Sim City 5

[Tchuck]

DRM is being "forced" upon you as much as the online mode in WoW, GW2 et al is a DRM being "forced" upon you. But noone thinks of it that way, because those games are made to be played online. That is what EA tried to do with SimCity, make a game that is meant to be played online, as well as act with the intention of "stopping" piracy, but since people believe that it should be a single player game, then it's seen as DRM.

 

If this DRM was sprung upon us as a surprise, then you'd have a reason to bitch about it. But it wasn't. Of course, the "significant processing serverside" excuse was just a sham to cover for their real intention of "stopping pirates", and I believe that to be the main source of the bitchfest. If they had said from the start "it's always on because we want it to be that way" people would have been a lot less hurt by it. If there was also no problems with the servers at launch, no one would have complained about. But they complained, rightfully so, that they couldn't play because of the servers failing, which led to complaining even more that the game was online to begin with.

 

And gamers will complain regardless of how the game had turned out. If they had simply copied SimCity 4, with better graphics and slapped on a multiplayer aspect to it, people would complay that it was just SimCity 4 with better graphics and tacked on multiplayer. They chose to go a different route, and people complain that it wasn't an improved SimCity 4, but something completely differente. Damned if they do it, damned if they don't.

 

It's done, anyway, I doubt they would launch an offline path, and most people who are playing the game won't care. I only hope they fix the bugs, refine the gameplay and make the game better one month from now than it is currently. That is the whole point of the online thing, to be able to improve and fix the game seamlessly as time goes by. A true game as a service. One can only hope.

[Pat]

 

DRM is being "forced" upon you as much as the online mode in WoW, GW2 et al is a DRM being "forced" upon you

This is a complete and utter case of comparing apples to oranges. Sim City is a simulation game, WoW and GW2 are MMOs. The only thing they have in common is that they all three require constant internet connections.

[I<3GTAV]

DRM is being "forced" upon you as much as the online mode in WoW, GW2 et al is a DRM being "forced" upon you

This is a complete and utter case of comparing apples to oranges. Sim City is a simulation game, WoW and GW2 are MMOs. The only thing they have in common is that they all three require constant internet connections.

Simcity's technically an MMO. You can play multiplayer at all times, the only time you actually can play single player is when you don't invite anyone to a private game.

[Trund]

People will just always bitch, it will never end. Still better than some other DRM's that don't even let you play OFFLINE, and yeah, that has happened before...

 

By the way, they're at least fixing one of the "bigger" flaws already:

 

 

[Pat]

 

People will just always bitch, it will never end.

So because you can't refute our points, we're just "bitching." You are truly a master of educated debate.

 

 

Still better than some other DRM's that don't even let you play OFFLINE

What the hell are you even talking about? Sim City's DRM does not let you play offline. That is the flaw with it, that is the whole thing we're criticizing. The only way to force the game to let you play offline not only will leave you unable to save progress, but also puts your Origin account at risk of being banned.

 

I genuinely do not understand what point you were trying to make here.

[El Dildo]

 

And it is silly. Why? Because people KNEW about this, yet they keep complaining. Sorry, but if you buy a game and know you have to be online to play it, but then complain because you can't play it offline, then that's simply ridiculous.

you STILL don't get it, do you?

since you keep missing the point when it comes from me, I'll quote someone else who said it very well. maybe it will click this time...

 

 

Games adapt all the time. That's why we have patching, that's why we have DLC; very few modern games will be released and still remain exactly the same several months later. Arguing against changing a game because "well, this is how the game was designed!" is a flawed argument.

also

 

you just keep saying "it's how it was designed, you can't complain." Yes, I can complain. I am a consumer, EA is trying to earn my purchase, but if I do not like the product I am free to criticize it as much as I damn well please. If EA is smart, they will take the criticisms and use it to improve the product, leading to more purchases. Even Ubisoft, one of the most aggressive proponents of always-online DRM, have removed it from titles because of consumer backlash. Why is it silly to ask EA to do the same?

also

 

A modder has already proven you can run the game offline (contrary to EA's statements that the game needs to communicate with their servers in real time), the only thing that remains would be to code local saves, which is an incredibly simple task

 

piracy does not = lost sales.

EA is retarded and so are you as long as you cling to this flawed theory. it does not justify this form of DRM and there's simply no other good reason for it.

