What if SimCity fails?

[Hoipus 292]

The main difference is that, while SimCity is big, it isn't anywhere near CoD big. CoD is the type of game bought year after year by the folks who buy one or two games a year, forget about them after a month then get excited again around November to buy the latest CoD. These same people generally do not follow gaming news or internet forums, and just want to play what their friends are playing (which is usually CoD). I actually feel that a proper boycott might actually have some effect on this game because it is a definite niche title, no matter how hard marketing tries hard to make it seem like it isn't.

And why would you boycott a game? You havent even played it, yet youre calling for a boycott because what? You need to be online all the time? Because it doesnt have everything SC4 had? Because you feel the city tiles are to small?

Well, boycott it all you want. If the game looks like fun (and from what Ive seen from it, it definitely looks like fun) Ill will get it. I wont let misplaced ideals or anger stand in the way of having fun.

I'd really like to like this game, but if it wants to include anti-consumer features such as forcing people to save their cities on EA's servers, even if they wish to play alone, offline, then I'm going to have to pass.

[sng7 13]

And why would you boycott a game? You havent even played it, yet youre calling for a boycott because what? You need to be online all the time? Because it doesnt have everything SC4 had? Because you feel the city tiles are to small?

Because it looks like you going to have to use origin which is effectively spy-ware and the fact that you have to be constantly online to play the game you own. I think they are 2 very good reasons to boycott a game.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Because it looks like you going to have to use origin which is effectively spy-ware and the fact that you have to be constantly online to play the game you own. I think they are 2 very good reasons to boycott a game.

No one cares if its Valve or even Facebook spying on people (yes, they do the same as Origin) but if its EA, suddenly its a reason for a boycott. And while being constantly online is annoying, at the other hand, who doesnt have a 24/7 internet connection these days? Also, as that manager explained, they are using the servers to reduce the strain on your computer. Making use of cloud computing power to do a whole lot of calculations that would otherwise be something your own computer has to do. I think its actually a brilliant idea.

[Hoipus 292]

Because it looks like you going to have to use origin which is effectively spy-ware and the fact that you have to be constantly online to play the game you own. I think they are 2 very good reasons to boycott a game.

No one cares if its Valve or even Facebook spying on people (yes, they do the same as Origin) but if its EA, suddenly its a reason for a boycott. And while being constantly online is annoying, at the other hand, who doesnt have a 24/7 internet connection these days? Also, as that manager explained, they are using the servers to reduce the strain on your computer. Making use of cloud computing power to do a whole lot of calculations that would otherwise be something your own computer has to do. I think its actually a brilliant idea.

I keep seeing this argument. It keeps getting refuted, but it keeps getting posted. Some people have spotty connections. Some people like to play while traveling. Some people have a line of work that requires them to take some level of residence in an area that either has a very weak internet connection or no internet connection at all. Some people may live at a university that blocks their internet from using online game services. What are they to do if they wish to play this game?

[LexusInfernus 908]

I keep seeing this argument. It keeps getting refuted, but it keeps getting posted. Some people have spotty connections. Some people like to play while traveling. Some people have a line of work that requires them to take some level of residence in an area that either has a very weak internet connection or no internet connection at all. Some people may live at a university that blocks their internet from using online game services. What are they to do if they wish to play this game?

Some people also dont have a good enough video card to play this game. What are they going to do? Complain to the makers that their game is to graphics intensive and that they should make the game look crappier? Or just shut up and accept that they should get a better video card? Or play a game which is less graphics intensive? But is it a reason to call for a boycott of the game? Right, didnt think so.

[Hoipus 292]

I keep seeing this argument. It keeps getting refuted, but it keeps getting posted. Some people have spotty connections. Some people like to play while traveling. Some people have a line of work that requires them to take some level of residence in an area that either has a very weak internet connection or no internet connection at all. Some people may live at a university that blocks their internet from using online game services. What are they to do if they wish to play this game?

Some people also dont have a good enough video card to play this game. What are they going to do? Complain to the makers that their game is to graphics intensive and that they should make the game look crappier? Or just shut up and accept that they should get a better video card? Or play a game which is less graphics intensive? But is it a reason to call for a boycott of the game? Right, didnt think so.

What are you trying to say? That people who can't play a game for various reasons shouldn't not buy it?

People can actually pay to get new computer parts or have them delivered to them during times when they aren't at their work residence/college dorm, or even whole they're traveling. They can't exactly have a perfect internet connection and infalliable servers sent to them through the mail.

The difference between the problem I described (limited access to internet) and the problem you described (computer not being too good) is that people can actually take reasonable steps to solve the problem of limited computer specs, while they can't do anything both reasonable and legal to solve the problem of a game that requires them to be online if they wish to play it. That is a fair reason to not buy a game.

[LexusInfernus 908]

What are you trying to say? That people who can't play a game for various reasons shouldn't not buy it?

People can actually pay to get new computer parts or have them delivered to them during times when they aren't at their work residence/college dorm, or even whole they're traveling. They can't exactly have a perfect internet connection and infalliable servers sent to them through the mail.

