Sim City

thelostboys23

Anyone looking forward to the new Sim City on PC next monh?? Some of the videos actually look so good for it - many an hour shall be spent on it I think.

Reamer Fanny

Your thread might be more at home here? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1153

Myrddin

Moved from Console Modding

Reekwind

Online-only DRM = no sale here. Which is a pity as it looks, from the preview material, to be a really good addition to the series

Sephiroth_dude

thelostboys23 wrote: »

Anyone looking forward to the new Sim City on PC next monh?? Some of the videos actually look so good for it - many an hour shall be spent on it I think.

I'm looking forward to it,gonna use my GameStop voucher on it .

cherryghost

Reekwind wrote: »

Online-only DRM = no sale here. Which is a pity as it looks, from the preview material, to be a really good addition to the series

Is there any point where you're not online on you PC/Laptop playing games?

Reekwind

I spent five months last year based in a hotel in France where there was no wireless coverage in any room above the first floor. And my router at home will occasionally go on the blink and require a restart (or just foul up when BT have an issue). So yes

And that's just the practicalities. I can accept all of that when I'm playing a multiplayer came because c'est la vie. But why should I have to have a constant internet connection to play a singleplayer game?

KilOit

Never played a Sim City game, good to start with this one?

Laviski

single player need online connection to play?
fk that. I am all for paying for games but maybe this time i will choose another source. Already have a sour expierence with ubi soft and as a result will not buy any more games from them, hope EA will have some sense.

Grumpypants

Reekwind wrote: »

I spent five months last year based in a hotel in France where there was no wireless coverage in any room above the first floor. And my router at home will occasionally go on the blink and require a restart (or just foul up when BT have an issue). So yes

And that's just the practicalities. I can accept all of that when I'm playing a multiplayer came because c'est la vie. But why should I have to have a constant internet connection to play a singleplayer game?

There is no single player game it is an online multiplayer game so you need an online connection.

dazftw

I didn't get into the beta

Krusader

KilOit wrote: »

Never played a Sim City game, good to start with this one?

Get sim city 4 and go to simtropolis for mods

Inquitus

Playing the beta atm, really enjoyable even if it is limited to 1 hour of gameplay before reset.

nesf

cherryghost wrote: »

Is there any point where you're not online on you PC/Laptop playing games?

The problem is just because the internet is working in your house that doesn't mean that the connection between the game and the server can't drop. This was a serious problem for me with Heroes of Might and Magic's latest incarnation, I'd lose quite a lot of progress fairly regularly when some hiccup came between it and Ubisoft's UPlay.

The other problem is that servers go down. No server, no game. This is tolerable for multiplayer portions of games but completely unacceptable when you just want to play single player (see Diablo III for an example of this being a problem).

VinLieger

People need to understand that this simcity isnt always online singleplayer, its an always online multiplayer game with the choice to play by yourself.
Time to move our way of thinking about how to play games forward a bit and get over complaints like this. Chances are the games gonna be awesome to play, yet your not gonna play it because of a feature that chances are wont affect you? The people who have bad internet connections have an excuse but if your on a reliable service that never drops your just being moronic and complaining over nothing imo

Myrddin

VinLieger wrote: »

Time to move our way of thinking about how to play games forward a bit and get over complaints like this

I don't agree with that at all. You should be able to play your purchased game on your purchased system whether you have a internet connection or not. This always online nonsense is completely fine for a multiplayer game, thats a given. But not for single player stuff. I know you say its an 'always online multiplayer game that you can play single player', but to me thats just a name tag thats another way of saying always online drm.

What happens if your internet connection is interrupted?
What happens if the servers go down?
How long will these servers be up for? Will they ever close?

I've personally zero interest in multiplayer gaming, I get my enjoyment from single player offline games, usually story intensive stuff. I do however like simulation type games & was a big fan of Sim City back in that day. So to me, this notion of not being able to have a blast of Sim City unless my internet is working seems absurd, no matter what tag/name they put on it {multiplayer with single player mode :rolleyes:]

I also am a keen retro collector, & all I can say is thank god nothing like this nonsense existed back then, because all the stuff below would probably be useless today.

Sephiroth_dude

VinLieger wrote: »

being moronic and complaining over nothing imo

Ah here that's harsh.

Dravokivich

cherryghost wrote: »

Is there any point where you're not online on you PC/Laptop playing games?

Yeah, for the last 3 weeks after moving house. I can't stand the idea of a constant online connection being required.

Myrddin

If I remember correctly Silent Hunter 5 had this same type of drm when it first came out & the hackers that cracked it said they only did it to break the drm. I'm sure the game would have been cracked eventually, but the more locks you have, the more lockpickers you attract.

http://www.allaboutthegames.co.uk/feature_story.php?article_id=12199

VinLieger

Sephiroth_dude wrote: »

Ah here that's harsh.

Fair enough a bit harsh calling it moronic, sorry bout that but i still think people are whining over something that isnt that big of a deal, like it or not this is the way things are going thanks to the constant movment of everything into the cloud
Yes Onlive didnt work but theres reports that sony are gonna be trying something similar with the ps4, now of course they may not be true but we are getting to the stage where its not unreasonable to be always connected even for single player games.
Yes the worry that servers will go down in the future is a valid one and EA and others will have to address this.

cherryghost

Regardless it didn't deter people buying SCII or Diablo III, 2 of the biggest selling games on the PC platform in recent history which both require always online connection.

Myrddin

cherryghost wrote: »

Regardless it didn't deter people buying SCII or Diablo III, 2 of the biggest selling games on the PC platform in recent history which both require always online connection.