[Tchuck]

DRM is being "forced" upon you as much as the online mode in WoW, GW2 et al is a DRM being "forced" upon you

This is a complete and utter case of comparing apples to oranges. Sim City is a simulation game, WoW and GW2 are MMOs. The only thing they have in common is that they all three require constant internet connections.

Not if you look at it from the perspective of the "games as service" model. This is why always on will become more standard. To give you a proper reason for the drm, like you requested, allow me to elaborate.

 

For decades games have been like any other product. You buy it, you take it home, you play it, and that's that. The obligation from the developers end when you buy the game. They don't need to convince you further. Sometimes, if they were nice enough or the game was sufficiently broken, they'd offer some support and patch the game.

 

Well that standard does not work anymore.

 

The success of freemium and free-to-play has made this new model the ideal for game companies. Enter always on.

 

With the game always being online, there is less chance of players modding the game and breaking it, it is easier for the devs to patch the game, to fix things, to change things, as well as to track how well those changes and things were done. Allows them to view all the statistics possible in order to see where the game is too hard, too easy, as well as other numbers of datas and tweak. That's what most Facebook games do.

 

The other "selling point" of the always online is the social aspect of it. We who were born before the internet do not care much if we can post our high score on facebook or tweet a screenshot. The new generation, however, does. With always online the players have the possibility of doing that.

 

Just take the example of media like TV and Movies. Netflix is the perfect example of this new model. Sure you can go out and buy the DVD/Bluray/Cassette of your favourite movie or tv show, or you can sign up and watch them all at will. If the service goes down, you complain, things get fixed. They see what is popular and attempt to get more of that to satisfy their customers.

 

This model, applied to games, can bring great things and terrible things, it's in the hands of the publishers to assure either outcome.

 

There, there's roughly the justification for this "always on" drm, without resorting to piracy or because they wanted. Now, if EA had come forth saying that it intends to develop SimCity as a service, hence the always on, instead of giving some lame excuse, people would be praising them for their long term vision, instead of criticizing them for their huge pr mess.

 

If you apply this always on thing with the views of establishing a service, not just a game, you would be a lot more successful. But you live, you learn.

[trip]

People will just always bitch, it will never end. Still better than some other DRM's that don't even let you play OFFLINE, and yeah, that has happened before...

 

By the way, they're at least fixing one of the "bigger" flaws already:

 

OVkw9mWonNA

I played with this one last night. I haven't seen mention of them addressing a fix for it yet. Please say it's true.

 

The game is tons of fun but seriously flawed and it is almost because of that weird traffic (shortest route) issue. Once they fix the traffic issue then I am back in 100%. As of now I can only dabble and play around. I can't commit to building out a full city until it becomes more of a city simulator without compromises that wouldn't happen in a real city.

 

As for the DRM part. It is no big deal in my mind - nothing to really bitch about. I'm actually enjoying the multiplayer region stuff.

[Adler]

 

Not if you look at it from the perspective of the "games as service" model. This is why always on will become more standard. To give you a proper reason for the drm, like you requested, allow me to elaborate.

 

For decades games have been like any other product. You buy it, you take it home, you play it, and that's that. The obligation from the developers end when you buy the game. They don't need to convince you further. Sometimes, if they were nice enough or the game was sufficiently broken, they'd offer some support and patch the game.

 

Well that standard does not work anymore.

Why should video games become a service if companies are just going to be sloppy about it? They release unfinished games that frequently require patches, they force you to have a constant internet connection with always-on DRM, and they often employ the practice of locking content already on discs unless you pay extra for the bits and pieces. Many publishers are guilty of at least one of those practices.

 

When there wasn't the convenience of the internet to allow games to be updated routinely, publishers were more wary of their product on release. That should be model for businesses to follow as it does not interfere with the consumer experience, and the company does not earn a bad reputation of releasing unfinished games.

 

Kojima Productions and The Pokemon Company have it in them to uphold their reputation as producers of high-quality games, and not stoop to favoring profit over fans. Heck Pokemon even has the Dream World, which extends gameplay from your console to the browser for free because they want Pokemon to be a more social experience. Now is that a service or what? These companies are not in the business solely for the money, and they prove that with their practices. This is the kind of standard that game developers should be held to.

 

 

The success of freemium and free-to-play has made this new model the ideal for game companies. Enter always on.

I don't see how you as a consumer can support the Freemium model. Are you playing devil's advocate perhaps?