The difference between the problem I described (limited access to internet) and the problem you described (computer not being too good) is that people can actually take reasonable steps to solve the problem of limited computer specs, while they can't do anything both reasonable and legal to solve the problem of a game that requires them to be online if they wish to play it. That is a fair reason to not buy a game.

Im saying that having a stable internet connection is quickly becoming a standard just as having a video card is already a standard.

You can dislike it all you want, but with games constantly requiring more computer power, its only logical that developers will make games partly or entirely cloud based, which gives them so much extra computing power, without requiring the consumer to have a powerhouse of a pc in order to run the game. All they need is a stable internet connection, which the vast majority of people that play games has. Yes, some people dont, and that is very sad for them, but whats the alternative? Tone down the game, scrapping entire pieces of gameplay so it becomes less resource intensive, while at the same time upping the hardware requirements for the consumer, just so those few without internet can play the game. Something tells me that would only result in less people being able to play the game.

Indeed, its a fair reason to not buy the game, if you dont have a stable internet connection. For everyone who does have a stable internet connection, its a non argument, and certainly not an argument against the quality of the game, in the same way that a game which has high hardware standards isnt a bad game because only people with an alienware pc can play it.

[Hoipus 292]

What are you trying to say? That people who can't play a game for various reasons shouldn't not buy it?

People can actually pay to get new computer parts or have them delivered to them during times when they aren't at their work residence/college dorm, or even whole they're traveling. They can't exactly have a perfect internet connection and infalliable servers sent to them through the mail.

The difference between the problem I described (limited access to internet) and the problem you described (computer not being too good) is that people can actually take reasonable steps to solve the problem of limited computer specs, while they can't do anything both reasonable and legal to solve the problem of a game that requires them to be online if they wish to play it. That is a fair reason to not buy a game.

Im saying that having a stable internet connection is quickly becoming a standard just as having a video card is already a standard.

You can dislike it all you want, but with games constantly requiring more computer power, its only logical that developers will make games partly or entirely cloud based, which gives them so much extra computing power, without requiring the consumer to have a powerhouse of a pc in order to run the game. All they need is a stable internet connection, which the vast majority of people that play games has. Yes, some people dont, and that is very sad for them, but whats the alternative? Tone down the game, scrapping entire pieces of gameplay so it becomes less resource intensive, while at the same time upping the hardware requirements for the consumer, just so those few without internet can play the game. Something tells me that would only result in less people being able to play the game.

Indeed, its a fair reason to not buy the game, if you dont have a stable internet connection. For everyone who does have a stable internet connection, its a non argument, and certainly not an argument against the quality of the game, in the same way that a game which has high hardware standards isnt a bad game because only people with an alienware pc can play it.

The developers themselves said that the glassbox engine at the moment simulates up to 200,000 agents at a time. They also said that the internet connection is required to send information relating to the economy, leaderboards and agents moving between cities.

When someone is playing in single player mode, wouldn't most of those be irrelevant? The player can control one city at a time, so if agents were to be regularly moving between cities within a single player region a sort of cache could be setup to measure the average amount of times agents decide to leave/enter the current city, with the exception of things like sending a bunch of police cars to another city, which the player would likely switch between cities rapidly to do so.

About the economy: couldn't the game just save a snapshot of the most recent resource prices, or add a semi random price to those who would be playing entirely offline to make it seem interesting?

Leaderboards: I don't think a person playing in single player would care all that much.

I find it strange that a lot of these online features that they're touting as needed for more 'fun' and to 'add to the simulation' feel statistical in nature.

If I'm majorly wrong I'd like someone to explain, but in my head a lot of this doesn't sound like it NEEDS an internet connection to work without crippling a reasonably specced PC.

[sng7 13]

Because it looks like you going to have to use origin which is effectively spy-ware and the fact that you have to be constantly online to play the game you own. I think they are 2 very good reasons to boycott a game.

No one cares if its Valve or even Facebook spying on people (yes, they do the same as Origin) but if its EA, suddenly its a reason for a boycott. And while being constantly online is annoying, at the other hand, who doesnt have a 24/7 internet connection these days? Also, as that manager explained, they are using the servers to reduce the strain on your computer. Making use of cloud computing power to do a whole lot of calculations that would otherwise be something your own computer has to do. I think its actually a brilliant idea.

The difference is that steam (valve) you can opt in or out whether it will scan your hardware an software where as origin to use the software you have to let it scan your pc. Also although my home internet is good i often go on holiday to places with little or no internet so why shouldn't i be able to play a game if spent £45> on for two weeks because i am away.

[Hoipus 292]

Come to think of it, a lot of the past posts I made were a bit off topic. If a mod thinks so too, I wouldn't mind if it were moved to the thread about the always-online connection thread.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Similar arguments can be made for fancier graphics. Do we need fancier graphics to make the game more fun? No we dont. Then why do they get included?

