Discussion about Always-On Connection to Origin

[macvirt 361]

http://www.clickonline.com/games/interview--kip-katsarelis-%28simcity%29/15914/

 

CLICK: Obviously a lot has been said about the always-on DRM, but how

would you respond to fan fears that the servers might get switched off

in a few years, whereas they’ll still be able to play SimCity 4 and even

2000?

KK: You know I don’t have my crystal ball in front of me as far as where

we’re going to be, but I think as long as SimCity is successful, and

has a big following – you know EA has got a history of their servers

being up; our Spore servers are still up to this day, so they continue

to support them, so there’s still people playing.

 

I sit here reading news about simcity, then I see this article. I see the question, and my wallet forces its way out of my pocket. I see the answer, and my wallet runs back into my pocket, almost of it's own accord. Do they not see that they're traumatizing my wallet?

 

They do see that. But this is central to our industry. We do not have to care. For every person who thinks, there are a hundred who engage on impulses. And those impulses are very easy to guide. This is why most of the companies in our industry prefer to engage in projects that target that easy global market of casual & leisure play gaming. 

 

The currently reigning mentality is that every customer who as such "drops out" is a bonus, because he or she then also is removed from the messaging dynamic surrounding the title / release. It is no longer a potential variable contributing to upsetting the dynamic. Research actually tends to support that, although I retain some doubts on the conviction that this is a stable trend. Enough dropouts make their own market, which then upsets the dynamic in completely different ways. Then again, companies like EA are hardly known for innovative or entrepreneurial thinking so no surprise it has become dogma.

[arcology 224]

http://www.clickonline.com/games/interview--kip-katsarelis-%28simcity%29/15914/

 

CLICK: Obviously a lot has been said about the always-on DRM, but how

would you respond to fan fears that the servers might get switched off

in a few years, whereas they’ll still be able to play SimCity 4 and even

2000?

KK: You know I don’t have my crystal ball in front of me as far as where

we’re going to be, but I think as long as SimCity is successful, and

has a big following – you know EA has got a history of their servers

being up; our Spore servers are still up to this day, so they continue

to support them, so there’s still people playing.

 

I sit here reading news about simcity, then I see this article. I see the question, and my wallet forces its way out of my pocket. I see the answer, and my wallet runs back into my pocket, almost of it's own accord. Do they not see that they're traumatizing my wallet?

 

They do see that. But this is central to our industry. We do not have to care. For every person who thinks, there are a hundred who engage on impulses. And those impulses are very easy to guide. This is why most of the companies in our industry prefer to engage in projects that target that easy global market of casual & leisure play gaming. 

 

The currently reigning mentality is that every customer who as such "drops out" is a bonus, because he or she then also is removed from the messaging dynamic surrounding the title / release. It is no longer a potential variable contributing to upsetting the dynamic. Research actually tends to support that, although I retain some doubts on the conviction that this is a stable trend. Enough dropouts make their own market, which then upsets the dynamic in completely different ways. Then again, companies like EA are hardly known for innovative or entrepreneurial thinking so no surprise it has become dogma.

 

macvirt - i find that your posts are probably always a very accurate reflection of how EA is really looking at this whole thing.  i find them very insightful and well written. 

 

I just wish EA would have taken a different path with this particular game - or at least offer choices - it would actually be in their best interest.

 

you would have those paying for offline and those who are easily swayed and governed by their impulses, buying into the always online.  That way, they have "everyone" paying one way or the other - which is all they care about. 

 

Wouldn't that be better all around?

http://www.clickonline.com/games/interview--kip-katsarelis-%28simcity%29/15914/

 

CLICK: Obviously a lot has been said about the always-on DRM, but how

would you respond to fan fears that the servers might get switched off

in a few years, whereas they’ll still be able to play SimCity 4 and even

2000?

KK: You know I don’t have my crystal ball in front of me as far as where

we’re going to be, but I think as long as SimCity is successful, and

has a big following – you know EA has got a history of their servers

being up; our Spore servers are still up to this day, so they continue

to support them, so there’s still people playing.

 

I sit here reading news about simcity, then I see this article. I see the question, and my wallet forces its way out of my pocket. I see the answer, and my wallet runs back into my pocket, almost of it's own accord. Do they not see that they're traumatizing my wallet?

 

 lol!

[macvirt 361]

Methods that flexibly, with the user central, enable a low treshold for a wide variety of user types to pay their way towards entertainment are definately preferred yes. Especially if one seeks to nurture sustainable growth of brand value and enterprise in balance. 

 

Trouble is, you're asking EA to not function as the type of corporation they are. Yes, it used to be a company, now it is an enterprise. Yes, it had a distinct focus on those that create in the entertainment industry, now it simply utilises those as a variable based resource. This is normal for their choice of methods and orientation. EA is no longer a mere publisher, has not been one for a long time. It is much more similar to an investment broker, a venture capital firm. That may seem at odds with this whole idea of "games industry", but it is not. Because it is an industry. 

 

Keep in mind that EA is an American business entity. This is a factor. The focus is always project specific and short term. The long term focus is seperate from that of operations, it is part of what is known strategic corporate development. Something entirely different. Every project or venture, is in service of that and that alone. That is not a very stable situation for EA's resource reservoirs (for example, the studios) true, but that is irrelevant because resources are interexchangable, they are not relevant on that strategic level. Only their results are. 

 

The unfortunate situation exists that for the strategic targets of EA the studio is the same thing as the user, it is a variable of resource reservoirs. Just look up a quarterly release of the company and there really is not much beating around the bush on these matters. Sit through a presentation at an industry conference and the terminology does not hide it either. So what you are expecting or wanting is perfectly rational, it is however and always will be averse to the methods required for the strategic targets set. This as a natural result of the mindset that goes with the chosen targets and required methods of planning and operations. It is a short term cycle based model, with a multitude of asynchronous cycles in service of the target line. There can be no deviation from that target line, because of the intrinsic interdependancies involved. 

 

So no, EA will not orient or reorient itself toward a synergy or exergy driven business model. It is incompatible with their corporate structure, incompatible with the reward mechanisms for corporate guidance, incompatible with the required mentality. If anything, it requires a much more balanced view towards long and short term corporate and project development that at a grass roots level is simply deemed to eat too much of the margins. Yes, that the financial planning actually focuses on the margins is to be blunt, too stupid for words, it is wasteful. But then again, this is perfectly in line with any sort of venture / investment management operation. The goal is the self. Not that which enables.

[baertooth 330]

Methods that ... which enables.

 

 

When I read this I thought to myself is it that EA is looking for the formula to a successful game but forgot what fun was?

 

I remember when I was really young we had a neighborhood kickball game amongst us kids.  There were several places we would play but all you had to do was show up and pick a side so long as it didn't make the teams too uneven.  And we played.  We did this with baseball too but it was the kickball game that really got ruined.  But it was one of the funnest things because we could get upwards of 20-30 kids all playing and having a good time.

 

Over a couple of years it evolved into a local field dedicated to playing and parents showing up watching the games and them registering with the city to enter into us the softball league and we formed two local teams and so on.

 

I never played in the league myself, but it killed the local spontaneous games we would play.  Baseball wasn't so bad because there were still games to play but kickball, there wasn't ever any game scheduled to be played there and you couldn't use the field unless you reserved it so we never played anymore.

 

This was caused because the parents got involved and tried to make it "more fun" for us kids.  All they ended up doing was killing the fun for us but providing cheap entertainment to go and drink beer at within walking distance of home for them.

 

I've talked to friends from back then and we pretty much remember it the same way.  And the funny thing is about the how thing only around half of the kids even played.  After the first year a bunch dropped out and left.  I moved so I'm sketchy on what happened but the point is it wasn't fun anymore because the formula had been applied to it.

 

I wish they would have payed attention during Cities XL.  When Monte Cristo first announced the game the was a sigh of relief in the community because they were saying we are going to build the game you want if EA won't.  This was happening right after the SCS disaster and EA/Rod Humble announcing if there was another Simcity, it won't be what we want.  But suddenly in midstream MC switches gears and turns it into an online focused game.  Much of the community was stunned and pleaded for them not to waste time developing features for a smaller set of players, because it's a smaller set of players who wants online only.  But no, they didn't listen, the didn't work to make a game that was appealing to both groups, and here we are....   Monte Cristo out of business and Cities XL's main focus is recoup anything from the investment loss.

 

Maybe this is way off base here.  Maybe the comparison isn't applicable.  But it's like Maxis and EA are saying this is how you have fun by limiting my ability to play only the way they want me to play instead of just letting me have fun.  Whether they meant to do it or not, they really were headed in that direction with Simcity 1-4.  More freedom, more control, more everything.  But it's like EA decided that in order to sell me more they needed to trim back the freedom.  Unfortunately it might have killed the flavor.  We'll see.

[arcology 224]

Methods that ... which enables.

 

 

When I read this I thought to myself is it that EA is looking for the formula to a successful game but forgot what fun was?

 

I remember when I was really young we had a neighborhood kickball game amongst us kids.  There were several places we would play but all you had to do was show up and pick a side so long as it didn't make the teams too uneven.  And we played.  We did this with baseball too but it was the kickball game that really got ruined.  But it was one of the funnest things because we could get upwards of 20-30 kids all playing and having a good time.

 

Over a couple of years it evolved into a local field dedicated to playing and parents showing up watching the games and them registering with the city to enter into us the softball league and we formed two local teams and so on.

 

I never played in the league myself, but it killed the local spontaneous games we would play.  Baseball wasn't so bad because there were still games to play but kickball, there wasn't ever any game scheduled to be played there and you couldn't use the field unless you reserved it so we never played anymore.

 

This was caused because the parents got involved and tried to make it "more fun" for us kids.  All they ended up doing was killing the fun for us but providing cheap entertainment to go and drink beer at within walking distance of home for them.

 

I've talked to friends from back then and we pretty much remember it the same way.  And the funny thing is about the how thing only around half of the kids even played.  After the first year a bunch dropped out and left.  I moved so I'm sketchy on what happened but the point is it wasn't fun anymore because the formula had been applied to it.

 

I wish they would have payed attention during Cities XL.  When Monte Cristo first announced the game the was a sigh of relief in the community because they were saying we are going to build the game you want if EA won't.  This was happening right after the SCS disaster and EA/Rod Humble announcing if there was another Simcity, it won't be what we want.  But suddenly in midstream MC switches gears and turns it into an online focused game.  Much of the community was stunned and pleaded for them not to waste time developing features for a smaller set of players, because it's a smaller set of players who wants online only.  But no, they didn't listen, the didn't work to make a game that was appealing to both groups, and here we are....   Monte Cristo out of business and Cities XL's main focus is recoup anything from the investment loss.

 

Maybe this is way off base here.  Maybe the comparison isn't applicable.  But it's like Maxis and EA are saying this is how you have fun by limiting my ability to play only the way they want me to play instead of just letting me have fun.  Whether they meant to do it or not, they really were headed in that direction with Simcity 1-4.  More freedom, more control, more everything.  But it's like EA decided that in order to sell me more they needed to trim back the freedom.  Unfortunately it might have killed the flavor.  We'll see.

 

 

no, you are not way off base.

 

keep it simple, with a sense of spontaneity, with the "kids" having control of when, where, & how - I think you hit the nail on the head.

 

ea is basically hand holding everybody through the entire game experience - like what has happened with Sims 3, while charging even more for less. 

[macvirt 361]

Panem et circenses. Look it up This is once again the guided trend in human history. It's nothing new. And it works. The sad part is that it comes from an innate fear of freedom. There simply is no trust in this being capable to concentrate wealth the way that the absence of freedom does.

[bokrif 18]

I'd too happily buy the game, even after seeing its flaws. But I don't want to rent the game. I want to buy it.

Interesting issue, indeed. For example in the US and a lot other countries the majority or a major part of the flats and houses are rented. This has its benefits and drawbacks too, but as I experienced it people do not have a problem with living in a rented apartment or house. Although there are countries like mine where there are few rentals (in case of Hungary, almost 90% of the homes are private owned) and people prefer to buy their homes even if it makes it hard to be mobile.

Still buying and owning things is better and more prefered than renting.

In the case of SC2013, the game is a pseudo-rental and this is what bothers me. I don't want to rent the game, I want to keep it. If the possibility of shutdown of servers in and unknown future exists than I don't feel the freedom of playing. If I play Sim City I don't want to keep in mind that all my creations and stuff is going to be "deleted", I don't want to keep in mind that it is possible later on 5 or 15 years from now I won't be able to play the game. I want to decide myself when to dump and leave a game.

Even if it is has a very low chance that I will return to SC4 and my SC4 region, it is a chance and I feel good that I can play that game anytime (technical problems are not problems, you can even play Dune and Doom in your browser). And I paid for it back than.

I want these from SC2013, and these are not in the new game... and this is why I am hesitating to buy it. Still considering.

[nhgriffith 179]

As I've posted before, you can't play sc2k today. Not on a modern computer and not without 3rd party software. This is on a game you "own"

There's a workaround for sc2k. You don't think there will eventually be a workaround for this game when the servers go down?

[arcology 224]

Panem et circenses. Look it up This is once again the guided trend in human history. It's nothing new. And it works. The sad part is that it comes from an innate fear of freedom. There simply is no trust in this being capable to concentrate wealth the way that the absence of freedom does.

 

lol!  i looked it up and learned something new - i have always understood the concept - i just had never heard the phrase!  Bread and circuses!  you really do learn something new, everyday! 

 

+1 for the education. 

 

 

i thought this article was pretty interesting regarding it, tied to the digital age. 

The Danger of Living on Bread and Circuses

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-02/the-danger-of-living-on-bread-and-circuses-alice-schroeder.html

As I've posted before, you can't play sc2k today. Not on a modern computer and not without 3rd party software. This is on a game you "own"

There's a workaround for sc2k. You don't think there will eventually be a workaround for this game when the servers go down?

 

 

simcity 2000 for Windows (XP, Vista, 7, 8 and Mac OS X (10.6.8 or newer) for $5.99. 

 

http://www.gog.com/gamecard/simcity_2000_special_edition

 

 

when you say "workaround", i see it, somewhat similar to the patches that they apply to current games, nowadays. 

 

 

i guess you could call the over 32+(and counting) patches for the sims 3, workarounds, also. 

 

[Hoipus 292]

As I've posted before, you can't play sc2k today. Not on a modern computer and not without 3rd party software. This is on a game you "own"

There's a workaround for sc2k. You don't think there will eventually be a workaround for this game when the servers go down?

If there would be a workaround for the new simcity, wouldn't it mean that their excuses for making people stay online aren't exactly true and that people were inconvenienced for nothing? I understand that the devs' hands may be tied at the moment, but if this were true I'd rather hear about it sooner rather than later.

[Evil_One 119]

As I've posted before, you can't play sc2k today. Not on a modern computer and not without 3rd party software. This is on a game you "own"

There's a workaround for sc2k. You don't think there will eventually be a workaround for this game when the servers go down?

If there would be a workaround for the new simcity, wouldn't it mean that their excuses for making people stay online aren't exactly true and that people were inconvenienced for nothing? I understand that the devs' hands may be tied at the moment, but if this were true I'd rather hear about it sooner rather than later.

From what I've read of 'Lucy Bradshaw's' reasons for it being online: http://www.simcity.com/en_US/blog/article/The-Benefits-of-Live-Service I don't think their reasons ARE true, Supposedly the game handles a portion of the games main data (like the agents) on the server, so the client doesn't have to handle it all.

 

 

 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.

 

 

 

however if this were true, then the game wouldn't be able to handle even a few seconds let alone a few minutes disconnected (it'd be like a disconnection from an MMO, you can't continue playing), yet apparently the game CAN handle being disconnected for a while, so who's telling the truth?