 

 

With the game always being online, there is less chance of players modding the game and breaking it, it is easier for the devs to patch the game, to fix things, to change things, as well as to track how well those changes and things were done. Allows them to view all the statistics possible in order to see where the game is too hard, too easy, as well as other numbers of datas and tweak. That's what most Facebook games do.

You shouldn't need a persistent internet connection to update games. As for statistics, game reviews and fan reception are enough for companies to be able to tell if their game is successful in one area or another.

 

 

The other "selling point" of the always online is the social aspect of it. We who were born before the internet do not care much if we can post our high score on facebook or tweet a screenshot. The new generation, however, does. With always online the players have the possibility of doing that.

I have no problem with this, so I'll skip this point.

 

 

Just take the example of media like TV and Movies. Netflix is the perfect example of this new model. Sure you can go out and buy the DVD/Bluray/Cassette of your favourite movie or tv show, or you can sign up and watch them all at will. If the service goes down, you complain, things get fixed. They see what is popular and attempt to get more of that to satisfy their customers.

Difference is, movies and TV shows, no matter how old they are, can still be watched decades later. For video games, this is not always the case.

 

 

 

For multiplayer games, and games that have always-on DRM, when the publisher no longer supports the game, and their servers are shut down, the game is no longer able to be played. That's worrisome for fans that like to revisit old games, myself incldued.

 

How can this be fixed? Get rid of always-on. Singleplayer games should not be weighed down with the burden of becoming obsolete like multiplayer games. Multiplayer games will each inevitably end their run, but there's no excuse for slapping an expiration date on singleplayer games.

 

 

This model, applied to games, can bring great things and terrible things, it's in the hands of the publishers to assure either outcome.

So far, publishers are only using the model to rake in more profits. Very little benefit, if any, belongs to the consumer.

 

 

There, there's roughly the justification for this "always on" drm, without resorting to piracy or because they wanted. Now, if EA had come forth saying that it intends to develop SimCity as a service, hence the always on, instead of giving some lame excuse, people would be praising them for their long term vision, instead of criticizing them for their huge pr mess.

 

If you apply this always on thing with the views of establishing a service, not just a game, you would be a lot more successful. But you live, you learn.

I don't see the point of wanting to justify always-on as part of a "long term vision," if it seems to be only causing problems for both fans and game publishers. In the long-term anyway, games that have to be always-on will be rendered unplayable if the publisher stops supporting it.

[agent17]

piracy does not = lost sales.

EA is retarded and so are you as long as you cling to this flawed theory. it does not justify this form of DRM and there's simply no other good reason for it.

THIS.

 

 

I am so done with caring about Simcity at this point, it is Spore all over again. EA will do everything in their power to ignore the real issues and avoid making a playable game. The endless flaws are a joke by now.

 

We are just beating a dead horse, nothing else needs to be said at this point.

[Tchuck]

Good points there Adler, allow me to offer my opinions.

 

 

Not if you look at it from the perspective of the "games as service" model. This is why always on will become more standard. To give you a proper reason for the drm, like you requested, allow me to elaborate.

 

For decades games have been like any other product. You buy it, you take it home, you play it, and that's that. The obligation from the developers end when you buy the game. They don't need to convince you further. Sometimes, if they were nice enough or the game was sufficiently broken, they'd offer some support and patch the game.

 

Well that standard does not work anymore.

Why should video games become a service if companies are just going to be sloppy about it? They release unfinished games that frequently require patches, they force you to have a constant internet connection with always-on DRM, and they often employ the practice of locking content already on discs unless you pay extra for the bits and pieces. Many publishers are guilty of at least one of those practices.

 

When there wasn't the convenience of the internet to allow games to be updated routinely, publishers were more wary of their product on release. That should be model for businesses to follow as it does not interfere with the consumer experience, and the company does not earn a bad reputation of releasing unfinished games.

 

Kojima Productions and The Pokemon Company have it in them to uphold their reputation as producers of high-quality games, and not stoop to favoring profit over fans. Heck Pokemon even has the Dream World, which extends gameplay from your console to the browser for free because they want Pokemon to be a more social experience. Now is that a service or what? These companies are not in the business solely for the money, and they prove that with their practices. This is the kind of standard that game developers should be held to.

 

I completely agree that the video game developers should be held to a higher standard, like in the past. And I agree completely that publishers that do stupid things like ripping content, locking content etc are doing harm to the industry and to gamers. What I'm arguing for is that a proper implementation of games as a service model would be amazing, and would create much better experiences in the long run.

