Hi all,
I'm contacting you all because I would like to organize an online meeting where we would share different points on how potentially we could start talking about Custom Content for CITIES XL. I know that this website is "devoted" :P to SC4 custom content but I heard that many players would love to see custom content from the community in the game we are working on.
As it would just be a total mess if we started to talk about it publicly and all together, I would like to invite all team representatives that would potentially like to work on such custom content to send me a private message so we could organize a meeting all together on Skype or on TeamSpeak.
Let me know if it is something you would like to see happening. If not, I would definitivelly understand your position and I would ask you to accept my apologies to disturb this great forum ;)
Cheers,
Philippe
Philippe, hey- no worries. Discussion of custom content is never OT here, and I'm sure that are many folks who would be interested in sharing experiences in the SC4 CC world for the benefit of folks doing the city simulations to come. Also, don't worry about mentioning CITIES XL here: just because we're Devoted doesn't mean we're cut off from reality. I can't think of anyone I know who doesn't wish Monte Cristo and CITIES XL all the best- and being able to talk with one of the movers and shakers about the things we hold dear is assuredly a good thing.
Let me know what you'd envision in terms of doing this, and we'll be delighted to figure something out.
David
I'd be up for a Skype meeting (if my computer can do it); if not to discuss CitiesXL custom content, then just meeting the several participants.
Unfortunately my English is much better in writing than in speech (I speak English only at work a few times a month), so taking part in the online meeting could be too demanding for me. However I find the Cities XL development very interesting and I would be interested in sharing some of my thoughts and eventually help with making future city simulations even better.
I was thinking about writing something on the Cities XL site, but after reading some articles I was not sure if it would be good to illustrate my point of view by my own SC4 experiences - I was afraid it could be understood as "self-promotion" or something similar. I would be most satisfied if some SC4 players would be interested in sharing their thoughts in a well-ordered and efficient way. It would be a pleasure to take part in such discussion.
If anybody wants, please contact with me via PM.
Adam
hey phillipe
I would really like to take part in a conversation about CXL CC：）
ＩＲＣ is always a good way to go, especialy for text based chat.
Joe
Interesting, recently I've wanted to find out more about the way you make your models (box modelling etc), this would be great
Unfortunately, I dislike using Skype or TeamSpeak for personal reasons, but it'd be nice to have some sort of a forum page here at SC4D where we can talk about things relating to CitiesXL.
What I've seen from CitiesXL is quite prommising. I believe I saw on ST a link of a forum about a custom interchange maker and some more things, so I think there'll be custom content for CXL.
I would love to make custom content for the Transport area of the game(if that's possible, from what I've seen so far there won't be any need for Transit mod), if I am wanted :)
Although I would probably not be allowed to use voice chat, so I don't know.
Jonthan
It's so nice to see a game developer actively engaging and asking for input...especially where content is concerned. I would agree however to do this in public would end up with a huge "I want list" and loads of "I can do this" posts...what people have to remember is this is a commercial product with real deadlines and because this community is multi-cultural based in countries with various laws etc, IP rights, credits and all other sorts of legal stuff would just be a nightmare for Monte Cristo to try and administer.
I would hope the discussion was more about how MC will enable us to add our own content once the game is complete, with allowable access to their proprietary file formats etc and methods for getting rendered models into the game.
Ok guys, I've been getting some troubles connecting to the forums so I couldn't get back to you on your replies.
From my perspective the goal of this discussion is really to take people from different horizons but sharing the same aspects of creating custom content for SC4 and see how this could be applied to CITIES XL. We have some points we would like to share with you and see how this could fit with artists willing to enter in such CITIES XL environment.
I'll let a week or so to know who would be interested and therefore organize an online event to chat for an hour or so on these points.
