Slashdot Mirror


Hacker Skips SimCity Full-Time Network Requirement

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Geek.com: "Ever since SimCity launched, there has been a suspicion that the need for the game to always be connected to a server was mainly a form of DRM, not for social game features and multiplayer. Then a Maxis developer came forward to confirm the game doesn't actually need a server to function, suggesting the information coming out of EA wasn't the whole truth. Now EA and Maxis have some explaining to do as a modder has managed to get the game running offline indefinitely." The writer names a few small ways in which the game is actually improved by being offline, too.

51 of 303 comments (clear)

  1. Not a huge surprise... by AdeBaumann · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not a huge surprise... Though I wonder how they're going to wriggle their way out of that one. I'm guessing they'll just try to ignore it and hope it goes away.

    --
    I gave up sigs almost a year ago.
    1. Re:Not a huge surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not a huge surprise... Though I wonder how they're going to wriggle their way out of that one. I'm guessing they'll just try to ignore it and hope it goes away.

      It will just go away. If people were really upset by this type of thing they would have fought it long ago. Anyone who didn't see it coming is blind, stupid, or both. I wouldn't be surprised if they are monitoring what else is going on on your computer (but of course not full on spying, that would be illegal...) and selling as much as they can to marketing companies. Personally, I no longer buy games, I refuse to use steam or any other software, I will not buy a console and I bitterly await the time when I cannot find something to play games like AoE, BG and BGII, and the like. The last game I bought was Witcher 2, specifically because they removed the DRM after installation (or at least marketed it as such), but that game was terrible. The interface was clearly meant for a freaking console, not a computer.

      AlphaA

    2. Re:Not a huge surprise... by PhxBlue · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It will just go away. If people were really upset by this type of thing they would have fought it long ago.

      Bullshit. Ubisoft got smacked upside the head. EA's been smacked upside the head -- HARD -- in the past with limited activations and other shenanigans. If customer outcry is loud enough, EA will take the hint this time, too.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    3. Re:Not a huge surprise... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not a huge surprise... Though I wonder how they're going to wriggle their way out of that one. I'm guessing they'll just try to ignore it and hope it goes away.

      The same way they always wriggle out, Pinky!

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:Not a huge surprise... by Looker_Device · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I keep hearing a lot about "consumer outcry" about EA games. And yet every time a new one comes out, those same consumers seemed to be lined up around the block to buy them.

      --
      Your political party doesn't care about your rights and only represents corporate interests.
    5. Re:Not a huge surprise... by Ben4jammin · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I don't think they have any plans to wiggle out of it. This "always on" setup is by design:

      Frank Gibeau, the president of EA Labels... is very proud of the fact he has never green lit a single project that consisted solely of a single-player experience.

      http://www.geek.com/articles/games/ea-wont-green-light-any-single-player-only-games-2012095/

      So the engineers were REQUIRED to do something that made it "social" and thus needing to be always online.

    6. Re:Not a huge surprise... by PhxBlue · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And yet every time a new one comes out, those same consumers seemed to be lined up around the block to buy them.

      This launch was so bad Amazon actually stopped selling it. It was so bad that EA's offered a free game to anyone who made the regrettable choice of purchasing SimCity (though they still won't offer refunds to anyone who ordered the game through Origin). It was so bad that Polygon's reviewer downgraded their initial review from a 9.5 to a 4.

      So trust me when I say people are going to remember this the next time someone takes a traditionally offline game and tries to add an always-online requirement -- for any reason.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    7. Re:Not a huge surprise... by Time_Ngler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The reason for all that was because too many people bought it and it crashed their servers! All EA has to do is turn on the hype machine, and people will come flocking regardless of whatever happened in the past.

    8. Re:Not a huge surprise... by Lithdren · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...Polygon's reviewer downgraded their initial review from a 9.5 to a 4.

      Wow...if that doesn't tell you something about how the game was reviewed, nothing will.

    9. Re:Not a huge surprise... by virgnarus · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's because it was most likely reviewed by a copy given to publishers and other reviewers prior to retail. There was no stress to bear on their cloud when it was just a few reviewers testing the product, so everything went smooth. But when it came time for the floodgates to open, the cons of their cloud-centered setup got exposed. This is one those situations where when it works, it's all fine and dandy, but when it doesn't, it crashes and burns for just about everyone.

