SimCity Store ?

[marioflag 0]

For Simcity i will gladly buy DLC. But i don't have high hopes about the quality of DLCs, i'm sure most of them will be Japanese,Chinese, Russian city pack i don't even expect overpriced small DLC pack which add more variety and depth to gameplay. EA has unfortunately an history of releasing DLCs, which quality is far worse than the vanilla game (see Dragon Age Origins, Mass Effect games) or destroy completely the balance (superpowerful items).

 

I hope that they consider Simcity a more adult oriented game but from what i have seen so far i'm not optimistic.

[ZrC 3]

Considering this game is always online DRM I doubt it will be moddable. All we have to look forward to is DLC labeled as expansions. It's already been stated mods will not be available at launch which means EA will be watching the success of the game. If it's a huge hit you can be sure they will want to bank on the DLC, if not it will be opened to modders.

[Jackbnimble 0]

 

 

 

My thought is they will sell an "incomplete game" and them, sell DLCs.

Ea has never sold an incomplete game  forcing you to buy dlc to complete it. Why on earth do you believe that they would even try to pull such a stunt now?

 

Actually, they have, and they haven't. DLC are by design strategy a part of specification. Their definition of "complete" has simply changed in comparison to that of customers. A complete title these days means the combination of title release (feature sets, content, art, etc) and that which was seperated from the specs to be releases seperate and that which is conceived to be added at a later stage. Three parts. The first two of those are actually what most customers tend to see as a the definition of "complete game", with the third being the "extra" cherries later on. 

 

By the way, it is interesting to make note of feature and function sets which were visible during development stages as well as in the marketing, which for the release have disappeared. Equally interesting it will be to see those elements resurface as DLC elements later on. From buildings via building styles via transit elements via infrastructural elements all the way to core elements like terraforming and moddability.

 

Actually, no they haven't! Being incomplete would suggest that the game is unfinished. Day one , everyone will get a fully functional and completed version of sim city that doesn't require dlc to play.  Everyone may think that there is dlc that should have been in the game to begin with, and I am not saying they're wrong, but it doesn't make the game incomplete with out it.

 

I have been gaming for over 20 years , between steam, origin and psn, I have close to 100 games in my collection and most of them have the option for dlc and not one of those games is incomplete or even close to being incomplete. By the way, I rarely buy dlc myself, only for a very few select games will I ever buy any dlc .

 

This is the way the industry has been going over the last few years with dlc, Devs will try to nickle and dime you to get any extra money they can out of their customers, but at the same time dlc is always optional.

 

To your statement , there is no " they have and they haven't" (that doesn't even make any sense) , they either have or they haven't, and I can tell you "NO" they have NOT ever released an incomplete game. I don't know much about law, but I don't think that it would even be legal to do such a thing. 

 

You have managed to completely miss the point. A decade ago if we engaged on a venture for a title release we'd find our selves in plenty tight spots if we made the release without having met the targets set by the specification processes. In simple terms, if we released the title incomplete we'd have to spend quite a bit more (in resources assigned as well as costs which back then were always tallied seperate from the development costs) to deal with that in either a patch based approach or an enhancement approach. Both of which would take their own additional marketing campaign - either through community, support or mainstream channels or a combination of these.

 

Nowadays we do the speccing, we go through the entire process, we then decide which parts are considered "core" to the intended experience, which parts are considered crucial for the processes of customer acquisition / retention and which parts carry a distinct value beyond these parts.

 

We then cut those bits from the release planning, invest in a seperate planning mode for resource allocation, development and marketing for them, and call it DLC. We can do that because people are by now used to games being enhanced or complemented for both content and features after a title release with a very low resistance on a market level to these having a seperate price. That is what DLC technically is. We've just seen how we can save resources, deliver an incomplete title and make more money by completing it after the title release.

