SimCity 5 - Launch Discussion

[rhorle]

I call that bullcrap. Think of it this way - there are tens of thousands PCs connecting to the servers at the same time. If those PCs don't have enough computing power to handle all the simulations themselves then imagine how strong servers would be needed

Servers and Desktops/laptops are built completely differently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wi...rs-8055_08.jpg is an example of what a server would look like. Each one of the rectangular metal with lights is essentially a different motherboard.

[Vespian]

Servers and Desktops/laptops are built completely differently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wi...rs-8055_08.jpg is an example of what a server would look like. Each one of the rectangular metal with lights is essentially a different motherboard.

You really have no clue do you?

Let me explain:
For video games, you need (mostly) two things. RAM and a GFX card. RAM to be able to process the huge amount of data that many objects create and your client needs to store. You need a graphics card to be able to handle displaying all special effects such as lighting, shadows, antialliasing, etc.

In the first case, I doubt that EA made a game that can't be completely processed by todays hardware. The development of hardware is at a halt for a few years now and all games that currently get released are mostly based on portability to or from a console. Even in my 4 year old PC (€1600 back then) I have 8GB RAM, which should easily be plenty to process all individual objects. As for a graphics card, well, that's why you have lower resolution textures and that's why you have video options to turn down all those extra shadows and lights.

If your comment was serious, I would have assumed you would talk about the fact that servers usually carry a multitude of RAM memory, compared to a Desktop or laptop. I would agree with the assumption that a laptop probably can't carry the objects on large city maps, but a desktop should relatively easily be able to cope with it.

The whole our servers can and your pc can't argument is completely null and void, since all data is actually being stored locally until everything is saved. And saving only involves storage.

[rhorle]

But the fact that you let "I think" guide your opinion over what other people should or shouldn't like and using that Ï think" as a defense for a game that saves all data locally until progress is saved, by pretending that all that EA/Maxis say is the holy word, simply makes agreeing with you so very very hard.

I haven't pretended or actualized that whatever EA or Maxis says is the holy word. What I have done is provided their reasonings for doing something and stated that those reasons don't have anything to with DRM. You can insult me, call me a troll, call me a white knight, or anything else but it doesn't change the fact that Maxis made Sim City online only for a variety of factors and not just for one and only one factor.

This is further illustrated by their tweet saying that they aren't fully opposed to having an offline mode. All data also isn't saved locally until it syncs with the cloud. Nothing is saved to your computer about your city. The Simulation will still run but at limited capacity and that is part of their defense against unwanted internet connections.

Also don't confuse me not agreeing with you as not understanding you. The two are far different concepts just like a game can be online for far more then just DRM. Diablo 3 is also another game that is online only for far more reasons then just DRM. It would cite those but it isn't relevant to the topic and you'd just dismiss it is ignorance, stupidity, white knighting, and being a corporate stooge.

---------- Post added 2013-03-10 at 11:28 AM ----------

You really have no clue do you?

So are you implying that servers and desktops are built exactly the same and for the same performance? Yes a desktop PC can act as a server but that doesn't mean it is capable of doing all the tasks a server can.

[Vespian]

This is further illustrated by their tweet saying that they aren't fully opposed to having an offline mode. All data also isn't saved locally until it syncs with the cloud.

Thank you for mentioning that. I was hoping you would do that:

We have no intention of offlining Sim City in the near future
- They clearly don't want to do it. Have no intention indicates WILL NOT FUCKING DO IT SO SHUT UP.

But we will look into it as part of earning back your trust
- We know you, the reader, the gamer, the public are gullible, so we'll start with absolute denial and then proceed to dangle a carrot in your face to keep you playing and when you eventually claim we said we would look into it, we'll say that we did! HAHAHAHAH classic!

All data also isn't saved locally until it syncs with the cloud. Nothing is saved to your computer about your city. The Simulation will still run but at limited capacity

What kind of hocus pocus is this? A game can not run without storing data locally or directly through a server connection, unless we're talking about virtualized applications through a form of a Citrix environment and Sim City is not it. You are so full of crap, I bet you believe it yourself. So if that server is down the game shouldn't be able to keep working even partially if all data was processed on the server. Instead, all of that data gets processed locally.