The whole point of the game is that it simulates whats happening in the region just as much as what is happening in the city youre playing at that time. Of course its possible to have some region play without simulating the entire region, but then you get what Sim City 4 does. Which does pretty much the things you suggested. Not really an improvement, and you can hardly talk about a region wide economy in Sim City 4. Its simply a big gameplay aspect of the game to include a fully functional economy in the game, and in order to make it work it requires real time calculation which requires more calculating power which Maxis decided to delegate to servers in order to lessen the strain on the players hardware. I think they made the right decision.

@sng7 For the same reason that World of Warcraft players cant play their game (for which they paid a hell lot more money than you) when they go to a place that has no internet. The gameplay requires connectivity, without connectivity the gameplay no longer works.

[Hoipus 292]

I was just saying that there is clearly a lot of people who wished to play single player, offline, and I offered an idea for a potential solution to satisfy that without compromising the experience for said offline-players. The devs said that the game's multiplayer would be asynchronous in nature, so why not the offline play?

Another idea just popped into my head: if an offline player really likes playing offline and makes a lot of regions, the prices and whatnot could be gathered from the actions that the player takes in all of his regions. This has the added effect of adding to the "god" experience of the game, as the player can fiddle with the economy and look at the effects.

@ the world of warcraft comparison. In World of Warcraft you're often actively playing with other people at the same time. This game seems fairly easy to work into a singleplayer experience (and they have done so, they just force you to store your cities on the cloud) so long as one doesn't care about leaderboards.

[macvirt 361]

The discussion of the "failing" of the game is an entirely subjective debate. My apologies for being blunt though, but it is also a completely irrelevant debate.

We have to remind ourselves of the focal point of the matter, and that is the question "who is this product for". And as much as it pains me to say it, and as much as it may upset people, the product is not for the customer. It is as simple as that. The product is a means to money, nothing more and nothing less.

Failing in that regards is quite simply not a possibility. The only question there is that of which targets will be met. The functional and exposure designs of the product are visibly tailored to a set of minimum goals to be reached. Those goals will be met because those designs are specifically catering to specific behavioral patterns and expectation sets of specific and well mapped customer types and categories. Anything above those minimum goals are a bonus, break even in productions like these is typically (industry research from both Gamasutra and GDMag) reached at roughly 35 to 40% of the minimum goals reached for sales volume. And even if that is not reached, the costs and investments as well as the unreached gains are only markers in accounting which in spite (and usually because) of being in the red are commonly used as part of a larger accounting - think for example of means to reduce turnover footprint for the purpose of reducing taxation ceilings and so forth. Many people think Maxis is the house, it is however just a brand name administered as a venture specific studio owned by EA, who are the house.

In simple terms: the product will make money as required, will recoup its investments quite easily. If it doesn't, any potential deficit can and will be used to serve the house. The product is not tailored to the customer, it is tailored to the interests of those who benefit from the sales and the strategic gain.

Once you think about the realities of industry today, it becomes a lot easier to not become disappointed as a customer.

And yes, because the only party of relevance is that of EA, the product will not fail - unless they only manage to sell less than those 35 to 40 percent of required sales volume goals. Which these days are damn easy to reach. There is absolutely no chance that EA will not reach those goals.

These days in our industry, the concept of "failing" is not tied to the individual product in terms of primary sales. There is a so called intangible sentiment of "failing" present yes, but that is tied to monetisation of secondary sales. That is a completely different ballgame, and a completely different debate. Think, for example, of major followup releases (both content, feature, functionality), or even on a common level DLC and followup sales ventures. It is a common expectation (and thus a set of goals imposed top down from strategic levels) that secondary sales outperform primary sales, and that really is where the only sentiment (so to speak) of "failing" is to be potentially found.

Again, my apologies, honestly though the customer matters not. The customer is simply a resource variable. The idea of the customer as market is obsolete - has been for roughly a decade now. I fully realise that impressions (and indeed the marketing today consciously aims to continue a different image) are different. It's just the reality of this industry that the customer is simply an easy variable. Not that the gaming industry is unique in that regard. Think of, for example, the general entertainment industry where an absolutely and knowingly terrible movie production from Hollywood is a viable venture regardless of quality or other concerns simply because of the availability of global distribution channels. To put it blunt, it is nothing other than simple sales modelling that an absolutely $%&^! movie can make oodles of money because it can be dumped to dvd on a global level using nothing but customer typing as a variable for determining release timing and distribution targeting.

Whether the game is a fail, is highly relevant to us as customers. We're just not relevant for any decision processes where it comes to the game.

[Hoipus 292]

Haven't EA been in a spot of financial trouble since the TORtanic tanked? I'm not exactly knowledgeable on their finances but I have heard some negative things in regards to it.

[macvirt 361]

Haven't EA been in a spot of financial trouble since the TORtanic tanked? I'm not exactly knowledgeable on their finances but I have heard some negative things in regards to it.