 

 

 

The success of freemium and free-to-play has made this new model the ideal for game companies. Enter always on.

I don't see how you as a consumer can support the Freemium model. Are you playing devil's advocate perhaps?

 

I'm working in the industry, so I'm talking mostly from that perspective, as well as from the perspective of someone who doesn't have as much time to invest in games as before. In my mind, you can take free-to-play games and spin them into the old school "demo" of our days. You get the "demo" of the game for free, and can pay to unlock the rest of the game as you wish. That allows you to get out of it however much you want, while helping the developers prove that the game is worth the money invested.

 

 

 

With the game always being online, there is less chance of players modding the game and breaking it, it is easier for the devs to patch the game, to fix things, to change things, as well as to track how well those changes and things were done. Allows them to view all the statistics possible in order to see where the game is too hard, too easy, as well as other numbers of datas and tweak. That's what most Facebook games do.

You shouldn't need a persistent internet connection to update games. As for statistics, game reviews and fan reception are enough for companies to be able to tell if their game is successful in one area or another.

 

You shouldn't now, but one day you will. But with always on, they can also get the system specs for the game, figure out what's working on one and breaking on other, without having to rely on players individually filing their tech problems, and then trying to figure out why things broke and which path it was. With always on, they can seamlessly deliver a patch, see who did not manage to connect the next time, and figure out a fix quickly. Again, in a "perfect always on" system that is.

 

On statistics, I'm talking cold hard numbers about player tries in level x, level z, average completion time, average number of failures, average damage created, time when players are most online, average score per second, average lifetime, correlation between money spent and playtime, number of playthroughs per level. Those are statistics that only an "always on" system can provide to the developer, and they can work amazingly in order to get the game right over time. Reviews and fan reception are a whole other can of worms.

 

 

 

Just take the example of media like TV and Movies. Netflix is the perfect example of this new model. Sure you can go out and buy the DVD/Bluray/Cassette of your favourite movie or tv show, or you can sign up and watch them all at will. If the service goes down, you complain, things get fixed. They see what is popular and attempt to get more of that to satisfy their customers.

Difference is, movies and TV shows, no matter how old they are, can still be watched decades later. For video games, this is not always the case.

 

 

 

For multiplayer games, and games that have always-on DRM, when the publisher no longer supports the game, and their servers are shut down, the game is no longer able to be played. That's worrisome for fans that like to revisit old games, myself incldued.

 

How can this be fixed? Get rid of always-on. Singleplayer games should not be weighed down with the burden of becoming obsolete like multiplayer games. Multiplayer games will each inevitably end their run, but there's no excuse for slapping an expiration date on singleplayer games.

 

The expiration date is not a problem solely for multiplayer games. Operating systems change, media changes, not always you will have someone like Good Old Games creating versions of the games that are supported by the main OS. I still have a couple diskettes with some old favourite classic games, but I know I'll never be able to run them on my current machines without huge tweaks. It would be up to the developer to work something out, or the community to figure it out.

 

What do you think of Steam, then? If they go bankrupt, which is unlikely but bear with me, what would happen to all your games purchased through it? Maybe they would be nice and give you the games for download, maybe some kind soul would keep the servers alive, maybe whatever you didn't download then, you'd never get again until you either rebought it or pirated.

 

I do agree with you that it's worrisome that the game would simply die when it reached the end of "profitability" or "lifetime". Obviously you can't keep the servers going on forever. What you can do, and it's what I would do if I was running things, was offer the game for download at the end of it's lifetime, perfected after the years of iterations and help of the community, and gathering the data and working on it to improve. You would have a game that would start out in a state, due to its online nature would always be improved and fixed and tweaked, with the help of the community as players and providers of data, and once the time came it would be distributed back to the players, in a "perfect" state, giving it a proper end. That would solve the problem of the game being killed when the servers were over, and it's a good compromise in my eyes, and should be the ultimate goal of these "services". In this way, it wouldn't be a burden on "single player games", but a way to develop them beyond the development cycle time.

 

 

 

This model, applied to games, can bring great things and terrible things, it's in the hands of the publishers to assure either outcome.

So far, publishers are only using the model to rake in more profits. Very little benefit, if any, belongs to the consumer.

 

I completely agree, and it's a shame that they choose to continue down that way. I'm hoping and working so that things can change, for the better.

