What if SimCity fails?

[monsterjamp 42]

If it fails then Maxis will hopefully make a new SimCity with the same engine except:

-Origin is not forced

-Online is not forced

-There will be farms

-Subways should return but with more challenge

-City sizes should increase (to the large in SC4)

-Regions should have lots of cities within it (like 30-50)

-Less cheesy graphics The graphics aren't that bad, I guess simcity could use a few circular buildings here and there.

-And add plenty of features

Other than that the new SimCity engine is amazing. And it almost literally has a 50% chance of failing because not many new people will hear/buy this game. According the the Poll, less than half of the existing community will but the new SimCity. So it has a large chance of failure.

  Edited December 18, 2012 by monsterjamp  

[Urban Cartographer 601]

If it fails then Maxis will hopefully make a new SimCity with the same engine except:

-Origin is not forced

-Online is not forced

-There will be farms

-Subways should return but with more challenge

-City sizes should increase (to the large in SC4)

-Regions should have lots of cities within it (like 30-50)

-Less cheesy graphics

-And add plenty if fetures

Other than that the new SimCity engine is amazing. And it almost literally has a 50% chance of failing because not many new people will hear/buy this game. According the the Poll, less than half of the existing community will but the new SimCity. So it has a large chance of failure.

I agree with every point except for the "less cheesy graphics." Some people prefer the existing graphics, for aesthetic reasons, for system requirements reason (as they chose this graphical style to allow lower-end computers to run the game smoothly as well), or both. However, realistic graphics require a more realistic system requirement (in other words, very much top-of-the-line specs, which most people who play city simulators tend not to buy).

[monsterjamp 42]

If it fails then Maxis will hopefully make a new SimCity with the same engine except:

-Origin is not forced

-Online is not forced

-There will be farms

-Subways should return but with more challenge

-City sizes should increase (to the large in SC4)

-Regions should have lots of cities within it (like 30-50)

-Less cheesy graphics

-And add plenty if fetures

Other than that the new SimCity engine is amazing. And it almost literally has a 50% chance of failing because not many new people will hear/buy this game. According the the Poll, less than half of the existing community will but the new SimCity. So it has a large chance of failure.

I agree with every point except for the "less cheesy graphics." Some people prefer the existing graphics, for aesthetic reasons, for system requirements reason (as they chose this graphical style to allow lower-end computers to run the game smoothly as well), or both. However, realistic graphics require a more realistic system requirement (in other words, very much top-of-the-line specs, which most people who play city simulators tend not to buy).

I guess the graphics aren't that bad, but SimCity 4 graphics were/are pretty good and realistic. And SC4 doesn't have a high GPU requirment. But Maxis did explain how detailed the current graphics are and how much more complicated it would be to make mods for plopable buildings.

[cirugo 1,889]

If it fails then Maxis will hopefully make a new SimCity with the same engine except:

-Origin is not forced

-Online is not forced

-There will be farms

-Subways should return but with more challenge

-City sizes should increase (to the large in SC4)

-Regions should have lots of cities within it (like 30-50)

-Less cheesy graphics

-And add plenty if fetures

Other than that the new SimCity engine is amazing. And it almost literally has a 50% chance of failing because not many new people will hear/buy this game. According the the Poll, less than half of the existing community will but the new SimCity. So it has a large chance of failure.

I agree with every point except for the "less cheesy graphics." Some people prefer the existing graphics, for aesthetic reasons, for system requirements reason (as they chose this graphical style to allow lower-end computers to run the game smoothly as well), or both. However, realistic graphics require a more realistic system requirement (in other words, very much top-of-the-line specs, which most people who play city simulators tend not to buy).

The graphics are one of the few things I don't have a problem with...althought I dislike a lot of the building designs and that's one reason why the game needs mods.

[monsterjamp 42]

Matt Martin[/url'>']

...

Sim City

• US sales estimate: 500,000 (excluding digital sales)
  

"The shift to digital makes anticipating retail performance difficult; however, we note that in the last two years, only four PC titles have been released that have exceeded 500K in US retail unit sales, and all were hardcore role-playing games." ...

