macvirt

I wonder though ... whether an ability (regardless of introduced by a mod or present as a feature) to turn off the agent system would remove what kind of limits on the city size and the general size of the simulation. Think of it in terms of sacrificing "depth" for "width" of scope.

Seeing those skyscrapers is making me think of the '30's of the previous century. I wonder what the odds are of a distaster effect like a banking crisis after which you can see little suits jump off the skyscrapers. That being said, that shot looks a lot better in terms of colours and that "shiny" factor. It looks a lot less like lego or plastic this way, which considering the marketing aim of "ultra realism" is starting to look better.

Well, maybe all the people in that city are dead. After some epidemic. Who knows, maybe on release day we all get stormed by zombies. Then again, maybe the people supposed to be in that city have simply not been born yet.

Globalisation is not the or a cause. It is an effect of human interaction, a variable of progression over time of that. We've had it ever since we crawled out of caves and started to impose a footprint on our environment higher than that of our strictly biological necessities. The word of mouth factor is tied to speed of communications and the tresholds before utilising means of communication. Globalisation is not a factor of that, it is affected by that. Demographics, of which technology is an active variable for elements like speed / treshold / etc. is what drives this. Look at how smart marketing for example looks for and utilises group dynamics. The higher the demographical pressure or the greater the number of connections and the smaller the boundaries between, the easier it becomes to exert influence. It's energy efficient. But yes, discontent is a factor in any industry. Increasingly it is an active variable in business models where it is considered an active asset. Used to further productive gain. Dependant ofcourse on only a select few aspects of social dynamics it remains however an increasingly more useful instrument as long as that treshold of "common sense" (the ability to look at private and group interests in balance and over time) is nurtured to reflexively not be used as a motivator of decision making (by consumers). It is interesting, but this was the topic of an intruiging panel discussion some years ago at a GDC where it was demonstrated how the gaming industry is one of the more reliable testbeds for the transition of concepts like "game theory" as applied science for use in other industries. One of the results of overlap in using accumulated data from this industry is why we today see a growing trend among enterprises to accumulate much more in depth behaviour on human patterning. This is why EA - as example - has such a vested and growing interest in mapping out user profiling using (what some call intrusive) tools like the Origin platform. The monetary value of that data far exceeds the financial gains of the ventures active within the gaming industry of EA over time. Not that the gaming industry is the sole sector where we can see this. Online advertising and Search are another set of sectors where these trends are very visible. There however there are limitations imposed, implied or increasingly under consideration from legal frameworks in various economic zones (the EU being a distinct forerunner in this). The gaming industry just doesn't have the required perception applied to it in order to get the same sort of attention in these matters. Which is only logical, it's "just games" right? @Xcorps, the profit value over that revenue volume may seem little. But consider that EA operates not as a gaming development company, and much more as an investment firm with a distinct focus on venture capital management. A lot of money is taken out before that calculation of the amount and value of profit. In a way it is how the industry has learned from the entertainment industry, where seperate ventures are tallied seperately - and where ventures are ran artificially in order to offset profits after "costs". Not that this is something unusual. More generic industries do it as well. Heck, look at how Apple has restructured itself in order to control profit value tied to regional operations. Same concept, different format of execution. It's business. Generally consumers are guided by concepts like dividends and profit margins, whereas in reality those are just parts of instrumentation to maintain appearances. Required for operations yes, but - as long as control is strict - hardly critical. For EA to fall, you'd have to look at very different scenarios. Personality wars is surprisingly one of the most common. Corruption conflicts another one. The biggest dependancy however for a company like EA is creative flow and ownership of it. If game developers and their ad interim publishers would not follow the typical roads that lead to becoming part of a bigger whole (so to speak) companies like EA would have to completely reinvent themselves. In cases in various industries where such challenges happen, historically barely half a percent make it. A funny ongoing case in that regard in another industry is how a personality war situation in the role of a ceo is forcing a company like Nokia exactly on such a road.

