So SimCity. Who's getting it

[TurboHog]

User score is 1.5 now on meta.

 

Let's see how low it's going to get!

[Splat]

I have a feeling that it will take a few more rounds of Low-Score Limbo before these mega publishers wise up to the fact that always-on may not actually be The Way of The Future they want it to be.

[EtherealN]

EA have cleverly designed their games to be useless without the DLC. Battlefield 3 is a nightmare to play without it - constantly being removed from servers when a new DLC map loads. Constant non-event (and expensive) DLC being puked out in a similar style to the release of Call of Duty (but accelerated even beyond that!).

 

DLC is not the same as microtransactions.

 

What happens to you in DCS if the MP server switches to a mission that doesn't use the one module you hold? You can't fly.

 

The only way out of your "problem" is to lock games down tight and not allow them to gain anything, nothing, after they are released.

 

Consider: all of you want new terrain in DCS. This costs money to do. Current plan is to do this as payware. Adwantage of this model is that if what you want to do is fly plane X in map Y, you do NOT need to purchase plane Z for this to happen. You only need to purchase the plane you wanted to fly (X) and the map itself (Y).

 

But yes, this does mean that people that are sitting on that server and don't adhere to it's "map-pack"... they'll not have anything to do once that mission switch is done. What is the possible solution?

 

Never make any new maps.

Good luck selling that to the community. ;)

[Conure]

DLC is not the same as microtransactions.

 

What happens to you in DCS if the MP server switches to a mission that doesn't use the one module you hold? You can't fly.

 

The only way out of your "problem" is to lock games down tight and not allow them to gain anything, nothing, after they are released.

 

Consider: all of you want new terrain in DCS. This costs money to do. Current plan is to do this as payware. Adwantage of this model is that if what you want to do is fly plane X in map Y, you do NOT need to purchase plane Z for this to happen. You only need to purchase the plane you wanted to fly (X) and the map itself (Y).

 

But yes, this does mean that people that are sitting on that server and don't adhere to it's "map-pack"... they'll not have anything to do once that mission switch is done. What is the possible solution?

 

Never make any new maps.

Good luck selling that to the community. ;)

 

Because microtransactions and chargeable DLC have been so well received by the community?

 

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/simcity

 

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo-iii

 

Have a look at those user scores to see how well the community receives micro transactions. Also see the user scores for the most recent COD games and their associated map packs - also very poorly rated.

 

On the other hand, let's look at alternative (and fairer) ways of providing software to the public - which has been well received by the community in general

 

Path of Exile - free of charge, no risk on investment (unless you consider bandwidth a risk. Let's not get into the opportunity cost!) - don't like it? Nothing lost. Micro transactions are completely justifiable in this scenario - because no price is charged for initial software.

 

The Witcher 2 - significant free content added - presumably very profitable given a third is in the works so recently after the second. - Further investment can be secured from sequals and high quality expansions. Content which almost matches that of the original game.

 

Ubuntu - Absolutely free OS, significantly more powerful and secure than Windows - because it is open to the community.

 

Chivalry - Medieval warfare - Good quality user ratings, a lot of free content.

 

I don't think anybody in the world of Software Development other than the shareholders at EA would agree that the EA model of selling is sustainable.

 

Of course, a line has to be drawn and propriety software has its advantages, i.e, supposedly it offers the advantage of LTS that perhaps free software doesn't (nonsense in my opinion but that's another debate). Your case regarding a DCS module isn't comparable - it is a significant investment in resources to produce a high quality product. Morally and financially justifiable.

 

What is the justification for microtransactions in Simcity (when there is a significant cost for the base software)? Are you honestly going to answer anything other than greed given how well other businesses do without charging for them?

 

Clearly there are better ways for maintaining the extension of software life and fixing of bugs whilst keeping profits up. EA does nothing but alienate its users - to deny that is to deny the general response of the internet to their recent releases.

[agrasyuk]

i don't get this argument. you seriously against additional content for games being developed after the initial release? really?

 

Ubuntu - Absolutely free OS, significantly more powerful ...

 

And I purchased electric lawn mower last summer. i bet it is even more powerful. and complimented my breakfast this morning by a cup of orange juice. or perhaps we should discuss only points relevant to this topic ? :book:

[Conure]

i don't get this argument. you seriously against additional content for games being developed after the initial release? really?

