Slashdot Mirror


Is 'SimCity' Homelessness a Bug Or a Feature?

sarahnaomi writes: SimCity players have discussed a variety of creative strategies for their virtual homelessness problem. They've suggested waiting for natural disasters like tornadoes to blow the vagrants away, bulldozing parks where they congregate, or creating such a woefully insufficient city infrastructure that the homeless would leave on their own.

You can read all of these proposed final solutions in Matteo Bittanti's How to Get Rid of Homelessness, "a 600-page epic split in two volumes documenting the so-called 'homeless scandal' that affected 2013's SimCity." Bittanti collected, selected, and transcribed thousands of these messages exchanged by players on publisher Electronic Arts' official forums, Reddit, and the largest online SimCity community Simtropolis, who experienced and then tried to "eradicate" the phenomenon of homelessness that "plagued" SimCity."

44 of 393 comments (clear)

  1. SimCity 2000 available for free by mcrbids · · Score: 5, Informative

    I found this one on a trip down memory lane. Runs in a DOSBox and works great on my Win7 laptop! Yes, it's ENTIRELY LEGAL. you can get the download here.

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    1. Re: SimCity 2000 available for free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The first versions of EA Downloader, which later became Origin, were essentially indistinguishable from malware, so the confusion is understandable.

    2. Re:SimCity 2000 available for free by kelemvor4 · · Score: 4, Informative

      How is Origin malware? What does it do that makes it malware? It does have DRM but (depending on the game) its not exactly rocket science to either remove the DRM or find an existing no-DRM crack for your purchased game.

      Origin gathers your personal information, computer information, application usage, software inventory, software usage, and peripheral hardware usage. It reports this data back to EA/Origin. You can Google about it or spend a few minutes and read your origin EULA.

    3. Re: SimCity 2000 available for free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Steam literally asks you when they want to take a hardware or software profile.

    4. Re:SimCity 2000 available for free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Software should be free!

      Unless I'm producing it. Then you should pay for my time.

    5. Re:SimCity 2000 available for free by cas2000 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Origin may be basically a steam-wannabe, but it's without realising that the reason steam doesn't piss people off very much is that they're not arseholes about what they do - the DRM is minimal and mostly unobtrusive, and they ASK people if they want to participate in their surveys rather than just abuse the fact that their software is installed and simply steal the information.

    6. Re:SimCity 2000 available for free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Origin doesn't "steal" information - you don't lose it.

      Oh come on, EA hasn't thought like that for a long time. After all, if you download EA's game from TPB, they will say that you stole a game.

    7. Re:SimCity 2000 available for free by GNious · · Score: 4, Informative

      I just installed the Origin client - it specifically asked for permissions to collect statistics during the install process.

    8. Re:SimCity 2000 available for free by Cenan · · Score: 4, Funny

      Facts? Here? How DARE you?

      --
      ... whatever ...
    9. Re:SimCity 2000 available for free by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bullshit, software doesn't want anything - *you* want it to be free so you aren't burdened with the problem of paying someone for it.

    10. Re:SimCity 2000 available for free by xclr8r · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Does it allow installation to continue if you decline data collection?

      --
      Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
  2. doesn't meaning anything ... right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It sure is a good thing that players' behavior as modeled in games has no effect whatsoever on their offline behavior, or in any way informs us about their attitudes toward the real world. That might be disconcerting.

    1. Re:doesn't meaning anything ... right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      If it were, I'd be upset at plumbers who think that the way to solve problems with fungi is to stomp on them.

  3. Does SimCity allow you to.... by elfprince13 · · Score: 5, Funny

    host the Olympics?

  4. oh the humanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If this dude is morally outraged by the way people play Sim City I can only hope someone alerts them to the way people play Dwarf Fortress.

    1. Re:oh the humanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think the PC name for that game is Little People's Fortress.

  5. Not a problem by Blaskowicz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Better to have homeless people on welfare in the streets rather than only drunken frat boys, small criminals and drug addicts. Problem in the US is you don't give them enough welfare (or at all) and no healthcare, hell homeful people at full time min wage employment don't even have healthcare. Nationalise all the evul healthcare companies (this cuts red tape), make the price of medicines drop, make welfare easier to get (less red tape) and redistribute the half a trillion or so you've saved in welfare.

