arcology

I am very much looking forward to this!

My personal favorite on the video at 1:45 - "multiple rage quits".

Exactly.

Hey there. Firstly, I'm not defending everything EA does. SC is pretty much the only game I play, except Mario games with my 5 year old son - we either play Super Mario World or Mario Kart some times. The reason I stand defending SC2013 is because in my opinion, its not terrible game, though it is portrayed as one. It's a fun game, with new twists on city building. I don't work for Maxis. I'm don't own shares in EA. I don't know why the maps were small. If were really serious in your inquiry, perhaps it's best to ask Dirk to have EA designers have a Q&A session (granted individuals are able to be professional and civil). Can you elaborate on trade bug? All trade I've done works. And yet, now they are deciding on offline. Does that mean they are losing money? Why give the customers what they have been expecting from the beginning, based on all previous versions, if something isn't inherently wrong with this particular version of the series? Especially given how many times they denied it could not be played offline. Simcity, based on all previous versions (which they heavily used to market this one), was a complex sandbox game, and once everybody experienced that, how could this new version even measure up to it - considering you have no control, as a player, and you used to have it? What player wants to pay more for less of what they had before? What type of business model is that?

They know/knew what everyone wanted, when there was this huge outcry about online only. It's not like they really have to research what consumers want, we have told them over and over again. This is just another PR spin to make it seem like they are taking their time to listen to their consumers, when they should have done it in the first place.

And yet, they still had to lay off 10% of their workforce. http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/8/4314408/ea-confirms-10-percent-of-staff-laid-off-in-major-restructuring

If it has recovered, why the layoff of 10% of its staff? http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/8/4314408/ea-confirms-10-percent-of-staff-laid-off-in-major-restructuring

Me, too - but, then I dragged the mouse to about the 3:56 mark and it started - I don't know why it is set up that way - but, see if it works for you.

Perfectly.

I'm aware of that. He sat down for an interview with Ocean Quigley and talked it up and they used it to try to legitimize this version of the game. He should've just kept quiet. When I watched that interview, did you notice Will Wright's reaction, where Ocean Quigley mentions, "it is like the game going off to college, etc." - WW's reaction, is very telling. He actually looks a little stunned that they would have to resort to that kind of tactic - slamming the old to sell the new. He doesn't say anything - but, a lot of communication is nonverbal (sorry, I have a psych degree). He is being gracious to them, however, really watch his reactions. He is the one who got it right the first time - he understands that it is the player who drives the success of a game and who "owns" it - and after watching how EA has tried to spin it with their talking heads coming out on the EA blogs with their arrogance, even when faced with the golden poo award TWICE in a row - I would be a little hard pressed to find anybody who would go up against this "type" of corporation (especially in full game promotion mode) and speak out/refuse, right then and there. Also, I see Will Wright, as kind of a someone who has a clinical eye, to the whole thing - he's involved, but, steps back, to be able to see the big picture, and that is why he can see it from the player's standpoint, and see where EA screwed up. If EA wouldn't listen to their own consumers, why in the world would they listen to the person who created the games, the very games they were trying to bash to sell this joke of a version? I honestly am glad that there are people, like you, who don't give up fighting for the game to be what it should have been, in the first place, so, I understand what you are saying. And I agree - however, I also see why he was there and I don't think he was outright endorsing it. like EA wanted us to think.

This is exactly what happened and it is playing out right now.

This I wholeheartedly agree on. It always starts at the top.

I would like to see them stick this award on their game, next to that fake gold sticker they currently have on it (and bought off).

Exactly how are they "committed to fixing their mistakes"? If this post is anything to go by, nothing will change.

This is a really great review!

They have shifted their reasons too many times, at this point. Nobody cares anymore. All they want to know is whether or not they will take it offline, which they seem to still refuse to do. I think it does have to do with their wanting to keep control of the modding aspect and make as much off of their DLC as possible. They see what a missed opportunity they had with SC4 still going strong and think they can make money and stop people from taking that away from them. Why else would they ban people from even talking about mods on their official forums - when at first they promised there would be modding capabilities down the line? Modding has been around since the beginning of the simcity/sims series - it has been such a huge part of the players' experience and for them to take it all away - you have to wonder why?