You are/were a computer professional with decades of experiance, right? Your perspective of the "not a toaster" is vastly different than a person who just wants to play a game in their leisure time. I shouldn't have to learn the ins and outs of Winx security features to load a darn game. It's ludicrous. It's like saying you have to know the gap setting on your spark plugs before you drive to the store. Needing to know how to secure your machine from unknown intrusions that you unwittingly agree to is not the hallmark of good business. You shouldn't buy this game, but not because you don't want to learn how to secure your machine. You shouldn't buy this game (or any other EA title) because you shouldn't support bad business practice. But bad business practices - in the absence of checks & balances which take human nature in to account - make the most money. It's not like there is some magic market concept that fixes itself. The "market", it's human behaviour. Without guarding that against itself any economic interaction is by default a carte blanche. It does not matter whether that is in banking, production or the gaming industry. People have been nurtured to not recognise their own interests. People will simply buy the game.

Marketing talk. Just about every product release takes that angle pre-release, notable exception being the FPS titles. Glassbox is an ongoing development track, evolving on a per product basis. Considering where its origins are - and a little common industry logic - the reasoning is simple: SC2013 is a progression using an engine adapted for specific targets but limited by the resources allocated for that part of the project / venture. The marketing angle added is always that of emphasis on providing "insights" into all that goes on under the hood, how awesome that is for players and how realistic it is going to be and how much we want to ensure an absolutely stable smooth and shiny experience. While in fact it's a simple case of "ok guys, we've got X resources for this project, we can use this and that from the previous one, so we're going to design for these capabilities and anything above that will be part of a next project". On the bright side, if Maxis are a little bit commercially savvy they will use secondary developments and sales as such next projects. For example expansion packs, feature and content packs and so forth. If not, then it'll be a case of the next SimCity, or the next SimLife and so forth.

Why can't it be both? Really no need to pigeonhole another person's perception of the game. I'd have to say I enjoyed both aspects of SC4 immensely. I'm sad to say but I've come to expect that kind of callous disregard from SimVillage fanatics. It's actually the other way around: the focus is on form rather than function, looks rather than what is inside. There is a lot of emphasis ofcourse on simulation aspects and data acces to the sim, but note the discrepancies within the marketing on these matters. As for what is called the SimVillage fanatics, they do constitute the largest portion of the target market these days

That really has not much to do with piracy nor prevent it. it has to do with control and preventing second hand markets. Correct, that is exactly the prime consideration. The trouble with it is that this comes from a very typical EA but also obsolete US centric perspective. In most other countries consumer law has stipulations enabling second hand transfers and requirements towards access of product. The EU is the more known example, but hardly the forerunner in these matters. Like other industries before us, the gaming industry is on a road towards a conflict there. Law trumps license, simple as that.

In our industry we're actually looking far more towards the lower spectrum in recent years, because it makes more business sense to develop products on a basis of "one serves more", notable exception being the FPS genre. With the advent of mobility gaming and the continuing stalling of console hardware platform releases this has become a major factor in decision processes. Ultimately the idea is to arrive at platforms where on development track can deliver to both devices, console and pc platforms. In that order. Commercially speaking it is particularly the devices markets which are - due to simple volume of market - more interesting than any of the other. Keep in mind that the PC market is not dying (as we all too often hear / are told) but keeping tread with emerging market developments. In simple terms, the PC market is interesting for the evolution of those emerging economies as a road towards devices type of markets. Apologies, but the idea that low end spectrum users are holding back development for higher end spectrum users is a myth. A common one, but still a myth. Even within the PC domain we are very careful to consider the growing volume of embedded / on board GPU elements (IGP) as opposed to the specialised niche of dedicated GPU elements. You'd be surprised to find out the demand volumes for gaming products on OEM desktop tracks which do not feature dedicated GPU's but which are increasingly the mainstay part of desktop sales to consumers. It's simple math, there are more of those than there are others. So even on the PC platform there are different variables than we may think at first glance. Glassbox is actually an interesting development in these regards. Especially considering its origins, and the technical capabilities. For a core element like Glassbox it makes more technical and business sense for further development of that engine (so to speak) to a) let it be guided primarily on a venture basis (product builds engine so to speak) and b) to minimise the client footprint through cloud computing concepts for the future. Not that Glassbox is the only such development, in the future we will see more of these things where ultimately a lot of the "work" is handled server side with the client side handling reception and translation from data to visual only. And yes, in a strict commercial sense it makes more sense to ensure that (while keeping in tune with technical evolution) the lower end spectrum is a guiding element in decision processes. Just not the debate of GPU X versus Y, but far more the balance between dedicated and on board GPU - where it comes to the PC platform. By the way, with emerging economies being more interesting than established economies these days it should be no surprise that it is relatively easy to meet considerations resulting from emerging economies being larger with considerations resulting from the ongoing economic issues of established economies. Ofcourse, there are exceptions. The US for example as a 4th world country consitutes an inherently split economy where it can be interesting to cater to a high end spectrum, while keeping in mind that there are limits to what yield such a market segment can yield due to the limits that apply to the volume of sales to that segment. It takes a bit of work, but that is what research institutes are for, but for the most part both consumers and industry watches let themselves be distracted by presentation rather than actual data. The origin drama actually preceeds any and all Reddit drama, this should be mentioned. It is easy to look up and verify. Mainstream gaming media have reported on the issues (and the causes) on it for years now. It's issues are a direct result and continuation of EA policies and mindset over the decades. EA is not receiving unfair treatment, the company is merely receiving that which it has created themselves. Nothing more, nothing less. But yes, SimCity 2013 is indeed not going to be a continuation of SimCity4. People should not expect that. The types of users which today play SC4 are quite simply put just not the target types of users. They are a resource type for long term and a resource group for exposure targets. The game itself as a product has a completely different focus. That does not mean it is going to be a bad game, it only means that people should be careful with their expectations and take the game as a game in its own right. Think they will? Isn't that like giving a stamp of approval and a thumbs up to a steaming pile of poo? If one thinks the game to be good then they should by all means make the purchase. If they think it "sucks" but buy the game anyway, what does that say about common sense or...? If the new Sim City, so-called, fails we have SC4 and the great mods. No disaster for many of us, but EA may disagree. My wallet is closed on this one. Yes, they will. Most people do not look further than their noses are long, especially where it comes to their own long term interests. This is the basis of modern day capitalism: embed desired economic interaction in cultural patterning that limits what is known as the concept of common sense. Aside of that, never underestimate how easy it is to make people want to be a part of something, even if that means their "only" "power" is to break open their wallet.