    1. Re:Not a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This simply isn't true. If were simply a question of the amount of resources available, then the U.S. is not much different than any other developed country. San Francisco in particular has a more progressive homeless outreach program than almost any other city in the entire world--if the homeless population hadn't doubled in the past 15 years, we'd have already housed every last homeless person in the city.

      The problem with homelessness in America is complex, but it mostly comes down to two things: 1) you have to jump through a ridiculous amount of hoops to get assistance, and 2) the people most vulnerable to falling into homelessness (i.e. those with mental illness or disorders) are the least capable of jumping through those hoops.

      We have lots of hoops because of two things: 1.a) our patchwork of federal, state, and municipal programs and 1.b) the American idea of self-help and individualism. The source of 1.a is obvious. 1.b is problematic not because our ideas of self-help and our belief that America is a meritocratic land of opportunity is fundamentally bad. As an American I'm aware of and conscious of my own emphasis on these qualities, and I frankly I like that I'm that way. The problem is that too many Americans don't realize that these ideas are just cultural preferences, and are not connected to reality. They're aspirations rather descriptions of our society. Because people don't realize this, they think that self-help is easier than it is. To admit that self-help isn't very easy is in some sense a denial of the vision of America they hold in their head.

      As for #2, since we've dismantled our mental institutions we've abandoned a huge segment of our population in dire need of state assistance. We did that for two reasons, 2.a) money and 2.b) concern with freedom. Regarding 2.a, I think it's fair to say that we're losing more wealth thanks to our failure to address these problems. Regarding 2.b: it's true that the government once abusively used it's power to commit people to mental institutions without them having committed a crime. From the perspective of a society obsessed with individual liberty, that's an abhorrent state of affairs. However, the problem with mental illness and disorders (of all varieties, not simply clinical illness) is that it's fundamentally in conflict with our assumptions about free will, as well as with an economic approach (personal incentives, costs, etc) to the problem. We need to adjust the way we resolve this conflict and become more comfortable with the idea of _forcing_ people into assistance. And we need to realize that the moral of hazard of "handouts" is nowhere near as significant as it would be if we were all perfectly rational actors, _especially_ when we're giving handouts to those people at the very bottom.

    2. Re:Not a problem by Livius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's really not a lot of correlation between success and productivity.

      Sure there's some, but not as much as you might think.

    3. Re:Not a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1.a) our patchwork of federal, state, and municipal programs and 1.b) the American idea of self-help and individualism.

      And reason c: People are worried someone might abuse the system. For some reason, people like the idea that it is better to let 9 guilty men go than an innocent man go to prison, so promote the idea of a justice system that makes it harder to get convicted (or at least used to...), but think it is better to let 9 people starve so one person can't scam his way into a small amount of money and crappy way of life.

    4. Re:Not a problem by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We have lots of hoops because of two things: 1.a) our patchwork of federal, state, and municipal programs and 1.b) the American idea of self-help and individualism.

      No, the truth is uglier than that. A society committed to "self-help and individualism" would strive to ensure opportunities are available to anyone who cares to take them, no matter where they happen to be, and that one can actually risk failing without also risking homelessness. Such societies exist, and are typically derided as "nanny states" by Americans - because compensating for human frailties and failings is what it takes to actually make it possible for people to follow their own path and seek their dreams.

      Someone once said US's problem is that everyone thinks they're a temporarily embarassed millionaire. But that leaves out a key fact: everyone thinks they're a temporarily embarassed millionaire who wants to ensure they can stomp on those below them, once they get to the top, and votes accordingly. Thus the seemingly irrational support from middle class to policies destructive to said middle class. It's a self-made hell.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    5. Re:Not a problem by s.petry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1.a) our patchwork of federal, state, and municipal programs and 1.b) the American idea of self-help and individualism.

