if not for the DLC business model, you would NOT be getting this content included in the game. It just wouldn,t be ready for launch, it would get cut. The end.
Bullshit. Most DLC you see these days is cut from the game and sold back, some even available on the game's release date. The "added chapters several months later" variety is all you're talking about here and it's definitely the minority of DLC these days.
Good job missing the point. games are finished long before release dates. You think developers sit on their hands in the months between finishing a game and it being released? No. They work on content that wasnt finished in time for manufacturing, and have it done for release day, and it becomes day one DLC.
If they couldnt sell that content as DLC, you're fooling yourself if you think that you would get it anyway for free. If not for the ability to generate a return on the investment to make that extra content, they would put developers to work on content for their next game rather than new content for the existing game.
Amplitude Studios has released four free add-ons for their 4X game, Endless Space. So, evidently, it is possible for developers to factor post-release development into the up-front price of the game, and to release additional content at no extra charge to the customer.
That doesn't mean charging for extra content is wrong or that other cases of extra content would be free if they couldn't charge for it.
Most DLC wouldn't exist if they couldn't charge for it. If you think otherwise, you're kidding yourself. (This may sound like I'm disagreeing with you, I'm not. Just adding onto your thought there).
Death of Rats on
No I don't.
+1
MaddocI'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother?Registered Userregular
It's also worth noting that they released Endless Space in a terribly unfinished and buggy state.
I would say their post-release add-ons were less adding more content to the game and more polishing the game to a state where it could actually be considered a stable release.
It's also worth noting that they released Endless Space in a terribly unfinished and buggy state.
I would say their post-release add-ons were less adding more content to the game and more polishing the game to a state where it could actually be considered a stable release.
Okay fine, you found contention with this specific example. Dungeons of Dredmor had a free content update. Or is that not good enough for you either?
Free post-launch content exists as a thing, as does paid-for post-launch content. And both are fine. Nobody cares if any given example was good or bad or whatever. I'm not even sure why we're talking about DLC in the first place.
Mass Effect 2 had free post-release content, assuming you bought the game new rather than used.
That game was pretty good.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
+1
MordaRazgromМорда РазгромRuling the Taffer KingdomRegistered Userregular
Always on kind of facilitates and encourages DLC purchases, no? I mean its one of the nonDRM benefits to the company, you're obviously already a captive audience, free marketing ho!
Monster Hunter Tri code/username: 1MF42Z (Morda)
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
So was the latest Sim City always marketed to be MMO like?
As in the developers explicitly said that trading with other players/cities is the only way for your own city to prosper?
You can't really complain about that if it was public knowledge from all the previews.
You can't complain? The game doesn't work. Of course you can.
You can complain about the lack of service. IE the server capacity issues preventing you from playing.
But they stated before the game was released what the drm is and the design features of the game.
Bullshit. Show me where they stated before the game was released that only X number of people can play at a time, and that X would be less than the amount of units they shipped?
So was the latest Sim City always marketed to be MMO like?
As in the developers explicitly said that trading with other players/cities is the only way for your own city to prosper?
You can't really complain about that if it was public knowledge from all the previews.
You can't complain? The game doesn't work. Of course you can.
You can complain about the lack of service. IE the server capacity issues preventing you from playing.
But they stated before the game was released what the drm is and the design features of the game.
Bullshit. Show me where they stated before the game was released that only X number of people can play at a time, and that X would be less than the amount of units they shipped?
X number of people can only play at a time because someone fucked up in capacity management.
My issue is that people are complaining about a lack of offline single player. This was never kept a secret. You all knew it going in, and if you didn't its your own fault for not reading any previews.
If you need to have a constant connection to the EA servers, (which is not something they kept secret) then of course from a network perspective there is going to be a limit to the amount of players at one time. They're limited by hardware.
EA fucked up because they didn't setup enough infrastructure to support the service they designed.
For that, they absolutely should take some flack.
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
You mean like IGN who previewed the game saying nothing about it being online only? And pointing out it could be played single player? Or game spy who wrote it wouldn't need an online connection?
Frankly you got different impressions depending on who you read.
You mean like IGN who previewed the game saying nothing about it being online only? And pointing out it could be played single player? Or game spy who wrote it wouldn't need an online connection?
Frankly you got different impressions depending on who you read.
Ok then, I can see why people are pissed. I was under the impression (and from stuff I've seen in this thread) that they were clear it was an online always setup before the game was released.
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
In some places yeah, but from others oddly not. Quite a bit of miscommunication from certain sites.
And frankly, even if I heard about prominent online features... it's fucking SimCity.
It's like hearing that the next Civilization game is online-online. Why would they do that? That can't be right, pay it no mind.
Well they've taken it in a new direction. Kinda mmo-ish (smaller cities, more cooperation between cities in regions) I guess.
Fuck knows why, its a massive departure from the series but if they're touting online as a major feature you probably shouldn't ignore it.
But game design is a different argument from always online DRM.
In regards to always online DRM, has there ever been a successful implementation of it? I honestly cannot think of any.
There's no separation of game design and always-on DRM. The game is designed to have always-on DRM. The features touted as the reason for the need to be online are in fact features designed to require the DRM architecture.
If Civilization 6 touts "Brand new 'Friendscape' that allows you to take a peek into the parallel worlds ruled by your friends (requires internet connection and a login to U-Play to access friends list* *game not playable without U-Play account due to... server calculations?)" it is not a feature intended for the consumer but for the publisher. Contorting a single-player game into a competitive or MMO mold isn't done because someone had an epiphany about how Half-Life 3 totally needs Facebook integration to really shine.
As for successful always-on DRM, MMOs are the premiere example. They require it, and people don't really seem to mind because they can't really envision how else it's supposed to work. Starcraft would be another example. In both cases the link seems to me to be the fact that they require unique logins for basic functioning, or in Starcraft's case for basic functioning of the primary feature. Call of Duty games, too. Games that have a persistent identity on shared servers as a reasonably basic element can have this sort of DRM with very little complaining.
Steam, too. It does do offline mode if you really insist, but it's made a case for itself as convenient and mostly transparent DRM in exchange for a useful service and cut-rate pricing.
if not for the DLC business model, you would NOT be getting this content included in the game. It just wouldn,t be ready for launch, it would get cut. The end.
Bullshit. Most DLC you see these days is cut from the game and sold back, some even available on the game's release date. The "added chapters several months later" variety is all you're talking about here and it's definitely the minority of DLC these days.
Good job missing the point. games are finished long before release dates. You think developers sit on their hands in the months between finishing a game and it being released? No. They work on content that wasnt finished in time for manufacturing, and have it done for release day, and it becomes day one DLC.
If they couldnt sell that content as DLC, you're fooling yourself if you think that you would get it anyway for free. If not for the ability to generate a return on the investment to make that extra content, they would put developers to work on content for their next game rather than new content for the existing game.
Amplitude Studios has released four free add-ons for their 4X game, Endless Space. So, evidently, it is possible for developers to factor post-release development into the up-front price of the game, and to release additional content at no extra charge to the customer.
That doesn't mean charging for extra content is wrong or that other cases of extra content would be free if they couldn't charge for it.
I'm not sure what "charging for extra content is wrong" even means--wrong for whom?--or why you think that's where I was going with my point. All I'm pointing at is the fundamental tension between what's good for the customer and what's good for the developer and publisher. With respect to post-release content, there is one optimal scenario for customers: free post-release content. With respect to DRM, there is one optimal scenario for customers: no DRM. Customers are typically inflexible with respect to optimal scenarios because I take our goals to be fairly narrow and universal; if we're rational and self-interested actors, we want to get the most entertainment value for our money.
Customers complain about sub-optimal scenarios, not because they feel that they represent bad business decisions, but because they would rather not spend more money and would prefer games that work reliably (referencing DLC and DRM, respectively). It's like complaining when it's raining and you wanted to go for a picnic. The problem is that now you can't go on your picnic. Someone telling you "Well, the atmosphere can only hold so much moisture, you know. And it's just as well or else we'd be saddled with permanent drought," is not particularly helpful, because it doesn't really address what your problem is. Or say that you get laid off because your company needs to downsize to remain viable. The decision to let you go may be perfectly sound in the business sense, but it still sucks for you, because now you've lost your primary source of income.
if not for the DLC business model, you would NOT be getting this content included in the game. It just wouldn,t be ready for launch, it would get cut. The end.
Bullshit. Most DLC you see these days is cut from the game and sold back, some even available on the game's release date. The "added chapters several months later" variety is all you're talking about here and it's definitely the minority of DLC these days.
Good job missing the point. games are finished long before release dates. You think developers sit on their hands in the months between finishing a game and it being released? No. They work on content that wasnt finished in time for manufacturing, and have it done for release day, and it becomes day one DLC.
If they couldnt sell that content as DLC, you're fooling yourself if you think that you would get it anyway for free. If not for the ability to generate a return on the investment to make that extra content, they would put developers to work on content for their next game rather than new content for the existing game.
Amplitude Studios has released four free add-ons for their 4X game, Endless Space. So, evidently, it is possible for developers to factor post-release development into the up-front price of the game, and to release additional content at no extra charge to the customer.
That doesn't mean charging for extra content is wrong or that other cases of extra content would be free if they couldn't charge for it.
I'm not sure what "charging for extra content is wrong" even means--wrong for whom?--or why you think that's where I was going with my point. All I'm pointing at is the fundamental tension between what's good for the customer and what's good for the developer and publisher. With respect to post-release content, there is one optimal scenario for customers: free post-release content. With respect to DRM, there is one optimal scenario for customers: no DRM. Customers are typically inflexible with respect to optimal scenarios because I take our goals to be fairly narrow and universal; if we're rational and self-interested actors, we want to get the most entertainment value for our money.
Customers complain about sub-optimal scenarios, not because they feel that they represent bad business decisions, but because they would rather not spend more money and would prefer games that work reliably (referencing DLC and DRM, respectively). It's like complaining when it's raining and you wanted to go for a picnic. The problem is that now you can't go on your picnic. Someone telling you "Well, the atmosphere can only hold so much moisture, you know. And it's just as well or else we'd be saddled with permanent drought," is not particularly helpful, because it doesn't really address what your problem is. Or say that you get laid off because your company needs to downsize to remain viable. The decision to let you go may be perfectly sound in the business sense, but it still sucks for you, because now you've lost your primary source of income.