 

One of the biggest tricks, so to speak, is that intrinsic balance between determining the core elements of experience and that which a set of selected user types will crave when presented (ideally instigated by means of exactly those core experience targets). It is a fine line to walk. Most studios, and particularly the bigger publishers know that fine line very well. That is why even people with 20 years of gaming experience as a consumer rarely look up to ask questions about how these concepts like DLC have come to be and how they have changed (particularly over the last few years).

 

The core experience is a balanced set of targets to provide the experience of a full game, regardless of whatever perception the marketing creates in servitude of sales venues. The magic of it is that this is exactly what enables the concept of DLC to be expanded, with the tresholds of resistance on a consumer level ever decreasing.

 

Believe it or not  I do understand the strategies behind dlc , and how publishers and developers will try to milk you for every dime they can. Most dlc is just "FLUFF", just look at the sims3 for example, it's all "FLUFF" ,there is nothing core about any of that dlc what so ever, just "FLUFF" and that is what I would expect to see from simcity dlc. But since you know so much more about simcity then I do , then why don't you explain to me what core elements EA/Maxis have removed from the game only to plan on selling back as dlc, or is this all just speculation on your part because you didn't see certain elements of the game in the Beta/demo?

 

I don't think any publisher or developer would be crazy enough to leave out any "CORE ELEMENTS" out of any game. Core is what makes the game , dlc does not and I highly doubt that EA/maxis will break that rule now. EA isn't new to gaming, they know exactly how to entice people into buying dlc , they have been doing it for years now.

 

I am sorry but I am not about to fall for the mass hysteria and paranoia that has been running rampant on this web site.

[city89 147]

it depends wat the store have to offer

[macvirt 361]

 

 

 

 

My thought is they will sell an "incomplete game" and them, sell DLCs.

Ea has never sold an incomplete game  forcing you to buy dlc to complete it. Why on earth do you believe that they would even try to pull such a stunt now?

 

Actually, they have, and they haven't. DLC are by design strategy a part of specification. Their definition of "complete" has simply changed in comparison to that of customers. A complete title these days means the combination of title release (feature sets, content, art, etc) and that which was seperated from the specs to be releases seperate and that which is conceived to be added at a later stage. Three parts. The first two of those are actually what most customers tend to see as a the definition of "complete game", with the third being the "extra" cherries later on. 

 

By the way, it is interesting to make note of feature and function sets which were visible during development stages as well as in the marketing, which for the release have disappeared. Equally interesting it will be to see those elements resurface as DLC elements later on. From buildings via building styles via transit elements via infrastructural elements all the way to core elements like terraforming and moddability.

 

Actually, no they haven't! Being incomplete would suggest that the game is unfinished. Day one , everyone will get a fully functional and completed version of sim city that doesn't require dlc to play.  Everyone may think that there is dlc that should have been in the game to begin with, and I am not saying they're wrong, but it doesn't make the game incomplete with out it.

 

I have been gaming for over 20 years , between steam, origin and psn, I have close to 100 games in my collection and most of them have the option for dlc and not one of those games is incomplete or even close to being incomplete. By the way, I rarely buy dlc myself, only for a very few select games will I ever buy any dlc .

 

This is the way the industry has been going over the last few years with dlc, Devs will try to nickle and dime you to get any extra money they can out of their customers, but at the same time dlc is always optional.

 

To your statement , there is no " they have and they haven't" (that doesn't even make any sense) , they either have or they haven't, and I can tell you "NO" they have NOT ever released an incomplete game. I don't know much about law, but I don't think that it would even be legal to do such a thing. 

 

You have managed to completely miss the point. A decade ago if we engaged on a venture for a title release we'd find our selves in plenty tight spots if we made the release without having met the targets set by the specification processes. In simple terms, if we released the title incomplete we'd have to spend quite a bit more (in resources assigned as well as costs which back then were always tallied seperate from the development costs) to deal with that in either a patch based approach or an enhancement approach. Both of which would take their own additional marketing campaign - either through community, support or mainstream channels or a combination of these.

