Dev post about forthcoming article has been deleted...

[TUXs]

my point is, it is a feature of the game, it may not be a feature they ultimately care about, but is still a core function of the game that they wanted to deliver for an overall experience. If EA said well we can deliver you half or 3/4 of the game offline as you get online for the same price people would complain. So instead of offering a different game experience offline as you get online they said, there is technical limitations to deliver an offline version of the game, why, because a portion of the game would not function in offline mode as it would online.

 

If people never play multiplayer aspects of a game, can they demand an offline version (diablo 3 for example) that you can play only part of, and then claim they are lying when they say no, its technically difficult to offer the same game experience offline as you do online?

Of course it's a different experience offline...who doesn't understand that? I think the people who were looking for an offline version, understood that all online features would be disabled. Nobody expects offline games to function just like online games...nobody.

[DOHboy]

Why would they have ported an online feature to an offline version?

 

there wasn't, it was all just "the game" there was no online/offline feature. it was 100% of the game they developed. If you only cared about 90% of it, thats up to the player, but to then expect an "offline" version of the game to include only the 90% they play an ignore the rest is stupid.

 

so lets say they did port the game, and claim You can now play the game offline...well actually no they can only play 90% of the game offline, so people who want that extra 10% are thus required to still play online and thus "lied to" when they want to play 100% of the game offline.

[Kaizersan]

there wasn't, it was all just "the game" there was no online/offline feature. it was 100% of the game they developed. If you only cared about 90% of it, thats up to the player, but to then expect an "offline" version of the game to include only the 90% they play an ignore the rest is stupid.

 

so lets say they did port the game, and claim You can now play the game offline...well actually no they can only play 90% of the game offline, so people who want that extra 10% are thus required to still play online and thus "lied to" when they want to play 100% of the game offline.

 

No one cared about that city to city deal had they announced the game without it the sales response would have been the same no one bought that game because it had the city to city feature they bought it to build their own city.

[azudelphi]

Why would they have ported an online feature to an offline version?

 

My understanding of the online version that was launched: when you created a region, it was the nature of the Online-based architecture that allowed each city to communicate its state to the other cities within that region (the region being cloud-based).

 

If I understand the hacked version correctly, it shut off that intra-region communication in order to create a single-city game; which granted played similarly.

 

But Maxis, in order to create an offline version of the game, to truly port their online version would have to re-create the intra-city communication in a non-cloud based functionality. Hence, my statement regarding a full vs partial port.

No one cared about that city to city deal had they announced the game without it the sales response would have been the same no one bought that game because it had the city to city feature they bought it to build their own city.

Wrong. Intra-regional communication existed in Sim City 4 (granted a crude "on exit city" form)... it was expected for any form of regional based city structure.

Edited August 24, 2015 by azudelphi

[znihilist]

You can't really compare the 2 as Sim City pretty much everything it takes to run the game is all on the client side where as with SWTOR a majority of what it takes to run the game is server side.

 

Not much actually, basically loot tables and few other things are on the server, almost everything else is client side.

[TUXs]

there wasn't, it was all just "the game" there was no online/offline feature. it was 100% of the game they developed. If you only cared about 90% of it, thats up to the player, but to then expect an "offline" version of the game to include only the 90% they play an ignore the rest is stupid.

 

so lets say they did port the game, and claim You can now play the game offline...well actually no they can only play 90% of the game offline, so people who want that extra 10% are thus required to still play online and thus "lied to" when they want to play 100% of the game offline.

Oh, so you mean an offline version would have been absent of the online features? That's your argument...

[Kaizersan]

Wrong. Intra-regional communication existed in Sim City 4 (granted a crude "on exit city" form)... it was expected for any form of regional based city structure.

 

How is what I said wrong no care about it and no one bought it for that reason is it is very correct.

[azudelphi]

How is what I said wrong no care about it and no one bought it for that reason is it is very correct.

I don't care about your preference... we're talking about the market as a whole.

[Kaizersan]

I don't care about your preference... we're talking about the market as a whole.

