For the odd chance Kip is reading this, without an offline mode I can't see myself investing in the next SimCity. My personal circumstances (lots and lots of travel, restricted networks while travelling as well as working and time between work at locations) pretty much deny me an effective use of a cloud perspective outside of holidays (which I spend with family either way). I can't say I'm alone in that situation in my circles either, being member of a Dutch / German Sim group it's a scenario unfortunately much shared set of circumstances.
What surprises me though is not the strict commercial thinking behind these decisions, but the lack of seeing that thinking through. As popular as the social side of ventures is as a means to both marketing and sales, when it comes to determining the value of a venture's gains one must always look at the types of customers one targets. And there the single and offline types are a damn strong set of targets, if only because of the ease of reaching them and the absolute volume of those market groups. In many ways it is as if the project suffers from top down directives which prioritise elements like Origin and the Cloud monetisation concepts without regard for the costs of this. Not costs in terms of "losing customers", but even just for the costs of not reaching customers. It's not maximising the possible gain just for the sake of convictions. Especially considering the ease with which the gain can be maximised (including single / offline play formats) that puzzles me. If only from a purely marketing and sales driven perspective.
In many ways it is uncomfortably close to a scenario of "take my money, oh you don't want it". In commercial terms I can understand the logic behind the reasoning, still with the benefit of looking at the venture from outside of the trenches and outside of the accounting viewpoint I can also see the gaps in that logic. It is not about what any singular perspective applicable wants, for any venture, but always about what the synergy of the multitude of perspectives want - that is what determines the tangible succes. That combines the perspectives of the strategic (above product & service level) perspective, the perspective of the product management and all the different perspectives of the customers.
In simple terms, it makes no sense to sidestep that much income solely on the basis of strategic convictions (I do not use the word "targets" there because there is a difference, any marketeer or executive management overseeing such ventures can spot the difference there and the validity of making the distinction). Cloud architecture in principle design does not equate to absence of client side architecture, on the contrary. That only happens when the conscious choice is made to exclude up to 60% of user type categories (I'm sure Kip can pull that data from the research available from the nice folks behind GD Mag and Edge).
Commercially speaking, there is little to gain with the insistance on a cloud only format, while it denies more than it gains. It's not a case of "what it might lose". Yes there are factors of that type as well yes, but those are clearly (and properly) part of the reasoning behind the decisions already. What stuns me is just that determination to not take the maximum reach of and for the product as the target for the product. As I said, I can understand it from a viewpoint that is strictly focused on brand reach and narrow marketing derived exposure means & targets. From a strategic financial perspective however it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
The mention of cloud architecture being the reason for the design choices is not a reason, it is a marketing argument. Using that as a sales argument is negatively affecting the venture, it is counter productive - especially since cloud architecture as design choice only excludes the client element if so chosen in a reverse design logic. In other words, it is only a requirement because the starting point of the reasoning is the desired outcome by strategic directives (top down influences). And not the result of research, development or design from the ground up. And the ground is where the long term viability is found, because that is the customer. The best commercial results, the best brand value, the best prospects, these are things historically found and created when these aspects are in balance. Unfortunately, this is increasingly less the case with EA. The next SimCity in these regards is - as a venture - a textbook case of such imbalance.
I find that a shame, and I cant deny that it goes against a majority part of sound commercial and creative thinking alike.
To step on a different challenge however, there is something I am very curious about. Unfortunately I have not found the information yet, perhaps I have missed it. But what I am curious about is the intended approach towards monetisation of first and third party content. Who owns what rights for mods for example. Distribution, sales, etc. One of the ongoing biggest strongpoints of the SimCity genre is that modding, it's something which for example Valve have recognised as a strong combination of commercial and creative elements that support and grow both brand and product. They have managed to strike a smooth balance there. EA however has much less of a smooth history in these regards, yet holds the power to break the foundations for such a trend without much consideration for beyond the short term gain.