 

 

 

And I purchased electric lawn mower last summer. i bet it is even more powerful. and complimented my breakfast this morning by a cup of orange juice. or perhaps we should discuss only points relevant to this topic ? :book:

 

If you can't grasp the basics of how to link two (quite simple) concepts, then that is your problem not mine. EtherealN asserted that longevity is somehow a byproduct of paid services (i.e map packs).

 

I suggested that, in my opinion, longevity is better achieved by opening up the code to the communities. I then explained that we can see that in various software projects in which the code was opened up and made accessible (in contrast to EA's model), we have seen long lasting, robust software solutions developed. I also believe this can provide long term profitability in the form of (substantial) content or engine updates, as seen in DCS.

 

This effectively boils down down the open software (FSF) versus propriety software debate and can be extended to include not just games.

 

Please, if you have no knowledge of what is and is not relevant to the debate, either go and educate of yourself or don't get involved :thumbup:

Edited March 9, 2013 by Conure

[EtherealN]

Because microtransactions and chargeable DLC have been so well received by the community?

 

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/simcity

 

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo-iii

 

Have a look at those user scores to see how well the community receives micro transactions. Also see the user scores for the most recent COD games and their associated map packs - also very poorly rated.

 

Again: microtransactions /= DLC.

 

I can see your example, and raise you World of Tanks, as far as microtransactions go.

The problem isn't DLCs or Microtransactions per se - it's how they are done. A "good" DLC is the same as the classic "expansion pack", except it's not a physical copy, so you are free to make smaller DLCs at lower prices or bigger "expansions" at higher prices. For me, as a customer, the only difference between a "DLC" and the Heart of the Swarm "expansion" to SC2 is that HotS is big and thus more expensive.

 

 

Path of Exile - free of charge, no risk on investment (unless you consider bandwidth a risk. Let's not get into the opportunity cost!) - don't like it? Nothing lost. Micro transactions are completely justifiable in this scenario - because no price is charged for initial software.

 

This is the "Free to Play" model. Nothing new there.

 

The Witcher 2 - significant free content added - presumably very profitable given a third is in the works so recently after the second. - Further investment can be secured from sequals and high quality expansions. Content which almost matches that of the original game.

 

Devil's advocate: are you sure this is content that wasn't originally "cut" because it wasn't quite complete yet?

 

Ubuntu - Absolutely free OS, significantly more powerful and secure than Windows - because it is open to the community.

 

I love Ubuntu, but come on now... We're talking security through obscurity here. Your argument was used by the Mac fans until OSX gained a large enough market share to merit targeting... Suddenly it wasn't so secure anymore.

 

If you're looking for a "secure to use", cool, this works. If you're looking for "secure" in the absolute sense of the word - sorry, no dice.

 

Of course, a line has to be drawn and propriety software has its advantages, i.e, supposedly it offers the advantage of LTS that perhaps free software doesn't (nonsense in my opinion but that's another debate). Your case regarding a DCS module isn't comparable - it is a significant investment in resources to produce a high quality product. Morally and financially justifiable.

 

Simple exercise for you:

 

Compare quality games of ANY genre, and look at which were "proprietary" and which were "open source". There are some absolute gems in open source (though ironically they all seem to be remakes of stuff like Civilization, SimCity etcetera... Interesting!).

 

What is the justification for microtransactions in Simcity (when there is a significant cost for the base software)? Are you honestly going to answer anything other than greed given how well other businesses do without charging for them?

 

I don't give a rat's behind about whether my buildings look like they're from england, france, germany or whatever. Thus I don't care to pay for someone to model and texture those things. But those that DO want this get the ability to get it - and it will be only them that want it that pay for it. What is not to like?

 

See for example like when Paradox did a complete reskinning of the Victoria interface. I didn't care for it, didn't buy it. Those that did want that though, they were able to get it, and it was them that paid for it. Now in this particular case it was _technically_ delivered as a DLC, but the price was such that it really was a "microtransaction". The borders between them get fuzzy around there.

 

Everything depends on whether we end up with microtransactions in the style of "very very small content bits" or Farmville stuff. The former - awesome, cool, no hair off my back. Farmville? No thank you. But this is a question of the specific implementation, NOT the concept as a whole.

 

Good DLC/microtransaction: new features for your plane that could not be covered originally.

Bad DLC/microtransaction: buying quick respawns online.

Edited March 9, 2013 by EtherealN
corrected a brainfart

[Conure]

Again: microtransactions /= DLC.

 

I can see your example, and raise you World of Tanks, as far as microtransactions go.