 

 

 

There, there's roughly the justification for this "always on" drm, without resorting to piracy or because they wanted. Now, if EA had come forth saying that it intends to develop SimCity as a service, hence the always on, instead of giving some lame excuse, people would be praising them for their long term vision, instead of criticizing them for their huge pr mess.

 

If you apply this always on thing with the views of establishing a service, not just a game, you would be a lot more successful. But you live, you learn.

I don't see the point of wanting to justify always-on as part of a "long term vision," if it seems to be only causing problems for both fans and game publishers. In the long-term anyway, games that have to be always-on will be rendered unplayable if the publisher stops supporting it.

 

It seems to only cause problems because that's all we've experienced so far. This is something new when applied to games, and will go through growing pains until someone or some company shows the right way to do it.

 

But think from a developer's perspective. During the development of a game, a triple A title, one is expected to find tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands, of bugs. And that is only on a couple of configurations. If you open the beta and alpha to more people, then you have access to more configurations, but the reports might not be very accurate. With always on, you'd always have feedback over how things are working, across and unlimited number of configurations, and would be able to gather much more easily where and why the game broke, leading to better and quicker fixes, leading to a more stable game. That, coupled with the benefits of the data that I've mentioned above, would make for a much better game in the end.

 

Of course, I'm talking about how this system could work. The game would not be rendered unplayable at the end, but instead perfected. It would make the publishers gain a lot more credibility with the fanbase. It would make for a better game at the end of it's lifetime, a game that ages like fine wine, getting better all the time. Players would in essence be "gold testers", giving invaluable feedback to the developers who would focus on keeping the game better and better, until finally delivered at the end.

[kudoboi]

 

but people have to act all retarded about it. Half of the people complaining probably don't even own the game and are just sad because they can't pirate it, oh how sad.

 

its kinda sad but true. ever since the offline crack was released, the seeder and leecher rate for many torrents have went up ALOT. one of the torrents even having 55K leechers. half of the people who were complaining about this on many huge forums and reddit are now saying that they are pirating the game because they don't support EA. also crackers have already managed to make the game save offline. i won't post the link to the torrents since i don't support piracy at all. i don't feel bad for EA since they lied quite alot but i feel bad for maxis as they are working their ass off trying to fix everything while people are just boycotting them and pirating their game. the place where they store the savegames is C:\games\SimCity\SimCityUserData\EcoGame\

 

you would need to be offline to access that since once you go online it uploads it to their server and delete the data from your PC

Edited March 15, 2013 by kudoboi

[Adler]

 

I completely agree that the video game developers should be held to a higher standard, like in the past. And I agree completely that publishers that do stupid things like ripping content, locking content etc are doing harm to the industry and to gamers. What I'm arguing for is that a proper implementation of games as a service model would be amazing, and would create much better experiences in the long run.

If executed properly at little cost to the consumer, then I'm all for it. But that would be putting too much faith into game developers heh.

 

 

I'm working in the industry, so I'm talking mostly from that perspective, as well as from the perspective of someone who doesn't have as much time to invest in games as before. In my mind, you can take free-to-play games and spin them into the old school "demo" of our days. You get the "demo" of the game for free, and can pay to unlock the rest of the game as you wish. That allows you to get out of it however much you want, while helping the developers prove that the game is worth the money invested.

I don't see what's wrong with the old system though. Free demos are a great incentive for consumers to go out and buy the full product already so why should there be the need for Freemium games? I haven't played the games myself, but I have heard that the microtransactions involved have altered gameplay in multiplayer games. Planetside 2 for example:

 

 

 

AngryJoe points out the Pay-to-Win mechanic that resulted from Planetside 2's Freemium model. Like you mentioned before, it fragments the player experience rather than allowing you to customize your experience. It's because of consequences to gameplay like this that microtransactions should be opposed. That's not mentioning locked content already on discs btw.

 

 

You shouldn't now, but one day you will. But with always on, they can also get the system specs for the game, figure out what's working on one and breaking on other, without having to rely on players individually filing their tech problems, and then trying to figure out why things broke and which path it was. With always on, they can seamlessly deliver a patch, see who did not manage to connect the next time, and figure out a fix quickly. Again, in a "perfect always on" system that is.

