A Different Perspective...

[soldyne 111]

I've been a SimCity player since the Classic was released on the Super NES back in the 90's.  I've contributed to the Omnibus, the STEX, had a decent CJ (until the site changed its format and it was lost to the aether), was a member of the Simtropolis Help Squad and was personally asked by Dirk to write an article for his Blog about SC4 and would like to call myself an avid SC4 fan and a hardcore simulation player.  I am also no fan of EA, believe me, but I am a fan of Will Wright and his legacy.

 

I will most likely buy the new SimCity2013.

 

At first I was angry and disappointed with a lot of the news of the features (and lack thereof) for the new SC.  I was livid about the city size, the "city island" effect in region play, no highway functionality, no subways, forced multiplayer and all the other stuff that people are complaining about.  That was compounded with the fact that no-one has released a decent city simulator since SC4.  City Life, Cities XL, SC Societies were all flops for different reasons.  I have even begun writing my own requirements document for my own city simulator which I have dubbed Virtual Nation (still in progress, but, I am looking for developers and modelers if anyone is interested...)

 

then I did some thinking.  I watched some videos done by people who were not on EA's payroll (mostly the press doing Beta videos).  I then realized that most of my disappointment was an overreaction due to my longing desire for a worthy successor to SC4.  So let me break it down for you:

 

1.  City Size - sure its small.  4 sqKm is pretty pathetic, but, the new simulation engine is also much more detailed.  I will also admit that many people have pretty decent computers and could probably handle much larger city sizes.  And then there is the region which is not modifiable and the city locations are all pre-determined which all seems pretty carppy.

 

Then I realized that the solution is very simple and could be implemented (maybe not before release but in a DLC or patch).  The actual area of active simulation is really not relevant.  We work with similar city sizes in SC4, the difference is that we can put the cities together to create the Illusion of a larger city.

 

So I can easily see the solution to this problem being EA giving us the ability to place new city squares where ever we want on a map, provided the new city square has access to the interstate.  I can understand if EA wants to limit the number of city squares in a region to 16 due to multiplayer/server restrictions and I think 16 is more than enough (for now anyway). 

 

Now, about the terrain and the interstate.  at first I thought the interstate connection was a stupid idea, but, then I realized that most cities don't have control of the interstate which is usually controlled at the federal or state government level, so, I am actually OK with this idea now since it makes rational sense (although I would still prefer to have control of it).  and I of course wanted to modify the terrain in the region as well.  Since EA is asking about and talking about modding, I don't see why they wouldn't eventually give us a tool for creating our own regions.  Its not unheard of for a company to release their own creation tools to the public for the purpose of modding.  Look at The Elder Scrolls series from Bethesda.  The Creation Kit is very complicated and difficult to learn, but, that didn't stop thousands of mods from being created.  EA can do the same thing by releasing the same tool they used to create these regions.  Then we can set up the interstate and city squares any way we like.  also remember that for SC4, the lot editor took its sweet time getting released but it was released for free.

 

so since I see region modding as an actual possibility for the future, the city size becomes irrelevant and I am able to move past it.

 

2.  Most of the other complaints are just minor things which I can overlook:  always online?  I already am, so no problem there.  Multiplayer?  I can grab all the cities in the same region and make it single player; problem solved.  No Powerlines or Water Pipes?  they will be missed, but, they were never really needed I guess.  No subways or highways?  don't need them until we can put multiple city tiles together so I can wait.  No Farms?  I can live without for now, but, I will expect a farm DLC in the future.

 

3.  charging extra for DLC that should have been released in the main game.  this is a big issue with lots of people and with me to an extent.  I can forgive this though because EA is a large company and they have a large expense budget.  unlike an indie developer with just 5-10 guys working in a living room, EA has legal departments, marketing departments, professional artists, experienced developers, and large physical offices that require lots of upkeep and utility costs.  not to mention all the corporate benefits EA has to pay to all their employees (vacation time, health care, 401k and any other programs they might have).  this means that they need to bring in more money in order to pay all of these people for their work.  So I don't see the DLC as an all-together negative thing.  just re-think it as a way to thank the devs and artists for their time and effort (kind of like donating to a kickstarter).

