Comment by UnoriginalGuy | Hacker News Reader

Comment by UnoriginalGuy | Hacker News Reader

SimCity's first free and optional DLC is a Nissan sponsored recharging station.

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.

> It is much more fun to see McDonalds on your little digital street than it is to see "Generic Burger House 10101."

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.

> 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.

As long as it's optional, I have no problem with it.

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?

Given that EA's Monopoly for the iPad has a built-in Prius to serve as one of the game pieces, I'd say not trusting them is wise.

The charging station seems more compelling than a small park if homeless people can't live in the charging station like they can at the park, which (unless it is bugged like everything else) supposedly decreases the impact of the park.

Your "argument" doesn't really do anything to address the fact that there is advertising in the game that I (hypothetically) paid for. This is just as obtrusive as all the other anti-features that are included. It doesn't matter that it's optional, the fact is I (didn't) pay for a game to be a advertising platform. Those resources could have been spent on making the game more stable. That is true whether I choose to use the feature or not.

> Your "argument" doesn't really do anything to address the fact that there is advertising in the game that I (hypothetically) paid for.

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.

>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.

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).

> That is not true in the slightest,

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.

> That is not true in the slightest, even if it were, it has nothing to do with this topic.

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.

I don't use those services and I have no obligation to provide you with proof.

>You'll need to cite something to show that that occurred.

See TFA. Remember, this game is always online.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com