Jackbnimble

Wow, tuff crowed. Coming here reminds me of another group of fans to certain franchise that didn't like the route the development team was taking. The group was very vocal and didn't support the game, so the publishers (who own the rights to the game) disbanded the development team and the franchise died. Just saying....

Ea has never sold an incomplete game forcing you to buy dlc to complete it. Why on earth do you believe that they would even try to pull such a stunt now? Actually, they have, and they haven't. DLC are by design strategy a part of specification. Their definition of "complete" has simply changed in comparison to that of customers. A complete title these days means the combination of title release (feature sets, content, art, etc) and that which was seperated from the specs to be releases seperate and that which is conceived to be added at a later stage. Three parts. The first two of those are actually what most customers tend to see as a the definition of "complete game", with the third being the "extra" cherries later on. By the way, it is interesting to make note of feature and function sets which were visible during development stages as well as in the marketing, which for the release have disappeared. Equally interesting it will be to see those elements resurface as DLC elements later on. From buildings via building styles via transit elements via infrastructural elements all the way to core elements like terraforming and moddability. Actually, no they haven't! Being incomplete would suggest that the game is unfinished. Day one , everyone will get a fully functional and completed version of sim city that doesn't require dlc to play. Everyone may think that there is dlc that should have been in the game to begin with, and I am not saying they're wrong, but it doesn't make the game incomplete with out it. I have been gaming for over 20 years , between steam, origin and psn, I have close to 100 games in my collection and most of them have the option for dlc and not one of those games is incomplete or even close to being incomplete. By the way, I rarely buy dlc myself, only for a very few select games will I ever buy any dlc . This is the way the industry has been going over the last few years with dlc, Devs will try to nickle and dime you to get any extra money they can out of their customers, but at the same time dlc is always optional. To your statement , there is no " they have and they haven't" (that doesn't even make any sense) , they either have or they haven't, and I can tell you "NO" they have NOT ever released an incomplete game. I don't know much about law, but I don't think that it would even be legal to do such a thing. You have managed to completely miss the point. A decade ago if we engaged on a venture for a title release we'd find our selves in plenty tight spots if we made the release without having met the targets set by the specification processes. In simple terms, if we released the title incomplete we'd have to spend quite a bit more (in resources assigned as well as costs which back then were always tallied seperate from the development costs) to deal with that in either a patch based approach or an enhancement approach. Both of which would take their own additional marketing campaign - either through community, support or mainstream channels or a combination of these. Nowadays we do the speccing, we go through the entire process, we then decide which parts are considered "core" to the intended experience, which parts are considered crucial for the processes of customer acquisition / retention and which parts carry a distinct value beyond these parts. We then cut those bits from the release planning, invest in a seperate planning mode for resource allocation, development and marketing for them, and call it DLC. We can do that because people are by now used to games being enhanced or complemented for both content and features after a title release with a very low resistance on a market level to these having a seperate price. That is what DLC technically is. We've just seen how we can save resources, deliver an incomplete title and make more money by completing it after the title release. One of the biggest tricks, so to speak, is that intrinsic balance between determining the core elements of experience and that which a set of selected user types will crave when presented (ideally instigated by means of exactly those core experience targets). It is a fine line to walk. Most studios, and particularly the bigger publishers know that fine line very well. That is why even people with 20 years of gaming experience as a consumer rarely look up to ask questions about how these concepts like DLC have come to be and how they have changed (particularly over the last few years). The core experience is a balanced set of targets to provide the experience of a full game, regardless of whatever perception the marketing creates in servitude of sales venues. The magic of it is that this is exactly what enables the concept of DLC to be expanded, with the tresholds of resistance on a consumer level ever decreasing. I don't think any publisher or developer would be crazy enough to leave out any "CORE ELEMENTS" out of any game. Core is what makes the game , dlc does not and I highly doubt that EA/maxis will break that rule now. EA isn't new to gaming, they know exactly how to entice people into buying dlc , they have been doing it for years now. You appear to be under the impression that this is somehow something that may or may not happen in the future. We've been doing this for years and years. Maybe I should point you to a very common but also very known example, 2K Games the publisher with Firaxis the studio and Civilization V the game. Remember the topic of religion? Part of design specification, removed from title release in spite of massive protests, reintroduced as part of DLC after release cycle, enhanced by a sweet marketing campaign designed to make customers believe that they had gotten Firaxis to convince the publisher to "give back" that particular sorely missed feature set Hilarious. As was pointed out by those who put the old presentation slides online demonstrating that the removal of feature sets from specification was a choice as conscious as the marketing afterwards to make it look like consumers were listened to, but by that time everybody wanted to believe again and bought the DLC packs Here's the thing. We figure out what constitutes the entire range of targets we want to reach with a title, and what feature sets are required for this. We then split that up. I know you have an idea in your head about a "finished game", I am sorry, it is not the same as the definition in the industry. I get the difference, I sympathise with your conviction. I wish it were that different. But that is not the reality of this industry. Core is what guides paths of sales. It is that which we cater to. One such path leads to another such path, and so on. This constitutes feature sets, content, art, as well as the dependancy chains between them. There are no rules. This is business. Pure and simple. So now we're talking about 2k games and civilitation V? Sorry but I have never played it, all I know about 2k games and civ V is that it's not simcity or EA/Maxis. I am still waiting on all your intel on the core elements that are being hacked out of the game only to be resold to us as dlc.