      And reason c: People are worried someone might abuse the system. For some reason, people like the idea that it is better to let 9 guilty men go than an innocent man go to prison, so promote the idea of a justice system that makes it harder to get convicted (or at least used to...), but think it is better to let 9 people starve so one person can't scam his way into a small amount of money and crappy way of life.

      People _DO_ abuse the system, in fact show me a country with any form of welfare that is not abused. The problem in the US is that those abuses are on both ends of the spectrum. Like other countries we have people that camp on welfare because it's easier than working. That is the portion of risk we consider to be manageable and expected because the percentage is generally very small. Where the US differs greatly is that our programs are abused at the top as well. People "managing" these services receive extra pay for not doing their job. Performing actions like cancelling programs instead of improving programs. This is a very open corruption that anyone can see, though few dare call it corruption... our media calls it "cost saving". This does not just happen with Welfare either, but VA benefits, and Social Security, and just about everything else.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    6. Re: Not a problem by gordo3000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is also an incredible lack of knowledge about other systems. The choice isn't between working people starving on the streets and French style socialism where every job and employer has tons of regulation and tons of worker classifications along with huge welfare payments.

      I've come to enjoy the Japanese system. It has a fundamental thread of responsibilitythat resonates with me and a strong sense of EVERYONE pays something, even the guy with 0 income for an extended period. It may not be much (20 bucks a month for health insurance) but you are legally required to get it and pay for it. The state will watch out for you, as long as you always fulfill your own responsibilities to society.

      And yeah, if you go cheap and try to save 20 bucks don't get sick because you are expected to show an ability to pay immediately (but you can always get back into the state program by paying all your owed back premiums).

    7. Re:Not a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In a perfect capitalist free market, there should never be any unemployment because wages should always adjust to a level that achieves full employment.

      Not really, no. Even a cursory look at example supply and demand charts invariably show that supply and demand almost always meet somewhere lower than maximum supply. The law of diminishing returns gives a hint why. Further, you can pay the worst employees less and less because of their lackluster performance until the point that employees slowly or quickly starve to death. Finally, full employment would create massive liquidity issues which would have a yoyo effect on wages; a short-term shortage could double wages and a short-term surplus could cause wages to halve. This because 100% (or near 100%) consumption of a good tends to result in great elasticity--the risk of famine, perhaps, or the possibility to resell to others at a higher rate.

      In any case, this but one of many reasons why the whole notion of people being able to support themselves wholly even in theory is rubbish.

    8. Re:Not a problem by reve_etrange · · Score: 4, Informative

      Like other countries we have people that camp on welfare because it's easier than working.

      I do agree with the substance of your post, but what do you mean by welfare? The United States doesn't really have any unconditional cash transfer programs, which is what most people think of when they hear the term "welfare." TANF for example is restricted to families with children, has a lifetime limit of 60 months of benefits for any individual and recipients must have a job within 24 months of joining the program. After doing a bunch of research on our means-tested social programs, I just don't see how it would be possible for a single, able-bodied, working-age individual to satisfy all their needs using federal transfers alone.

      I also don't think it's far to call social insurance programs "welfare." They're insurance policies operated by government, with mandatory premiums garnished from wages. You have to have paid the premiums to get the benefits.

      Where the US differs greatly is that our programs are abused at the top as well.

      Agree 100%, though I don't think the US is alone worldwide in this regard, even if it stands out among OECD members.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    9. Re:Not a problem by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

      San Francisco in particular has a more progressive homeless outreach program than almost any other city in the entire world

      Not really. In the EU shelter is a human right. I haven't travelled to every country, but at least in the UK and France we don't have homeless people any more. Everyone has the right to shelter - it might not be very nice shelter, but the government will put a roof over your head no matter what. It's massively reduced begging too, because no no-one has an excuse for being on the street when they could be helping themselves with government assistance.

      Having a fixed address is really important. You can't get a job without a fixed address, and somewhere to shower and shave. Plus, it keeps people off the streets and out of the criminal justice system, so it's a win for everyone.