    10. Re:Not a huge surprise... by StuartHankins · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People not buying means the software companies blame piracy, or tablets, or some other silliness instead of solving the real issue. Many people such as myself have the disposable income and a long history of gaming, but we now hate the companies so much that it's lost its appeal. I will do something else with my money and time instead of dealing with modern gaming frustrations and the companies' shenanigans.

    11. Re:Not a huge surprise... by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or... Reviews are bought and paid for wholesale.

    12. Re:Not a huge surprise... by FlyingCheese · · Score: 5, Funny

      So is EA going to be demanding a refund?

    13. Re:Not a huge surprise... by steelfood · · Score: 4, Informative

      The thing about persistent-online game (including MMO) reviews is that you can't really review the most important aspect of the game until after the game ships and people begin playing. Any review of such games is really just a preview, and mostly a graphics, game mechanics one at that.

      Reviews need to stop calling such previews "reviews" and call them by what they are. Once the game is launched, they then should go back to do an actual review of the game. That's how things should be done anyway. Getting a preview mislabeled as a "review" out of the door faster than everybody else seems to trump the disservice they are doing to their readership.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    14. Re:Not a huge surprise... by gitano_dbs · · Score: 3, Funny

      EU just get another biased review for free on next game.

    15. Re:Not a huge surprise... by wbo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The game is still available for sale on Amazon: http://amzn.com/B007VTVRFA

      I'm not sure why people keep saying they took it down. Maybe they did, but it's there and available now and the ratings on it are still horrible.

      Amazon did take it down for a few hours but they put it back up and added a notice to the page stating that EA was having server problems and was working to resolve them and that customers who purchase the game may be unable to play until those problems are resolved.

      Now I see that Amazon has since removed that notice and replaced it with a note saying that owners of SimCity are entitled to a free game from EA.

    16. Re:Not a huge surprise... by Xest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Reviews have always been protection rackets. Companies pay for them with money or freebies and in turn the reviewers give it a good review.

      This is why just every once in a while great games get oddly bad reviews - someone in the marketing department forgot to pay a certain reviewer their protection money.

      There are very very few review sites (if any?) now that review honestly and independently. The best metric you can get I guess are post-release user scores, assuming they're never manipulated.

      For what it's worth this isn't new, I remember all the way back in the 80s there was some scandal about print magazines here in the UK doing the exact same thing back then.

    17. Re:Not a huge surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      People not buying means the software companies blame piracy

      EA rolled out the big guns on this one, using the most advanced & effective anti-piracy technique available: making a shitty game.

    18. Re:Not a huge surprise... by Lithdren · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My point is more about how fake a review score has to be, to even do that.

      I get people are upset because the servers wont even let them play the game, and I fully support people who are angry at EA over it, no question.

      But how can you cut a games review in half, after the fact? Either they're riding the wave of hate and trying to keep it off themselves; which means you shouldn't trust their reviews because they're not being honest about what they are reviewing; or they're honestly saying the game is half as good as it was before the release; which means you shoulnd't trust their reviews because not not being honest about what they are reviewing.

      An honest review should have come out saying the game was (for example) a 7/10, because of the possible issues the always-online DRM could cause, even if its a fantastic game. Still good, but be warned, there could be issues. It just highlights how unreal they're being with game reviews. a 9.5 out of 10 means its almost perfect, which is clearly absurd on the face of it. The scores are getting paid for, either over or under the table (or both) and clearly shouldn't be trusted.

    19. Re:Not a huge surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Gamers are not idiots.

      Perhaps not, but many of them are addicts, and behave in the same self-destructive fashion that weak-willed addicts always exhibit.

      I've known people who wrecked their lives with computer games, and I've known people to wreck their lives with drugs, and the effect on their families, friends and health was pretty much the same.

      If you're not an addict, it's a pleasant diversion, and if you're an addict, no amount of DRM will stop you from lining up at the EA store.

    20. Re:Not a huge surprise... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The reason for all that was because too many people bought it and it crashed their servers!

      And another way to say that would be that the reason it happened was because the game was required to connect to a server in the first place in order to play. If it didn't need to connect, then there wouldn't be overloaded servers, would there?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    21. Re:Not a huge surprise... by PhxBlue · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Reviews need to stop calling such previews "reviews" and call them by what they are. Once the game is launched, they then should go back to do an actual review of the game. That's how things should be done anyway. Getting a preview mislabeled as a "review" out of the door faster than everybody else seems to trump the disservice they are doing to their readership.