[rhorle]

Thank you for mentioning that. I was hoping you would do that:

We have no intention of offlining Sim City in the near future
- They clearly don't want to do it. Have no intention indicates WILL NOT FUCKING DO IT SO SHUT UP.

But we will look into it as part of earning back your trust!

Stating they will look into it is saying that they are not opposed to an offline mode. It just isn't something they can do right away, hence why they have no intention of doing it in the near future.

[procne]

Servers and Desktops/laptops are built completely differently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wi...rs-8055_08.jpg is an example of what a server would look like. Each one of the rectangular metal with lights is essentially a different motherboard.

Imagine this, I know very well how does a server look like, I work with those everyday. And that's beside the point.

The point was - IF your PC's CPU and RAM are not enough to handle the simulation, then the costs of servers, doing the simulations for thousands of PCs at the same time, would be so high that income fram sales wouldn't be enough.
Or in other words - It's impossible that EA can maintain servers with computing power higher than thousands of PCs for the income from sales.

Yes, servers are much more efficient. Yes, computing power in servers is cheaper.
But not to the point where they can be better than thousands of PCs.

I bet that simulating a single region with 10 players in it doesn't take more computing power than running a minecraft server for 10 people. Which can be easily done on a laptop.

[Vespian]

Stating they will look into it is saying that they are not opposed to an offline mode.

We have no intention of offlining Sim City in the near future

in·tent (n-tnt)
n.
1. Something that is intended; an aim or purpose. See Synonyms at intention.
2. Law The state of one's mind at the time one carries out an action.
3. Meaning; purport.
adj.
1. Firmly fixed; concentrated: an intent gaze.
2. Having the attention applied; engrossed: The students, intent upon their books, did not hear me enter the room.
3. Having the mind and will focused on a specific purpose: was intent on leaving within the hour; are intent upon being recognized.

It just isn't something they can do right away, hence why they have no intention of doing it in the near future.

Isn't this just epic.

[rhorle]

But not to the point where they can be better than thousands of PCs.

But the data would not be handled by thousands of PCs, it would be handled by one.

---------- Post added 2013-03-10 at 11:56 AM ----------

Isn't this just epic.

It certainly is epic. Because you are taking two words out of context and out of the full statement they made. "No Intention" is modified by "in the near future" and also by "But we will look into it".

[Vespian]

But the data would not be handled by thousands of PCs, it would be handled by one.

---------- Post added 2013-03-10 at 11:56 AM ----------



It certainly is epic. Because you are taking two words out of context and out of the full statement they made. "No Intention" is modified by "in the near future" and also by "But we will look into it".

No dude, that's why I'm referring to it. Denial first, Carrot next. It's nothing. In the first sentence they clearly state they do not have ANY intention of adding it ANY TIME SOON. And in the second they state they will be looking into it. First of all, it's a direct contradiction, but more importantly, looking into it is less strong than stating you have no intention. In other words, saying you will look into it is an empty promise. Shame on you for believing it.

And stop being so fricking clueless about how servers work, before I commit ritual suicide due to no-know-knowitalls.

[procne]

But the data would not be handled by thousands of PCs, it would be handled by one.[COLOR="red"]

For the love of god, are you missing the point on purpose?
Maxis said that our PCs wouldn't be able to handle simulations, even in single player. I presented my reasoning for why would single PC be perfectly capable of running game in offline mode, single player = 1 player in region. And you now tell me this?

Of course it would be handled by one PC, that's what we are talking about. That's what I'm trying to explain.

Your PC is perfectly capable of running the simulations on its own in single player. It was capable of it 10 years ago with much bigger cities.

If your PC was not capable of simulating the game for one player then it would mean total computing power of EA servers would have to be bigger than total computing power of those thousands PCs connecting to them. Which is bonkers.

Besides, what EA is supposed to say? They won't tell you they made game online-only for DRM. It's obvious they will tell you there was no other way, that it was better for the game, that players asked for it. They are especially good in the latter

[rhorle]

If your PC was not capable of simulating the game for one player then it would mean total computing power of EA servers would have to be bigger than total computing power of those thousands PCs connecting to them. Which is bonkers.

