So, "Cities Skylines" has been released. While it's hounded by a
number of niggling issues - as is usual for a game developed by a
small developer - overall the reviews are pretty favorable. I expect
that over the next few weeks or months most of the problems reported
by early-adopters will be patched out, and we'll have a new 'best city
builder' game on the market.

I've no intent on buying it, though.

It's not that I don't enjoy a good city-builder. I've been playing
them since SimCity* and have been enjoying them ever since. Arguably,
I was 'city-building' even before that, since one of the greatest joys
I get from table-top gaming was world-building... and drawing detailed
city-maps was always one of the best parts. I've kept playing
city-builders ever since, and am a huge fan of the original "City
Skylines".

Yet the sequel holds little appeal to me.

The why is quite simple: Paradox (the publisher) has alienated me with
its nickel-and-diming with the release of too many DLC packs.** As
much fun as their games are - and don't take it the wrong way, I
really appreciate the detail and support Paradox puts into their games
- it's just too much. While the base game is incredibly satisfying,
there's always this fear of missing out if you don't get all the DLC.
It's a never-ending rollercoaster of more and more purchases as you
try to keep up. Many of the DLC are worth it, but even with the best I
can't help but wonder: shouldn't this have been part of the base game?
And with some DLC I am boggled that they're even charging for the
content at all, it's so pointless.

Worse, when the inevitable sequel comes out, I know Paradox isn't
going to include all the features of the original+DLC and then build
up from there; no, it's back to square one so they can milk the
players a second time.

This, of course, isn't a problem unique to Paradox Interactive (it's
basically how EA funds its entire "Sims" line, for example). But this
trend only makes me less and less enthralled with new games. And with
"Skylines", its made me decide to avoid the game altogether. As good
as I expect this game to be (after the inevitable fixes), the DLC
rollercoaster is just too annoying for me to want to ride it again.

And the original "Skylines" still is an excellent game.

* in fact, I first encountered the game on a Macintosh, and it almost
convinced me to switch over to Macs from PC. Fortunately, the lack of
"Ultima" games on the Macintosh platform prevented that calamity ;-)

** This isn't solely a problem with the "Cities: Skylines" games;
Paradox does it with /all/ their titles. But I don't quite enjoy those
other games as much as I do "Skylines", so it doesn't affect me as
much.

On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 19:33:25 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>The why is quite simple: Paradox (the publisher) has alienated me with
>its nickel-and-diming with the release of too many DLC packs.** As
>much fun as their games are - and don't take it the wrong way, I
>really appreciate the detail and support Paradox puts into their games
>- it's just too much. While the base game is incredibly satisfying,
>there's always this fear of missing out if you don't get all the DLC.
>It's a never-ending rollercoaster of more and more purchases as you
>try to keep up. Many of the DLC are worth it, but even with the best I
>can't help but wonder: shouldn't this have been part of the base game?
>And with some DLC I am boggled that they're even charging for the
>content at all, it's so pointless.

Honestly, at this point I think the base game + DLC system is what is
keeping the initial purchase prices artificially low. BG3, for instance,
is easily worth twice its price. I would pay it. I've already gotten 100
hours out of it, first run. (cf: A 10-15 hour start-to-finish shooter.)
Multiplayer is a different deal though and you can really get as much
value out of a shooter if you're into MP.

But in the case of C:SL II, this really is more like a model train set,
where it is legitimate to buy an oval, gather interest, and go for that
extra track, the bigger layout, and/or the improved engine with oil based
steam coming out its stack.

If you think about it like that, it's really quite reasonable.

But with your "gotta get 'em all" style, I can see that becoming a
problem. If you can't abide having less than everything, you're clearly
making the right choice.

How would you treat this if it was a model train set?

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

Not my genre too.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

> So, "Cities Skylines" has been released. While it's hounded by a
> number of niggling issues - as is usual for a game developed by a
> small developer - overall the reviews are pretty favorable. I expect
> that over the next few weeks or months most of the problems reported
> by early-adopters will be patched out, and we'll have a new 'best city
> builder' game on the market.

> I've no intent on buying it, though.

> It's not that I don't enjoy a good city-builder. I've been playing
> them since SimCity* and have been enjoying them ever since. Arguably,
> I was 'city-building' even before that, since one of the greatest joys
> I get from table-top gaming was world-building... and drawing detailed
> city-maps was always one of the best parts. I've kept playing
> city-builders ever since, and am a huge fan of the original "City
> Skylines".

> Yet the sequel holds little appeal to me.

> The why is quite simple: Paradox (the publisher) has alienated me with
> its nickel-and-diming with the release of too many DLC packs.** As
> much fun as their games are - and don't take it the wrong way, I
> really appreciate the detail and support Paradox puts into their games
> - it's just too much. While the base game is incredibly satisfying,
> there's always this fear of missing out if you don't get all the DLC.
> It's a never-ending rollercoaster of more and more purchases as you
> try to keep up. Many of the DLC are worth it, but even with the best I
> can't help but wonder: shouldn't this have been part of the base game?
> And with some DLC I am boggled that they're even charging for the
> content at all, it's so pointless.

> Worse, when the inevitable sequel comes out, I know Paradox isn't
> going to include all the features of the original+DLC and then build
> up from there; no, it's back to square one so they can milk the
> players a second time.

> This, of course, isn't a problem unique to Paradox Interactive (it's
> basically how EA funds its entire "Sims" line, for example). But this
> trend only makes me less and less enthralled with new games. And with
> "Skylines", its made me decide to avoid the game altogether. As good
> as I expect this game to be (after the inevitable fixes), the DLC
> rollercoaster is just too annoying for me to want to ride it again.