So SimCity is supposed to sell 500k in the US excluding digital sales.

Source: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-12-18-packaged-games-expected-to-further-harm-eas-bottom-line

Do you think SimCity will make it? I think it can, 500k is not a lot.

[Urban Cartographer 601]

If it fails then Maxis will hopefully make a new SimCity with the same engine except:

-Origin is not forced

-Online is not forced

-There will be farms

-Subways should return but with more challenge

-City sizes should increase (to the large in SC4)

-Regions should have lots of cities within it (like 30-50)

-Less cheesy graphics

-And add plenty if fetures

Other than that the new SimCity engine is amazing. And it almost literally has a 50% chance of failing because not many new people will hear/buy this game. According the the Poll, less than half of the existing community will but the new SimCity. So it has a large chance of failure.

I agree with every point except for the "less cheesy graphics." Some people prefer the existing graphics, for aesthetic reasons, for system requirements reason (as they chose this graphical style to allow lower-end computers to run the game smoothly as well), or both. However, realistic graphics require a more realistic system requirement (in other words, very much top-of-the-line specs, which most people who play city simulators tend not to buy).

The graphics are one of the few things I don't have a problem with...althought I dislike a lot of the building designs and that's one reason why the game needs mods.

I can agree. Mods are very important (and help give the game longevity, especially with SC4). I can live with the default building styles, but I like variety as well, as it enlivens cities.

[QuadBaconatorWithHamAndEgg 31]

Maxis needs to break away from EA in order for there to be a legitimate Sim City game made again.

[flyer2359 92]

Matt Martin[/url'>']

...

Sim City

• US sales estimate: 500,000 (excluding digital sales)
  

"The shift to digital makes anticipating retail performance difficult; however, we note that in the last two years, only four PC titles have been released that have exceeded 500K in US retail unit sales, and all were hardcore role-playing games." ...

So SimCity is supposed to sell 500k in the US excluding digital sales.

Source: http://www.gamesindu...eas-bottom-line

Do you think SimCity will make it? I think it can, 500k is not a lot.

Will be interesting to see, but as the PC gaming market gets smaller, it makes the goal harder and harder each year. At least it's coming out on MAC & Windows which should help increase sales slightly.

[Evillions 552]

Maxis needs to break away from EA in order for there to be a legitimate Sim City game made again.

The problem with this is how is it going to get its funding and advertising? Maxis is a company and it needs to make a profit. Without it, how would they keep on creating top-quality games?

Anyways, I don't think that the new Simcity will not fail, but I highly doubt it will dethrone Simcity 4 as the king of city builders.

[JaceTwice 115]

As a game dev my self this Sim City 2013 is designed for maximising money not restarting a franchise. No game developer at Maxis working on this could argue otherwise, because I will easily counter it.

Then let's talk game dev to game dev (not that that position actually matters at all in this context.) I see the exact opposite going on here. This SimCity actually has a higher chance of failing that if Maxis just went straight up made a "bigger and better" SImCity5.

First off, what exactly is the problem with a company trying to maximize it's profits? Isn't that by definition what companies will try and are supposed to do? I also don't see any terrible monetizing schemes going on here yet. This isn't a subscription based game, there are no microtransactions, there aren't even any DLC or expansions announced. The only time you have to spend money to play this game is when you first purchase it, and you don't even have to pay any more than the standard $60. It would probably be even cheaper for EA to have Maxis make a solely single player game than an always-online one. No servers to keep up that way.

Second, they could probably make a whole lot more money had they just stuck to what made SimCity 4 great and just expanded on it. We all know they've upset a a lot of fans by changing so much about what we know to be SimCity. Currently there's also a general list of "bad" features (no terraforming, no subways, always-online, etc...) that's making it's way around the internet without any sort of reasoning as to why Maxis did those things. For those that aren't following SimCity as closely as all of us here are, this can be pretty damning info for the game. I can't count how many times I've seen someone pass up a game they're mildly interested in because they "heard it was bad".

If Maxis would just make a SimCity5 in the vein of SC4, there would never have even been the slightest chance of all this drama that's happened, and no potental sales lost.