Ea has never sold an incomplete game forcing you to buy dlc to complete it. Why on earth do you believe that they would even try to pull such a stunt now? Actually, they have, and they haven't. DLC are by design strategy a part of specification. Their definition of "complete" has simply changed in comparison to that of customers. A complete title these days means the combination of title release (feature sets, content, art, etc) and that which was seperated from the specs to be releases seperate and that which is conceived to be added at a later stage. Three parts. The first two of those are actually what most customers tend to see as a the definition of "complete game", with the third being the "extra" cherries later on. By the way, it is interesting to make note of feature and function sets which were visible during development stages as well as in the marketing, which for the release have disappeared. Equally interesting it will be to see those elements resurface as DLC elements later on. From buildings via building styles via transit elements via infrastructural elements all the way to core elements like terraforming and moddability. Actually, no they haven't! Being incomplete would suggest that the game is unfinished. Day one , everyone will get a fully functional and completed version of sim city that doesn't require dlc to play. Everyone may think that there is dlc that should have been in the game to begin with, and I am not saying they're wrong, but it doesn't make the game incomplete with out it. I have been gaming for over 20 years , between steam, origin and psn, I have close to 100 games in my collection and most of them have the option for dlc and not one of those games is incomplete or even close to being incomplete. By the way, I rarely buy dlc myself, only for a very few select games will I ever buy any dlc . This is the way the industry has been going over the last few years with dlc, Devs will try to nickle and dime you to get any extra money they can out of their customers, but at the same time dlc is always optional. To your statement , there is no " they have and they haven't" (that doesn't even make any sense) , they either have or they haven't, and I can tell you "NO" they have NOT ever released an incomplete game. I don't know much about law, but I don't think that it would even be legal to do such a thing. You have managed to completely miss the point. A decade ago if we engaged on a venture for a title release we'd find our selves in plenty tight spots if we made the release without having met the targets set by the specification processes. In simple terms, if we released the title incomplete we'd have to spend quite a bit more (in resources assigned as well as costs which back then were always tallied seperate from the development costs) to deal with that in either a patch based approach or an enhancement approach. Both of which would take their own additional marketing campaign - either through community, support or mainstream channels or a combination of these. Nowadays we do the speccing, we go through the entire process, we then decide which parts are considered "core" to the intended experience, which parts are considered crucial for the processes of customer acquisition / retention and which parts carry a distinct value beyond these parts. We then cut those bits from the release planning, invest in a seperate planning mode for resource allocation, development and marketing for them, and call it DLC. We can do that because people are by now used to games being enhanced or complemented for both content and features after a title release with a very low resistance on a market level to these having a seperate price. That is what DLC technically is. We've just seen how we can save resources, deliver an incomplete title and make more money by completing it after the title release. One of the biggest tricks, so to speak, is that intrinsic balance between determining the core elements of experience and that which a set of selected user types will crave when presented (ideally instigated by means of exactly those core experience targets). It is a fine line to walk. Most studios, and particularly the bigger publishers know that fine line very well. That is why even people with 20 years of gaming experience as a consumer rarely look up to ask questions about how these concepts like DLC have come to be and how they have changed (particularly over the last few years). The core experience is a balanced set of targets to provide the experience of a full game, regardless of whatever perception the marketing creates in servitude of sales venues. The magic of it is that this is exactly what enables the concept of DLC to be expanded, with the tresholds of resistance on a consumer level ever decreasing. Believe it or not I do understand the strategies behind dlc , and how publishers and developers will try to milk you for every dime they can. Most dlc is just "FLUFF", just look at the sims3 for example, it's all "FLUFF" ,there is nothing core about any of that dlc what so ever, just "FLUFF" and that is what I would expect to see from simcity dlc. But since you know so much more about simcity then I do , then why don't you explain to me what core elements EA/Maxis have removed from the game only to plan on selling back as dlc, or is this all just speculation on your part because you didn't see certain elements of the game in the Beta/demo? I don't think any publisher or developer would be crazy enough to leave out any "CORE ELEMENTS" out of any game. Core is what makes the game , dlc does not and I highly doubt that EA/maxis will break that rule now. EA isn't new to gaming, they know exactly how to entice people into buying dlc , they have been doing it for years now. I am sorry but I am not about to fall for the mass hysteria and paranoia that has been running rampant on this web site.