      In full agreement with you here. Reviewers are still basing their methods on a single-player model. That needs to change. Polygon did OK by updating their review, but I think Metacritic still has SimCity somewhere in the 60s ... which is about 60 points more than EA and Maxis deserve.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    22. Re:Not a huge surprise... by PhxBlue · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, seriously. Show me one time where this was the case. Show me a single road bump this sort of thing has ever caused in either Ubisoft's or EA's business plans. ... Yeah. You won't find any examples. You CAN'T find any examples. I know you can't.

      There ya go. Took me about 10 seconds on Google, by the way.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    23. Re:Not a huge surprise... by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...Polygon's reviewer downgraded their initial review from a 9.5 to a 4.

      Wow...if that doesn't tell you something about how the game was reviewed, nothing will.

      I don't own SC since I do not buy EA, but I'm not sure if I'm willing to blame the the reviewers or the beta testers.

      The beta only allowed one hour of play at a time. I'm sure the reviewers had a pretty limited amount of time to look at the features trying to touch a little bit on each part. EA designed the well enough that it could pass a few hours of uncritical inspection, but once the curtain was pulled back and people were had time to play it long enough the SC engine has revealed itself as a sham. I'm going to assume that most reviewers are not given a whole lot of time to review the game on purpose. This just goes to prove my next premise. Any game review created before release will be creatively framed by the manufacture to limit the amount of actual review that can occur.

      tl;dr Don't believe the hype and never preorder. Let your peers test the water for sharks.

    24. Re:Not a huge surprise... by PhxBlue · · Score: 5, Informative
      Additionally, here's another story produced by WebProNews, based on the RockPaperShotgun article produced a day earlier. From the story:

      This week, Stephanie Perotti, Ubisoft’s worldwide director for online games, confirmed in an interview with Rock, Paper, Shotgun that Ubisoft has ditched always-on DRM. In fact, the company hasn’t implemented such tactics in over a year. Ubisoft’s policy is now to require only a one-time activiation when a game is first installed. In addition, the company now allows gamers to activate a game on as many PCs as they want. Perotti stated that Ubisoft changed its policy based on feedback from its customers.

      "Whining" helped. "Creative protests" helped. Not buying Ubisoft's DRM-encumbered games helped.

      Not going to bother posting more citations; I have decent karma already. I'll just leave this here and let you find some examples of your own.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    25. Re:Not a huge surprise... by Cederic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you're not an addict, it's a pleasant diversion, and if you're an addict, no amount of DRM will stop you from lining up at the EA store.

      Nonsense. If you're an addict you're going to take the easiest possible route to feed your addiction. On the PC that's going to be MMOs or Steam.

      EA store? Far too much hassle. I'm too addicted to sit around watching a game tell me I can't play.

    26. Re:Not a huge surprise... by slimjim8094 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not necessarily. It could mean that the game was great, but the problem of overloaded servers basically ruins the game. Just how much it ruins the game wouldn't necessarily be apparent from a pre-release copy, and the fact that it happened once means it could happen again - putting a serious dent in the scores. No dishonesty required - a great game that has a huge major flaw that ruins the game is a perfectly valid reason to downgrade its score, and this probably qualified. You're probably just annoyed they didn't get all up-in-arms about the online requirement while everything was working fine. I have a problem with that too, but most people don't and wouldn't hold it against a game if the game worked fine

      Now of course some reviews are paid for, and some reviews are dishonest. But it's not a necessary condition for this to happen.

      For the record, I don't have this game, nor will I ever buy it despite being somewhat interested in it. So I can't make any claim about how good the game is when it's working.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    27. Re:Not a huge surprise... by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Look at the sales before and AFTER they started being douchebags when it came to DRM, you'll see that they lost a LOT of sales thanks to douchebaggery which is one of the reasons EA is now for sale and shows that voting with your wallet DOES work, its just not magic and takes time.