 

Nowadays we do the speccing, we go through the entire process, we then decide which parts are considered "core" to the intended experience, which parts are considered crucial for the processes of customer acquisition / retention and which parts carry a distinct value beyond these parts.

 

We then cut those bits from the release planning, invest in a seperate planning mode for resource allocation, development and marketing for them, and call it DLC. We can do that because people are by now used to games being enhanced or complemented for both content and features after a title release with a very low resistance on a market level to these having a seperate price. That is what DLC technically is. We've just seen how we can save resources, deliver an incomplete title and make more money by completing it after the title release.

 

One of the biggest tricks, so to speak, is that intrinsic balance between determining the core elements of experience and that which a set of selected user types will crave when presented (ideally instigated by means of exactly those core experience targets). It is a fine line to walk. Most studios, and particularly the bigger publishers know that fine line very well. That is why even people with 20 years of gaming experience as a consumer rarely look up to ask questions about how these concepts like DLC have come to be and how they have changed (particularly over the last few years).

 

The core experience is a balanced set of targets to provide the experience of a full game, regardless of whatever perception the marketing creates in servitude of sales venues. The magic of it is that this is exactly what enables the concept of DLC to be expanded, with the tresholds of resistance on a consumer level ever decreasing.

 

I don't think any publisher or developer would be crazy enough to leave out any "CORE ELEMENTS" out of any game. Core is what makes the game , dlc does not and I highly doubt that EA/maxis will break that rule now. EA isn't new to gaming, they know exactly how to entice people into buying dlc , they have been doing it for years now.

 

You appear to be under the impression that this is somehow something that may or may not happen in the future. We've been doing this for years and years. Maybe I should point you to a very common but also very known example, 2K Games the publisher with Firaxis the studio and Civilization V the game. Remember the topic of religion? Part of design specification, removed from title release in spite of massive protests, reintroduced as part of DLC after release cycle, enhanced by a sweet marketing campaign designed to make customers believe that they had gotten Firaxis to convince the publisher to "give back" that particular sorely missed feature set Hilarious. As was pointed out by those who put the old presentation slides online demonstrating that the removal of feature sets from specification was a choice as conscious as the marketing afterwards to make it look like consumers were listened to, but by that time everybody wanted to believe again and bought the DLC packs

 

Here's the thing. We figure out what constitutes the entire range of targets we want to reach with a title, and what feature sets are required for this. We then split that up. I know you have an idea in your head about a "finished game", I am sorry, it is not the same as the definition in the industry. I get the difference, I sympathise with your conviction. I wish it were that different. But that is not the reality of this industry. Core is what guides paths of sales. It is that which we cater to. One such path leads to another such path, and so on. This constitutes feature sets, content, art, as well as the dependancy chains between them. 

 

There are no rules. This is business. Pure and simple. 

[arcology 224]

I don't think any publisher or developer would be crazy enough to leave out any "CORE ELEMENTS" out of any game. Core is what makes the game , dlc does not and I highly doubt that EA/maxis will break that rule now. EA isn't new to gaming, they know exactly how to entice people into buying dlc , they have been doing it for years now.

 

You appear to be under the impression that this is somehow something that may or may not happen in the future. We've been doing this for years and years. Maybe I should point you to a very common but also very known example, 2K Games the publisher with Firaxis the studio and Civilization V the game. Remember the topic of religion? Part of design specification, removed from title release in spite of massive protests, reintroduced as part of DLC after release cycle, enhanced by a sweet marketing campaign designed to make customers believe that they had gotten Firaxis to convince the publisher to "give back" that particular sorely missed feature set Hilarious. As was pointed out by those who put the old presentation slides online demonstrating that the removal of feature sets from specification was a choice as conscious as the marketing afterwards to make it look like consumers were listened to, but by that time everybody wanted to believe again and bought the DLC packs

 

Here's the thing. We figure out what constitutes the entire range of targets we want to reach with a title, and what feature sets are required for this. We then split that up. I know you have an idea in your head about a "finished game", I am sorry, it is not the same as the definition in the industry. I get the difference, I sympathise with your conviction. I wish it were that different. But that is not the reality of this industry. Core is what guides paths of sales. It is that which we cater to. One such path leads to another such path, and so on. This constitutes feature sets, content, art, as well as the dependancy chains between them. 

