When Plaid Hat Games released Mice and Mystics last year, they quoted their best guess at a release date. It ended up slipping a couple months due to circumstances with shipping from China (weather and customs). Additionally, their fulfilment company ended up shipping out copies to retailers before pre-orders despite direct instructions not to. So between people getting copies from online retailers before some people got their preorders and the long delays, some fans got quite angry. It was all out of their control, real comedy of errors worst-case-scenario type stuff but the Mice and Mystics Forum on BGG was swamped with angry posts for about a month. Really sad too, because they're awesome people and were super transparent about what was going on.
Ooh yay, I just had the Kickstarter update e-mail saying about how shipping has started. Presumably it'll take overseas orders a bit longer to arrive than those who are over there in the US. I haven't had my shipping notification e-mail thingy yet, but hopefully soon :D.
Got an e-mail aswell, woohoo! Too bad it doesn't give an estimated delivery yet, but I think mine should be here by thursday since i'm not that far away. Can't wait to get it and adding more heroes, evironments and villians to the online game.
Oh - If I may ask - how far is "not that far away"? I'm in the Detroit area, and would love to have mine in time for my Thursday night game.
Do you think FedEx will pull through?
I placed an order last week that shipped late Monday. It made it to Houston, Tx by Thursday afternoon.
St. Louis is a four hour drive from where i'm at. It's mainly wishful thinking, since FedEx hasn't failed me yet!
Wensday March 6th, that is the day that Chrono-Ranger, Omnitron X, and The Scholar enter the ranks against Dreamer, Kismet, Miss Information, Le Capitan, and Iron Legacy (as well as Ambuscade since we couldn’t find him in stores and ordered him as a la carte)
By the way, I want to thank all the guys at GTG (and everyone asscociated with them) for such an amazing game. I can not wait to meet you guys in person in Augest at Gen Con in person. (I have been confirmed as a demoer, and will be there as Spite)
This is what makes me hate the Internet culture. Instant gratification and entitlement have become far to prevaliant. Like tonight, Simcity was supposed to be released at midnight eastern, a lot of people havent been able to get it yet. And everyone is going craaaazy on the EA forums.
But … why? Have some patience folks, and true EA is no transparency like the above example but like with Mice and and Mystics… how can you be mad when they freely tell you -were sorry! This is beyond our control!-
I don't want to derail this thread, but Sim City 5 is a very different situation because it was avoidable. You can't play single-player because EA insisted on an always-connected model for DRM reasons. The circumstances now are a direct result of poor choices made during development.
That's a very different situation than your game being a month late because of bad weather and random selection for increased scrutiny by customs.
Gorram typhoons...
Wait are these typhoons in Simcity, or the Real World?
Well if they were in Simcity they'd be a good thing, since it would at least mean that the game was working...
you do realize that half the simulation that simcity does is done server side? glass box wouldn’t work without the servers behind it. Also a lot of the global market affect things in your game. prices for selling resources through the trade hub buildings are simulated through an economic model based on all the players on the server. The always online isn’t a drm thing. It’s to make the game as realistic as possible to simulate and much of that can’t be done on a personal computer or with just one player. pirating this game won’t happen for a while not because of drm but because half of he game takes place on sservers that pirates won’t be able to access until someone figures out how to make a pirate server. and even then it will be like Wow pirate servers… Not the full content.
little off track there sorry 
.
anyways no its because the designers made a choice to provide the most realistic simulation possible and much of that could not be done without the online component, not because ea insisted on a drm. even if you play alone you’re not really. This is a mmo simulation even if you never actually direct see another person online
Wellp, this thread is fully derailed now, so I'm gonna hop in with both feet.
I do realize that much of the simulation is server-side, I'm simply unwilling to give EA benefit of the doubt that they have failed to earn in the past. I do not believe that modern computers would be unable to handle the simulation, and the connected markets seem largely superfluous. Maybe they're a neat feature, but there's no reason you couldn't have offline programmatically-determined markets if you choose to use an offline mode. That's all I really want: the option.
