Will SimCity 2018 become a reality?

[rsc204 21,866]

3 hours ago, fredinno said:

The OS is the lesser problem than moving all your files to and from a safe backup location and reinstalling everything. Even if you don't sit there and wait, you still need quite a bit of spare time for it. Which is why it'd be nice if the upgrade process is a lot more seamless.

Windows 10's upgrade couldn't be more seamless, when it works at least. In my case I had no problems, which I think represents most peoples experience too.

Quote

Since most people (I would expect) in the consumer and general buisness marketplace wold benefit from extra RAM, even though (now I know) it would make the system slower overall. Especially since Adobe's editor programs have largely moved to 64-Bit, and gaming- and Internet constantly sucks up all my RAM for some reason too...

Why do you think more RAM makes a system run slower? I have 16GB in my machine, but slow it is not, it's by far and away the fastest machine I've ever used.

Your browser may need a lot of RAM, but that's only because webpages/browsers are poorly optimised these days. Another way to put that would be to say that peoples computers are generally powerful enough that you can make much more complicated web pages, that require more resources.

Still, all complaints aside, I'm typing this on a Pentium 4 machine with only 768MB ram, it's working just fine. But of course, if I tried to open many tabs, then things would be very different. However on that 16GB machine, I can open more tabs than it would really make sense too without problem. So it's really more of a system or software limitation.

3 hours ago, fredinno said:

That's my point. It's userbase collapsed right after it lost support from 30%, then stagnated, because the people still using it didn't bother to upgrade- possibly since they used it for consumer purposes only (ex. Gaming)- I still use it since it's a hella faster than Vista, 7, 8, or 10.

32 Bit should be the same way- most people would likely benefit from 64 bit over 32 Bit, which is why it should be pre-installed instead of 32-bit. No one pre-installs XP for the same reason.

Id argue 10% of machines in use worldwide was still significant. That probably eclipses MacOS usage or most linux distributions for exa.

XP faster than newer OS's, I don't agree with that. It depends on your hardware and what you are doing with it. If you had a SATA3 SSD, USB 3.0 and other technologies not supported on XP, then you'd be doing yourself a disservice sticking with XP. I do run it on a couple machines, which can't run Windows 7 well. But Windows 7 is far and away the faster OS for most modern computers. In fact you may find on the latest hardware you need 8 or 10 to really utilise your system to its full potential.

No one pre-installs XP because Microsoft won't let them, literally, they won't sell you a licence or media to install it. In fact, with the exception of Netbooks, that's been the case for a very long time. It's a long-held thing that when you buy a new computer, you get the latest version of Windows. Partially that's because Microsoft have ensured this happens. But, most consumers buying new hardware also want the latest OS, it's a selling point.

3 hours ago, fredinno said:

Plus, I think there are enough people wanting to buy VR COD to justify at least 1 or 2 gaming generations of VR.

Perhaps. But, hardware can't exist without software. If you can't shift serious units of VR software, the platforms will simply die. It costs too much to make blockbuster games, so if they don't sell in very high numbers, developers won't bother. Without games, the hardware won't sell, the two are intrinsically linked. I just think VR is like motion control, it might seem great, but unless software (games) really improve with it, it won't be more than a short-term fad.

3 hours ago, fredinno said:

This was before I knew about 64 Bit actually being slower than 32 Bit.

Like how we still have 8 Bit computers (wait wut?)

How do you come to that conclusion? My 64-Bit machines are much quicker than my 32-bit ones.

If if 8-bit processors are still being manufactured, then it's for specific solutions that don't need anything better or more expensive. Point me to a consumer 8-bit system that's on sale today, because I don't know of any.

3 hours ago, fredinno said:

Nintendo hardly showed off anything for it yet, not just anything new. They aren't too transparent when it comes to hardware- Sony keeps stealing their stuff.

Do we know it's android-based? Other than Nivida supplying the chips, and probably being x86 based, not much else about the hardware.

Also, the Xbox One is a 'one' entertainment system for your TV (hence the name), and is also competing with Smart TVs with the S version, unlike Nintendo's stuff.

It should be as powerful as the Xbox One (in game capability )if it wants the 3rd party support to not be a failure like the U. Let's hope Iwata learned that lesson before he died, even if it's more expensive as a result.