      I have personally refused to buy any games that require me to be online for SP and honestly? I don't miss 'em. There are so many good games out there that don't treat you like shit that you could buy 3 new games a day and never get them all. My only suggestion is to write a nice little letter when you do so explaining WHY you bought the other guy's product, sure they'll probably use PPT math anyway (Our PPT shows X number of people like Y so since we didn't sell X copies of our DRM douchefest it MUST be those evil pirates yargh) but at least you will have made it clear why their product isn't being bought. I gifted my friends and family Torchlight II through Steam when it came out D3 was online always DRM and RMM and even though I was a buyer and fan of D1 and D2 I'd rather have TL2 where I'm treated as a customer than D3 where I'm treated as a walking ATM.

      But you just have to realize voting with your wallet takes time and there are certain genres where the fans? Would buy dogshit in a box and not care. Take Madden, I used to work with a guy that had his CC on file with Gamestop so the SECOND a new Madden came out a copy for both his console and his handheld was sent to his house so when he got off work it was waiting. He never looked at a single review, never looked to see if EA was treating him like shit because he really did not care as ALL he wanted was the latest rosters, that's it. The same thing applies to the CoD games where the hardcore MP CoD players don't give a rat's ass WHAT EA does as long as they have the latest maps on release day so they can learn every place to go to bitchslap the noobs.

      But thankfully CoD and Madden aren't enough to sustain a lumbering hulk like EA so they really need more buyers and if we refuse to purchase and spread the word we CAN hurt them by voting with our wallets, just don't expect change to happen overnight. By voting with your wallet you can not only refuse to support douchebag behavior but you can boost support to those that treat you well, which frankly is what we should all be doing anyway.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    28. Re:Not a huge surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Recalibrate your cynicism. The paid-reviewer's scale goes something like this:

      1 - Game killed my parents and desecrated their remains while it made me watch; rampage on game studio and publisher imminent
      2 - Game brutally slew all of my pets
      3 - Game desecrated my fondest memories of childhood
      4 - Game is functionally equivalent to long-term psychological abuse
      5 - The Golgothan can be favorably compared to this game
      6 - Game is terrible -- this is the worst allowable score that won't typically lead to disciplinary actions
      7 - Game is bad, but salvageable
      8 - Game is mediocre; try before purchase or get it on sale
      9 - Game has enough good points to look past the bad ones for most people
      10 - Publisher is holding my loved ones hostage

      [1-4] - Can also be considered notice of resignation if reviewer isn't fired for it first
      [6-9].x - Second digit of review score scales as the natural logarithm of cash received from publisher

  2. SimCity Rescued? by Frightened_Turtle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is probably the best thing that could have happened to SimCity 5 in order to save the SimCity franchise.

    It's a pity how corporate greed can ruin an otherwise excellent product. Management at EA/Maxis was obviously incredibly detached from the product. Comments such as how surprised and unprepared they were for the massive response they got to the new product speaks volumes to the fact that the people in charge had absolutely no clue about the products they make, nor what it takes to make them successful.

    The good news? At least there is one team out there that gets it!

    --


    Whew! This water sure is cold!
    1. Re:SimCity Rescued? by LordNimon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because you honestly want to purchase three copies -- one for you, and one for each of two friends. DRM-free does not mean royality-free licensing.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    2. Re:SimCity Rescued? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 3

      This is probably the best thing that could have happened to SimCity 5 in order to save the SimCity franchise.

      What? No, the best thing that could have happened for the SimCity franchise was for SimCity 5 to be released with no major bugs or problems like the online requirement. EA's decisions are what caused the problems. EA could have made different decisions, and those problems wouldn't exist. Those are all manufactured problems. If I was a programmer at Maxis and this was my project, I would be pissed. I hope more of them speak out.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    3. Re:SimCity Rescued? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Regarding the kickstarter project, if it's DRM free, then why is one of the donation rewards "three digital copies" -- if there's no DRM, why would three copies be any different than one?

      Ladies and gentlemen... this is a great example of why game companies are afraid of offering DRM free software.

  3. Still can't save the game by Leafheart · · Score: 3, Informative

    According to TFA you still need to go online to save your progress. So, no, he did not skip the requirement. At most it is not full-time, but "so many times itis easier to keep it on full time"

    --
    --- "When you gotta do something wrong. You gotta do it right. (Fighter)"
    1. Re:Still can't save the game by jythie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I suspect someone will throw together a mini-server at some point that will facilitate local saving, it will just take more time then this work around.

  4. Re:Proof? by PhxBlue · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's a YouTube video at the top of the article. Here's a direct link: SimCity Super Debug Mode.