 

Maybe I'm misreading something, but it doesn't seem to add up.

[macvirt 361]

Panem et circenses. Look it up This is once again the guided trend in human history. It's nothing new. And it works. The sad part is that it comes from an innate fear of freedom. There simply is no trust in this being capable to concentrate wealth the way that the absence of freedom does.

 

lol!  i looked it up and learned something new - i have always understood the concept - i just had never heard the phrase!  Bread and circuses!  you really do learn something new, everyday! 

 

+1 for the education. 

 

 

i thought this article was pretty interesting regarding it, tied to the digital age. 

The Danger of Living on Bread and Circuses

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-02/the-danger-of-living-on-bread-and-circuses-alice-schroeder.html

 

The really funny thing, for all those marketeers and business developers, is that not even the trend of lowering tresholds as well as lowering diversity is new. 

 

It's as old as the Roman empire. Look at how today in many urban zones in the US one cannot buy fresh groceries in supermarkets, but one can buy 2 dollar fastfood, and how in other places the opposite is maintained. Something which incidentally also was instigated in the Roman days. Roman urban development did have its periodic issues with ghetto forming, but overall preferred formats of segregation based on economic prowesse, more specifically in terms of ownership. Look at our city developments, it is incredibly visible what economic function but also which dependancies an area has. Increasingly linked to a hierarchical system of provisioning and distribution.

 

The same for the pillars of entertainment, the theatres (look at reboot trending in movies), the arena (look at sports, interrupted by commercials between kills, even making the performers - part of a cultural cultivation procress with the aim to instir cultural internalisation of concepts like "you have to look good, being good is not that important" - pause during action) and the hand games (look at how board games in those days were monetised litterally piece by board piece and "legal" action by action by license, compare that to the "new" ideas of the core experience getting stripped from specification in order to sell more pieces as complimentary for all facets of features, functions, art and content alike).

 

Funny thing on the topic of game trailers, the Romans often used flash roaming scene specific displaying of game elements using actors and props. Essentially a travelling mini performance, which in a bare few minutes made the elevator pitch on shiny and awesome. Incidentally, one of the most popular mentors of one of those schools in those days taught that it was necessary to maintain the fine discrepancies between what you present the audience and what you sell the customer. The first must always be more than the latter, without offending, leaving you in a position to sell more...

 

In that sense the latin texts we had to translate at school in my days were more fun than many of the greek. Those were usually going overboard on just the veneer of epic, the vagueties of ideas or drama concepts which today most parents would bring out the tar and feathers against. Hint, picture a text about a guy feeling guilty because his dead wife visits him in a dream telling him she knows that he put hot buns in a cold oven ..... (if you do not instantly get that, please do not think any further beyond that point and spare yourself the disgust).

 

It is however interesting to note that the Romans did insert many concepts into our cultural development paths over the course of history, they are quite a unique sort of empire in both form and scale of their deviations. It's hard to find another historical imperial culture which suffered the same syndromes. Well, before the American empire of today and its societal precursor of the Roman empire, obviously. 

 

The risks that come with the implementation of doctrines such as "bread and circuses" should be obvious in an economic sense. Among many other things, you push yourself in an every shortening cycle of rebooting concepts without innovation. That alone should warrant a clear warning. But even on a more direct level, you decrease the depth of your market. Something which should also be obvious, if you fish more and more but the sea gets more shallow every time you disproportionally decrease your ability to continue feeding yourself. 

 

That last part is the big risk of the current trends of monetisation, DLC and DRM. The only real way (without moving to another business model that is) to counter that, is to achieve an absolute dominance of that sea. That way you decide for the boat, the people and the fish. It may be a smelly analogy, but that essentially is the strategic focus of EA. To continue the comparison or analogy, until roughly a decade ago EA tried to create its own lake (concept: lock-in market) but realised that this did not generate sufficient reward mechanisms as set required, that is where the birth of the link between DRM and profiling comes in. 

 

Anyway, back on topic

[macvirt 361]

 

As I've posted before, you can't play sc2k today. Not on a modern computer and not without 3rd party software. This is on a game you "own"

There's a workaround for sc2k. You don't think there will eventually be a workaround for this game when the servers go down?

If there would be a workaround for the new simcity, wouldn't it mean that their excuses for making people stay online aren't exactly true and that people were inconvenienced for nothing? I understand that the devs' hands may be tied at the moment, but if this were true I'd rather hear about it sooner rather than later.

From what I've read of 'Lucy Bradshaw's' reasons for it being online: http://www.simcity.com/en_US/blog/article/The-Benefits-of-Live-Service I don't think their reasons ARE true, Supposedly the game handles a portion of the games main data (like the agents) on the server, so the client doesn't have to handle it all.

 

> 

 

 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.

 

 

 

however if this were true, then the game wouldn't be able to handle even a few seconds let alone a few minutes disconnected (it'd be like a disconnection from an MMO, you can't continue playing), yet apparently the game CAN handle being disconnected for a while, so who's telling the truth?

 

Maybe I'm misreading something, but it doesn't seem to add up.

 

 

The issue is that there is only one guarantee with these streams of information: they can never be trusted. That is not a personal thing, it is a simple factual observation. Marketing is not the same as providing information, it is using information to provide or strengthen the sales or seduction pitch. 

 

Technical information particularly can never be trusted, but the same goes for sales information. These two types stand out the most in such matters. 