No, venture failings are very easy to use productively. It is not uncommon to run bad ventures exactly for that reason. And while EA does have shareholders EA does not have a set dividend format. Think of it more as an investment fund. That is how it operates. Even a worst case set of venture mishaps is simply a case of covering interests on finance. EA would have to really shoot itself in the foot with ongoing revenue cycles for it to run into structural problems.

In a way it is ironic, considering the origins of EA as a foundation. To be blunt, the only thing that could really structurally pose problems for EA (with its insistance on focusing strictly on short term gain cycle management) would be a set of other publishers annex investment houses focusing on nurturing a foundation platform where there is balance between brand, platform and products / services. The only company in that regard which could have become an issue for EA is Valve, they however opted (wisely in my opinion) to not jump in to that trench. The only other business which might in time find itself on a similar crossroads is 2K Games, and those are (wisely for them) being very careful to follow in to EA's footsteps (albeit with a very narrow focus on product management - as opposed to service management).

[cirugo 1,889]

Not if the comments on this Gamespot article about it are indicative of a general sentiment:

http://www.gamespot....benefit-6401896

And if you look at the Facebook comments it seems like everyone wants to play this game as soon as possible.

Really these kind of comments on these kind of sites pop up for every game. Go look at a Call of Duty article and you'll see thousands of comments of people complaining that CoD is for stupid people, that Activision is stupid, that CoD hasnt innovated enough, etc. Yet CoD keeps outselling pretty much everyone else.

yup, there's no way to know. But, as someone else said, CoD is not SimCity. SimCity is a "niche" title that appeals to a certain type of gamer. Whether they're attracting an audience outside of that particular type of gamer, while alienating an unmeasurable but certainly sizeable portion of that niche market, is certainly debatable.

Myself, I hope not. I don't believe they should be rewarded with success for their design decisions with this game.

[macvirt 361]

yup, there's no way to know. But, as someone else said, CoD is not SimCity. SimCity is a "niche" title that appeals to a certain type of gamer. Whether they're attracting an audience outside of that particular type of gamer, while alienating an unmeasurable but certainly sizeable portion of that niche market, is certainly debatable.

Myself, I hope not. I don't believe they should be rewarded with success for their design decisions with this game.

Unfortunately, that is something from the past. There is no such thing these days as a niche title. With todays distribution channels and todays methods and reach for exposure (particularly via social and distribution media) those days ended years ago.

For a practical example, look at the Civilization product series. Another niche title and genre historically, 2K Games was able to take the core userbase and put that to use as a means of generating exposure as well as content drive. This alongside of very specific even if basic product design specifications tailored for reaching in to mass gaming channels. The result was the transformation of a niche title into a very easy revenue stream, where what the core userbase called the "dumbing down" became a conscious sales element in its own right. Even that which many still perceive as the "fixing" of the product (adding Religion for example, but also generic patches and more) was and still is part of the original goal specs for sales cycles.

It does not matter whether "the" customer gets a product that suits the customer perfectly or even reasonably. There is no single one customer. Each customer is easily replaced without effort by any other customer. The availability of global and social reach means that there only is a "niche" focus if the company that makes the investment decides to cater to just that niche focus. And that is simply not done. Why? Because it is easier to reach more gain by not doing so. You reach more markets, more customer types, with less effort, and they keep coming back for more (regardless of whether it is to "fix" something, to add something or to enhance something).

It is not the studio that makes these decisions. These matters are directives on a strategic level. Pure and simple. The studio has no input in this, especially here in the case of EA being the strategic level. That's not a case of "evil", it is their business model. The customer has zero relevance beyond his availability as a resource. Yes, there are companies who take a different approach, these are however increasingly rare. For an example on the opposite side of the spectrum look at a Chris Roberts or small (tiny) studios like Muzzy Lane. That is where the shift has taken place, from niche title to niche studio / publisher. Beyond that there is just no such thing anymore as a niche title.

[cirugo 1,889]

yup, there's no way to know. But, as someone else said, CoD is not SimCity. SimCity is a "niche" title that appeals to a certain type of gamer. Whether they're attracting an audience outside of that particular type of gamer, while alienating an unmeasurable but certainly sizeable portion of that niche market, is certainly debatable.

Myself, I hope not. I don't believe they should be rewarded with success for their design decisions with this game.

Unfortunately, that is something from the past. There is no such thing these days as a niche title. With todays distribution channels and todays methods and reach for exposure (particularly via social and distribution media) those days ended years ago.

For a practical example, look at the Civilization product series. Another niche title and genre historically, 2K Games was able to take the core userbase and put that to use as a means of generating exposure as well as content drive. This alongside of very specific even if basic product design specifications tailored for reaching in to mass gaming channels. The result was the transformation of a niche title into a very easy revenue stream, where what the core userbase called the "dumbing down" became a conscious sales element in its own right. Even that which many still perceive as the "fixing" of the product (adding Religion for example, but also generic patches and more) was and still is part of the original goal specs for sales cycles.

It does not matter whether "the" customer gets a product that suits the customer perfectly or even reasonably. There is no single one customer. Each customer is easily replaced without effort by any other customer. The availability of global and social reach means that there only is a "niche" focus if the company that makes the investment decides to cater to just that niche focus. And that is simply not done. Why? Because it is easier to reach more gain by not doing so. You reach more markets, more customer types, with less effort, and they keep coming back for more (regardless of whether it is to "fix" something, to add something or to enhance something).

It is not the studio that makes these decisions. These matters are directives on a strategic level. Pure and simple. The studio has no input in this, especially here in the case of EA being the strategic level. That's not a case of "evil", it is their business model. The customer has zero relevance beyond his availability as a resource. Yes, there are companies who take a different approach, these are however increasingly rare. For an example on the opposite side of the spectrum look at a Chris Roberts or small (tiny) studios like Muzzy Lane. That is where the shift has taken place, from niche title to niche studio / publisher. Beyond that there is just no such thing anymore as a niche title.

Civilization also didn't have nearly the amount of negative publicity that this title is getting. You're forgetting the other side of the social media coin...it gives far more power to disgruntled "fans" to get the word out than they've ever had before.

[macvirt 361]

Civilization also didn't have nearly the amount of negative publicity that this title is getting. You're forgetting the other side of the social media coin...it gives far more power to disgruntled "fans" to get the word out than they've ever had before.

Actually, it did. The difference was that Civ and its 2K issues were community internal strife. The SimCity 2013 situation is simply one where there is a lot more mainstream media attention right off the bat. By the time the Civ exposure got mainstream most of the "hardcore" energy had been spent. In that regard I do agree that both EA and Maxis are taking a risk, there is a certain potential. But we have to be honest, it matters not - look at the release schedule. February. And after that, what many people here and in other places see as (possible or effective) "failings" are matters that have been part of commercial speccing already. Think DLC, think major version upgrades, and so forth - content / feature sets / functionality / etc.

That changes the exposure level, certainly, but it remains a relative scale. RPS and a few others have pointed out some questions, but always in terms of "title under development". 2K Games simply did what good publishers do these days, they made smart decisions on when to buy which mainstream exposure means and where. Simple. I recall a staff member being rather explicit about that on GDC. It is only fortunate that the common customer does not have acces to the GDC Vault system I guess

Ultimately the thing to realise is that the hardcore fanbase is a resource. Nothing more, it is hardly a variable beyond presentation marketing during early to mid term development cycle (let's be honest, today a beta is also just a marketing instrument). The nature or even timbre of the discussion among that fanbase in these days of global distribution channels does not matter. Not one bit. It does not matter for decision processes, EA trumps Maxis. It does not matter for sales processes. Even Valve recognises that in its own research. They have learned that it is more productive to watch the studio / developer for storms than to deal with the customer and their storms. A recent case of Valve applying that policy to such a case of studio screwup is just an example of that. GDMag's research article a few months ago on the matter of dealing with core user types of legacy titles versus widening market reach of reboots shows the same fundamental case in the data.

"Word" going out there is a resource, negative or positive. The only thing that matters for decision processes is the wallet. And even that is a very limited currency in such matters where it comes to a house like EA. At these levels, it pays to have failed ventures. Counterintuïtive yes, easily verifiable however.

[LexusInfernus 908]

yup, there's no way to know. But, as someone else said, CoD is not SimCity. SimCity is a "niche" title that appeals to a certain type of gamer. Whether they're attracting an audience outside of that particular type of gamer, while alienating an unmeasurable but certainly sizeable portion of that niche market, is certainly debatable.

Myself, I hope not. I don't believe they should be rewarded with success for their design decisions with this game.

You'd say the Sims also only appeals to a certain "niche" market and they managed to sell millions of those. I think there are certainly a lot of people that like building and then managing things and its certainly not such a "niche" market as you make it out to be. The city building itself is perhaps a small market, but the whole management aspect of the game, that certainly has the capability of attracting a whole lot of people. And so far, the management aspect of this game is looking to become its strongest and most interesting aspect of the game. And I think that is the main difference between SC4 and this one. SC4 was a city builder game pure and simple, the focus was very much on making big cities with big buildings, while the closest thing that came to be managed was the traffic network. Every other management aspect was relatively...simple. But here? A fully functioning regional economy to play with, individual actors to take care of, pollution, crime, etc. All things that are more interesting problems that need to be tackled in this game than it was in SC4.

And the whole multiplayer aspect looks pretty promising as well, and has the potential to add a whole new layer of gameplay to the game. So far the only negative things Ive heard about it are focused around the fact that City building itself has become a less important aspect of the game itself. Fair criticism no doubt, but I dont think that it will make the game a bad game, it will just make the game a really different game than just a SC4 clone with better graphics.

[cirugo 1,889]

Civilization also didn't have nearly the amount of negative publicity that this title is getting. You're forgetting the other side of the social media coin...it gives far more power to disgruntled "fans" to get the word out than they've ever had before.