See you soon,
Philippe
On behalf of the community, I apologize that you had connection problems, Phillipe. We've just upgraded our forum software, so the site has been down for a while now. But things are back up and running now, thank goodness! :D
Having a meet like this would be absolutely wonderful. Unfortunately, I haven't gotten into custom content except for my extensive LE works, but it's exciting to know that our best LEX contributors will be able to talk to you to ensure wonderful custom content being integrated into the game!
Thanks for being so involved in the community, Phillipe! We all very much appreciate it.
Ok guys, here I am again ;D
I really want to organize this online meeting. So, I rather have a small group of people on a Skype conference and talk about the different points on potentially building custom content for CITIES XL.
I think most of you are spread over North America so I'll pick a good time for your timezone.
Let's make a first suggestion:
Next Thursday 25th September at 12h00 Central Time (US & Canada).
Anyone would be there? &mmm
central US time = GMT-6? If so, that's 6 a.m. for us europeans. I'm sorry, but I'll have to pass. &mmm
Quote from: dasilva on September 18, 2008, 06:33:38 AM
I think most of you are spread over North America so I'll pick a good time for your timezone.
Actually, I think that at least 40 % of all SD4D members are from Europe, so it's probably better to pick a time around 6 PM UTC (GMT). :)
I agree as there is no way I am awake enough at 6am to have a sensible discussion.
I have to agree, albeit I'm probably awake at 6 am, I have to get ready for school at that moment, so I'll have to pass as well. I enjoy the fact that the development team is trying to get the community involved tho.
12h00 in US&Canada means 6 pm for most europeans if 12 does not mean midnight
of course 6pm, seems I calculated in the wrong direction :-[ sorry
Quote from: mrtnrln on August 25, 2008, 02:48:49 AM
What I've seen from CitiesXL is quite prommising. I believe I saw on ST a link of a forum about a custom interchange maker and some more things, so I think there'll be custom content for CXL.
lol, that is my thread. ;D
Sorry to bump this thread as of 2 days but maybe a Mod program could be realesed or something like Lot Editor and BAt would be wonderful.
Something way off-topic but about CXL: I saw in one of the blogs something like SC4 Mapper, is it part of the game or is it an extra tool??
Quote from: dasilva on September 18, 2008, 06:33:38 AM
Next Thursday 25th September at 12h00 Central Time (US & Canada).
Anyone would be there? &mmm
Sorry, I would love to come (then I can post about it in my thread mentioned above. :P) but I can't... &mmm
-un1
It seems like it would be the right day and time to start this discussion.
The only thing is that I don't want to leave my Skype contact details in a public forum (I'm sure you'll understand ::)).
I was thinking we could first meet up in an online text chat somewhere and I would communicate you Skype details. Once done, I would start a conference with you.
Does SC4devotion owns its own text chat software or should we use another one like the Simtropolis one?
Thanks,
P.S. : Any help from community board members to organize this online meeting would be highly appreciated :thumbsup:
SC4Devotion does not have a chat room so the details would have to passed by either PM or the ST chat room. I would suggest PM as it is more secure than ST chat.
Quote from: BarbyW on September 22, 2008, 02:20:56 AM
SC4Devotion does not have a chat room so the details would have to passed by either PM or the ST chat room. I would suggest PM as it is more secure than ST chat.
I would steer well clear of the ST chat room...full of juveniles posting "w00t". It's a good way to make your eyes bleed.
Or Jeroni could set up a private board here...A permanent record in the form of a forum board would be a good back-reference. Failing that, why not use MSNM? Most of us have that (I have a deep aversion to Skype).
You can also open an IRC chan
There is an IRC channel set up here:
http://embed.mibbit.com/?server=irc.freenode.net&channel=%23sc4d
;) (me accidently premepted the need for one XD
also I have compiled some ideas about Plugin management on my user page on the wiki here:
http://wiki.sc4devotion.com/index.php/User:JoeST/CCC
this was built on something a guy called Romaq wrote something on CitiesXL's boards
Joe
Hi guys,
My only issue with text chat based discussions is that we won't get that fast... That's why I suggested Skype for its VOIP support ;)
Now, if we can't use it I would rather go for the IRC channel mentionned by JoeST.