What have Sony stolen from Nintendo? I didn't say the console would be Android based, but that the architecture would be. You can fit an x86 chip into a tablet, but it's very expensive. Sure Intel make x86 mobile Atom processors that could be paired with the NVidia chip. But logically, an NVida mobile-based core is more likely to be paired with an ARM SoC processing unit, which pretty much is the basis of all Android devices hardware wise. 

If you think the processing power inside a tablet-like device will be a match for the PC-architecture inside an XBox, then you simply don't know much about hardware. I'm sorry, but it won't be as powerful on paper. Of course, that's not to say you couldn't make games that are more fun or better. I don't personally see how it can possibly have the CPU power of a full-on x86-based chipset. Knowing Nintendo, even the GPU won't be the latest tech either, so I think my comparison with Android will ultimately prove itself to be the case.

3 hours ago, fredinno said:

so what if you have more mods than 4GB of RAM?

Indexing means it makes a database of all the files you may wish to load, the index allows it to access objects much more swiftly as and when the game needs them. Without having to keep everything stored in RAM. See here the principles are the same. But you still can't exceed that 4GB being used by the application at any point. Just because you have more than 4GB of plugins, doesn't mean the game requires 4GB to use them, for example, not all of that 4GB will need to be used at any one time.

For example, imagine a building that's 10MB in size. The game uses 20 textures (or more) for any given model. But at any one time, only 1 rotation/zoom's textures are required to be displayed. So perhaps 1.5-2MB is the most of that 10MB that would ever be needed to display it. That's only in zoom 5/6, which uses the largest textures too. When z5/6 is displayed, the field of vision is limited, so you should never need to use 4GB or anything near it to display everything on screen. As you zoom out, the textures on a per-model basis only get smaller, which compensates for the fact that more of them are being displayed.

Cities Skylines works differently and requires you to be able to load your mods into RAM to work. Hence some users are already finding a need to have 32GB in their system. But SC4 is much more efficient than that. It had to be, because in 2003 when SC4 Deluxe was released, computers with say 1GB memory would have been extraordinarily rare and expensive too. This laptop came with only 256MB RAM and cost £1,800 in 2002. In fact you can only put 1GB system RAM in this machine too. This was no budget PC either. If SC4 wasn't efficient, then it simply would never have worked. But this works to out benefit, because it means all these years later, a machine with 2GB should play the game very well. I've never seen the application utilise more than 1.6GB RAM when running, even with 6GB of plugins.

3 hours ago, fredinno said:

Aspyr wut?

Aspyr is a port for Mac users, made I think by Aspyr, hence the name.

3 hours ago, fredinno said:

Adding cores wouldn't make SC2018 have extra performance to work with?

Right now, your OS can barely take advantage of more than 4 cores. Now if 8-10 or many-core parts become actual reality for the mainstream processors, perhaps. But given that Multi-core took so long before it was taken advantage of, the technology will need to be mainstream before it would likely happen. Then both your OS and the application would need to be able to take full advantage of it.

[Cyclone Boom 17,031]

SC2013 was intended as a reboot of the franchise. But alas, it turned out to be a story of failed expectations.

There was such a spark of interest following the announcement -- finally a decade later SimCity would be reborn for modern hardware. If EA didn't (again) dictate the project to drive their own profits, who knows what platform could've been developed. That's really the sad thing about the whole ordeal. Maxis had such potential to create an 'updated' version of SC4. We were eagerly anticipating larger connected cities, an open sandbox, and a framework for modding to thrive going forward. It was such an opportunity! But no, EA persuaded Maxis to develop an architecture solely based around online functionality, and only provided limited options for modding. Hoping the game would appeal to a wider audience as it grew, while not grasping the fundamentals to what made SC4 a success.

While nice and shiny in concept, GlassBox was far too complex for its own good. Whether this was by design or not, ironically it did confine the game to strict 'boxlike' limitations. Using an agent-based simulation restricted the city size, which immediately took a step back from SC4. The online presence dominated and ran the whole show. Then by the time a single player mode was added, following the server issues, amongst others, the damage had already been done.

This was even admitted:

Quote

"The system performance challenges we encountered would mean that the vast majority of our players wouldn’t be able to load, much less play with bigger cities. We’ve tried a number of different approaches to bring performance into an acceptable range, but we just couldn’t achieve it within the confines of the engine."