And the computing power of servers will always be greater then that of the ones connecting to them. It is the way servers are built. The necessary processing of data and the like isn't small just because there is one player in the region. Every city in that region would be simulating. It isn't just the city you have loaded/active that is being simulated. You have cops, sims, crime, pollution, trade, workers, city-services etc all being simulated.

The more cities you add the more processing power you need for a region. This is why they are having launch problems because the demand on their servers far exceed what they thought. They didn't have enough computing power to handle all of the people that wanted to connect to their servers.

Also not every players computer is made up of the same hardware. A person with Titan GPU's and all the other "top of the line" components likely wouldn't have that much trouble simulating everything on their own. But a person that is on the lower end of the system requirements might have the game be unplayable as their computer already struggles to run the game.

Besides, what EA is supposed to say? They won't tell you they made game online-only for DRM. It's obvious they will tell you there was no other way, that it was better for the game, that players asked for it. They are especially good in the latter

Why is everything EA says a lie? Why can't they have done exactly what they said they did. Designed a game to be online only for the reasons they stated including ones they didn't like DRM.

[procne]

And the computing power of servers will always be greater then that of the ones connecting to them. It is the way servers are built.

It is the way servers are built? I can't think of servers which have greater computing power than all the clients connecting to it together.

The necessary processing of data and the like isn't small just because there is one player in the region. Every city in that region would be simulating. It isn't just the city you have loaded/active that is being simulated. You have cops, sims, crime, pollution, trade, workers, city-services etc all being simulated.

Not really. Cities that aren't "played" in the given moment require much less simulation. You don't have to simulate every building or sim there. They are just statistics - this many sims, that high power consumption, that many jobs available etc. Also, as the last few days have shown - our PC can run single town on its own, it just has to sync it with servers every no and then.
Add to it that in Simcity 4 sims also migrated between cities, and all connected cities affected each other - mainly sims moving from home to job. 10 years ago. With bigger cities. And it worked.

The more cities you add the more processing power you need for a region. This is why they are having launch problems because the demand on their servers far exceed what they thought. They didn't have enough computing power to handle all of the people that wanted to connect to their servers.

Actually, I would say they are having launch problems because they forced online-only play. And because they were cheap and unprepared.

Also not every players computer is made up of the same hardware. A person with Titan GPU's and all the other "top of the line" components likely wouldn't have that much trouble simulating everything on their own. But a person that is on the lower end of the system requirements might have the game be unplayable as their computer already struggles to run the game.

Did you just imply that Maxis uses GPUs to run simulations of the cities and regions?

Why is everything EA says a lie? Why can't they have done exactly what they said they did. Designed a game to be online only for the reasons they stated including ones they didn't like DRM.

Not everything. I didn't say that. But if there's something bad to say - they will do all they can to make it not sound bad. Like almost anyone.

[Sunseeker]

Regional play has only been a feature for 10 years and not decades. The Regional play definitely favors multiplayer over single player on the large maps.

Regional play has always been rather shitty anyway for the sheer fact that you lose control over anything beyond your borders. I mean what happens when Sim City 5's playerbase drops to a few thousand people? When all that's left is some dedicated fans? Oh right, EA shuts down the server and that game you dumped all that money into? WORTHLESS.

That's whats so terrible about this whole stupid "online only" crap. You never actually OWN your game. You're just renting the ability to play it.

[Vespian]

It is the way servers are built? I can't think of servers which have greater computing power than all the clients connecting to it together.

Did you just imply that Maxis uses GPUs to run simulations of the cities and regions?

As I said, he doesn't know anything. Quite frankly, I'm not sure why we're even discussing things with him. It's simply like discussing politics with the jester.

[llDemonll]

The entire debacle would have been avoided if none of the computing (aside from saving games when you exit) were done on the server side. This is 100% EA's fault for thinking "oh, we'll do some of the math on our servers so that people are forced to connect to them to play the game".

