You know how the industry keeps labeling people "entitled" whenever they take any issue whatsoever with what it's doing? Well this form of always on DRM that Sim City is using - you know, the reason why many who bought the game can't play it at this moment - is an example of why people take umbrage.
Everyone understands that companies have the right to, and a need to, protect their property as well as do the best they can to ensure sales. That's normal, expected, and accepted. But when you pay for a game, you ARE "entitled" to be allowed to play said game. Especially when their own people not 24 hours earlier go into interviews and talk about how the servers have been stress tested and are ready for launch. Those interviews aren't just innocent, excusable interactions with fans and media personnel. They're ADVERTISING.
When you advertise that your servers are ready for launch, and people pay for the game partially on the basis of that advertisement, they ARE "entitled" to get what they think they paid for. This is why always-on DRM gets such a bad rap, and why people don't understand and don't accept being called "entitled whiners" by the industry they love and want to support in exchange for gaming experiences they desire.
Meanwhile, pirates manage to crack these forms of DRM in short order. So it doesn't do a lot to deter piracy, and only really causes an inconvenience for paying customers. If it's not going to deter piracy more than an activation key, then why not take a hint from companies like Stardock, and just use activation keys? Stardock's philosophy seems to be that more intrusive forms of DRM don't protect them more than activation keys do, and they *shock and gasp* would rather not INCONVENIENCE THEIR PAYING CUSTOMERS. I know. What a radical concept, right?
That's why they get the kind of loyalty that ensures that many will ride out buggy launches like Elemental, and still be around when they finally fix the game and release something like Elemental: Fallen Enchantress. And they are only one example of companies who treat their customers right and get their loyalty in return. EA: please take note.
https://forums.stardock.com/440090
I think this applies to sim games as well. They're still at the same kind of evolutionary stagnation that RTSes are, that while they're certainly fun to play they haven't really been impressing people much.
2014 and beyond 64 bit gaming should finally be a thing. I can't wait to see it.
*Long sigh*
You know earlier when I said my indignant frustration had given way to resigned sadness? Yeah. That pretty much killed that.
Especially this part from that:
In order to achieve this offline state, modder UKAzzer had to edit the game code to enable debug mode. This exists so the developer can play around with additional features and test the game. Most of those features are disabled unless you have a developer build of the game, but apparently enabling it on a consumer version removes the need for a server connection while retaining everything you need to play.
In fact, it actually improves the game in some ways. City populations are actually tracked correctly and you can edit outside of your city boundaries. Those additional edits are also saved when you reconnect.
REALLY? So what was that Maxis said about substantial engineering being required to make the game playable offline? All they had to do was what this modder did in a few days, and allow local saves instead of cloud saves. Seriously, assuming this is true - and being the skeptical individual I am, I am willing to entertain the possibility that somehow the alleged modder is lying or some such - this really frustrates me to no end.
Since when would you trust a CEO, or any exec, over a m0dder like me?
They want everyone online, all the time, period. They will spew whatever shit the public will swallow to achieve this.
As I said before, shenanigans...Here's the vid said Modder/Hacker posted...
Also, if you go to the full page. There is a link to said page for the hack/mod...
What would be the point if you still need to connect to save? After SC6 is released and these servers are closed, will nothing work then?
Ahh, true. And he din't say anything about local saves on your rig... Maybe get SimCity4, Tropicol 4, or Cities XL...
I love this SimCity and it's release. It's like a beautiful soap opera; every day when I get home there's a new installment full with 'Called it's and 'Oh no they didn't's waiting for me. I'm just so glad I didn't buy it, I'll stick to SC4 for the time being.
Glad he or she is sharing it with the world. Though, I wouldn't give them one cent for their game so I won't be able to make use of it, personally. (I know there are alternatives, but I refuse to go that route myself.)
You know, all these publishers talking about how complaining consumers are "entitled" becomes even more asinine when something like this happens. It makes it incredibly apparent that they think little enough of their audience to LIE to them outright. It's sad, and it's insulting.
I am getting to the point where all this entertainment is bugging my conscience. EA has given me two weeks of fun, and I havent paid anything for it. They should sell ticket to this show
Damn right they want you online. They want to control the whole cycle. They don't want you to happily go off and enjoy one of their games forever.