> And the original "Skylines" still is an excellent game.

> * in fact, I first encountered the game on a Macintosh, and it almost
> convinced me to switch over to Macs from PC. Fortunately, the lack of
> "Ultima" games on the Macintosh platform prevented that calamity ;-)

> ** This isn't solely a problem with the "Cities: Skylines" games;
> Paradox does it with /all/ their titles. But I don't quite enjoy those
> other games as much as I do "Skylines", so it doesn't affect me as
> much.

--
"Your statutes stand firm; holiness adorns your house for endless days, O Lord." --Psalm 93:5. A decade already after hibernating after a somewhat slammy humpy day. Mo deaths. :( Quiet Th.?
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 19:33:25 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>So, "Cities Skylines" has been released. While it's hounded by a
>number of niggling issues - as is usual for a game developed by a
>small developer - overall the reviews are pretty favorable. I expect
>that over the next few weeks or months most of the problems reported
>by early-adopters will be patched out, and we'll have a new 'best city
>builder' game on the market.
>
>I've no intent on buying it, though.
>
>It's not that I don't enjoy a good city-builder. I've been playing
>them since SimCity* and have been enjoying them ever since. Arguably,
>I was 'city-building' even before that, since one of the greatest joys
>I get from table-top gaming was world-building... and drawing detailed
>city-maps was always one of the best parts. I've kept playing
>city-builders ever since, and am a huge fan of the original "City
>Skylines".
>
>Yet the sequel holds little appeal to me.
>
>The why is quite simple: Paradox (the publisher) has alienated me with
>its nickel-and-diming with the release of too many DLC packs.** As
>much fun as their games are - and don't take it the wrong way, I
>really appreciate the detail and support Paradox puts into their games
>- it's just too much. While the base game is incredibly satisfying,
>there's always this fear of missing out if you don't get all the DLC.
>It's a never-ending rollercoaster of more and more purchases as you
>try to keep up. Many of the DLC are worth it, but even with the best I
>can't help but wonder: shouldn't this have been part of the base game?
>And with some DLC I am boggled that they're even charging for the
>content at all, it's so pointless.
>
>Worse, when the inevitable sequel comes out, I know Paradox isn't
>going to include all the features of the original+DLC and then build
>up from there; no, it's back to square one so they can milk the
>players a second time.
>
>This, of course, isn't a problem unique to Paradox Interactive (it's
>basically how EA funds its entire "Sims" line, for example). But this
>trend only makes me less and less enthralled with new games. And with
>"Skylines", its made me decide to avoid the game altogether. As good
>as I expect this game to be (after the inevitable fixes), the DLC
>rollercoaster is just too annoying for me to want to ride it again.
>
>And the original "Skylines" still is an excellent game.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> * in fact, I first encountered the game on a Macintosh, and it almost
>convinced me to switch over to Macs from PC. Fortunately, the lack of
>"Ultima" games on the Macintosh platform prevented that calamity ;-)
>
>** This isn't solely a problem with the "Cities: Skylines" games;
>Paradox does it with /all/ their titles. But I don't quite enjoy those
>other games as much as I do "Skylines", so it doesn't affect me as
>much.

*--

Yeah, reviews say lots of problems with it running. I was probably
going to buy it but not after reading them. However, I still have the
original and never played it! :-)

-pw

On 26/10/2023 00:33, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> The why is quite simple: Paradox (the publisher) has alienated me with
> its nickel-and-diming with the release of too many DLC packs.** As much
> fun as their games are - and don't take it the wrong way, I really
> appreciate the detail and support Paradox puts into their games - it's
> just too much. While the base game is incredibly satisfying, there's
> always this fear of missing out if you don't get all the DLC. It's a
> never-ending rollercoaster of more and more purchases as you try to keep
> up. Many of the DLC are worth it, but even with the best I can't help
> but wonder: shouldn't this have been part of the base game? And with
> some DLC I am boggled that they're even charging for the content at all,
> it's so pointless.

I don't entirely agree as for me there's a difference between releasing
some DLC to a fully playable base game and throwing the phycological
warfare kitchen sink at a game even though you know that is exploitative
of players with certain behaviour character traits*.

Another way of saying it is as long as it doesn't cross the line of
here's something which we think you'll enjoy as a game experience so
take it or leave and it into FOMO and the like.

Saying that having a quick look at the Steam page it does feel that CS:2
has either got close to the line or crossed it as they already have an
Ultimate edition which includes DLC and a season pass.

*This is one of the big problems I have with games dev's, they know full
well the link (correlation not causality only been shown so far) between
problem gambling and the mechanisms they put in their own games but they
go ahead and do it anyway and call it surprise mechanics.

>Yeah, reviews say lots of problems with it running. I was probably
>going to buy it but not after reading them. However, I still have the
>original and never played it! :-)
>
>-pw

Exactly this.

I own the original but have not played it yet. And after the reviews
for this game, there is no way I am buying this now, if ever.

Reviews all point out the same two problems with this game. It runs
like ass and it looks like ass.

No thanks.

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 13:12:35 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, Mike
S. wrote:

>>Yeah, reviews say lots of problems with it running. I was probably
>>going to buy it but not after reading them. However, I still have the
>>original and never played it! :-)
>>
>>-pw
>
>Exactly this.
>
>I own the original but have not played it yet. And after the reviews
>for this game, there is no way I am buying this now, if ever.
>
>Reviews all point out the same two problems with this game. It runs
>like ass and it looks like ass.
>
Wait what? Is it a nice looking ass? Now I'm reconsidering.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten