macvirt

My apologies, but I just can't accept the small city sizes. Not on the basis of what Maxis stated to have been their arguments. What they made clear is that because you can actually see neighbouring cities there are limits they had to apply in order to keep cpu utilisation under control. The presented conclusion was that the downside of that is the visualisation of neighbouring cities as lifeless. Which makes sense, after all the visualisation of multiple simulations is ofcourse taxing as consequence of the cpu and gpu load for each simulation. The trouble is that a) this is indicative of a reasoning which prioritises the visualisation and appearance rather than the functionality and the content / workings inside the simulation. In simple terms, this is a reasoning which follows from the priority that it first has to look good and whether it works good follows second. It really is the old debate some ancient Greek philosophers started, which is more important than the other: form or function. Increasingly in this industry constraints force or make studio's opt for form and make function secondary. Sometimes understandable, most of the time as a result of commercial (after release) roadmaps. Very often with abyssmal results for those types of users who fall outside of the leisure and casual play categories. Ofcourse, this is a common reasoning in game development. Particularly after the usual impact of commercial or strategic considerations. Unfortunately, it is always visible in the industry which titles actually follow that line of thinking. Because it is always also possible to strike a balance - which is an approach that has to begin in conceptualisation in advance and not just afterwards. Map sizes are not just a consequence of the limitations imposed by cloud considerations and the limitations of the GBE. They are a result of an approach which has made the topic a non topic until the practical consequences came on the table - and could not be offset in marketing by positive impressions or the presentation of a different focus. The irony is that what now, after the fact, comes down to otherwise perfectly normal considerations of cpu and gpu control instead effectively not being reasons, but excuses. A reason is an argument or set of variables entered into an equation before the end result. An excuse is when you end up with a result less than optimal but hey, you have to still sell the package so you wrap it up (nicely). The sad part is that with a different, more practical, approach and reasoning these kind of issues could have been prevented from the start. The situation is understandable, that does not however make it fine. If only because it would have been terribly easy to not end up with the issue as is. All due respect to folks, but neither am I kidding nor are people who work these trenches unaware of these matters. As I said, understandable in terms of process, but let's not confuse the word "reason" with the appropriate word of "excuse".

Don't give them any ideas ... To be honest, I can actually see such an approach be part of strategic focus. I just can't see such an approach as anything other than simple greed, putting shiny short term gain even above things like flagship value, heck even above brand value. I can't see the oldies at Maxis being happy about such a mentality either. I just hope that someone has made a presentation slide at some point on the value of options on the customer side to nurture the product.

Yeah, I will have a look. Bearing in mind, it is possible that I am doing it wrong, so to speak. It's just that (from well before NAM ever came out) I remember a roundabout of 7x7 (I think). Edit, nope. No luck there. Basically, it's just like the NAM roundabout. Just quite a bit bigger radius.

Indeed, we do have interaction. It's just only in those ways that fit with EA's objectives. Which is only natural, they do challenge everything Increasingly in the wrong places, on the wrong fixations though.

Indeed, you can make roundabouts. For street and road, it can be done by using FAR pieces, while for avenues, you can use the avenue roundabout puzzle pieces. Full circles, or like those from the 90 degree pieces from wide networks? Also, not sure what you mean with FAR pieces I'm afraid. Indeed, you can make roundabouts. For street and road, it can be done by using FAR pieces, while for avenues, you can use the avenue roundabout puzzle pieces. Err... To make a street roundabout, draw a 2x2 circle with streets. To make a small road roundabout, draw a 2x2 circle with roads. To make a larger road roundabout, draw a 3x3 circle with one-way roads. Avenue roundabouts have a special menu item with some other interchanges in it. I know, I am however after larger roundabouts. Similar to the pieces available with NAM (90 degrees one), except those don't really make an actually round circle.

Wierd question maybe, I vaguely remember a road/avenue lot (I could be imagining things, jetlag ftl) a long time ago for SC4 which allowed you to place a circle shaped road or avenue on the map, to which you could hook up further roads at NSEW and diagonal positions. I'm aware of the NAM wide network options available, I just never seem to be able to make a round circle with those So, am I confusing things, or does such an element exist and perhaps someone knows where?

I get the idea the topic of map sizes will have to wait for changes in priorities - or adjustments - on the remote side, at minimum after the marketing round (the beta) and perhaps even till after that. There is too much in terms of focus on the multiplayer aspect (and the various dependancies coming forth from attached mechanisms like market, neighbours, connectivity, etc) which reminds me of mechanisms once discussed at a GDC. While there are bottlenecks in terms of hardware / platform capabilities for the client (particularly in terms of data and transactions visualisation and rendering) things like these, when connected through a server side element, tend to have the more structural "bottlenecks" (they tend to be design specifications) on the server side. I don't doubt that there are client side considerations, it's just that just about every game with an online multiplayer element tends to have its imposed limits according to projections on the server side for where it comes to how much a user can do. If I am right, perhaps after the cluster burns down the first time once beta users connect en masse (heh) or after adjustments during release stage perhaps map size can become a topic internally, for real. Then again, it may also be a limitation arising from how the GBE was further developed / adjusted to this product. If that is the case, that's not so good. Either way, I find it very interesting that even with Maxis restricting communications to technical content and feature elements this is something they remain completely silent on.

It does not matter what is norm, it does not even matter whether there is a norm. People are sold a game. A game that is sold to them so they can create, replicate and simulate. That is the fundamental argument for games like SC. Yes, it is clear that Maxis has hit a bit of a marketing glitch with some issues, but that is a different debate. So while they put the "realistic" argument on the table (even if that quite simply results in user expectations on all points of "create, replicate, simulate") let's not go in to that again. I don't know how to make it more clear. To create, to replicate, to simulate. That is the sales pitch that buys the dream, the virtual world. Leaving elements out of that which people know of, elements which they equate to these three points of "create, replicate, simulate" is really not a smart decision in the project planning. I've mentioned arguments from a perspective of urban development, demographics and other variables before as well. But it seems those are not important, perhaps you are only looking for argument that emphasise or provide foundation to your chosen perspective. That is possible. By the way, did you know that the extended subway development plan for Amsterdam actually incorporates 8 lines in a 2x2km area because there is no other viable method left to offset transportation requirement development curves?

Ofcourse it does. Look at the type of game that it is. It engages people to create, to replicate and to simulate. It sells a dream, even more so than that it sells a virtual world. People tend to invest a lot in that, as long as they are flexibly enabled to make it "theirs". Yes, social and sharing is a hot item. Yes, it is financially very valuable to collect, sample and sell accumulated profile data on users and trends. Yes, it is also valuable to be able to reach those with snapshot extra sales. But Maxis should make EA clear that this is not a shooter. This is not even a "god game". To a degree it is, but a god game is a game where people are enabled to apply actions (calculated and arbitrary) but ultimately it is not "theirs" as a dream. Ofcourse it can be a dream to meddle with those puny mortals, but it is one thing to mess with their dreams than messing with your own. And that is the hallmark here (a lesson Firaxis actually also learned from similar challenge points following the Civ V release), SC is bought because you can make it yours to create, yours to replicate, yours to simulate. Many will shout about that, many will play with others with or without shouting about it. Ultimately this is a sales issue. Do you engage in the race to continuously refresh sales points via DLC to users who are the leisure type players? Ofcourse, but we all have the research available that shows that those user types buy less DLC than those who are core users. Ofcourse, we can try to turn leisure type players into casual or core types - it's not like we have not seen three dozen other studio's figuring out that the turnover from that is utterly neglegible for longer than a 1 to 3 DLC pitch. I can go on, but really this is a case of 1) brand value of long term customer loyalty and exposure, 2) franchise customer communications, 3) franchise customer sales cycles and 4) the lolinternets. Sorry, could not resist that last one It's simple, these matters are why it is smarter to guide customer trends to adaptation without forcing adoption. I know, nobody has dared to actually present that sales research slide yet at EA HQ. Someone will have to do so however. For a company that operates as an investment fund it is easier to function the way it does now, but in relation to what goes in and out the effective margin is really getting quite low.

