Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Sim City
Options
Comments
-
Grumpypants wrote: »There is no single player game it is an online multiplayer game so you need an online connection.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.
I have been dead set against online stuff since Half Life 2 when it took me weeks to get the game running, then lost all ability to play the game and then got ignored by the support system.
Since using G2play I can see that downloading games is a much better way of doing things when it works and is fair.
I also don't play online stuff often. I find online play pretty shallow a lot of the time and it's hard to do casual gaming when your facing the best people on the planet.0 -
Grumpypants wrote: »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.
Thats fair enough, & I accept this is quite normal for multiplayer use, but if the game has the option to play one player...why force it to use an always online system? Why not have the option to play offline? It may not be DRM, but it sure as hell has the same affect0 -
Grumpypants wrote: »There is no single player game it is an online multiplayer game so you need an online connection.
The core gameplay of the new Sim City will be, as with the previous games, a solo city-building experience. Simple as. Hence the option to play with singleplayer regions. The whole mechanics of building a city - zoning, laying roads, etc - will be as multiplayer as the previous iterations in the series; which is to say, not at all
What the new game will be providing is the option to interact with other players' cities and a sort of co-op co-existence in multiplayer regions. This is, as I note, entirely optional. So we have the same singleplayer mechanics with the option to send trash to neighbouring player cities. This does not a multiplayer game make
It's a singleplayer game with a co-opt option that requires an internet connection for the singleplayer game. If this is a multiplayer game then the same can be said for almost every game since Doom. This is nothing more than an attempt to move singleplayer content online as a DRM measure.gizmo wrote:People are, however, going to need to get used to it because it's not going anywhere0 -
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.
Sure, despite the bad publicity sales did extremely well in the first week and continued to grow for the next two months. I don't and didn't argue with that.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.
I think the figures are most likely very accurate. I was talking about the lack of numbers given out since July last year. If we had continued steady sales growth we'd have heard about 15 or 20 million sales by now surely no? They'd have zero reason not to mention that to investors or the media.People are, however, going to need to get used to it because it's not going anywhere.
Some form of DRM is always going to be with us. I'm fine with that, Steam games usual policy of verification on installation works perfectly fine for me and doesn't interfere at all with my gaming. Online-only isn't the only option though as shown by Ubisoft.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.
It depends on the game. It depends on how crucial other people are to the game. I mean if a game stored key data for each level of the single player campaign/story online so that you had to download and verify it in order to play this would deeply annoy me. If on the other hand there were strong multiplayer-esque elements that meshed well with or were crucial to single player experience (I struggle to think of an example) then I wouldn't mind the online components overly much.
With respect to Sim City, the multiplayer aspects sound somewhat interesting. I strongly dislike the design decision though. Even if offline sandbox city building was limited in some ways, I'd be ok with it. That there's no offline sandbox at all, and I think no mods, bothers me somewhat. I mean Sim 4 unmodded is nowhere near as fun. I'll still buy it though (read: my wife is a big Sim City fan and informed me I'd be buying it and giving over my PC to her).0 -
Thats fair enough, & I accept this is quite normal for multiplayer use, but if the game has the option to play one player...why force it to use an always online system? Why not have the option to play offline? It may not be DRM, but it sure as hell has the same affectNot if we take the fatalist attitude that **** happens and there's nothing that we can do about it. In which case I suggest that you ask Ubisoft how their online-only DRM offering is working out...
As for Ubisoft, well the counter point is that their entire system/implementation was just poorly designed rather than the idea itself being something abhorrent. Take Valve for instance, if they were to bring on an always-online requirement to Steam and the system was as reliable as the rest of their services, would people be as wary?I think the figures are most likely very accurate. I was talking about the lack of numbers given out since July last year. If we had continued steady sales growth we'd have heard about 15 or 20 million sales by now surely no? They'd have zero reason not to mention that to investors or the media.It depends on the game. It depends on how crucial other people are to the game. I mean if a game stored key data for each level of the single player campaign/story online so that you had to download and verify it in order to play this would deeply annoy me. If on the other hand there were strong multiplayer-esque elements that meshed well with or were crucial to single player experience (I struggle to think of an example) then I wouldn't mind the online components overly much.0 -
Advertisement
-
My guess is that it avoids having to create two separate systems, one for online and one for local play. In the case of SimCity, if a bunch of their simulation systems are being calculated server side then it makes perfect sense. It's not, however, something that would be need to be done for every game.