Actually, it did. The difference was that Civ and its 2K issues were community internal strife. The SimCity 2013 situation is simply one where there is a lot more mainstream media attention right off the bat. By the time the Civ exposure got mainstream most of the "hardcore" energy had been spent. In that regard I do agree that both EA and Maxis are taking a risk, there is a certain potential. But we have to be honest, it matters not - look at the release schedule. February. And after that, what many people here and in other places see as (possible or effective) "failings" are matters that have been part of commercial speccing already. Think DLC, think major version upgrades, and so forth - content / feature sets / functionality / etc.

That changes the exposure level, certainly, but it remains a relative scale. RPS and a few others have pointed out some questions, but always in terms of "title under development". 2K Games simply did what good publishers do these days, they made smart decisions on when to buy which mainstream exposure means and where. Simple. I recall a staff member being rather explicit about that on GDC. It is only fortunate that the common customer does not have acces to the GDC Vault system I guess

Ultimately the thing to realise is that the hardcore fanbase is a resource. Nothing more, it is hardly a variable beyond presentation marketing during early to mid term development cycle (let's be honest, today a beta is also just a marketing instrument). The nature or even timbre of the discussion among that fanbase in these days of global distribution channels does not matter. Not one bit. It does not matter for decision processes, EA trumps Maxis. It does not matter for sales processes. Even Valve recognises that in its own research. They have learned that it is more productive to watch the studio / developer for storms than to deal with the customer and their storms. A recent case of Valve applying that policy to such a case of studio screwup is just an example of that. GDMag's research article a few months ago on the matter of dealing with core user types of legacy titles versus widening market reach of reboots shows the same fundamental case in the data.

"Word" going out there is a resource, negative or positive. The only thing that matters for decision processes is the wallet. And even that is a very limited currency in such matters where it comes to a house like EA. At these levels, it pays to have failed ventures. Counterintuïtive yes, easily verifiable however.

Even a house like EA can only handle so many failures before it takes its toll. SWTOR was a disaster. Their games have been embroiled in controversy after controversy and they've been hemorrhaging both cash and player goodwill for a while now? Will it make a difference? Probably not...I already believe they're willing to sacrifice this particular IP ff necessary to show that they won't give in on their plans to leverage the entire industry into this model of gaming. But eventually, they will keep pissing off more and more people who will turn to their competitors (assuming there will still be some) Customers are not an infinite resource. The global market is also subject to the lightning-fast rumor mill of the social media. One Reddit session was enough to put MAXIS onto the defensive and into serious damage control mode. As long as they can't smother independent manufacturers who are willing to provide other alternatives then there will be other choices.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

About the economy: couldn't the game just save a snapshot of the most recent resource prices, or add a semi random price to those who would be playing entirely offline to make it seem interesting?

I find it strange that a lot of these online features that they're touting as needed for more 'fun' and to 'add to the simulation' feel statistical in nature.

If I'm majorly wrong I'd like someone to explain, but in my head a lot of this doesn't sound like it NEEDS an internet connection to work without crippling a reasonably specced PC.

Monte Cristo wanted to push online mode so they made the default offline trader have extremely unfair prices. When Planet Offer was scrapped, Cities XL 2011 added trading between your own cities and gave OmniCorp more reasonable prices. Having fixed yet extortionist prices that cannot be modded will certainly anger many but if online mode is free, this will not affect anyone playing online and will broaden the user base. Seeing as SimCity has a single-player sandbox mode and will eventually allow cheats and mods, I don't see why an unfair offline mode expansion pack cannot be made. However, simulating the Global Market with "random" "averages" is a bad idea! It would consume more computer resources and even the playing field if not giving offline players an unfair advantage.

Sincerely,

--Ocram

[cirugo 1,889]

About the economy: couldn't the game just save a snapshot of the most recent resource prices, or add a semi random price to those who would be playing entirely offline to make it seem interesting?

I find it strange that a lot of these online features that they're touting as needed for more 'fun' and to 'add to the simulation' feel statistical in nature.

If I'm majorly wrong I'd like someone to explain, but in my head a lot of this doesn't sound like it NEEDS an internet connection to work without crippling a reasonably specced PC.

Monte Cristo wanted to push online mode so they made the default offline trader have extremely unfair prices. When Planet Offer was scrapped, Cities XL 2011 added trading between your own cities and gave OmniCorp more reasonable prices. Having fixed yet extortionist prices that cannot be modded will certainly anger many but if online mode is free, this will not affect anyone playing online and will broaden the user base. Seeing as SimCity has a single-player sandbox mode and will eventually allow cheats and mods, I don't see why an unfair offline mode expansion pack cannot be made. However, simulating the Global Market with "random" "averages" is a bad idea! It would consume more computer resources and even the playing field if not giving offline players an unfair advantage.

Sincerely,

--Ocram

that's why you keep single-player and multiplayer separate. going online? it checks for mods and boots you out if they aren't "approved" for multiplayer. Want to take your offline city or region online? Too bad. If you want to play online you have to create the city online.

[Azurespecter 506]

But eventually, they will keep pissing off more and more people who will turn to their competitors (assuming there will still be some) ... As long as they can't smother independent manufacturers who are willing to provide other alternatives then there will be other choices.