 

Has nothing to do with my preference it has to do with that the majority of sim city players preference is that they didn't care about it hence the reason they forced them to make it offline with a lot of them using the mods to take it offline until then.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Kaizersan

[DOHboy]

Of course it's a different experience offline...who doesn't understand that? I think the people who were looking for an offline version, understood that all online features would be disabled. Nobody expects offline games to function just like online games...nobody.

 

but see thats the problem. EA wanted a game that had a more complex regional experience with intra-city communication. To do that required online play, that is the game THEY wanted to deliver. So to ask them for an offline game is essentially asking them to remove that portion of the game and deliver something other than what they wanted to deliver.

 

The offline game would not be the same game they delivered. So saying "make the game, as you believe it to be" offline. The answer is, "we can't there are portions of the game that require online functionality". The problem is what they really wanted was "make the game, the portion WE want to play anyway" offline.

 

Ask Disney to take out Epcot because some people don't' like it...however, it wouldn't' be Disneyland without it.

[TUXs]

but see thats the problem. EA wanted a game that had a more complex regional experience with intra-city communication. To do that required online play, that is the game THEY wanted to deliver. So to ask them for an offline game is essentially asking them to remove that portion of the game and deliver something other than what they wanted to deliver.

 

The offline game would not be the same game they delivered. So saying "make the game, as you believe it to be" offline. The answer is, "we can't there are portions of the game that require online functionality". The problem is what they really wanted was "make the game, the portion WE want to play anyway" offline.

 

Ask Disney to take out Epcot because some people don't' like it...however, it wouldn't' be Disneyland without it.

Right. An offline version would be void of online features. You can phrase it any way you want DOH, but that's all you're really saying.

[Kaizersan]

but see thats the problem. EA wanted a game that had a more complex regional experience with intra-city communication. To do that required online play, that is the game THEY wanted to deliver. So to ask them for an offline game is essentially asking them to remove that portion of the game and deliver something other than what they wanted to deliver.

 

The offline game would not be the same game they delivered. So saying "make the game, as you believe it to be" offline. The answer is, "we can't there are portions of the game that require online functionality". The problem is what they really wanted was "make the game, the portion WE want to play anyway" offline.

 

Ask Disney to take out Epcot because some people don't' like it...however, it wouldn't' be Disneyland without it.

 

That's Disney World that has the Epcot center and those are 2 vastly different things as the removal of Epcot would cost Disney a lot of money given the size of it they would close down a large section of the park costing them even more money.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Kaizersan

[DOHboy]

Oh, so you mean an offline version would have been absent of the online features? That's your argument...

 

no my argument is, the offline game would NOT be the same game they wanted to deliver. If they wanted to build a simple city building simulator they would have and could have been offline.

 

However, their vision of the game was a multi-connected regional system where each city talked to its neighbors within a global economy where you city was part of a much larger community. This version (their vision) required an online presence to give a sense of a much large game world.

 

Right or wrong that is what they intended. What people wanted was the former, what they got was the latter. Demanding the former while still matching their original vision required massive changes.

[azudelphi]

Has nothing to do with my preference it has to do with that the majority of sim city players preference is that they didn't care about it hence the reason they forced them to make it offline with a lot of them using the mods to take it offline until then.

You're wrong.

 

They ported the regional intra-city communication to Single Player: Sim City: Official Single Player Page

Right. An offline version would be void of online features. You can phrase it any way you want DOH, but that's all you're really saying.

He's saying that the intra-city communication feature was developed as an online structure; which in order to make a fully functional offline version would have to be re-done (or ported, whatever term... I don't care)

Edited August 24, 2015 by azudelphi

[Kaizersan]

You're wrong.

 

They ported the regional intra-city communication to Single Player: Sim City: Official Single Player Page

 

Still not wrong they ported it because the developers wanted to not because the fans wanted it those are 2 very different things.

[TUXs]

no my argument is, the offline game would NOT be the same game they wanted to deliver. If they wanted to build a simple city building simulator they would have and could have been offline.

