What do you mean? It's 2014 and offline play is a hot new feature!
More toward my interest in submitting this article, I wonder what this means for us webapp developers. Should offline mode be taken more seriously? Or is this a game-only lesson?
Personally, I think it's an even more limited issue. It is a franchise in which players always played alone on a single computer. I think EA could have done a better job meeting the desires of its actual players instead of trying to make the game they thought the players wanted.
You should be investing in advanced new technologies, and looking at the exciting new delivery methods available. We're evaluating these 5.25" "floppies", which promise an exciting new delivery method for interactive content.
Seriously, though, it's a tough one. In the one hand we have ever-advancing connectivity, making the shift to thin-client and server-side compute compelling, but in the other, over-centralisation, which results in poor resilience and risk management. If I had to put money on it, I'd wager that the overall direction over the next decade (assuming we're not all ash before it's out) is going to be towards distributed computation, but still within the client-server model we recognise. Beyond there... NFI. Quantum computers and unicorns.
Following with what jonlucc said, Titanfall is online-only from what I understand, and there hasn't been a huge backlash against it. It makes sense, from some standpoints. The experience offline wouldn't be what the game developers wanted it to be. SimCity on the other hand, was never developed to be online-only. The reason it was is because EA got greedy, and everyone saw right through it.
Now, should apps have an offline mode? Yeah, if at all possible. Let's take Google Play Music as one example. By default, it's a streaming service. But if I lose connectivity I still want to listen to my music, so I can download the songs locally. Now, I just found out the other day that these files aren't downloaded locally forever, so when I left a service area my music stopped even though I had downloaded it previously. Frustrating to no end.
So yeah, if the app should have an offline mode and it makes sense to have an offline mode, don't neglect to put one in just because you want complete control. But in this case, EA was just being greedy, and didn't hide their intentions with a good enough excuse.
I first played Sim City on the Amiga when the original was released, and I've played various versions since.
The problem is that they messed majorly with gameplay in a way that effectively created an entirely different type of game. For my part, I enjoyed Sim City as a way to tinker on my own, and have no desire whatsoever to play with others, and it seems that's the case for a lot of others too. When that's the case, I also don't want to be forced to be online when playing.
It means nothing for webapp developers in general, other than that you should be aware of how your users use your app and not suddenly release a version that turns everything upside down and expect not to upset a lot of users.
Honestly, I don't mind the whole offline thing. It means nothing. My gaming machine is online 24/7. Internet outage? I'll just go outside and play stuff. Computer games don't rule my life.
My biggest gripe is how small cities are in simcity. Add the whole traffic situation.
Not sure how many of the issues they resolved, I have not played the game since launch, but the small towns are kind of annoying.
It's not My machine or My internet that worries me.
And to prove the point when SimCity came out people were frequently unable to connect.
Hell, /.; reddit; hackernews are constantly showing that serving static text isn't even solved yet.
And in a couple years when they turn the servers off? it's fine for SimCity, now, because no one cares about online play but a lot of games just aren't going to be playable.
I still play games from the 80's occasionally. How many of the games you play now will still have functioning online servers 30 years from now, do you think?
The "whole offline thing" is DRM, and it will break games people still care about with increasing frequency as major titles starts being affected.
I don't know if you're being facetious, but EA claimed the game was such an intensive simulation that calculations had to be run from their servers, so you had to be connected to the internet to paly.
Which if I recall correctly, turned out to be untrue. Shortly after it came out there were hacks that would let you spoof EA's servers or remove the need all together and play locally with only minor features disabled.
Surprised no one is looking at it this way. Correct me if I'm wrong:
Online only is a form of DRM, offline mode comes out over a year after the initial release. This "DRM" was super effective preventing piracy during the hype and popularity of the game.
Offline is inevitable for when they decide to take their servers down.
It seems like there's a very loud minority concerned with the online issue. They created a shitstorm about Diablo 3 too, but the game still sold very well. The bigger issue seems to be that SimCity wasn't fun to play & didn't offer the scale of previous versions.
Assume X number of people boycotted it, but Y people couldn't pirate it so they paid for it. The X people will be very loud, but the Y people won't.
Considering some of the atrocious numbers I've heard thrown around regarding piracy on the PC, DRM that scares off some customers may be the result of some execs doing some hard number crunching. Something like:
At current estimates, we sell 1m copies, and we'll get 5m pirates. If we put in really restrictive DRM, 100k of those original 1m sales will be put off, but we'll pick up one tenth of the pirates, putting us on 1.4m sales. Worth it!
