Discussion about Always-On Connection to Origin

[arcology 224]

There just needs to be a part of the system that annoys EA more than it does the customers. For example, Ubisoft eventually toned down the DRM for Anno 2070 after getting fed up with all of the people asking for new activations after installing new hardware.

You would think EA would have learned from UBI. I still think it will be a flop like SCS the audience they are trying to attract wont be interested just like SCS.

The more I am learning about it, the more I don't think it will be the experience most would have hoped it would be. The fact that they have taken away so much control is ridiculous.

The biggest complaint that I personally have is the fact that they do want to appeal to a broader audience, however, with past games with EA, the "casual" gamer audience was blamed for the game not doing so well. The easy way out for a corporation to explain away their lack of success.

To me, with the history of them trying to put these types of games online, it has not been good.

[Jim14409 448]

There just needs to be a part of the system that annoys EA more than it does the customers. For example, Ubisoft eventually toned down the DRM for Anno 2070 after getting fed up with all of the people asking for new activations after installing new hardware.

You would think EA would have learned from UBI. I still think it will be a flop like SCS the audience they are trying to attract wont be interested just like SCS.

The more I am learning about it, the more I don't think it will be the experience most would have hoped it would be. The fact that they have taken away so much control is ridiculous.

The biggest complaint that I personally have is the fact that they do want to appeal to a broader audience, however, with past games with EA, the "casual" gamer audience was blamed for the game not doing so well. The easy way out for a corporation to explain away their lack of success.

To me, with the history of them trying to put these types of games online, it has not been good.

In trying to please "everyone" they will end up pleasing no one long term. This will be one of the games that become quickly discarded as players move on looking for something more substantial. Big companies today either don't understand that or don't care because they make their money on those who seemingly have money to burn and don't care about quality. At least that's how it appears to me.

[arcology 224]

In trying to please "everyone" they will end up pleasing no one long term. This will be one of the games that become quickly discarded as players move on looking for something more substantial. Big companies today either don't understand that or don't care because they make their money on those who seemingly have money to burn and don't care about quality. At least that's how it appears to me.

I agree.

Many people have complained about the small maps and I think, that once people really start to play, they will start charging for all the things these players will want (land, etc.,) - and once that happens - that really is it.

I understand that they are a corporation, need to make money, but, this is just really milking it. That's what they have ended up doing with Sims 3 (charging $5 per premium objects, etc.) and they think it will work with SimCity.

[macvirt 361]

Sure, but I am sure the people at Maxis do think they can potentially avoid that trap. Something I believe is accurate in theory. The practice will depend on how many resources they can allocate over the different stages of maintaining the product.

Look at it this way, they have created a nice fun quick game. Tailored for today's markets, utilising today's trends to maximise gain over time. It caters to a broad range of generic user profiles and provides exactly that which fuels the related behavioural trends that influence primary and secondary sales.

That is a foundation to start from, if they decide it to be. The game can be enhanced, provided with a wider perspective but also a set of deeper, more immersive, perspectives. That requires the introduction of further feature sets, as well as content. This is possible. It will however be subject to planning as well as directives from EA, but as mentioned before it will be mostly subject to resource allocation. DLC tracks do not require the same amount of full allocation as core development processes. I'm not saying things like Art are something "on the side", but it does not take the resources of a full title. Maxis will gradually change the resources allocation according to planning for this and other products as well as those directives over time. This is where the crunch point is for the theoretical further enhancement of the game.

It is possible, it is however a virtual guarantee that the natural limitations that do apply requirement a very business savvy set of decisions on what to do when, but more importantly how much of it and under what conditions.

DLC tracks will be prioritised. Some of that the devs in particular will try to utilise to deepen / enhance / complete the game. Most of that however will remain theory, and will become part of the "retirement" planning for the title. They have seen how users can nurture a discontinued product far beyond its lifecycle.

But yes, ofcourse it will be milked. A big hallmark here is the topic of proper moddability tools. The timing of that really tells a hell of a lot on planning stages but also reigning mentality under influence of changing targets and conditions.

What we really need to see is visible efforts of balance between developers and publisher on these topics. Without that I fear that the SimCity franchise will end up as just another Sims. And well, let's be honest, greed is a powerful and often useful thing, but using it as an instrument tends to also bring forgetfullness of sustaining that which feeds. Whether it is finance or games, does not matter. The Romans learned that a few thousand years ago, as has every other enterprise and empire alike. It's really up to EA, as unfortunately the developers can really only do so much to try and make their work shine beyond the powerpoint and the marketing. I wish this were different, but this really is the nature of the relationship between a studio and the big publishers. It's something the people in the industry itself are remarkably resilient against waking up to, for very understandable reasons. But that is ok, the customers never wake up anyway

[DanSky 14]

Yeah, I want to express my little disappoint too. I'm a mayor of a megametropoli playing from the fields of a country house. I dont have connection also. I cant play.

The only solution would be playing at the work place, but it's not nice and not enough time :-)

In the hope someone at maxis is reading and getting the feedback... CHANGE IT !

[Bdub01 201]

So if I don't have Internet connections on my computer I can't play? How stupid is that?!?

[arcology 224]

DLC tracks will be prioritised. Some of that the devs in particular will try to utilise to deepen / enhance / complete the game. Most of that however will remain theory, and will become part of the "retirement" planning for the title. They have seen how users can nurture a discontinued product far beyond its lifecycle...

But that is ok, the customers never wake up anyway

There is absolutely nothing wrong with them making money and planning to release things throughout. It is the manner in which it is being done, the absolute lack of choice to the consumer, that is baffling. Always requiring to be online is not a good choice.