Wouldn't that be great for EA. Shut down the servers of past games to force you to upgrade. Instead of just doing that with multi-player games now they can do it with all games.
I'm finding this is happening more and more of late. Game companies are getting very comfortable just out and out lying. Maybe it's the economy. Sure there's a fair share of customer whining over nothing but there is also outright fraud happening. Legends of Pegasus and The War Z come to mind as well as some other launches that were frauds at first but were made right by the developers.
This latest lie of "needing calculations to be on the server" and having a modder prove them wrong within a couple of weeks is just absolute sweet karma. I'd like to say EA will suffer for this but they won't, They will spin this away and move on.
Well they sort of do if you want any sort of multiplayer sanity. Otherwise someone could hack in forty nuclear power stations into a non-sandbox region for reals and ruin all the fun of creating a power infrastructure from scratch.
That said, I'm not impressed with the sync performance. Send a gift of Simoleons to another town, chances are it will get eaten by the server. It's like Homer with a donut, it is.
It takes ages, but it does get there eventually.
That's pretty much the only majorly disappointing thing in the game to me.
You know, at this point, I'm not even mad. I'm sad. I mean, genuinely sad. Now I know I'm kind of a depressive person to start with. And I know appealing to people's "feelings" comes off as less righteously indignant and cool than just getting pissed. I've had people call me a hippy and a pansy and worse for that. But I have to be honest. I'm genuinely, profoundly saddened by this.
Sim City, for me, was a quintessential videogame. I mean seriously. Along with things like Space Invaders and Super Mario Bros., this was one of those games. This is a game I would sneak into the PC lab at my school to play as a kid. It was a game I'd want to go to my friend's house (since he had a Commodore) just to play. This is a game that lives in that tapestry of memories from that period of my life, right along side the first time my dad put me on his lap so I could reach the joystick at our arcade. (Can't even remember the game. Some kind of top down SHMUP.)
And Sim City 2000 was incredible for its time. Another game I snuck into my school's PC lab to play lol. (I never had a PC growing up.) This time as a teenager in middle school finally old enough to really appreciate it. I would also play Sim Ant when I could, too. Later I played the somewhat crappy SC 2000 port on the first Playstation, but it wasn't the same.
Sim City 3000 was more of an evolution than a revolution, but despite some of the familiar color coding of zones and so forth changing, it too was a blast. And Sim City 4, well, people continue to play that to this day, ten years on.
This new Sim City fundamentally changes what the game is. It takes it from being a sandbox you can expand and tinker with to your heart's content, to a highly social, "connected" experience where you're limited in size and scope unless you want to juggle multiple cities. That would be fine in and of itself. I could adapt to that, and I can even appreciate and enjoy the idea of having to balance the nature and style of each city. Conceptually, I actually really like the idea and the different sort of challenge it poses. And the bugs, I'm sure those will be fixed in time
What won't ever get fixed is the fact that Maxis has confirmed my worst suspicions about an industry I've been fortunate to experience the benefits of for most of my life, and have passionately loved for most of that time. For the last ten years or so, many - myself included - have watched this crawl toward constant microtransactions, eventual always-online, the transforming of videogames into sales platforms essentially (one review recently described a game in exactly that light, saying, "It's both a game and a platform,") and have watched with suspicion as companies have made claims many of us thought sounded dubious. But on some naive, optimistic level - perhaps the level of my mind where the aforementioned cherished memories live - I, like many I'm sure, didn't want to believe that the industry would simply tell a bold faced lie.
Spin, duplicitous marketing to a degree, sure. We've all been burned by that enough, and that sucks. We've all been told things that could be contorted and construed as "true" that in the final analysis probably weren't. But not lie right to our faces about a design choice many took issue with or in the case of this game, contributed to the inability to play the game at all for many initially.
Yet now Maxis of all companies (yes I know it's not the same company today it was before but that's beside the point) has literally lied directly to the industry. Customers, journalists, and peers alike. I don't know how else to say it. They've lied, plain and simple. I feel Lucy Bradshaw should be ashamed of herself. She has impugned her integrity as a person, and that of her industry as a creative business environment. And by extension, Maxis as a whole, and EA as a whole.