 

There are no rules. This is business. Pure and simple. 

 

I get it and I am going to oversimplify my response, but, I know you will understand my point.

 

 

This is exactly what happened with Sims 3.  Three years to leave out a diving board?  An item that was in the Sims 1 & 2, almost from the get go.  They have been bringing the items people have wanted through the store - i.e., The Cowplant, etc. 

 

 

So, they have stretched it out - knowing that people want these items.  What used to be included in "complete" (i know, "perception" of complete) expansion packs is being brought out piecemeal. 

 

 

The problem is that their guaranteed sales, through their long term fans, don't have a short memory of how it "used to be".  I know, I know, the argument is "this is the way it is", etc., however, we can still voice our objections (hopefully) and vote with our wallets (which some will do, including me). 

 

 

The ongoing "sales" in the Sims 3 store, seem to show that people aren't quick to buy everything they immediately release anymore.

 

 

I have seen the point made that the SimCity game will be playable without any DLC right from the getgo - however, how long before EA "needs" to sell items to keep money coming in - how will they justify long term servers if this game does not generate enough long term sales?

[macvirt 361]

That last question is the crux of it. Justification for that will be based on the common tools of marketing for generating sales based on available allocation of resources for the studio. That limits the ability to thus provide for what is wanted / desired in consumer patterns. It is a resource determined decision process. What we do in the industry as such is prioritise that which we can provide cheaply. Think of content that does only requires art & packaging, but not development and much of QA. 

 

That this already is the chosen approach is visible in the marketing as well, the Sims "model" as such is a clear applied model to SC2013. 

 

And that is the strategic decision level. The level of design & development comes long after that. It does not decide these things, it can only "fill in" what the strategic targets and the resource allocations leave room for. 

 

The lifecycle of SC2013 is dependant on venture planning for a) strategic policies of EA (DRM, data / user profiling, tech evolution in service of) b) further title development by the studio (major part in what determines resource allocations for a studio), the ability of Maxis to provide DLC packaged feature sets on top of the more resource allocation friendly content sets and some other minor tidbits like the willingness of target user types (again, not "deep" gameplay fans of previous titles or even the broad concept of the simulation game) to keep using their wallet.

[arcology 224]

Again, oversimplification on my part. 

 

What you are saying makes a lot of sense, with the recent history of the Sims 3, in relation to its' predecessors.  For example PlantSims and Servo, in Sims 2, had functions that were definitive to their own "species", if you will. 

 

Sims 3 - they reintroduced the Servo, with no real defining characteristics separate from the Sims, themselves (i.e., their functions/needs were basically all the same), except for their appearance.  They reintroduced "green-tinged" sims in a world they were selling in the Sims Store - however, that was it - no standout features - they were just "green".  Plus, you had to buy an additional world to obtain them.  And then, what a let-down. 

 

So, I agree with what you are saying, the marketing/low cost production.  However, people eventually catch on.  Word of mouth (i.e., amazon reviews that aren't planted, etc.), and bugs/glitches, lack of deeper gameplay vs. cost to procure all these items, all work against them.

 

Due to their requirement of producing things cheaply, isn't it actually going to be their own actions that cause the lack of long term sales?  That one step further to give us what we want, will pay off for them big time.  (I had to try!  )

[macvirt 361]

To be blunt, if a trend of lack of long term sales cannot be created, that is not something I would see as a bad thing. It would provide the starting elements of a potentially different commercial trend, where going broad but shallow could very well be replaced by a flexibility which would allow for going broad and deep with room for choice based provisioning across user types. Something I would find not just more satisfying, but which on a creative level would be just as wonderfully challenging as commercially satisfying. 

 

Unfortunately, that requires a mentality that goes beyond the short term target focus. If the decision point really were Maxis, you could have hope. But this is the strategic level, that of EA directives. The level of stuff rarely even told to the poor people who do the actual work at the studio level, so to speak. EA has a model of strict and controlled cycles of short term focus. Even that which some people here call the relentless milking of consumers with Sims 3 DLC content is such a series of short term cycle focus. It is a strategy developed to provide exactly for that scope. In many ways it even prevents the studio level from doing much of anything else, without even realising it. 

 

Look, sure, Maxis could shoot itself in the foot. But this is a global and leisure market project. You would have to nuke both legs to not meet required targets, not to mention desired targets. The sad part is that meeting desired targets faster than established required targets is what creates feasible room for creating what you are referring to, indeed possible strengthening that commercial road. Problem is, while that would be great for Maxis as a brand, it would be utterly averse to EA's strategic goals. Think about. Now I am not saying a studio cannot be smarter than the average publisher board staring at shiny graphs. But it is something that studios subject to publishers tend to not survive very well.

[arcology 224]

I do think you give a very accurate picture of what is really happening with this, so, understand that I am just bouncing my own thoughts off of your post. 

 

I agree that EA directives are what ultimately drive this (shareholders, investors, advertisers, etc.).   

 

They already do collect information from players in the Sims 3 and let them know that they do it outright.  That little box, in the Options menu, does not stay unchecked for some - you have to make sure you are the administrator of your own system, for it to stay unchecked (and even then, who knows).  It is strange that that is the only part that stays unchecked. 

 

I personally think that they use the data they collect, to sell to advertisers, so, they get money from both ends. 

 

They satisfy basic gamer's needs with a very basic game, and satisfy their advertisers/investors and hope to keep both sides going, while not putting much effort on either side.  The fans give them the money outright, and their personal information and statistics, and the advertisers give them their money for their own marketing use. 

 

 

So, to EA, it is no longer a game.  It is a tool.  That makes them a lot of money, even if the game fails.  They still have some of what they need, while gamers are left with nothing. 

 

 

That's why they don't seem to "care" about what many gamers want with this franchise.  Even with the growing lists of their online sports game servers shutting down,  they don't seem to offer any long term solution to gamers, as they really are a "non-entity" to EA. 

 

 

There is no patch to allow offline play. 

 

 

As a gamer, you would think, well at least with sports, people inherently think of playing together.  That would at least have some longevity with people connecting.  City building, I don't see it lasting, if sports games don't even last on their servers. 

 

 

And, as a gamer, that's why I don't want to invest in this particular version of the game or the items in their upcoming store.

 

 

SimCity gameplay would have to be pretty involved to get people to want to keep spending so much on future store items, especially, when they ultimately don't "own" the game/gamesaves/items purchased from the store.  

[Towel 76]

News Just In!

 

Announcing SimCity: Katy Perry

 

Just find a spot for Katy Perry's exclusive Mansion in your city and she will move in!

 

Follow her day to day life in your City!

 

Want to see her perform? Just schedule her concert at your cities venue and enjoy the excitement!

 

Availible in the SimCity Store ($49.95)

[nicholas.post86 8]

If EA decides to release DLC "chunks" for money, then is there any incentive for them to allow modding for the game?  That really worries me.

[InCommandOfCars 22]

If it is the quality of the Sims store then i will welcome it with cake and streamers. 
I hope they have a Melbourne or Australian DLC city pack, that would be so cool! 

I don't see why people keep complaining for silly things like this, seems really cool.

[Radioactive Chicken 10]

I can't really answer yes or no to the poll without knowing exactly what will be available and what it will cost. If there is worthwhile content and not just palette swaps, I might spend some money. But if it's stupidly expensive like The Sims 3 store, I won't spend a dime for anything short of an expansion.

Pretty much this.  I'm not against DLC.  I have bought DLC on Steam before because I felt it was value for money but the Sims Store always felt overpriced to me.  I would have gladly bought a few things if they were more reasonably priced. 

In general though I'd prefer to have content rich expansion packs not £15 for a tiny collection of items. 

[AkemiAzula 280]

No I wouldn't pay for dlc because i'm a benefits pauper innit. That, and I doubt they'd be of good quality. They'd probably be some rubbish ploppable buildings or the abovesuggested Katy Perry. I don't really believe in dlc as a business model because it means a product is never completed, and customization causes individualism, which leads to a scattering of resources.

[arcology 224]

News Just In!

 

Announcing SimCity: Katy Perry

 

Just find a spot for Katy Perry's exclusive Mansion in your city and she will move in!

 

Follow her day to day life in your City!

 

Want to see her perform? Just schedule her concert at your cities venue and enjoy the excitement!

 

Availible in the SimCity Store ($49.95)

 

 

There would be no room. 

 

The SimCity store would need to expand just the city for all of her "props", but, that is for another thread regarding "city" sizes. 

If it is the quality of the Sims store then i will welcome it with cake and streamers. 

I hope they have a Melbourne or Australian DLC city pack, that would be so cool! 

I don't see why people keep complaining for silly things like this, seems really cool.

 

i think people complain, because it is a lot of money, for not a lot back. 

 

I think we can all look to the Sims 3 store, for how pricing will go, also, since this is kind of following in that path. 

 

Hopefully, for you guys, they will keep offering sales/in-game incentives, like they are doing now, to get people to pay. 

[nats 99]

I know I will pay for content because I have paid for content for Heart of Iron 3 (yet to play it properly yet though), and Shogun Total War 2 (yet to play it much yet). However for me to pay for it it has to be worth it - ie not just individual buildings but perhaps road sets, bridge sets, expansions to tile sizes, bigger mopre complex maps with adjacent tiles etc etc. I dont think I would pay for individual buildings, once you start where do you stop? Besides games should be overly complete when you buy them if you are paying £45 for them. Especially considering all the free and cheap games you can get these days that are very good. At the end of the day it will depend a lot on how much I enjoy the basic game as to whether I will pay for extra content.

 

£8 for the English set is pretty steep I cant see me getting that.

[PeterLloyd 11]

It depends entirely what is on offer. If it is micro transactions then I will more than likely wait for the bigger products that have more than just an aesthetic change.

[AkemiAzula 280]

I would severely reccomend to EA a free constant upgrade of the game ala Simutrans, and if they must have a 'store' it should be for elements which, while adding a certain something to the game, are not necessary in order to play. For instance they should not be items which should inevitably be included in the game through improvement, such as subways if these are not initially included. They should be aesthetic like tilesets, items which may have worth of some description, but not an integral value to gameplay or a structural usefulness. This is also because in a multiplayer environment we don't want the game going the way of sports, becoming a game of wealth rather than one of skill. Very few football players seem to even come from the district their team is based in these days...

 

Possibly straying a touch off topic there, but at any rate the store shouldn't be an alternative to a regular update, or expansion packs of a quality nature

[nhgriffith 179]

But Subways aren't necessary in order to play the game. Once you hit a certain population in SimCity 4, they may be something that's necessary in that game, but that they're not coming with the base game for the new game. And regardless of why they're not included, the end result is that the release game is balanced around the idea that the player will never have subways.

Now, later on, they may introduce subways, and maybe they help to some degree with traffic issues, but ultimately the game can still be played without them. But the game remains playable without subways, so I wouldn't have a problem if EA decided that they were going to charge for DLC or an expansion pack that added subways. Ultimately, free is always better, and I'd love to see as much content as possible being released for free... but realistically, I know that most of the content won't simply be released for free.

Personally, I don't like the idea of paying for aesthetic-only items, generally speaking. Ultimately, these are the types of things that are extraordinarily simple for modders to do and get right and looking good. And they can/will do it for free (see The Sims store). And sometimes even in the Sims, modders do a great jobs on functional items too.

