Poll: Why the Un-necessary Hate on the New SimCity?

[JemothSkarii]

*snip*

No, I don't have a problem with the whole pack thing, I have a problem with a skin being sold for $10 before the game is even out, it's blatantly cutting content from the game, no matter how minor it is. What next? Entire missions and such being on pre-order? It's a horrible business model and if it keeps up like this devs will be able to release a shell of the game and just sell everything else for more money.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

We're veering off topic.

Yes, well. The topic is boring and has already been done to death. It's either this, or another pointless, circular discussion about how always online DRM is this generation's Holocaust.

 

[Blunderboy]

We're veering off topic.

Yes, well. The topic is boring and has already been done to death. It's either this, or another pointless, circular discussion about how always online DRM is this generation's Holocaust.

Don't be silly.

[sub][sub][sub]That's clearly when you have no digestives in the house, so you dunk a rich tea instead, only for half of it to fall off into your tea and float there, slowly dissolving whilst you desperately attempt to fish it out with a spoon/your fingers.[/sub][/sub][/sub]

 

[Zenn3k]

I do wonder if people would care as much if it were a new IP rather than Sim City.

No, they wouldn't, but it would be because nobody heard about it or cared about it at all, rather than hating on it because they are taking a loved franchise and shitting all over it.

You say shitting all over. I say taking it in a new direction.

I do just love that all these people crow on about the need to make bold new decisions and stop making the same games over and over, that then just about turn and whine about it when someone does.

I fail to see how releasing what is basically SimVille (remember THAT game?), with an always online DRM on crap servers in a forced multiplayer environment is either bold or new.

They took the farmville model and built SimCity around it, its not bold, its not new, and it certainly isn't the game I want to play.

They could have just released SimCity 4 with GlassBox and nothing else different, and it would be a vastly superior game to what EA is attempting to shovel down our collective throats.

Unlike some, I don't just take the shit games publishers release and say "thank you may I have another", if the game looks like crap, has major negative "features" that I have no desire to deal with, and fails to deliver on the core aspect of the game that many including myself have enjoyed for 20 years or more...I skip it.

If a game looks like ass, I don't buy it. If you buy a game that employs such underhanded tactics and poor customer relations, you are part of the problem and why we have so many terrible pre-order DLC shovel-ware games flooding the market under the guis of being "Triple A"

 

[Blunderboy]

I do wonder if people would care as much if it were a new IP rather than Sim City.

No, they wouldn't, but it would be because nobody heard about it or cared about it at all, rather than hating on it because they are taking a loved franchise and shitting all over it.

You say shitting all over. I say taking it in a new direction.

I do just love that all these people crow on about the need to make bold new decisions and stop making the same games over and over, that then just about turn and whine about it when someone does.

I fail to see how releasing what is basically SimVille (remember THAT game?), with an always online DRM on crap servers in an forced multiplayer environment is either bold or new.

They took the farmville model and built SimCity around it, its not bold, its not new, and it certainly isn't the game I want to play.

They could have just released SimCity 4 with GlassBox and nothing else different, and it would be a vastly superior game to what EA is attempting to shovel down our collective throats.

Unlike some, I don't just take the shit games publishers release and say "thank you may I have another", if the game looks like crap, has major negative "features" that I have no desire to deal with, and fails to deliver on the core aspect of the game that many including myself have enjoyed for 20 years or more...I skip it.

If a game looks like ass, I don't buy it. If you buy a game that employs such underhanded tactics and poor customer relations, you are part of the problem and why we have so many terrible pre-order DLC shovel-ware flooding the market under the guis of being "Triple A"

Oh yay. Another post telling me what a 'Sheeple' I am for reaching my own decision about a game that I want to buy.
I'll just pop it on the pile.

 

[Zenn3k]

I do wonder if people would care as much if it were a new IP rather than Sim City.

No, they wouldn't, but it would be because nobody heard about it or cared about it at all, rather than hating on it because they are taking a loved franchise and shitting all over it.

