3 ms·

Guild Wars 2 sells an actual MMO as a one-time fee, and they're doing just swell. I've heard most people claim that as one of its benefits, not a downside. Not

Guild Wars 2 sells an actual MMO as a one-time fee, and they're doing just swell. I've heard most people claim that as one of its benefits, not a downside. Not sure what that means, just wanted to point out that people often do enjoy single-fee game-as-a-services. Also, when you say "$60 for something I can't even use on my own time" are you claiming that the game doesn't even work, as all of the hyped up gaming articles are claiming? I've been watching someone stream the game for the past week and a half, and he's been doing just fine, playing consistently for about 8 hours a day, each day since the release. So, sure, there are some problems with it, but it's not like the game is so horribly broken that you can't use it.

minimaxir 14y ago
Guild Wars 2 fan here. It's worth noting that GW2 has a substantial amount of non-trivial in-game purchases to subsidize the persistent costs of maintaining the servers in lieu of an online fee, and some game design is specifically tailored to provide incentives for players to make these purchases.
- xymostech 14y ago
  That is a good point. I've avoided it, so I forgot that it can be a large part of the game. However, one could argue that Maxis will likely be releasing DLC/Expansion packs for Sim City (seeing as they've done this for every other Sim game they've made) so those can be a substitute for the online fee as well. I guess time will tell.
  - ijk 14y ago
    They were planning to (there's already lots of stuff in the Collector's Edition that's also available as DLC). But they were planning to do that with Spore too, and that didn't turn out so well.
ijk 14y ago
"It works for this one guy I know" is not really data. I think the real problem, though, is that EA has been treating this as a boxed product launch, not a service, and then acting shocked when they have service-type problems. If they had really treated it as a service, internally, they would have done things that might have prevented this, like doing a soft-launch, actual beta stress testing, having transparently scalable servers, etc.
- xymostech 14y ago
  I think it is data. People are claiming that the game _does not work_, so if it's working for somebody, then the servers must be doing something. People are claiming that the servers have literally been down for the past week and a half, when this is simply not true. I'll agree that it hasn't been the smoothest of gameplay all the time, but it's not as extreme as some people are claiming it is. I agree with all your other points though.
  - hildolfr 14y ago
    It is data, you're right. It's anecdotal evidence, and should only be used as a burden of proof if there is no other substantial evidence. Tell me, If I go to the SimCity forums will I see hundreds of people complaining about a game that doesn't work? If I go to YouTube will I see videos of buggy behavior and reviewers irate about the state of the game? That too, is anecdotal evidence. But, since you're only worried about data, I guess the larger amount wins out. So, clearly, the data indicates the game has issues.
    - xymostech 14y ago
      Again, I'm not saying "the game is working fine", I'm saying "I know that the servers are not completely shut down because there is at least one person who is able to play consistently". I agree, the game has issues (of which some have been sorta resolved), just not as serious as some people are claiming.
  - lukejduncan 14y ago
    Well if "it works for this one guy" counts as data I'll add "it simply doesn't work for this guy." Well, didn't anyways. For about a week, the game simply wouldn't connect to varying degrees. The really frustrating thing was "connecting" happens like 5 times before you actually get to game play which means you can fail at the launch screen, the play button in the second launch screen, or the "claim city" button in create a city mode. It also just might die mid game or your city might be "corrupted" and become unplayed (happened to me). If you're unfortunate enough to have this happen and need to switch "servers" you not only lose your city (it's tied to the other server) but you also have to play or at least start and exit the tutorial. Which btw, introduces a few other points of "unable to connect" possibilities. I've spent more time trying to get past each of these connection barriers than I have playing the game. That's a really big problem
endianswap 14y ago
Guild Wars 2 is a game that was designed from the beginning to be a cooperative, online experience, though. SimCity is an iteration on a previously offline design, with no marketing or design data shared with those looking to buy the game to indicate that it's an entirely different game (to justify online-only) than the previous SimCity games. There's also a big difference between a game where all of the computation takes place on the gameservers and a game where you simply replicate your state up to the server. I think that we're at a point in technology where the public, at least core gamers, understand the difference and can make judgment about this themselves without relying on marketing material or other-party commentary. Edit: For example, there is similar drama* regarding Diablo 2 to Diablo 3 and StarCraft to StarCraft 2 given the former games had offline+LAN support and the latter require a persistent online connection. Guild Wars required a persistent online connection, so Guild Wars 2 requiring the same thing was practically a given. [*] I can elaborate on this, if you'd like.
- xymostech 14y ago
  I'll agree that EA did a terrible job of explaining to people why the new game was different than the old ones (i.e. why it might require always-online). I think the key point comes from this (taken from the OP): > Players who want to reach the peak of each specialization can count on surrounding cities to provide services or resources, even workers. As other players build, your city can draw on their resources. What some people may not realize is that the cities in this new game are pitifully small (probably so that a computer can handle trying to update 20k sims at a time), so in order to actually do anything of significance, you usually have to draw from surrounding cities for materials, people, etc. This is the part of the game that requires online-only, because unless you want to be simulating all of the cities in your region (which I'm assuming you don't, but I don't really know whether the computation costs would be that high), you need some sort of server to handle that for you. People claim that they came out with an "offline patch" that allows you to play offline, and while that is true, you then miss out on all the city-sharing features, and thus your cities end up crappy, because it is impossible to manage all the resources within a single city. I'm not saying that what EA/Maxis is doing is necessary, but people seem to be missing that this is the main reason that the cities are always online, not just for the city saving features or anything. Also, I do know about the StarCraft to StarCraft 2 drama, and from what I can tell, people don't really care any more, and people have gotten over the fact that they need internet to play their game. Sure, sometimes the internet drops in the middle of a tournament, and people get riled up about it again, but it seems to have died down very much since the launch.