 

4.  Modding - so we can't mod SC2013 like SC4.  but, they are talking about it and want to give it to us.  I already posted a longer version of this on the official EA forums, but, the short version is that EA owns SPORE and SPORE comes with its own built in 3D modeling tools, especially a building creator.  I can easily see them re-tooling the spore building creator for use in SC2013 and then we can have multiplayer modding up and running again.  They already have the code and infrastructure to support it so they would be silly not to at least look into it.  I actually think this is an exciting idea, what do you think?

 

5.  There are tons of good things and improvements over SC4.  we finally have curved roads and a dynamic grid with bridges and tunnels (seen in vids)!  Full 3D camera angles!  Glass box actually looks like a good thing, im excited for it!  Dynamic 3D overlays and they kept all the charts and graphs (or at least what I saw in the vids)!  Building Upgrades, Im looking forward to playing with this!

 

In conclusion (its about time...), yes SC2013 took a few steps back, but, I think they took more steps forward.  The steps they took back can easily be retaken in future. So, I plan to buy SC2013 so I can enjoy all the new features, but, I will be anxiously awaiting the day when we can recreate New York City again!

 

[soldyne 111]

I would like to say that I never actually said that SC2013 was superior to SC4.  I said that aspects of the new are better than aspects of the old such as curved roads, dynamic grid layouts, 3D camera angles, and upgradeable buildings.  Also, after hearing that city specialization is neither required nor limited to one, I think the idea of city specializations and special buildings sound interesting and I will also mark that as a plus.

 

to Jim14409, I do agree that that there are things that SC2013 needs to improve.  we need to get back the ability to modify the region and set the city placement (city size is mostly irrelevant if we can put multiple city squares together).  We also need a decent modding tool.  We also need to get back our mass transit options such as subways and highways (but rush hour was a paid expansion to SC4 so why should we expect differently with SC2013?).  I wont call SC2013 a true successor to SC4 until we have the ability recreate cities like NYC, London, Tokyo or Edmonton with the same scale and detail.  That is the ultimate goal and SC2013 is nowhere near that yet.

 

the point of my post was that SC2013 isn't perfect, but, at least it provides some hope that city simulation games are not dead.  If the community can support the game with constructive criticism and plausible solutions to our issues then we have a chance to get a really good successor to SC4.

[arcology 224]

It was not my intent to "insult" anyone. I just posted the first thing that came to mind after reading the second article in a row from folks who have capitulated and see SC2013 as superior to SC4. I merely disagree with them and am at a loss to understand their position if they were true longtime SC4 players to begin with.

My apologies to those offended.

Jim

 

Exactly.

 

The most fundamental aspects of the SimCity game have been changed. 

 

At the core of it - complete player control - that has always been the biggest appeal across the board, among all different types of players. 

 

To pay so much, now, without, that control and to be told "how" to think about it is more insulting than anything - it actually implies that we cannot trust what we have been doing all these years and have to have someone sell us a bunch of goods just to get people interested in this new version.

 

Sorry to be so blunt - but, I am getting tired of seeing people say, that you just have to think of it in a different way - when it is what it is - complete lack of control on a player's part, whilst still telling them to hand over their money.

 

 

This is the part that is really offensive to me - the part with why we should be handing over all our money for a game that should be complete in the first place - and, honestly, this sounds purely like a marketing ploy:

 

from OP's initial post -

3.  charging extra for DLC that should have been released in the main

game.  this is a big issue with lots of people and with me to an

extent.  I can forgive this though because EA is a large company and

they have a large expense budget.  unlike an indie developer with just

5-10 guys working in a living room, EA has legal departments, marketing

departments, professional artists, experienced developers, and large

physical offices that require lots of upkeep and utility costs.  not to

mention all the corporate benefits EA has to pay to all their employees

(vacation time, health care, 401k and any other programs they might

have).  this means that they need to bring in more money in order to pay

all of these people for their work.  So I don't see the DLC as an

all-together negative thing.  just re-think it as a way to thank the

devs and artists for their time and effort (kind of like donating to a

kickstarter).

[soldyne 111]

by lack of control I assume you are referring to terraforming and modding.  These things are just aesthetics although we have become accustomed to them with SC4 it is actually not the most important part of the game.  the code that runs the simulation in the background is the biggest and most important part and I believe that is what EA is concentrating on right now.  they designed a whole new simulation engine and they need to get that working right before they concentrate on giving us tools to make it look pretty.