And I'm not trying to suggest that I think the game should turn into a "pay to win" model. I'm not saying that items player pay for should function significantly better then what's already in the base game. I agree that paying for downloadable items shouldn't give me an advantage on the leaderboards. But if anything is going to cost money, it should be the things like Subways that give me expanded design options when it comes to my city. I don't think the subway should work any better for transit then the streetcars already included in the game, and if that's the case, the only difference with subways is that I can connect streets (and not just avenues) with this form of transit. Heck, I wouldn't even be surprised if when subways are released (if they are) that they come with a tile that will connect a subway line to the streetcar lines.

When they decide to come out with new city specializations and come out with an entire new set of buildings for these new city specializations, I certainly expect that they'll be charging for these. But these will actually also add new leaderboard categories. They shouldn't have an impact on population growth, or income (compared to other city specializations), nor should they enhance other city specializations above and beyond what already exists... but suppose they added a farming city specialization. It adds a lot more functionality to the game, and a lot more fun. It gives me another city specialization to play around with adding even more replayability to one of the most replayable franchises in the history of video gaming... and all the while, it doesn't give me an advantage in any of the leaderboard categories other than that I can compete in the new leaderboard categories the farming expansion adds.

I just had this thought of how great it would be to see tractors driving down streetcar avenues... lol...

[Jackbnimble 0]

 

 

 

 

 

My thought is they will sell an "incomplete game" and them, sell DLCs.

Ea has never sold an incomplete game  forcing you to buy dlc to complete it. Why on earth do you believe that they would even try to pull such a stunt now?

 

Actually, they have, and they haven't. DLC are by design strategy a part of specification. Their definition of "complete" has simply changed in comparison to that of customers. A complete title these days means the combination of title release (feature sets, content, art, etc) and that which was seperated from the specs to be releases seperate and that which is conceived to be added at a later stage. Three parts. The first two of those are actually what most customers tend to see as a the definition of "complete game", with the third being the "extra" cherries later on. 

 

By the way, it is interesting to make note of feature and function sets which were visible during development stages as well as in the marketing, which for the release have disappeared. Equally interesting it will be to see those elements resurface as DLC elements later on. From buildings via building styles via transit elements via infrastructural elements all the way to core elements like terraforming and moddability.

 

Actually, no they haven't! Being incomplete would suggest that the game is unfinished. Day one , everyone will get a fully functional and completed version of sim city that doesn't require dlc to play.  Everyone may think that there is dlc that should have been in the game to begin with, and I am not saying they're wrong, but it doesn't make the game incomplete with out it.

 

I have been gaming for over 20 years , between steam, origin and psn, I have close to 100 games in my collection and most of them have the option for dlc and not one of those games is incomplete or even close to being incomplete. By the way, I rarely buy dlc myself, only for a very few select games will I ever buy any dlc .

 

This is the way the industry has been going over the last few years with dlc, Devs will try to nickle and dime you to get any extra money they can out of their customers, but at the same time dlc is always optional.

 

To your statement , there is no " they have and they haven't" (that doesn't even make any sense) , they either have or they haven't, and I can tell you "NO" they have NOT ever released an incomplete game. I don't know much about law, but I don't think that it would even be legal to do such a thing. 

 

You have managed to completely miss the point. A decade ago if we engaged on a venture for a title release we'd find our selves in plenty tight spots if we made the release without having met the targets set by the specification processes. In simple terms, if we released the title incomplete we'd have to spend quite a bit more (in resources assigned as well as costs which back then were always tallied seperate from the development costs) to deal with that in either a patch based approach or an enhancement approach. Both of which would take their own additional marketing campaign - either through community, support or mainstream channels or a combination of these.

 

Nowadays we do the speccing, we go through the entire process, we then decide which parts are considered "core" to the intended experience, which parts are considered crucial for the processes of customer acquisition / retention and which parts carry a distinct value beyond these parts.