Even If I'm not at the exalted position of a Maxis employee, I'm still interested in your easy counter to all this.

[jigsaw 227]

if they wanted to make some serious money with little cost, they should of released another expansion ~2006 or 2007 (around the time of a new OS like vista), the golden age of SC4. that easily could of been a profound stepping stone to this game today, with most likely more improved outcomes. the long absence has no doubt affected the outcomes.

[fatbuster 44]

if they wanted to make some serious money with little cost, they should of released another expansion ~2006 or 2007 (around the time of a new OS like vista), the golden age of SC4. that easily could of been a profound stepping stone to this game today, with most likely more improved outcomes. the long absence has no doubt affected the outcomes.

Unfortunately they were already deep into developing Spore by then. This is also most likely the reason EA decided to outsource the next version of SimCity to Tilted Mill at the time. In some ways, if Spore hadn't been made we probably would have seen at least one other major SimCity title from them by this time. Maxis is not a large studio and it wasn't helped when EA made them split off so that they could work on the The Sims 2 expansions & Sims 3 (their real moneymaker) alongside Spore.

One important thing to remember here is that EA fully owns Maxis so and is ultimately at the mercy of their whims. Luckily it seems that Maxis seems to have more freedom then some of other studios owned by major publishers. I can't Imagine what would have happened had any other studio developed a game like Darkspore considering how badly sold.

Also, If you want to see how long servers may be online for SimCity then just look at Spore's and Darkspore's servers. So far, Spore's server is still online and I think Darkpore's is as well. I'm sure they'll be the first to go well before SimCity's does.

[Essex 322]

if they wanted to make some serious money with little cost, they should of released another expansion ~2006 or 2007 (around the time of a new OS like vista), the golden age of SC4. that easily could of been a profound stepping stone to this game today, with most likely more improved outcomes. the long absence has no doubt affected the outcomes.

Unfortunately they were already deep into developing Spore by then. This is also most likely the reason EA decided to outsource the next version of SimCity to Tilted Mill at the time. In some ways, if Spore hadn't been made we probably would have seen at least one other major SimCity title from them by this time. Maxis is not a large studio and it wasn't helped when EA made them split off so that they could work on the The Sims 2 expansions & Sims 3 (their real moneymaker) alongside Spore.

One important thing to remember here is that EA fully owns Maxis so and is ultimately at the mercy of their whims. Luckily it seems that Maxis seems to have more freedom then some of other studios owned by major publishers. I can't Imagine what would have happened had any other studio developed a game like Darkspore considering how badly sold.

Also, If you want to see how long servers may be online for SimCity then just look at Spore's and Darkspore's servers. So far, Spore's server is still online and I think Darkpore's is as well. I'm sure they'll be the first to go well before SimCity's does.

SC2013 will probably not fail. For a month or two. Then most Facebook people will be done with it and the modding community will have moved on to... uh.. Simcity 4? If there will be a modding community. I highly doubt that.

  Edited December 22, 2012 by CaptCity  
Removed sarcastic, off-topic comments. Keep it on topic.

[SirChick 184]

First off, what exactly is the problem with a company trying to maximize it's profits?

The issue is the game isn't a continuation of the SC franchise. Its not a logical step from SC4 its on a completely different path, other than the name and a city builder nothing is similar. To maximise profits over a game.... that is not well known if it will exceed means if the game fails they will abandon it as they will think theirs no market for it. But really its because they did something no one ever once demanded. I never heard any one say "I want SC4 online mandatory" where they research what users want is beyond my knowledge it must be on a different planet. Alternatively they did not research what consumers want they just saw a way to make a platform to keep selling content and make money.

The second problem is they HAVE to keep making money out of us to pay for servers, they ain't cheap or free.... how they going to do that ...easy:

The engine is open for mods - not by users, but by them..they will sell packs of buildings in the same way CitiesXL does. That way they can keep paying for servers from us buying expansion packs, if they do that they can't allow users to mod the game as we would all get the free stuff which is often better anyway.