That's the problem though. There aren't many competitors in this genre. If we want to talk first-person shooter games, or ARPG games, or Strategy games... then ya, there are competitors that will steal the market share very easily. Simcity is the market leader, CitiesXL is the only other real attempt to take part of the market share - and that game kinda failed. It bankrupted the company that tried originally tried to publish it.

It's Maxis Simcity, or find a new genre of games.

[snick25 384]

CitiesXL is the only other real attempt to take part of the market share - and that game kinda failed. It bankrupted the company that tried originally tried to publish it.

CXL is still out there and has growing community support behind it. Think of SC4 way back in the early days and that's how CXL is right now. It has its problems, but there are many good modders out there making it a great game. I would still categorize it as a serious competitor to the new SimVillage game.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Tropico 4 and Anno 2070 are not pure City Builders and can hardly be called City Simulators at all but they have enough similarities that they can and have been put in the same category as the SimCity franchise and more so with this new SimsVille Online 2013 game. They are all city builder/strategy games. So there is indeed competition.

--Ocram

[macvirt 361]

But eventually, they will keep pissing off more and more people who will turn to their competitors (assuming there will still be some) ... As long as they can't smother independent manufacturers who are willing to provide other alternatives then there will be other choices.

That's the problem though. There aren't many competitors in this genre. If we want to talk first-person shooter games, or ARPG games, or Strategy games... then ya, there are competitors that will steal the market share very easily. Simcity is the market leader, CitiesXL is the only other real attempt to take part of the market share - and that game kinda failed. It bankrupted the company that tried originally tried to publish it.

It's Maxis Simcity, or find a new genre of games.

Alternative option, pull a venture the way Chris did with Star Citizen. Figure out exactly what appeals to which existing customer base, provide flexible options for single and multiplayer (both with distinct online and offline play modes), provide a foundation framework for modding / sharing / validation and put together the funding using the core customer groups as venture foundation. Call it Architects.

Requirements are not that high actually. Legal and technology research, a decent network, good prototyping. Add a marketeer, a skilled accountant, and add one person who always asks tough questions and who steps into shoes other than those of the crew themselves and a used car sales guy. Pun intended, to a degree. Serious though, depending on how specifically EA aim SimCity 2013 for market penetration (as opposed to market reach) a venture of creating a commercial alternative is not that hard.

CitiesXL was doomed from the start. Less so out of design principles, more so because of the directive vision applied. Not to mention that as a venture it was tailored solely for the financial gain, with goals set strictly to that. Top down, as opposed to bottom up. And thus it went bottom up.

SimCity only is market leader because a) no other publisher will engage EA directly (not out of fear, such matters are a simple case of agreements in the industry), b) independant studios have plenty maneuvering and creative room for other genre / title projects, c) independant developers have a hard time stepping outside of traditional boxes (particularly in Europe and the US) for funding and networking and d) the perception of legal issues which really do not exist as long as you do things by the book.

One further and very substantial other reason however is the strength of the SimCity 4 modding communities. It is they who have kept the product market leader. It is their efforts which have ensured that no other party has sat down to go down to basics and put a venture together with serious commercial intents (as opposed to CitiesXL where the venture spec pretty much comes down to a cash in & out focus). This btw is also something Maxis realises in terms of potential for the 2013 product.

Ironic, isn't it?

[SirChick 184]

I agree with all of what you said, save for the part about CXL.

New content in CXL, with the exception of the 2012 content, is made by the community, for the community, and is free.

As you said, with the server costs, coupled with the online and multiplayer nature of this game, I doubt such community contributions can be allowed. They will most likely make DLCs, with several new buildings and such, for a price.

My point was would CitiesXL had allowed mods if online play still existed - my guess is no... but I'm not much of a CitiesXL player. IF a player modded a way to multiply the amount of oil they had for tokens then they could effectively cheat with trading.... so for aslong as online exists in these games user mods will not occur.... that was my point.

[macvirt 361]

I agree with all of what you said, save for the part about CXL.

New content in CXL, with the exception of the 2012 content, is made by the community, for the community, and is free.

As you said, with the server costs, coupled with the online and multiplayer nature of this game, I doubt such community contributions can be allowed. They will most likely make DLCs, with several new buildings and such, for a price.

My point was would CitiesXL had allowed mods if online play still existed - my guess is no... but I'm not much of a CitiesXL player. IF a player modded a way to multiply the amount of oil they had for tokens then they could effectively cheat with trading.... so for aslong as online exists in these games user mods will not occur.... that was my point.

There is a strong element in the case of CitiesXL of the product not taking ground in manners it should have because it ignored several basic variables of games where people build - regardless of whether that is on a computer or as a toddler with lego. Modding not gaining traction did have a direct correlation with online play. It is interesting to observe that the product "an sich" gained a more stable user foundation (one which in spite of circumstances has gained ground) once a) reality set in and b) modding became more of a factor due to core "builder" users (as opposed to another far end of the scale "sharing / social" user type) becoming the foundation of the product.

