Pepper

Ahhh, so it's going to be DLC City. Well, I can't say I'm surprised; I was pretty much expecting it. This definitely gave me a huge bumptowards the "will not buy" side of the spectrum, though. Forced online gameplay/forced socialization features and DLC are the two things I absolutely hate about games right now, and SC is going to have both. What a sad day. I think they're going to aim for something like how Sims 3 is working, only probably not as extreme. For those who don't know, I'll explain it briefly. Sims 3 came out in 2009, and it has had about two expansions a year since then (this year, there's 3). Each one costs $40 and has a lot of new gameplay and new items and clothes. There are also "stuff packs" that come out 2-3 times a year. These cost $20 (except for the Katy Perry one, which was $30) and don't usually add any new gameplay, they just add different clothes or objects or buildings your Sims can visit. On top of those, and what I suspect is the real moneymaker, is the Sims 3 Store. This is completely online, and it offers stuff you can buy individually or in sets - clothes, furniture, cars, building items, worlds/neighborhoods, etc. Some of the things in the store have minor new gameplay. However, in my opinion it is all horrendously overpriced. They tend to release sets about twice a month, and they're almost always $20 and up for a small amount of stuff. They try to force the store on you by featuring it on the launcher and even in the game itself - there's a big sparkly button (I kid you not, it sparkles) that encourages you to buy things from their cash shop, though you can shut it off. I don't really think that this idea is going to go over as well with the SimCity community. Lots of people are disappointed with the changes they're making and being forced to be online, and when you add in tons of DLC, I think people are going to become even more disappointed and angry.

The graphics look pretty good to me. Since it's all 3D and I'm used to SC4, it looks very different, but the gameplay is what I'm more concerned about.

I agree with this 100%. I don't think there will be any sort of subscription fee, but if there is, I definitely won't be buying. For a game like SimCity, I like to pay one flat amount to buy it, then pay another amount for a full expansion pack later on. I don't care for microtransactions and won't pay for them, and if they offer new features that you can only get with DLC, I get annoyed (eg, Sims 3 has unique objects that you can only get in the Sims 3 Store for $10+).

I'm very disappointed to hear this; I was so excited to find out about a new SimCity but now... I still play games from the 90s sometimes; if I buy this new SimCity, will I still be able to connect and play in a decade? I doubt it. That's my biggest issue - if I feel like playing an old game 20 years down the line, I want to be able to play it, particularly if it's one I've spent $60 on. If it doesn't do well, will they drop support in just a few years? I'm tired of these single player games requiring an internet connection. I'm guessing the next version of The Sims will require one too. I don't want to play SimCity, The Sims, or Diablo with other people. The whole trend of social games and social networking in everything is extremely irritating to me because I like to have games I can play and get away from other people. Don't get me wrong, MMOs can be a lot of fun and even in SC multiplayer could be good, but sometimes I just want some peace and quiet. I definitely won't be preordering this game or running out and buying it at release. I might buy it later on, when it's on sale, but they have killed my idea of getting it at launch. Jason Haber: "In this day and age everyone’s connected all the time, so we felt like it was the perfect time and it would be fine to do that." This seriously made me grind my teeth, but I won't get into a rant (nor a rant about "microtransactions" either - don't get me started) except to say that no, NOT everyone is "always connected" and especially games like SimCity might attract some people who don't *want* to be always connected.

Well, first of all I wouldn't buy it at all now because my computer won't run it; my video card isn't good enough. So first I'd have to buy myself a better video card. If the current game, as it is right now, were about $10 or $15 US, I might go ahead and buy it. It doesn't look like a horrible game, but it doesn't seem to have any depth. I can imagine myself playing it for a few days, but after awhile I would get tired of it and then it would sit on my shelf and never be played again. It looks like an entertaining game, but not one with enough depth and replayability to spend $50 (plus tax/shipping) on. To pay $50, so many things about the game would have to be changed that it would hardly be the same game any more. One of the worst things has to be the lack of transit options. I know that a lot of people have complained about this, but I feel that they have a point. Adding more transit adds a lot of variety to a city, and it just really needs more. The social energies are an interesting concept, but in order to add the social energies, so many other things have been sacrificed that I don't feel the game is worth it. I've read that the game is "too easy" many times, which means I probably wouldn't like it. Zoning was one of the great things about the previous games. They developed depending on how you played the game, and since in this game you just plop down everything where you want it? Sure, you can get cities that look great, but I don't have the patience for that. SCS, as it is right now, just doesn't seem like my type of game, and it would need a lot of changes before I'd be willing to pay $50+ for it. Oh, and I forgot terraforming. That was one of the things I really loved about SC4. And the disasters are limited, which is also disappointing.

I agree with those saying that not buying it will be the most effective thing. Money talks... Letter writing might help, but the only way to really get across our discontent is to not buy the game. I'm not going to buy it, because the more money they make from it, the more they will be encouraged to make sequels, and expansion packs and "stuff packs" and whatever else.

There are two main reasons why I am wary of full 3D. The first is of course the lag; no matter how awesome the screenshots look, if it's going to run very poorly on my computer, I'm not going to buy it. The second reason... well, I've noticed that some game designers tend to spend lots of time working on the graphics, and then the gameplay is neglected. I don't care how nice the game looks, even if it runs on my computer flawlessly, if it's not any fun I'm not going to want to play it.

I like the music. I also like the music in SC4, but some of the old tunes in SC3KU are really great (at least in my opinion). I also like the charm in the game; there is something about it that seems more "Maxis" like... The graphics might be cartoony but I think they actually are better than those in SCS appear to be. SC3K was the first I really played obsessively... it will always have a special meaning to me because of that.

Yep, we're going to get a watered-down game aimed at the lowest common denominator.

I don't believe in them. That will change if I ever see one (which I doubt will happen). I'm really a skeptic when it comes to these kinds of things.

My first reaction: Wow, that looks like it won't run on my computer! It looks great, a lot better than the SCS screenshots, but I still want to know more about both games before I decide whether or not I'll buy either one of them. Gameplay >>>> graphics, though of course graphics are important too. This one seems more promising than SCS but we don't have enough info to say that for sure... But CL2 is seeming as though it just might be worth a try.

I... wow. This sounds really, really bad. Reading more information about this game is making me feel worse. I generally try to keep an open mind about changes like these, but this just isn't looking good. I am feeling less inclined than ever to buy it. I'm afraid it's going to become some crappy, lowest-common-denominator game designed to appeal to Sims fans, where they can put their Sims in SCS, and for the rest of us it just won't be anything we'd want to play. I'm not swearing it off yet, but I definitely won't be running out to buy this game immediately after it's released. Sad it's come to this... "If it's broken, just let it sit there, and if it's not broken, let's find some way to mess it up"

I doubt it will be, but if it is there's no way I'm going to buy it. I see no need to "update" to Vista, and I won't be buying another computer for another few years.

I agree. I played RCT for years and years; I never bought the second one because it looked so similar to the first. I got lots of entertainment out of that game. Then RCT3 comes along, and I bought it, but it just wasn't the same as the first one. It's sitting in my computer games cabinet right now. I reformatted my computer awhile back and didn't bother installing it; I hadn't played it in months. I don't really like the looks of SCS, and I am definitely not going to run out and buy it as soon as it's released. I didn't really like Caesar IV (especially since it ran VERY POORLY on my computer which well exceeded the minimum requirements, even when I turned the settings down) and I don't know how SCS is going to be either.