Poll Results: Taking SimCity Offline

Last week we asked our readers if they believed that it really took EA Maxis six months of development time to change SimCity from an online-only game to an offline game that supported modding. The majority of you weren't buying EA's claim.

Around 79 percent of the 204 votes cast said that they did not believe that it took EA six months to develop SimCity to run in an offline mode. Only around 21 percent said that they believed the statement.

Personally, we're not sure what the truth really is, but we do applaud EA for finally acknowledging that offline play is a very important part of the SimCity experience.

Hopefully EA has learned a lesson and the next SimCity title – whenever it comes – will just skip the always-on requirement altogether.

Thanks to everyone who voted in last week's poll. Look for a new one later this week.

For a more in-depth discussion, check out the latest episode of the Super Podcast Action Committee.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    GrimCW says:

    I wouldn't say wide range of features. The worst of it was the trade and things that actually did involve other cities.

    The only thing people really looked toward was the offline, and the local save issue.

    Local save issue should've been an easy one, as should the offline as proven by the hackers.  The other things could be a bit bigger issue overall, but could've been added in subsequent patches over time, or only in part to encourage the online play that the company wanted in the first place.

    But taking so long either means they went the whole nine, or they were blowing hot air. Only way to know is to get it into the players hands at this point.

  2. 0
    Technogeek says:

    They got a version of offline working that was lacking a wide range of features, including the ability to save your game. Going from that to a feature-complete offline mode that works well enough to be worth releasing…well, the ninety-ninety rule seems applicable here.

  3. 0
    Michael Chandra says:

    I'd prefer if you didn't throw blanket remarks around to diminish what people with different opinions say. You don't know a thing about who all voted here, so applying fallacies is nothing but contempt and unbecoming.

  4. 0
    Infophile says:

    Whether it did or didn't take them that long, I voted for that option because I don't believe they needed six months. They might well have assigned exactly one or two people to it, though, resulting in it taking this long, but they could have gotten it done much faster if they cared about the customer experience at all. Plus, they haven't exactly engendered trust in me after all the ways they've been proven to have lied about why it's online-only.

  5. 0
    Technogeek says:

    It's possible, but there's no way to be sure that adding more would have made things any faster. Heck, it's entirely possible that it took six months BECAUSE they pulled in people from other projects who were unfamiliar with the code base, and that caused more of a delay than would have existed had they just stuck with one or two people who were already familiar.

  6. 0
    Neo_DrKefka says:

    I’ve always said way back in 98 if teens in their basement can properly emulate Final Fantasy V and VI then a big
    company with an entire team should have no trouble.

Leave a Reply