 

There is no truth. There is only perception, presentation and function. Welcome to general business management and economics. Also sociology for that matter.

 

The sad thing is that often there are pieces of information which come from the guys who actually do the real work, something which should be useable (note the difference between that and useful) information. The problem is that they provide information from their position, their resources, their focus. Most of their work is dependant on, guided by and subjected to a completely different level of processes. Decision levels. A dev for example can "share" what he knows about handling client connections to a cluster. Nice, but that does not say anything about the policy on budgetting or allocation of resources to that cluster for say, a marketing round advertised as a beta. The same general principle even is accurate for development paths within a project. Map size is not only a decision arising in many places, it is also a dependant decision, dependant on many many variables in different decision processes. The server side handling of agents and limitations on cluster technology or even scale is one, just like coding restrictions coming out of targets above project level for the GBE engine, just like code dependancies resulting from removing base functionality concepts from the client side architecture (like savegames, but also network infrastructure, or sandbox shielding of market dependancies, and so forth).

 

What we do know is that EA has given several presentations the past few years at conferences like GDC and others, about the prospects of linking DRM, profiling and DLC through a steps based evolution of force variable requirements of online multiplay formats. And they are right on the mark, for their business model this is cheapest, provides the greatest range at lowest cost and greatly improves margins on venture funds. This is the strategic level. What we call the creation of game specification, user experience targets, all those things, those are defined by and in service of that strategic level. What that means in a practical sense for development and marketing takes no genius to figure out. There is in that sense no difference between an EA and a Sony Entertainment. Well, except that EA manages to beat Sony even on the customer support and brand value parts (I know, terrible sarcasm there, apologies).

 

I realise some people attach a moral element to that, or even an element of principality. That is fine. People are individuals, and while their freedom is an illusion it is the nature of the animal and should thus be treated with respect. The reality is however that this is just business. It is the chosen model. Other companies operate under different models. There are no perfect business models, it is always a dance between finding balance or navigating various degrees of evils, so to speak. 

[arcology 224]

Anyway, back on topic

 

you are very much on topic - in a "looking at the bigger picture"/comprehensive way. 

 

latin translations - ok, that is going a ways back - now it makes sense...

[Evil_One 119]

 

 

As I've posted before, you can't play sc2k today. Not on a modern computer and not without 3rd party software. This is on a game you "own"

There's a workaround for sc2k. You don't think there will eventually be a workaround for this game when the servers go down?

If there would be a workaround for the new simcity, wouldn't it mean that their excuses for making people stay online aren't exactly true and that people were inconvenienced for nothing? I understand that the devs' hands may be tied at the moment, but if this were true I'd rather hear about it sooner rather than later.

From what I've read of 'Lucy Bradshaw's' reasons for it being online: http://www.simcity.com/en_US/blog/article/The-Benefits-of-Live-Service I don't think their reasons ARE true, Supposedly the game handles a portion of the games main data (like the agents) on the server, so the client doesn't have to handle it all.

 

<

blockquote>

>> 

 

 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.

 

 <

/p>

lockquote>

 

however if this were true, then the game wouldn't be able to handle even a few seconds let alone a few minutes disconnected (it'd be like a disconnection from an MMO, you can't continue playing), yet apparently the game CAN handle being disconnected for a while, so who's telling the truth?

 

Maybe I'm misreading something, but it doesn't seem to a

dd up.

 

 

The issue is that there is only one guarantee with these streams of information: they can never be trusted. That is not a personal thing, it is a simple factual observation. Marketing is not the same as providing information, it is using information to provide or strengthen the sales or seduction pitch. 

 

Technical information particularly can never be trusted, but the same goes for sales information. These two types stand out the most in such matters. 

 

There is no truth. There is only perception, presentation and function. Welcome to general business management and economics. Also sociology for that matter.

 

The sad thing is that often there are pieces of information which come from the guys who actually do the real work, something which should be useable (note the difference between that and useful) information. The problem is that they provide information from their position, their resources, their focus. Most of their work is dependant on, guided by and subjected to a completely different level of processes. Decision levels. A dev for example can "share" what he knows about handling client connections to a cluster. Nice, but that does not say anything about the policy on budgetting or allocation of resources to that cluster for say, a marketing round advertised as a beta. The same general principle even is accurate for development paths within a project. Map size is not only a decision arising in many places, it is also a dependant decision, dependant on many many variables in different decision processes. The server side handling of agents and limitations on cluster technology or even scale is one, just like coding restrictions coming out of targets above project level for the GBE engine, just like code dependancies resulting from removing base functionality concepts from the client side architecture (like savegames, but also network infrastructure, or sandbox shielding of market dependancies, and so forth).

 

What we do know is that EA has given several presentations the past few years at conferences like GDC and others, about the prospects of linking DRM, profiling and DLC through a steps based evolution of force variable requirements of online multiplay formats. And they are right on the mark, for their business model this is cheapest, provides the greatest range at lowest cost and greatly improves margins on venture funds. This is the strategic level. What we call the creation of game specification, user experience targets, all those things, those are defined by and in service of that strategic level. What that means in a practical sense for development and marketing takes no genius to figure out. There is in that sense no difference between an EA and a Sony Entertainment. Well, except that EA manages to beat Sony even on the customer support and brand value parts (I know, terrible sarcasm there, apologies).