I'm not going to say I want the company to burn down like some people have. I'm not going to hate them and wish ill on them. On the contrary, I actually wish them continued success, even though I won't be contributing to it. I just wish that they could be honest and straightforward. I wish that the naive enthusiasm of my youth could have been rewarded with a confirmation that at least THIS industry, while yes, a profit oriented endeavor like any other business, had some integrity. That at least THIS industry, which started as a niche dependent on people like us, could remember where its lifeblood and very survival in years past lay. That at least THIS industry could reward hope and passion with good faith instead of slight of hand and bullshit.
Instead, like much else in life, it has repaid us with disillusionment and disenfranchisement. And I'm not going to lie. I know I can me melodramatic and over-emotional. But screw it. We now live in the era where these companies feel utterly comfortable lying directly to us and then still expecting us to care so little that we will buy their products. And that HURTS. And that SUCKS.
That's all I can say.
Wow Vamphaery, that's really deep.
The way I see it, the big companies have lost sight and are looking to nickle and dime the consumer with DLC. If the content has merit, say like Entrenchment and Diplomacy. Then I will buy it which I did with the examples.
I know it's a business but it shouldn't deceive the consumer. I remember on the NES there was the game called Airwolf, like the show. I was so disappointed on how this game was, it was a travesty and wasted money on. That's when I got my subscription to EGM so I wouldn't buy a bad game again. Sorry, I'm digressing.
I know companies like EA are trying to maximize profits, but their are doing it wrong. If the game is good, and don't have a lot of headaches like DRM, it will sell. Look how well the original Sins did, Game of the year. All the great games that are coming out of Kickstarter, shows what gamers want in a game. In just a matter of time, Total Annihilation will be sprung on us and I can't wait.
Publisher's have forgotten that games should be fun and if it is a great game, they will spend the money. Gamers will fondly talk about these games with reverence, just load up and play without worrying to log on and to verify you bought the game. But the shenanigans they are doing will hurt the industry overall.
Hopefully a lesson is learned, but I doubt it.
I'm not a very deep person, I wear my heart and thoughts on my sleeve. If you completely ignore all the bullshit with the always online DRM, the game is still a gilded travesty. As I was playing it, I felt that there was just something wrong with the economy and the city building. The more complex I made my city, the more problems I introduced. That should have been fine, I kept trying to tell myself, "Isn't that the way it should work? AS the city gets bigger, the challenge gets more complicated?" But I knew it didn't feel right, as many people have pointed out else where, you can build a city completely with Residential and power and parks, and nothing else and it will grow and prosper just fine. This also prevents the stupid AI traffic jams, the stupid crime and police, the firefighters and garbage men who act randomly.
I say the game is a gilded travesty. I use the word gilded because if you play the game exactly as intended, in the short run it will look like it is a great simulation. But it's a farce, eventually you will see that it's only surface deep and the experience is hollow. Why does my city have crime? Because I built businesses. No commerce, no crime. Why does my city have pollution? Because I built industry. No industry, no pollution. They don't need anything other than power, homes and a few parks to play in.
Maybe they'll move in, but they won't like you or bring any tax revenue since they won't have any money.
Also, I don't even know if that's true. Sims tend to move out when annoyed.
I agree Lord Xia. The more you play the game the more you realize it isn't about that 'balancing act' the previous SimCity games required but more about being a city-builder version of "the Sims".
I still see potential there. It does however seem like the game should have been delayed. Some things needed to be taken back to the drawing board.
They will and you can grow to tens if not hundreds of thousands of population. They will be perfectly happy. Give it a try.
Fair enough, but no. I didn't buy a house building sim.
I just want the pathing fixes in cause traffic gets fucking stupid.
Tyler Wilde at 08:58pm March 15 2013
Maxis GM Lucy Bradshaw has responded to criticism that SimCity could have featured an offline mode, saying that yes, it could have, but Maxis “rejected that idea” for a different vision.
“So, could we have built a subset offline mode? Yes,” writes Bradshaw. “But we rejected that idea because it didn’t fit with our vision. We did not focus on the ‘single city in isolation’ that we have delivered in past SimCities. We recognize that there are fans—people who love the original SimCity—who want that. But we’re also hearing from thousands of people who are playing across regions, trading, communicating and loving the Always-Connected functionality. The SimCity we delivered captures the magic of its heritage but catches up with ever-improving technology.”