 

We then cut those bits from the release planning, invest in a seperate planning mode for resource allocation, development and marketing for them, and call it DLC. We can do that because people are by now used to games being enhanced or complemented for both content and features after a title release with a very low resistance on a market level to these having a seperate price. That is what DLC technically is. We've just seen how we can save resources, deliver an incomplete title and make more money by completing it after the title release.

 

One of the biggest tricks, so to speak, is that intrinsic balance between determining the core elements of experience and that which a set of selected user types will crave when presented (ideally instigated by means of exactly those core experience targets). It is a fine line to walk. Most studios, and particularly the bigger publishers know that fine line very well. That is why even people with 20 years of gaming experience as a consumer rarely look up to ask questions about how these concepts like DLC have come to be and how they have changed (particularly over the last few years).

 

The core experience is a balanced set of targets to provide the experience of a full game, regardless of whatever perception the marketing creates in servitude of sales venues. The magic of it is that this is exactly what enables the concept of DLC to be expanded, with the tresholds of resistance on a consumer level ever decreasing.

 

I don't think any publisher or developer would be crazy enough to leave out any "CORE ELEMENTS" out of any game. Core is what makes the game , dlc does not and I highly doubt that EA/maxis will break that rule now. EA isn't new to gaming, they know exactly how to entice people into buying dlc , they have been doing it for years now.

 

You appear to be under the impression that this is somehow something that may or may not happen in the future. We've been doing this for years and years. Maybe I should point you to a very common but also very known example, 2K Games the publisher with Firaxis the studio and Civilization V the game. Remember the topic of religion? Part of design specification, removed from title release in spite of massive protests, reintroduced as part of DLC after release cycle, enhanced by a sweet marketing campaign designed to make customers believe that they had gotten Firaxis to convince the publisher to "give back" that particular sorely missed feature set Hilarious. As was pointed out by those who put the old presentation slides online demonstrating that the removal of feature sets from specification was a choice as conscious as the marketing afterwards to make it look like consumers were listened to, but by that time everybody wanted to believe again and bought the DLC packs

 

Here's the thing. We figure out what constitutes the entire range of targets we want to reach with a title, and what feature sets are required for this. We then split that up. I know you have an idea in your head about a "finished game", I am sorry, it is not the same as the definition in the industry. I get the difference, I sympathise with your conviction. I wish it were that different. But that is not the reality of this industry. Core is what guides paths of sales. It is that which we cater to. One such path leads to another such path, and so on. This constitutes feature sets, content, art, as well as the dependancy chains between them. 

 

There are no rules. This is business. Pure and simple. 

So now we're talking about 2k games and civilitation V? Sorry but I have never played it, all I know about 2k games and civ V is that it's not simcity or EA/Maxis.

 

I am still waiting on all your intel on the core elements that are being hacked out of the game only to be resold to us as dlc.

[City Planner 121]

For me it depends on the content. If it's a full fledged expansion pack and buying it in the store is the only way, AND it's a good deal and quality, then yeah I'll buy from the store.

If they manage to give us a really large city tiles in a relatively inexpensive DLC then Yeah, I'll probably buy from the store.

If they sell buildings and cars and sim clothes etc, then I'll NOT likely buy from the store on those items. I'm in absolutely not hurry to feed any more money to the EA/Maxis machine after paying full AAA title retail price on SC13.

[Lakenstaken 34]

Let's pray for it to not be another Sims store, but knowing EA it probably will.

[robangus 5]

I'm fairly sure this will be run exactly like the sims store is. Individual items (buildings etc) for sale at a smallish price and then themed packs of these items as a dicounted cost (over buying the individual pieces). Not sure whether the EP's will be sold in this (im pretty sure Maxis will release Sims like EP's) but they will be through origin either way.

 

Id buy some things, more casinos for example, but i don't go crazy with this stuff.