That would somewhat explain it alright, & if its the case indeed, then fair enough. But, if it is indeed that some of the calculations are being done by the servers & not on the home end...does this mean the game will be effectively useless if & when they drop support for it?0 -
That's the reality of it though, I'd heavily wager that at least one of the next gen consoles will feature it and unless that one fails spectacularly because of it, it's going to be here to stay
The only reality here is that if customers roll over and accept this deeply unpopular DRM measure as inevitable then it will become inevitableTake Valve for instance, if they were to bring on an always-online requirement to Steam and the system was as reliable as the rest of their services, would people be as wary?
But why would Valve ever need an always-online system? They have probably the best, from all perspectives, DRM model out there and recently played down the hype of cloud computing, restating that they see the future as being very much based on local hardware. Valve have no need to introduce draconian always-on DRMI wasn't really referring to long term figures here though. The game has sold 10 million copies which is an astronomical number for a PC-only game like Diablo and is doubtful to go much higherIn the case of SimCity, if a bunch of their simulation systems are being calculated server side then it makes perfect sense0 -
No. That is, as I say, pure fatalism. Ubisoft's efforts failed because the bulk of its games stable was not big enough to survive the backlash against such draconian measures. Hence why publishers are relying on big name franchises (Diablo, Sim City) to try and batter through in the face of consumer objections
Therein lies the difference and how it will become accepted by the majority imo. If the system works, even if people don't like it in principle, it'll be accepted. You've even highlighted this yourself in a round about way, publishers are introducing it in the bigger franchises first and rather than standing up against it and possibly doing without, people are going to march out and buy it because they "need" to play it.The only reality here is that if customers roll over and accept this deeply unpopular DRM measure as inevitable then it will become inevitableBut why would Valve ever need an always-online system? They have probably the best, from all perspectives, DRM model out there and recently played down the hype of cloud computing, restating that they see the future as being very much based on local hardware. Valve have no need to introduce draconian always-on DRM
As an aside, I have wondered about it in a different context though. For instance, if Valve announced that in order to fully support the idea of transferability with accounts and licences they'd need to implement it, would people still want the latter? But that's an issue for a different thread.The context being that Diablo II sold approx 17 million copies. Blizzard could have introduced a DRM system in which the customer had to submit to regular DNA swabs and it still would have sold millions
Diablo 2 itself had, for the sake of this debate, sold ~4m copies after a year on sale.Why on earth would they outsource in-game calculations, needed for the singleplayer experience, to a remote system?
To tie that in with what EnterNow asked above, they'd either need to update the game to add that functionality at a later date or just pull support for the game entirely. It completely depends on how they've implemented it really.0 -
I wouldn't regard the online elements in SimCity to be "crucial" per say (bar the supposed reliance on server-side simulations) but they have the chance to make the game far more dynamic or unpredictable which has always been one of my problems with regard to the long-term playability of the previous games. I guess we'll have to wait and see anyway, whether it's to see how these systems play out or what kind of mess EA make out of the launch.
I'm quite cynical about the need for server side processing. I'm going to be very interested in how much load this game puts on CPUs at release. The only justification for this that I can see is to allow old dual cores to play the game well, so it'll be interesting to see performance on machines sporting somewhat decent graphics cards and weak CPUs.
The main justification (publisher side) for it is that it makes piracy an awful lot harder. I strongly suspect that this is why it's being done rather and any benefit for the players just being a nice but not essential extra.0 -
As far as I'm aware, that's an older figure which includes the sales of the first two Diablo games and their expansions, not just Diablo II itself. This lines up fairly well with the more recent figure of 24.8m sales for the series as of May last year
Diablo 2 itself had, for the sake of this debate, sold ~4m copies after a year on sale
The gauge of a system's acceptance is not the success of an exceptional blockbuster franchise but the commercial hurt inflicted on lesser titles that don't have such a name to trade on. There's no question that Ubisoft's profits suffered due to its always-online system, the company would not have relented otherwise. And it's those mid-tier games that people will just not buy in the same numbers if it comes with draconian DRM
As to the quality of Ubisoft's DRM, such outrages are inevitable when you introduce a completely unnecessary link. Even Diablo III, with all the resources of Blizzard behind it, does have semi-regular occasions of downtime; not a huge amount but more than would be the case if someone was not hampered by the central servers. The real test comes when you try to maintain such a system across a whole raft of games, not all of which have been designed/built by an in-house developer
And I maintain that unless some real advantages can be shown to moving to an online model (which there aren't as yet) then people won't follow. Gaikai works but who actually plays games on it?0 -
Advertisement
-
Why on earth would they outsource in-game calculations, needed for the singleplayer experience, to a remote system?
I'm not 100% sure, but I was under the impression that there isn't a single-player game in Sim City. You can choose not to interact with other players, if you want. But the world's economy and the way the people react is all relative to what is going on around the globe. So playing on your own would be a kin to playing WoW and not grouping with other players.