 

as for the definition of a complete game...I don't think any game is ever complete.  I challenge you to name one game that you would make absolutely no changes to if you had the opportunity to make said changes.  I can't think of any.  every game I have ever played would have benefited with a few tweaks, mods or just plain old overhauls and redesigns.  If you are waiting for the perfect game then I am sorry to tell you it will never happen, unless of course you win some lottery and get the chance to design your own.  Even if you did, everyone else would ask, "where's this feature", "why didn't you include that?", and of course "why should I pay your asking price if your game isn't complete?".

 

Can I ask you if you think SC4 is complete?  I don't think it is.  if it were there wouldn't be any new mods.  If it was complete at release they never would have release Rush Hour or given us the lot tool after that.  SC4 is an incomplete game, but, you defend it...why?

 

?5? years from now when EA releases their region editor and building mod tools I believe that SC2013 may actually be a decent successor to SC4.  But, for now, SC4 is still king when it comes to city simulation and hopefully we can all agree on that.

[arcology 224]

by lack of control I assume you are referring to terraforming and modding.  These things are just aesthetics although we have become accustomed to them with SC4 it is actually not the most important part of the game.  the code that runs the simulation in the background is the biggest and most important part and I believe that is what EA is concentrating on right now.  they designed a whole new simulation engine and they need to get that working right before they concentrate on giving us tools to make it look pretty.

 

as for the definition of a complete game...I don't think any game is ever complete.  I challenge you to name one game that you would make absolutely no changes to if you had the opportunity to make said changes.  I can't think of any.  every game I have ever played would have benefited with a few tweaks, mods or just plain old overhauls and redesigns.  If you are waiting for the perfect game then I am sorry to tell you it will never happen, unless of course you win some lottery and get the chance to design your own.  Even if you did, everyone else would ask, "where's this feature", "why didn't you include that?", and of course "why should I pay your asking price if your game isn't complete?".

 

Can I ask you if you think SC4 is complete?  I don't think it is.  if it were there wouldn't be any new mods.  If it was complete at release they never would have release Rush Hour or given us the lot tool after that.  SC4 is an incomplete game, but, you defend it...why?

 

?5? years from now when EA releases their region editor and building mod tools I believe that SC2013 may actually be a decent successor to SC4.  But, for now, SC4 is still king when it comes to city simulation and hopefully we can all agree on that.

 

 

I do think that at this point,SC4 is the better choice, for me.  I can play it anywhere, anytime, and it does seem like the more intelligent choice.

 

It might be over a decade old, with only one expansion pack - but, again, there is this site and obviously interest in creating, and keeping this version alive - way past it's "moneymaking for EA" role.

 

Basic control - like being unable to save to my own harddrive.  Being dependent to EA's online servers and cannot "play" with a city - again, if I want to destroy and go back to what it was - you c.a.n.n.o.t.  do that, with this new version!

 

How is that not important, when they are telling you to fork over $60-$80?

 

I don't buy that it is just for DRM - I also think, it is for future in-game advertising, and data mining (like they did for SimCity Social and The Sims 3). 

 

Also, being told to "consider" the company and the money they need (which sounds like a social media marketing tactic)- when this particular company has been huge enough to have taken over many others, is not a selling point for many people.

[Gamma Stardust 50]

"I then realized that most of my disappointment was an overreaction due to my longing desire for a worthy successor to SC4."

 

One expects an enumeration of reasons why it was an "overreaction" afterall, but:

 

1. City Size <> "region modding"

(exchanging a given against a mere possibility)

 

2. "Minor things" <> individualy overlooked (considered "minor" only until they're actually missing, ie. not minor at all)

Always online <> having a 99% permanent connection (while dismissing the recurring caveat of server failure or actual shutdown in its lifecycle as defined by the provider instead of oneself)

 

3. Charging DLC <> "a way to thank the devs and artists for their time and effort (kind of like donating to a kickstarter)"

(a way to cheat oneself, at best you are throwing money at EA's investors, the actual makers are far out in the receiving end of those possible benefits)

 

4. Modding <> "[they] want to give it to us"

(again exchanging a given for a mere possibility)

 

5. Improvements <> over previous

(I actually agree with some, but i would argue that they would compare only in a level field, which SC2013 is not against SC4)

 

"awaiting the day when we can recreate New York City", after how many DLCs and dollars spent...?

 

I would say that all these concessions have not been directly addressed in any point. I would personaly consider them mere remorse valves for after the fact buying such a thing, an actual regression at so many levels.