In the same respect, this type of DRM hasn't deterred piracy in any way either...which is kinda the point of it

Myrddin

VinLieger wrote: »

its not unreasonable to be always connected even for single player games.

I don't see any benefits or valid reasons for this, its DRM, & as always, DRM only pains the legitimate users of games & not the pirates.

Laviski

EnterNow wrote: »

I don't see any benefits or valid reasons for this, its DRM, & as always, DRM only pains the legitimate users of games & not the pirates.

this is why i won't buy ubi solt games again. the only DRM i will accept is steam and i also refuse to buy hard copy of games anymore too.

Krusader

Laviski wrote: »

this is why i won't buy ubi solt games again. the only DRM i will accept is steam and i also refuse to buy hard copy of games anymore too.

Ubisoft have done away with always on connection

abbir

cherryghost wrote: »

Regardless it didn't deter people buying SCII or Diablo III, 2 of the biggest selling games on the PC platform in recent history which both require always online connection.

Starcraft 2 didn't require an always on connection, it had an offline mode. I bought Diablo 3 and it took a week after launch before I managed to get to play it. The game stutters, lags and all while I'm playing single player. I have regretted that purchase since.

Grumpypants

EnterNow wrote: »

I don't see any benefits or valid reasons for this, its DRM, & as always, DRM only pains the legitimate users of games & not the pirates.

Its not DRM. The game is an online multiplayer game you are building in a world with others and all the cities interact with each other.

I agree I would love a single player game as my connection is crap sometimes but this isn't DRM it is because the game is online.

I'm far more worried about the dumbing down of the game and the introduction of "Sims" :mad:

nesf

cherryghost wrote: »

Regardless it didn't deter people buying SCII or Diablo III, 2 of the biggest selling games on the PC platform in recent history which both require always online connection.

Blizzard were trusted in Diablo III, many people who normally wouldn't touch an online-only DRM game said Blizzard might pull it off ok given their reputation and experience with MMOs.

The result, a lot of gamers swearing they'll never touch online-only DRM again because of the problems.


Look at Ubisoft's U-turn on this issue and they were the main pushers of online-only DRM for single player games:

“We have listened to feedback, and since June last year our policy for all of PC games is that we only require a one-time online activation when you first install the game, and from then you are free to play the game offline.”

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/09/05/ubisoft-scrapping-always-on-drm-for-pc-games/

There are two main reasons for this. The first is a massive public backlash (see SecuROM for another example of this) and the second is that hackers were cracking each and every Ubisoft attempt to make a new DRM. It was pointless, they were pissing off the people who were buying their games while at best just delaying the cracking groups from releasing the games for pirates to use.

gizmo

nesf wrote: »

Blizzard were trusted in Diablo III, many people who normally wouldn't touch an online-only DRM game said Blizzard might pull it off ok given their reputation and experience with MMOs.

Sales of the game continued steadily, if not increasingly, from the release date onwards. This was despite the fact that there were, as previously mentioned, massive problems with server loads and connections which only became known after launch. From launch onwards trust wasn't an issue, it was basically a clear message to publishers that despite a vocal group of dissenting gamers, the majority of people will still buy games which contain this functionality.

As for Sim City, I don't think we'll see any end to the "it's DRM / it's not DRM" argument that has been going on since the dev videos were released. Personally I think it could be pretty cool given the connectivity it allows between player created cities and with the global economy. That is, of course, if EA don't suffer the same problems Blizzard did at launch which restrict us from even playing it.

As an aside, the connection to the EA servers is asynchronous so according to some dev interviews there'll only be an issue if your connection drops for more than three minutes at which point your state will be saved and you'll be booted back to the main menu.

nesf

gizmo wrote: »

Sales of the game continued steadily, if not increasingly, from the release date onwards.

The only numbers I can find are, 6+ million sales in the first week, 10 million played by two months later. I'm not seeing anything saying a steady, if not increasing, rate of sales going forward and given Blizzard do tend to talk up sales figures and big numbers where possible I'm surprised I'm not finding such numbers quickly.

Anyway, my point was a lot of people gave always online DRM a chance with Diablo III and the problems in the first few weeks of the game, combined with downtimes in the following months turned a lot of people away from this kind of DRM in single player games.

gizmo

nesf wrote: »

The only numbers I can find are, 6+ million sales in the first week, 10 million played by two months later. I'm not seeing anything saying a steady, if not increasing, rate of sales going forward and given Blizzard do tend to talk up sales figures and big numbers where possible I'm surprised I'm not finding such numbers quickly.

Increasingly may have been somewhat inaccurate. 3.5m had bought the game within 24 hours (a figure which includes pre-orders of course) and that number had increased to 6.3m by the end of the week. That week, however, was when the game saw some of its worst downtime and was being hammered on nearly everyone video games orientated site, forum and publication out there. So, despite all of that negative publicity, sales still nearly doubled.

As for the accuracy of said figures, it's fairly easy for them to see how many accounts there are via B.net so unless they're going to revise the figures downwards for their financials in the coming months, I'd wager the figure is pretty reliable.

nesf wrote: »

Anyway, my point was a lot of people gave always online DRM a chance with Diablo III and the problems in the first few weeks of the game, combined with downtimes in the following months turned a lot of people away from this kind of DRM in single player games.

People are, however, going to need to get used to it because it's not going anywhere.

I'm curious though, do you make any distinction between a game which features an always-on component that offers absolutely no gameplay benefits and one that does? Or do you recognise that said benefit is cool and all but that they should still allow the option to play offline in a singular sandbox with all other systems simulated locally.