Gamma Stardust

From the gameplay pov it does look improved, and aside of the visual discontinuity, as i see it, the thing that bothers most is the missed oportunity: Regions in SC4 represented the possibility to build "wider" and "integrated" cities, region play in SC2013 does integration better but only precariously addresses the "wider" part, sorely missed since the city tiles are smaller against SC4. All other things aside i do appreciate the apparent gameplay improvements to the region play.

"Vaporware is a term in the computer industry that describes a product, typically computer hardware or software, that is announced to the general public but is never actually released nor officially cancelled." or "An advertised product, often computer software, whose launch has not happened yet and might or might not ever happen." This was the meaning which i was refering to. Disclaimer: not that we've heard any of this from Maxis official loudspeakers. But the buzz is indeed out there.

It is not the speculation per se... it is using it as a selling point. I would say nothing wrong for you as a consumer to speculate how you may extend a product's life cycle, yet a company cannot sell vapourware.

One thing is to unreasonably expect any developer/publisher to make its product usable "forever" in this ever changing hardware/software industry. Another thing altogether is to expect said developer/publisher NOT making attempts at blocking its future usage or to artificially hinder its life expectancy. (even if as a collateral effect) I can certainly see why one could put these disparate circumstances on the same level. It makes fair expectations look unreasonable. Workarounds to extend a products use are consumers' prerrogative not the other way around. Speculation at its finest, to sell a mere future possibility, gullibility to pay and fall for that.

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.

(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.

"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.

Disclaimer: I fall into the camp of players which for this reason or another have already quit trying to expect anything from SC2013. Keep this in mind, iyp. Simply put this game here has been wrongly marketed, willingly or unwillingly is irrelevant about now. As a departure from original SC series this 2013 iteration divides the potential costumers in fuzzy camps, some of them mutually exclusive in as far as there is willingness (resources/time/technical constraints/whatever) to provide certain claimed features. The problem is that SC2013 is being marketed towards these disparate groups indescriminately. The group which is not having their expectations realized is being targeted as much as the others. In their turn, not having much reason to think othewise they keep voicing their concerns. I used to fall on this camp, until a finaly realized there was not much of a point, yes, indeed it was kind of hard to put my mind in wait mode until a true sequel follows along. I find it pointless, these "competing" groups eating each other on the forum, I mostly blame the marketing in making us think we are all on the same boat, when in fact we aren't ALL on the same boat. The best any of us can do individually is actually understand if EA/Maxis is inviting us aboard or not in effect, ignoring all the marketing crap, the bells and whisles and all the shiny. The hard part is to abandon what looked like "the wait is over" mood. Despite all this, not wanting to move anyone from keeping their expectations up, which is a totaly valid stance, make at least sure what is one gambling, and if it is realistic to expect this or that feature to finaly be implemented in the game or a future DLC. Keywords: gamble / realistic. I think there is still room to voice criticism and reclaim unmet features, but in the process one could well stop trying to manage each other's expectations, we have EA/Maxis markting dep. failing at it already.

@connect2ashes nice write up there, you should consider a carreer I stand pretty much on the same spot. I don't even care what EA/Maxis brings up to the table anymore, it could even be my own dreamt Simcity, as long as i am forced online + Origin it is a definite no buy. Your boycott is not a lonely boycott, be sure.

"average computer's processing power and memory" (assesment) predates Glassbox development. You're spinning the issue on its head. Yet, i am told time and time again: (0:55) "GlassBox is a, eha, the new simulation engine that's been developed in house, ahmm, they've been wanting to build this for years, ahmm, but now it's just at the point where the technology can support this level of detail in the simulation..." I'll say it again. This technology issue is a non-issue. The issue is the obscured disconnect between the Simcity vision EA/Maxis is putting forward and the vision original Simcity series' players hoped for. Maxis says it "shares" the vision with those players when it is blatantly obvious that it does not. Eventually technology would be up to the task to materialize player's vision of the series, but we'll never know since it is not an attempt to achieve that that lies in front of us. So goes the reason for which i'll abstain in this poll.

This pretty much! What about that debut soundbites about "how technology had finaly reached a level to fully realize the Simcity vision"? Actually nothing wrong with that, the problem is what exacly we make out of such "simcity vision", and if you have PR agencies constantly obscuring that so called "view" is effectively unrelated with the gameplay "we" grew to enjoy with up to and including SC4, then that argument is besides the issue. If technology is not, afterall up to the required standard, do not trick players into thinking it actually is.

If I had to guess, i'd consider it this way: 1. Simcity (2013) is generally catering for a different demographic than SC4, more casual, more impulsive, more social, younger gamers. 2. Simcity (2013) life span will be tied to the sustainability of an online service, which is mostly dependent on returning online population. By the reason in 1. there is no question if the previous SC4 game population will let SC2013 "dethrone" it or not, as soon as the reboot proves to be a different thing and not fulfilling those gamers whishes, the longer standing community will fallback to it's king. By the reason in 2. the game will live off mostly dependent on sustained marketing and newcomers, as soon as the playing population level does not fit the minimum threshold or a new sequel is announced and released, online service will be shutdown, and the game will see it's end (all the while SC4 keeps serving its customers) For this and that, I voted "No". But hey... i am just guessing, and i don't have access to priviledged information. PS: I agree there should a more moderate option in the poll to help evacuate the pressure, but i am convinced we can all respond without flaming ourselves. Also i like polarization, it helps in delimiting the debate to usefull conclusions.

Care with words is always welcome since "online only game" is at odds with "mainly multiplayer". But i still remember the surprise when the planet offer was unvealed, and that was after the game was originally announced. There was a a considerable amount of cepticism then too. It is irrelevant if the game is entirely multiplayer or not, what does matter is the features one becomes deprived from because of the arbitrary "service shutdown". The more features are developed with the multiplayer in mind the higher risk the game becomes useless after the event. Take note I am not simply dismissing the multiplayer game mode, what i expect is the single player not to suffer in its features because of it.

Keep wishing... name one of this list that got called for update released. Untrue! I was pretty involved in Cities XL and its beta, so called "Planet Offer" was introduced to a surprised community as an option and at a late stage of development.

Path choosen by EA: December 2011, EA (blue) shares decouple from Nasdaq (yellow), begining of redline coincides with BattleField 3 launch (late october '11). Activision shares in red for reference.

We all know previous Sim City titles had a focus on single player. We all know what first iteration of Cities XL came to with the "Planet Offer". We all know what "multiplayer only" means, even if it allows to play alone - game is forcefuly made obsolete after (EA/Maxis) home servers are shut off. So, would you still be interested in SimCity if it happens to require online connection to play? Or you are able to compromise and depending on shipped multiplayer features you may still consider it? (while reserving judgement for a later date when more info is released) To be clear, this poll tries to address primarily the Offline/Online conditioning, disregarding for now final word from EA/Maxis on the issue. Published information so far tends to focus on multiplayer, but it is inconclusive regarding the possibility/whish to play solo offline. Making sure we are on the same page on definitions of the terms: Offline - Ability to play without an internet connection (even if an online activation is required) Online - Requirement to play with friends. Solo Mode - Ability to play single player Multiplayer - Ability to cooperate/compete along/against other players What's your take? Updated Information: Multiplayer will be separate from single player, and single player will still be the focus of the game. EDIT: The above "Updated Information: (...)" has been edited in by a moderator of this forum on 23/03 and does not represent my opinion. And as much I would like to follow this interpretation after having asked for the source of this information and being pointed to the following twitter and here... I can't see how this officially addresses the underlying issue in this poll. Will a solo player be allowed to play offline or not? (Current best interpretation points to a negative) Also, the poll tries to understand the feeling of the community as stated explicitely, independently of Maxis/EA final word on letting or not one play offline. The poll results history: 24/03/2012 - Yes - 3 (3.23%) | No - 42 (45.16%) | Maybe - 48 (51.61%) 08/04/2012 - Yes - 3 (2.08%) | No - 74 (51.39%) | Maybe - 67 (46.53%) (post online required confirmation) 22/04/2012 - Yes - 4 (2.60%) | No - 80 (51.95%) | Maybe - 70 (45.45%)

Sorry for that... the point was to establish sufficient polarization between those "Yes..."/"No..." answers and providing the "Maybe..." as an escape valve for those not yet decided, neutral or pondering the perceived counter-advantages. At the the time only broad lines of what would be expecting us was public, not very fit for cathegorical answers indeed, but take it as a search on my part in figuring the limits/framing of the whole issue, and the community standing on it. Undoubtedly at the poll creation my view was already quite "defensive" in regards to removing offline ability to play, it was a sort of an early heads-up on a general trend in the industry, which happened to prove itself real. Maybe this poll has lost most of its purpose by now... i'll keep lurking around to chime in on the next (more up-to-date) one.

Given latest clarifications by MAXIS/EA on the issues risen in the OP, I would call voters to update/review their vote (if it has changed), but also for newcomers to chime in with their opinion.

Well said!

Agree! But I would add the only responsible use of Facebook is active disabling of all its manifestations (those include "settings lock down" since even with your account idle many data still flows through your friends and "friends"). Both under its public domain "www.facebook.com" but also all over the web were irresponsible webmasters force it on your system relying on IP<->Facebook ID correlation. If anyone is curious what I am on about (and use firefox) just try out RequestPolicy addon ("Secure yourself from Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) and other attacks.") and check the amount of websites that let facebook/google/+affiliates crawl into your system without letting you know about it (~8 out of 10 depending on general web usage). Anyway, it has been mentioned, the main issues are: - pratical (be able to play offline) - gameplay (how will the core city building game will change by its "multiplayer only" focus) - privacy (how one is willing to surrender its own personal data to a software such as Origin to whatever EA's intents) Personaly, these are not mere issues, they're of the kind where insult is being added over injury while paying for it! It is simply absurd and my mind refuses to wrap around this obscenity. SimCity 2013 is dead, as far as i am concerned. Imo it is completely hopeless for these issues ever be addressed and take an acceptable direction, not because its late in the project's phase of development, but simply because these have been set in stone from the begining by EA/Maxis.