We're in total agreement on the first part DOH. Obviously it would be slightly different than what they wanted...it would have been what their customers wanted.

[azudelphi]

Still not wrong they ported it because the developers wanted to not because the fans wanted it those are 2 very different things.

I. Don't. Care.

 

The fact is... partial port vs full port. And you have basically conceded it would have been a partial port. If you want to discuss the positives or negatives of SimCity (5), then go to their forums.

[Kaizersan]

I. Don't. Care.

 

The fact is... partial port vs full port. And you have basically conceded it would have been a partial port. If you want to discuss the positives or negatives of SimCity (5), then go to their forums.

 

No it would have just been the game that the customers were asking for in the 1st place no more no less.

[azudelphi]

We're in total agreement on the first part DOH. Obviously it would be slightly different than what they wanted...it would have been what their customers wanted.

Region building was a desired feature.

 

They went a cloud-based multiplayer route probably in response to Cities XL.

[Khiriath]

Just a question. Call it a redirect. How did we get from talking about whether there would be new FPs at launch of the expac, and whether BW was intentionally lying to its investors regarding the SWTOR market, to discussing SimCity?

 

And what relevance does it have, especially as Maxis, the subidiary and studio behind the SimCIty problem is now gone because of said foul up.

[DOHboy]

We're in total agreement on the first part DOH. Obviously it would be slightly different than what they wanted...it would have been what their customers wanted.

 

And thats the point, to deliver the same type of game offline as it was online, required significant changes. And couldn't be called the same game, to do so would be confusing to customers and people wanting to purchase the game.

 

I don't disagree that some customers wanted only some of the game. I firmly believe that SimCity and SWTOR are a bit alike in what some of their customers "demand"

 

many on this game ONLY wanted kotor 3, but unfortunately bioware and EA didn't want to make a KOTOR3 they wanted a fully more in depth multiplayer RPG.

 

so we can complain and demand that they make an offline version of SWTOR (which some actually have) and when the devs come back and claim they can't and some haxor goes and makes an offline version. Can we also claim they are lying?

[azudelphi]

No it would have just been the game that the customers were asking for in the 1st place no more no less.

Let me repeat: I don't care.

Seriously. Your initial point that I responded to was the integrity of the game studio. The very premise that made them "liars" you have admitted was merely a matter of preferences. I don't care about preferences. Especially not yours. All signs point to it being accurate to say that moving the cloud-based structure of the intra-regional data to a local structure would take time and resources.

[TUXs]

Just a question. Call it a redirect. How did we get from talking about whether there would be new FPs at launch of the expac, and whether BW was intentionally lying to its investors regarding the SWTOR market, to discussing SimCity?

 

And what relevance does it have, especially as Maxis, the subidiary and studio behind the SimCIty problem is now gone because of said foul up.

It's how people get threads closed that they don't want open. They redirect and redirect until the mods shut it down.

[DOHboy]

Just a question. Call it a redirect. How did we get from talking about whether there would be new FPs at launch of the expac, and whether BW was intentionally lying to its investors regarding the SWTOR market, to discussing SimCity?

 

And what relevance does it have, especially as Maxis, the subsidiary and studio behind the SimCIty problem is now gone because of said foul up.

 

yes it has gone wildly off topic.

welcome to the SWTOR General discussion forums.

[Khiriath]

It wasn't just the DDOS that they were going on about it was also about the numerous bugs in the game too.

 

Doesn't make it any less a frivolous lawsuit.

 

Yes EA believed from their market research athat Battlefield was going to do well. It has some snags at launch and never did well as they had expected. It went the way of Pepsi Clear, Pepsi Konah, and Pepsi Blue. That doesn't mean that EA intentionally sought to deceive their investors. As another poster stated the suit was thrown out, refiled with some changes and thrown out again.

In the end it was decided that EA had operated in good faith.

However, you are claiming that specific claims made to investors about the current player base, and BW/EA's metrics surrounding that are being intentionally falsified in order to hype the game and the expac. That would be criminal behavior. Such a suit, given adequate evidence, would not be thrown out.