      I'm sure San Fran is doing better than most US cities, but the US is so far behind Europe to start with... You can't really make that claim.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:Not a problem by blackomegax · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The ACA was cooked up by a republican thinktank and forced down the democrats throats as a 'compromise' to single-payer, for the sole benefit of insurance companies, and now you get to blame democrats for your problems. Perfect.

  6. Which is stupider, the book or the game? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Informative

    A limited run of 99 copies of How to get Rid of Homeless is available from Bittanti's Concrete Press via Amazon. Volume I is $150 and Volume II is $70.

    Like anyone's going to pay $220.00 for a collection of reddit posts ...

    They lost their way after SimCity 4 + Rush Hour. For aficionados of previous versions of the game, read the reviews first, it'll save you money. As for the "books", you can get the raw posts from reddit and the Simcity site.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:Which is stupider, the book or the game? by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, because some people choose that life and no amount of help will make a difference.

      Here in Dallas it was tried over 10 years ago... million of dollars were spent to refurbish several old hotels and make them liveable, rooms were offered free of charge to homeless people to give them a place to get back on their feet, to give them a place to have a hot shower, give them a mailing address so they could look for work (you might find it hard to get work without an address), etc.

      After 6 months, most of them were empty, the homeless didn't want them. Probably had something to do with a requirement that in return for a FREE PLACE TO LIVE, they had to actually look for work, or attend job training.

      I kid you not, a free place to live, a working bathroom with a toilet and shower, an address to use to get back on their feet and the homeless by and large didn't want it.

    2. Re:Which is stupider, the book or the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      After 6 months, most of them were empty, the homeless didn't want them. Probably had something to do with a requirement that in return for a FREE PLACE TO LIVE, they had to actually look for work, or attend job training.

      I kid you not, a free place to live, a working bathroom with a toilet and shower, an address to use to get back on their feet and the homeless by and large didn't want it.

      Given that a lot of homeless people have a mental illness and/or are addicted to drugs, that is not surprising.

    3. Re:Which is stupider, the book or the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I am not sure of the difference between the two programmes, but what failed in Dallas 10 years ago seems to be working in Salt Lake City now: http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/lntv3q/the-homeless-homed

      Yeah, it is not the best source for news, but it is the only way I heard about it.

  7. Re:Who cares? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Informative

    That game has more problems than just the homeless population.

    So does the author:

    Bittanti says that it's impossible to distinguish between videogames and America in the same way that Jean Baudrillard thought it was impossible to distinguish between Disneyland and America. The book, he told me, is about simulation and its discontents, the unexpected convergence and collapse between reality and simulation.

    "To me video games are the so-called 'real America,'" he said. "The real America operates according to a video game logic, and that game logic is neo-liberalism, and that absolutely manifests in San Francisco, that to me is the epicenter of inequality. In San Francisco you either have a Tesla and you drink a seven dollar cappuccino or you're homeless in the streets."

    I think he's been playing games too long. SimCity's reality distortion field claims another victim, which is amazing because it's crap compared to its' predecessors.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  8. Re:Does anyone care about SimCity2013? by Sowelu · · Score: 5, Informative

    Are...are you kidding? Cities XL is barely a game. It has some really nice features that were innovative for its time, like free-drawing roads, but a lot of its implementations are complete and utter BS. Like, you have to zone regions based on social class. Part of the challenge of SimCity is that you can't directly control that. Natural resources are garbage... the supply/demand graphs of different zones have hardly any bounce or buffer zone and your citizens move in with no intelligence at all. If you build twice as much unskilled-labor residential than you need--probably because you're trying to plan your city out early--people will SWARM in, and then whine about how there's not enough jobs. Even the very first SimCity game made people only move in if there were jobs (+/- a fudge factor). This is a really huge problem because you have to micromanage your zoning and build it a little bit at a time, rotating through all different kinds. You can't prebuild or everyone goes ballistic. Oh yeah, and road widths. God damn it, road widths. Hey great, I can upgrade this three-lane to a four-lane!...if I bulldoze everything along it, because the game cares about road width down to the foot, and you aren't allowed to build small roads with extra buffer on the side for future expansion. Dump tons of money now to build the nice roads, or you're hosed later.