The problem with this calculation is that the pirates are often based in 2nd world countries that don't have a culture of paying for media (e.g. Russia) so preventing piracy won't boost sales from these countries. But have you folks ever tried to convince anyone with money on the line that piracy numbers != lost sales?
Did the prevention of piracy result in more sales or just less people playing the game?
Were the units sold to the user base of "bought it because they couldn't pirate it" enough to cover the cost of implementing DRM and running/maintaining the online component?
What about the units lost due to the negative press at release as reviewers were unable to play the single player component?
I'm curious to hear at some point an insider's view on WTF happened here. I know EA was looking to make money faster, but they shot themselves in the foot by putting out such a terrible title that was so broken- whereas if they had waited 6 months and done it right they very well may have had something fantastic that would have sold 4x as much (or more).
It's not clear that it would have sold more; a lot of us suckers bought it anyway. And as Zynga has taught us, forced social = microtransactions = profit.
Maybe I'm atypical these days. I don't preorder. I only play the 'top' games that are rated and reviewed exceedingly well unless I have a specific reason to do otherwise (specific niche that I want to play). I waited until after launch and then heard it was terrible- so I didn't buy.
But I don't have time to play most games. 90% of the games I've bought on Steam I've put less than 5 hours into.
Most games I buy on steam I put in 40+ hours. I also follow the don't pre-order model. The last game I pre-ordered was Sword of The Stars 2 - and that was a 'never again' moment.
These days I wait until the lets plays and the like are out on YouTube.
The reward of saving yourself a few hours download time when it comes out, and a few £££, just doesn't line up with the risk of getting an awful game and feeling like a sucker for me.
I personally just don't see the point of preorders. There is no scarcity of games. There is no downside in waiting another week if your local Gamestop (or Amazon) are sold out to get it later.
In fact, I kinda like waiting months... or even year to check out a game. It gets past any hype about the game, and then all bugs/patches are done. And cheaper.
Nah, graphics are as good as your graphics card but it isn't as fun to play as other previous versions, and the small city size is just one of the main issues with it. There is just something missing, I get bored with it real quick.
No, it's terrible. The first 8-bit simcity is a better city simulation. Once you get past the 3d gloss, the game is fundamentally broken and unfun. There are so many basic problems with the simulation that it's not even worth listing the issues.
It's, at best, an advanced proof of concept of a 3d simcity in presentation, that escaped the lab and mutated into the mess that ended up being released.
Its an interesting experiment in agent based design for a simulation. Sadly they took that to extremes that simply make no sense, such as simulating electricity as agents traversing the power line network. Traffic routing was also pretty broken when I last played it, although I've heard later patches worked on that.
I also quite liked the model of building up a region, with smaller towns exchanging resources to each other's benefit, but it could really have used some city size spots as well.
Having said all that, if you think of this as SimRuralCounty, its not a bad game. Its just not SimCity.
They need to post an update that gives you the ability for larger land plots for cities, then I'll play the game again. I haven't even touched it since last spring because the massive amounts of bugs in the core game still.
Also, side note, there is nothing more frustrating then watching a game come out with DLC's over and over again when they still have major bugs in the core game. It seems so ridiculous to me.
While I don't disagree that SimCity was an utter mess, and haven't played it since shortly after release either, the complaint about DLC is one I hear all over the place from gamers.
The team working on DLC is going to be different to the team working on bugs in the core game. I'm not really sure what you expect a content artist to do in the effort to decouple SimCity from the online play it was connected to, and since they can't do much there they may as well work on flooding cities with Nissan Leafs instead and keep their job.
While I see your point, based on what you are saying, it would still take a developer's resources to implement those DLC's when they could be working on critical bugs (because you are saying the people working on DLC's are just designers, not developers also). If they were also developers, then that voids your argument, because then they should be working on the bugs.
After all these years that SimCity franchise has existed, it seems like there would be a good FOSS alternative, but there's still nothing great out there.
46 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 132 ms ] threadMore toward my interest in submitting this article, I wonder what this means for us webapp developers. Should offline mode be taken more seriously? Or is this a game-only lesson?
Seriously, though, it's a tough one. In the one hand we have ever-advancing connectivity, making the shift to thin-client and server-side compute compelling, but in the other, over-centralisation, which results in poor resilience and risk management. If I had to put money on it, I'd wager that the overall direction over the next decade (assuming we're not all ash before it's out) is going to be towards distributed computation, but still within the client-server model we recognise. Beyond there... NFI. Quantum computers and unicorns.