    --
    !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
  5. THEY LOSE: Just don't care any more by mabhatter654 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I just don't care to spend that much effort fixing something that should have had the option out-of-the-box. EA is a big company, if they want sales, sell a finished game. Getting upset and spending my TIME trying to hack it or pirate isn't worth the $60 anymore... The have created a situation where even FREE is losing me money.

    The solution is that the servers needed to JUST WORK. As a grown up, waiting twenty minutes even twice has wasted more of my money/time than the price of the game... They're jerks, fix it.

    1. Re:THEY LOSE: Just don't care any more by marcosdumay · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The solution is to hire smarter executives that won't spend money creating absurd barriers to annoy their honest clients.

    2. Re:THEY LOSE: Just don't care any more by meerling · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The CEO is the one insisting they do this bullshit. It's not going to change until the stockholders oust him, and maybe not even then if they ensconce another neanderthal.

      Though I shouldn't say things like that. Neanderthals are shown to care far more for others than he does.

    3. Re:THEY LOSE: Just don't care any more by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They can't build for the max usage scenario, because that's just not going to last.

      They don't need to. This is one place where "the cloud" is an improvement over physical in-house servers. Build one complete server image, then in the days after launch you can stand up as many EC2 hosts as it takes to satisfy demand, and later as numbers of simultaneous players drops you can start taking them back down.

      It's not impossible to launch without day-long server queues, EA is just either incompetent or too cheap to pay for the sort of infrastructure their always-on DRM requires.

      --
      0 1 - just my two bits
  6. Let us ask Data by nitehawk214 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here is what Lt. Cmdr Data thinks about this.

    I was a big fan of the game since the original and thought it odd it was one of the few mega-popular EA franchises that did not get updated frequently. I was anticipating the release, but I have learned not to pre-order any video game, nor buy it until it has been out a number of months for it either to be "fixed", for customer reviews to roll in, and beta test NDA's to expire. The bigger the game company the worse the lies become.

    Professional game reviewers and magazines can simply not be trusted. Shorly after release metacritic scores showed the "professional" critics giving 90's and 100's, while no customer aside from a stockholm syndrome candidate gives a good review at all. Now that it is popular to bash the title, magazines being rolling in with the poor reviews.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    1. Re:Let us ask Data by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3

      I thought this was going to be a comment by Brent Spinner. It was not.

      I am so disappointed.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:Let us ask Data by Looker_Device · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Shorly after release metacritic scores showed the "professional" critics giving 90's and 100's,

      Hard to believe, considering most of those critics work for magazines and publications heavily supported by EA advertising.

      --
      Your political party doesn't care about your rights and only represents corporate interests.
  7. Re:The only surprise. by Wamoc · · Score: 5, Funny

    They were probably finally able to login to the game last night.

  8. Re:Semantics by JMJimmy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why do you assume he's white? ;)

  9. I'm not even fazed to know that they're lying.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But it wont matter anyway, in a few months after this whole fiasco the very people who condemn EA for lying to them will still buy the next shiny AAA game from them anyway. They're happy being ripped off and lied to, and I can see them everywhere. Such spineless people who cant make a stand would only pretend joining the "so called game vendor is bad" bandwagon to get their "gamer" cred. They don't really care about gaming, they only identify themself as one because right now it is cool to be a nerdy gamer.

    I enjoy playing games and I don't even bother to pirate *ANY* new titles, that's how much disgusted I am to gaming industry right now. The last game that I bought was released at 2006, been what.. 7 years? and I'm not even going to entertain the idea of buying or pirating any games because I've drawn my line many years ago.

    For others, welcome to the future of gaming! It's a multi-billion dollar industry, you better have the money and willing to shed your principles 'cause otherwise you're not going to get your fix.

  10. Re:The only surprise. by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The only surprise is that it took this long

    There is another surprise: that anyone ever believed that a *significant amount of the calculations.* would run on the server. Seriously, it doesn't pass the sniff test that they would offload calculations from the clients onto their own servers.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  11. I play Diablo 3 off line.. and will with SimCity by Wingfat · · Score: 3, Informative

    so easy to do it. so very easy. (if you know how to read that is)

  12. How to save it in offline mode by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The article noted that you can do everything, and better, offline except "save" and "socialize". I would bet that you can work around the save issue simply by running a virtual machine and saving the session using the virtual machines capability to preserve memory state. Unless this thing is actually monitoring gaps in the wall clock time record for DRM puproses it should be possible to use a memory image.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  13. Even the positive reviews are negative by Animats · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is the top positive review on Amazon:

    You'd think I'd be mega unhappy like everyone else at the constant waiting and lack of actually being able to play a game I purchased.