EA has a bad history for shutting down games, and Sim City will go the same route in a few years

[Vespian]

The entire debacle would have been avoided if none of the computing (aside from saving games when you exit) were done on the server side. This is 100% EA's fault for thinking "oh, we'll do some of the math on our servers so that people are forced to connect to them to play the game".

EA has a bad history for shutting down games, and Sim City will go the same route in a few years

Most of it is being done on the local machine. That's exactly why the whole online only thing is such a farce. Nothing actually requires the player to be online except for some little bits of code that force states to be saved in "the cloud" as pretty much any interaction with a remote server gets called these days. The whole thing wouldn't be able to keep running, at all, if all interaction required a connection. In other words, connection only needs to be made at very specific "save" states and thus there actually isn't any real "online only functionality" besides some gimmicks that rely on a permanent connection.

So basically, yeah, they could have had a simple sync-if-connected system and still be able to allow multiplayer as a secondary functionality that would require a permanent connection.

[Deleted]

Why is everything EA says a lie? Why can't they have done exactly what they said they did. Designed a game to be online only for the reasons they stated including ones they didn't like DRM.

EA have already stated all their new games will be online so they can provide an "ongoing content plan for keeping customers engaged", translated - they think they will be able to gouge more money out of people with online DLC, microtransactions, etc, than people who simply install once and only connect online once at start up for a piracy check.

Hence the technical merits (or otherwise) of whether an individual game needs to be online is irrelevant, it will be online as EA thinks it can make more money that way and why no one believes the rather weak excuses for a game like Sim City to be permanttly online when the EA boss has already stated games will be online regardless.

In regard to servers you are talking utter rubbish, a server will be handling many, many clients just like a web server does, relatively the server will have far inferior power compared to each individual client,.

[Edge-]

Stating they will look into it is saying that they are not opposed to an offline mode. It just isn't something they can do right away, hence why they have no intention of doing it in the near future.

Be real. They're not going to do it. They've had a massive backlash against it since it was announced. The Reddit AMA was mostly questions/complaints about the DRM (which they danced around), and they've gotten tons of negative feedback before the launch debacle. If stories are to be believed, those in the actual alpha/beta for it made a series of complaints about it as well.

They're not going to change it. They've already got the system in place, and it's DRM more than anything else. They're going to keep it as-is. She was simply saying that because they're in full damage control mode as they had 3 straight days of negative article after negative article in the gaming media (and making it to mainstream news sites too), and a massive backlash from consumers.

---------- Post added 2013-03-10 at 12:30 PM ----------

EA have already stated all their new games will be online so they can provide an "ongoing content plan for keeping customers engaged", translated - they think they will be able to gouge more money out of people with online DLC, microtransactions, etc, than people who simply install once and only connect online once at start up for a piracy check.

No, they've said they'll all have multiplayer. They didn't say online only. EA sees single player games as dead, as it's difficult to monetize the games in the longterm and to maintain player engagement. There's a difference.

[Deleted]

No, they've said they'll all have multiplayer. They didn't say online only. EA sees single player games as dead, as it's difficult to monetize the games in the longterm and to maintain player engagement. There's a difference.

Wrong, their boss specifically replied to single player games (in a clarification of his original statement):

""What I said was [about not greenlighting] anything that [doesn't have] an online service. You can have a very deep single-player game but it has to have an ongoing content plan for keeping customers engaged beyond what's on the initial disc. I'm not saying deathmatch must come to Mirror's Edge."

[Edge-]

Wrong, their boss specifically replied to single player games:

""What I said was [about not greenlighting] anything that [doesn't have] an online service. You can have a very deep single-player game but it has to have an ongoing content plan for keeping customers engaged beyond what's on the initial disc. I'm not saying deathmatch must come to Mirror's Edge."

That's not always on DRM. That's stating that a game needs to have an online component, there needs to be some form of co-op/multiplayer (see the shitty multiplayer in DS2, and the new co-op direction with DS3). He's got a point, that multiplayer games maintain longer levels of engagement from players, and are easier to monetize.

I'm perfectly fine with that, as long as games continue to have single player components as well. DS3 has that, you can play the game single player or co-op, it's up to you.