EA Admits That SimCity Could Have Been Offline

[Singularly Datarific]

That is okay to say. Just don't lie to us, EA. We aren't idiots.

 

[Grunt_Man11]

Vision, my foot. Release a legit single player patch and see if anyone sticks around for your MMO crap.

I wonder, are the folks at the helm are really this detached from reality or are they consciously working towards the destruction of their brand?

The problem here is that too many game developers have formed this unhealthy obsession with trying to force video games to be "social."

Just so they can go to the critics and say, "See!? See!? Video games don't breed anti-social behavior! See! They're playing together! See!?" It's rather, for the lack of a better word, pathetic if you think about it.

The funny part is that video games are the only medium that's trying so hard to be "social."

Books aren't social. Just go to a library, or bookstore, and take note of the people reading. You'll notice the one thing they're not doing: socializing! They're not socializing. In fact, socializing is actually discouraged. The whole librarian going "Shhhh!" thing.

Movies aren't social either. Just go to a movie theater and take note of the people watching. You'll notice the one thing they're not doing: socializing! They're not socializing. In fact, socializing is actually discouraged, greatly! The whole "NO TALKING during the movie!" rule.

Plays aren't social either. Just go to a stage theater and take note of the people watching. You'll notice the one thing they're not doing: socializing! They're not socializing. In fact, socializing is actually discouraged, greatly! The whole "NO TALKING during the performance!" rule. (Pretty identical to movies in this regard.)

The only medium that could be considered "social" is music. However, with the exception of concerts, whenever music is a part of a social activity it's just a background role. It's also perfectly acceptable to listen to music privately.

So why are developers trying so hard to make video games a "social activity"? To combat the false, manufactured bad reputation the news media outlets have conjured up in their vain attempt to discredit games? Why?
Such slander was already failing! There's no need to combat something that is not a threat!

Game developers need to stop with this obsession with trying to convince people, who will never be convinced, that video games are a "social activity." All it's doing is giving the video game haters the sense they they're right. It's not pushing the industry forward. It's not doing anyone any favors. It needs to stop.

Stop trying to force people who want to be left alone to socialize. It just does more harm than good.

Thankfully, it seems Sony has realized this with the PS4. Here's hoping the developers realize this with the PS4 games.

`

P.S.: If you think I'm going to buy the whole statement claiming EA had nothing to do with the always-online DRM decision, think again!

 

[RicoADF]

*ahem*
I believe I speak for 3.5 million disenchanted players when I say this to you, EA: YOUR VISION BLOODY WELL SUCKS.

Nobody but YOU wanted an online city-builder. The core CB audience is NOT the same audience that enjoys Facebook and social media - and fie on you for erroneously conflating the two. I hope you learned your lesson.

Some of us did want an online city builder........ as an optional EXTRA, not EAs bullcrap excuse for DRM. Ah well, to the blacklist EA goes.

 

[Lil_Rimmy]

Actually yes. You are hearing from people trading and communicating in the limited 4 player Coop sections. The map may say 16 but there are no rails between those cities and unless you download the debugmode mod you won't be able to change the rails/highway layout to connect all 16.

I have to butt in here to say that you are actually (KIND OF) wrong. I thought the same thing at first, and was about ready to smash my laptop screen in, because myself and 5 other mates (plus more) were all going to be in same region, so the idea of it just being four player maps mashed together to give off the appearance of a multiplayer map.

Now, originally before we got the game, my friends and I thought that it was like a grid based game, AKA, if you are next to or diagonal to a city/great work, you could access it and use it. See, we were all planning it, you know, one of us makes the services, I would be running the police/fire/ambulance etc. and a mate was running casinos blah blah blah.

So we thought of the problem of getting resources or whatever from one place to the next. Then we thought of way stations. So we send shit to one city, and they buy our, coal or whatever, but they don't keep it. They pass it on to the guy who needs coal and he pays them. So in the end, the guy gets his coal and he doesn't have to be next to us.

Then I played and found out about rails, rivers and roads. And I raged. Very hard. It was actually midway through a video that I was making that I found out something amazing. ALL of the cities CAN be linked. But you have to work it out.

I'm going to use Viridan woods as an example, as that's the one I play. I found out that four of us are linked by road together, then 2 of us were linked by water to another cluster, and 3 of us were linked to 2 cities from another cluster. So, one corner of the map can send rails to 2 cities and ships to 1 (or maybe it was 2...), which can then connect to the final cluster.

That's where our idea of waystations came back in, as in, someone could send say... Marcus some coal by rail, who then sends it to me by road, then I ship it to Lachlan who finally sends it by road to Scott, who then burns it, pollutes his city and dies.

So yes, they can all be interconnected, you just have to really work together.

... I wrote waaaaaay too much.

 

[GAunderrated]

Vision, my foot. Release a legit single player patch and see if anyone sticks around for your MMO crap.

I wonder, are the folks at the helm are really this detached from reality or are they consciously working towards the destruction of their brand?

The problem here is that too many game developers have formed this unhealthy obsession with trying to force video games to be "social."

Just so they can go to the critics and say, "See!? See!? Video games don't breed anti-social behavior! See! They're playing together! See!?" It's rather, for the lack of a better word, pathetic if you think about it.

The funny part is that video games are the only medium that's trying so hard to be "social."

Books aren't social. Just go to a library, or bookstore, and take note of the people reading. You'll notice the one thing they're not doing: socializing! They're not socializing. In fact, socializing is actually discouraged. The whole librarian going "Shhhh!" thing.

Movies aren't social either. Just go to a movie theater and take note of the people watching. You'll notice the one thing they're not doing: socializing! They're not socializing. In fact, socializing is actually discouraged, greatly! The whole "NO TALKING during the movie!" rule.

Plays aren't social either. Just go to a stage theater and take note of the people watching. You'll notice the one thing they're not doing: socializing! They're not socializing. In fact, socializing is actually discouraged, greatly! The whole "NO TALKING during the performance!" rule. (Pretty identical to movies in this regard.)

The only medium that could be considered "social" is music. However, with the exception of concerts, whenever music is a part of a social activity it's just a background role. It's also perfectly acceptable to listen to music privately.

So why are developers trying so hard to make video games a "social activity"? To combat the false, manufactured bad reputation the news media outlets have conjured up in their vain attempt to discredit games? Why?
Such slander was already failing! There's no need to combat something that is not a threat!

Game developers need to stop with this obsession with trying to convince people, who will never be convinced, that video games are a "social activity." All it's doing is giving the video game haters the sense they they're right. It's not pushing the industry forward. It's not doing anyone any favors. It needs to stop.

Stop trying to force people who want to be left alone to socialize. It just does more harm than good.

Thankfully, it seems Sony has realized this with the PS4. Here's hoping the developers realize this with the PS4 games.

`

P.S.: If you think I'm going to buy the whole statement claiming EA had nothing to do with the always-online DRM decision, think again!

Very well written post! I couldn't agree more it is like the industry is so insecure they have to force us to be social or else they are promoting anti-social killers. lol

 

[Prosis]

snip

They are trying to be social. But I don't think its a matter of trying to convince people that games encourage social behavior.

They want to convince investors and stockholders that their products will be profitable. And right now, social is the magic buzzword. Everyone saw the overwhelming success of Angry Birds and Farmville. Facebook stocks have been rising. Iphones have created an entire new and untouched market of gamers, much like how the Wiimote created an entire market for non-gamer families.
AAA companies either want A) a slice of that big delicious social pie or B) convince stockholders and investors that by harnessing these social elements, their product will succeed. That is, investors could care less about gameplay and mechanics and whatnot. But they know what's hot, and they know what's profitable. And its true. Any AAA true gaming title which manages to harness the Farmville/Angrybird crowd will break the bank.

But Sim City was not the game to do it. Why? Mainly because of advertising. Their primary customers would be returning fans or hardcore gamers perousing the interent, not social gamers who happened to be on Origin one day.

 

[GAunderrated]

snip

They are trying to be social. But I don't think its a matter of trying to convince people that games encourage social behavior.

They want to convince investors and stockholders that their products will be profitable. And right now, social is the magic buzzword. Everyone saw the overwhelming success of Angry Birds and Farmville. Facebook stocks have been rising. Iphones have created an entire new and untouched market of gamers, much like how the Wiimote created an entire market for non-gamer families.
AAA companies either want A) a slice of that big delicious social pie or B) convince stockholders and investors that by harnessing these social elements, their product will succeed. That is, investors could care less about gameplay and mechanics and whatnot. But they know what's hot, and they know what's profitable. And its true. Any AAA true gaming title which manages to harness the Farmville/Angrybird crowd will break the bank.

But Sim City was not the game to do it. Why? Mainly because of advertising. Their primary customers would be returning fans or hardcore gamers perousing the interent, not social gamers who happened to be on Origin one day.

Also lets not forget they tried simcity socially in the iOS and it crashed and burned spectacularly. So basically they took a failed idea and thought it would be a good idea to integrate it into the main platform for the game. lol

 

[Xarathox]

And this is why I support pirating. Probably going to get punished for that, but I give zero fucks. Always on DRM for single player games is the shittiest business model any company can possibly employ.

Want to stop piracy? stop trying to stop piracy.

 

[Nurb]

>lie
>be questioned
>lie even more
>proven you were a liar
>pretend to suddenly be blunt and honest
>blame everything on the corpse of a developer they danced around for easy money.

Stay classy, EA

Oh and if anyone doesn't know yet: Anyone who refers to any game or program as a "Vision" is completely full of shit and will only end up ripping you off or kill an IP. "Vision" is corporate jargon presenters like to use when they don't have anything real or new to say.

 

[Ix Rebound]

What's up with every developer now having a "vision" about making singleplayer games into multiplayer games?

What next? Super meat boy online? Trine Online? Dragon Age online? Tropico 5 Online edition?

Dead space onli- oh wait
Mass effect onli- oh wait

Basically if EA can shove multiplayer in there, they will

 

[Solo-Wing]

"But we rejected that idea because it didn't fit with our vision."

Translation: "EA wanted this thing to be online only and none of us wanted to lose our jobs."

Anyway, now that the cat's out of the bag maybe EA will relent and allow for the single-player patch. It still won't sell a copy of the game to me but it might make people like me stop saying mean things about Electronic Arts.

No. No. I will still say mean tings about them. They have sucked the life out of so many things I love. It would take so much for me to make a 180 about how I feel about them.

OT: The "Vision" was to wring as much pennies out of people as possible using this. With the Always Online people would not be able to mod the game to have the features EA want to sell us as DLC. They want to keep the Always online? Fine. Every piece of DLC best be completely free. If not remove it and let the modders have fun.

 

[duchaked]

lol I like how this was one of the related articles to this
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/stolen-pixels/5137-Stolen-Pixels-12-The-Economics-Lesson

but anyway, I really can't take the whole "vision" thing seriously x(

 

[GAunderrated]

And this is why I support pirating. Probably going to get punished for that, but I give zero fucks. Always on DRM for single player games is the shittiest business model any company can possibly employ.

Want to stop piracy? stop trying to stop piracy.

Honestly please take that phony justice away. I actually respect people who are more upfront about their decisions because they don't try and justify they just say they are doing it and that is that. If you are going to go the P route so you can play the game without paying for it that is your decision as a person and I respect it even if I don't agree with it, but don't pretend it is apart of some pseudo-justified cause that will teach companies a lesson and that is the reason you decide to get a free copy.

 

[zinho73]

That is exactly the argument that many fans in favor of an easy mode for dark souls used, then they got bashed for not respecting artistic integrity. Of course the difference being that this game is shit, and DS was great (in my opinion).

Easy Dark Souls is not a matter of artistic integrity. the problem is that a change in design philosophy can easily lead to a game that alienates the fans, as DA2, ME3, Diablo 3 and Sim City so aptly demonstrate.

Also, all those changes (including the easy mode in Dark Souls and always online DRM) are really not related to design vision. They are a sub-product of marketing, for better or worse (normally worse).

 

[bat32391]

Pfff whatever, EA can fuck off. These guys are just pathetic, I can't believe they're still using this "artistic integrity" crap as an excuse.

 

[Drummodino]

What a load of bull fucking shit. Stop wheeling out the developers to cover your huge money-grabbing ass EA. Hopefully more people will be like me and stop buying your games until you remedy your awful awful awful consumer fucking business models. As much as I love Mass Effect I still haven't played the third solely because of you EA and your fucking drm and dlc practices. Consumers please band together to send these assholes a message that we won't roll over and take this lying down.

 

[Drummodino]

Vision, my foot. Release a legit single player patch and see if anyone sticks around for your MMO crap.

I wonder, are the folks at the helm are really this detached from reality or are they consciously working towards the destruction of their brand?

The problem here is that too many game developers have formed this unhealthy obsession with trying to force video games to be "social."

Just so they can go to the critics and say, "See!? See!? Video games don't breed anti-social behavior! See! They're playing together! See!?" It's rather, for the lack of a better word, pathetic if you think about it.

The funny part is that video games are the only medium that's trying so hard to be "social."

Books aren't social. Just go to a library, or bookstore, and take note of the people reading. You'll notice the one thing they're not doing: socializing! They're not socializing. In fact, socializing is actually discouraged. The whole librarian going "Shhhh!" thing.

Movies aren't social either. Just go to a movie theater and take note of the people watching. You'll notice the one thing they're not doing: socializing! They're not socializing. In fact, socializing is actually discouraged, greatly! The whole "NO TALKING during the movie!" rule.

Plays aren't social either. Just go to a stage theater and take note of the people watching. You'll notice the one thing they're not doing: socializing! They're not socializing. In fact, socializing is actually discouraged, greatly! The whole "NO TALKING during the performance!" rule. (Pretty identical to movies in this regard.)

The only medium that could be considered "social" is music. However, with the exception of concerts, whenever music is a part of a social activity it's just a background role. It's also perfectly acceptable to listen to music privately.

So why are developers trying so hard to make video games a "social activity"? To combat the false, manufactured bad reputation the news media outlets have conjured up in their vain attempt to discredit games? Why?
Such slander was already failing! There's no need to combat something that is not a threat!

Game developers need to stop with this obsession with trying to convince people, who will never be convinced, that video games are a "social activity." All it's doing is giving the video game haters the sense they they're right. It's not pushing the industry forward. It's not doing anyone any favors. It needs to stop.

Stop trying to force people who want to be left alone to socialize. It just does more harm than good.

Thankfully, it seems Sony has realized this with the PS4. Here's hoping the developers realize this with the PS4 games.

`

P.S.: If you think I'm going to buy the whole statement claiming EA had nothing to do with the always-online DRM decision, think again!

Very well written post! I couldn't agree more it is like the industry is so insecure they have to force us to be social or else they are promoting anti-social killers. lol

Seconded. I play primarily singleplayer games as an escape from daily life. If I want to socialize I'll play minecraft or civ with my roommate (or hell go outside or see friends!) but EA seems to be taking my private happy place away from me

 

[Whoracle]

Did'n't we know Sim City would be always online a year ago?

No, we didn't. Quite the opposite, really.

http://uk.pc.gamespy.com/pc/sim-city-5/1221798p1.html

[...]
Yes, you will have to register an Origin account in order to play, and yes, you must be online at all times while playing in order to start playing. EA has confirmed that you will not be kicked out if your connection is interrupted. Moving on.
[...]

 

[ShAmMz0r]

Honestly please take that phony justice away. I actually respect people who are more upfront about their decisions because they don't try and justify they just say they are doing it and that is that. If you are going to go the P route so you can play the game without paying for it that is your decision as a person and I respect it even if I don't agree with it, but don't pretend it is apart of some pseudo-justified cause that will teach companies a lesson and that is the reason you decide to get a free copy.

Why is it so hard to believe that people can actually pirate things for reasons other than not paying for them? Sure that may be a most common cause but surely not the only one.

As for EA and their bullshit I am surprised that they are actually allowed to get away with it. I know next to nothing about consumer protection laws in US but EA is bound to get slapped around for false advertising at the least, right? Why is it not happening?

 

[1337mokro]

Actually yes. You are hearing from people trading and communicating in the limited 4 player Coop sections. The map may say 16 but there are no rails between those cities and unless you download the debugmode mod you won't be able to change the rails/highway layout to connect all 16.

I have to butt in here to say that you are actually (KIND OF) wrong. I thought the same thing at first, and was about ready to smash my laptop screen in, because myself and 5 other mates (plus more) were all going to be in same region, so the idea of it just being four player maps mashed together to give off the appearance of a multiplayer map.

Now, originally before we got the game, my friends and I thought that it was like a grid based game, AKA, if you are next to or diagonal to a city/great work, you could access it and use it. See, we were all planning it, you know, one of us makes the services, I would be running the police/fire/ambulance etc. and a mate was running casinos blah blah blah.

So we thought of the problem of getting resources or whatever from one place to the next. Then we thought of way stations. So we send shit to one city, and they buy our, coal or whatever, but they don't keep it. They pass it on to the guy who needs coal and he pays them. So in the end, the guy gets his coal and he doesn't have to be next to us.

Then I played and found out about rails, rivers and roads. And I raged. Very hard. It was actually midway through a video that I was making that I found out something amazing. ALL of the cities CAN be linked. But you have to work it out.

I'm going to use Viridan woods as an example, as that's the one I play. I found out that four of us are linked by road together, then 2 of us were linked by water to another cluster, and 3 of us were linked to 2 cities from another cluster. So, one corner of the map can send rails to 2 cities and ships to 1 (or maybe it was 2...), which can then connect to the final cluster.

That's where our idea of waystations came back in, as in, someone could send say... Marcus some coal by rail, who then sends it to me by road, then I ship it to Lachlan who finally sends it by road to Scott, who then burns it, pollutes his city and dies.

So yes, they can all be interconnected, you just have to really work together.

... I wrote waaaaaay too much.

Well again not really.

4 of you are connected by (almost) ALL traffic means. One or two are sort of way stations in between the other 4 and so on, however that doesn't have to be. We could just as easily build a high way or like we already can do build RAIL tracks outside in the region zone and connect all of us. The trains and boats are already incredibly badly done having to travel around the ENTIRE region before docking or stopping at your station (the stations are also TINY compared to actual train stations in real cities).

You can't share electricity, sewage, water, etc. with those NOT directly connected to you by road. You can ship coal, I pose that that is also completely broken and doesn't ship NEARLY fast enough, but that's really the only thing. You work AROUND the game rather than making the game work for you.

One last thing though. Will Scott's funeral require formal attire?