The problem isn't DLCs or Microtransactions per se - it's how they are done. A "good" DLC is the same as the classic "expansion pack", except it's not a physical copy, so you are free to make smaller DLCs at lower prices or bigger "expansions" at higher prices. For me, as a customer, the only difference between a "DLC" and the Heart of the Swarm "expansion" to SC2 is that HotS is big and thus more expensive.

 

That's true - I happen to really like the World of Tanks Model. I think, like you have said, some micro transactions are worthwhile (if not just for cash flow) but in some cases it is just greedy - I think, with Origin and their excessive DRM it just automatically offends someone that strongly believes in open source and free (not free financially) principles online. I don't just spout this crap, I have a whole hard disk full of open source software which I contribute to where I can. There's something about closed system DRM I am un trusting of - perhaps because I am so used to being able to look at the source, perhaps because I am overly paranoid - who knows.

 

 

This is the "Free to Play" model. Nothing new there.

 

My point is, that in the case of Diablo 3 they not only took the liberty of introducing microtransactions which are more justifiably suited to a F2P model - they also had a base cost for the unit AND made it online only. In my opinion, this is taking control and ownership over the software completely away from the end user - which, again, in my opinion is an issue that we should try to be combating.

 

 

Devil's advocate: are you sure this is content that wasn't originally "cut" because it wasn't quite complete yet?

 

Can't debate here - I'd like to think CDProjectRed weren't this sort of company, but I agree it's entirely possible.

 

I love Ubuntu, but come on now... We're talking security through obscurity here. Your argument was used by the Mac fans until OSX gained a large enough market share to merit targeting... Suddenly it wasn't so secure anymore.

 

If you're looking for a "secure to use", cool, this works. If you're looking for "secure" in the absolute sense of the word - sorry, no dice.

 

 

I can't agree here - I strongly believe any Unix based OS is currently far superior in terms of security to Windows, and I don't mean in terms of absolute statistical comparison which (as you would say) would show Unix as superior. Direct penetration testing on Windows versus Unix is often quite one sided, and because of the way the user accounts and kernel can be setup it's inherently secure. Even I get pissed off at times with it not letting me do things, when I'm logged in as root.

 

In addition to that (and this applies to OS X to an extent, granted) security holes in Linux are found and dealt with extremely quickly. I mean, I've seen patches go up for Linux within 20 minutes of them being noted - Microsoft have nowhere close to that response time.

 

Add to that the repository system and the huge amount of clean open source software and you have an extremely safe system.

 

Here's a nice (sort of) current link on the state of things at the moment - apologies if you're an experienced Unix user and are already familiar: http://hothardware.com/Reviews/Why-Linux-Will-Never-Suffer-From-Viruses-Like-Windows/

 

And a direct quote

 

" Even if they had the exact same market share, it is extremely unlikely that Linux would ever have the same number of exploits as we see in closed-source ecosystems such as Windows. This is a direct result of the open nature, which allows for innumerable companies and hobbyists to access and maintain all portions of the system--a feature that simply can't be replicated in proprietary operating systems. Linux will always have more eyes looking through the code to make it secure, than there are eyes looking through the code to exploit it."

 

I believe this argument can be extended to the argument that games are generally better when they're open - people can make rapid bug fixes and implement top quality mods. It allows creativity to flow, the closed loop DRM system stifles, controls creativity, then charges for the benefit.

 

Simple exercise for you:

 

Compare quality games of ANY genre, and look at which were "proprietary" and which were "open source". There are some absolute gems in open source (though ironically they all seem to be remakes of stuff like Civilization, SimCity etcetera... Interesting!).

 

Perhaps not strictly open source, but certainly free - Dota, Counterstrike, Dayz, Teamfortress Classic, Natural Selection 2 - all brilliant games which began their lives as mods (until some were bought out) - True examples of brilliant gaming and the result of people that are passionate about our hobby. I think these titles showed a lot of originality when they were born - and often, mods do show originality. I'd argue a lot of propriety software is becoming more repetitive.

 

 

I don't give a rat's behind about whether my buildings look like they're from england, france, germany or whatever. Thus I don't care to pay for someone to model and texture those things. But those that DO want this get the ability to get it - and it will be only them that want it that pay for it. What is not to like?

 

See for example like when Paradox did a complete reskinning of the Victoria interface. I didn't care for it, didn't buy it. Those that did want that though, they were able to get it, and it was them that paid for it. Now in this particular case it was _technically_ delivered as a DLC, but the price was such that it really was a "microtransaction". The borders between them get fuzzy around there.