But that is from a individualistic viewpoint, one could complement it with the broader consumer (idealistic) viewpoint, and the trend EA is trying to implement more generaly throughout its franchises, ie Buying vs Renting; Full Product vs DLC; One time Payment vs Microtransactions; Anonymous Use vs Personal Data Extraction (Origin); etc etc...

 

In other words, i consider us to be paying more, both dollars, our own personal data (which is priceable too) and consumer rights, in exchange for less, less, and less when we happen to close a deal of this kind.

[arcology 224]

"I then realized that most of my disappointment was an overreaction due to my longing desire for a worthy successor to SC4."

 

One expects an enumeration of reasons why it was an "overreaction" afterall, but:

 

1. City Size <> "region modding"

(exchanging a given against a mere possibility)

 

2. "Minor things" <> individualy overlooked (considered "minor" only until they're actually missing, ie. not minor at all)

Always online <> having a 99% permanent connection (while dismissing the recurring caveat of server failure or actual shutdown in its lifecycle as defined by the provider instead of oneself)

 

3. Charging DLC <> "a way to thank the devs and artists for their time and effort (kind of like donating to a kickstarter)"

(a way to cheat oneself, at best you are throwing money at EA's investors, the actual makers are far out in the receiving end of those possible benefits)

 

4. Modding <> "[they] want to give it to us"

(again exchanging a given for a mere possibility)

 

5. Improvements <> over previous

(I actually agree with some, but i would argue that they would compare only in a level field, which SC2013 is not against SC4)

 

"awaiting the day when we can recreate New York City", after how many DLCs and dollars spent...?

 

I would say that all these concessions have not been directly addressed in any point. I would personaly consider them mere remorse valves for after the fact buying such a thing, an actual regression at so many levels.

But that is from a individualistic viewpoint, one could complement it with the broader consumer (idealistic) viewpoint, and the trend EA is trying to implement more generaly throughout its franchises, ie Buying vs Renting; Full Product vs DLC; One time Payment vs Microtransactions; Anonymous Use vs Personal Data Extraction (Origin); etc etc...

 

In other words, i consider us to be paying more, both dollars, our own personal data (which is priceable too) and consumer rights, in exchange for less, less, and less when we happen to close a deal of this kind.

 

I think this post is definitely worth repeating. 

[MandelSoft 2,775]

Well, I've actually re-thinked everything over about SimCity 2013 and now I find myself in a more nuanced opinion. True, some of my issues still stand, and that keeps me from buying SimCity 2013 right on the spot (which doesn't come cheap). But if they can fix most of the major issues I have with the game, then I may hessitate to buy the game. There are a few things that I disagree with the OP:

Then I realized that the solution is very simple and could be implemented (maybe not before release but in a DLC or patch).  The actual area of active simulation is really not relevant.  We work with similar city sizes in SC4, the difference is that we can put the cities together to create the Illusion of a larger city.

 

I've proposed this solution multiple times, but Maxis doesn't seem to take notice of...

Now, about the terrain and the interstate.  at first I thought the interstate connection was a stupid idea, but, then I realized that most cities don't have control of the interstate which is usually controlled at the federal or state government level, so, I am actually OK with this idea now since it makes rational sense (although I would still prefer to have control of it).

Not completely true. True, major infrastructure is much influenced by higher gouvernment levels, but its the municipality that needs to fit in the exact layout in it's urban plan. There is also something called urban motorways, which are actually under control of the municipality rather than the region or state or nation. Furthermore, cities have often more than one connection to the outside world. I miss the smaller highways (like two lanes) between cities. If they add a few connections of those, the city will feel less isolated and it will immediately increase realism...

Moreover, motorways are quite often not completely out of cities bounds. This would be an ideal world. Quite some cities have actually build around major infrastructure, not tangential to it. Railways often go right through a city, not tangential to it.

2.  Most of the other complaints are just minor things which I can overlook:  always online?  I already am, so no problem there.

The connection is not the problem for me; it's the saves and the server:

- You can't play the game anymore when the servers are down... or shut off... even when you're doing single player

- You can't access your save files, because they are stored on the Cloud. This reduces experimentation possibilities and when the server is shut off, say goodbye to your cities you worked on so hard...