Again, not sure if this is true, but it's what I was lead to believe from the blurb they gave out about it.0 -
I'm not 100% sure, but I was under the impression that there isn't a single-player game in Sim City. You can choose not to interact with other players, if you want. But the world's economy and the way the people react is all relative to what is going on around the globe. So playing on your own would be a kin to playing WoW and not grouping with other players.
Again, not sure if this is true, but it's what I was lead to believe from the blurb they gave out about it.
Nah, some Vice President spun a tale about local processing not being enough to handle 100,000 agents being modelled.0 -
When this new version of Sim City was announced, it made me go and find my old SC3K CD, then install it and play away. This game, despite being 14 years old still plays fine sitting in a Win8 VM on my Mac (I know they created a Mac version, but I didn't have a Mac back then). The graphics etc may be a little dated, but the actual gameplay is as good as it ever was.
For this new game, what are the odds of this DRM server still being up and running in 14 years to verify that you are allowed to play the game? It's becoming a rental model where despite paying some extortionate price you can only play it for a short time. Some of the new features in the game (e.g. resources) do sound interesting, but unless I had some money-back guarantee that they will keep the services available for a minimum of 20 years, I'm not going to touch it with a barge-pole.0 -
So who managed to play the beta?0
-
did anyone actually play the beta and give us some info on what you think
all this speaking of drm and ram and whatever else is confusing me :L0 -
I played the beta, but I'm waiting to hear if it's been embargoed or not - have a post with my experiences written though waiting to go.
Short answer - I enjoyed it and am looking forward to the final product. Did run into some bugs, but it was a beta, so that's not exactly a big shock.0 -
maggy_thatcher wrote: »When this new version of Sim City was announced, it made me go and find my old SC3K CD, then install it and play away. This game, despite being 14 years old still plays fine sitting in a Win8 VM on my Mac (I know they created a Mac version, but I didn't have a Mac back then). The graphics etc may be a little dated, but the actual gameplay is as good as it ever was.
For this new game, what are the odds of this DRM server still being up and running in 14 years to verify that you are allowed to play the game? It's becoming a rental model where despite paying some extortionate price you can only play it for a short time. Some of the new features in the game (e.g. resources) do sound interesting, but unless I had some money-back guarantee that they will keep the services available for a minimum of 20 years, I'm not going to touch it with a barge-pole.
You won't be able to play World of Warcraft when they take the servers offline either, and that's kind of the same thing here. It's being billed as a multiplayer game. They probably should have just called it SimCity Online and been done with it.
If it's any consolation, I can't imagine people playing this in 20 years time. It lacks that something special that the older games had. It's fun and addictive, but I don't know if it's going to have the legs of it's predecessors.andymurphy93 wrote: »did anyone actually play the beta and give us some info on what you think
all this speaking of drm and ram and whatever else is confusing me :L
I was in the first one and posted about it here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82938031&postcount=53
There was only really enough to give a taster, but the whole "living city" stuff can be pretty cool at times. It has it's problems, like the tiny map and the way you place zones will be quite contentious, I'd imagine. I felt it was a bit dumbed down when I played it, but the more I think of it the more I'd say it's streamlined as opposed to dumbed down. There's still plenty to consider, but how you approach the problems is a bit more fluid because of the way the AI decides to populate and run the city.0 -
You won't be able to play World of Warcraft when they take the servers offline either, and that's kind of the same thing here. It's being billed as a multiplayer game. They probably should have just called it SimCity Online and been done with it.If it's any consolation, I can't imagine people playing this in 20 years time. It lacks that something special that the older games had. It's fun and addictive, but I don't know if it's going to have the legs of it's predecessors.
Sounds like I should skip this one, and stick with the older versions so.0 -
maggy_thatcher wrote: »But Warcraft is a pay-to-play game, where you pay virtually nothing, or even nothing for the game itself, and then an ongoing rental fee to actually play the game, and the game doesn't make any sense without the multiplayer service. The new Sim City requires paying full price up-front for a service that may or may not exist at some point in the future, to play a game that would be able work perfectly well in Solo mode, except for decisions made by the producer. It's not in the same category as WoW.
It's all a bit sh*t, if you ask me. But they're not going to change their minds any time soon.Sounds like I should skip this one, and stick with the older versions so.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,471 CMod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 8086
I have always been a big fan of the Sim City series, was disappointing that the series was neglected for so long after the release of SC4. Really looking forward to this 'reboot' of sorts though. I never knew that it was going into a closed beta test, would have applied if I had known!0 -
Advertisement
-
maggy_thatcher wrote: »But Warcraft is a pay-to-play game, where you pay virtually nothing, or even nothing for the game itself, and then an ongoing rental fee to actually play the game, and the game doesn't make any sense without the multiplayer service.
This makes no sense, every copy of the original wow cost the average price of a pc game at the time of release and every expansion there after has cost just below the average cost of any other pc game. Also 12 euro a month is not almost nothing its the full cost of a new game every 5 months.maggy_thatcher wrote: »The new Sim City requires paying full price up-front for a service that may or may not exist at some point in the future, to play a game that would be able work perfectly well in Solo mode, except for decisions made by the producer. It's not in the same category as WoW.
Yeah but so does wow i dont see how theres any difference? In wow your paying for the service to be available all the time. Wow would work perfectly well in solo mode IF the developers designed it to but they didnt. Just like this version of Simcity would work in solo mode except the developers have designed it to work as a multiplayer experience whether you agree with that decision or not.
Your saying its a bad thing that we pay full price up front for a game and then ea let us use their servers for free?0 -
-
-
-
This makes no sense, every copy of the original wow cost the average price of a pc game at the time of release and every expansion there after has cost just below the average cost of any other pc game. Also 12 euro a month is not almost nothing its the full cost of a new game every 5 months.Yeah but so does wow i dont see how theres any difference? In wow your paying for the service to be available all the time. Wow would work perfectly well in solo mode IF the developers designed it to but they didnt. Just like this version of Simcity would work in solo mode except the developers have designed it to work as a multiplayer experience whether you agree with that decision or not.
Your saying its a bad thing that we pay full price up front for a game and then ea let us use their servers for free?
WoW makes no sense in solo mode - it's a game that's primary purpose is to play games with other people. SimCity has two modes of operation - a solo mode for playing by yourself, and a multi-player mode that obviously needs an internet connection. However, due to decisions made by EA, you can't actually play in Solo mode without still continually sending game data to/from their remote servers. Essentially they're advertising the game as a purchase when in fact it's a rental, with the rental fee just paid up-front (though, given EA's history, I'd imagine a ridiculous amount of in-app purchase going to be present). If/when EA decide to, they can pull the plug on the game and it becomes completely worthless. However, they obviously won't advertise in advance when they plan to shut the service down.
This decision is definitely going to stop me renting the game.0 -
Anyone know if American keys would work on a Irish origin account? €45 and a $5 voucher
http://www.amazon.com/SimCity-Limited-5-Credit-Download/dp/B007VTVRFA/ref=sr_1_2?s=videogames-download&ie=UTF8&qid=1361238955&sr=1-2&keywords=sim+city
P.S. Always internet connection doesn't bother me. Some friends and I are going to build adjacent cities
Edit: €41.80 on Greenmangaming using discount code but that's 3 days after the U.S. release.0 -
Not sure if I'll pick this up.
Currently have Simcity 3000, and Simcity 4, and I find that 3000 was the more enjoyable, difficult game. 4 doesn't have the random encounters (aliens/earthquakes/etc) that 3000 did. I know you can go into god mode, and turn them on, but expecting them takes the "F**KF**KF**KF**KF**KF**K" out of it.0 -
Anyone know if American keys would work on a Irish origin account? €45 and a $5 voucher
http://www.amazon.com/SimCity-Limited-5-Credit-Download/dp/B007VTVRFA/ref=sr_1_2?s=videogames-download&ie=UTF8&qid=1361238955&sr=1-2&keywords=sim+city
P.S. Always internet connection doesn't bother me. Some friends and I are going to build adjacent cities
Edit: €41.80 on Greenmangaming using discount code but that's 3 days after the U.S. release.
Or http://www.amazon.co.uk/SimCity-Limited-Edition-PC-DVD/dp/B007HLNLZ6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1361259350&sr=8-1 :P - works out to 40 euro0 -
My point is that it's in the same category in that it's an always online MMO
The Devs' excuses are, as you note, rubbish but we shouldn't let them change the definition of what a multiplayer game actually is0 -
Advertisement
-
Sim City is using a glassbox engine which replicates almost every transation in the game, ie.. Each lump of coal is actually mines, processed, shipped, sold and burned. Each person wakes, drives to work, goes to the shops etc etc. This requires massive processing power. You need to be online to connect to ea servers which will do a lot of this processing for you.
In addition, even if you are playing by yourself, you are playing by yourself in a multiplayer game, there is a world market that determines prices of goods.
Im a bit peeved at the idea of having to be online aswell, cos i know how frustrating it can be when things go wrong. But in some ways i can see the reasons for it in this game. Doesnt mean im happy about it though0
Advertisement