That would have been a reasonable brake down of possibilities, though I would doubt a LAN option would even be considered under #II.A. I guess now (latest news) whoever still goes with the compromise will have to make do with #I alone, and we'll see how those options will be delivered.

3 more in 3 days: Longevity... longevity... Battlefield 3 Aftershock Details And Screenshots Released Born December 2011 EA bins Battlefield 3: Aftershock iOS game RIP March 2012 = 3 months, I wonder how many were sold... "We shall make the product you payed for obsolete before you notice it!" At the very least, apparently, EA/Maxis have come upfront regarding the offline issue in Simcity.

Glassbox engine and the theory behind it... I would guess the following is everyday read of Maxis devs: here or more in-depth here.

You might be right, and in my perspective unfortunately right. It is exacly because of some of those hints, but other ones too, that I fear we won't be given an option to play Simcity offline, and the very reason of the poll i have put up. The change, trend is definitely in that direction: online, online, online, online... you just gave 7 examples of online upon online; one reads the previews and interviews... more online and online; social this and social that. Simply put, we are NOT talking about the same genre of gameplay Simcity originaly brought us. There is of course leaway for change, but specially improvement when one thinks of a sequel to whatever the game. Now we're being hinted at something that diverges more and more from what a traditional Simcity player came to love (building cities and manage them - despite as a lone process). But this is not the apologia of "tradition" per se, this is in defense of what the game genre actualy is (was) essentialy, despite of natural network limitations at the time of the originals (not because of), which shaped them that way. If you mean "parochialism" in the sense of backwardness against change, i doubt anyone here would worry about having all those additions as true additions but not as a replacement, even if imposed by technicalities, which many, as players (not developers), one couldn't give a dime. If you mean "parochialism" in sense of "evangelization" by raising awareness and "persuading" potential players that the game might not fulfill certain basic expectations, so be it, specially since i am one of those potential players and hope not to be hyped into an unfortunate but increasingly probable final frustration. If you mean "parochialism" as opposed to "universalism" by one whishing to play alone whithout the need to worry about multiple cities interdependence at the hands of a third party raising the issues of healthy (or not) cooperation, competitiveness and/or more generaly what comes about as griefers, that detract from enjoyment, in many multiplayer games today. On the spot! But i also have to wonder who exacly is in the position of "having their cake and eating it too" in this regard because whishing both to play offline and online depending on one's mood does not have to be mutually exclusive options, many games have dealt with this, what you present are indeed technicalities imposed by an online model of gameplay which make it difficult to allow for simultaneous offline possibility to play the original genre. But these are not in the base expectations of city building players' community (as i see it of course). So if anyone here wants to "have their cake" (have an online mode and what it implies) and "eat it too" by still allowing one to play offline, i don't plainly see it. On one side i am not sure Maxis is actually interested in providing an offline mode anymore (no doubts about online), on another side a good portion cares sufficiently to be skeptic about mantaining interest in the game, on yet another side we have many which would probably like the best of both worlds but are still doubtfull about commiting and apparently show themselves able to compromise in favour of multiplayer features in detriment to an offline option. All in all, only if a player was aware of the technical limitations imposed by the apparent online model choosen (as if it had to as a player) would he be in that position of "wanting the best of both worlds". Only if Maxis had come forward and plainly stated that it was in their intentions to provide offline mode would also the same thing apply. So... we'll have to wait, of course the more we do and Maxis keeps the secret behind doors, I am inclined to take it that we are just being concealed of the truth which would certainly hammer down whatever hyped marketing campaign may be produced. And that would ultimately affect a certain bottom line, can i censor them? no, of course not, it's their game afterall. What I can assure anyone here is that i won't part my "hard earned" because of some "clever", "bate and switch" marketing hype deception, if any. ("Bate" being the original series one came to love and "Switch" being the final shiped product which might come at odds with the original). Specially since lately this is becoming a very common and fraudulent business practice in this industry. And believe me I definitely whish I am finally proven wrong, because i love this game so much and kept my self waiting for so long. sorry for no TL;DR

Classic "mind your own business" would be fit i think, but trying not to antagonise, skipping the "I have to travel quite a bit, often having to kill time on airports" to make your point hit home is not very suiting is it? Hopefully you will be wrong and this concern is simply uncalled for (not that the possibility of one playing offline would interfere with your own way of enjoying the game online of course). Unrelated_ i have updated the OP regarding the "Updated information:..." which do not represent my interpretation of facts.