You say shitting all over. I say taking it in a new direction.

I do just love that all these people crow on about the need to make bold new decisions and stop making the same games over and over, that then just about turn and whine about it when someone does.

I fail to see how releasing what is basically SimVille (remember THAT game?), with an always online DRM on crap servers in an forced multiplayer environment is either bold or new.

They took the farmville model and built SimCity around it, its not bold, its not new, and it certainly isn't the game I want to play.

They could have just released SimCity 4 with GlassBox and nothing else different, and it would be a vastly superior game to what EA is attempting to shovel down our collective throats.

Unlike some, I don't just take the shit games publishers release and say "thank you may I have another", if the game looks like crap, has major negative "features" that I have no desire to deal with, and fails to deliver on the core aspect of the game that many including myself have enjoyed for 20 years or more...I skip it.

If a game looks like ass, I don't buy it. If you buy a game that employs such underhanded tactics and poor customer relations, you are part of the problem and why we have so many terrible pre-order DLC shovel-ware flooding the market under the guis of being "Triple A"

Oh yay. Another post telling me what a 'Sheeple' I am for reaching my own decision about a game that I want to buy.
I'll just pop it on the pile.

Enjoy!

Don't forget to let us know how and when you lose all your cities to the "cloud" because SimCity 6 was just announced so EA shut down all the SimCity 5 servers.

Its going to happen, maybe not in a year, maybe not in 3 years...but eventually, all your cities will just up and disappear and EA will inform you that it was to "provide you with the best service possible". Have fun!

 

[Blunderboy]

I do wonder if people would care as much if it were a new IP rather than Sim City.

No, they wouldn't, but it would be because nobody heard about it or cared about it at all, rather than hating on it because they are taking a loved franchise and shitting all over it.

You say shitting all over. I say taking it in a new direction.

I do just love that all these people crow on about the need to make bold new decisions and stop making the same games over and over, that then just about turn and whine about it when someone does.

I fail to see how releasing what is basically SimVille (remember THAT game?), with an always online DRM on crap servers in an forced multiplayer environment is either bold or new.

They took the farmville model and built SimCity around it, its not bold, its not new, and it certainly isn't the game I want to play.

They could have just released SimCity 4 with GlassBox and nothing else different, and it would be a vastly superior game to what EA is attempting to shovel down our collective throats.

Unlike some, I don't just take the shit games publishers release and say "thank you may I have another", if the game looks like crap, has major negative "features" that I have no desire to deal with, and fails to deliver on the core aspect of the game that many including myself have enjoyed for 20 years or more...I skip it.

If a game looks like ass, I don't buy it. If you buy a game that employs such underhanded tactics and poor customer relations, you are part of the problem and why we have so many terrible pre-order DLC shovel-ware flooding the market under the guis of being "Triple A"

Oh yay. Another post telling me what a 'Sheeple' I am for reaching my own decision about a game that I want to buy.
I'll just pop it on the pile.

Enjoy!

Don't forget to let us know how and when you lose all your cities to the "cloud" because SimCity 6 was just announced so EA shut down all the SimCity 5 servers.

Its going to happen, maybe not in a year, maybe not in 3 years...but eventually, all your cities will just up and disappear and EA will inform you that it was to "provide you with the best service possible". Have fun!

I will.
You have fun gnawing at your own intestines in a fit of anger in the mean time.

 

[Zenn3k]

I do wonder if people would care as much if it were a new IP rather than Sim City.

No, they wouldn't, but it would be because nobody heard about it or cared about it at all, rather than hating on it because they are taking a loved franchise and shitting all over it.

You say shitting all over. I say taking it in a new direction.

I do just love that all these people crow on about the need to make bold new decisions and stop making the same games over and over, that then just about turn and whine about it when someone does.

I fail to see how releasing what is basically SimVille (remember THAT game?), with an always online DRM on crap servers in an forced multiplayer environment is either bold or new.