 

Everything depends on whether we end up with microtransactions in the style of "very very small content bits" or Farmville stuff. The former - awesome, cool, no hair off my back. Farmville? No thank you. But this is a question of the specific implementation, NOT the concept as a whole.

 

Good DLC/microtransaction: new features for your plane that could not be covered originally.

Bad DLC/microtransaction: buying quick respawns online.

 

 

I agree with this. The problem in my opinion is that of extortion. In the case of World of Tanks, they offer a free game and charge for benefits. Fine. In the case of EA, they charge for a game, limit your options to play it, then charge you to remain competitive (want to stay in your BF3 clan? Get the DLC).

 

I suppose ultimately this comes down to a debate about the power of companies to control their software, versus the power of people to own it. I can completely understand your points and I think many of them are valid, but they don't sit right with me.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Conure

[159th_Viper]

....versus the power of people to own it....

 

Since when does ownership vest in the end-user?

 

Use and Enjoyment, yes.

 

Ownership?

 

I think not.

[cichlidfan]

... or perhaps we should discuss only points relevant to this topic ? :book:

 

I am blaming Ali Fish! :P

[Conure]

Since when does ownership vest in the end-user?

 

Use and Enjoyment, yes.

 

Ownership?

 

I think not.

 

Well this is all part of the debate, ownership versus licencing and the ethics which support either side.

 

It's an interesting area of software law and one which I think is likely to shift this way and that over the next decade - particularly as people accumulate vast digital libraries which they want to pass on to their children.

 

I know at my university people often fall into either one of two camps, my own and EtherealNs. Just because currently software licensing and control thereof lies with the developer and their ability to 'loan' the software, it does not mean it will always be so. Indeed I think eventually we may see a complete legal reversal of the current position, as companies which offered software subject to their servers being up, are no longer able to maintain them.

[159th_Viper]

Well this is all part of the debate

 

There is no debate: Ownership is absolute. I am always tickled pink by people's misguided sense of entitlement, specifically when it comes to software. It's all want, want, want without any give.

 

May things change? Yes, maybe. Maybe the moon's core is made of cheese afterall :)

[Splat]

[...] Indeed I think eventually we may see a complete legal reversal of the current position, as companies which offered software subject to their servers being up, are no longer able to maintain them.

 

We can only hope that legislators would ever be so reasonable.

[pacotito]

Some good news for those of you that had to put up with the launch of SimCity.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2416413,00.asp

[VincentLaw]

Indeed I think eventually we may see a complete legal reversal of the current position, as companies which offered software subject to their servers being up, are no longer able to maintain them.

The problem with that is that some types of software absolutely require a centralized server to work. You could never expect to play an MMO where everything is client side without a massive amount of insecurity and cheating.

 

No matter how you change the law around. It doesn't matter if you "own" your copy of the software or not. When the servers go down, they go down, and you are not playing. If laws prevent (or make excessively difficult) the operation of centralized servers, then you have effectively killed all MMO games and probably a lot of other internet services. More gamers would be upset with this than happy.

Edited March 9, 2013 by VincentLaw

[Conure]

There is no debate: Ownership is absolute. I am always tickled pink by people's misguided sense of entitlement, specifically when it comes to software. It's all want, want, want without any give.

 

May things change? Yes, maybe. Maybe the moon's core is made of cheese afterall :)

 

I think there is a far higher chance that software ownership will be changing in the future - I completed a (compulsory, dull) module at post-grad which discussed current precedents which have been carried out thus far, and there is little consistency at the moment. The law surrounding software ownership is very much a work in progress.

 

I really don't think it's correct to take a subject as fluid, dynamic and brand new as software law, and to try to apply some form of conservative values which relate to the "everlasting state of things" as you did with the moon's core analogy.

 

So, quite the contrary, there is rather a lot of debate - why is it you're led to believe there isn't? I am happy to link you legal articles if you're interested.

[Conure]

The problem with that is that some types of software absolutely require a centralized server to work. You could never expect to play an MMO where everything is client side without a massive amount of insecurity and cheating.

 

No matter how you change the law around. It doesn't matter if you "own" your copy of the software or not. When the servers go down, they go down, and you are not playing. If laws prevent (or make excessively difficult) the operation of centralized servers, then you have effectively killed all MMO games and probably a lot of other internet services. More gamers would be upset with this than happy.