I'd either buy it hard-copy while checking carefully whether that does not feature Origin as on disk present & required, or I would wait and see if they do a release via Steam. That is personal though, I just can't trust the Origin platform (due to established history of the platform, the use of it by EA but also the simple case of EA controlling how long the game remains supported and online - essentially how long you can use it). It's stuff Maxis has no control over. Kip mentioned in an interview that they are studying possible release options, including standalone and Steam. It's a tad short to deadline of release though, so I don't have high hopes. Personally I'm willing to wait for a non-Origin release. If that doesn't come, I'll just stick with SC4 until such a release shows up in some years.

You may be right that the specific point about non-adjacent cities is not about online, but neither is it about simulation and the arguable consequent need for fewer cities; that does not explain why there are gaps between the "cities" as shown in the picture. It's not about simulation, that is just the same type of marketing as the statement of aiming for ultra realism. It's about enabling a collection of leisure gamer type categories to have an easy, shiny and quick means of entertainment which they can fit in with established and growing trends of social / sharing gameplay types. It's not a game designed to appeal to the hardcore builder type of player, for that it just includes a very distinct focus on "looking good" while simultaneously imposing restrictions that (think of no manual zoning) would lead Maxis on a road with no end (for that road they have the (shallow even if wide) moddability focus. It also is not a game designed to appeal to the hardcore simulation expert either. Don't see it as having a hardcore focus. Look at the origins of math and render engines, the distinct focus on ranking and online multiplayer. It's a game designed for the mass markets of today. Not for the continuing SimCity 4 "clinging on" players It is perfect for the trends today really. And as long as requirements are met over time to enable the kind of modding functionality for the longer term, it will be enabled for hardcore users to nurture and grow it over long term. Taking it deeper, rather than wider (the latter is what Maxis focuses on).

To be honest, it looks and feels a lot like the common ad interim controlled leak to test the waters of what we in the industry call "expectation management". If EA / Maxis wanted this information to be removed utterly, both by presence and perception, they would have done so. Interviews for example dropping different information to offset what was contained in a leak, a developer blog giving "actual" information, aside of injunctions and sommations obviously. These things tend to help a lot when you face marketing hiccups you can lose control over.