 

I realise some people attach a moral element to that, or even an element of principality. That is fine. People are individuals, and while their freedom is an illusion it is the nature of the animal and should thus be treated with respect. The reality is however that this is just business. It is the chosen model. Other companies operate under different models. There are no perfect business models, it is always a dance between finding balance or navigating various degrees of evils, so to speak. 

 

That's a problem with the informational stream, because it was supposed to be in answer as to why exactly the game needs to be online only in the first place.

 

Simply put (I know this is technical information but they've landed themselves in a paradox), the 'Server' is supposed to handle much of the Agents and data tracking, which are integral to the Simulation IE the game 'needs' the server to run, as I said before however is that in another statement from EA the game can handle being disconnected with no interruption to game play (and during the beta some people managed to be disconnected for up to half an hour without incident).

 

So that means that we have someone on one hand saying that Online only is required due to the city simulation requiring the Servers power to handle most of it, on the other hand we also have information that the game can be disconnected from the server without stopping the game... Each piece of information counters the other IE a logical paradox, they cannot both be true.

 

So we're left with either the game 'needing' to be online, or the game doesn't actually have to be online at all and they're just making it online for their own purposes.

 

As to EA's new model...

 

The chief problem with EA's new business model is that it does in general dump loyal long-time fans of a series and instead appeals to the generally fickle casual gamers, now there's nothing wrong with the model itself and for a company like Zynga or Popcap it might work, but with the games that EA churns out, I'm not entirely sure such a model would work in sustaining them, unless EA are planning to dramatically change the types of games they produce.

 

For example: I don't think multiplayer/always-online would work for a game like The Sims 3, due to the sheer requirements of running an open neighbourhood with so many intricate constructions, plus the fact that modding (not just visual mods but actually changing core game principles) is the only thing keeping The Sims series alive.

 

That's another issue I have with the 'reboot' of SimCity, if they do allow modding (and I stress the 'IF' part), in all probability it'll only be to allow visual mods (new colour schemes, different looking buildings, ETC), I strongly doubt they'd allow modifications to the traffic behavior, or other core parts due to the online/multiplayer nature of the game.

 

[macvirt 361]

Ok, look at it not from the consumer perspective. But why would a consumer even have to know any such reasoning as to what lies behind the requirements of online / multiplay.

 

This is thinking that leads to challenging functional requirements of a business model. That is why marketing mechanisms consciously allow for the chaos element of divided communications and deliberately include what could be described as the equivalent of "fog of war". 

 

Let me put it this way, look at your own messages here. See how you focus on what parts. But also see how that still keeps you away from general principalities. It keeps it right on the edge of that instrument of "belief", as while you have issue with specific pieces you do not fall prey to principles or convictions affecting your consumptive behaviour. In simple terms, it becomes a topic of discussion and puzzle in its own right, but it stands seperate from an actual decision process influenced by any information that comes from analysing how the strategic level impacts - ultimately - your enjoyment.

 

It is very human in such circumstances to dive in to detail level approaches. It is how we are wired by our biology. Our brains are evolved to detect patterns, with as consequential obvious weakness a tendency to also impose patterns, our prime compensatory reflex is to collect details and engage in inspection and exchange of them. 

 

That is why in marketing and sales it serves such enormous picture to pit consumer types against each other. Brand wars, technical capability wars, and so forth. Remember Nvidia versus ATI. Or how Apple put a research project on belief systems to use for the creation of a lock-in market model. Or even simpler, look at how simple technical tidbits here and there on forums can become a puzzle in their own right. While the process of that puzzle serves completely different purposes.

[Evil_One 119]

Well, EA's marketing and sales aren't serving them as well as they'd hope... Their profits are tanking year-on-year.

[nhgriffith 179]

If there would be a workaround for the new simcity, wouldn't it mean that their excuses for making people stay online aren't exactly true and that people were inconvenienced for nothing? I understand that the devs' hands may be tied at the moment, but if this were true I'd rather hear about it sooner rather than later.

No. It doesn't mean that at all.

The future work around isn't inherently "Now you can play offline."

So let's break down a few future possibilities. I hate entertaining this argument at all, but I guess the haters of the new game seem to already know the servers will go down in 3 months and it'll be impossible for them to play their game... so why don't I offer some alternative possible futures...

1. The game could be patched to allow players to connect to non-EA servers to run the game. Then it becomes more like how FPS games used to always run. A group of players buy/rent a server and collectively pay for it together (so like SimTropolis may invest in a server to run the game), and then the server owner could require a password/username to play on their server, or they could offer free servers. Regardless, Maxis/EA could distribute the server-end software so that private users could host their own servers after EA shuts down their servers.

2. Lucy Bradshaw's reasoning behind being always online is two-fold. First, leaderboards and market prices. Second, the average home computer can't handle all the stuff the game calculates so the server calculates some of it. As for the first reason, users can opt out of leaderboards, and after a few years, Maxis could take the natural fluctuations of the market prices and create an extremely realistic simulated model for offline users. As for the second reason, computing power is on a constantly upward trend. The average computer in 5-10 years from now will be more powerful than even the best computers today.

It's pretty easy for something to be true today and untrue in the future. Lucy Bradshaw could be telling the truth today. That doesn't rule out that there will ever be a workaround.

[Hoipus 292]

I don't hate the game. I like some of the new features the game has. The only thing preventing me from putting money on it is the online business. Just thought I should clarify before I get generalised again.