~Patrick Buechner
Former General Manager of Maxis Emeryville

http://www.simcity.com/en_US/blog/article/state-of-simcity

 

The SimCity brand has been tarnished due to selfish business decisions. Really the likelihood of a new game, at least in the immediate future, is sadly now slim to none. For communities like ours, thankfully the longevity of SC4 and the onset of C:S has softened this blow.

Should one eventually emerge, we can only hope lessons have been learned. Macro realism in simulation isn't always the best path to take, and the internet isn't the solution to everything. Great software is always built on solid foundations. If this isn't right, you can't expect to change the design midway through development.

[fredinno 54]

On 2016-11-11 at 11:05 AM, Cyclone Boom said:

While nice and shiny in concept, GlassBox was far too complex for its own good. Whether this was by design or not, ironically it did confine the game to strict 'boxlike' limitations. Using an agent-based simulation restricted the city size, which immediately took a step back from SC4. The online presence dominated and ran the whole show. Then by the time a single player mode was added, following the server issues, amongst others, the damage had already been done.

When reading the Maxis closing Reddit posts by the fired Maxis employee, Glassbox seemed to be more Maxis' idea- by the time it was realized it wouldn't work well in the limited performance, it was too late. Online-only certainly didn't help the performance issues.

 

Plus, I don't think the GPU can be used for any CPU processes in SimCity?

On 2016-11-11 at 11:05 AM, Cyclone Boom said:

Should one eventually emerge, we can only hope lessons have been learned. Macro realism in simulation isn't always the best path to take, and the internet isn't the solution to everything. Great software is always built on solid foundations. If this isn't right, you can't expect to change the design midway through development.

Cities Skylines built on the empirical failures of SimCity 2013 to make a better game. Who knows what would have happened if it was the other way around in terms of creation date?

On 2016-11-11 at 11:05 AM, Cyclone Boom said:

There was such a spark of interest following the announcement -- finally a decade later SimCity would be reborn for modern hardware. If EA didn't (again) dictate the project to drive their own profits, who knows what platform could've been developed. That's really the sad thing about the whole ordeal. Maxis had such potential to create an 'updated' version of SC4. We were eagerly anticipating larger connected cities, an open sandbox, and a framework for modding to thrive going forward. It was such an opportunity! But no, EA persuaded Maxis to develop an architecture solely based around online functionality, and only provided limited options for modding. Hoping the game would appeal to a wider audience as it grew, while not grasping the fundamentals to what made SC4 a success.

If they actually decided to suck things up a bit and make a few more expansion packs, it would have made the game a lot more sucessful- by that time, modders would have figured out a way to hack into it and mod it (like IRL).

 

It's like Mac Pro, I guess. It's profitable, but not a money printer.

And we still hope for a new iteration.

On 2016-11-10 at 4:22 PM, rsc204 said:

Aspyr is a port for Mac users, made I think by Aspyr, hence the name.

Ah, thanks.

On 2016-11-10 at 4:22 PM, rsc204 said:

What have Sony stolen from Nintendo?

Spoiler

They didn't really steal hardware, (more ideas) but still. You can see why Nintendo is so secretive about hardware now. The less information your rivals get about an innovative product, the less time they have to respond with their own version.

 

On 2016-11-10 at 4:22 PM, rsc204 said:

How do you come to that conclusion? My 64-Bit machines are much quicker than my 32-bit ones.

If if 8-bit processors are still being manufactured, then it's for specific solutions that don't need anything better or more expensive. Point me to a consumer 8-bit system that's on sale today, because I don't know of any.

https://www.quora.com/Why-arent-there-128-bit-CPUs

" There is often an unstated belief that 64bit is faster. 64-bit performance is actually often worse then 32-bit. By that same token, 128-bit computer would be even slower. So why is 64-bit slower? It is an avalanche of things. Extending the instruction-set for new Addressing Mode (AMODE) will likely use bigger instructions (except where instruction length is constant, like IBM PowerPC architecture) as well larger constants and pointers, resulting in larger programs, resulting in worse memory performance from both more frequent cache misses and more virtual-to-physical memory translation (TLB) misses... and so on."

I never said there were consumer 8-bit processors, but they still exist. They probably wouldn't be much cheaper due to the lack of mass production though.

On 2016-11-10 at 4:22 PM, rsc204 said:

Id argue 10% of machines in use worldwide was still significant. That probably eclipses MacOS usage or most linux distributions for exa.

XP faster than newer OS's, I don't agree with that. It depends on your hardware and what you are doing with it. If you had a SATA3 SSD, USB 3.0 and other technologies not supported on XP, then you'd be doing yourself a disservice sticking with XP. I do run it on a couple machines, which can't run Windows 7 well. But Windows 7 is far and away the faster OS for most modern computers. In fact you may find on the latest hardware you need 8 or 10 to really utilise your system to its full potential.

No one pre-installs XP because Microsoft won't let them, literally, they won't sell you a licence or media to install it. In fact, with the exception of Netbooks, that's been the case for a very long time. It's a long-held thing that when you buy a new computer, you get the latest version of Windows. Partially that's because Microsoft have ensured this happens. But, most consumers buying new hardware also want the latest OS, it's a selling point.

It was mostly from personal experience. Usually I find XP OS to be faster since Windows 10 and 7 add graphical and processor junk I don't need (the worst offender was Vista tho). I think it's because the increased power of computers makes it easier to make larger OSes. But maybe I'm completely wrong. But XP is much more minimalistic than 10, and I would have had no problem continuing to use it if it still got updates.

 

And you can still get new Windows 7 PCs. Pre-installations are often NOT using the most recent OS because there's less demand for that OS than for an older one. (Vista and XP, Windows 7 and 8, etc). Demand for 64-Bit (esp. gaming and editing) will eventually kill 32-Bit in mainstream usage.

On 2016-11-10 at 4:22 PM, rsc204 said:

Why do you think more RAM makes a system run slower? I have 16GB in my machine, but slow it is not, it's by far and away the fastest machine I've ever used.

Your browser may need a lot of RAM, but that's only because webpages/browsers are poorly optimised these days. Another way to put that would be to say that peoples computers are generally powerful enough that you can make much more complicated web pages, that require more resources.

Still, all complaints aside, I'm typing this on a Pentium 4 machine with only 768MB ram, it's working just fine. But of course, if I tried to open many tabs, then things would be very different. However on that 16GB machine, I can open more tabs than it would really make sense too without problem. So it's really more of a system or software limitation.

Because using more than 4 GB of RAM would need a 64 Bit PC.

RAM otherwise doesn't make anything slower.

 

Website bloat is a serious problem, I think we can all agree. Website makers do realize that people generally have milisecond-long patience times on the 'net, right?

 

Either that, or the cable companies start letting up. Or not.

Spoiler

 

On 2016-11-10 at 4:22 PM, rsc204 said:

Windows 10's upgrade couldn't be more seamless, when it works at least. In my case I had no problems, which I think represents most peoples experience too.

I meant OS reinstall in general. Windows 10 upgrade is not the norm, it's the exception. At least so far. It may soon become the norm.

On 2016-11-10 at 4:22 PM, rsc204 said:

Perhaps. But, hardware can't exist without software. If you can't shift serious units of VR software, the platforms will simply die. It costs too much to make blockbuster games, so if they don't sell in very high numbers, developers won't bother. Without games, the hardware won't sell, the two are intrinsically linked. I just think VR is like motion control, it might seem great, but unless software (games) really improve with it, it won't be more than a short-term fad.

But COD in VR! Microsoft's consoles don't really concentrate much on exclusives (especially compared to Nintendo)- other than Halo, Minecraft, (and Rare's dead corpse), and they do perfectly well since 3rd parties makes games for them. The same thing would happen to VR if it ends up being just as seamless as PC to Xbox. It's not like COD would need many modifications to work in VR (if at all).

On 2016-11-10 at 4:22 PM, rsc204 said:

 

If you think the processing power inside a tablet-like device will be a match for the PC-architecture inside an XBox, then you simply don't know much about hardware. I'm sorry, but it won't be as powerful on paper. Of course, that's not to say you couldn't make games that are more fun or better. I don't personally see how it can possibly have the CPU power of a full-on x86-based chipset. Knowing Nintendo, even the GPU won't be the latest tech either, so I think my comparison with Android will ultimately prove itself to be the case.

You don't need that level of power in a tablet though- it's very difficult to tell the difference between 1080 to 720p on a tablet screen- that's generally a big deal on TVs. Thus, they can skimp on GPUs on the tablets. Though I guess you have a point on the CPU in that part

Also, they have a specialized stand that 'swtiches' from console to portable that I would assume has extra performance for console gaming. Which was the part that is arguably just as important. I wouldn't be surprised if there were 'console mode only' switch games.