 

I think you're right - any legislation might have to define a distinction between a service fee and purchasing of software; which would effectively see an end to companies like Blizzard charging an initial cost and then a subscription (either one or the other). At this point it's all hypothesising but one thing is clear - the law is going to change, because right now there is a lot of moral ambiguity.

 

It may well be that it turns completely in favor of the owners, but I hope not.

[159th_Viper]

I am happy to link you legal articles if you're interested.

 

I have all the links to all things legal that I'd ever need, thanx :)

[Conure]

I have all the links to all things legal that I'd ever need, thanx :)

 

Then how did you come to the conclusion that there's no debate?

[159th_Viper]

Then how did you come to the conclusion that there's no debate?

 

Case Law, when referring to the statement that ownership, or lack thereof in the case of the end-user, is absolute. No amount of articles or debate will change that fact. Don't misunderstand me, there may be debate, just no debate that has the capacity to undermine or change the status quo at present.

[Grimes]

Now that the servers are actually somewhat working, I am constantly surprised at how many hours have passed without even realizing it. Seriously, if I was typing this post as I was playing it and decided to alt-tab back in, I'd probably hit submit sometime Tuesday. Its that addictive.

[cichlidfan]

Now that the servers are actually somewhat working, I am constantly surprised at how many hours have passed without even realizing it. Seriously, if I was typing this post as I was playing it and decided to alt-tab back in, I'd probably hit submit sometime Tuesday. Its that addictive.

 

Yes. Play Sim City and get to see the sun rise! :P

[EtherealN]

And I continue to be amazed at how people want to claim that it is "dumbed down". Their one and only argument is the small land plots, which I will agree can be annoying.

 

But the game itself? Holy pizza this thing is way more advanced than previous SimCity games. Seen a lot of threads on forums where people complain that it's impossible to get X amount of population without going broke and that the game is therefore "broken". I experienced this myself in my first attempts, then I studied the economics a lot more and have big cities thriving. There's still a lot left for me to learn though (need time :( ).

 

Previous games you learned a couple basics and then got on your way building megacities. Not so with this game. Here you really need to learn the game and keep a mind to the economy.

[EtherealN]

My point is, that in the case of Diablo 3 they not only took the liberty of introducing microtransactions which are more justifiably suited to a F2P model - they also had a base cost for the unit AND made it online only. In my opinion, this is taking control and ownership over the software completely away from the end user - which, again, in my opinion is an issue that we should try to be combating.

 

Have you played Diablo3? Because I'm not sure what you are talking about here.

 

The only "microtransactions" that I am aware of (though it was a while since I played it), is the real-money marketplace they implemented. This is NOT a microtransaction in the sense of paying Blizzard to spawn kit for you. This is a player-to-player marketplace!

 

If you find good loot and don't want it yourself, you can do one of two things:

 

1) Sell it on the marketplace. This auctions the item for in-game money.

2) Sell it on the real-money-marketplace. This auctions the item for real money.

 

AFAIK, Blizzard takes a share on the RMT transactions, can't remember the percentage.

Fishy? Well, consider this: these trades would happen anyway. "Illegal" trade of items is rampant in almost all online games, and people are getting scammed left-right-and-center. Blizzard implemented this because it gives a "legit" alternative where THEY control that the item really exists and that the buyer really does pay for it. And with there being a legit marketplace, it kicks the feet from the scammers that hitherto have profited greatly from the black markets that existed in Diablo 2 and almost any other similar game.

 

I don't think this is what EA mean when they're talking about microtransactions, so it is sort of off-topic, but I thought it needs clarification since you seem to be having the wrong idea about what the "microtransactions" are in Diablo 3.

[winz]

Perhaps not strictly open source, but certainly free - Dota, Counterstrike, Dayz, Teamfortress Classic, Natural Selection 2 - all brilliant games which began their lives as mods (until some were bought out) - True examples of brilliant gaming and the result of people that are passionate about our hobby. I think these titles showed a lot of originality when they were born - and often, mods do show originality.

Not even close to open source, not open source at all. What I see here is - You have to go proprietary retail if you want to be successful. An idea is enough to get you started, but you need money if you want a full feature title. Not to mention those projects started as mods of proprietary sw - the base was prepared by the companies making those titles. There would be no Dayz without ArmA, no Dota without W3, no Counterstrike without half-life.

 

Name me one successful open-source title that isn't based on leaked proprietary source code (like OpenTT, or Freespace SCP)? Or a remake of an old-old-old title (theme hospital remake).