cirugo

Lucy Bradshaw has written a blog on the EA site to respond to the controversy over the Reddit AMAA. There are some interesting bits of information in here.

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.

in a nutshell? limitations vs no limitations.

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. And here's where enough people who aren't happy about it making a stink comes in...which is the other side of the coin for the social media that all of these companies are trying to exploit. The idea that you can just market your way into success is running into more and more obstacles. Until a way is found to completely clamp down on "dissent" all producers will have to factor discontent into their plans...whether that be biding their time until people are lulled back to sleep or actually addressing the discontent. Globalization isn't just affecting supply chains and marketing...it's affecting the word-of-mouth effect as well.

Start up Steam in offline mode. You should be able to play your games without having to be online that way.

Yes, they only look good at that scale of zoom from certain angles. The regional pictures make me cringe.

Ha! "May you live in interesting times" I couldn't agree more.

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. Less awkward than an island of skyscrapers in a sea of green? I'll take the akward up close thanks.

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. there is no one that has a problem with the online mulitplayer component. The problem is that's the only component. And by doing that to an IP with an established and entrenched set of fans with a lot of investment in it they are simply creating hostility and enemies from many people who would otherwise support them. Can they succeed? Probably. Should they? I definitely don't think so.

I would really encourage more modders to check out the game. It needs more buildings and more maps and some of the work that has been done by some of the modders is outstanding. (cities xl I mean)

Monte Cristo wanted to push online mode so they made the default offline trader have extremely unfair prices. When Planet Offer was scrapped, Cities XL 2011 added trading between your own cities and gave OmniCorp more reasonable prices. Having fixed yet extortionist prices that cannot be modded will certainly anger many but if online mode is free, this will not affect anyone playing online and will broaden the user base. Seeing as SimCity has a single-player sandbox mode and will eventually allow cheats and mods, I don't see why an unfair offline mode expansion pack cannot be made. However, simulating the Global Market with "random" "averages" is a bad idea! It would consume more computer resources and even the playing field if not giving offline players an unfair advantage. Sincerely, --Ocram that's why you keep single-player and multiplayer separate. going online? it checks for mods and boots you out if they aren't "approved" for multiplayer. Want to take your offline city or region online? Too bad. If you want to play online you have to create the city online.

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. Even a house like EA can only handle so many failures before it takes its toll. SWTOR was a disaster. Their games have been embroiled in controversy after controversy and they've been hemorrhaging both cash and player goodwill for a while now? Will it make a difference? Probably not...I already believe they're willing to sacrifice this particular IP ff necessary to show that they won't give in on their plans to leverage the entire industry into this model of gaming. But eventually, they will keep pissing off more and more people who will turn to their competitors (assuming there will still be some) Customers are not an infinite resource. The global market is also subject to the lightning-fast rumor mill of the social media. One Reddit session was enough to put MAXIS onto the defensive and into serious damage control mode. As long as they can't smother independent manufacturers who are willing to provide other alternatives then there will be other choices.

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. Civilization also didn't have nearly the amount of negative publicity that this title is getting. You're forgetting the other side of the social media coin...it gives far more power to disgruntled "fans" to get the word out than they've ever had before.

yup, that's why this is a such a big deal to so many people.

And if you look at the Facebook comments it seems like everyone wants to play this game as soon as possible. Really these kind of comments on these kind of sites pop up for every game. Go look at a Call of Duty article and you'll see thousands of comments of people complaining that CoD is for stupid people, that Activision is stupid, that CoD hasnt innovated enough, etc. Yet CoD keeps outselling pretty much everyone else. yup, there's no way to know. But, as someone else said, CoD is not SimCity. SimCity is a "niche" title that appeals to a certain type of gamer. Whether they're attracting an audience outside of that particular type of gamer, while alienating an unmeasurable but certainly sizeable portion of that niche market, is certainly debatable. Myself, I hope not. I don't believe they should be rewarded with success for their design decisions with this game.

In your opinion

Did I say they were press coverage?

Not if the comments on this Gamespot article about it are indicative of a general sentiment: http://www.gamespot.com/news/maxis-simcitys-always-on-drm-for-gamers-benefit-6401896

In my opinion, that's why the game needs to fail. If we reward this kind of decision-making with our money then we have no one but ourselves to blame when the entire gaming industry turns into a rental service.

Good for you, I hope you enjoy it. Its just not the game for me, and after 15+ years its making me pretty sad (Combine that with the recent Red Alert, Age of Empires games, and everything is pretty hopeless) Age of Empires...what a sad end for the game legacy.

Actually, that's the first real confirmation that I've seen where they state that our computers can't handle the whole simulation. I don't know if I buy that or not. Also the bit about the 100,000.

But really who else is talking about it? The only comments, good or bad, I see anywhere (and trust me I scour EVERYTHING) are from people who claim to be SimCity fans and who've played this version or that version. Add to that, even on Facebook (which seems to be the most mindlessly pro-new version of anywhere) SimCity 4 won their poll of which was the favorite of all versions by a landslide. Where is this new market? They've divided the old market, made enemies of many of them and I'm not seeing the new one.

All the more reason to stay away from this game in my opinion. I can't see how there's any way we will ever be able to have the creative freedom we've enjoyed with past versions in this upcoming game. Yeah, it might actually be sort of fun but buying (or should I say renting?) a game using this gameplay model is giving MAXIS/EA and the gaming industry the green light to make it all this way.

Personally I think it's a lot of marketing doublespeak non-answers but I'm curious about whether there is actually a technical NEED for the server to handle some of the simulation. If this is the case, then I think that it was a huge design mistake.

With that same line of thought, I could also say that if I were to somehow lose my copy due to events out of my control (who knows, maybe my laptop killed itself and the disk inside it), I would still have access to the game. Not trying to defend origin, but I do find that sort of feature convenient. Option to save to the "Cloud"...fine. ONLY saving to the "Cloud" ...not fine. I thought we were discussing installation sources here. You can still install Origin games from disc as long as you install Origin... right? Or is that one of the areas in which it doesn't work like steam? I believe so. The only game that I have that required installation of Origin was Star Wars: The Old Republic (an MMO which I cancelled because of EA's insistence upon moving ahead with this direction for SimCity) and the game installed from the discs. I would assume it would be the same here although I don't know how it's going to work as far as installation goes...I do know that the game saves are not local though and that is what I was referring to and what I thought you were referring to.