 

On statistics, I'm talking cold hard numbers about player tries in level x, level z, average completion time, average number of failures, average damage created, time when players are most online, average score per second, average lifetime, correlation between money spent and playtime, number of playthroughs per level. Those are statistics that only an "always on" system can provide to the developer, and they can work amazingly in order to get the game right over time. Reviews and fan reception are a whole other can of worms.

I see what you're saying. I'd much prefer to be given an option to report statistics though (you know like how software often asks if you want to report user statistics and information). A choice to be always-on or not is what I mean. If you do want bugs you have encountered to be fixed then you would opt to report the issues involved. This would be much more preferable to not being given an option at all whether to be online or not.

 

 

The expiration date is not a problem solely for multiplayer games. Operating systems change, media changes, not always you will have someone like Good Old Games creating versions of the games that are supported by the main OS. I still have a couple diskettes with some old favourite classic games, but I know I'll never be able to run them on my current machines without huge tweaks. It would be up to the developer to work something out, or the community to figure it out.

That is true, but the point I'm trying to make is that developers should not force another cause of death for games. You have a point that singleplayer games do have expiration dates, but always-on would expedite the process. It's a controllable factor that could be prevented if developers would opt out of implementing always-on into their games.

 

 

What do you think of Steam, then? If they go bankrupt, which is unlikely but bear with me, what would happen to all your games purchased through it? Maybe they would be nice and give you the games for download, maybe some kind soul would keep the servers alive, maybe whatever you didn't download then, you'd never get again until you either rebought it or pirated.

I too doubt that Steam would go bankrupt in the near future. I'm a little on the fence with Steam though, I don't support Steam, but I also don't oppose them since they don't interfere with gameplay as much as always-on or microtransactions.

 

 

I do agree with you that it's worrisome that the game would simply die when it reached the end of "profitability" or "lifetime". Obviously you can't keep the servers going on forever. What you can do, and it's what I would do if I was running things, was offer the game for download at the end of it's lifetime, perfected after the years of iterations and help of the community, and gathering the data and working on it to improve. You would have a game that would start out in a state, due to its online nature would always be improved and fixed and tweaked, with the help of the community as players and providers of data, and once the time came it would be distributed back to the players, in a "perfect" state, giving it a proper end. That would solve the problem of the game being killed when the servers were over, and it's a good compromise in my eyes, and should be the ultimate goal of these "services". In this way, it wouldn't be a burden on "single player games", but a way to develop them beyond the development cycle time.

As before, I would not oppose this if this was the goal of game developers. And as before, I would much rather have an option to report user statistics or not rather than be forced to buy into always-on games.

 

 

It seems to only cause problems because that's all we've experienced so far. This is something new when applied to games, and will go through growing pains until someone or some company shows the right way to do it.

 

But think from a developer's perspective. During the development of a game, a triple A title, one is expected to find tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands, of bugs. And that is only on a couple of configurations. If you open the beta and alpha to more people, then you have access to more configurations, but the reports might not be very accurate. With always on, you'd always have feedback over how things are working, across and unlimited number of configurations, and would be able to gather much more easily where and why the game broke, leading to better and quicker fixes, leading to a more stable game. That, coupled with the benefits of the data that I've mentioned above, would make for a much better game in the end.

Well again, I would much much prefer the option rather than the company forcing this onto me. Granted, not many people like to check the box that says "Do you wish to report user statistics?" but given the option, and if there is a prevalence in bugs, then players will likely reconsider checking that box.

 

I'm sure a number of bugs could be prevented by more company oversight on beta-testing and debugging the game. Developers have managed to turn out solid games in the past without updates so why can't they do so now?

 

 

Of course, I'm talking about how this system could work. The game would not be rendered unplayable at the end, but instead perfected. It would make the publishers gain a lot more credibility with the fanbase. It would make for a better game at the end of it's lifetime, a game that ages like fine wine, getting better all the time. Players would in essence be "gold testers", giving invaluable feedback to the developers who would focus on keeping the game better and better, until finally delivered at the end.

I don't doubt that it could work since it does sound like a good idea. Will publishers stop caring only about money and pay attention to the fans though? With EA and Capcom around, I don't see that future in sight.

[Tchuck]

I guess we pretty much agree on the basic principle that if done right, it could be a great thing, but since it's only been done wrong, it hasn't been great. Pay-to-win != Free-to-Play. (It's more of a corruption of it)

 

Implementing something like this could reduce the costs of developing a game, since the development could be spread out over a longer period and start making money earlier, while also improving the game earlier.