    Well, you'd be wrong.

    The hours upon hours since launch that I haven't been able to log in, whether it be sitting in queues, or server busy messages, or just plain old not working screens, I've managed to do a heap of things that I never do when I'm locked in my man cave playing video games.

    I've washed the dishes, the laundry, changed the oil in the car, mopped the floors, dusted, did a spot of gardening, greeted my children who I hadn't really seen since Christmas, walked the dog, asked how my wife's day has been and listened to the entire response, restocked the groceries and many more things! My family has never been happier that they've got a father and husband again.

    In fact, I feel like Simcity has given me a new lease on life. This wouldn't have been possible without the seemingly crazy decision to have constant online connections and server side save points even for single player.

    So I can only thank EA and Maxis. Your failures have been my rewards. 5 stars!

  14. Re:Online, offline - is it even fun? by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Is it even fun?"

    The answer is "no."

    I'm embarrassed to say I purchased this game. The goddamn digital deluxe edition for $80 goddamn dollars. I should probably click the "Post Anonymously" box to hide my shame, but I won't. I'll wear my scarlet EA.

    Now, I knew about the "you have to be online" thing, but I thought that was just for authentication, like StarCraft 2. I do not like DRM, I run Linux on most of my computers, and I'm a donation-making member of the EFF (got the t-shirts and everything) but I will, on occasion, fork over cash for a DRMed video game and roll my eyes when I have to sit through "verifying with server..." bullshit. I'm weak.

    I read pre-reviews of the game, and I watched gameplay videos. I have fond memories of SimCity 2000, and thought this game looked awesome.

    I was annoyed when I couldn't play for the first two days because of 'server load' issues. They were right about the "multiplayer experience." Not being able to play a video game because "servers are unavailable" is definitely part of the multiplayer experience.

    But, I'm a patient person, and I wanted to play this game. So when the servers stabilized and I had time over the weekend, I played. And it was great! It was a ton of fun drawing and planning my city.

    Until.

    Until you hit about 100k population (which, as the decompiled ui code shows is only actually 15000 sims because they inflate the pop to make it seem like they're doing more). When you get about that big, all of a sudden, the city collapses because of incredible traffic jams on the roads. No one can get to work or back, a building catches fire and the fire trucks can't get to it so the building burns down. Sims get sick and the ambulances can't reach them because of traffic, they die, people become unhappy and leave, no money from no taxes, city collapses etc etc.

    And at first you think, "Oh, I have clearly been mistaken with regards to my city planning abilities! What an interesting challenge! Let's look closer at the traffic patterns to see what I've done wrong, and what I can do to fix my city that is being simulated in exciting and challenging ways!"

    So you start looking closer. You turn on the traffic map and see, "hey wait a minute. Why are all cars using that one narrow side street instead of the massive 4 lane highway right next to it..?"

    So you think, "perhaps I've overloaded that street, or have failed to understand the population density along it?" So you look closer. So you follow a single sim to see what he does to get to and from work.

    And when you look at an individual sim, an "Agent" in the GlassBox lingo, you see that he is stupid, and does not behave in any way like a real denizen of a city. Which is what you're trying to simulate.

    You follow the sim and discover that when he leaves his house at 6AM to go to work, he does not know where he is going. It isn't even correct to call it "his" house, as it's not his house, it's the first open house he came across when he left work the night before. When a sim goes to work, he becomes aware of the closest building with an available job. And closest means "shortest path" routing, not "least cost." So he will take a .99999 mile long dirt road instead of 1 mile long super highway, because it's shorter. So he travels to this closest building, and if when he arrives, there is still an available job there, he will go inside and fill up a job slot. If by the time he reaches the building, some other sim has arrived first and TOOK HIS JERB he will pick the next closest building with a currently available job and try his luck there instead.

    However. Every other sim that spawned is following the same process. Which results in the city-ending traffic jams.

    And this is when it happens. There's an word for it, "anagnorisis." It's an element of greek tragedy. It's the moment when the protagonist realizes the clearer, fuller picture of the situation and of his destiny, in all of its horror.

    Because you think, "so how

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.