Now, should apps have an offline mode? Yeah, if at all possible. Let's take Google Play Music as one example. By default, it's a streaming service. But if I lose connectivity I still want to listen to my music, so I can download the songs locally. Now, I just found out the other day that these files aren't downloaded locally forever, so when I left a service area my music stopped even though I had downloaded it previously. Frustrating to no end.
So yeah, if the app should have an offline mode and it makes sense to have an offline mode, don't neglect to put one in just because you want complete control. But in this case, EA was just being greedy, and didn't hide their intentions with a good enough excuse.
The problem is that they messed majorly with gameplay in a way that effectively created an entirely different type of game. For my part, I enjoyed Sim City as a way to tinker on my own, and have no desire whatsoever to play with others, and it seems that's the case for a lot of others too. When that's the case, I also don't want to be forced to be online when playing.
It means nothing for webapp developers in general, other than that you should be aware of how your users use your app and not suddenly release a version that turns everything upside down and expect not to upset a lot of users.
My biggest gripe is how small cities are in simcity. Add the whole traffic situation.
Not sure how many of the issues they resolved, I have not played the game since launch, but the small towns are kind of annoying.
What if it rains?
Hell, /.; reddit; hackernews are constantly showing that serving static text isn't even solved yet.
And in a couple years when they turn the servers off? it's fine for SimCity, now, because no one cares about online play but a lot of games just aren't going to be playable.
The "whole offline thing" is DRM, and it will break games people still care about with increasing frequency as major titles starts being affected.
Online only is a form of DRM, offline mode comes out over a year after the initial release. This "DRM" was super effective preventing piracy during the hype and popularity of the game.
Offline is inevitable for when they decide to take their servers down.
Assume X number of people boycotted it, but Y people couldn't pirate it so they paid for it. The X people will be very loud, but the Y people won't.
At current estimates, we sell 1m copies, and we'll get 5m pirates. If we put in really restrictive DRM, 100k of those original 1m sales will be put off, but we'll pick up one tenth of the pirates, putting us on 1.4m sales. Worth it!
The problem with this calculation is that the pirates are often based in 2nd world countries that don't have a culture of paying for media (e.g. Russia) so preventing piracy won't boost sales from these countries. But have you folks ever tried to convince anyone with money on the line that piracy numbers != lost sales?
It prevented me from pirating it...or buying it, for that matter.
http://www.cinemablend.com/games/SimCity-Offline-Mode-Achiev...
Were the units sold to the user base of "bought it because they couldn't pirate it" enough to cover the cost of implementing DRM and running/maintaining the online component?
What about the units lost due to the negative press at release as reviewers were unable to play the single player component?
Didn't they see that coming?
But I don't have time to play most games. 90% of the games I've bought on Steam I've put less than 5 hours into.
http://venturebeat.com/2014/02/28/how-to-maximize-your-onlin...
At least among whoever they got their data from
Most games I buy on steam I put in 40+ hours. I also follow the don't pre-order model. The last game I pre-ordered was Sword of The Stars 2 - and that was a 'never again' moment.
These days I wait until the lets plays and the like are out on YouTube.
The reward of saving yourself a few hours download time when it comes out, and a few £££, just doesn't line up with the risk of getting an awful game and feeling like a sucker for me.
In fact, I kinda like waiting months... or even year to check out a game. It gets past any hype about the game, and then all bugs/patches are done. And cheaper.
It's, at best, an advanced proof of concept of a 3d simcity in presentation, that escaped the lab and mutated into the mess that ended up being released.
I also quite liked the model of building up a region, with smaller towns exchanging resources to each other's benefit, but it could really have used some city size spots as well.
Having said all that, if you think of this as SimRuralCounty, its not a bad game. Its just not SimCity.
Also, side note, there is nothing more frustrating then watching a game come out with DLC's over and over again when they still have major bugs in the core game. It seems so ridiculous to me.
The team working on DLC is going to be different to the team working on bugs in the core game. I'm not really sure what you expect a content artist to do in the effort to decouple SimCity from the online play it was connected to, and since they can't do much there they may as well work on flooding cities with Nissan Leafs instead and keep their job.
I suppose this is somewhat expected for a company that put out $440 worth of DLC for it's last title...
You can do anything at Zombo-dot-com . The only limit is your imagination.
Therefore, nothing is impossible in software. That's logic!