Spore is the exactly - realising new packs of content to pay for the servers. If the server cost weren't their they wouldn't need to sell content and thus make profit on it and so wouldn't come across as just going for a cash cow. Which is the purpose of Spore. I believe SC will be going that route... and the legacy of SC4 will still be the core of this community.

SC2013 probably will be like CitiesXL for a while but won't last as long because I cannot see them allowing mods for their servers. There is 2-3 months until release we ain't seen any mention of it in depth at all.

If in future they make it offline mods will come into play and maybe will take over the legacy of SC4 if it allows enough modding flexibility... i just can't see that happening unless the servers are losing money. At which point they would have long since abandoned it.

In short they way this game is being set-up I see they are planning to just release content for you to keep buying for more stuff for your city... I can almost guarantee it. Its just weather its enticing enough over the thousands of free content for SC4....only time will tell.

[snick25 384]

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.

[Azurespecter 506]

I'd expect them to follow the same model as with The Sims 3. Which is to release a game which functions, but has no features. The features are purposely excluded so they can be sold in a multitude of "stuff packs" and expansions. Each one making the game better, and enticing you to keep with the game. After 6-8 purchased add-on packs, the game is pretty good. The Sims 3 vanilla is horrible and has no depth, but in its current state it's pretty expansive.

[LexusInfernus 908]

It are the hardcore fans that after almost 10 years still play SC4 that are the most pessimistic about this game. Newsflash, those people are a minority of the market.

So far the press is fairly impressed, and barring any major screw ups from Maxis's side I think its a safe to say that the game will get positive reviews. And, given proper marketing support, the relatively easy requirements and the 'appeal to everyone' this game has a very good chance of becoming a success. Because unlike the people here, the majority of people that is part of the target audience hasnt played SC4 to care about missing farms and city sizes and regions and stuff. And if they have played SC4, the majority stopped playing it long ago, and didnt care enough about all the stuff that was in SC4 to make him a dedicated fan like the majority of people over here.

Sure, this game probably wont sell like a Call of Duty, but it should easily do well enough to be profitable. Add a bunch of expansion packs and DLC packs and you have a perfect recipe for a profitable franchise and Im pretty sure Im not the only one who expects this. I would be highly surprised if EA just ´forgot´ about SimCity and Maxis.

[cirugo 1,889]

It are the hardcore fans that after almost 10 years still play SC4 that are the most pessimistic about this game. Newsflash, those people are a minority of the market.

So far the press is fairly impressed, and barring any major screw ups from Maxis's side I think its a safe to say that the game will get positive reviews. And, given proper marketing support, the relatively easy requirements and the 'appeal to everyone' this game has a very good chance of becoming a success. Because unlike the people here, the majority of people that is part of the target audience hasnt played SC4 to care about missing farms and city sizes and regions and stuff. And if they have played SC4, the majority stopped playing it long ago, and didnt care enough about all the stuff that was in SC4 to make him a dedicated fan like the majority of people over here.

Sure, this game probably wont sell like a Call of Duty, but it should easily do well enough to be profitable. Add a bunch of expansion packs and DLC packs and you have a perfect recipe for a profitable franchise and Im pretty sure Im not the only one who expects this. I would be highly surprised if EA just ´forgot´ about SimCity and Maxis.

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

http://www.gamespot.com/news/maxis-simcitys-always-on-drm-for-gamers-benefit-6401896

[CaptCity 4,915]

Comments are not "press" coverage. Those comments are the same as everywhere else on the various sites - peoples opinions and perspectives. Whether or not the game will be successful or not will be determined by those buying it.

[cirugo 1,889]

Comments are not "press" coverage. Those comments are the same as everywhere else on the various sites - peoples opinions and perspectives. Whether or not the game will be successful or not will be determined by those buying it.

Did I say they were press coverage?

[Xenocity 343]

@Cirugo

Gamespot is a site that no longer holds any credibility.

Fanboys and users troll and flame nearly every article.

Same goes for most gaming sites now.

Very few comments are serious on most gaming sites.

[cirugo 1,889]

@Cirugo

Gamespot is a site that no longer holds any credibility.

Fanboys and users troll and flame nearly every article.

Same goes for most gaming sites now.

Very few comments are serious on most gaming sites.