minimaxir 14y ago

Guild Wars 2 fan here. It's worth noting that GW2 has a substantial amount of non-trivial in-game purchases to subsidize the persistent costs of maintaining the servers in lieu of an online fee, and some game design is specifically tailored to provide incentives for players to make these purchases.

xymostech 14y ago
That is a good point. I've avoided it, so I forgot that it can be a large part of the game. However, one could argue that Maxis will likely be releasing DLC/Expansion packs for Sim City (seeing as they've done this for every other Sim game they've made) so those can be a substitute for the online fee as well. I guess time will tell.
- ijk 14y ago
  They were planning to (there's already lots of stuff in the Collector's Edition that's also available as DLC). But they were planning to do that with Spore too, and that didn't turn out so well.

ijk 14y ago

"It works for this one guy I know" is not really data. I think the real problem, though, is that EA has been treating this as a boxed product launch, not a service, and then acting shocked when they have service-type problems. If they had really treated it as a service, internally, they would have done things that might have prevented this, like doing a soft-launch, actual beta stress testing, having transparently scalable servers, etc.

xymostech 14y ago
I think it is data. People are claiming that the game _does not work_, so if it's working for somebody, then the servers must be doing something. People are claiming that the servers have literally been down for the past week and a half, when this is simply not true. I'll agree that it hasn't been the smoothest of gameplay all the time, but it's not as extreme as some people are claiming it is. I agree with all your other points though.
- hildolfr 14y ago
  It is data, you're right. It's anecdotal evidence, and should only be used as a burden of proof if there is no other substantial evidence. Tell me, If I go to the SimCity forums will I see hundreds of people complaining about a game that doesn't work? If I go to YouTube will I see videos of buggy behavior and reviewers irate about the state of the game? That too, is anecdotal evidence. But, since you're only worried about data, I guess the larger amount wins out. So, clearly, the data indicates the game has issues.
  - xymostech 14y ago
    Again, I'm not saying "the game is working fine", I'm saying "I know that the servers are not completely shut down because there is at least one person who is able to play consistently". I agree, the game has issues (of which some have been sorta resolved), just not as serious as some people are claiming.
- lukejduncan 14y ago
  Well if "it works for this one guy" counts as data I'll add "it simply doesn't work for this guy." Well, didn't anyways. For about a week, the game simply wouldn't connect to varying degrees. The really frustrating thing was "connecting" happens like 5 times before you actually get to game play which means you can fail at the launch screen, the play button in the second launch screen, or the "claim city" button in create a city mode. It also just might die mid game or your city might be "corrupted" and become unplayed (happened to me). If you're unfortunate enough to have this happen and need to switch "servers" you not only lose your city (it's tied to the other server) but you also have to play or at least start and exit the tutorial. Which btw, introduces a few other points of "unable to connect" possibilities. I've spent more time trying to get past each of these connection barriers than I have playing the game. That's a really big problem

endianswap 14y ago

Guild Wars 2 is a game that was designed from the beginning to be a cooperative, online experience, though. SimCity is an iteration on a previously offline design, with no marketing or design data shared with those looking to buy the game to indicate that it's an entirely different game (to justify online-only) than the previous SimCity games. There's also a big difference between a game where all of the computation takes place on the gameservers and a game where you simply replicate your state up to the server. I think that we're at a point in technology where the public, at least core gamers, understand the difference and can make judgment about this themselves without relying on marketing material or other-party commentary. Edit: For example, there is similar drama* regarding Diablo 2 to Diablo 3 and StarCraft to StarCraft 2 given the former games had offline+LAN support and the latter require a persistent online connection. Guild Wars required a persistent online connection, so Guild Wars 2 requiring the same thing was practically a given. [*] I can elaborate on this, if you'd like.

xymostech 14y ago
I'll agree that EA did a terrible job of explaining to people why the new game was different than the old ones (i.e. why it might require always-online). I think the key point comes from this (taken from the OP): > Players who want to reach the peak of each specialization can count on surrounding cities to provide services or resources, even workers. As other players build, your city can draw on their resources. What some people may not realize is that the cities in this new game are pitifully small (probably so that a computer can handle trying to update 20k sims at a time), so in order to actually do anything of significance, you usually have to draw from surrounding cities for materials, people, etc. This is the part of the game that requires online-only, because unless you want to be simulating all of the cities in your region (which I'm assuming you don't, but I don't really know whether the computation costs would be that high), you need some sort of server to handle that for you. People claim that they came out with an "offline patch" that allows you to play offline, and while that is true, you then miss out on all the city-sharing features, and thus your cities end up crappy, because it is impossible to manage all the resources within a single city. I'm not saying that what EA/Maxis is doing is necessary, but people seem to be missing that this is the main reason that the cities are always online, not just for the city saving features or anything. Also, I do know about the StarCraft to StarCraft 2 drama, and from what I can tell, people don't really care any more, and people have gotten over the fact that they need internet to play their game. Sure, sometimes the internet drops in the middle of a tournament, and people get riled up about it again, but it seems to have died down very much since the launch.