EA Admits That SimCity Could Have Been Offline

[GundamSentinel]

And the trainwreck keeps going and going. Artistic vision, HA! Just like the ME3 ending, right? If you wanted to implement interconnected cities you could've done it in offline mode as well. Everything said by EA or Maxis just seems to be digging an even deeper grave.

 

[poiuppx]

*sigh*

This, right here, was where I knew we were headed the moment they announced Always-Connected. Which, as an aside, was the moment I decided not to buy.

I'm not some torch-and-pitchfork hater of EA; I try to judge every title that hits shelves on its own merits, not the merits of the company in question. But that said, I don't FORGET the names on the box, either. Ubisoft still gets a fair bit of second-thoughts from me before any purchase because of how they treated the PC side of their consumer base, for example. And with Diablo III, I more or less shelved any interest in Blizzard's works for the foreseeable future because I happened to be a Diablo fan who was 'playing it wrong' (ie, I liked single player only, thanks).

But if being a dick or refusing to let me just have my game unsullied by online malarky was enough to turn me off THOSE guys, what EA/Maxis have been up to should be enough to turn me off electronic devices in general. Relying on external elements to run one's game rarely works out well. Servers overload. They lag. They break. They need to go down for maintenance. They rely on both my connection and yours not sucking. And at the end of the day, they rely most of all on you not deciding in a year or two to just pull the servers entirely and let the game die. Speaking as someone who doesn't trade or sell his games and has busted out NES games for especially nerdy parties, the idea of me investing at-launch cost for a game that is so dependant on online play that I have no way of knowing if in two years I could even USE it... no.

I hope, I pray, that someone is getting the boot over all this and that someone in a position of authority at EA is taking the right lessons from this. But even if they do, I question whether it will be enough at this point. Again speaking as someone who never really had a hate-on for EA, what I have now instead is healthy distrust in their products and capabilities. I'm much more likely to hold off and wait for reviews and fan reaction in future before even glancing their way. I am a 100%-certified lost sale for all opening weekends until proven otherwise, and in this day and age that time period is obscenely vital for companies.

Obviously, I can't speak for everyone. But I have to imagine that without changes there is a tipping point where people will respond to 'EA' the same way people respond in the theatre to a trailer that shows M. Night Shamalyan's name. You can burn folks only so much, provide crappy service only so many times, before people start to walk away. And while I'm willing to walk back if you prove yourself, I question how many others can be bothered to when the industry is pumping out games left, right, and center for all genres anyway.

And to the inevitable person who will jadedly say the population will just eat up whatever EA tosses out there and this doesn't matter? Warfighter. Thank you.

 

[MrMan999]

I'm glad to see that the consumers are getting wise to EA's BS. Hopefully EA will learn that if you treat your customers like shit, you lose in the Long Term.

 

[templar1138a]

Oh man, is Jim Sterling going to have a field day with this one.

 

[Lieju]

I don't have that much of a problem with their choice to make the game that way.

But the fact is it doesn't work, and you end up with an experience that's not a good MMO or a good singleplayer game.

 

[Theysaid]

I'm not going to whine about always on DRM. If I like the game and have friends that are going to play too, then always on DRM doesn't really matter much to me. There are games (like SimCity) that should really have a single player mode (seems like a good way to waste time on a flight, for example), but if I'm going to play with friends most of the time I will probably get my money's worth in game time.

With that said... if you're going to go the always on DRM route, you better make it work correctly. Always on DRM was the most controversial aspect of the new Sim City, so how could they have missed that the game would perform so poorly online? While some people were never going to buy the game because of always on DRM, I'm sure there were a bunch of potential players on the fence waiting for first reviews (myself included). Many of us were probably saying, "I'm really not fond of the DRM, but if it gets good reviews, I'll buy it."

Always on DRM was the game's most glaring "defect" before launch... and it was even more defective than we knew. EA doesn't deserve my money -- not because of the always on DRM, but because they knew this design choice was under the microscope and they still failed miserably.

 

[Atmos Duality]

They thought they could half-ass it and push this through as rapidly as possible. What is astounding is how absolutely incompetent they are. If they had any shred of intellect, they MIGHT have pulled this off. They MIGHT have been charging people stupid sums of money for a SINGLE BUILDING. They almost DEFINITELY would have gotten away with it if the game was free to play.

Unfortunately, their greed is overshadowed only by their blind incompetence and brilliant IPs must suffer. But hey, this means that new IPs and indie titles may flourish, so there's that.

All this boils down to is the "evolution" in gaming that so many keep spouting on about.
And that "evolution" is "less for more".

Less core content, more DLC. Less community involvement and mods, more content from the publisher.
At this stage, Piracy provides more of a quaint pariah for justification than anything; I'd even call it a convenient excuse to enforce such price-gouging practices.

But the worst part: Gameplay design is the first to suffer.
Diablo 3 was just the start, with its watered down depth, increased grind and near-total emphasis on gear over player ability.

SimCity is lazily programmed and is easily the worst simulation in the franchise.

 

[Simalacrum]

Now that the offline functionality has been proven beyond any doubt, I think gamers need to keep up the pressure; bring along petitions, boycotts, etc, and demand that EA/Maxis bring out an offline mode in a future update. Forcing players to play a certain way really isn't on, and furthermore, alienates players that don't necessarily have a good enough internet connection, such as those in less developed nations.

 

[GAunderrated]

*sigh*

This, right here, was where I knew we were headed the moment they announced Always-Connected. Which, as an aside, was the moment I decided not to buy.

I'm not some torch-and-pitchfork hater of EA; I try to judge every title that hits shelves on its own merits, not the merits of the company in question. But that said, I don't FORGET the names on the box, either. Ubisoft still gets a fair bit of second-thoughts from me before any purchase because of how they treated the PC side of their consumer base, for example. And with Diablo III, I more or less shelved any interest in Blizzard's works for the foreseeable future because I happened to be a Diablo fan who was 'playing it wrong' (ie, I liked single player only, thanks).

But if being a dick or refusing to let me just have my game unsullied by online malarky was enough to turn me off THOSE guys, what EA/Maxis have been up to should be enough to turn me off electronic devices in general. Relying on external elements to run one's game rarely works out well. Servers overload. They lag. They break. They need to go down for maintenance. They rely on both my connection and yours not sucking. And at the end of the day, they rely most of all on you not deciding in a year or two to just pull the servers entirely and let the game die. Speaking as someone who doesn't trade or sell his games and has busted out NES games for especially nerdy parties, the idea of me investing at-launch cost for a game that is so dependant on online play that I have no way of knowing if in two years I could even USE it... no.

If we could get thumbs up both mine would be pointing straight up at you. Well said! I am the exact same as you in how you feel. I judge each game by its own merits and I don't forget the major fuck ups they do.

Ubisoft has done a lot of damage with PC players so I normally heavily research their games and if I like it I still buy it discounted heavily. They have thankfully wised up a bit recently and are slowly working to make things better. I actually am starting to like the idea of Uplay because it is not an exclusive BS crap like origin. It is still an extra thing to log in but as long as I can put it in my steam library I am less inclined to resist a buy on Uplay alone.

Blizzard had my complete trust until diablo 3. Because of all the BS they pulled I am not buying HoTS (a game I would normally buy day 1) and instead am watching a Let's play for the story and will probably get the game whenever it goes on sale if at all.

EA has lost the most business with me these past few years due to their constant stupidity. I am not even pitchfork mad at them anymore I just want them to fuck off for 2 seconds so I can enjoy one of their dwindling catelog of good games. Let's see due to origin, always on DRM, and general fuckary I have not bought ME3, BF3, DS3, and Simcity (off the top of my head).

Isn't it funny and sad how this is one of the best generations in terms of variety and quality of games yet it is also the worst generation because of all the unnecessary bullshit they put with these amazing games?

 

[Drejer43]

I would be okay with the always online drm if the servers actually worked, does anyone know if they work now?

 

[Candidus]

Hey there MAXIS!

I've got a great deal for you, as someone who hasn't yet purchased SimCity. Ready? Here it is...

You keep your "vision" for Simcity.

And I'll keep my money.

 

[Atmos Duality]

See, part of this would be fine, if they took DOTA 2's model; if they made a free to play game and pretty much handed off the creative control over the non-essentials, they could have pulled it off. Instead, EA seems absolutely determined to make all the mistakes and learn nothing. Determined. They learned nothing from Valve and Steam with Origin and they learned nothing from Blizzard and Diablo III and SimCity. They are just a terribly run company.

What bothers me is that people seem to completely ignore this trend and continue to not only support the publisher with preorders but also support them vocally.

You can't be this passive. You can't be this complacent. You just can't.

Valve is devilishly clever like that, but that's because unlike EA, Valve started out as community modders for Doom and Quake (I was part of that mod community; I bug tested Action Quake2, the literal prototype for Counterstrike).
They know just how powerful community involvement is. Team Fortress 2 was a raving success well before it went F2P; it wasn't flash-in-the-pan Shooter #348 that people play for a month and then swiftly forget.

Where EA sees marks and Preorder-suckers to be milked and neglected...Valve sees enthusiasts.
Not because of any wishy-washy "for teh arts" reason, but because that's how they got started.
I shouldn't have to point out just how successful a business model it is. It makes Online-Only/Service-Centric games like DotA2 worthwhile.

For all the evil genius (and potentially dangerous) marketing strategies Valve employs I'll grant them this:
They don't just slapdash the game together (SimCity) or make brutal concessions on the gameplay (Diablo 3) because they're too busy optimizing the milkers for their digital cattle ranch.
Valve's gameplay is at least mechanically functional, and to date, ALWAYS pretty good to start with.

What does EA offer? What does SimCity offer?
Multiplayer? You aren't even interacting much with the other players. You can send cash and resources; but when a city isn't being used, its assets are frozen in time and at best, is providing a passive effect for the rest of the region.

And outside of that interaction, the rest of the gameplay is strictly WORSE than previous SimCity games.
Now hackers/modder have discovered features and tools from previous SimCity games in the game client ready to be drip-fed to the players. (There's no other logical for them to be in the game client otherwise, save astonishing stupidity)

Yet EA is expecting people to accept all of this bullshit, always online, with a smile and an open wallet.
There is no question in my mind that this was exploitation first, and a game second.

If that's truly the "evolution of gaming" I keep hearing touted, then I want it terminated.
This serves no purpose except to push the medium further into the cesspit of LCD-centric stagnation.

 

[Something Amyss]

You misunderstood me.

No, I basically went on a tangent. Pointing out, after the fact, that the ideal result would be for people to do something that I paralleled to your statement.

Now, you did specifically state that they could go to the guy who cracked it, so I commented that it wasn't a complete crack. This is kind of not helpful.

Ok... your kind of creeping me out... >_>

What about my kind creeps you out?

 

[Something Amyss]

Hey there MAXIS!

I've got a great deal for you, as someone who hasn't yet purchased SimCity. Ready? Here it is...

You keep your "vision" for Simcity.

And I'll keep my money.

If only more people would do this.

 

[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.