 

Developers aren't trying to force another cause of death, they are trying to find a way to extend their games further. Publishers are the one misusing this power . Minecraft is a good example of this, even if done unwittingly. Minecraft is now not a game, but a service. It keeps getting updated, the developers keep in touch with the community. For that kind of game, the kind of design, it's not necessarily for it to be always on. But who knows, maybe it could benefit from it. But take like a platforming game like Super meat boy, if it was always online the devs could get info on which levels are being played the most for fun, not for challenge, and take lessons from it's design to create more enjoyable levels.

 

On the occurrence of bugs, the amount of bugs increase on a different scale when compared to the amount of testers a company has. Before, the systems were simple enough that not many game breaking bugs would appear. Systems in the ways of physics simulation, graphics rendering, gameplay mechanics etc. Nowadays, with ever increasing complexity, the number of bugs soars high. The thing with the submitting a report is that not all players will do it, and many won't even be very specific on their report. With always on, the developers would know exactly when and why the game broke, making it easier to fix without having to decode what the player was doing (even though some games with proper bug reporting system do tell the devs more or less the place where the game broke, but they don't tell what the player was doing, the context)

 

It'll be tough as long as some companies keep their focus on the money, and not the game or the people. But I hope and work so that some day things might change. Full disclosure, I work at EA, so I know what it's like from their side.

[Trund]

 

you STILL don't get it, do you?

since you keep missing the point when it comes from me, I'll quote someone else who said it very well. maybe it will click this time.

 

Oh I do get your points, they're still ridiculous. You don't buy a car that says Vmax is 150kph, and then complain that it doesn't go over it. You don't buy a house with three rooms and then complain they're not enough for you. You don't buy a half liter Cola and then complain that it wasn't enough for your money.

 

It clearly said this game will be online only. Now everyone keeps ranting about it. Well they rant because they don't want things forced upon them, which I can understand, but that's just how they want it. The silly thing is that most people act like they own the game, most people won't ever play the game when they're not at home and wouldn't have a single problem with the forced online.

 

I just like how everyone who is so anti-DRM on here doesn't even own the game. I think it's sh*t, yeah. I said it many times before that I'm not a fan of it, but I don't keep on ranting about it because I bought the game and knew about this. And since the game isn't even meant to be played alone (because it's simply more fun with others anyways), I'm not even so upset about it, but a lot of people keep missing the fact that this game wasn't meant to be a singleplayer experience anyways, and comparing it to SC4 doesn't help at all either.

 

 

piracy does not = lost sales.

EA is retarded and so are you as long as you cling to this flawed theory. it does not justify this form of DRM and there's simply no other good reason for it.

 

You must be kidding me. So the millions of people who pirate a game wouldn't have bought it if they couldn't pirate it? Sounds to me like you really think that people download pirated games only to "try" them before buying.

 

Oh and I made a comment earlier that there were games that couldn't even be played offline because of DRM. What I meant was that there have been games that had such horrible software based DRM's that didn't even allow people to play the game, which has nothing to do with the forced online. My wording wasn't clear enough before, my apologies.

Edited March 15, 2013 by Trund

[Mr. Reaper.]

Sounds to me like you really think that people download pirated games only to "try" them before buying.

You mean you don't buy the game after you've illegal downloaded it, completed it and no longer wish to play it?

 

You monster!

[agent17]

You must be kidding me. So the millions of people who pirate a game wouldn't have bought it if they couldn't pirate it? Sounds to me like you really think that people download pirated games only to "try" them before buying.

Do you really think a pirate is going to buy a game just because they have no other option?

 

The best and most effective anti-piracy measure are incentives. Ironically EA actually did something right with the release of Sims 3, simply activating your copy online would unlock free additional content, no pre-order, no DLC, just something free for people who purchased the game.

 

Hurting the consumer is counter-intuitive.

[OysterBarron]

Seriously this EA war is becoming monotonous now. I'm rating it worse than the console war fiasco.

 

IDK if any of you have come accross this but it's a weird glitch when you do slightly off strait roads in a block form! double Decker commercial!

 

 

Also i made a small montage of some gameplay from a private region iv'e been playing with a close friend. really liking how the city is coming out and haven't worried about using all the space efficiently, but the city has got a nice flow to it thanks to my placement of services. also at the end i put in a clip of another glitch i found ...... good fire engine!!!

 

 

[Trund]

Yeah I had that glitch as well once, quite weird.