Well, long live MS Paint and a few free hours. I've been trying to see if I could replicate a number or cities and urban regions given the new map and region sizes. I can safely say it is not an issue of just your side of the atlantic Most cities that I have tried over 30k inhabitants here don't fit in the available city size. In terms of urban regions, it varies a bit but for most of the interesting German or Dutch regions there is little to no separation between cities, even towns. So much for the "bubble", it seems. I've been looking at some cases more in depth, cities like Utrecht but also smaller ones like Eindhoven. Other places like Aachen or Hamburg. I don't know, I am getting the impression though that Maxis has not spent a lot of time looking beyond the US urban model. Yes, geographical and map size issues aside there we can see (to a degree) a concept of a "bubble" effect. Notwithstanding the mentioned issues, in many US states cities are bubbles in a larger emptier (or urban sprawl) area. Yes US cities have suburbs and sprawl too, but compare a trip by road from one major city in the midwest to the next. Try that in Europe and in most places you travel wondering when you can see that you have left the city you departed from. By the time you reach for the map you have arrived in the next city and there's been no "wide open" as in many states in the US That's not just Europe though, I've spent a lot of time in China, the contrast in terms of urban development could not be bigger there either. Giant country, enormous undeveloped areas, but those appointed economic growth zones. My goodness, try going from Shanghai to Shenzen. On the bright side, I did find a fair few places in Australia that were not a problem Coff's Harbour for example fit fine, at least the urban core. The harbour, not possible. To even consider that, I'd have to be able to have two parts of the same city connect on the regional level. By the way, Coff's Harbour is a small town. Not a city. Go figure. Anyone familiar with it, don't visit the Hoey Moey's on friday nights if you value your mental health, and liver Back to the point in case, for my own country of current residence the best I can fit in the available map size comes down to towns, villages, a handful of city centers and not a single industrial, agricultural or suburb area. Ofcourse, I realise that it is a game, but it is a simulation and puzzle game - we are engaged to create, replicate, simulate - in that order. How much of a no-brainer is it that people will try to apply these stimuli to their chosen environment. If they then crash in to walls right away, that's just not good for those prospects of DLC sales. The representation, due to both design, feature and function choices, of SC2013's urban and regional development is - I am truly sorry to say - at minimum in sharp contrast to the presentation of the marketing (that is not a concern now, but Maxis will have to be terribly careful with DLC .. picture a Louvre DLC - buy and be lucky to fit a road next to it, so to speak, then be frustrated on social media, you get the drift of the issue). Very easily it is going to take the user to a point where (while the general leisure type of play is not an issue due to how often / how long such users play / work on a single "puzzle") even casual gamers will run into limitations. A game that guides the user to not dwell on limitations (especially when that is reinforced by marketing) because of the type of game it is (in a nutshell Maxis is selling people the means to create their own world, that means being very careful with creating expectation and/or anticipation while risking the impression of arbitrary limits - Kip, you're selling a dream, that is always a no-no for putting up walls). Yes, there will always be limitations, but there is a difference between the concept of it and the experience. Especially when in terms of capabilities related SC4 kills SC2013 in these matters. So do a few other sim/build games too. I really hope there will not be a mainstream gaming review where "that dude whom so many sheep follow" hits it off in the paragraph with a statement along the lines of "well, it's 10 year old predecessor let you build more and better". Honestly, picture that on a Rock, Paper, Scissors .... I understand the limitations imposed by the origins and scope of development for GBE. It is going to take a lot of packaging and wrapping to not force buyers to walk in the walls of the map and regional limitations right off the bat. I have to be honest, even if that means being rather blunt, in most of my tests of trying to fit in selections in to the map size ... the result was about equal to a Zip code. SimCity? SimVillage? SimZip? Kip & Guillaume, honestly folks there's quite a few folks who do get it. But here is one of the biggest priorites prior to release. And if not then, you're going to have to package that challenge to addres in marketing for DLC tracks right off the bat. This is too strong a potential word of mouth item to ignore - or worse: to try and wrap in marketing blurbs (really, just don't do that, not in these days of speed and reach of shallow communications among market volumes). It's something which regardless of it being a complete non-issue to leisure or social types of player archetypes can all too easily become a problem that curbs the curves. You know which ones.

Depends entirely on where you live really. North Western Germany is a blanket of urban centers snuggling up almost as closely as the Netherlands, where in the western parts there is zero boundary or divide between cities

CitiesXL was a classic case where the marketing talk was just that, marketing talk. No vision for depth beyond the idea of rapid revenue generation (for which the game quite simply lacked what was needed to spur deeper immersion than just what the marketing focus delivered). This question of "is the marketing all it is" really is always the big question with most releases these days. Some titles do the marketing but also do the game, and that turns out fine. Sometimes those struggle a bit because prospect customers do not get a whole lot more until release than just the talk (something which impacts things like anticipation and expectation alike). Never buy in to any marketing. Just dive in upon release, accept that it is not a next SC4, and see for yourself with the information available after release whether it ticks for you. If it does, cool. If it doesn't, maybe DLC will make it tick for you in time. Cause DLC these days is really the only mechanism (sometimes) allowed to deepen the product experience over time.

