SimCity’s first post-release DLC is a Nissan ad
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
Is it DLC? Yes. Is it a sponsored piece of DLC? Yes. Does it 1:1 replace a small park? Yes (in terms of in-game cost, and all other functionality).
Basically it is an in-game park re-skinned as a Nissan Leaf re-charging station. Given away for free to those who purposely go and download it from EA's web-site, and then purposely build it in their city.
Oh the horror?
Plus SimCity is one of those games that broadly speaking benefits from real establishments and real brands appearing in the game. It is much more fun to see McDonalds on your little digital street than it is to see "Generic Burger House 10101."
This whole article and the people that whining about this are just looking for any reason to beat up EA/Maxis. This is not a valid reason.
There are tons of valid reasons: The broken game, the small city sizes, their misleading remarks (e.g. always on DRM), amongst other things. People are misfiring here.
I beg to differ.
I loved SC2000. I would have purchased this SimCity right away had it not required DRM or constant online connection.
But after seeing the first McDonalds or other licensed or paid-placement crap show up in the game I would have never played it again.
You mean the optional "paid-placement crap" that you have to purposely go download and then purposely build within your city?
That isn't at all rational. Tons of games have had sponsored promotional items, World of Warcraft's Mountain Dew thing for one very large scale example.
But just like WoW's Mountain Dew thing this too is entirely optional.
Do I expect EA to be able to resist the urge to try to slip this crap in with other parts of the game? Do you?
Actually it completely addresses that point.
The advertising is OPTIONAL. If you don't want it in the game you "paid for" then don't install it.
What part of that don't you understand? Don't want it? Don't install it.
> This is just as obtrusive as all the other anti-features that are included.
Something you have to manually go to EA's web-site, download, and then manually build in your city is "intrusive?" What?
> It doesn't matter that it's optional, the fact is I (didn't) pay for a game to be a advertising platform.
But you do pay for the internet, cable TV, Netflix, Hulu Plus, going to the movie theatre, buying DVDs/BluRays, and many MANY other things which essentially open you up to be advertised to.
The fact that it is opt-in actually makes it less invasive than many of the things I listed. Most of those aren't opt-in and aren't avoidable without piracy.
That is not true in the slightest, even if it were, it has nothing to do with this topic. besides you still really haven't addressed the issue directly. Instead you're just attacking those who are complaining.
The fact remains that the money spent on entertainment was diverted into fund raising, diluting the product. This is a breach of the trust I place (hahaha) in EA. It shows me that my interests are not their interests and I should avoid doing business with them. They aren't spending money on making new entertaining experiences (obviously).
I don't see how this isn't true. Care to back up your statement of fact with evidence.
> The fact remains that the money spent on entertainment was diverted into fund raising, diluting the product.
Or, none of the money you spent on the game was placed into the development of this DLC, because it was entirely sponsored by Nissan. Hell, for all we know, this DLC was Nissan's idea to begin with.
> It shows me that my interests are not their interests and I should avoid doing business with them.
Of all the recent EA drama over the years, this is one of the few things which is probably the least indicative of such a thing.
> They aren't spending money on making new entertaining experiences (obviously).
This isn't obvious. They spent millions of dollars building a game which, other than the DRM drama, has been fairly well-received, and is considered by many to be entertaining.
Sure it does.
You said:
> It doesn't matter that it's optional, the fact is I (didn't) pay for a game to be a advertising platform.
So I raised other examples where you would be "paying to be advertised to." If you're paying for any one of them or any other example which I'll name as needed, your point is incorrect since you would, in fact, pay to see adverts.
> besides you still really haven't addressed the issue directly
I directly addressed your issue head on twice. I pointed out that it is free, and opt-in. That addresses your issue. Your issue is you don't want to pay money and then get advertised to, so "fine," I say and then point out that that isn't what is going on here - twice.
> Instead you're just attacking those who are complaining.
I haven't attacked anyone in this thread. I have brought up facts that counter people's points. I might be attacking their argument but I am not attacking people on a personal level.
That's what you do in a discussion or debate. One person makes a statement, either the other person agrees with that statement and consensus has been reached, or they disagree and then that person needs to make a statement which counters the original statement.
That is what is going on here. You said some things, I said some things which counter your points, and now you counter my points until consensus has been reached.
> The fact remains that the money spent on entertainment was diverted into fund raising, diluting the product.
You'll need to cite something to show that that occurred.
>You'll need to cite something to show that that occurred.
See TFA. Remember, this game is always online.
It is solar powered.
It is identical to parks in terms of how it functions.
Oh that's good that it sounds authentic, because cities all across the world must get enough solar power to charge electric cars without pulling from the power grid all day long, right?
However, I agree with the promoted comment on the site, they are pushed advertising over fixing serious issues with the game, or at least that's how it appears.