The best strategy would be to have at least an "illusion of choice", if you will.

Offline and online modes.

They forget, as you very eloquently pointed out, that the fans have nurtured this game way past the point of the corporations making money off of it - and they will not like being forced to pay additional upon additional for things they could create for themselves and have become used to not paying for.

It is a fine line to be so obvious in greed vs building up long term loyalty that guarantees long term success with a franchise.

SC4 has succeeded for the love it, and there is a reason for that.

[macvirt 361]

Well, even if they do not forget it, that is something largely irrelevant. The game has been created to cater to a different set of user types than those who nurtured SC4 and kept it going beyond its lifecycle. There are reasons for that, but that also means that the targets set are derivative of that first and foremost.

Appealing to those nurturing user types is possible, both with and without DLC, but that is a niche market target. Most likely to not receive much priority either until planning determines lifecycle or if resources can be allocated to that because other targets have been met, or until one has to think outside of the box because targets are not being met. At which point it makes sense to make good use of what your customers can do for you without you having to pay them.

SC4 did succeed for the love it, and there are indeed reasons for that. But, and this should be made clear, SC4 succeeded only after its actual lifecycle. The figures on that are quite clear. It makes sense for Maxis to prioritise according to EA directives because it enables them to tap into much much larger market volumes for every type of sales than what was available for and with SC4. The nett result is that they will implement lessons learned from SC4 pre and post lifecycle end but the majority of those lessons will be of much lower priority than the implementation as per directives.

The fans of SC4 are simply not the primary target for SC2013. They are a resource, to be utilised. At minimum for generating buzz and as part of marketing strategy. And at some point to effectively "work" for Maxis. But when that will be depends on a completely different mindset making those decisions.

The risks of this are actually minimal. As long as Maxis can satisfy requirements of the mainstream market targets (which is not the same as meeting the needs of mainstream users by the way, remember that most human beings tend to buy other things than what they need, that is known as doing business ) they will not have to deviate from strategic planning. As we have seen that moddability currently does not have a position within that strategy (other then "ok, we'd like ideas from you people, at some point, to do something we don't know what yet") I am not overly optimistic in that regard. I doubt we will see SC2012 enhanced any time soon to a point where it meets conditions and requirements for the same kind of exergy to be unleashed on it as was built up for SC4 by its customers.

[tyholmes 24]

I for one will not be buying this game. What a disappointment to be waiting for a year to play it.

What with the tile size, always online DRM, no local saves and a myriad of other things, it's like EA wants this game to bomb on purpose.

Every game and their dog is a glorified facebook game nowadays. No, I do not care to connect to facebook to share my high score at Assassins creed.

Another thing that drives me nuts is "in app purchases." "here buy this game for 2 dollars. Now in order to play it, or do anything to advance and make the game fun, you will have to spend 34 dollars to get "in game money" to spend "in game."

The BUILT IN fans they have without doing any marketing or anything have been alienated now. Sure they may get a few casual gamers like the tweens or the teens, who've never played simcity before, and whose entire lives are spent online anyway, and they don't know any different. Because this is the world the grew up in.

But the real Simcity fans, the ones here and on the xlnation, we're all older! Most here, have probably been playing Simcity, like me, since the 90's, and have been fans from the get go. Now we're all 30 years old, and couldn't care connecting to friends to play. I'll just have my friends over to my house if I want to play Simcity with them. And we'll drink beers, and eat pizza. Sounds like a great afternoon.

EA has grossly misjudged their fanbase and the consumers who will buy their game. The ones who have kept Simcity relevant, fresh, new and interesting with mods and tweaks, for a DECADE! while EA did absolutely nothing to grow their brand, I'm sure, will not be spending their money on it.

I don't understand. You've got a hardcore built it fanbase to sell to, one that will line up on launch day to give you money. So why shun them completely to appeal to a "broader" audience. This "broader" audience won't still be around after 10 years, like simtropolis will.

Good luck EA, you're going to need it. I hope it bombs, just so they see that, their intrusive DRM is a big killer of sales. But hey, instead of building your own transportation network, highways and subways, and watching as it solves your traffic issues, EA has already done it for you. Just connect to their prebuilt highway, and your good! No reason to include mass transit, your city won't be big enough to need it anyway!

  Edited February 3, 2013 by CaptCity  
Edited off-topic link and language.

[DCMetro34 577]

I for one will not be buying this game. What a disappointment to be waiting for a year to play it.

What with the tile size, always online DRM, no local saves and a myriad of other things, it's like EA wants this game to bomb on purpose.

Every game and their dog is a glorified facebook game nowadays. No, I do not care to connect to facebook to share my high score at Assassins creed.

Another thing that drives me nuts is "in app purchases." "here buy this game for 2 dollars. Now in order to play it, or do anything to advance and make the game fun, you will have to spend 34 dollars to get "in game money" to spend "in game."

The BUILT IN fans they have without doing any marketing or anything have been alienated now. Sure they may get a few casual gamers like the tweens or the teens, who've never played simcity before, and whose entire lives are spent online anyway, and they don't know any different. Because this is the world the grew up in.

But the real Simcity fans, the ones here and on the xlnation, we're all older! Most here, have probably been playing Simcity, like me, since the 90's, and have been fans from the get go. Now we're all 30 years old, and couldn't care connecting to friends to play. I'll just have my friends over to my house if I want to play Simcity with them. And we'll drink beers, and eat pizza. Sounds like a great afternoon.

EA has grossly misjudged their fanbase and the consumers who will buy their game. The ones who have kept Simcity relevant, fresh, new and interesting with mods and tweaks, for a DECADE! while EA did absolutely nothing to grow their brand, I'm sure, will not be spending their money on it.