You have exceeded the maximum amount of logic allowed per 1 post. You must now go into hate fueled diatribe and appeal to emotion.
+1
MordaRazgromМорда РазгромRuling the Taffer KingdomRegistered Userregular
And frankly, even if I heard about prominent online features... it's fucking SimCity.
It's like hearing that the next Civilization game is online-online. Why would they do that? That can't be right, pay it no mind.
Well they've taken it in a new direction. Kinda mmo-ish (smaller cities, more cooperation between cities in regions) I guess.
Fuck knows why, its a massive departure from the series but if they're touting online as a major feature you probably shouldn't ignore it.
But game design is a different argument from always online DRM.
In regards to always online DRM, has there ever been a successful implementation of it? I honestly cannot think of any.
Diablo 3 implemented always-on very well. There were some hiccups during the first day, however just about everyone was online the very next day. I was online within an hour of the servers going "live". The SimCity thing is sad, because it clearly shows the company did not invest enough into their server infrastructure. Diablo 3 showed that even when you do invest in the infrastructure, you're still going to have hiccups, it's unavoidable because release-day population will far outnumber the regular population, and to build in infrastructure for a one-day or a one-month population spike would be REALLY bad business sense.
I know it's popular to hate on Diablo 3 and their always on thing, but they did it RIGHT. It wasn't perfectly optimal for the players in terms of being able to play from the second you bought the game and always play it 24/7, but it is, in my opinion, one of the best non-MMO implementations of "cloud gaming".
Monster Hunter Tri code/username: 1MF42Z (Morda)
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I haven't played Diablo 3 myself, but people who I know who have played it complain that they have to deal with lag in their single player game. Lag. In a single player game.
Are you sure Diablo 3's servers will still be available in 10+ years? I don't know... The situation is kinda the same if you think about it... People are wondering why you can't implement single player in Sim City just as they think they could have added the option for Singleplayer/LAN in Diablo 3.
And frankly, even if I heard about prominent online features... it's fucking SimCity.
It's like hearing that the next Civilization game is online-online. Why would they do that? That can't be right, pay it no mind.
Well they've taken it in a new direction. Kinda mmo-ish (smaller cities, more cooperation between cities in regions) I guess.
Fuck knows why, its a massive departure from the series but if they're touting online as a major feature you probably shouldn't ignore it.
But game design is a different argument from always online DRM.
In regards to always online DRM, has there ever been a successful implementation of it? I honestly cannot think of any.
Diablo 3 implemented always-on very well. There were some hiccups during the first day, however just about everyone was online the very next day. I was online within an hour of the servers going "live". The SimCity thing is sad, because it clearly shows the company did not invest enough into their server infrastructure. Diablo 3 showed that even when you do invest in the infrastructure, you're still going to have hiccups, it's unavoidable because release-day population will far outnumber the regular population, and to build in infrastructure for a one-day or a one-month population spike would be REALLY bad business sense.
I know it's popular to hate on Diablo 3 and their always on thing, but they did it RIGHT. It wasn't perfectly optimal for the players in terms of being able to play from the second you bought the game and always play it 24/7, but it is, in my opinion, one of the best non-MMO implementations of "cloud gaming".
And therein lies the problem.
If your service isn't able to actually handle being Always Online, and all that implies, perhaps it shouldn't be Always Online.
also it's funny you bring up Diablo 3 since EA/Maxis were so smug about how they weren't going to have Diablo 3's launch day problems.
And frankly, even if I heard about prominent online features... it's fucking SimCity.
It's like hearing that the next Civilization game is online-online. Why would they do that? That can't be right, pay it no mind.
Well they've taken it in a new direction. Kinda mmo-ish (smaller cities, more cooperation between cities in regions) I guess.
Fuck knows why, its a massive departure from the series but if they're touting online as a major feature you probably shouldn't ignore it.
But game design is a different argument from always online DRM.
In regards to always online DRM, has there ever been a successful implementation of it? I honestly cannot think of any.
Diablo 3 implemented always-on very well. There were some hiccups during the first day, however just about everyone was online the very next day. I was online within an hour of the servers going "live". The SimCity thing is sad, because it clearly shows the company did not invest enough into their server infrastructure. Diablo 3 showed that even when you do invest in the infrastructure, you're still going to have hiccups, it's unavoidable because release-day population will far outnumber the regular population, and to build in infrastructure for a one-day or a one-month population spike would be REALLY bad business sense.
I know it's popular to hate on Diablo 3 and their always on thing, but they did it RIGHT. It wasn't perfectly optimal for the players in terms of being able to play from the second you bought the game and always play it 24/7, but it is, in my opinion, one of the best non-MMO implementations of "cloud gaming".
And therein lies the problem.
If your service isn't able to actually handle being Always Online, and all that implies, perhaps it shouldn't be Always Online.
also it's funny you bring up Diablo 3 since EA/Maxis were so smug about how they weren't going to have Diablo 3's launch day problems.
WHOOPS
0
MordaRazgromМорда РазгромRuling the Taffer KingdomRegistered Userregular
They absolutely do NOT have Diablo 3's launch day problems :P
They WISH they had Diablo 3's launch day problems.
I'm in the camp that considers games a luxury good, and for them to be available to us 24/7 come hell or high water isn't something that's very high on my list of demands from game developers. Always Online does not imply, to me, that it will always be online, it implies to me that "you will need to always be online to play it." There is a very distinct difference there. When I see that a game is "always online" I buy it knowing that I WILL have times during which I cannot play that game. I'm patient enough that I am fine with that. There are always other games to play during those times. From a monetary perspective, a lot of people pay $60 for about 50-60 hours of fun in a game, 100 if you're really into it and replay it constantly. Diablo 3 cost $60 and fans of the game, complaining the ENTIRE time, have racked up 300+ hours of gametime...even with the shenanigans of always online, I say we got a damn good bang for our buck.
Lag in a single player game? I've had that for years, try playing ANY PC game with a less-than-optimal GPU and you WILL have lag. Is it my right to then complain to the game developers that they made their system requirements too high for me to afford to play? Nope, I just wait till I have the stuff together to be able to handle the game. These are products taht we have to use within the constraints of the developer. It is THEIR property, we're just purchasing the right to enjoy it...and to enjoy it on THEIR terms. We are never going to see a world where every single game out there is "always on", just like we're never going to see a world, anymore, where every game is "always off". You have options, and you will always have options. You hate the Diablo 3 always on thing? Go to a competitor, Torchlight or just go play Diablo 2. DOn't like the SimCity Social thing? I guarantee you there will be competitors making city-simulating games. We have lots of options. Collectively, we have said that always-on is fine by us, game companies have too many benefits to simply ignore always on.
Monster Hunter Tri code/username: 1MF42Z (Morda)
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
You mean like IGN who previewed the game saying nothing about it being online only? And pointing out it could be played single player? Or game spy who wrote it wouldn't need an online connection?
Frankly you got different impressions depending on who you read.
That's true of all things though. If you read the Daily Mail they'd have you believe illegal immigrants are eating our unborn children, or if you read the Telegraph that Diana, Diana Diana Princess Diana Diana Princess Diana. Diana.
And IGN and GameSpy are less reputable than the Mail or the Telegraph, even among the gaming press. So who is at fault here? The incompetent journalists or the people who read their incompetent journalism despite more reputable and accurate sources being freely available?
Not only have Maxis said, from day one, that the game would be online only, but a million sites reported this fact accurately.
I think it is unfair to suggest there was some grand uncertainty over the online aspects of the game. Maxis have been clear from the start.
0
MordaRazgromМорда РазгромRuling the Taffer KingdomRegistered Userregular
Does anyone even trust game reviews anymore?
Personally, if I'm looking at a game, I'll go on YouTube and watch a few episodes of a Let's Play of the game, then I decide whether I want to purchase it or not. I don't think I've ever read a review that I thought was useful. Case in point, Diggles, if anyone remembers that game, got rock-bottom reviews when I read them, after I bought the game, it became one of my favorite games of all time. Too bad it wasn't coded for new WIndows, so if you have anything past Windows XP, you can't play it.
Monster Hunter Tri code/username: 1MF42Z (Morda)
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
They absolutely do NOT have Diablo 3's launch day problems :P
They WISH they had Diablo 3's launch day problems.
I'm in the camp that considers games a luxury good, and for them to be available to us 24/7 come hell or high water isn't something that's very high on my list of demands from game developers. Always Online does not imply, to me, that it will always be online, it implies to me that "you will need to always be online to play it." There is a very distinct difference there. When I see that a game is "always online" I buy it knowing that I WILL have times during which I cannot play that game. I'm patient enough that I am fine with that. There are always other games to play during those times. From a monetary perspective, a lot of people pay $60 for about 50-60 hours of fun in a game, 100 if you're really into it and replay it constantly. Diablo 3 cost $60 and fans of the game, complaining the ENTIRE time, have racked up 300+ hours of gametime...even with the shenanigans of always online, I say we got a damn good bang for our buck.
Lag in a single player game? I've had that for years, try playing ANY PC game with a less-than-optimal GPU and you WILL have lag. Is it my right to then complain to the game developers that they made their system requirements too high for me to afford to play? Nope, I just wait till I have the stuff together to be able to handle the game. These are products taht we have to use within the constraints of the developer. It is THEIR property, we're just purchasing the right to enjoy it...and to enjoy it on THEIR terms. We are never going to see a world where every single game out there is "always on", just like we're never going to see a world, anymore, where every game is "always off". You have options, and you will always have options. You hate the Diablo 3 always on thing? Go to a competitor, Torchlight or just go play Diablo 2. DOn't like the SimCity Social thing? I guarantee you there will be competitors making city-simulating games. We have lots of options. Collectively, we have said that always-on is fine by us, game companies have too many benefits to simply ignore always on.
As a customer, I can do something about the fact that my computer does not meet the minimum requirements to play a game. What can I do to improve server-side performance?
+3
MordaRazgromМорда РазгромRuling the Taffer KingdomRegistered Userregular
I think it's about setting tolerance levels. My tolerance level, as you can guess, is pretty high. I'm alright with having an occasional lag-spike, and I hate to keep bringing up Diablo 3, but it's my only non-MMO game that's "always on" therefore it is my point of reference. I get lag spikes every once in a while, the first few seconds of a session when I start playing, I have to run around and wait for the synch to catch up. These things are well within my tolerance level. Having server down-times for maintenance are also within my tolerance level, because I get tangible results from it: better server performance, constant tweaks to skills and gameplay, additional free content.
I believe there is a difference of perception. To me, always on is not a DRM thing, although DRM is a part of it. Always on for me, is a commitment from the developers that they will keep improving their product. This is what I have from BLizzard with Diablo 3, and this is exactly why I absolutely LOVE the always on thing. I get immediate feedback from developers, they get to control their game and improve it in their vision. I don't have to rely on some random dude out there to create a fan overhaul of the game in order to keep it fresh, especially when his vision of what the game is differs from the company, and differs from MY vision (I'm talking Median XL here, which I hated). For a company to require an always-on connection, but treat the game like an end-product, that's wrong and a horrible implementation that screams "we're doing this for DRM because fuck you, that's why". If they do it with the intent of keeping the game as a "living product" then I am overjoyed about it.
I'd hold the pitchforks and torches with you guys when they decide to do Always On and just leave the games as is, without support. I'm sticking to my guns, though, as long as I see the company put more love into the game, and give us, the gamers, benefits, which are more than just the cursory protection from pirating or hacking.
Monster Hunter Tri code/username: 1MF42Z (Morda)
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
You mean like IGN who previewed the game saying nothing about it being online only? And pointing out it could be played single player? Or game spy who wrote it wouldn't need an online connection?
Frankly you got different impressions depending on who you read.
That's true of all things though. If you read the Daily Mail they'd have you believe illegal immigrants are eating our unborn children, or if you read the Telegraph that Diana, Diana Diana Princess Diana Diana Princess Diana. Diana.
And IGN and GameSpy are less reputable than the Mail or the Telegraph, even among the gaming press. So who is at fault here? The incompetent journalists or the people who read their incompetent journalism despite more reputable and accurate sources being freely available?
Not only have Maxis said, from day one, that the game would be online only, but a million sites reported this fact accurately.
I think it is unfair to suggest there was some grand uncertainty over the online aspects of the game. Maxis have been clear from the start.
Please go to the SimCity website and show me something remotely related to the following: "Simcity is an online game that requires a persistent internet connection"
"Wait" he says... do I look like a waiter?
0
MordaRazgromМорда РазгромRuling the Taffer KingdomRegistered Userregular
Now hiding always on is a BAD business move. If your game requires an always on connection, it needs to be right there in the website, and in flashing neon lights on the box. Sure, caveat emptor is something that is our responsibility as a consumer, but for a company to abuse it and be shady about it. That is NOT cool. Companies absolutey HAVE to know that "always on" is a very controversial issue right now. Blizzard raked in buckets of money despite it, but the other developers shouldn't see it as a green light that they can just willy-nilly slap it into everything. As I said in my previous post, always on is a nearly contractual agreement between developer and gamer, and it needs to be upfront and transparent.
Monster Hunter Tri code/username: 1MF42Z (Morda)
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
You mean like IGN who previewed the game saying nothing about it being online only? And pointing out it could be played single player? Or game spy who wrote it wouldn't need an online connection?
Frankly you got different impressions depending on who you read.
That's true of all things though. If you read the Daily Mail they'd have you believe illegal immigrants are eating our unborn children, or if you read the Telegraph that Diana, Diana Diana Princess Diana Diana Princess Diana. Diana.
And IGN and GameSpy are less reputable than the Mail or the Telegraph, even among the gaming press. So who is at fault here? The incompetent journalists or the people who read their incompetent journalism despite more reputable and accurate sources being freely available?
Not only have Maxis said, from day one, that the game would be online only, but a million sites reported this fact accurately.
I think it is unfair to suggest there was some grand uncertainty over the online aspects of the game. Maxis have been clear from the start.
Please go to the SimCity website and show me something remotely related to the following: "Simcity is an online game that requires a persistent internet connection"
"As a live service, the game can simulate real time updates from new challenges to new features and content." That phrase is all over the place.
What is this I don't even.
0
MordaRazgromМорда РазгромRuling the Taffer KingdomRegistered Userregular
There's a distinction between being technically accurate, and giving your potential customers a clear statement. What you posted technically states that SimCity is always online, however it doesn't really flat-out state it.
Monster Hunter Tri code/username: 1MF42Z (Morda)
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
You mean like IGN who previewed the game saying nothing about it being online only? And pointing out it could be played single player? Or game spy who wrote it wouldn't need an online connection?
Frankly you got different impressions depending on who you read.
That's true of all things though. If you read the Daily Mail they'd have you believe illegal immigrants are eating our unborn children, or if you read the Telegraph that Diana, Diana Diana Princess Diana Diana Princess Diana. Diana.
And IGN and GameSpy are less reputable than the Mail or the Telegraph, even among the gaming press. So who is at fault here? The incompetent journalists or the people who read their incompetent journalism despite more reputable and accurate sources being freely available?
Not only have Maxis said, from day one, that the game would be online only, but a million sites reported this fact accurately.
On the always-online front, I conducted a little test: I built up a small city, braced for the apocalypse, and yanked out the ethernet cable. And yet... the cheery music continued. I opened my eyes to find that, outside of a "check connection" notice that popped up in the corner, nothing at all happened. My city continued to hum along, with sims strolling down the street as though completely unaware I'd severed their connection to the outside world. It was kind of anticlimactic, really. After about 15 minutes I plugged back in, and no one was the wiser. It looks like we won't have to worry too much about internet outages unceremoniously dumping us.
That seems pretty clearly like them stating that "sure, it's always online, but it won't dump you at all".
Language doesn't really enter into it when we can work directly with intent.
There's not sufficient reason to have the game be online-only, barring DRM. The features are fig-leaves. Customers don't tend to enjoy you telling them "You are thieves, all of you. We are hiding our valuables, vermin." Weasel words and technical truth show up when there's nothing else they can hang their hat on to justify the DRM.
MMOs don't get cagey about how they can "simulate real time updates" you know sometimes maybe if they need to don't worry about it. They just straight up tell you 'make an account, download the client, play on our server because that's the point'.
Well what do you want them to say? You are all thieves and the rate of PC gaming piracy is orders of magnitude larger than in the console space. See ya, we're never making another PC game again?
Loss prevention is one of the oldest business strategies. Always online games are just banks attaching a chain to their pens. Some, few or a tiny proportion of people will feel violated by such a lack of trust on the part of the company they patronize. Most, many or all will not care one bit.
Also, I'd contest the notion that the only reason for Sim City being online only is DRM. It's a big reason, no doubt, but they were trying to create a social experience with the game. Every aspect of its design nods towards a connected experience and if you allow an offline mode you fragment the player base and dissolve any formation of a shared community. World of Warcraft could easily have an offline mode. But it doesn't for the same reason.
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Wait, the game actually tracks data on every sim in the city, rather than the sims just being your population count?
What the actual fuck were they thinking?
+1
MordaRazgromМорда РазгромRuling the Taffer KingdomRegistered Userregular
edited March 2013
You have to make sure none of the Sims are pirating!
I see great things with always on. If games move the direction of Diablo 3, then I'm going to be exceedingly happy. The inconveniences that I pay in terms of not having the game always available, or having to deal with some server-side issues (which are very minimal, don't let people fool you, they hate the always on as a concept, therefore they vastly exaggerate the problems to prove their point), are far outweighed by having a game that is constantly being tweaked, having new content trickle into my single-player game, and developers listening and making changes easily based on community feedback.
MordaRazgrom on
Monster Hunter Tri code/username: 1MF42Z (Morda)
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
The gaping hole in my argument is that I understand the differences between these two things:
A person buys a DVD, finds it's scratched, and demands a working DVD.
A person buys a DVD, finds it's scratched, and declares the entire concept of DVDs to be invalidated and anybody who puts films on DVD to be a liar and a fraud.
Is that right?
It's not a matter of getting a scratched DVD and declaring the format invalid. It's a matter of getting a scratched DVD and openly questioning why the publisher is so insistent on shipping their DVDs in boxes of angry cats.
The SimCity disaster isn't some random, unpreventable, unforseeable fluke. It's a natural consequence of the format EA chose to use.
If SimCity had been an offline game, the odds of the launch failing like this would have been literally zero. Functionally impossible. Only after the DRM is implemented does it become true that IF the servers are strained (or IF my ISP sucks or IF my router breaks or IF EA flat-out pulls the plug on the service permanently) then I won't be able to play.
EA knowingly and deliberately exposed the customers to these risks by choosing to require an online connection. Whether or not anything actually goes wrong is largely immaterial. That the risks exist at all--risks which are completely outside the consumer's control--is 100% their fault. Many of us believe that the alleged benefits were not worth those risks even in principle.
Switch: SW-2431-2728-9604 || 3DS: 0817-4948-1650
+2
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Well at any rate I owe an apology to @BillGates (who I doubt is the actual Bill Gates!) because he brought up the Cloud aspect of this. I didn't think there was any actually going on with this fucking game.
Posts
Most DLC wouldn't exist if they couldn't charge for it. If you think otherwise, you're kidding yourself. (This may sound like I'm disagreeing with you, I'm not. Just adding onto your thought there).
I would say their post-release add-ons were less adding more content to the game and more polishing the game to a state where it could actually be considered a stable release.
Okay fine, you found contention with this specific example. Dungeons of Dredmor had a free content update. Or is that not good enough for you either?
Free post-launch content exists as a thing, as does paid-for post-launch content. And both are fine. Nobody cares if any given example was good or bad or whatever. I'm not even sure why we're talking about DLC in the first place.
Mass Effect 2 had free post-release content, assuming you bought the game new rather than used.
That game was pretty good.
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
You can complain about the lack of service. IE the server capacity issues preventing you from playing.
But they stated before the game was released what the drm is and the design features of the game.
Bullshit. Show me where they stated before the game was released that only X number of people can play at a time, and that X would be less than the amount of units they shipped?
Currently playing: GW2 and TSW
X number of people can only play at a time because someone fucked up in capacity management.
My issue is that people are complaining about a lack of offline single player. This was never kept a secret. You all knew it going in, and if you didn't its your own fault for not reading any previews.
If you need to have a constant connection to the EA servers, (which is not something they kept secret) then of course from a network perspective there is going to be a limit to the amount of players at one time. They're limited by hardware.
EA fucked up because they didn't setup enough infrastructure to support the service they designed.
For that, they absolutely should take some flack.
Frankly you got different impressions depending on who you read.
Ok then, I can see why people are pissed. I was under the impression (and from stuff I've seen in this thread) that they were clear it was an online always setup before the game was released.
It's like hearing that the next Civilization game is online-only. Why would they do that? That can't be right, pay it no mind.
Currently playing: GW2 and TSW
Well they've taken it in a new direction. Kinda mmo-ish (smaller cities, more cooperation between cities in regions) I guess.
Fuck knows why, its a massive departure from the series but if they're touting online as a major feature you probably shouldn't ignore it.
But game design is a different argument from always online DRM.
In regards to always online DRM, has there ever been a successful implementation of it? I honestly cannot think of any.
There's no separation of game design and always-on DRM. The game is designed to have always-on DRM. The features touted as the reason for the need to be online are in fact features designed to require the DRM architecture.
If Civilization 6 touts "Brand new 'Friendscape' that allows you to take a peek into the parallel worlds ruled by your friends (requires internet connection and a login to U-Play to access friends list* *game not playable without U-Play account due to... server calculations?)" it is not a feature intended for the consumer but for the publisher. Contorting a single-player game into a competitive or MMO mold isn't done because someone had an epiphany about how Half-Life 3 totally needs Facebook integration to really shine.
As for successful always-on DRM, MMOs are the premiere example. They require it, and people don't really seem to mind because they can't really envision how else it's supposed to work. Starcraft would be another example. In both cases the link seems to me to be the fact that they require unique logins for basic functioning, or in Starcraft's case for basic functioning of the primary feature. Call of Duty games, too. Games that have a persistent identity on shared servers as a reasonably basic element can have this sort of DRM with very little complaining.
Steam, too. It does do offline mode if you really insist, but it's made a case for itself as convenient and mostly transparent DRM in exchange for a useful service and cut-rate pricing.
I'm not sure what "charging for extra content is wrong" even means--wrong for whom?--or why you think that's where I was going with my point. All I'm pointing at is the fundamental tension between what's good for the customer and what's good for the developer and publisher. With respect to post-release content, there is one optimal scenario for customers: free post-release content. With respect to DRM, there is one optimal scenario for customers: no DRM. Customers are typically inflexible with respect to optimal scenarios because I take our goals to be fairly narrow and universal; if we're rational and self-interested actors, we want to get the most entertainment value for our money.
Customers complain about sub-optimal scenarios, not because they feel that they represent bad business decisions, but because they would rather not spend more money and would prefer games that work reliably (referencing DLC and DRM, respectively). It's like complaining when it's raining and you wanted to go for a picnic. The problem is that now you can't go on your picnic. Someone telling you "Well, the atmosphere can only hold so much moisture, you know. And it's just as well or else we'd be saddled with permanent drought," is not particularly helpful, because it doesn't really address what your problem is. Or say that you get laid off because your company needs to downsize to remain viable. The decision to let you go may be perfectly sound in the business sense, but it still sucks for you, because now you've lost your primary source of income.
You have exceeded the maximum amount of logic allowed per 1 post. You must now go into hate fueled diatribe and appeal to emotion.
Diablo 3 implemented always-on very well. There were some hiccups during the first day, however just about everyone was online the very next day. I was online within an hour of the servers going "live". The SimCity thing is sad, because it clearly shows the company did not invest enough into their server infrastructure. Diablo 3 showed that even when you do invest in the infrastructure, you're still going to have hiccups, it's unavoidable because release-day population will far outnumber the regular population, and to build in infrastructure for a one-day or a one-month population spike would be REALLY bad business sense.
I know it's popular to hate on Diablo 3 and their always on thing, but they did it RIGHT. It wasn't perfectly optimal for the players in terms of being able to play from the second you bought the game and always play it 24/7, but it is, in my opinion, one of the best non-MMO implementations of "cloud gaming".
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
That... that is not implementing it right, sorry.
And therein lies the problem.
If your service isn't able to actually handle being Always Online, and all that implies, perhaps it shouldn't be Always Online.
also it's funny you bring up Diablo 3 since EA/Maxis were so smug about how they weren't going to have Diablo 3's launch day problems.
WHOOPS
They WISH they had Diablo 3's launch day problems.
I'm in the camp that considers games a luxury good, and for them to be available to us 24/7 come hell or high water isn't something that's very high on my list of demands from game developers. Always Online does not imply, to me, that it will always be online, it implies to me that "you will need to always be online to play it." There is a very distinct difference there. When I see that a game is "always online" I buy it knowing that I WILL have times during which I cannot play that game. I'm patient enough that I am fine with that. There are always other games to play during those times. From a monetary perspective, a lot of people pay $60 for about 50-60 hours of fun in a game, 100 if you're really into it and replay it constantly. Diablo 3 cost $60 and fans of the game, complaining the ENTIRE time, have racked up 300+ hours of gametime...even with the shenanigans of always online, I say we got a damn good bang for our buck.
Lag in a single player game? I've had that for years, try playing ANY PC game with a less-than-optimal GPU and you WILL have lag. Is it my right to then complain to the game developers that they made their system requirements too high for me to afford to play? Nope, I just wait till I have the stuff together to be able to handle the game. These are products taht we have to use within the constraints of the developer. It is THEIR property, we're just purchasing the right to enjoy it...and to enjoy it on THEIR terms. We are never going to see a world where every single game out there is "always on", just like we're never going to see a world, anymore, where every game is "always off". You have options, and you will always have options. You hate the Diablo 3 always on thing? Go to a competitor, Torchlight or just go play Diablo 2. DOn't like the SimCity Social thing? I guarantee you there will be competitors making city-simulating games. We have lots of options. Collectively, we have said that always-on is fine by us, game companies have too many benefits to simply ignore always on.
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
That's true of all things though. If you read the Daily Mail they'd have you believe illegal immigrants are eating our unborn children, or if you read the Telegraph that Diana, Diana Diana Princess Diana Diana Princess Diana. Diana.
And IGN and GameSpy are less reputable than the Mail or the Telegraph, even among the gaming press. So who is at fault here? The incompetent journalists or the people who read their incompetent journalism despite more reputable and accurate sources being freely available?
Not only have Maxis said, from day one, that the game would be online only, but a million sites reported this fact accurately.
Here's RPS from last April, for example.
I think it is unfair to suggest there was some grand uncertainty over the online aspects of the game. Maxis have been clear from the start.
Personally, if I'm looking at a game, I'll go on YouTube and watch a few episodes of a Let's Play of the game, then I decide whether I want to purchase it or not. I don't think I've ever read a review that I thought was useful. Case in point, Diggles, if anyone remembers that game, got rock-bottom reviews when I read them, after I bought the game, it became one of my favorite games of all time. Too bad it wasn't coded for new WIndows, so if you have anything past Windows XP, you can't play it.
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
As a customer, I can do something about the fact that my computer does not meet the minimum requirements to play a game. What can I do to improve server-side performance?
I believe there is a difference of perception. To me, always on is not a DRM thing, although DRM is a part of it. Always on for me, is a commitment from the developers that they will keep improving their product. This is what I have from BLizzard with Diablo 3, and this is exactly why I absolutely LOVE the always on thing. I get immediate feedback from developers, they get to control their game and improve it in their vision. I don't have to rely on some random dude out there to create a fan overhaul of the game in order to keep it fresh, especially when his vision of what the game is differs from the company, and differs from MY vision (I'm talking Median XL here, which I hated). For a company to require an always-on connection, but treat the game like an end-product, that's wrong and a horrible implementation that screams "we're doing this for DRM because fuck you, that's why". If they do it with the intent of keeping the game as a "living product" then I am overjoyed about it.
I'd hold the pitchforks and torches with you guys when they decide to do Always On and just leave the games as is, without support. I'm sticking to my guns, though, as long as I see the company put more love into the game, and give us, the gamers, benefits, which are more than just the cursory protection from pirating or hacking.
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
Please go to the SimCity website and show me something remotely related to the following: "Simcity is an online game that requires a persistent internet connection"
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
"As a live service, the game can simulate real time updates from new challenges to new features and content." That phrase is all over the place.
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
Howabout this?
That seems pretty clearly like them stating that "sure, it's always online, but it won't dump you at all".
No, they did not.
There's not sufficient reason to have the game be online-only, barring DRM. The features are fig-leaves. Customers don't tend to enjoy you telling them "You are thieves, all of you. We are hiding our valuables, vermin." Weasel words and technical truth show up when there's nothing else they can hang their hat on to justify the DRM.
MMOs don't get cagey about how they can "simulate real time updates" you know sometimes maybe if they need to don't worry about it. They just straight up tell you 'make an account, download the client, play on our server because that's the point'.
Loss prevention is one of the oldest business strategies. Always online games are just banks attaching a chain to their pens. Some, few or a tiny proportion of people will feel violated by such a lack of trust on the part of the company they patronize. Most, many or all will not care one bit.
Also, I'd contest the notion that the only reason for Sim City being online only is DRM. It's a big reason, no doubt, but they were trying to create a social experience with the game. Every aspect of its design nods towards a connected experience and if you allow an offline mode you fragment the player base and dissolve any formation of a shared community. World of Warcraft could easily have an offline mode. But it doesn't for the same reason.
What the actual fuck were they thinking?
I see great things with always on. If games move the direction of Diablo 3, then I'm going to be exceedingly happy. The inconveniences that I pay in terms of not having the game always available, or having to deal with some server-side issues (which are very minimal, don't let people fool you, they hate the always on as a concept, therefore they vastly exaggerate the problems to prove their point), are far outweighed by having a game that is constantly being tweaked, having new content trickle into my single-player game, and developers listening and making changes easily based on community feedback.
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
The SimCity disaster isn't some random, unpreventable, unforseeable fluke. It's a natural consequence of the format EA chose to use.
If SimCity had been an offline game, the odds of the launch failing like this would have been literally zero. Functionally impossible. Only after the DRM is implemented does it become true that IF the servers are strained (or IF my ISP sucks or IF my router breaks or IF EA flat-out pulls the plug on the service permanently) then I won't be able to play.
EA knowingly and deliberately exposed the customers to these risks by choosing to require an online connection. Whether or not anything actually goes wrong is largely immaterial. That the risks exist at all--risks which are completely outside the consumer's control--is 100% their fault. Many of us believe that the alleged benefits were not worth those risks even in principle.