> The stations will generate more power than the cars need, which means Tesla will sell power back to the grid.
It is literally a park. Do parks not play by the rules?
This is far more prominent than if Mattel made a particular kind of Hot Wheels car. Also keep in mind that downloadable content has been the promised road forward for straightening up a lot of the mess that SimCity has been-- and so for this to be the first downloadable content is a bit of a slap in the face to already crestfallen customers.
http://www.reddit.com/r/SimCity/comments/1bm74h/90_of_my_car...
One, I've heard it said that EA has a fairly weak corporate identity overall. They are pretty much a conglomerate of other companies and EA itself isn't known for anything interesting. Some people think this helps them get away with more shenanigans than they would if they had a stronger identity.
Two, ironically a significant problem is that games are art. Just as with, say, music or television shows or what-have-you games are not commodities. Deciding to forgo playing a specific game and substituting playing another game is a similar prospect to listening to a different musician and very much different from choosing a different grocery store to shop at or fueling up with a different brand of gasoline. This makes it harder for competition in the marketplace to drive out bad anti-consumer behavior, as it might otherwise. In a sense each game publisher has a monopoly over the IP they release.
Even publicly-traded companies can choose to pursue long-term goals over short-term profit. Autodesk is rumored to be setting up a subsidiary that blends profit and non-profit motives, and plenty of companies have done other acts that are not in their short-term interests.
[1] Shlensky v. Wrigley, 95 Ill. App. 2d 173 (1968).
If, instead of succeeding, Ben & Jerry's had joined the ranks of the many other failed food retailers wouldn't the corporate officers have faced the potential of shareholder lawsuits for having blatantly "turning down good business deals" along the way?
See: Berkshire Hathaway, Apple, Facebook, Costco, Procter & Gamble (raising dividends every year for 55 straight years, try that with short term thinking) and a very long list of other companies
When Activision thinly disguised their DRM by calling Diablo 3 an MMO, it was a notable and large step for the industry in the direction of removing value rather than adding it in order to accomplish an objective. If anything, I wish the backlash was much harsher, enough to convince EA not to do the same thing with SimCity.
It may be disproportionate to the case at hand, real brands may be actually appropriate in a game of this type. I prefer that door remain firmly closed, rather than opened with some cause and later reopened with none at all. EA has a very bad track record. Having brands in SimCity would only add to the immersion of the experience if they were all over place, which EA couldn't do if they wanted to.
For example, a user-mod to add a set of real-world Cold War era firearms to Counter-Strike is different than Bushmaster paying to have a prototype rifle that has zero recoil, automatic firing, and instagib armor-piercing ammo.
The deeper problem is that SimCity is being presented as a relatively serious simulation. The mechanics of the game are intended to represent an approximation of the real world. People will learn about how the world works through playing the game--I know that I learned about zoning and traffic engineering and a whole host of urban problems through the original SimCity. And so did a lot of other people.
In fact, a lot of people recognized early on that SimCity had the potential to educate and influence a lot of people. It's even been criticized on the ground that it limits the ways that the various problems can be approached, for example disallowing alternate methods of taxation to completely replace property tax. (Ian Bogost has argued that the best way to deal with this is procedural literacy, that is, learning to critically read a game system like we would a book or a film.)
Introducing a magic electric car recharging station isn't just a tasteless ad. It's deliberate propaganda. Even if you support the cause (more electric cars) the way the system works subverts the basic mechanics of the game. This isn't like Maxis adding the recycling centers to SimCity 3000, or the way that nuclear power has always been risky since the first SimCity. Don't forget, this isn't just any electric car, this is a "Nissan LEAF(R)". Players who play the game with this DLC will be subjected to the continual message that adding a Nissan(TM) charging station to their city makes everything better, with no downsides. That may be an agreeable message if it gets us more electric cars, but it subverts the basic urban simulation model in service of propaganda. Imagine if it was, say, Shell or BP doing this with a regular filling station. Or McDonalds. And you'll note that Tesla doesn't have a SimCity recharging station...
Even players who see through the transparent propaganda will be influenced by it, in the same way that advertizing always influences our behavior, even when we realize that it is having an effect on us.
And for the subset of the player who might be skeptical about electric cars, this building also won't help. Because the building has no downsides, what happens when the player learns more about the real world and realizes that there are, in fact, problems that such a building would create (like drawing down a lot more power than just the solar panels can provide). Disillusionment is bad for advocacy. The resulting cynicism won't just sour them on Nissan, it'll sour them on electric cars in general.
If they had created a more balanced building (or even a whole system of electric cars and public transportation) supported by Nissan as an in-game ad it would be less disturbing, because it would fit with the system and be a less transparent cash-in. (On the other hand, there's something to be said for the blatant transparency, since at least it's blindingly obvious propaganda.)