[nhgriffith 179]

simcity 2000 for Windows (XP, Vista, 7, 8 and Mac OS X (10.6.8 or newer) for $5.99. 

 

http://www.gog.com/gamecard/simcity_2000_special_edition

 

 

when you say "workaround", i see it, somewhat similar to the patches that they apply to current games, nowadays. 

 

 

i guess you could call the over 32+(and counting) patches for the sims 3, workarounds, also.

Almost the entire argument against SimCity being always online is this lack of "owning" the game. If I have to pay $5.99 (or even $0.01) in order to play SimCity 2000 on my Windows 7 64-bit OS, then I didn't really own the version of the game I already paid for 20 years ago (well... my mom paid for.... I was in middle school...).

If EA announced that the new SimCity would be always online for the first at least 5 years, then in 5 years, if you wanted to continue to play the game, you had to pay $5.99 to download a different version of the game that didn't require an online connection, you'd be roasting them over that. You wouldn't accept this from EA, so why do you expect me to accept a $5.99 version of a game I already own (but can no longer play) as a counter point to my argument?

If this version of SimCity 2000 you were offering me was legal and FREE, you'd have made a better point, but even then, the only reason it'd be free to me is because it's free to everyone, not because I own an original copy of SimCity 2000 and have no where to put the two floppy discs to install the game (that won't even run on my computer).

BUT regardless, the fact remains that if I really wanted it badly enough, apparently there is a way for me to go play a version of SimCity 2000 even today, 20 years later. It just costs me $5.99. So doesn't that defeat the argument against the always-online requirement causing this game to be a rental?

As for the Sims 3 and it's patches? Are you suggesting you have a problem with patches? Patches are probably one of the greatest benefits from this era of gaming. The fact that Internet connections are so widespread means that developers can continue programming and continue to fix bugs long, long, long after the game is printed. In my opinion, patches are an argument FOR always-online, not against.

[Hoipus 292]

You could also just download Dosbox and run your disk copy of simcity 2000 through there.

 

EDIT: Silly me, did not notice it was floppy disks. I shall continue looking. I think the main point is that people feel that even if they could run it on their own, if they still had the hardware, that EA wouldn't let them due to the nature of the game. This is different to owning a copy of a game that you can no longer run on any of your hardware, as it is either your or the person who threw out your old stuff's fault, as opposed to not being allowed to play it.

 

No concrete statements about this have been made, which is why there is this fear.

[nhgriffith 179]

You could also just download Dosbox and run your disk copy of simcity 2000 through there.

 

EDIT: Silly me, did not notice it was floppy disks. I shall continue looking. I think the main point is that people feel that even if they could run it on their own, if they still had the hardware, that EA wouldn't let them due to the nature of the game. This is different to owning a copy of a game that you can no longer run on any of your hardware, as it is either your or the person who threw out your old stuff's fault, as opposed to not being allowed to play it.

 

No concrete statements about this have been made, which is why there is this fear.

I do have Dosbox, and I do play SimCity 2000 that way. But that's my whole point...

If I want to play SimCity 2000 it requires a workaround.

The workaround does exist.

Moreover, there are examples of online-only games (like Everquest 1 for example) that run servers.

My whole point isn't that I can't play SimCity 2000. My whole point is that if I want to play SimCity 2000, I have to figure out a workaround. I am confident that a workaround will also exist for this new SimCity when the time comes. I have no reason to expect it won't.

[baertooth 330]

You could also just download Dosbox and run your disk copy of simcity 2000 through there.

 

EDIT: Silly me, did not notice it was floppy disks. I shall continue looking. I think the main point is that people feel that even if they could run it on their own, if they still had the hardware, that EA wouldn't let them due to the nature of the game. This is different to owning a copy of a game that you can no longer run on any of your hardware, as it is either your or the person who threw out your old stuff's fault, as opposed to not being allowed to play it.

 

No concrete statements about this have been made, which is why there is this fear.

I do have Dosbox, and I do play SimCity 2000 that way. But that's my whole point...

If I want to play SimCity 2000 it requires a workaround.

The workaround does exist.

Moreover, there are examples of online-only games (like Everquest 1 for example) that run servers.

My whole point isn't that I can't play SimCity 2000. My whole point is that if I want to play SimCity 2000, I have to figure out a workaround. I am confident that a workaround will also exist for this new SimCity when the time comes. I have no reason to expect it won't.

 

 

You know what my workaround is?  Getting out my old machine that still has Win98se on it.  The old disks work and install great!

[macvirt 361]

Well, EA's marketing and sales aren't serving them as well as they'd hope... Their profits are tanking year-on-year.

 

It's not about those particular figures. It is about creating conditions so that those who decide on the strategic level can milk the model as consistently as possible. It's a model which is hardly ever seperated from what is known as a bonus culture, and not without reasons, or consequences. It's an investment model. It may be parasitic in nature, but as long as the gain is unchallenged that is not an issue.

 

Profit related figures really are not that important these days anymore in this industry. What matters is the ability to attract and utilise funding. It's a risk management approach to venture capital development.

[Evil_One 119]

Well, EA's marketing and sales aren't serving them as well as they'd hope... Their profits are tanking year-on-year.

 

It's not about those particular figures. It is about creating conditions so that those who decide on the strategic level can milk the model as consistently as possible. It's a model which is hardly ever seperated from what is known as a bonus culture, and not without reasons, or consequences. It's an investment model. It may be parasitic in nature, but as long as the gain is unchallenged that is not an issue.

 

Profit related figures really are not that important these days anymore in this industry. What matters is the ability to attract and utilise funding. It's a risk management approach to venture capital development.

Profit figures aren't important?

 

If EA continues this downward trend, they're going to go bankrupt within a few more years, I'd say that'd be a matter of concern for them, their profit margin has not so far come out of its nosedive and this new fascination with always online games has actually made their profit loss increase instead of decrease.

 

And with their profits goes their shares, and their company.

 

 

Surely that'd be important to everyone in their company (unless their intention is to ruin it in which case they're doing excellently).

[macvirt 361]

I'm not saying they are not important, they are. Particularly on the level of projects, or studios and titles - if you will. But EA operates as something between an investment firm and a venture capital developer. What is leading is the ability to provide for the reward structures of that level and the ability to attract and cover costs of financing. 

 

If a studio with one or a few titles does not reach targets set, that is a case of profit indicators. But such projects are also tallied in other forms, think of brand value or even more important in terms of establishing market reach, consumption patterns and so forth, in service of strategic targets. The studio level for EA is completely interexchangable and expendable. Yes, there is the case of value of knowledge and experience, but that is mostly limited (in spite of what staff tend to believe) to technical abstracts across projects and titles. That can be tied to a studio, but does not have to be. 

 

Profit is important for the studio. A lot less so for the publisher and/or investor, there it is but one variable (and not the one with the biggest weight). Our industry increasingly operates very much like that of the finance industry. 

 

Ofcourse, if one does not keep a finger on the pulse of it that can really upset planning and strategy, impeding the ability to attract funding and to cover the costs of that. It is possible to kill an enterprise when not paying attention to all that which takes place below the strategic level. Which is only natural. But for EA the indicator is its ability to a) attract funds and b) maximise the difference between the costs of that and the returns. And there we should keep in mind that what we commonly call the reward model (of which bonus culture is one part) in accountancy comes well before profit calculations .... It is not uncommon to class a reward structure as reservations or even project expenses. Go figure. What is even almost funny, is how the gaming industry is also increasingly replicating some tricks of the movie / general entertainment industry. Picture writing off an entire product as investment costs for another title, deducting all of that from the general revenue stream, prior to dividends & taxes, minimising value of technical assets and then selling those from one project to the next, doing it all over again

 

You are correct though that EA is increasingly walking a fine line. There are a few things which have hurt its ability to operate with venture capital. But that is tied much more to strategic management and the trending of investment markets than it is to titles. But it has become a big contributor to the relentless push towards achieving positions of dominance. The potential of profiling as an economic instrument are enormous. Look at how Amazon puts it to use. Or other enterprises, it is a growing trend after all. Personally I just doubt whether EA is taking the right approach. It does not matter how big your sea is if you constantly force the sea level to drop. It is a short term gain mindset. For obvious reasons. EA after all had its biggest moments of change in the grand '80's when the religion of greed is good (and screw any consequences) was unleashed

[Gamma Stardust 50]

(...)

My whole point isn't that I can't play SimCity 2000. My whole point is that if I want to play SimCity 2000, I have to figure out a workaround. I am confident that a workaround will also exist for this new SimCity when the time comes. I have no reason to expect it won't.

 

One thing is to unreasonably expect any developer/publisher to make its product usable "forever" in this ever changing hardware/software industry.

Another thing altogether is to expect said developer/publisher NOT making attempts at blocking its future usage or to artificially hinder its life expectancy. (even if as a collateral effect)

 

I can certainly see why one could put these disparate circumstances on the same level. It makes fair expectations look unreasonable.

 

Workarounds to extend a products use are consumers' prerrogative not the other way around. Speculation at its finest, to sell a mere future possibility, gullibility to pay and fall for that.

[nhgriffith 179]

... so I'm the one speculating? But those of you who just know that SimCity will become unplayable, you're not speculating at all? It's written in stone.

[macvirt 361]

Nothing written in stone lasts. It withers away, though more frequently humans tend to break stone. Or use it to build with. Heck, we even use it as a weapon

 

By the way, I should point out that the last few years in this industry there has been a rapidly growing emphasis on incorporating controlled and finite product lifecycles into strategic development. One of the more simple reasons is that which consumers tend to call the "reboot syndrome" requires this. After all, a shortened memory span is just as required as avoiding duplicate or even merely overlapping lifecycles to avoid saturation of the available market volumes.

 

And yes, DLC is just as much a part of that as service operations, these are also elements of lifecycle management.

[CahosRahneVeloza 385]

Okay folks this time around I will not whine about the "Always online" requirement, but I have another concern I just thought up...

 

My country (The Philippines) has recently been IP Banned on a lot of international online games host servers rendering it difficult for someone to play internationally hosted MMORPGs unless one uses VPN.

 

There have been many derogatory rumors and speculations as to why this has happened including accusations of hacking and tampering with game mechanics (using 3rd party BOT/Farming applications) to a conspiracy theory involving the sole online games host in the country PlayWeb games (formerly levelup! games Philippines) requesting other Online games host companies from other countries to IP Ban players from our country so they can monopolize the online games market in the country.

 

Anyway my point is, will EA/Origin probably IP Ban us as well? If so, then there really is no point for us to buy this upcoming game now is there?