They took the farmville model and built SimCity around it, its not bold, its not new, and it certainly isn't the game I want to play.

They could have just released SimCity 4 with GlassBox and nothing else different, and it would be a vastly superior game to what EA is attempting to shovel down our collective throats.

Unlike some, I don't just take the shit games publishers release and say "thank you may I have another", if the game looks like crap, has major negative "features" that I have no desire to deal with, and fails to deliver on the core aspect of the game that many including myself have enjoyed for 20 years or more...I skip it.

If a game looks like ass, I don't buy it. If you buy a game that employs such underhanded tactics and poor customer relations, you are part of the problem and why we have so many terrible pre-order DLC shovel-ware flooding the market under the guis of being "Triple A"

Oh yay. Another post telling me what a 'Sheeple' I am for reaching my own decision about a game that I want to buy.
I'll just pop it on the pile.

Enjoy!

Don't forget to let us know how and when you lose all your cities to the "cloud" because SimCity 6 was just announced so EA shut down all the SimCity 5 servers.

Its going to happen, maybe not in a year, maybe not in 3 years...but eventually, all your cities will just up and disappear and EA will inform you that it was to "provide you with the best service possible". Have fun!

I will.
You have fun gnawing at your own intestines in a fit of anger in the mean time.

Hahaha. Nah, I will enjoy playing actual quality video games though, games that don't try to just sell units on a franchise title alone like Diablo or SimCity.

I'm not actually angry....I just really harbor some serious distain for the raping EA is putting on with SimCity 5. So much rape, just every single orifice...its sad really.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

I do wonder if people would care as much if it were a new IP rather than Sim City.

I guess that's the point.
Everyone is screaming that the industry does absolutely nothing new, but as soon as they change something to an IP everyone gets totally protective.

People can't decide.

 

[mokes310]

snip

Again, those are almost all EA sports titles and social media titles, very few PC games on the list like Armies of Exigo and bfme, bfme which was a big loss btw and the only game I own from the list sadly I believe it's gamespy's fault like a lot of other recent games dropped.

And again, you're failing to see the big picture. These games are sold to the consumer with a primary benefit being their online capabilities. When it no longer becomes viable, for whatever reason (financially; strategically; logistically), the company can then cut those benefits at the expense of the consumer. The game, having already lost value chronologically, has become even less valuable to the consumer because core benefits have now been stripped away. When extrapolated, it's not a stretch to assume that a game who's content is driven by online connectivity, is not really a purchase because the ability to play said game will become moot when the developer decides it is no longer a viable business pursuit for the aforementioned reasons. In essence, you are not purchasing the game, but merely leasing the ability to play it until the developer sees profitability elsewhere: be it a new and updated title, or paradigm shift (like we are seeing now).

So they shut down older servers, really? Is that what people are moaning about? It's expensive to keep all the old servers running. They have to weigh up the financies - if a new game comes out, most of the people playing the older ones are assumed to switch to that one. Therefore the newer servers take priority for upkeep and the old one lose out n get shut down. simple. And its even more apparent in the current market, even the big compainies dont have as much dosh to throw at upkeep.

See above, and that should clear up the confusion.

 

[Nazulu]

I do wonder if people would care as much if it were a new IP rather than Sim City.

I guess that's the point.
Everyone is screaming that the industry does absolutely nothing new, but as soon as they change something to an IP everyone gets totally protective.

People can't decide.

That's a load and you know it. Why don't you just ask others instead of generalising the people you disagree with?

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

1. ALWAYS ONLINE REQUIREMENT

I completely agree with the dislike of forcing a game to always be online in order to play it. But, I only agree with it on single-player games, but SimCity is designed around building cities next to other players, so I really don't understand the hatred for not being able to play a game offline that is designed around playing online.