In your opinion

[SirChick 184]

1) "Casual" gamers own Nintendo systems, while "hardcore" gamers own Xbox 360 and PS3.

I think you are confusing casual with gimmicky.

IMHO its the type of games you play and how often you play that decides if you are a casual gamer or not. Relaxing games like the The Sims is casual game, a full on FPS high action game is not. SC is a casual game - its a relaxing city building.

But playing a casual game does not make you a casual gamer if you play other high action games aswell just means you like a wide variety of games. Such as myself im a fan of far cry 3 and sim city for example - totally different i would consider myself a hardcore gamer, and i never would play games on console when the PC is superior for online play / single player.

Console is great when you got friends over how ever to play games. Which was the Wii's main aspect...also some games really are best on console - or at least with a controller on the PC. Racing games come to mind.

[Superbacon 380]

The drawback and selling-point is the GlassBox Engine. It gives it a unique feature that's new to simulation games but also limits what the game SHOULD be capable of. Maxis said before that GlassBox can support tens of thousands of individual Sims. Why? I want to build CITIES. Sprawling cities with hundreds of thousands -- millions of Sims. (And I want to be able to play when I want)

In my opinion, there really isn't a need for Sim City to keep track of each individual Sim and their personal agenda. My bet is most players are barely going to pay any attention to that. Hell, SC4 comes with Sims that you can place in your city and evict at will. And I so rarely use that feature I forget it's there.

If SimCity fails then EA is going to try and mark it down and sell it where they can. Since we all know that EA is notorious for not listening to its gamer's concerns and complaints even if we overrun entire websites. Though like mentioned earlier they've had 10 years and 2 failed games to learn from. If they don't learn anything from that, then my personal boycott of anything new from EA (since July) would have been for good reason.

[Dijego 66]

I agree with the idea that if this fails it could kill off the franchise; but I disagree with the OP logic or numbers. When a marketing department drives a creative process (which is perfectly normal in software projects...after all, developers driving creativity equals an infinite bank balance and no end completion date in sight. It's just not a good business model) there is a detachment from the end user or gamers perspective. Issue is, they rarely understand why it fails and consider the genre to be a high risk with low return.

Casual and Hardcore is started to become a little too cliche as the definitions of both are blurred. The only thing I can see at the moment with this game, is that the user may out grow the content...SimCity 2013 may not evolve as quick as the user's appetite. The thought of download content or purchased content also worries me as I am not a fan of this business model, knowing unless I can pirate it I will miss out. (I refuse to pay $15 for a new virtual kitchen set and will shame anyone who does)

I can also raise my hand as being a SimCity fan since the beginning and not once have I clicked that Godzilla button...don't even know what it does, don't care either, if you start disasters in your cities you feel like you're in the wrong game. But boy do I love building virtual city models...can work on a region for years. I wonder if this game will have me playing the same region for over a year.....unless I hit a 'disaster' or 'reset terrain' button which bothers me :/

^ I agree.

This game is built upon a franchise that is bound to have sales. They are using every tool they got for marketing tricks to get this game to sell to the general crowd. They do some gameplay/strategy videos and (fake) Q&A sessions where the answer will always be that their design is perfect. Just look up any post by any Maxis employee about the game.

This of course is all very logical when you want to SELL a game, it just doesn't make sense when you want to improve the game. The current design of SimCity is most likely going to be fun for starters, as in: it will be fun for a while. However in its current state the new SimCity has no chance of lasting. Already they talk about extra achievements to keep a player playing, I doubt that these cheap methods will keep many core SimCity players interested in such a degree that they would pick the new Simcity over SC4.

Personally I have been following the development of the game, but unfortunately they failed to convince me with their design decisions that this game will be worth more than $15.

In the end I do not know what the result of releasing this game will be, perhaps if they create a really good API for modding the game can be salvaged by good game designers and not the outdated people at Maxis who have been blinded by the success of the franchise. (Remember, it is an opinion.)

Also I heard someone say that he/she thinks that if the game fails that a bunch of hardcore SimCity fans will make their own SimCity. I think this is partially true, because I do not believe that SimCity fans have the time to form a game production company. But the SimCity fans can become mod creators for SC4 as we've seen over the past decade.