3.  charging extra for DLC that should have been released in the main game.  this is a big issue with lots of people and with me to an extent.  I can forgive this though because EA is a large company and they have a large expense budget.  unlike an indie developer with just 5-10 guys working in a living room, EA has legal departments, marketing departments, professional artists, experienced developers, and large physical offices that require lots of upkeep and utility costs.  not to mention all the corporate benefits EA has to pay to all their employees (vacation time, health care, 401k and any other programs they might have).  this means that they need to bring in more money in order to pay all of these people for their work.  So I don't see the DLC as an all-together negative thing.  just re-think it as a way to thank the devs and artists for their time and effort (kind of like donating to a kickstarter).

The problem is that for most of us, even the mere base game is expensive. True, they need something to cover the costs, but by making your product expensive than the other games on the market, that's not really a smart economic strategy move to take. Especially when you're dealing with stereotypical penny-wise dutch.

Best,

Maarten

[Kythlyn 80]

arcology: The most fundamental aspects of the SimCity game have been changed. 

 

I believe the most fundamental aspect of SimCity is laying out zones and watching them grow as you nuture them. Having played the Beta (see the pinned Beta thread for the link to my impressions), I feel like this has been accomplished in the new game, and in a way that is more fun than ever before. Granted, I have an unfulfilled wishlist of features for the new SimCity as I'm sure most of you do, but I'm still very excited about the new game.

[soldyne 111]

Ok, so the online thing.  I don't like it, you don't like it, very few people actually find it a plus aside from the corporations.  however, this is the way the entire industry is moving.  even The Elder Scrolls series which has been a single player game for decades is going online...a very sorry state, but, there is nothing anyone can do about it.  What gets me riled up is that people blame EA as if they are the only ones or even the first ones to do this but they aren't.  Blizzard did this to Diablo 3, everyone complained and everyone also bought the game too (so did I).  The only way to get a new game made that is not going to be multiplayer or online-only is to make it yourself.  you either learn to live with it or just stop playing new games all together.

 

Charging for DLC.  really? are people still complaining about this?  every company does this today, its not new, its been going on for many years.  EA is not the only one, they just seem to be really good at it (stuff packs).  Microtransactions are not new.  free to play MMO's are not new.  just like online only, it is the industry standard and its not going to change.  Yes things get expensive, its called inflation.  TESV:  Skyrim just released its third DLC and this if for a game that gave the public its creation kit for free and they still expect people to buy content which they could have made themselves with the same software, and you know what...they do pay for it!  and lets not get started on Diablo 3 Real Money Auction House where people actually spend more money on an in game weapon then they did for the original game itself (seriously).  so you want all your games to be free and have all the features you could every hope for and live in a rose tinted simulation world...well its not going to happen.

 

I have no problem debating how to address the issues of small city sizes, region play, adding new features, modding or similar topics.  but when it comes to issues that are industry standards that no one without their own multimillion dollar company can have any impact to change then there is no reason to bring it up all.  everyone hates it, no one has the power to change it, there is nothing else to discuss.

 

so, since Online-only and DLC are not things which are plausibly going to change regardless of how much we want them to, there is no reason I should make my purchase decisions based on that.  If I did then I would never buy another new game as long as I lived and I don't see that happening.

[Gamma Stardust 50]

(while not trying to move you personaly from enjoying your future purchase, nor antagonizing at all...)

 

One can of course take the defeatist position.

 

I rather not.

 

"What gets me riled up is that people blame EA as if they are the only ones or even the first ones to do this but they aren't."

EA, because it is the case at hand, also the fact that EA is not alone acting in disfavour of gamers does not aleviate one bit of their responsability.

 

"The only way to get a new game made that is not going to be multiplayer or online-only is to make it yourself."

Does not hold true in this world, in wanting to make it as general a phrase, in support of the defeatist position, it started to bump into reality, until it broke apart altogether.

 

"you either learn to live with it or just stop playing new games all together."

If the premise is wrong from the begining nevermind the supposed consequence, of course one can keep playing new games, cheer up, there is much more out there.

 

By what has been said one would think the "industry standard" is in the stage you describe. The diference is one can easily verify otherwise, conceding at most that what is described is indeed big game producers "whishfull thinking". Of course they will lend all their weight towards that goal on the way. I not only hope they fail in that purpose, I will also try and lend my help in raising awareness to prevent it.

 

I would say there is no point in finding subterfuges to ease the swallowing of this figurative pill.

[MandelSoft 2,775]

That EA is not the first one with micro-transactions or always online, I already knew that. No comment on that. But why does it have to be this way? Why not offering an off-line mode too that may attract even more customers (the ones that don't have the luxury of a constant internet connection)? I mean, it's not like you can't play this game on your own, because SimCity is a game you can basically play on your own. We did this for twenty years and we were happy with it, creating our own world as we like it to be.

You can do this with the new SimCity, but it's all server dependent. You have basically the problem that you need to pay and need to be dependent of a service you practically don't use. For quite some people, this is a flaw in the marketing strategy. Businesses seem to think we all have internet connections with no data caps, no interruptions and that they have servers with no interruptions. Such an assumption can be called naive, since only 79% of the US citizens actually have an internet connection (which leaves 21% who don't have one). The people who have internet connection, may be limited by slow speeds, data caps and ISP server hick-ups, so for quite some people, always online is not really a good option.

*Sigh, where is the time that multi-player games used to be an optional feature besides the off-line single player mode?

Oh, and about inflation: yes, I expect it to happen, but not this sudden and this much. Not everyone's wallet is filled enough to pay for all the DLC. No thank you...

Best,

Maarten

[Flat Raver 59]

I'm not going to get the game as it seems, due to ideological differences between me and the developers+publishers behind it.

 

EA and Maxis, especially EA, see multiplayer as the default state. That a game is supposed to be played with others, no time for introvert activities. You know what else is an introvert activity? Masturbation. And didn't you know; masturbation causes both cancer and the inability to become a respectable and productive citizen. SO keep your hands over your sheets, spend more time with friends and family (rather than arts, philosophy and entertainment) and may God bless America.

[arcology 224]

 

arcology: The most fundamental aspects of the SimCity game have been changed. 

 

I believe the most fundamental aspect of SimCity is laying out zones and watching them grow as you nuture them. Having played the Beta (see the pinned Beta thread for the link to my impressions), I feel like this has been accomplished in the new game, and in a way that is more fun than ever before. Granted, I have an unfulfilled wishlist of features for the new SimCity as I'm sure most of you do, but I'm still very excited about the new game.

 

 

I hope you do enjoy the new game.

 

I will not be buying this, unless they changed the format.  The fundamental playing of the game, unless, you have never played it - is, again, full control.  Not just zoning. 

 

I think others in this thread, have maybe explained their stances on why this is not an "attractive" option, at this time, way better than I could ever have, but, I do stand strong, with the fact that, if you are saying zoning is the only fundamental difference - then you either don't mind not having control over a game & subsequent DLC's that you are paying a lot of money for or you just don't care, if, in the future, they shut down the servers, without offering an offline mode. 

[Kythlyn 80]

I don't think zoning is the only fundemental difference at all. I just remember the feeling I had playing SimCity on an Amiga way back in the day (and in each version since). I still get that from the new game.

[arcology 224]

uhm, unless i'm reading your above quote wrong - you said it was the most fundamental aspect...

 

i do hope you enjoy the game, for yourself.

[Kythlyn 80]

I did. I do think that plopping zones and watching the city grow is the most fundamental aspect of the game. But certainly not the "only" fundemental aspect.

[arcology 224]

i wanted this new game, i really did.  however, with the cost and the not "owning" it - that is ridiculous that people are expected to pay so much for it. 

 

what will you do when they shut down the servers? 

[Kythlyn 80]

what will you do when they shut down the servers? 

 

In the worst case scenario in which the servers are shut down, the game becomes impossible to play and we cannot access our files, I will boycott EA forever. But that day has not yet come for SimCity. The game isn't even out yet, and I do not know what the future will bring. I suspect that if they ever do pull the plug on the servers then by that time there will be a way to play without the need for those servers. But, that's just my baseless speculation. We'll see what happens! In the meantime, I'm hoping to get years of enjoyment out of the game. That has value in and of itself.

[arcology 224]

what will you do when they shut down the servers? 

 

In the worst case scenario in which the servers are shut down, the game becomes impossible to play and we cannot access our files, I will boycott EA forever. But that day has not yet come for SimCity. The game isn't even out yet, and I do not know what the future will bring. I suspect that if they ever do pull the plug on the servers then by that time there will be a way to play without the need for those servers. But, that's just my baseless speculation. We'll see what happens! In the meantime, I'm hoping to get years of enjoyment out of the game. That has value in and of itself.

 

 

i wish that i could agree with you on the years to come.  i do - it is just that it is expensive, they did say they built it from the "ground up" to only be online - so absolutely no chance of it being offline (they have been very adamant about getting that point across!  )  and with their past history of shutting servers down - it won't bode well, for people once they have spent a lot of money on it.

 

to me that is one of the biggest reasons (for me, again), not to put my money into it. 

 

there should have been an option (and i would gladly pay more for that) to be offline.  i'm not trying to encourage them to charge more, believe me, but, if that was the only way, i would pay it. 

 

i don't think city building is prone to going long-term with online/microtransactions and dlc or at least not based on what SimCity "used" to be. 

 

no terraforming?  no saves on your harddrive, so no experimenting?  being dictated to, as to "when" you can play and where?  doesn't that bother you, just a little bit?  for the cost?

 

i am honestly just asking. 

[simmerboy 19]

what will you do when they shut down the servers? 

 

In the worst case scenario in which the servers are shut down, the game becomes impossible to play and we cannot access our files, I will boycott EA forever. But that day has not yet come for SimCity. The game isn't even out yet, and I do not know what the future will bring. I suspect that if they ever do pull the plug on the servers then by that time there will be a way to play without the need for those servers. But, that's just my baseless speculation. We'll see what happens! In the meantime, I'm hoping to get years of enjoyment out of the game. That has value in and of itself.

That day will not be happening for as long as Simcity is being played. I doubt EA would shut down Simcity servers until at least a new Simcity game is developed, which probably will be a LOT better.

[Kythlyn 80]

no terraforming?  no saves on your harddrive, so no experimenting?  being dictated to, as to "when" you can play and where?  doesn't that bother you, just a little bit?  for the cost?

 

i am honestly just asking. 

 

Yes, I am bothered by the lack of those features. But having played the Beta, I believe that the game at launch will be worth the price of admission. I don't see the new SimCity as something that will replace SimCity 4, but I do see it as a potentially great game worth my time and investment. Hopefully I won't be disappointed! I'll be writing a fairly elaborate review once I have spent enough time with the game.

 

As for the price itself, sadly, $59.99 seems to be the new normal for AAA games, even on PC. But on the other hand, EA has been having more and more sales lately (taking after Steam it seems). The patient will pay less.

[CaptCity 4,915]

Another thread taken over by the same old arguements. I ask once again to use the pinned topics all ready in existance. Also, some clean up performed. Liking this game is not a sign of "compitulation", just a difference in taste. We really need to take heed when posting our thoughts and take steps not to insult others, whether intended or not. Words mean things...

 

Probably best to head to the Gameplay topic.

[Jim14409 448]

I would like to say that I never actually said that SC2013 was superior to SC4.  I said that aspects of the new are better than aspects of the old such as curved roads, dynamic grid layouts, 3D camera angles, and upgradeable buildings.  Also, after hearing that city specialization is neither required nor limited to one, I think the idea of city specializations and special buildings sound interesting and I will also mark that as a plus.

 

to support Jim14409, I do agree that that there are things that SC2013 needs to improve.  we need to get back the ability to modify the region and set the city placement (city size is mostly irrelevant if we can put multiple city squares together).  We also need a decent modding tool.  We also need to get back our mass transit options such as subways and highways (but rush hour was a paid expansion to SC4 so why should we expect differently with SC2013?).  I wont call SC2013 a true successor to SC4 until we have the ability recreate cities like NYC, London, Tokyo or Edmonton with the same scale and detail.  That is the ultimate goal and SC2013 is nowhere near that yet.

 

the point of my post was that SC2013 isn't perfect, but, at least it provides some hope that city simulation games are not dead.  If the community can support the game with constructive criticism and plausible solutions to our issues then we have a chance to get a really good successor to SC4.

 

My comment is on the mindset that we are somehow supposed to support or play along with something we don't want, don't like, never asked for, and never expected in HOPES we will be allowed to scavage for the crumbs that fall from big corporations table. There are many on these boards with that seeming mindset. I think it is just the opposite of how we should be. The providers are to cater to the customer and this attitude of customer catering to the corporation/creator/developer/ what-have-you, is a dangerous one and will never be satisfying or pleasurable to the customer.

 

We are NOT "partners" with the game developers/marketers. It is their responsibility to know their market and cater to that market. I will not cater to them and neither should anyone else. It is and should always be a BUSINESS relationship. There is always someone else willing to SERVE their potential customers.

 

City simulation games are not dead and they will never be dead as long as humans walk the earth. When I was a child my cousins and I drew cities in the dirt along the banks of streams or where ever we could. We had "houses", "trees", "boats", and "cars" and I suspect children have done similar since the dawn of time. The only difference now is that we don't have to sit in the dirt thanks to computers and those with the love and know-how to create. There are millions with that know-how and a vacuum is never void long.