My main complaint is that the lack of even an OPTION for offline is incompatible with them acting in good faith to make the best game they can. We can go back and forth all day speculating on their intentions, but what it comes down to is this: if you care about consumer experience in a single player game, you offer at least the option for an offline mode. Period.
In any case, these issues have nothing to do with "I want it now" internet culture, and have everything to do with a healthy dose of suspicion when it comes to the motives of large publicly-traded corporations. This is a very different situation and even if they were acting in good faith, they still can't fall back on "We're sorry! This is beyond our control!" because the way they designed the game was within their control, and these issues were predictable because this is what always happens.
You could almost be talking about Blizzard there (Diablo III)...what is it with the big name companies doing this kind of stuff? No wonder I favour the little indy developers more now...
OKay so...
It really comes down to 2 things here 1) The Future of the Gaming Industry (and face it, Online play is where its at) and how Maxis/Ea/The Developers want to be part of that and 2) DRM
Now im not going to say EA probably wasnt overjoyed at the ability to put an always online DRM. Im sure their investors were estatic about it. To them, mostly a bunch of old guys with money looking to make more money, its a protection on their investment.
However the first part is whats important. Now personally, i dont care if its always online or not. If i get a queue or i get disconected, i go do something else. Its usually a sign i should be offline anyways. But i understand that is a personal aspect to a discussion that cares naught for what I personally feel about it (at least in that exampel)
I do believe however that the developers had a choice (when dealing with the first above) in either Working to Push the Edge or Toeing the Status Quo - and they chose to push the edge. Is it an unpopular decision? No doubt. Will it hurt hem in the long run? I doubt it. I predict Sim City will easily be one of the top selling games of the quarter, if not -the- top selling game (Heart of Swarm may edge it out, blizzard has a bigger following i think?) and I believe that the developers were wanting to push the edge.
10 years ago, when Steam was just getting its feet under iitself, people complained. They bitched. They moaned. they hated the concept and thought it was stupid - i have to be connected to steam to run my game? Man this sucks! I know, i was there. - And yes, steam has an offline mode, but the concept is still there, remember that
Today? Everyone bitches about Origins... because its not exactly like Steam. 10 years ago steam was pushing the bleeding edge of how games would be distributed. Today, its /expected/ that there will be a digital download available.
Time passes - the game industry - at least most of the major players, like Blizzard and EA - have made the choice to direct it toward always online games. Your always conected. You're always interacting. The best games will take a /huge/ advantage of this in visually and flashy ways. Did you play Dark Souls? You saw other players death scenes. You saw notes left behind by other players. Yes you chould choose to turn it off and play solo, but man half the fun was walking into a new area and seeing a sudden phantom image of someone getting their butt kicked, and knowing you're likely to do the exact same thing in a moment. Also, when i first realized that that message on the ground that said "Good Luck' or 'Beware ahead' was from another /player/ i thought it was one of the coolest things ever.
With SimCity Maxis and EA are making a statement - they believe offline mode and singleplayer is a thing of the past. Are they possibly a head of the curve and trend? Probably. Is it really going to hurt them to be on the ground floor? No, i dont think it is. in fact, they will already have more experience in it than most other companies which will give them an edge as it becomes more and more popular. 10 years from now they will be taking the most advantage of Always Online PLay, and other companies willbe struggling to catch up (Like how Steam wins the competition on the Digital Store idea, and Origins is trying to catch up)
As for Opening Day Queues and Distribution issues - yeah, they are well known blues for always online and digitally downloaded games. Are they going to be completely gone away? No. If you think about it, probably 75% of the initial player base (i made that up on the spot) will get the game right away. After a couple of days, will all 75% of those players be on at once? Helll no. Server load will be acceptable at that point. A few opening day blues is probably deemed acceptable for their checkbooks - will they loose a couple of naysayers? Possibly. Will it hurt their profits? No, those people already paid. (Is this right? Probably not. Is it a fact of business? Yes)
These are businesses. They have a bottom line to make, and whatever is going to give them the best return on their investments they are going to do. IF that means loosing a few customers, as long as what they lost isnt more than what they gained out of it, it might be worth it. Valve you know is a business too. Valve also has a hell of a better PR department than EA.
Anyway what Im saying is that they made decisions. They are pushing what they think is the future, and then they are protecting (and enhacning in the case of not having server load to cover the one time charge of the majority of their players on at once) their investment. It will cause naysayers and it will cause unpopularity - and it will seem a whole lot worse than it is because no one ever goes onto a games forum to say 'This is great! thanks!' rather they go to complain. In reality, once you get past the internet vitrol and overabundance and loudness of complainers, the game is still good, and still going to do well.
Now, if your principles say you should stand on the issue of offline play, then by all means - make your voice heard! But do so in a way that is not bashing the company, or trashing the developers (Not saying anyone here is, by the way, just making a point), rather do so in a way that is constructive and makes a valid point.
Or, vote with your feet.
I did vote with my feet. This is the first Sim City I've not bought. I don't disagree that online functions are important (and rad), I just think that offline functions are ALSO important. Your Demon's/Dark Souls example is perfect. The online stuff there is really cool. Also, I can elect to turn it off and my game still works if my internet is out for the weekend. For a game that I have to drop ~$60 on up front, this is the correct way to do it. If my internet goes out for the weekend or I want to play Diablo 3 on a flight, I'm boned, despite it being perfectly playable singleplayer. I feel like they're trying to have their cake and eat it too: charge me like it's a product but treat it like it's a service. I'm okay with either of those. I mean, I play subscription MMOs and I give money to Riot for League of Legends skins. I'm not opposed to games that are services. You just have to pick one because it can't be both.
Singleplayer will never be "a thing of the past," just like video games didn't replace board games. Sim City bears this out because the game is essentially singleplayer in the same way that Dark Souls is essentially singleplayer. It has some cool connectivity stuff but it's totally playable alone. Speculating as to the future instead of trying to make the best game you can make is folly. And trying to push an agenda about what what you want the future to look like to the detriment of your game and your players' experience is self-destructive.
Lastly, I will not sit here and watch you defend blatantly anti-consumer practices just because they're trying to make money. Of course they're trying to make money! I'm trying to get as much stuff for as little money as possible! Those are the natural roles we play when we buy and sell things. I understand WHY they do these things. That isn't the problem. I understand WHY people commit crimes but that doesn't mean I need to be happy about it. Blatantly anti-consumer practices SHOULD piss off consumers, because you're the one getting screwed. Trying to say it's okay and consumers shouldn't get angry is the same as saying that you shouldn't be angry when somebody steals your phone. The thief just wanted money, it's totally cool you guys.
You can make a totally valid argument that it's not actually anti-consumer. That's fair. I will continue to disagree, but I fully respect you for making it. What I cannot respect is the argument that it's okay for them to do bad things because they're just trying to make money.
I did put in there ' (Is this right? Probably not. Is it a fact of business? Yes) '
Anti consumer practices, as you put it, are pretty common in the world. And what one person believes is anti consumer isnt always such. Especially on the internet - what one person doesnt like, there are likely 10-20 people who dont care, do like, or are willing to ignore. Does that make it Right? not necessarily. Does that make it wrong? Again... not necessarily. Does that make it a PR nightmare? Probably.
What is good for business is oftne seen as anti consumer. But you can't lump it all in - you do not like the choice, and you do not like what your paying for (or not in this case)... how many hundreds of thousands of people are going to buy the game and be OK with it? Does that mean that it is anti consumer if its only the small, (Very vocal) minority that is against it? is it anti consumer if most people are willing to deal with it? If it -truely- is anti consumer, then it will play out in the money. The money always shows true in the end. If they make money, then in the end, enough people werew illing to accept it, and the majority of the mob always wins (doesnt make it /right/ but makes it accepted)
Im not saying its right or wrong. What im saying is that if the majority accept it, its going to pass, and its going to go on. I personally don't find it anti consumer - personally, im not in anyway against the loss of singleplayer for an always contected universe. Then again, im always connected. And if im not, I have books and Sentinels of the Multiverse XD. yes it does suck to not be able to play a game i purchased in those situations, but ive also worked hard to push myself away from the instant gratification and learn patience (Im not saying you arent - obviously when you purchase something you want to be able to use it in your way and your choice. Im just saying that I accept those downtimes as part of the process and am willing to put it aside and try again later.)
As for Purchasing a Product vrs a Service, i can somewhat understand this, but I really think that the world of computer programs is drifting away from that easy distinction between 'a game' and 'a subscription' - its all one piece. Some you pay for over time, some you pay for all at once and get a free subscription for ever more. I disagree that you have to pick to be either a Product or a Service - especially in the world where every day more things are getting a wireless connection. Is my view the only one? Hell no - i can see and understand your distinctions and respect them. But i dont have a problem with the loss of it.
i want to add
I don't begrudge your opinion. I can certainly undersetand it in entirety. You pay for a game you want to use it how you want to use it. I get that.
Its just my opinion that the drawbacks are worth the advancements, and I'm willing to work around them - and I think that the majority of gamers who will never post to a forum ... do as well.
Okay, one quick thing before my response. I'm making a two pronged argument here: I find EA's practices to be unethical, and I find them to be a bad deal as a consumer (when compared with the value I expect to get from a deal based on previous similar deals with EA and other companies). I do not care about speculation as to the way that things will go. That is immaterial to either of my arguments.
I agree that anti-consumer practices will eventually come show up in the money. This is why nobody spends $20 for a CD with one good song anymore. The problem with using that as an argument here is that it takes a long time for these things to shake out. If Sim City makes oodles of money, that doesn't actually mean that consumers find it to be a good deal. Certainly the people who preordered the game and have been denied service or access to the game they paid for don't find it to be a good deal right now and their money is already in the pot. Anti-consumer practices actually often net you more money in the short term. A decade from now we'll see where EA is at and then we'll actually have data to use for this.
The thing is that many things that are good for business are bad for consumers, and most things that are bad for consumers will be bad for business long-term. There really isn't any qualitative difference between what's good for business and what's anti-consumer. It's merely a quantitative difference. I'll admit I've been playing loose with that distinction because TBH I really don't see much of one. As a consumer I couldn't care less about what's good for the business, I care about what's good for me and I care about ethics. You will never sway me by explaining why they offered me a bad deal because it's still a bad deal.
I also agree that anti-consumer practices are common. Unethical stuff happens all the time. Subprime mortgage lending was unethical and a bad deal, but it still happend and it still made the corporations involved a mess of money. That doesn't mean people didn't get screwed, and it doesn't mean it wasn't wrong.
You say you're not claiming it's right or wrong, and I say that this discussion is inherently about right and wrong. If you make excuses without judgement, you are effectively judging them to be in the right.
As far as the product/service thing goes, I think that the market will not bear this sort of have-your-cake-and-eat-it-to thinking. With so many microtransaction-supported free-to-play games around it will be increasingly difficult to get away with charging $60 and then trying to also get people to spend additional money and tightly controlling the game on servers. I don't find this to be particulatly unethical, but I do find it to be a very bad deal, and I think most other consumers agree with me. This is separate from my opinion that tying a singleplayer game to a mandatory but transparently superfluous online component is both unethical and a bad deal.
Anyway, I want to thank you for having a super awesome, civil debate with me. That's rare in the internet and you've got a ton of respect from me for it.