Overall I think this game will start out really well on release and then it will be forgotten again in hardly any time. As for the question: What if SimCity fails?

I want to ask: Didn't SimCity fail already?

[Dijego 66]

The drawback and selling-point is the GlassBox Engine. It gives it a unique feature that's new to simulation games but also limits what the game SHOULD be capable of. Maxis said before that GlassBox can support tens of thousands of individual Sims. Why? I want to build CITIES. Sprawling cities with hundreds of thousands -- millions of Sims. (And I want to be able to play when I want)

In my opinion, there really isn't a need for Sim City to keep track of each individual Sim and their personal agenda. My bet is most players are barely going to pay any attention to that. Hell, SC4 comes with Sims that you can place in your city and evict at will. And I so rarely use that feature I forget it's there.

If SimCity fails then EA is going to try and mark it down and sell it where they can. Since we all know that EA is notorious for not listening to its gamer's concerns and complaints even if we overrun entire websites. Though like mentioned earlier they've had 10 years and 2 failed games to learn from. If they don't learn anything from that, then my personal boycott of anything new from EA (since July) would have been for good reason.

The "funny" part is that they designed this game at a time that is way before it should have been, if current computers aren't strong tenough to run the simulation in general why would you design it that way? It's like saying you want to go to the moon by March 5th while you know you'll only have a bicycle available.

Again a paragraph for an even more personal opinion. ^^;

I am glad to see that others are boycotting EA games also, I believe that EA doesn't deserve a market share this big. Too many games they release are just a cheap remake of an older version and now they are creating SimCity in a way that they can do the same Some DLC here, some DLC there, some expansions a little bit to the left and a lot of marketing and honeyed blog posts to keep the simpletons interested.

I am sorry EA, but you've lost a customer. Now please go bankrupt so you don't have the ability to buy off small starting game production companies anymore. You've already done enough harm to the gaming world.

[Essex 322]

The drawback and selling-point is the GlassBox Engine. It gives it a unique feature that's new to simulation games but also limits what the game SHOULD be capable of. Maxis said before that GlassBox can support tens of thousands of individual Sims. Why? I want to build CITIES. Sprawling cities with hundreds of thousands -- millions of Sims. (And I want to be able to play when I want)

In my opinion, there really isn't a need for Sim City to keep track of each individual Sim and their personal agenda. My bet is most players are barely going to pay any attention to that. Hell, SC4 comes with Sims that you can place in your city and evict at will. And I so rarely use that feature I forget it's there.

If SimCity fails then EA is going to try and mark it down and sell it where they can. Since we all know that EA is notorious for not listening to its gamer's concerns and complaints even if we overrun entire websites. Though like mentioned earlier they've had 10 years and 2 failed games to learn from. If they don't learn anything from that, then my personal boycott of anything new from EA (since July) would have been for good reason.

The "funny" part is that they designed this game at a time that is way before it should have been, if current computers aren't strong tenough to run the simulation in general why would you design it that way? It's like saying you want to go to the moon by March 5th while you know you'll only have a bicycle available.

Again a paragraph for an even more personal opinion. ^^;

I am glad to see that others are boycotting EA games also, I believe that EA doesn't deserve a market share this big. Too many games they release are just a cheap remake of an older version and now they are creating SimCity in a way that they can do the same Some DLC here, some DLC there, some expansions a little bit to the left and a lot of marketing and honeyed blog posts to keep the simpletons interested.

I am sorry EA, but you've lost a customer. Now please go bankrupt so you don't have the ability to buy off small starting game production companies anymore. You've already done enough harm to the gaming world.

I wholeheartedly agree, plus they didn't loose just one customer. They've lost many thousands over the last couple of years. EA is down the drain, they're off the NASDAC top 10 for gaming corps and many, many people are not buying their recycled junk anymore and even better a lot of small gaming developers are refusing EA bids. The world can get better after all.

[LexusInfernus 908]

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.

[Hoipus 292]

Th

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.

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.

[LexusInfernus 908]

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.