The problem is that Sim City hasn't historically been designed around multiplayer. The challenge and appeal of the game traditionally lies in creating an aesthetically satisfying environment within the constraints of the game's socio-economic model. Nothing is really gained by adding other players into the mix, because from a development point of view, you have two options. You can make cities reliant on one another for trade and be affected by the pollution and crime of their neighbours, but doing so breaks the immersion of people who are just trying to craft the city of their dreams. Say no one in your region wants to focus on industry, they all want to build commercial powerhouses? In Sim City 4 you have the option of building a commercial city in a region with industrial areas supplementing it. But in Sim City 5, your only option to recreate that will be relying on other players. That is going to frustrate the crap out of a lot of people.

The other option is that they design it so you have very little interaction with other player's cities, in which case, why bother forcing online only when it acts simply as a glorified showcase?

5. EA WILL JUST SHUT OFF THE SERVERS WHEN THEY FEEL LIKE IT

Honestly this one is just the silliest. Companies only shut down game servers when the negatives outweigh the positives to running it. When there aren't enough people playing a game, why should you keep officially hosting it? But of course, EA is literally the devil for not hosting a game about 200 people play.

Did I miss anything? Am I right? Am I wrong? Put your opinions, replies, and hatred in the comments below.

Because if they had't put the superfluous always-online requirement into the game, those 200 people could still play it.

It's more than just 200 people, anyway. The community at Simtropolis is fairly extensive, and these are people who are still modding and playing a ten year old game. Denying your audience the right to enjoy something after a certain period of time is just dickish, I'm sorry.

 

[Monsterfurby]

(servers shutting down etc)

The fear is completely unjustified though.

Ultima Online is still up after 15 years. Spore is still up despite failing spectacularly.

At the same time, I am unable to play a good part of my gaming collection from the early 2000s due to compatibility issues or the fact that the game's respective console broke a long time ago.

So yeah, honestly, I don't think SimCity's half-life will be shorter than that of most other games.

At the same time, what they say about cloud processing cannot be ruled out. It might be true for all we know. Don't dismiss that!

 

[Stavros Dimou]

1. ALWAYS ONLINE REQUIREMENT is bad,evil,and must die and never surface up again. No matter the game that has,no matter if its a single player only game or also has multiplayer,it's just bad,it's annoying for costumers,gamers hate it and doesn't want it. As simple as that. By having that,it automatically limits sales and it has been proved before. EA is shooting itself on the foot because of that. It's a degradation of the gamer's experience,and overly annoying and offensive intrusion.

2. I don't personally have problems with Origin. I might prefer Steam,but still I don't have problems on using Origin.

3. The thing is that technology is supposed to be moving forward,and not backwards. Think about that.

4. Won't comment on that.

5. I refuse to pay money for falsely believing that I buy a product,when someone else has the authority to decide that he can stop me from using it whenever he wants. If I'm to give my money for something,I want to have the control over it. It's against costumer's rights perhaps,and definitely its not considered "buying"."Renting for unspecified period" is a much more appropriate definition. And no,the majority of people (thank God) still don't believe that paying full price to just rent something for an unspecified time is a smart/worthy move. Would you buy a car,if at an unspecified time the car manufacturer could come and get the car away from you,whenever he wanted to ?

 

[TheCommanders]

5. I refuse to pay money for falsely believing that I buy a product,when someone else has the authority to decide that he can stop me from using it whenever he wants. If I'm to give my money for something,I want to have the control over it. It's against costumer's rights perhaps,and definitely its not considered "buying"."Renting for unspecified period" is a much more appropriate definition. And no,the majority of people (thank God) still don't believe that paying full price to just rent something for an unspecified time is a smart/worthy move. Would you buy a car,if at an unspecified time the car manufacturer could come and get the car away from you,whenever he wanted to ?

Well actually for some really expensive cars (high end Ferrari's and the like) buying the car means the company you bought it from will occasionally let you drive it, when and where they see fit. Kind of ridiculous...

OT- I took a brief look at the new SimCity, and then happily went back to my Cities XL. No DRM, no always online bullshit, nice large maps, much more control over what you build, nicer graphics.... aren't newer games supposed to be better than old ones?