    All of this leads to extremely formulaic gameplay. There's not much variation in what works, and it feels tedious to do. I spent a lot of hours trying to find the fun, on a couple different versions, and it wasn't there. Went back to SC4.

  9. It's a feature -- duh. by SeaFox · · Score: 3

    Are we now going to say it's incorrect for a city simulator to present the player with problems that currently occur in actual real cities?

  10. Re:easy solution by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We used to forcibly institutionalize mentally ill people instead of kicking them out on the street en mass to fend for themselves. A significant portion of what we call "homeless" have mental health and substance abuse issues, of course. Is releasing them to life in the streets more compassionate or humanitarian than confining them to an institution where they can actually get some help? I'm not sure there's an easy answer there, to be honest. In my neck of the woods, people are getting robbed and assaulted on the streets by homeless people on a pretty regular basis. It's not a good situation for anyone.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. Re:Games versus reality by Livius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As long as there are people starving and going mad in the streets

    Mental health problems are far more likely to be the cause of homelessness than the reverse.

    And I encounter someone who is mentally ill on the street, I'm not sure what you think I could do for them that the social workers and the police couldn't.

  13. not just a game by cas2000 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    the thing that most players don't realise about games like simcity (and other "simulation" games including civilisation and clones, the sims, and many others) is that they're not just simulations, they're also propaganda tools with a particular model of how reality is, or should, be.

    for the most part, these games push the theology of "meritocratic" free market laissez-faire capitalism - with the deserving rich being those who worked hard and the undeserving poor being worthless lazy slobs. this simulates american moralising and judgemental opinions fairly well, but not the real world.

  14. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  15. You blogged as a doper and thief in Oct/Nov 2014? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Personally, I just don't care to contribute to a system/country that I find vomit-inducing and am pretty comfortable sleeping under a bridge."

    Yeah, so I read your blog - you were arrested for holding burglary tools and appearing to be high and when you got out the first thing you did was score some weed, got high, then at some point got some schrooms, got high, then complained about the homeless life, etc. You sir, are in my opinion, a bullshit artist and your homeless has nothing to do with solidarity; I believe it has everything to do with you being in need of some serious mental help. Of course, I'm pretty sure you won't see it that way. Please, get yourself some help, you don't have to live with substance abuse issues and you don't appear to need to be a burglar to make a living if you actually are a programmer. Good luck, man.

  16. Re:Who cares? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To me video games are the so-called 'real America,'" he said. "The real America operates according to a video game logic, and that game logic is neo-liberalism, and that absolutely manifests in San Francisco, that to me is the epicenter of inequality. In San Francisco you either have a Tesla and you drink a seven dollar cappuccino or you're homeless in the streets."

    I think he's been playing games too long. SimCity's reality distortion field claims another victim, which is amazing because it's crap compared to its' predecessors.

    Ever lived in San Francisco? Sounds pretty close to reality to me. Not everyone who isn't rich is homeless in the streets, though. Some of them are students with rich parents, but they themselves aren't technically rich yet. They just look rich with their Audi and their expensive clothes and new phone every year. While the rank and file who make the seven dollar cappucinos, flip the burgers and whatnot are stacked up five or six to a house with people living in hallways and closets.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  17. Re:Games versus reality by codepigeon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know my sig says "hire me", but I have had offers in real-life and turned them down because I didn't agree with the what/how the employer produced.

    I took a two minute glance at your blog. I read your comment here and a little bit of your other writings. You sound like you have a decent level of intelligence. I am gonna go out on a limb and assume that you are young (20 - 30). At some point in your life you are going to realize your wasted potential. When that moment of clarity hits you,... it is going to hit you like a stone to the head.

    Part of 'being a man' is doing the work you don't want to do. It is the daily struggle so you can provide for a family; not living under a bridge so your values can remain intact. We are all idealistic at some point in our lives, but, there comes a time to grow up. Don't wait until it is too late.

    my $.02

  18. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  19. Re:Games versus reality by BitZtream · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I write this while homeless in Santa Monica, CA

    Yet, you can somehow manage to post on slashdot.

    Your priorities are puzzling to say the least.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager