Comments on: The Talk Of The Town: Jerome Gastaldi Interview

By: ZC77

ZC77 — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:49:19 +0000

bleh…when i first found out about this game(when it was cities unlimited) i was extremely optimistic, but since then i have dwittled away from it. too much online involvement. not enough singleplayer. if MC wanted a game that people would love then they should of sat down with a copy of SC4 deluxe and started there.

Its not like its a game that still sells millions and has since its start 7 years or so ago…no…not at all….

By: Warren

Warren — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:42:43 +0000

Jarvoll, you are not alone in wanting a more complex Sim City 4. I get the impression that our taste is not common, and the stuff that we’d prefer may differ as well.

There is hope for Cities XL and our tastes. Monte Cristo software has encouraged the city-simulation geek community to comment on the development of Cities XL since at least September, 2007. The main annoyance of Sim City 4, its overreliance on a grid, never affected CityLife, Cities XL’s predecessor. So I’m optimistic.

By: no

no — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 20:59:35 +0000

Oh, wow. I’ve been excited for this game for awhile now, but had no idea it wasn’t just a “pay for the box and enjoy the game” title. If I’d have known it was a “pay for various chunks of content and extra rather than just pay $50 for the game and maybe a few bucks a month for some solid MMO style play”, I probably would have lost interest long ago.

Meh.

By: DCF

DCF — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 19:32:21 +0000

Okay, a clarification:
I have closely followed the development of this game from the time the working title was ‘Cities Unlimited’ (around 2 years ago)
My information is not available ‘out of a two-liner’ but rather derived out of all information over those two years, much of which was lost when they switched to the new website a week ago, conveniently scrapping a forum which was being filled with some very critical messages…

And consider there still is an ongoing beta test – protected by the NDA – but on multiple websites (like Simtropolis) there are rumours that something is a-brewing among testers.

By: Wackee

Wackee — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 16:22:03 +0000

It’s fascinating to see, how much people can read out of a two-liner (that is badly translated from the french version) on the official website.

By: DCF

DCF — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 11:19:49 +0000

The single player will only have buses, no other public transportation.
In fact, it seems the single player side is stripped from many things to ‘gently’ force people to the Online subsciption.
Number of maps, blueprints, new buildings, ‘region-like’ play and maybe more will only be available (and only online?) to subscribers as long as the have their subscription.

With this subscription you will be paying for features still under development – like mass transit, which probably won’t even be available yet at release. Like buying a book and paying for every subsequent page that hasn’t been written yet..

And Monte Cristo has stated that any user generated content will have to be integrated into the game by MC, essentially forfeiting rights of the custom content developer in favour of MC while this content might only be made available to subscribers (uncertain about this, but a realistic possibility).

And let’s not forget the GEM’s. It is not unthinkable that you are able to get public transportation for SP later on through a GEM.
However, you will have to pay for extra content after release to have a ‘full’ game.

By: cliffski

cliffski — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:27:31 +0000

I had to register 3 times to actually get an account, just to try the demo. It flatly refused to email any address at my domain name.
Not a great start. I’m hoping the actual game far surpasses the competence of the marketing of it.

By: lumpi

lumpi — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:28:00 +0000

“The single player will not have public transportation.”

Are you sure, Jimbo? That’s exactly the kind of thing I was skeptical about. I assume they would have to lock a lot of even basic features into the subscription offer to make it attractive. I would say that a ca. SimCity 4 style simulation for SP is my minimum requirement for even considering to pick the game up (obviously because I already have SC4 :D ).

The demo is restricted from so many angles (population-cap, building-type cap, 7 day self-destruction) that I have a hard time finding something positive about it, since it is basically SC4 with the parts where it usually starts getting fun cut out.

If the single-price version is really just a teaser for the subscription model, I will pass.

By: Cheeetar

Cheeetar — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 08:46:02 +0000

How would I contact the team? I screwed up the registration somehow and I have no idea what my login name is.

By: jarvoll

jarvoll — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 03:55:05 +0000

Apparently I’m still the only person in the world who thought SC4 was half as complex and intricate as it could/ought to have been.

I love the genre, so this is definitely a wait-and-see, but reports of poor demo-age and a fixed fear of subscription models and games that try to force me to talk to other people (I’m gaming to get AWAY from people, not interact with them more) will keep me cautiously pessimistic until I see evidence to the contrary. :\

By: Jimbo

Jimbo — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 01:25:03 +0000

A lot of the gameplay answers given are no longer entirely accurate, but the payment model is (currently) still the same. No subs for single player, £4-£7 per month (depending on how many you buy) for the multiplayer ‘Planet Offer’, which is your inter-city trading, monthly content updates, competitions etc.

The ‘GEMs’ are essentially ‘Ski Slope Tycoon’ or ‘Beach Tycoon’ which will snap on to the game and then feed back into your city – they will be sold seperately and you get a 35% discount on them if you are paying subscription.

Note that ‘new features like public transportation’ is listed as a Planet Offer feature on their new website. Read into that what you will. No I’ll do the math for you – the single player will not have public transportation.

Personally, I don’t think they should have turned their nose up at microtransactions so readily. I think in some certain cases it may be more palatable than a not-insignificant subscription fee. As nicely demonstrated by the poster above me. They should concentrate on player numbers and then make their money by selling content to those players.

By: luminosity

luminosity — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 00:15:18 +0000

Hmm.. subscriptions seems a deeply weird choice. I can’t imagine that the bandwidth/storage costs for a game like this would be expensive, and they already have a revenue model in the ‘gems’.

If the game were subfree I’d pay up front for a box, and be willing to pay for the odd gem that took my fancy, but a sub chases me away. It doesn’t seem the sort of game I’d want to play all the time, which is surely what you want with a sub? More the sort of game I’d come back to every few weeks to tweak my city, and check out what new things I could do.

Oh well, scratch this then.