I have no doubts "because you can" was on Maxis's mind during development. If I remember correctly, Maxis has been quoted they're simulating every Sim, Vehicle and Zot "because they can". Whereas 10 yeas ago "they couldn't" because the technology wasn't there. I have no problem with subways and want to see them added in the future. I believe Maxis can come up with a way to make it work. They're smart people. However, another argument that is rather vital for games is "you must ship". Something I'm sure you're more familiar with than most. I would rather a game developer work on making a few mechanics work very well than have them try to make more mechanics than they can handle. Don't take marketing talk for actual insight. I have no doubt that devs mean what they say because they are getting their hands dirty. The trouble is that there has been a fundamental shift in orientation in the product development and management. Ten years ago, even a few years ago, the single most heavy question for the project scoping was always "who are we making this for". The target was the customer. Today, these questions are only secondary to feature considerations, decisions on resource allocation within the project. The venture, is decided elsewhere. So that old question has shifted away from that customer focus. Because it is just easier to treat it like venture capital, and more rewarding - after all you don't need to develop markets anymore (for most product types), you just need to balance brand value against repayment cycles of interest on finance. As such, the studio has become as much a resource as the customer. "You must ship" is actually only very rarely an actual argument. Most of the time it is used as such, while only being a discussion element internally between levels of hierarchy. Deadlines are set yes, but those are planned. But firstly dependant on resource allocation. The decisions of what is done with what priority and how much is spent on it. Because strategic considerations dominate, and because that old question (as above) has shifted, many studios find themselves increasingly stuck with few resources left for what they consider important for that old question. Put it this way, "you must ship" depends on the publisher's priorities. "Who is it for" has less and less time for devs to be asked with a view on the actual customer. It is both sad and intruiging that when you do a comparative analysis of product release cycles in this industry there is a clear trend of less and less resources available, and usually late in the cycle, for elements (features, content, functionality, etc) which are present among researched core or connected user type categories. These categories being less important for the sales automatically results in less weight placed on their value for sales and thus less resources allocated to what they signal to be important. This is strongest with gaming products where people seek immersion. It can easily cripple gaming products where people seek both immersion and identification (which is why MMO's tend to be much more careful in these matters than franchise / title focused studio's).

I definately agree with your closing comment. But this is the result of how one hand decides the strategic focus on a basis of completely different targets and motivations than the other (subordinate) hand who does the actual work. What is important here to realise is that this industry is increasingly dividing itself in (more or less) two schools of thought for mainstraim titles / franchises: those that believe that profit and continuity comes from control, and those that believe the answer lies not in control but in synergy (the interaction between all parts of the picture, where the whole is bigger than the mere sum of parts or the latest projections for bonus payouts). It does not take a genius to see how in commercial terms the latter has more breath than the first. The reality however is that in today's trends of cultural development worldwide that is irrelevant. The first makes more money faster, and thus increasingly negates the potential of the second to also make money (and last longer to make more money). Look at most studio's today, they end up becoming part of the first - it is not without reasons why companies like EA buy them. It's not because greed is good, but because of the perception that without the short term prioritisation they cannot set long term goals (which is where they get caught up in the confusion of their mentality, because they always end up with long term goals that come down to nothing other than control). On the point of Slashdot, to a degree I agree. That is, there is always a risk using the methods of today that the marketing soap gets rinsed off by enough momentum to expose a reality (or create a perception of one) that it creates an effect on consumption patterns. The trouble is, Slashdot has become an increasingly US centric community (so to speak, demographics) which does make it a managable community to track. It helps that the US market is marginal for today's industry, other markets are just vastly larger (and cheaper). What matters in such exposure trends is not whether something pops up in, or even "takes over" one such community / information source, but whether multiple ones start interfacing by means of social media. Visiting forums is one thing, a niche thing if only because these are communities with a deep rather than wide angle. Social media however does not see such walls or canals. It's the proverbial air that all those places breathe, and they share it. So the interesting point is not so much what is said at Slashdot, but how that is shared - by what means. If that is social media, that is a potential problem. Not just because so much of the sales potential depends on exactly those same social media, but because the pace of social media is not something any company can ever hope to compete with. It's a race against a million bunnies at lightspeed. By the time you have a meeting done they have bred a trillion screaming mutants You get the idea. What is interesting in industry research is that - there are exceptions (related to lines publishers should not cross, like being seen to squeeze the customer or brushing off the customer publicly once caught) - for the most part it really does not matter what is said in even the largest information hubs. Not even how vehemently that is discussed. What matters is the cross hub and speed factors of social media. This is not simply a case of "that creates a trend", no. It creates a "verdict". There is no competing with impressions already shared at high speed everywhere. Once upon a time ceo's and marketeers alike were convinced that there is no such thing as bad press. These days it still largely does not matter whether press is good or bad (so to speak), what matters is whether you can control the speed of press. This today is one of the biggest reasons why in this industry people are so increasingly careful with how little to say before release. Heck, no such risk is even taken with beta programs, they now only really exist as means towards exposure with limited time until product release. I should mention, keep in mind that the majority of verbosity online in community or information hubs rests with vocal minorities. While others see or hear that, it remains within the walls, and the underlying motivators are often simply not shared. For example, people may create a (justified) drama on EA's Origin.. Trouble is, most people do not blink twice or think twice. Or even care. At the end of the day, societies are made to be tired and sit with a desire to not think too much and be entertained. Don't get me wrong here, SC2013 is increasingly turning out to just not be my type of game. I had hoped for it, but so be it. I expect, even need, a deeper reach for the fun and spoils I seek. Maybe that will come over time, perhaps with DLC expansions that make the game less shallow and shiny. Perhaps only after proper moddability is enabled (aka once Maxis decides it is up to the customers once again to nurture SC2013 the way they did with SC4 to keep the franchise and flagship perception alive cheaply). On the bright side, perhaps people can put together enough information so that the people at Maxis can make a sales presentation pitch to EA so EA sees the point of how history in any industry shows that not forcing customers creates cheaper and more financially (short and long term) rewarding revenue tracks than the perpetual costly race of trying to control customer trends (and just compensating by trying to sell the accumulated profiling data)

Well, here is a fun argument - one rather vital for games: "because you can". Something that should always be on the mind of a developer of a game, it is one of the prime motivators of gameplay. It's right up there with "because they can" (as in "seen it, heard it, reproduce it").

Eh, no ... really, think about it. How many people (available as a volume of market out of basic economic requirements) are there who out of principle or derivative circumstances do not wish or cannot meet an online play requirement. Then think about what percentage they constitute of available volumes of users globally available as market. Online play only increases the available market. The same goes for the sandbox / builder / puzzle / core type of user. There are quite simply less of those users, and they cost more to make happy, than there are potential users of the casual and leisure and social type categories who just want to play a game, shout about it, and coast along while being an easy target (because of the behavioral connections to those type categories) for the next shiny to spend more and more on the same game. It is a personal decision, an individual and subjective decision - to buy or not to buy. There is an excellent exchange of arguments and insights in here by the way on that. Which includes the bright sides and prospects. Just please, don't confuse SC4 with SC2013 from the point of expectations. Same franchise, different era - different market and user focus. As long as the product sells enough there is potential for caring devs (who can do smart sales presentations internally and to EA) to deepen the experience - which some may see as "finishing" the product, but so be it, that is the reality of this industry today.

Heh, note the part in my post prior to this where I highlight the part of "core users are dangerous too" Personally I would welcome it though. Heck I can see how to turn that into a revenue channel as well for Maxis, several actually. And I am not even thinking the traditional line of licenses. Still, why run the risk of untamed core users to outshine one experience with the experience of immersion. That is the question to ask when even considering ideas like "source code release".

Excellent observations highlighted. Forced back on the drawing board earlier - explains why the 2x2 "Town Names" tiles were changed into "City Names". At an earlier point, Maxis got it right - the region was the CITY. So what happened? As elaborated in the SimCity Demographics Past & Present topic, Maxis has frequently said they want core fans, AND clearly they also know what SimCity core fans want. Still, they only have one new thing to sell to core fans - Detailed Simulation, but 12 other Legacy Features reduced or removed, which, upset and repel core fans. Why the Imbalance? And is the lope-lopsidedness intended? If it is not, are steps being taken to rectify it? They have vaguely explained their new changes - to appeal to "mainstream" players. But they have also made disasters and tile sizes in CityVille fashion, and advertised "Power to Change a World Together" and "Play With Friends" loud and clear. The "Social" symptoms are evident... SimWorld with a Leaderboad visual is unambiguously the first out of six Game Overview pages on official page, while "Create a Customized City"....is at the BOTTOM of the very last page! Legacy players majority have been saying, the SANDBOX aspect of Create a Customized City should be first. I am suggesting from a investment standpoint, as the new speculative and experimental aspect, SimWorld should be the last of the game design and marketing focus. IMO, EA/Maxis is developing it now, because of Zynga overall success by 2011, before the quick Boom & Bust of the social gaming genre. Evidently, post 3Q 2012 is a wrong time to be a Zynga wannabe, from a market hype perspective, or a profit-seeking perspective. As many core fans have rationally and reasonably suggested - back to the drawing board? Guys, the following may be blunt, please remember that it comes from a perspective from inside the gaming industry. 1. It is not about who is developing the game. All the respect to peers who work hard to the point of slaving away countless hours, but staff and studio's are interexchangable these days. The days where it is about the natural creativity, the vision and the drive are over. What matters these days are the rights and the roles. In simple terms: it is about deciding interests. The real question there would be "who benefits". Well, follow the money, as always. The customer is important in sofar as a means and a target. 2. Anything below and above that part of rights and roles is a resource. That includes the customer, who became a resource the moment the first executive realised that he a) no longer needed to invest in and maintain costly distribution channels tuned to what was known as economic zones (global regional markets) and b) the human species is not only a vocal and loud species but suddenly with the advent of new online communicative means any customer can do your work of selling your product for you. That simply means that where it comes to gaming products, yes you need to do your research and homework, but you don't really need to develop markets for yourself anymore. You do not have to provide the best possible product for this or that niche or specific collection of user types any more. You can do what the entertainment industry does: make a movie, and if it fails at the box office you can still make a ton of money (often even more) by global marketing and sales. There's the analogy. You can spend a lot less effort in building your product, because you by default have a lot more potential customers who will buy your product anyway - as long as you can reach them. And that, is easy, once you figure out how you can get them to do that for you too. In simple terms, because you do not really need to develop markets anymore, you also do not really need to develop as deeply as before. There are exceptions, particularly in types of games where people invest in what is known as identification and immersion. Common exceptions as such can be found in MMO's particularly. There you need to walk a much finer line, because the investment of the user outweights the investment of the customer. There are ofcourse exceptions in other genres, most of those however fall more in the realm of the rise of non-mainstream / indie games, where particularly the "puzzle as an innocent kid again" type of game has been able to utilise these new communicative means provided by the concept of online communities. Minecraft is a fun example there. For the most part though, the consequences at large fall in the shift from developers to studio's to investment houses. EA is an interesting example of parallels in that evolution. Look at where they came from, look at how priorities changed, look at how it operates currently. EA is far from the only example though, most gaming "houses" these days have venture capital behind them. It is only logical that decisions are made at that level, because interests decide and define. This is also the level where major trends are followed or created. Why do you think EA puts so much emphasis on including requirement standards for online / multiplayer feature sets .... Why do you think social media are put to use so heavily (though it is going to be interesting once Facebook starts to charge for the likes ) Yes, that does mean that the nature of games have changed. The current debate on SC4 versus SC2013 in people's individual perceptions stands out (very similar btw to the case of Civ4 versus Civ5) because unlike most other titles published it is a game that has not just been cared for in a touchy feely manner. It has been nurtured. Think about that. Both Civ4 and SC4 were games that were a) taken to heart and then b) taken to brain and hands alike. Some publishers or studios have had similar situations, but have avoided falling prey to the challenge of "what to do with that damn situation of holy $%&^! our customers are kinda competing with us". Valve is an interesting case. Some of their products (heck, even an engine) faced the same situation, but Valve decided to first figure out the strong and weak points of "product user synergy" first. Hence why their engine material became a product first, and why they then created Steam as a platform built for that exploration in a commercially sound manner. Firaxis and Maxis are just studio's. Great people, smart ones, very invested in what they do. But the strategy of business is not theirs. Yes, they have some smart people who over time did some smart research and presentations to make various cases, but ultimately it was their publishers / investers who pulled the punches. Usually that sort of stuff plays way over the head of the hard working staff member either way, even exploratory work is simply budgetted because of use above that level. So, back to dealing with these strange preconceptions of users of SC4. You are not the market. You are a means to an end. You are also a problem, but as long as you are fed shiny and some marketing blurb on stuff you have invested in (moddability for example, same marketing book as Firaxis used) you will not be a problem for exposure trends. Firaxis btw did have a fair few tight moments in that regard though, particularly because they had a collection of famous community devs who got so fed up with bashing heads against the walls of NDA's that enough came out between various lines that communities started to take a closer look at what really was being presented). Maxis doesn't have a fraction of that, they have research. Smart. The world is the market. For every "core" user of a nurtured but niche product like SC4 there are a million sheep who just a) want to be fed and b) love the illusion of being awesome because they can talk to anonymous online about awesome. Instant self validation, welcome to psychology of the masses. Yes, there are plenty regular folks who really like to just play with friends out there too, without the social awesome shiny. They're a handy easy pickup at checkout. They're also just a sidedish. Games are still developed to be fun. They are just aimed at a wider angle, and depth is dependant on the potential of selling more after. Please, stop expecting that because SC4 is a great much nurtured product the users of that are by any means important. You're useful for marketing, but also a little dangerous. Yes, there are people at Maxis who really care (notably the man with the beard), and some who still know SC4 (origins, strengths, and so forth - really, some of these guys never left ). Stop expecting them to make strategic decisions. It is not a game. It is a product. They have to make their own elevator pitch too. You are given the sales pitch to want to embrace the product as a game. Yes, the game is a game, but you have to wake up to the reality that it always is a product first - and only ever a game if the customers nurture it now so much that the DLC followup gets enough room to not just shallowly widen the experience for money, but also deepen the experience. We do not want core fans in this industry. That is always a marketing statement. Yes, we love you as developers (*looks at chair but remembers those days*) because you get to play with what we make and we are some of the few human beings who manage to remain a kid at heart with heart. But you are also a pain. You cost immensely in risk of cost of communications, you are inherently dangerous for the desires to exploit basic human behaviour for commercialisation (DLC and the roads beyond - do you people have any idea how tricky it is to avoid getting in competition with core users? Not to mention getting outcompeted by them). Yes, that is also immensely useful, which is why we walk that line. But it is also dangerous. Picture a scenario where a studio comes up with an expansion DLC but a user community says "screw that €60, we can do that better" and they actually do it - and social media picks up on it. That does not just cost us product revenue (yes, it also yields a bit but by then we are talking secondary sales cycles of the initial product), it costs us brand value. It costs us strength when dealing with those who fund. Providing that depth of product, is just not necessary anymore to make a great product in this industry. People want to, but that is secondary to the product becoming great in meeting its a) financial targets and b) utility targets (think of ventures like the GBE coming from one product, another product venture used to fund an adaptation or evolution as per strategic considerations beyond that product venture). Look, you are simply expected to buy the game because it is, well, another title in a franchise. You are expected to buy the game because you are expected to not want deep experiences, but fun casual play and the ability of self gratification through being a vocal human being with slightly different tools than a flintknife. That is how most of this industry works and thinks these days in decision processes. There are exceptions, and usually those are the people who do the *real* work. But that is like a conversation between factory workers from one dirty assembly line to guys at the other dirty assembly line This widening and shallowing is a cultural and economically linked trend which is not unique to the gaming industry. This is civilisation as it is becoming. This is bread and games today. History shows that such trends are only ever changed by great cataclysms in human societal development. So stop worrying about that, and if SC2013 does something for you - buy it. If it doesn't do something for you, don't buy it. You still have SC4, a great set of communities and a hell of a lot of human innovative initiative. The only reason people are having these debates on SC4 vs SC2013 in the first place is *not* because people care (though they do), but because people have nurtured the game - continued to build and breathe the game long after its developing interests stopped doing that. Note the difference between care and nurture. Yes, it is a testimony to those who built it (more so to those who decided to release tools and a dll or two). But it is mostly a testimony to the human spirit. It is what tells me that it is possible to have that wider focus as well as the deeper dig, and make a killing on it. Trouble is, today the short term perspective reigns dominant. Longer term view is always dependant. It is only marginally part of product design or development tracks. It is part of business scoping. And on the bright side, while other suits may not realise it, I do think it is fair to say that those who do the actual work put enough heart and mind into it to realise that for a franchise, a Title (yes, with capital T) like this (both for Name and Type) to continue beyond the strategic doctrine they must ensure that people will ultimately be enabled to nurture it. To the next incarnation. Honestly, I fully expect - in a few years time once some people in the industry have moved on a bit - interesting research on the historic cases of Firaxis and Maxis and the fundamental shifts in challenges they faced taking nurtured products to a next franchise title without stumbling over either core user exposure potential or user competition or getting caught with pants down on the divide between marketing and prioritisation. Firaxis has for a big part stumbled in that regard, it's no longer the same place really (in spite of honest efforts to mitigate). I expect Maxis will have done its homework. If they haven't, well, EA does do its homework - studio's are expendable anyway to them. I don't agree with that investment firm mentality, all too easily it also leads to taking people as expendable. I just do not see people as resources. Now go on, scout information, keep in mind that any debate is always individual and subjective, and make your own choice but please without falling prey to frustrations. Things are as they are, and remember the bright side: as long as the volume focus sells widely enough there is at least the potential for deepening the game to a point where it will satisfy also those who perhaps now say "this is not really what I want, I will wait until the devs dig in and build up".

Get over the trauma from another old game But to name an example, look at how Amsterdam has developed over the past few year. In terms of population it is quite a large city, in terms of geography it is quite a small one. The core of Amsterdam could even fit in the SC2013 maps And yes, the city has - requires even - both Light Ground Rail (trams) and subways + transitions between the two (and even regular ground rail). As a city it could not function without additional transportation means beyond road networks. The transitory density and speed variables are just far too high. It's why the city invests in the underground, the limits above ground have simply been exceeded structurally for far too long (and there is no end in sight of that trend). The infrastructural requirements to have a subway system in a city are far from huge. All it requires is a limited geography combined with either high business or general population demographics (or a combination of these two). There are severe structural limitations for urban development where it comes to depending solely on road networks for distribution of population transportation patterns. There are strong elements of environmental issues as well. Noise and air pollution for one. Not to mention the capacitory issues of road networks. A city does not have to be vast to be huge. Maybe it is a perception issue. In many cities in Japan for example you find similar issues as in the north-western city regions of continental europe. Limited usable space, high population density, follow the logic in urban development of the past decades from there I'd say. In terms of looking at the game, especially considering the small map size Maxis should have realised a thing or two in relation to its marketing talk of "we're aiming for ultra-realism"

Is it possible the "shiny/plastic" look comes from post processing of these shots? Or perhaps in game settings for bloom or other effects? Yes, great model, it just strikes me as unrealistically reflective / plastic, not sure how to word the feeling it gives properly. Tiny university btw, considering the size of the people walking by Perhaps it is a university department?

It's just shiny. Important yes, but consider how the marketing is focusing on just that, and making everything else secondary to it. It would be a first time in our industry if product design considerations did not turn out to fit the marketing methods. Aka, form beats function + inclusion of what is generally considered the "cheap" (resource investment wise) version of the "puzzle" aspect (which may very well indeed turn out to be the resource management feature set). I'm getting a strong impression that the size of cities and regions is a direct result of design catering to casual and leisure type players (who do not go as "deep" as core users) and limitations of the Glassbox engine amalgam (which is simply a next development for further design targets as the last version for a different product). It is not the degradation of immersion factors that irks me though, not so much at least as the degradation of aspects of realism in the experience. Yes, it looks plastic all too easily, that is not what I am referring to though. Absence of zoning, the absence of terraforming, the absence of common yet critical elements of infrastructural design (underground for example, subways but also water and other connection elements of both the past and today), and so forth. It comes across as dumbing it down under a veneer of marketing to buy in while it is just catering to different user groups that with SC4 (which, to be honest, is absolutely logical and accurate - does not mean I have to like it, or agree with the limitations that imposes in commercial terms for the product). I have to admit though, I am influenced by the general trends poured on consumers where the dumbing down is always sold as better. It is to a point where my lizard brain recognises those types of marketing before my cognitive brain does. It's something which I find wasteful, commercially counterproductive for the long term and ultimately simply not fun. It rubs me the wrong way when good concepts get that treatment - if only because when potential exists to build grand, it is self defeating to settle for less. Don't get me wrong, I do not think it'll be a bad game. It is just not a next SimCity, it has a completely different focus on customers and interactions. What strikes me is that - at least to me as a non-casual/leisure player - it is becoming more and more like the case of Civ V. Still waiting for the game to be in tune with its potential. I hope that SC2013 is not going to end up as a case of neither fish nor meat. We'll see. Personally though, without principle elements like plastic removal, underground, terraforming, zoning and proper modding functionality, I'll stick with SC4. Which is fine, as we saw in the case of Civ V, core user groups that build and/or nurture a franchise into strength are only a resource for the marketing of the next franchise target. That is how it works in our industry.

You know, that is pretty much identical to statements and orientation by Firaxis where it came to the divide between the presented "heavy value" placed on modding and the realities of the game in focus and production on the topic of Civ V, back in the day. It is a bit disheartening to see the same studio divide between realisations, wants and actual resource allocation. It does fall in line though with the presented marketing information sofar. In terms of commercial considerations it is also in line with the sense & sensibility of using "modding" as part of the sales pitch but not of the priorities for the first release cycle. Same for the fine line of "how do you do DLC and not engage in competition with the user, but still use the user to generate exposure for you. It would make sense for Maxis to enable modding and a limited exchange for lots, definately. But anything beyond that .... doubtful. At least the first release cycle.

Ok Thanks for clearing that up, now I can breathe again

Industry research shows differently. You'd be amazed what people will pay for. Bit of a sad statement, in some ways, but accurate. Let me put it this way, look at the "pay to win" debate that reigns these days around so many other titles. Maxis, I do not think they would take SC down that road, EA however is a different case. Depends really on who decides such strategic matters for the project scope. Since people will be able to engage in deals, and there is a transaction system present (in the shape of the market), there is at minimum a basic ability to exchange content as well as data for virtual currency. It would be trivial to feature an in game exchange for features tied to that as well, especially since it would present an enormous range of attractive DLC options. Again, I'm not saying that will be the road chosen, but it is a growing trend in the industry. Personally I don't think an angle like that should be pursued. It would take away a hell of a lot of the fun from immersion for me. I would be fine though with a system where you earn, through in game actions / decisions, further means of influencing your game. That is basic, but could be quite an interesting challenge to engage in. Potentially even realistic.

Simoleons would be healthier indeed. I am curious though what the options will be to actually generate those ... Do we know if simoleons are strictly an in game enablement, or tied to purchases of DLC / special offers, or the in game exchange and/or market? Somehow I can't see it being just a virtual currency without any monetisation attached to it, considering the strong multi/online focus.