In addition to this, they also use lower detail models in the neighboring cities that would look awkward up close. Especially when butted up against the detailed ones in the active city. If I recall correctly, The Sims 2 (with expansions) had the option to do this. Why not just make a toggle for those who don't like how it looks where the city gets surrounded by fog or a void, while those who want to maintain the illusion of a larger city with neighboring cities can have it switched on? Hell, they could add a third option where they take advantage of the tilt shift effect and make the outside of the city blurred while you're playing in it? You are expecting the perspectives of customers to be important to design decisions. They are not. What is important is releasing a product with a set of math and render engines that come from other products and can be used for further products. Welcome to our industry, we will make you think marketing is real. Look, I realise that sounds a bit harsh, it just never ceases to amaze me that people want to love a game so much that they ignore the reality checks. Doing reality checks does not get in the way of wanting or loving a game. It just makes it easier to work with what you get. Games are not made for customers. Customers are resources to make money. Like oil, cattle, metals, etc. The idea that a game is sold to customers has been obsolete for years. Global distribution has made that too low level to invest attention in, it's for the marketing folks and 90% of the time they just watch what customers do & say, wrap it up shiny and present it to another tier of global distribution. It will depend on what EA allows Maxiis to provide for moddability tracks, these things like user choices, graceful degradation, custom settings, etc. That may come, it may not. Ironically, the bigger the discrepancy between initial release sales and secondary sales the more likely for these things to become possible through modding.

No. Maxis is aiming for realisme in the perception. That is not the same as realisme in the experience. Just don't expect it.

My point was would CitiesXL had allowed mods if online play still existed - my guess is no... but I'm not much of a CitiesXL player. IF a player modded a way to multiply the amount of oil they had for tokens then they could effectively cheat with trading.... so for aslong as online exists in these games user mods will not occur.... that was my point. There is a strong element in the case of CitiesXL of the product not taking ground in manners it should have because it ignored several basic variables of games where people build - regardless of whether that is on a computer or as a toddler with lego. Modding not gaining traction did have a direct correlation with online play. It is interesting to observe that the product "an sich" gained a more stable user foundation (one which in spite of circumstances has gained ground) once a) reality set in and b) modding became more of a factor due to core "builder" users (as opposed to another far end of the scale "sharing / social" user type) becoming the foundation of the product. It's a no brainer in terms of games development really. If CitiesXL had had a primary focus on that which fuels the core user types for the type of product, instead of aiming for targets which really were only attempts at hitching a ride on trends elsewhere in the industry, the product would have had far more and far more stable potential for sustainable growth. In simple terms, the customers would have both built and marketed and sold the product. No need to try and insert online sharing / social elements. People can do that on their own. Obviously, we as a species have after all built quite a few civilisations ever since we stopped living in trees. SimCity 2013 does appear to have learned some lessons there. It is however limited in these matters by means of the imposed requirements which we today call DLC and Exchange functionality. It is a very fine line to walk. One always has to avoid getting in to competition with one's own customers. It is for that reason why the moddability aspects of the product still are not clear. It is not hard to see the enormous energy of SimCity 4 users today and be a little cautious with that energy. You want to use it for marketing, for word of mouth and exposure. You do not want to find yourself on release day faced with several communities worth of Exchange type of content while you yourself have had plenty tough meetings with finance and executives on how you are going to make even more money after the actual release than with the actual product upon release. Personally I kinda expect Maxis to limit the moddability concept to a number of functionality and content categories. It would not surprise me either if a very interesting licence was attached to that. What would make the product grow to completely new levels would be glassbox scripting means and acces. At least in a first phase that is rather tricky to any DLC initiatives from EA/Maxis themselves however. Glassbox is not the only thing though, runtime injection is another, but also consider hooks and handlers for the various calculation models present. Something like NAM may be possible, but perhaps not until a release that enables such moddability. Then again, it is also quite possible that Maxis have done some homework and figured out several tracks of modding that are most desired. I don't doubt people will be able to edit existing models in order to create modifications, whether that is modding "pur sang" however .... sure, a nice marketing presentation with that level of user content can be made. It is however I suspect not what people will want to pursue. The "because I can" factor is just as strong as the "because I want" factor. Still, coming back to the original question of "what if SimCity 2013 fails" for a moment. As explained before that is subjective and irrelevant alike, but what can we expect if the product did not "kick in" with people according to expectation patterns? Simple, the very same timeline and approach as we have seen from 2K Games with Civ V. Any roadmap applicable puts sales first, not compliancy with expectation management. Look on the bright side, sure the next SimCity is going to look and feel like Societies and be shiny and glossy. Sure, there will be restrictions imposed on size of maps and cities. In the absence of another company that gets to work building something new we are getting a next SimCity. That counts for something. And who knows, in a few years time some present or former staff members will feel a bit "meh" and release information and/or tools that will allow modding communities to really get to work building the product. Truth be told, Maxis would be smart to do exactly that in the second half of the first release year. Once the game is out, it is quite simply put no longer about EA or Maxis, but about what any customer wants to do. It serves no point to try and create and sell everything possible to the user. Any company trying that shoots itself in the foot, commercially speaking.

It just looks like someone poured a bucket of "shiny" over the buildings. I realise that's a case of the origins of the render engine, I do hope however that through modding we will be able to make it look realistic. Yes, Maxis is putting a lot of emphasis on how they want to make it ultra realistic, but that is a focus for the functionality, not the feature sets or content. It will be utterly hilarious if they have "forgotten" elements like cultural styles, for example US vs European, and suddenly shown up with that as DLC

Link Thoughts? It's just "lolmarketing". Nothing is actually said in her message. It does not address concerns nor issues, it does not even contemplate the divide between the voiced perspectives of customers and the presented design paradigm. It's just marketing talk.

Something to keep in mind though, there are groups of players out there that like the direction that Maxis is going with this latest installment (though I can only speak in anecdotes here, I actually have a group of friends that the sole reason they are buying the game is it's online multiplayer component). I think there's room for the fresh approach of SimCity. SimCity4, CitiesXL and their respective modding communities seem like they're bearing the torch of the traditional city builder fairly well. Even more focused games like Tropico and Anno2070 still retain the spirit of the single player experience. Definately. That is part of the strengths today of having those global distribution channels. It is incredibly easy to find user types and groups that match goal sets. It's logical, the absolute volume of potentials is enormous. The low cost nature of hooking on to trends after the advent of social media is another solid enabler.

That's the problem though. There aren't many competitors in this genre. If we want to talk first-person shooter games, or ARPG games, or Strategy games... then ya, there are competitors that will steal the market share very easily. Simcity is the market leader, CitiesXL is the only other real attempt to take part of the market share - and that game kinda failed. It bankrupted the company that tried originally tried to publish it. It's Maxis Simcity, or find a new genre of games. Alternative option, pull a venture the way Chris did with Star Citizen. Figure out exactly what appeals to which existing customer base, provide flexible options for single and multiplayer (both with distinct online and offline play modes), provide a foundation framework for modding / sharing / validation and put together the funding using the core customer groups as venture foundation. Call it Architects. Requirements are not that high actually. Legal and technology research, a decent network, good prototyping. Add a marketeer, a skilled accountant, and add one person who always asks tough questions and who steps into shoes other than those of the crew themselves and a used car sales guy. Pun intended, to a degree. Serious though, depending on how specifically EA aim SimCity 2013 for market penetration (as opposed to market reach) a venture of creating a commercial alternative is not that hard. CitiesXL was doomed from the start. Less so out of design principles, more so because of the directive vision applied. Not to mention that as a venture it was tailored solely for the financial gain, with goals set strictly to that. Top down, as opposed to bottom up. And thus it went bottom up. SimCity only is market leader because a) no other publisher will engage EA directly (not out of fear, such matters are a simple case of agreements in the industry), b) independant studios have plenty maneuvering and creative room for other genre / title projects, c) independant developers have a hard time stepping outside of traditional boxes (particularly in Europe and the US) for funding and networking and d) the perception of legal issues which really do not exist as long as you do things by the book. One further and very substantial other reason however is the strength of the SimCity 4 modding communities. It is they who have kept the product market leader. It is their efforts which have ensured that no other party has sat down to go down to basics and put a venture together with serious commercial intents (as opposed to CitiesXL where the venture spec pretty much comes down to a cash in & out focus). This btw is also something Maxis realises in terms of potential for the 2013 product. Ironic, isn't it?

Don't worry, there are not delivering us a "full" game at first, just enough so we will be interest in it and just enough to give us the taste to buy it, but then the addons will be so that we almost "need" to buy them, they will contain all the good stuff, the stuff that will make the game more complete, more interesting, challenging and more fun. That's the way marketing works and it's a way to more or less "force" the customers to buy more. Don't think that a company like this makes all this for fun and/or to please the gamer. It happened with all the other games before. There will be good stuff in the addons, believe me. mrb SimCity 4 being a prime example of this with the release of Rush Hour. Heh, true. It kinda shows how they are going to have to walk a fine line with supporting (and restricting initial) moddability. EA is not fond of "free" getting in the way of its revenue streams.

