figures out that mixing Y with Z is way too good, so they have to tweak it again. And every time they tweak, the players scream "nerf".

But here, it's self-correcting. If players find that making computers is the only way to go, then the global market will automatically tweak the prices of the components and finished products to bring the prices back in line with other money-makers. If everyone needs oil and most players decide to sit on their supplies, then the price will rise enough that it'll encourage those folks to drill in that wildlife refuge. The devs would still have some work to do, mainly in AI improvements, but they wouldn't waste time constantly tweaking prices to prevent a pure optimum strategy.

Now, I'm still not happy with the always-on aspect; I'd like a simple override, where playing offline causes the trading network to use the last known values for everything, with a small penalty to prevent someone from deliberately "freezing" the values at some lopsided point. (You'd still be required to connect on the first day, to reduce piracy, but after that the player should have the option to play in an offline mode if their internet goes down.) Better yet, I'd like to see the game provide the player with several updating options, ranging from constant updates to never updating, and with options for once per session or once per day in between. If you're going to play multiplayer then obviously you'd need to be online, but it shouldn't be necessary for single-player games.

[macvirt 361]

Agreed on principle of observations, these are known phenomena in game design, I'm not convinced however on the part of self correcting. There is no such thing as a magic market that fixes itself. I know, it is a popular idea in several of our real world economic models & systems, the trouble is that these are all derivative of human behaviour and interaction (seperately). Most of the time though people forget that because of some wierd fixation on ideology to a point where wishes become convictions and ultimately dogma.

As much as it is possible to "game the game", so to speak, that by no means provides guarantees for concepts like a magic self correcting market. This is more known actually in the world of game design than it is in the real world Which is why in game design you often see methods available to developers to make such corrections. That varies from visible interactions, visible additions or changes all the way to discrete and even hidden injections or what some might call manipulations (though these are valid methods of control, no matter how hard they have it with "gaming the gamer").

We will see, I get the idea Maxis will try to seperate the "worlds" of their primary target groups and those of secondary groups who prefer - shall we say - seclusion or seperation from the interconnected requirements of multiplayer / social / ranking elements. It would be self defeating to not invest in such seperations or methods thereto.

Still, that "market" is a transaction model yes, but it is also a control system. Patches are a common way to address changes brought on by user behaviour and interaction, but I suspect Maxis will have to be more on the ball than just that. It remains a derivative system, and if there is one golden rule of game design it is "never underestimate the chaos of your users gaming your game better"

I agree though, there is no functional requirement for a forced set of methods for online solo or multiplayer gaming here. All there is, really comes down to marketing and methods of sales targets. Personally I fully understand the motivations there, I just don't think it is wise to push anything on the user. It makes more sense in terms of game design and commercial aspects to provide choice and guide the user (subtly, there is never a better way than to enable the user to pick a puzzle and guide himself). It results in a far deeper connection with gaming products. And ultimately, that is not just what builds a long lasting foundation for a gaming product to continue adding on commercially. It is also what builds great franchises and brands alike.

Trouble is, and this should be a trend visible to even casual gamers, the concept of single-player is becoming ever more subservient to a change in methods resulting from a wider view on business methods. All understandable, but the result for games as games is that games become more broad in focus for market but less deep in terms of immersion and experience. This is usually compensated with what we call "shiny", trouble is, even the raven that has a nack for that tends to get caught in a cycle of requiring ever more bloom on the shiny to keep him attracted Not to mention that this does cost resources which have to come from elsewhere in the project management for the game. Often an unfortunate result of that is an even more wide focus with the experience becoming increasingly shallow.

Anyway, we can debate until we see blue in the face. Customers are not a factor in these decisions. They are a resource. EA sets strategic targets, studios cater to these. Maxis has made its decisions and has executed to meet set targets. It's a done deal. There is only one real window towards enhancements on the topic of options for solo / multi and offline / online play configurations, but that is tied directly to the release meeting targets in such a manner that such enhancements become attractive for DLC tracks. Pure and simple. What some might call "enriching" the game, or what others may call "fixing" the game, regardless of whatever feature or content there a topic is or may be, these days only exists on that DLC road. That is part of business planning. Potential for such things depends on what targets are met for what researched user groups and the visible exposure evolution after release.

[Spatzimaus 77]

There is no such thing as a magic market that fixes itself. I know, it is a popular idea in several of our real world economic models & systems, the trouble is that these are all derivative of human behaviour and interaction (seperately).

So what? Just because the effects we see are caused by the actions of humans doesn't mean that they're only real when humans are involved. Scarce resources driving competition higher has been a part of the whole natural selection thing since long before us monkeys learned to throw our own poop. If too much of any one good or commodity goes onto the market, relative to the demand, then the price WILL go down barring the effects of speculation. Now, this assumes the developers get the values in the right ballpark on the first try, because if they don't then the system won't be able to correct itself. I don't think they'll be TOO far off, since they seem to be perfectly capable of creating test cities internally that can then run for long times to establish some basic equilibria; they might screw up one good's prices so badly that it needs patching early on, but I doubt it.

And I never said that the self-correcting aspect of the market would be the ONLY thing necessary. For an obvious exception, consider the casinos we saw in the last video. These use no resource, they're simply a money-maker, and the only question of whether they're worth the investment will depend on the other things necessary to keep them running (increased transit costs, more police, etc.). So, if it turns out that they're just too good relative to the other industries then the developers will have to step in and tweak their values. The same goes for Universities; higher education means more high-tech industries and such, which'll make you money, but tuning this to be comparable to the other ways of building a profitable city will take direct control by the development team. And consider the Trade option, where you can make cities entirely dependent on buying certain things when they're low and selling them when they're high...

But for MOST things, supply and demand will be sufficient to mitigate the problem, by removing the minor disparities that would otherwise dominate long-term strategies. You won't find any strategy guides telling you to always go Computers because the other specialties just aren't as good, because the "endgame" options for financial growth will end up comparable purely through the actions of the players. Although, there'll still be several incentive-driven periods along the way; a developing city will be best served harvesting its natural resources to sell on the market or use in low-tech industries or power plants, instead of jumping straight to high-tech/clean options for everything, because it can make more money that way in the short term and use that money to develop its long-term infrastructure better.

And to bring it back to the core topic, that sort of correction system only works if you go online, because how else would your game find out the optimum values for everything? Sure, they could update the values in a patch, for those folks who can't go online to play, and I'd like to see the game save the latest online-set values for if you lose connection. But I can understand their reasons.