This is a direct response to the ire Maxis has drawn for previously implicating that an offline mode is unfeasible. For instance, in an interview with Polygon last week, Bradshaw said:
“With the way that the game works, we offload a significant amount of the calculations to our servers so that the computations are off the local PCs and are moved into the cloud. It wouldn’t be possible to make the game offline without a significant amount of engineering work by our team.”
The second statement may be true now that the existing engineering is in place, but our question has always been, “Why couldn’t an offline mode have been planned from the start?” As I wrote in an editorial yesterday, Maxis has been leaving out the caveat: it is possible to play some form of SimCity offline, but not as Maxis intended it to be played. Bradshaw’s statement today is that caveat.
I like shared regions, but being connected isn’t SimCity’s biggest attraction.
In the post, Bradshaw explains why SimCity was designed as a connected experience, saying it wasn’t a corporate decision, but a means to “realize a vision of players connected in regions to create a SimCity that captured the dynamism of the world we live in; a global, ever-changing, social world.”
“The game we launched is only the beginning for us—it’s not final and it never will be,” she continues later. “In many ways, we built an MMO.”
I understand what Bradshaw means: we don’t criticize MMO developers for not making single-player RPGs instead, and like an MMO, SimCity is designed to be a multiplayer experience. However, while Bradshaw makes many arguments for multiplayer, she offers no arguments against singleplayer. Unlike Guild Wars, for instance, SimCity has a history of being a single-player experience, and while the multiplayer and social features are interesting, I’m not convinced that the option to play a subset offline mode undermines Maxis’ vision. SimCity is fun by myself, too.
To editorialize even further, I think being able to opt in and out of a connected experience at will would only have increased SimCity’s value, and holding up social features as the most precious and integral vision for SimCity was a mistake. But that’s it: SimCity was designed to forever be a connected experience. At least it’s nice to have it all out in the open!
And therein lies the bold faced lie and the tarnishing of integrity.
If a modder can enable a debug mode in your code that makes the game run with full functionality in an offline environment, and all you would have had to do in addition to that is design a local save file system, then that statement is an out and out lie from where I sit.
It was certainly possible. As stated, it was simply an idea which was rejected. But not because it would have been prohibitively difficult as claimed, but rather because it conflicted with the vision of the always-online, always connected model they wanted to force on everyone mandatorily.
I really doubt they burst into your room while you were sleeping and forced you to play SimCity at gun point. If you don't like the game don't buy it. No one is forcing you. I hate always online games and will never buy this, but that's my choice. Maxis doesn't owe anyone anything. As others have said if you don't like the always online stuff play Simcity4.
Is it though? The region aspects of the game are significant, even if it isn't quite the way it sounded. Of course, they could've been done with LAN play, but we all know how likely that is lately...considering every LAN party I've ever been to was full of people 'borrowing' games so they could play them with eachother, go figure.
Also, the debug mode does not enable the regional interplay at all as I heard it...so yeah, they totally could've made it an entirely different game offline. They didn't.
Them owing people anything is neither here nor there. I simply take issue with a company blatantly lying to its customers. I always have, I always will. I refuse to accept a company blatantly lying to its customers, the press, and the entire industry and I will continue to hold them accountable for that duplicity in perpetuity. They decided to be dishonest. That was their prerogative. Expressing my dismay and resentment about that fact is mine.
Is it though? It is in my book, absolutely.
They could have designed regional play to functional locally just as they could have designed a save system to functional locally. All the server is doing, if you're in single player, is storing the data for the other cities in a region. The actual gameplay within those cities happens locally already, and does not require connectivity with their server. This is proved by the fact that people using this mod are able to connect to the server, switch to another city, disconnect, and continue playing indefinitely.
Literally all that would be required for a single player, offline version of this game - with regional play intact - would be for them to store this data locally rather than in the cloud, and allow local saves.
There's no way for them to wiggle out of this one. They lied. Period. And I will not excuse them for it.
Regional play for one player. Sure. Wasn't disputing that.
That's what I meant by 'they could've made an entirely different game.'
Anyway, I can't wait to see how they change the game over the next few years. It is a lot of fun, but obviously has some issues to be worked out still.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