Actually, it did. The difference was that Civ and its 2K issues were community internal strife. The SimCity 2013 situation is simply one where there is a lot more mainstream media attention right off the bat. By the time the Civ exposure got mainstream most of the "hardcore" energy had been spent. In that regard I do agree that both EA and Maxis are taking a risk, there is a certain potential. But we have to be honest, it matters not - look at the release schedule. February. And after that, what many people here and in other places see as (possible or effective) "failings" are matters that have been part of commercial speccing already. Think DLC, think major version upgrades, and so forth - content / feature sets / functionality / etc. That changes the exposure level, certainly, but it remains a relative scale. RPS and a few others have pointed out some questions, but always in terms of "title under development". 2K Games simply did what good publishers do these days, they made smart decisions on when to buy which mainstream exposure means and where. Simple. I recall a staff member being rather explicit about that on GDC. It is only fortunate that the common customer does not have acces to the GDC Vault system I guess Ultimately the thing to realise is that the hardcore fanbase is a resource. Nothing more, it is hardly a variable beyond presentation marketing during early to mid term development cycle (let's be honest, today a beta is also just a marketing instrument). The nature or even timbre of the discussion among that fanbase in these days of global distribution channels does not matter. Not one bit. It does not matter for decision processes, EA trumps Maxis. It does not matter for sales processes. Even Valve recognises that in its own research. They have learned that it is more productive to watch the studio / developer for storms than to deal with the customer and their storms. A recent case of Valve applying that policy to such a case of studio screwup is just an example of that. GDMag's research article a few months ago on the matter of dealing with core user types of legacy titles versus widening market reach of reboots shows the same fundamental case in the data. "Word" going out there is a resource, negative or positive. The only thing that matters for decision processes is the wallet. And even that is a very limited currency in such matters where it comes to a house like EA. At these levels, it pays to have failed ventures. Counterintuïtive yes, easily verifiable however.

Unfortunately, that is something from the past. There is no such thing these days as a niche title. With todays distribution channels and todays methods and reach for exposure (particularly via social and distribution media) those days ended years ago. For a practical example, look at the Civilization product series. Another niche title and genre historically, 2K Games was able to take the core userbase and put that to use as a means of generating exposure as well as content drive. This alongside of very specific even if basic product design specifications tailored for reaching in to mass gaming channels. The result was the transformation of a niche title into a very easy revenue stream, where what the core userbase called the "dumbing down" became a conscious sales element in its own right. Even that which many still perceive as the "fixing" of the product (adding Religion for example, but also generic patches and more) was and still is part of the original goal specs for sales cycles. It does not matter whether "the" customer gets a product that suits the customer perfectly or even reasonably. There is no single one customer. Each customer is easily replaced without effort by any other customer. The availability of global and social reach means that there only is a "niche" focus if the company that makes the investment decides to cater to just that niche focus. And that is simply not done. Why? Because it is easier to reach more gain by not doing so. You reach more markets, more customer types, with less effort, and they keep coming back for more (regardless of whether it is to "fix" something, to add something or to enhance something). It is not the studio that makes these decisions. These matters are directives on a strategic level. Pure and simple. The studio has no input in this, especially here in the case of EA being the strategic level. That's not a case of "evil", it is their business model. The customer has zero relevance beyond his availability as a resource. Yes, there are companies who take a different approach, these are however increasingly rare. For an example on the opposite side of the spectrum look at a Chris Roberts or small (tiny) studios like Muzzy Lane. That is where the shift has taken place, from niche title to niche studio / publisher. Beyond that there is just no such thing anymore as a niche title.

EA use data they collect from their Origin platform to determine requirement sets for hardware. People should not be surprised that there would be a discrepancy between recommended specs and required specs by the way, that is common in the industry. What should be a factor though is that Origin data tends to be skewed quite a bit, because of the relation between volume of users and volume for type of / category of product. A disproportionally large subset of collected data for example comes from the user types which play Battlefield. The median hardware distribution sets for those types of players and that type of product is quite a bit higher than most other games. The volume however gives it more weight. Basing decisions on that, outweights decisions based on initial scoping methods for game design. That is a reality in this industry. In many ways this is also why the Valve data sets are typically much more interesting for game developers to use for such matters because while they do take into account absolute volumes they also offset that for categories and so forth. It allows for a much more in depth analysis for what type of game is likely to receive what distribution and level of hardware for its intended goals.

No, venture failings are very easy to use productively. It is not uncommon to run bad ventures exactly for that reason. And while EA does have shareholders EA does not have a set dividend format. Think of it more as an investment fund. That is how it operates. Even a worst case set of venture mishaps is simply a case of covering interests on finance. EA would have to really shoot itself in the foot with ongoing revenue cycles for it to run into structural problems. In a way it is ironic, considering the origins of EA as a foundation. To be blunt, the only thing that could really structurally pose problems for EA (with its insistance on focusing strictly on short term gain cycle management) would be a set of other publishers annex investment houses focusing on nurturing a foundation platform where there is balance between brand, platform and products / services. The only company in that regard which could have become an issue for EA is Valve, they however opted (wisely in my opinion) to not jump in to that trench. The only other business which might in time find itself on a similar crossroads is 2K Games, and those are (wisely for them) being very careful to follow in to EA's footsteps (albeit with a very narrow focus on product management - as opposed to service management).

The discussion of the "failing" of the game is an entirely subjective debate. My apologies for being blunt though, but it is also a completely irrelevant debate. We have to remind ourselves of the focal point of the matter, and that is the question "who is this product for". And as much as it pains me to say it, and as much as it may upset people, the product is not for the customer. It is as simple as that. The product is a means to money, nothing more and nothing less. Failing in that regards is quite simply not a possibility. The only question there is that of which targets will be met. The functional and exposure designs of the product are visibly tailored to a set of minimum goals to be reached. Those goals will be met because those designs are specifically catering to specific behavioral patterns and expectation sets of specific and well mapped customer types and categories. Anything above those minimum goals are a bonus, break even in productions like these is typically (industry research from both Gamasutra and GDMag) reached at roughly 35 to 40% of the minimum goals reached for sales volume. And even if that is not reached, the costs and investments as well as the unreached gains are only markers in accounting which in spite (and usually because) of being in the red are commonly used as part of a larger accounting - think for example of means to reduce turnover footprint for the purpose of reducing taxation ceilings and so forth. Many people think Maxis is the house, it is however just a brand name administered as a venture specific studio owned by EA, who are the house. In simple terms: the product will make money as required, will recoup its investments quite easily. If it doesn't, any potential deficit can and will be used to serve the house. The product is not tailored to the customer, it is tailored to the interests of those who benefit from the sales and the strategic gain. Once you think about the realities of industry today, it becomes a lot easier to not become disappointed as a customer. And yes, because the only party of relevance is that of EA, the product will not fail - unless they only manage to sell less than those 35 to 40 percent of required sales volume goals. Which these days are damn easy to reach. There is absolutely no chance that EA will not reach those goals. These days in our industry, the concept of "failing" is not tied to the individual product in terms of primary sales. There is a so called intangible sentiment of "failing" present yes, but that is tied to monetisation of secondary sales. That is a completely different ballgame, and a completely different debate. Think, for example, of major followup releases (both content, feature, functionality), or even on a common level DLC and followup sales ventures. It is a common expectation (and thus a set of goals imposed top down from strategic levels) that secondary sales outperform primary sales, and that really is where the only sentiment (so to speak) of "failing" is to be potentially found. Again, my apologies, honestly though the customer matters not. The customer is simply a resource variable. The idea of the customer as market is obsolete - has been for roughly a decade now. I fully realise that impressions (and indeed the marketing today consciously aims to continue a different image) are different. It's just the reality of this industry that the customer is simply an easy variable. Not that the gaming industry is unique in that regard. Think of, for example, the general entertainment industry where an absolutely and knowingly terrible movie production from Hollywood is a viable venture regardless of quality or other concerns simply because of the availability of global distribution channels. To put it blunt, it is nothing other than simple sales modelling that an absolutely $%&^! movie can make oodles of money because it can be dumped to dvd on a global level using nothing but customer typing as a variable for determining release timing and distribution targeting. Whether the game is a fail, is highly relevant to us as customers. We're just not relevant for any decision processes where it comes to the game.