It's a no brainer in terms of games development really. If CitiesXL had had a primary focus on that which fuels the core user types for the type of product, instead of aiming for targets which really were only attempts at hitching a ride on trends elsewhere in the industry, the product would have had far more and far more stable potential for sustainable growth. In simple terms, the customers would have both built and marketed and sold the product. No need to try and insert online sharing / social elements. People can do that on their own. Obviously, we as a species have after all built quite a few civilisations ever since we stopped living in trees.

SimCity 2013 does appear to have learned some lessons there. It is however limited in these matters by means of the imposed requirements which we today call DLC and Exchange functionality. It is a very fine line to walk. One always has to avoid getting in to competition with one's own customers. It is for that reason why the moddability aspects of the product still are not clear. It is not hard to see the enormous energy of SimCity 4 users today and be a little cautious with that energy. You want to use it for marketing, for word of mouth and exposure. You do not want to find yourself on release day faced with several communities worth of Exchange type of content while you yourself have had plenty tough meetings with finance and executives on how you are going to make even more money after the actual release than with the actual product upon release.

Personally I kinda expect Maxis to limit the moddability concept to a number of functionality and content categories. It would not surprise me either if a very interesting licence was attached to that. What would make the product grow to completely new levels would be glassbox scripting means and acces. At least in a first phase that is rather tricky to any DLC initiatives from EA/Maxis themselves however. Glassbox is not the only thing though, runtime injection is another, but also consider hooks and handlers for the various calculation models present. Something like NAM may be possible, but perhaps not until a release that enables such moddability. Then again, it is also quite possible that Maxis have done some homework and figured out several tracks of modding that are most desired. I don't doubt people will be able to edit existing models in order to create modifications, whether that is modding "pur sang" however .... sure, a nice marketing presentation with that level of user content can be made. It is however I suspect not what people will want to pursue. The "because I can" factor is just as strong as the "because I want" factor.

Still, coming back to the original question of "what if SimCity 2013 fails" for a moment. As explained before that is subjective and irrelevant alike, but what can we expect if the product did not "kick in" with people according to expectation patterns? Simple, the very same timeline and approach as we have seen from 2K Games with Civ V. Any roadmap applicable puts sales first, not compliancy with expectation management.

Look on the bright side, sure the next SimCity is going to look and feel like Societies and be shiny and glossy. Sure, there will be restrictions imposed on size of maps and cities. In the absence of another company that gets to work building something new we are getting a next SimCity. That counts for something. And who knows, in a few years time some present or former staff members will feel a bit "meh" and release information and/or tools that will allow modding communities to really get to work building the product. Truth be told, Maxis would be smart to do exactly that in the second half of the first release year. Once the game is out, it is quite simply put no longer about EA or Maxis, but about what any customer wants to do. It serves no point to try and create and sell everything possible to the user. Any company trying that shoots itself in the foot, commercially speaking.

[SirChick 184]

Look on the bright side, sure the next SimCity is going to look and feel like Societies and be shiny and glossy. Sure, there will be restrictions imposed on size of maps and cities. In the absence of another company that gets to work building something new we are getting a next SimCity. That counts for something. And who knows, in a few years time some present or former staff members will feel a bit "meh" and release information and/or tools that will allow modding communities to really get to work building the product. Truth be told, Maxis would be smart to do exactly that in the second half of the first release year. Once the game is out, it is quite simply put no longer about EA or Maxis, but about what any customer wants to do. It serves no point to try and create and sell everything possible to the user. Any company trying that shoots itself in the foot, commercially speaking.

Sadly EA does exactly that now.... take the BF franchise they promised lots of free DLC, there was none lol you had to pay for all expansions and then offered "premium" where you pay again to get a couple weapons and dog tags... its all just money and the game shows it.... they simply cannot produce a game in that franchise any where close to BF2 since all of these new money streams have been thought of they just see money... i think the passion to make a legacy game is gone from EA.

A prime example of cash over quality was Crysis 2. Crysis 1 was a such a master piece of graphics (poor optimisation i agree) but then EA decided to push it to consoles for more sales, thats fine but it effectively lowered its quality on PC because they ported (because it was cheap - and the game looked worse.. it was a step backwards) - Crysis 2 did not win any where near the rewards Crysis 1 did. It was suppose to only be a show piece for the engine instead they made a game story out of it but it just sucked after the first game.

How ever take Ubisoft, they are more interested in creating detailed games (Assassin Creed and Far Cry dominating this year) half the stuff they put into those games are not needed but they do it for immersion and finer details. And it comes to no surprise that Ubisoft has 2 games going head to head for GOTY by user votes, i think FC3 will win though its just a beautiful piece of art and entertainment. Ubisoft are getting it right at the moment.

Its rare to see 2 games by the same company reach the head to head final for GOTY : http://uk.gamespot.c...oice/index.html

Saying that AC3 might just lose out which comes at a shock because ME3 story had alot of backlash if i remember correctly.