Ea has never sold an incomplete game forcing you to buy dlc to complete it. Why on earth do you believe that they would even try to pull such a stunt now? Actually, they have, and they haven't. DLC are by design strategy a part of specification. Their definition of "complete" has simply changed in comparison to that of customers. A complete title these days means the combination of title release (feature sets, content, art, etc) and that which was seperated from the specs to be releases seperate and that which is conceived to be added at a later stage. Three parts. The first two of those are actually what most customers tend to see as a the definition of "complete game", with the third being the "extra" cherries later on. By the way, it is interesting to make note of feature and function sets which were visible during development stages as well as in the marketing, which for the release have disappeared. Equally interesting it will be to see those elements resurface as DLC elements later on. From buildings via building styles via transit elements via infrastructural elements all the way to core elements like terraforming and moddability. Actually, no they haven't! Being incomplete would suggest that the game is unfinished. Day one , everyone will get a fully functional and completed version of sim city that doesn't require dlc to play. Everyone may think that there is dlc that should have been in the game to begin with, and I am not saying they're wrong, but it doesn't make the game incomplete with out it. I have been gaming for over 20 years , between steam, origin and psn, I have close to 100 games in my collection and most of them have the option for dlc and not one of those games is incomplete or even close to being incomplete. By the way, I rarely buy dlc myself, only for a very few select games will I ever buy any dlc . This is the way the industry has been going over the last few years with dlc, Devs will try to nickle and dime you to get any extra money they can out of their customers, but at the same time dlc is always optional. To your statement , there is no " they have and they haven't" (that doesn't even make any sense) , they either have or they haven't, and I can tell you "NO" they have NOT ever released an incomplete game. I don't know much about law, but I don't think that it would even be legal to do such a thing.

Ea has never sold an incomplete game forcing you to buy dlc to complete it. Why on earth do you believe that they would even try to pull such a stunt now?

I don't understand why or how people are insulted or offended by EA offering to sell dlc? This isn't anything new, most games offer some form of dlc these days, EA isn't doing anything out of the ordinary. If you guys poked your heads out of your little SC4 bubble every once in a while, you would have noticed that this is the direction the gaming industry has been going for quite awhile now , not just EA. Here's the thing about dlc... it's optional, you don't have to buy it. It will not take away from the game if you don't buy it, because EA/MAXIS is not going to sell an incomplete game. If you guys don't want the game because they're planing on selling dlc ... well that's up to you. I just don't understand how anyone can complain about EA/MAXIS planing on selling OPTIONAL dlc as add on content, it makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

As far as I understand (although I am not stating this as fact), even people with a slower internet conection shouldn't have any problems playing either, because the game servers are updating info every 3 minutes, so it's not true real time with the servers. It shouldn't be like playing a FPS like Battle Feild3 where you need a fast connection to play directly with other players. I get that people want to be able to play offline, I also would prefer having that option., but every time I turn my pc on it automatically connects me to the net.I play my games through steam and origin, mostly single player games including SC4 and I am always still logged online.That doesn't mean that I can't play in offline mode because I can, but I just don't, why would I? The only time I will ever see a problem with this is if I neglect to pay my internet bill or the servers are undergoing maintenance or crash which is going to happen. Anybody who's ever played an MMO knows what that is all about, and that is with a monthly subscribtion (excluding the FTP). I am not deffending the DRM excuse , I don't like it either for the same reasons as everyone else.But it is what it is , and we can either deal with it and move on or simply vote with our wallets.I am buying simcity, and I am also confident that other issues like tile size will be addressed. I can't imagin the SUPER REGIONS that can be built with a SUPER community like the one here at Simtropolis.

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. If the online requirement isn't fixed I would recommend people steer clear. It's the only way that companies will stop doing it. Myself didn't get the Monte Cristo Cities XL but only years late , when playing online talking stopped, that is by 2011. Didn't get neither Starcraft 2 or Diablo III , and I will steer out of Sim City, if it keeps mentioning online need. I don't want to be online and pay for telephonia companies services because they want me to... And yet I am still able to play cities xl, and you can still buy it on steam.