 

Our responsibility is to voice our wish list, to make known that we will be supportive and loyal to those who make an honest effort to provide. To support any other is folly in my mind.

That is my 2 cents. Thank you.

[arcology 224]

Jim14409 posted:

 

My comment is on the mindset that we are somehow supposed to support or play along with something we don't want, don't like, never asked for,  and never expected in HOPES we will be allowed to scavage for the crumbs that fall from big corporations table. There are many on these boards with that seeming mindset. I think it is just the opposite of how we should be. The providers are to cater to the customer and this attitude of customer catering to the corporation/creator/developer/what-have-you, is a dangerous one and will never be satisfying orpleasurable to the customer.

 

We are NOT "partners" with the game developers/marketers. It is their responsibility to know their market and cater to that market. I will not cater to them and neither should anyone else. It is and should always be a BUSINESS relationship. There is always someone else willing to SERVE their potential customers.

 

 

That statement effectively cuts through to the heart of the matter for many. 

[Trioxis 32]

Only problem with that is the fact that the market doesn't just include fans of the SimCity genre (i.e. this community) but also includes a vast majority of other people who are not fans. Maxis doesn't NEED to cater to the wishes of the fans in order for the game to be a commercial success, as long as they can get other people to buy it instead. You don't have to like it but there's not much you can really do about it.

[Sunfighter 186]

Only problem with that is the fact that the market doesn't just include fans of the SimCity genre (i.e. this community) but also includes a vast majority of other people who are not fans. Maxis doesn't NEED to cater to the wishes of the fans in order for the game to be a commercial success, as long as they can get other people to buy it instead. You don't have to like it but there's not much you can really do about it.

 

Focusing on casual markets can burn you in the end. As casuals are very fickle and tend not to play the same games for very long. Something to consider when you want to open a nickle and dime type store within the game. Sorry but its that kind of short term, quick buck thinking that is typical of EA that has destroyed many great gaming franchises for them.

[Trioxis 32]

Well I never said it was a good thing, but it's hard to say whether SC13 will be a commercial success or not. I think the game is actually quite decent from my beta experience, but it's not the SC5 many people had hoped for. I'm most likely still going to get it anyway, but maybe not right at release.

[Xenocity 343]

Only problem with that is the fact that the market doesn't just include fans of the SimCity genre (i.e. this community) but also includes a vast majority of other people who are not fans. Maxis doesn't NEED to cater to the wishes of the fans in order for the game to be a commercial success, as long as they can get other people to buy it instead. You don't have to like it but there's not much you can really do about it.

 

Focusing on casual markets can burn you in the end. As casuals are very fickle and tend not to play the same games for very long. Something to consider when you want to open a nickle and dime type store within the game. Sorry but its that kind of short term, quick buck thinking that is typical of EA that has destroyed many great gaming franchises for them.

Maxis is targeting a wider demographic than just diehard Simcity 4 fans.

Some of those people will be "casual" gamers, some will be "hardcore" gamers, some will be Simcity fans who were burned by Simcity 4, many will be PC gamers and average gamers.

 

 

Maxis isn't willing to make a game for the 2 million people who bought Simcity 4, because they struggled to breakeven with Simcity 4.

 

Maxis is more willing to make a game that appealed to the over 5 million people who bought and played Simcity 3000.

 

Anyways the point is there is a bigger swath of gamers between "casuals (these people exceed 100M+)" and the "hardcore" (these folks are a minority no matter how you define them).

 

The market size of gamers who aren't "casual" and "hardcore" ranges between 50M-70M, it is even higher if you count gamers in the developing countries.

 

These are the gamers Maxis is targeting.

[Gamma Stardust 50]

Only problem with that is the fact that the market doesn't just include fans of the SimCity genre (i.e. this community) but also includes a vast majority of other people who are not fans. Maxis doesn't NEED to cater to the wishes of the fans in order for the game to be a commercial success, as long as they can get other people to buy it instead. You don't have to like it but there's not much you can really do about it.

 

That is indeed a good point, but then again: Why market the game as if? (... longstanding fans being the intended market target)

 

It looks like Superman, it smells like Superman, it flyes like Superman... but when you get to know for sure, it is not Superman afterall.

 

Battlefield 2 "sequel" (BF3) turned out the same exact pattern.