 

Well at least they're fixing the traffic currently.

So far from what I can tell these things will get a fix soon: Traffic, utility cars getting stuck and improved logic, public transportation, water supply.

 

Also under consideration are longer green light periods for intersections so more cars can pass at once.

 

So far the simulation that every sim goes to the first available job/house is not receiving any changes yet, at least there's no info for this. According to Maxis this was the plan to keep the required processing power low, however they haven't ruled out that it will get a fix, so it's very possible that they will change the way the engine works in the future (very likely even considering the many people that complain about it currently).

 

For me all that needs a patch now are map sizes. I wouldn't mind terraforming options as well.

[Inspire]

my god just happend? went from 9k profit to -100 within minutes for some reason my sims wont go to school and get better education so now i have 120 homeless people running around, and more people are moving out because there is no money?

 

Also how do you increase the profit on the oil industry? im running all nine pumps but still i only make 60k/day when i need to make 100something a day.

[Trund]

 

my god just happend? went from 9k profit to -100 within minutes for some reason my sims wont go to school and get better education so now i have 120 homeless people running around, and more people are moving out because there is no money?

 

Also how do you increase the profit on the oil industry? im running all nine pumps but still i only make 60k/day when i need to make 100something a day.

If you are running an oil industry, stop looking at the hourly profit and look at the monthly profit. Mine is at more than minus 50k, yet I make 4 million or more per month.

 

Nine pumps? That is not a lot. I had 4 oil fields each with 10 pumps, so 40 pumps total. Then I built four refineries, each producing fuel only (since you can sell this the best).

 

Eventually with that you will easily reach the required profits.

[trip]

'Saw the traffic fix video from Maxis today...yaaaa!!!

I hope it gets implemented soon.

 

[gtamann123]

After watching many gameplay videos I can conclude that the game is good and bad at the same time. It's kind if hard to explain

[Inspire]

my god just happend? went from 9k profit to -100 within minutes for some reason my sims wont go to school and get better education so now i have 120 homeless people running around, and more people are moving out because there is no money?

 

Also how do you increase the profit on the oil industry? im running all nine pumps but still i only make 60k/day when i need to make 100something a day.

If you are running an oil industry, stop looking at the hourly profit and look at the monthly profit. Mine is at more than minus 50k, yet I make 4 million or more per month.

 

Nine pumps? That is not a lot. I had 4 oil fields each with 10 pumps, so 40 pumps total. Then I built four refineries, each producing fuel only (since you can sell this the best).

 

Eventually with that you will easily reach the required profits.

Aha that is what i thought, you cant just have one oil field you need more. Next problem is that i dont have any land left to build on Also the trading depot thing is it limited to only three storage units? Mine only says "limit reached".

[OysterBarron]

If you edit building you can delete the storage unit that comes with it and put 4 of one type down. Alternatively you can put a trading port down that has much more capacity than the depot and it doesn't need to be placed by the water.

[Trund]

That's true. But since trade ports are locked in the beginning, you will just need to build more trade depots. I also had four of these, selling my fuel and all the excess crude oil I produced.

 

After a while, when I unlocked things, I changed my industry a little to sell processors, after that I went with TV's and changed my imports/exports according to what I need and what I can sell. Now I'm barely producing any crude oil anymore, since I'm running out of it anyways. What I do is: I import crude oil and alloy (the latter is quite expensive, but worth it). The crude oil I use to create plastic, for the processor and TV manufacturing. Now all I sell are excess processors and TV, and trust me these things will give you more money than anything else.

 

It does take a lot of tweaking though throughout the game to find he best balance of trading, you won't make a lot of profit in the beginning. But at some point you get the hang out of it and know what to do, and then you'll just be swimming in money.

[Inspire]

Meh, you cant delete your cities? Mine went downhill massivly and is bancrupt. I would like to restart that city but it seems impossible?

[UtricularEwe001]

EA Viral Marketer gets banned

 

lol no wonder why people hate EA

[Trund]

 

Meh, you cant delete your cities? Mine went downhill massivly and is bancrupt. I would like to restart that city but it seems impossible?

Don't you get the option to start the city new once you go bancrupt?

I'm not sure if you can restart and abandoned city, haven't tried it yet.

[Rewas]

I already feel EA is going down soon. Well maybe they will survive until 2014, or maybe they will survive even longer, since people still buy their games. Who knows. Time will tell.