I don't understand. You've got a hardcore built it fanbase to sell to, one that will line up on launch day to give you money. So why shun them completely to appeal to a "broader" audience. This "broader" audience won't still be around after 10 years, like simtropolis will.

Good luck EA, you're going to need it. I hope it bombs, just so they see that, their intrusive DRM is a big killer of sales. But hey, instead of building your own transportation network, highways and subways, and watching as it solves your traffic issues, EA has already done it for you. Just connect to their prebuilt highway, and your good! No reason to include mass transit, your city won't be big enough to need it anyway!

I don't get it, it seems you were complaining about sharing stuff with "friends", but why don't you just do into a private region and not do any of that at all? Problem solved, right?

And now for a news flash: "tweens and teens" aren't the only people who waste time on social Facebook games, in fact, adults probably do it just as much. Sure, there are people on this site who are in their 30s and don't want to connect to anything, and there are people in their teens, like me, who don't want to, either. It's not an age issue. Don't declare war on age group, every age group participates in it.

As far as I know, EA hasn't solved traffic issues here, and they still haven't here, nor have they elimiminated mass transit: there are three methods right there in that image. If this many of Maxis' pre-release images feature traffic issues, it's obviously going to play some part in the game. I, perhaps like yourself, am a transit fanatic, and a realistic transportation system is necessary for me, and so far I have seen no reason to dismiss it as "lacking".

Yes, the always-online is a pain, especially for those of us who shotty internet like me and so many others, but to bash and refuse to consider a game solely for it's principle and not the content is outrageous to me. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I respect yours very much, but I wish people would let the game come out before they do a hook-shot into the trashcan with it.

[tyholmes 24]

Yes, I was on kind of an angry rant last night. However I stand by my decision not to buy. I'm not buying on principle, because this is not the Simcity we wanted to see. Also I'm not buying because of the content for reasons originally listen ie: small city tile size, no transit, etc.

I don't really need to wait for it to come out, to judge it, because I played the Beta. Or should I say, attempted to play the beta, before randomly disconnecting from the servers 3 times before I could finish the tutorial. On top of that, upon attempting to reconnect to the servers, I was unable to click the "grayed out" play button. "Server unavailable" so sorry you can't play the game. I just imagine dropping 80 bucks on a game only to be unable to play it when I want, because of a crap internet connection, or server issues.

Next year when they release the exact same game, and call it "Simcity 6" You will have to buy it, because they will stop supporting 5 on their servers, so you HAVE to go out to buy 6, if you want to still play.

Also I was joking around about the "traffic issues" comment. It had nothing to do with bugs in the game. I meant that because all your major infrastructure in the game region, (highways, trains etc.) is already built by default. By Maxis. By the time Simcity 6 comes, you won't even have to build cities anymore. They will be built, and you will have to solve problems for online achievements, and more facebook friends or some crap like that.

Also, the above was also a joke. Just in case you took that I was being serious.

[Hellken 1,658]

Just some suggestions.

I don't know how the game handles calculations but why not just include an option for the level of simulation?

ie. 1 - 10?

1- lowest

10 - highest

Keep single player 100 % offline with an option to connect only if you need to. Besides what really annoys me about the "always - online" requirement is that you cannot load a save. It's online so everything is probably permanent.

[macvirt 361]

Understandable. There are clear and causal relations between increasing tresholds towards play and audiences seeking ways to lower those tresholds. It is something Maxis does appear to understand, but also something EA refuses to acknowledge. It is kind of funny, but it is very much like a position of faith rather than reason. The only really valid underneath the chosen convictions are those of value of investments made and the costs of deviating from a road taken. There is a point on any such road where making an exit costs more than maintaining the road.

The trouble is that most likely there simply is not going to be any such "crack". Predominantly because core functionality is not present in the client. Any such advocated "solution" would require a completely different approach than that of the traditional "crack", it would require not simply code that bypasses or circumvents, but the creation of code that introduces that which is not present.

This situation is one of the biggest reasons why EA insists on these directives. Traditionally they are caught in a race between the bullet and the armour. They make the investments to create armour, and have to do so again and again when someone - far cheaper - creates a new bullet. This way they can take steps towards avoiding that situation entirely (ultimately). Even better, in doing so they can also accumulate a heck of a lot of data on consumers and their behavioural triggers / profiles which in more than just one way represents a quite significant financial value.

Yes, the downside is that this does present a specific set of user types with issues of principalities, and it does present conditional issues for selections of more generic user types. To EA that is a non-factor. Neither of these are either the target market or represent a significant portion of that market.

I fully agree that it is dumb to take this road. Not for reasons of principles, wishes or wants. But because of the penultimate foundation beneath any enterprise: trust and brand. Yes it is becoming easier to lure customers on to such roads, but this is a highly risky move in the long run. Human beings are fickle, it does not take much of anything going wrong for behavioural trends to reverse or spiral into excess. EA can pull it off, if they can guarantee a road without hiccups in the experience for the duration or a road with enough distractions from the hiccups. Neither is very likely. Murphy's Law is the least of worries there. Simple entropy and the human nature of communications presents an enormous high potential for issues arising. Too much of that, or too much exposure on it, and the trends shift. For any company in such a situation that becomes a challenge of degrading trust and brand value. The first is not very popular a concept in business managment, but it is the simply basic requirement for any economic interaction. See it degraded, and you loose that foundation. No marketing can compete with such degradation, this is why marketeers go nuts in such scenario's because they know this is one of the few cases to avoid at all cost. The second is where EA's structure as something very close to a venture capital annex investment fund operation comes in to play. If that value goes down, it hits harder than any figures in the quarterly overview, no matter how hard they are massaged to shine. The irony, is that the second part at the heart of it also comes down to the first, just among those who think they are excempt from it.