[fredinno 54]

Also, the Switch tablet seems to be approx. the same size of the Wii U gamepad, which is pretty darn thick compared to most tablets- with a screen size of 6.2 in, much smaller than most tablets, again. There might be space for a decent CPU somewhere in there.

[Sim Trekker 41]

Seeing that EA's only interest of late in the SimCity IP is mobile pay to win garbage, I doubt it. Besides, they'd probably just mess up again like they did the last time.

[Kayo 5]

Hello everybody

I wrote a comment on a website in french language because my English is not very good and maybe somebody can translate it properly because web translation is not good to have the best translation. I pasted just my comment in french and maybe somebody can understand it good. I tried to write the best possible in french for the translation.

Thank you in advance

 

Les versions avant le SimCity 2000, je n'y avais pas joué car pas d'ordinateur mais le 2000, j'en avais passé du temps dessus. Donc je dirais que la version 2000 était très complête avec les éditeurs de maps, de bâtiments, etc..., et si il y aurait un concentré des versions 2000, 3000, SimCity 4 Deluxe, SimCity 2013 et bien que les jeux ne fassent pas partie de la série Maxi, city life et cities skyline, ce serait super car chacun avaient leurs PLUS et je suis persuadé qu'il serait même possible de créer un Sim Pays avec un concept amélioré de SimCity 2013 niveau maps et interactions entres eux. Le cities skyline est bien mais au final, il y a beaucoup trop de bug comme pour SimCity 2013. Il faut aussi que les concepteurs pensent à tous les types de joueurs car c'est pénible d'acheter un jeu en ayant pas un VRAI mode bac à sable avec accès à toutes les options, etc... et même en mode multijoueur. Je fais partie de ceux qui aiment avoir accès à tout au début car je me lasse pas du jeu malgré cela. Dans le SimCity 4 et Deluxe, il était possible de conduire les véhicules avec la liberté d'aller où on voulait. Dans citie life, c'était la visite de la ville mais pas possible de conduire les véhicules. Je sais que créer un jeu à partir de zéro est bien compliqué même avec des idées de personnes comme nous qui commentons ici ou ailleurs mais je suis persuadé que c'est faisable. J'irais même encore plus loin qu'en fait, il faudrait que Maxi SimCity, Paradox Interactive cities skyline, Monte-Cristo / Focus citie life alias Focus pour cities xxl devraient travailler ensemble pour un super concept. Mon rêve est un sim pays ou même un sim world avec le système de maps de SimCity 2013 mais avec des maps beaucoup plus grandes et avec du terraforming avec les différentes resources. Pas besoin non plus de créer du graphisme qui se rapprocherait trop du réel car risquerait d'être tellement gourmand. Pourquoi pas un graphisme comme créé pour le dernier SIMS 4 qui fait un peu plus dessin animé?

Thank you.

Kayo

[LivingInThePast 364]

On 11/7/2016 at 3:18 AM, Tarkus said:

The original Cities XL is in even worse shape because of this.  It's a full-3D city simulator, but is a 32-bit application that only runs on a single core.  The specs required to run it were insane (higher than those of SimCity 2013, IIRC, despite coming out in 2009), and the ceiling of how much one can open up that game are quite low, especially since it also has a memory leak.

We all know CXL was a total disaster, and in many ways foreshadowed the SC13 disaster a few years prior. It was a bit worse in some ways because EA/Maxis is/was in their own little world, whereas Monte Cristo put on an act with the fans (they had people on Simtrop), changed it to an MMO, and when their forums rebelled, they simply deleted it.

 

On 11/11/2016 at 1:05 PM, Cyclone Boom said:

While nice and shiny in concept, GlassBox was far too complex for its own good. Whether this was by design or not, ironically it did confine the game to strict 'boxlike' limitations. Using an agent-based simulation restricted the city size, which immediately took a step back from SC4. The online presence dominated and ran the whole show. Then by the time a single player mode was added, following the server issues, amongst others, the damage had already been done.

Glassbox was rather simple, if I recall. The idea of using "agents" to find their way from houses to work and back again but it was either dumbed down to just pick random houses or never was "all that" to begin with. (etc. etc.) Over-ambitious engine reigned in by the hard truth of reality, or complete horse manure fed to potential customers to sell a product? You decide!