Spinmaster

To be honest, I'm not sure I care about the offline mode now. Too little, too late I think. Maybe the modders can make something spectacular out of it, but I'm not sure it has enough of a foundation to really build anything special on. Of course, they worked miracles with SC4, so... I'll keep an eye on it. But the general gameplay just doesn't interest me. I avoided buying it initially because of the online requirement, took the "wait and see" approach - maybe, just maybe, it would be worth the hassle. Had it been offline from the start I would've dumped $$$ on the "special edition" version of it day-one - and regretted it. So in a way I guess I should be thankful for the online bit. But it seems since it was released it's too clean, too simple, too "casual." I've looked at a few CJ's and YouTube videos, some from long-time veterans who've built cities I swear I could actually live in for real, they were so well done - in SC4. Sometimes even without a lot of "mods" involved. Those same "gods of SimCity" ... all their cities in this one seem to look about the same to me. Small, cartoonish, barely interesting, and not the least bit realistic at all. And I know it's not their fault - it's what they have to work with. It's like someone took away their canvas, all their paints and brushes, and gave them an 8-color box of crayons and a pad of Post-It notes. Now, I'm even skeptical the modders can really make something of it. Add a few more crayons to the box? But they're still crayons. I'll be very glad to be proven wrong, if they can somehow turn this pumpkin around. But I ain't holding my breath.

It's probably just Booby Dooby Da-Da Ding-Ding seeing what happens when you put a Hot Pocket in the particle accelerator. Ain't for nothin' it's called the Advanced Research Center, after all.

I agree with the title of this thread but not for the reasons stated. Simply put, my reason for believing an offline mode wouldn't work: it's just too late. I probably would've been foolish enough to buy this game when it was initially released, even the "super primo" edition (don't remember what it was actually called), even as I was skeptical of the gameplay, the city sizes, etc.... I didn't think I'd play it "online" much but was curious to try it. Until I accepted the painful reality that it was going to be ONLY online. I still hadn't written it off completely for that, but yeah - for that reason, I needed to wait and see. Maybe everyone would absolutely love it enough to "put up" with the online-only aspect. I know, some of you specifically like it that way, but most from what I've seen at best simply accept it. So I waited to see if maybe it was just such an amazing experience that I'd just HAVE to accept it, too, and try it. Sadly, no. I don't like the sizes, I don't like the lack of interconnectivity between cities, terraforming, and countless other gripes. I've seen countless videos of it now, and frankly they all look the same to me. Not to denigrate anyone's efforts, but even cities from a few "SimCity masters" just look too much like a formulaic, cartoonish game, than a semi-realistic simulation. I know, it's supposed to be a "game first" but it just seems to me to be too much "game only" and very weak on the simulation aspects (I don't know many people that quit their job every day and find a new one the next morning). I know, some of these things might be improved upon someday, but... "might" ain't worth full price in my book. Now, I really don't care if it suddenly gets an offline mode. One of two things has to happen to even spark my interest now: 1) either it gets some serious improvement - i.e. a "SimCity 2" that really is a robust city simulation game (offline or not, but I'm not holding my breath for it in any case), or b) I find it in a bargain bin. Personally from what I've seen, even with an offline mode, I wouldn't bother with a pirated copy of it.

When I get bored enough, I like to be the disaster - plop an army base if I don't already have one, and tool around in a tank in free-drive just blowing you-know-what up. Using the free-drive with the road-snap on is a quick and easy way to test highway ramps I'm not sure are going the right way, without using that DrawPaths cheat (and then having to restart the game to get rid of it). Most of the "missions" are either pointless or blindingly aggravating - or both. Most of the UDI vehicles can't take much abuse, and as someone pointed out already, the game wasn't designed for UDI. The random automata popping up in front of me every other block... even the fire trucks often blow up before I can finish a mission. I will say though, blasting cats out of trees with a fire hose for $20,000 ... I only wish I could have a job like that for real!

If not for the online-only requirement, 100% yes. Because of the online-only requirement, 100% no.

I suspect a bug. I say this because I experienced it once... thought it was just me until I saw another member post the same experience. And now... you! New city in an empty region, no established demand from neighbors or anything. I tried something I would normally never do. I drew my city; all the roads, rails, highways, zones, civics, utilities ... everything, all while paused right from the start. Didn't touch taxes, left everything at their defaults of 9%. I was curious what would happen. Well, I got my answer - that smattering of "get started" demand you normally see for a new city in an empty region, all dropped below zero, nothing positive at all. Oh, a few houses were built, and I think one factory... 60 residents... and then nothing at all. Did you do something similar perhaps? I know it's a tad different since you do have neighbors, but I'm thinkin' the game has a bug with too much undeveloped zones or something. Never really tried to figure it out, just obliterated it and started over, still some large zones but not "the whole city-to-be" as before. And I made a mental note not to ever do that again.

Thank you for asking this. I don't appreciate the answer, or rather, the lack of one... but I do greatly appreciate you trying. Unfortunately I'm left but one conclusion: there is no assurance. Speculation? Yes. But with such pressure on this question, I can't imagine if the answer would be in any way "assuring" they would withhold it for any reason. It's the single biggest deal-breaker, in my opinion. Simply the "online only" requirement is bad enough. But the thought that I might not be able to play this game even two years later, without shelling out money for a sequel I may not have any need for, is sickening. I've said it before and I'll say it again; call me an old fart if you want, but if "buying" a game - and thus being able to play it many years after official support is gone - has become a thing of the past, then I guess I won't be buying any new games. I'll be as optimistic as I can that maybe I'm wrong about all this, and there will be a way to keep playing it for years without effectively renting it. But that optimism will be ranked somewhere between winning the lottery, twice, and world peace, I'm afraid. In any case though... thank you Dirk, for asking!!!

I'd like to ask the "online only" question, but in fairness - with some benefit of doubt. What is their long term plan to protect our investment in this game when the cities are being saved on their servers and not under our direct control? What assurance can they give us that we'll be able to continue playing our cloud-saved cities a year, three years, ten years from now, if we wish? There is no logic that I can see in an "online only" requirement for a single-player game. Any game. There are plenty of reasons behind that, but I don't wish to debate the topic here, we have a forum for that. What I want is for them to explain their logic to us. It's clear I'm not alone with this concern, and I'm with the hoardes that refuse to buy it simply because of this design decision. I don't care about the radical shift in gameplay - I expect that, and I know that means some features I love in SC4 will go bye-bye - this is a new game, not a sequel. I get it, and I even applaud it. But control of my own cities well into the future, without worrying about accountants deciding it's time to stop supporting the game, is the one thing I refuse to let go of. I would regard this as their last opportunity to make sense of it and maybe, just maybe, make me reconsider.

Two possibilities come to mind. Perhaps you installed the left-hand-drive option and shouldn't.... or vice-versa. Other possibility I can see is a one-way piece or tile going the wrong way. The DrawPaths cheat Magneto points to should help detect either.

I can't find it on the STEX but there's a small ploppable lot that chews up a massive amount of power. The same effect could be done with anything really, so e.g. you can download some random bus stop or park you don't like and tweak it with iLive's Reader or another tool. The one I have eats 5000 MWh of power. How the heck does that help, you ask? Selling power across cities is very challenging. Unlike water and garbage disposal, you can't buy more power than the city needs, so it's very difficult to have excess in a city that doesn't itself produce power. You have to suddenly lose a whole lot of consumers for that to happen, which means massive bulldozing and/or dezoning... or build a big power plant and destroy that after you sell away some power; all expensive and undesirable options. But if you temporarily plop a little park or other lot that eats a lot of power, guess what happens. Right, now your city needs an extra 5000 MWh of power. Which means you can buy it, and then destroy the lot that's eating it all (or several, if e.g. you're trying to transfer 30,000 MWh and plopped 6 power-eating lots). Now you have excess - which you can easily sell to the next city, all without destroying anything you wanted to keep. Just make sure your city is paused when you do this, unless you really are the prince of darkness. The lot I was referring to was Heblem's, "ConsumerTemporalLot" or something like that. Maybe I didn't get it off the STEX. Doesn't matter, the concept was duh-simple anyway; as I said, you can easily replicate its function with any small lot that you otherwise don't normally want to use, like an ugly park you'd never want to see in your city. Tweak it and use it in the same fashion. Actually I think I did tweak Heblem's, I don't remember how much it did chew but I set it to 5000 myself. And $0 cost of course, since I'm using it as a workaround to a program limitation, one I doubt was intentional (since that same limitation doesn't exist for water or garbage deals).

That bridge height mod is the key - it's an essential, to me. Slope mods don't override or include it, at least none that I've tried (I use Ennedi's now, too). Build a road bridge first. The road bridge is much more forgiving when you raise or lower it. You don't want a road bridge? Build one anyway - the bridge isn't the point of this. Keep reading. Now plop a road tile next to either end of the bridge. The two road tiles you just plopped will be at the exact same height. There might be a foundation under the real ends of the bridge, meaning the land under them is sloped, not flat. You'll deal with that next. Demolish the bridge - don't demolish those two extra road tiles you just plopped. Now plop road tiles where the bridge ends were. Yes - next to the other two tiles you just plopped and were extra-careful to not demolish. Now you have a two-tile-wide embankment on either end of your waterway, and they're both at the exact same height, and both perfectly flat. You can build any bridge you want across it. But don't build the bridge yet - there's still some tidying to do. Plop (do not drag) road tiles towards the water. I find the best result is to stop when you have one land tile completely out of the water - but still sloped - and the next partially in it - don't plop a tile on that last dry square. That is where you want the bridge "foundations" to go, and most of them blend into the slope nicely there.* No! Don't build the bridge yet!! One more thing - drag (yes, this time you do drag) some rails or an avenue away from the waterway - to smooth the slopes UP the embankments. I always use rails, myself. Just make sure they're the same length - as if it's an "avenue of rails". Take care to not include the ends of the embankments in this - you want that last tile or two before the actual bridge to stay perfectly flat. Now you can demolish those road tiles where the bridge ends will go. Yes, now you can build that bridge. Any bridge - road, rail, highway... any. It'll be the right height (the road bridge did this), the same height at both ends (plopping tiles next to the ends - and then next to those after demolishing the road bridge did this), have nice smooth slopes (dragging rails away from the waterway did this), and the bridge foundations will look right (plopping road tiles towards the waterway did this). * On some occasions I do get extremely steep - as in nearly vertical - drops where the bridge foundations would go. Sometimes it happens even before then, enough that even road tiles won't plop. No matter - use the mayor-mode "raise/lower terrain" tools. Why that one? Because it doesn't have a radius - it's a point, and you can raise/lower corners of squares with it. With a little practice even the sharpest edge can be made to look like a nice, natural slope. Just use quick clicks of that tool, if you hold it down it'll make a mess.

I have no intention of replying to this topic.

Well that's all I needed to know. As an option, it's awesome. And I might even dabble with it. But as a requirement, when the other 99.9% of the time I wouldn't play with or against others, it's a deal-breaker. A periodic anti-piracy check is fine, I'll even commend it as a fine idea. Telling me I have to forever and always be online while playing it, even by myself, is not acceptable to me. Call me an old fart... but if this is how games are going to be in the future, even for single-player games, then I'm done with games, period. Hmm... I wonder if anyone made a shuffleboard court for SC4. I'm pretty much going to stay away from any news about the new Sim City now. There's not one thing that could interest me in it, given the above statement. I have no expectation it will change, but if by some miracle it does, could someone kindly PM me? I'm pretty much going to steer clear of this topic otherwise, it's a waste of time for me to read any other posts about it. I do commend Mr. Barry for finally answering the question "straight up" though. I have other thoughts I'd love to share with him about that decision, however I'm pretty sure I'd break civilized forum rules if I state them here. But thanks, Mr. Barry, for finally answering the question at least.

The game, I'll pay for. $80 is high, but personally... not a big hit, and worth every penny if I like the game. I won't like the game if what I do in it is in any way influenced by factors outside the "bubble" I prefer to play games in, far far away from anything to do with reality. This is my biggest fear now. I suppose a "global economy" might not matter much from one day to the next, but I don't play games daily. I won't like the game if I'm not 100% certain that 12 years from now I'll still be able to play it (never mind the technical challenges involved... I can handle those). Doesn't matter that it's now old and obsolete, and that there's probably a much, much better version available. Every once in a while, I still enjoy firing up Myst, Wolfenstein 3D, Civilization - the original one, and even SimCity. Not 2000, not 3000... not 5 or 2013... the original SimCity. Yes, I quickly appreciate how far the game has come, but ... I guess I'm gettin' old - nostalgia is sometimes more fun than state-of-the-art, to me. I would pay a reasonable price for official expansion packs. Honestly, if the NAM team could have charged for NAM, I would've paid up and been happy to do so. Almost wish they could have - I feel like I've somehow "pirated" software by using it, even though it's necessarily free anyway. I would not pay for user-generated content i.e. individual lots, buildings, and small mods. If that user-generated content could be submitted for consideration in expansion packs and add-ons, I think that would give some serious inspiration for large projects - like NAM, or a large collection of rail lots that only rail enthusiasts would appreciate (i.e. optional). And those, I would buy for a reasonable price - the packs that I like, anyway (I probably would buy that rail one, even though I'm not really an "enthusiast"). Provided I know the creators get at least a piece of the profits from it, much like a smart phone app (though I rarely pay for one of those). Maybe I pay $2.99 for a pack of properly tested (by Maxis/EA) rural schoolhouses, EA hogs most of it of course, but to know the creator gets at least 50 cents of it... ok. I will never, ever, under any circumstances, pay a subscription fee. I don't care if it's $1 per year, I'm not paying it.

You are focused on a solid single-player experience. Thank you for emphasizing that. But how does the "online only" system requirement affect the single player experience? It doesn't say "online for multiplayer." The implication I get from this is that even single players must be online somehow. Is it just an anti-piracy measure, or is there more to it?