My first experience with video games is with the odyssey and taping the transparent films to the tv. Primitive. We were lucky to even have that! I consider myself lucky, to have not grown up with what we now have, because, I think I can truly appreciate what is now here. I saw it all emerge with quality being the first requirement and to see what has been done to this new version of SimCity (my personal opinion, of course!), is just amazingly sad. So, to see a site, like this, kept alive, because, first there was a "quality" game, and it is fostering such creativity, etc., that's a great thing, in this day and age of microtransactions and DLC and always online control of a corporation over a game that you have paid for (to own - not "rent"). My wording of why I would pay for it was based on the above explanation - not that having money is a bad thing - but, to me, personally, intent is everything.

This might sound "stupid" to some, but the reason I would personally pay for it, is because it was created with the game/gamers in mind - to truly enhance playing, not as a gateway for more money. Does that make sense?

When people have to fight tooth and nail to receive a refund for something they paid for and doesn't work, there is something wrong. Even if it is just a game, it is still a product that is expected to work, regardless if it is online or not. Thought this might be of interest: Gamers Turn To FTC With New SimCity Petition Aimed At Protecting Consumers http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2013/03/26/gamers-turn-to-ftc-with-new-simcity-petition-aimed-at-protecting-consumers/

Petitions are not dumb. They are actually a respectful way for many to voice the same opinion. There have been actual changes made in this world, due to petitions. Granted this is a game, however, many take the stand that playing games is a stress-reliever and in some instances, can be a creative outlet, depending on the type of game. Surgeons have used video games to train for sharper hand-eye control, http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/play-your-way-to-the-top-20090615-ccgj.html#ixzz25ZGWPpOH, and other "uses" for video games have been cited. You can research this for yourself. Many haven't bought the game, however, many wanted to, as did I. However, that doesn't mean, we can't let our voices be heard.

Not buying these games is an excellent suggestion and I for one do not buy them, nor will I ever. However why does it have to be an either or situation as you suggest? No, EA does not have to respond to any petition, nor does anyone else, but these companies know that the actual signers represent only a small percentage of like-minded potential customers. Those companies that are wise, want to foster a good name for themselves and good sales will take everything into consideration. This fight needs to utililize every weapon available and I don't see the need to trivialize or mock any of them. So, Lexusinfernus, please go sign the "dumb petition." Agreed. I never did buy this newest version of SimCity and have have all the the old ones that I still continue to play, to this day. I was hoping for an "updated" SC4 and still hold out some hope that someone out there will create what they know many want. I think corporations get too big and think that the customer is not always right - however, I don't think that the numbers on some of these petitions is something to laugh at. I think, in the future, more consumers' buying habits just may be affected by what has gone before.

$200 collectively, over the years, yes. That would be including a really complete base game, with subsequent expansion packs (not a million microtransactions/DLC) - and all with the guarantee that I can play it 20+ years from now. I've spent more than that over the years for the entire sims franchise and would have no problem, as long as the game meets my "vision"/requirements.

Is there a way to list all the petitions for these kinds of changes. The one listed below is at 73,000+ signatures - this is kind of a huge topic for people. Electronic Arts Inc.: Remove "Always Online" DRM from SimCity and future games. https://www.change.org/petitions/electronic-arts-inc-remove-always-online-drm-from-simcity-and-future-games

EA up for worst company award, again. http://venturebeat.com/2013/03/19/returning-champion-electronic-arts-up-for-consumerists-worst-company-in-america-2013-tournament/

That I'm not so sure on, the next CEO really has to focus on sorting out EA's public image and start gaining more sales. Their profits within the last 4 years have decreased quite a lot. Or that may just be optimism The public image is something that EA has never cared about and there is no question this has done damage to them but they dont seem to care. Everywhere you look on the net there are bad comments about EA and web sites dedicated to how bad EA are. When EA put them selves up for sale you know then that the management team have run out of ideas on how to salvage the company. Intrestingly no other company has come running to buy EA out. And i guess the reason why is what ever company who may show intrest in buying EA is buying a company that has a very bad reputation and is the worst company in America. At this point EA is really untrractive to any company to buy out. EA in its current form is un saleable. They are also up for The Worst Company Award" again. http://venturebeat.com/2013/03/19/returning-champion-electronic-arts-up-for-consumerists-worst-company-in-america-2013-tournament/