Small hiccups or issues in service operations can be managed. Larger or more consistant issues pose a problem. They require preplanned approaches for diversions and distractions (based on a reward model). But that does have limits. One of those limits is the perception of a hiccup as part of messaging trends across audiences. No company can compete with its customers. The cost is simply prohibitive and there is no gain from it that does not degrade trust or brand.

So for EA avoiding such situations is an absolute must. Yet this is where EA shoots itself in the foot. The zero sum thinking visible in their online and service infrastructures are a direct indication of decision processes that do not take these things into account. It is an example of resource derivative planning, where the customer and event patterns are simple variables within that model. Nice theory, different practice. This is why EA got its "support" award. It is no surprise that they "beat" a bank in this regard, because not only is it the very same mindset but it is one caught in a much more direct interaction with its actual foundations. There is a lot less buffer so to speak in these matters for a company like EA than there is for a bank.

Very indicative the case of SC2013 will be as such. If EA does not "retreat" or compromise, it is a clear sign they are beyond that point of building an exit or even a pit stop on the road they have taken. If that becomes the case, it is not going to take much for EA to lose what it aspires: control. The terrible part of that is that 10 out of 10 strategic managers will not even recognise the risks taken. They are not present in the system of the mindset. Yet even a quick look at say, the past 10 years, of any industry whatsoever makes abundantly clear that these kind of challenges are the rule, and not the exception.

So we'll have to see really. I would personally expect compromises. If only because of basic economics. But not later down the road, I would prefer that as early as it can be marketed without much risk of perception issues. I fear though that EA can no longer look over the trenches of choice. Let's be honest, it has developed a fine tradition of removing those noses that do not automagically point the same way.

[arcology 224]

The fans of SC4 are simply not the primary target for SC2013. They are a resource, to be utilised. At minimum for generating buzz and as part of marketing strategy. And at some point to effectively "work" for Maxis. But when that will be depends on a completely different mindset making those decisions.

very astute point there - great post overall.

these types of games were not based on this type of play to keep it exciting - it was the fans sense of "control" over it - that was always the key. EA's control should be perceived as "nonexistent" - a consumer wants to feel like they own something they have paid for.

If anything, the fact that this site exists, runs with the integrity that it runs with and promotes great gameplay, THAT is the way it should be.

"the tallest blade of grass, is always the first one to be cut" - if EA "thinks" it is winning with this strategy - look at its own history with the sims and simcity - it does not work.

The limitations with which EA has been setting this new version up with, will make the really creative, hard-core fans frustrated and the casual gamers, with the big wallets (their target core audience for this version), just a little bit poorer, with nothing to show for it - maybe.

How many times can someone, who really doesn't fundamentally care about city building, talk about city building. That is EA's biggest error in thinking, "well as long as people connect socially, they will play Simcity!".

The Sims, with Simport - were virtual "people" - not a city and that did not pan out so well - so, I have to ask, what makes them think, they will care about land for a long enough to, to come, to get a return on their investment?

it might work short-term, but, if EA's very own history to anything to go by, and the way they have handled the Sims 3, i am very glad that i kept all of my old games. at least they are mine.

i hope the SimCIty franchise continues, with the original vision it started out with, somehow.

[burghermaster 8]

Am I dreaming or my comment vanished !?

(Sorry I didn't know that using the "c-word" (the one ending with "-rack") is forbidden ! )

The fact is that EA does not understand how far they are tipping the balance between customer's and publisher's rights... Just my opinion

[BravoGreenONE 120]

The fans of SC4 are simply not the primary target for SC2013. They are a resource, to be utilised. At minimum for generating buzz and as part of marketing strategy. And at some point to effectively "work" for Maxis. But when that will be depends on a completely different mindset making those decisions.

very astute point there - great post overall.

these types of games were not based on this type of play to keep it exciting - it was the fans sense of "control" over it - that was always the key. EA's control should be perceived as "nonexistent" - a consumer wants to feel like they own something they have paid for.

If anything, the fact that this site exists, runs with the integrity that it runs with and promotes great gameplay, THAT is the way it should be.

"the tallest blade of grass, is always the first one to be cut" - if EA "thinks" it is winning with this strategy - look at its own history with the sims and simcity - it does not work.

The limitations with which EA has been setting this new version up with, will make the really creative, hard-core fans frustrated and the casual gamers, with the big wallets (their target core audience for this version), just a little bit poorer, with nothing to show for it - maybe.

How many times can someone, who really doesn't fundamentally care about city building, talk about city building. That is EA's biggest error in thinking, "well as long as people connect socially, they will play Simcity!".

The Sims, with Simport - were virtual "people" - not a city and that did not pan out so well - so, I have to ask, what makes them think, they will care about land for a long enough to, to come, to get a return on their investment?

it might work short-term, but, if EA's very own history to anything to go by, and the way they have handled the Sims 3, i am very glad that i kept all of my old games. at least they are mine.

i hope the SimCIty franchise continues, with the original vision it started out with, somehow.

The problem is you are trying to communicate with a non receptive audience. It was the same way with Monte Cristo. These idiots at EA think they know whats best for you and thats what your going to get.

[arcology 224]

Am I dreaming or my comment vanished !?

(Sorry I didn't know that using the "c-word" (the one ending with "-rack") is forbidden ! )

The fact is that EA does not understand how far they are tipping the balance between customer's and publisher's rights... Just my opinion

exactly

The fans of SC4 are simply not the primary target for SC2013. They are a resource, to be utilised. At minimum for generating buzz and as part of marketing strategy. And at some point to effectively "work" for Maxis. But when that will be depends on a completely different mindset making those decisions.

very astute point there - great post overall.

these types of games were not based on this type of play to keep it exciting - it was the fans sense of "control" over it - that was always the key. EA's control should be perceived as "nonexistent" - a consumer wants to feel like they own something they have paid for.

If anything, the fact that this site exists, runs with the integrity that it runs with and promotes great gameplay, THAT is the way it should be.

"the tallest blade of grass, is always the first one to be cut" - if EA "thinks" it is winning with this strategy - look at its own history with the sims and simcity - it does not work.

The limitations with which EA has been setting this new version up with, will make the really creative, hard-core fans frustrated and the casual gamers, with the big wallets (their target core audience for this version), just a little bit poorer, with nothing to show for it - maybe.

How many times can someone, who really doesn't fundamentally care about city building, talk about city building. That is EA's biggest error in thinking, "well as long as people connect socially, they will play Simcity!".

The Sims, with Simport - were virtual "people" - not a city and that did not pan out so well - so, I have to ask, what makes them think, they will care about land for a long enough to, to come, to get a return on their investment?

it might work short-term, but, if EA's very own history to anything to go by, and the way they have handled the Sims 3, i am very glad that i kept all of my old games. at least they are mine.

i hope the SimCIty franchise continues, with the original vision it started out with, somehow.

The problem is you are trying to communicate with a non receptive audience. It was the same way with Monte Cristo. These idiots at EA think they know whats best for you and thats what your going to get.

i agree with you100%!

[steinle60 4]

It is unfortunate that there will not be an offline play mode. This will not work for me and I will not be buying the game. To bad since I was so looking forward to it.

[nhgriffith 179]

I can't wait till SC2013 comes out and sets new sales records for the series, and for the company (as far as I know, The Sims 3 currently holds EA's Sales records).

 

I don't have a problem with Always-Online.  You know why?  I'm always online.  I've already been through the Diablo 3 circus.  That was a circus for the first release week.  And that was it, period.

 

I expect Sim City to have the same first day/week problems where everyone is trying to connect and bogging down the servers, but after that, it will be fine.  Give it a month, and no one will hardly ever remember it any more.  Why won't they?  They'll be too busy having too much fun enjoying SimCity.

 

You have a shotty Internet connection?  You're not always online?  You want to be regularly playing the game on a train/plane/automobile?  Sorry.  I guess that's too bad.  But I really don't care.  Your inability to play the game is yours, not mine.  And I bet if you're honest, you'd agree that your situation is probably a lot similar to mine... you're always online.  Being able to play the game will literally never be an issue for you outside the first week when everyone is trying to log in at the same time.

 

And guess what?  I'm a part of SimCity's core demographic.

 

 

In one thread you guys claim EA are money-grubbers, then in another thread you make accusations that they're alienating people and this game will never sell.  I guarantee you, EA has invested a ton in plenty, plenty, plenty of market research.  EA knows who will and won't buy these sorts of products.  EA knows that the target audience is similar to (but not exactly the same as) their Sims audience.  EA also knows there's a large, large pool of untapped selling potential.

 

And that untapped potential isn't "casual" gamers.  It's not the "facebook" gamers.  It may be slightly younger gamers than those playing SimCity 4.  But not necessarily so.  You know who it is?  It's a large chunk of the players who are playing The Sims right now.

 

If Maxis just put out SimCity 5, as an updated version of SC4 with maybe slightly better graphics, and maybe some better simulation, and incorporate a lot of things the mods have done, the game would still be the same thing it's always been.  And to an outsider looking in that has no clue about anything SimCity, SimCity has a really steep learning curve and it can be extraordinarily intimidating.  Moreover, it's hard to understand how all of the previously released SC games are any fun at all without playing them.

 

This new SimCity, however, presents the same game in a very different package.  The simulation is actually better, deeper, and more realistic.  And when you really get down into the nitty gritty of fine tuning things to get your city running like a perfectly oiled machine, it seems to me that there's actually a lot more to do this time around.  However... on its surface, the game looks more fun (to an outsider that doesn't really know what SimCity is), it looks easier to play, it looks more approachable.  And it's a lot easier to see simply from a quick YouTube video how this game might be extraordinarily fun to play.

 

 

 

 

You guys can buy it if you want, I really don't care.  I'm buying it.  And I won't be surprised to see it hit record sales and win some Game of the Year awards.

 

It's not SimCity 5.  Stop wishing this to be SimCity 4 volume 2 and realize that this is an entirely different game.  Stop judging it by the criteria you'd use to judge an SC4 mod.

[cirugo 1,889]

I can't wait till SC2013 comes out and sets new sales records for the series, and for the company (as far as I know, The Sims 3 currently holds EA's Sales records).

 

I don't have a problem with Always-Online.  You know why?  I'm always online.  I've already been through the Diablo 3 circus.  That was a circus for the first release week.  And that was it, period.

 

I expect Sim City to have the same first day/week problems where everyone is trying to connect and bogging down the servers, but after that, it will be fine.  Give it a month, and no one will hardly ever remember it any more.  Why won't they?  They'll be too busy having too much fun enjoying SimCity.

 

You have a shotty Internet connection?  You're not always online?  You want to be regularly playing the game on a train/plane/automobile?  Sorry.  I guess that's too bad.  But I really don't care.  Your inability to play the game is yours, not mine.  And I bet if you're honest, you'd agree that your situation is probably a lot similar to mine... you're always online.  Being able to play the game will literally never be an issue for you outside the first week when everyone is trying to log in at the same time.

 

And guess what?  I'm a part of SimCity's core demographic.

 

 

In one thread you guys claim EA are money-grubbers, then in another thread you make accusations that they're alienating people and this game will never sell.  I guarantee you, EA has invested a ton in plenty, plenty, plenty of market research.  EA knows who will and won't buy these sorts of products.  EA knows that the target audience is similar to (but not exactly the same as) their Sims audience.  EA also knows there's a large, large pool of untapped selling potential.

 

And that untapped potential isn't "casual" gamers.  It's not the "facebook" gamers.  It may be slightly younger gamers than those playing SimCity 4.  But not necessarily so.  You know who it is?  It's a large chunk of the players who are playing The Sims right now.

 

If Maxis just put out SimCity 5, as an updated version of SC4 with maybe slightly better graphics, and maybe some better simulation, and incorporate a lot of things the mods have done, the game would still be the same thing it's always been.  And to an outsider looking in that has no clue about anything SimCity, SimCity has a really steep learning curve and it can be extraordinarily intimidating.  Moreover, it's hard to understand how all of the previously released SC games are any fun at all without playing them.

 

This new SimCity, however, presents the same game in a very different package.  The simulation is actually better, deeper, and more realistic.  And when you really get down into the nitty gritty of fine tuning things to get your city running like a perfectly oiled machine, it seems to me that there's actually a lot more to do this time around.  However... on its surface, the game looks more fun (to an outsider that doesn't really know what SimCity is), it looks easier to play, it looks more approachable.  And it's a lot easier to see simply from a quick YouTube video how this game might be extraordinarily fun to play.

 

 

 

 

You guys can buy it if you want, I really don't care.  I'm buying it.  And I won't be surprised to see it hit record sales and win some Game of the Year awards.

 

It's not SimCity 5.  Stop wishing this to be SimCity 4 volume 2 and realize that this is an entirely different game.  Stop judging it by the criteria you'd use to judge an SC4 mod.

/golfclap

[Hoipus 292]

You guys can buy it if you want, I really don't care.  I'm buying it.  And I won't be surprised to see it hit record sales and win some Game of the Year awards.

 

It's not SimCity 5.  Stop wishing this to be SimCity 4 volume 2 and realize that this is an entirely different game.  Stop judging it by the criteria you'd use to judge an SC4 mod.

 

 All of the games in the simcity series have gained and lost things with each iteration. 2000 was the only one to have waterfalls and hydroelectric plants, and direct control over what types of goods your industry buildings create. 3000 lost this and gained ordinances. 4 lost challenge scenarios and gained the region system. I have no problem with different feature sets.

 

The requirement for a game to have it's users constantly connected to EA servers is an antifeature. I'm not judging it from a SimCity 4 perspective (mostly). I'm judging it from a longevity perspective. Until I hear a promise from the developers that they will implement an offline mode in the event that the servers are taken down, or implement such a mode in a patch, I will not touch the game.

[ChrilleT 2]

Was looking forward to the new Sim City until i heard of the "always online to play/save" . That sounds like renting the game to me.
In the summers i visit my parents at their summerhouse and they do not have an internet connection there so i can forget to play the game this summer. Maybe buy it alot later when the price have dropped and see how they handle problems like always online / small tiles etc.

[nhgriffith 179]

The requirement for a game to have it's users constantly connected to EA servers is an antifeature. I'm not judging it from a SimCity 4 perspective (mostly). I'm judging it from a longevity perspective. Until I hear a promise from the developers that they will implement an offline mode in the event that the servers are taken down, or implement such a mode in a patch, I will not touch the game.

I seem to remember ordinances in sc2k but maybe not. Anyway, always online isn't entirely an anti feature. If this were still sc4, and everything was purely single player then I'd buy this argument.

But again, it's not.

This is the first simcity to offer multiplayer. That aspect is a massive selling point to some very non casual gamers that simply never have been sc fans.

In this simcity, your coal and oil power doesn't magically create power and pollution any more. They have to burn those fuels, and if they're not getting them regionally, they're importing them at the world market price.

As a long time simcity fan, multiplayer is actually what I'm most excited about.

As for the future? I'm not concerned. I have sc2000 in a box, in my closet, yet I can't play it without jumping through tons of (probably illegal) hoops. My os won't run it. And... I don't have a floppy drive.

So I can't play sc2k any more for non always online reasons, so I'm really not worried about this sc.

Why?

For now, I'm always online.

For the future? One of a few things will happen.

I find it highly likely than by the time ea gets ready to shut down servers, they won't care as much about selling more copies, so they'll make some sort of change.

Third, and most likely, communities like this one will host a server and release a mod that pings their server rather ea.

One things for certain though, the fewer copies maxis sells, the quicker ea will power down those servers. But, the alternative is maxis breaks some records, and makes enough on DLC and expansions to keep the servers running at least until well after the next game, which hopefully won't be another ten year wait.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

The requirement for a game to have it's users constantly connected to EA servers is an antifeature. I'm not judging it from a SimCity 4 perspective (mostly). I'm judging it from a longevity perspective. Until I hear a promise from the developers that they will implement an offline mode in the event that the servers are taken down, or implement such a mode in a patch, I will not touch the game.

I seem to remember ordinances in sc2k but maybe not. Anyway, always online isn't entirely an anti feature. If this were still sc4, and everything was purely single player then I'd buy this argument.

But again, it's not.

This is the first simcity to offer multiplayer. That aspect is a massive selling point to some very non casual gamers that simply never have been sc fans.

In this simcity, your coal and oil power doesn't magically create power and pollution any more. They have to burn those fuels, and if they're not getting them regionally, they're importing them at the world market price.

As a long time simcity fan, multiplayer is actually what I'm most excited about.

As for the future? I'm not concerned. I have sc2000 in a box, in my closet, yet I can't play it without jumping through tons of (probably illegal) hoops. My os won't run it. And... I don't have a floppy drive.

So I can't play sc2k any more for non always online reasons, so I'm really not worried about this sc.

Why?

For now, I'm always online.

For the future? One of a few things will happen.

I find it highly likely than by the time ea gets ready to shut down servers, they won't care as much about selling more copies, so they'll make some sort of change.

Third, and most likely, communities like this one will host a server and release a mod that pings their server rather ea.

One things for certain though, the fewer copies maxis sells, the quicker ea will power down those servers. But, the alternative is maxis breaks some records, and makes enough on DLC and expansions to keep the servers running at least until well after the next game, which hopefully won't be another ten year wait.

1. SimCity 2000 had ordinances as far as I can remember.

2. SimCity 2000: Network Edition and SimCity 4 both had online multiplayer aspects that did not work with plugins.

3. If EA sells a ton of copies of SimCity in the first few months and absolutely none next year, this game will shut down in less than two years. Our best bet is for more sales a few months after release than in March.

 

--Ocram

[DCMetro34 577]

I think that many younger teens nowadays wouldn't mind having to always be connected online, and perhaps even competing with friends for goals.  I mean, heck, that aspect is just the norm for most apps on smartphones these days, right?  If you were targeting a generation that is in their early teens or even later teens, who have basically grown up with modern-day computers for their whole lives, the prospect might not sound as much like "nails on a chalkboard" to them.

 

I'm younger, in high school, and while I don't like to be spied on with all this spyware, I'm not totally against the concept of having to connect online, perhaps because the internet and modern computers have been familiar to me since I was very young.  And those that are even in middle school or earlier high school would fit even nicer into the "kids who have grown up with modern computers" category. 

 

Perhaps, EA isn't just trying to cater to those in our community that started SC4 when you were in your teens and are now in your 20s (one of the larger Simtropolis demographics), or even those of our community fell in love with earlier versions of SimCity when they were in their teens.  Perhaps, they are now trying to cater to those are currently in their teens with many of these concepts some people see as totally alien in SimCity games.  Perhaps, they've been trying to cater to the same demographic all along, but we've all just gotten older?

[nhgriffith 179]

1. SimCity 2000 had ordinances as far as I can remember.

 

2. SimCity 2000: Network Edition and SimCity 4 both had online multiplayer aspects that did not work with plugins.

3. If EA sells a ton of copies of SimCity in the first few months and absolutely none next year, this game will shut down in less than two years. Our best bet is for more sales a few months after release than in March.

 

--Ocram

 

 

 

 

1. Yea, I did some looking after I made that post to double check myself.  SC2k definitely had ordinances.  The one thing I remember for sure that 3000 added that was not in 2000 was Trash.  And farms, I think.  Did 3000 have farms?  2000 definitely did not.

 

2. Neither game was built from the ground up with multiplayer in mind.  SC2k was during the era of dial-up anyway, so it hardly counts.  And is SC4's multiplayer an official Maxis deal?  or is it user-modded content?

 

3. Your third point works on the assumption that Maxis won't be releasing DLC, expansions, etc.  There's already a $20 DLC.  Not everyone (I'm one of them) is going to buy the $80 version of the game on release.  I don't know if I'll ever get that particular add-on, but I'm absolutely certain that DLC/expansions will come in the form of new/extra regions, more/new city specializations, more regional project options, etc.  And as much as you guys want to complain about paying for expensive DLC, it's all optional stuff, and it's far, far better than paying $15/month in order to be able to play the game.

[arcology 224]

You guys can buy it if you want, I really don't care.  I'm buying it.  And I won't be surprised to see it hit record sales and win some Game of the Year awards.

 

It's not SimCity 5.  Stop wishing this to be SimCity 4 volume 2 and realize that this is an entirely different game.  Stop judging it by the criteria you'd use to judge an SC4 mod.

 

Don't know if you are familiar with Sims 3, but, that is the same exact argument they used to give to those complaining about the changes made to that version of the game - that it was not Sims 2.5.  Now, all they are doing is releasing the same types of expansion packs (pets, seasons, university, showtime, etc.). 

 

so, in a sense, all the same things the previous iterations had - and then said they were listening to the fans - finally!  still have to deal with rabbitholes, though.   

 

here's hoping they listen to the fans, regarding always online connectivity.

[arcology 224]

The BUILT IN fans they have without doing any marketing or anything have been alienated now. Sure they may get a few casual gamers like the tweens or the teens, who've never played simcity before, and whose entire lives are spent online anyway, and they don't know any different. Because this is the world the grew up in.

But the real Simcity fans, the ones here and on the xlnation, we're all older! Most here, have probably been playing Simcity, like me, since the 90's, and have been fans from the get go. Now we're all 30 years old, and couldn't care connecting to friends to play. I'll just have my friends over to my house if I want to play Simcity with them. And we'll drink beers, and eat pizza. Sounds like a great afternoon.

EA has grossly misjudged their fanbase and the consumers who will buy their game. The ones who have kept Simcity relevant, fresh, new and interesting with mods and tweaks, for a DECADE! while EA did absolutely nothing to grow their brand, I'm sure, will not be spending their money on it.

I don't understand. You've got a hardcore built it fanbase to sell to, one that will line up on launch day to give you money. So why shun them completely to appeal to a "broader" audience. This "broader" audience won't still be around after 10 years, like simtropolis will.

 

 

so totally agree with you!

[MrBomba 9]

1. SimCity 2000 had ordinances as far as I can remember.

 

2. SimCity 2000: Network Edition and SimCity 4 both had online multiplayer aspects that did not work with plugins.

3. If EA sells a ton of copies of SimCity in the first few months and absolutely none next year, this game will shut down in less than two years. Our best bet is for more sales a few months after release than in March.

 

--Ocram

 

 

 

 

1. Yea, I did some looking after I made that post to double check myself.  SC2k definitely had ordinances.  The one thing I remember for sure that 3000 added that was not in 2000 was Trash.  And farms, I think.  Did 3000 have farms?  2000 definitely did not.

 

2. Neither game was built from the ground up with multiplayer in mind.  SC2k was during the era of dial-up anyway, so it hardly counts.  And is SC4's multiplayer an official Maxis deal?  or is it user-modded content?

 

3. Your third point works on the assumption that Maxis won't be releasing DLC, expansions, etc.  There's already a $20 DLC.  Not everyone (I'm one of them) is going to buy the $80 version of the game on release.  I don't know if I'll ever get that particular add-on, but I'm absolutely certain that DLC/expansions will come in the form of new/extra regions, more/new city specializations, more regional project options, etc.  And as much as you guys want to complain about paying for expensive DLC, it's all optional stuff, and it's far, far better than paying $15/month in order to be able to play the game.

 

$80? I'd be lucky to get it that "cheap". Deluxe version costs almost $110 here ._.

 

OnT. I'd never buy a game with a monthly fee. Now that's just greedy.

 

The main problem with DLC/expansions is that it often unlocks key features to a smoother gameplay such as modding (SC4). SC4 wouldn't have been where it is today without the Rush Hour expansion, would it?

[nhgriffith 179]

$80? I'd be lucky to get it that "cheap". Deluxe version costs almost $110 here ._.

 

OnT. I'd never buy a game with a monthly fee. Now that's just greedy.

 

The main problem with DLC/expansions is that it often unlocks key features to a smoother gameplay such as modding (SC4). SC4 wouldn't have been where it is today without the Rush Hour expansion, would it?

I don't know where you live or what your currency exchange is compared to USD, but it's $59.99 for the Limited Edition and $79.99 for the Deluxe version here in the United States.

I can't remember what games cost on average in 2003 when SC4 was released, but $59.99 is the same price I've been paying for video games for quite some time now. And $79.99 is more than reasonable for a special edition of the game.

Look at other PC releases that have come out recently and the prices they're currently available at...

Dead Space 3, released this week, $59.99

Guild Wars 2, released back in August, still $59.99

Diablo 3, released back in May, still $59.99

Skyrim, released November of 2011, still $59.99

Every Call of Duty game, $59.99

In fact, examples of PC games releasing at any other price are extraordinarily few and far between these days.

So if SimCity is releasing at $80 in your country, I'd suggest you go check out the price the same store is charging you for other new releases. I'm not arguing whether the price is expensive or cheap--in fact, that's a pretty subjective debate, what's expensive to you might be cheap to me... all I'm saying is that EA isn't charging for SimCity any differently than any other new release game.

And, for what it's worth, out of that list I gave you...

Dead Space 3 is an EA game, there is no multi-player (other than 2-person co-op, which doesn't require nearly as much server load as SimCity will require) and Dead Space 3 features micro-transactions.

Guild Wars 2 is an MMORPG. It's not EA. It doesn't have a monthly subscription fee (like other games such as World of Warcraft), but it does feature several micro-transaction options. For example, despite their being 8 different character classes to play as, you only get 5 character slots unless you purchase extra slots.

Diablo 3 is also very much so not an EA game. It's also not an MMORPG. It does require a lot of server usage (moreso than SimCity I'd imagine) as all of your characters are saved on the servers. Moreover, it also requires an always-online connection even to play purely single player... and what other people do in their games has zero impact on your game (unlike simcity which actually has a reason for you being online besides anti-piracy). Diablo 3, at least so far, doesn't offer traditional micro-transactions. There will almost certainly be expansions at $30 a pop. However, Diablo 3 funds itself via a "real-money auction house" in which Blizzard (the company that runs Diablo) takes 10% of all transactions.

Skyrim is a purely, purely, PURELY single player RPG game. There are no micro-transactions that I'm aware of, however to date there have been 2 or 3 DLC expansion packs. These expansion packs are typically around $15 each, I believe, and add numerous hours of game play as well as whole new mechanics.

DLC/expansions don't "often" "unlock key features to a smoother gameplay." This happens to be the case with SC4, yea. And that's the reason why it's impossible to purchase just SC4 without buying the Deluxe pack that features Rush Hour. The original game was kind of broken. And I don't mean broken as in the map size wasn't big enough for my liking. That's not BROKEN. I mean broken as in traffic and commute times and such were calculating ridiculously poorly. The game wasn't functioning properly.

But SimCity 4 is from an entirely different era.

Nowadays, what's the first thing that happens when you launch a new game for the first time? It almost always wants to patch itself. Even after the disc has been printed and shipped, the programmers are still fixing bugs. There will still be DLC, but it will be primarily to add new features. Meanwhile, there will absolutely be patches that you'll be downloading with mini-fixes here and there to keep the game working as best as the programmers can at every given moment.

Especially with the online and competitive leaderboard aspect, bugs and exploits will be patched as quickly as possible. And honestly, that's one of the positive aspects to the always-on-connection. Bugs will be found more quickly and therefore fixed more quickly.