I think the resistance was to using ST chat to start things off. Personally I would prefer a Skype conference as it is easier to say things and faster than typing.
I'd like to take part on this.. but seriously.. i really hate speaking English.. i'm rubbish at it... I'm ok with writing it, but speaking it is rather...embarrasing so to say... Can't we use IRC or something similar? Also my mic has gone bugger all... :D
I would certainly plan to participate, as there are a number of issues I would hope to see discussed, but I'll be in the air over the North Pacific at that time (Anchorage to Seattle). Phillipe, as you know I've already posted a list of the questions over at the CITIES XL website [linkie] that are of interest to, I believe, many in the SC4 community as to what the game will have to offer. For convenience sake, and in the hope that they might raise some discussion at Thursday's get-together, I'll repost them here.
1. Will CXL offer to the user community tools, such as SC4's Building Architect Tool ("BAT") and Lot Editor, so that individual game purchasers can develop custom content?
2. If the answer to question 1. is "yes," will the user community be free (meaning no interference, oversight, royalty charges or other regulation by Monte Cristo ("MC")) to create independent fansite exchanges of custom content such as those on SC4 fansites such as SC4Devotion or Simtropolis?*
3. Will CXL's code be written in such a way as to allow, like much of the coding of SC4, user community "modding" of many fundamental aspects of the game, such as has been done for SC4 with the development of the Network Add-on Mod ("NAM"), tree and fauna controllers and the various terrain mods (i.e. Columbus Terrain, Missouri Breaks Terrain)?*
4. If the answer to question 3. is "yes," will the user community be free (in the same sense as in question 2.) to develop and share such mods on independent CXL fansites?
5. Will CXL allow for reasonably unconstrained terrain creation by the single-player with tools such as the "God Mode" tools available in SC4?
6. Will CXL in single-player mode allow region-based play such as that offered in SC4?.
I see all but question 6. as being very relevant to to the issue of MODding the game.
I'm also hoping there would be a transcript produced for posting here, perhaps in a special thread set up for that purpose, in order to facilitate extended discussion. I very much would have wished to participate, and hope that there will be further opportunities.
David
* Consistent, of course, with observation of MC's intellectual property rights.
I already started making low poly models for the game, I followed the video on the Citiex XL website. The Brenntian Palace of Art over at Simtropolis is a Cities XL model, I just need to sort out the texture files and redo the chimneys.
Oh and Call, please keep your ST opinions to yourself ;)
A problem I have had with skype is that it relays all the data throught the host. So once your over 5 people say, you can only host if you have a TBps fiber line :P. and I am willing to participate but have not much to say, as I have not made custom content successfully yet $%Grinno$%. I do have one question:
Is Monte Cristo going to help us when it comes to building our own tools and getting our heads round the file structures. As I seem to remember that the modding gods took a good while figuring out at the start.
Joe
Quote from: Tonksie on September 23, 2008, 09:35:12 AM
Oh and Call, please keep your ST opinions to yourself ;)
Shant :P :P
Ok, so instead of a voice chat, I'll be on the IRC room pointed by JoeST tomorrow at noon CET (US & Canada) or 18:00 GMT+1 to discuss with you on the custom content.
I hope we'll be enough to cover all the real issues that could come up with custom content and CITIES XL :-[
I guess once people are there they can exchange skype nicks and such.
I will do my utter best to be there, but I got quite some homework glooming around the corner, so I'm still uncertain.
I shall be there at 18:00 French Time.
19:00 EST (I live in the EST).
I'll be there! ;D
Nevermind that, I just remembered my family is going on a camping trip... :(
-un1
I'll also be there as much as I can if that's alright?
EDIT: That is if I have got the time right and it will be at 5pm GMT(15mins)?
Jonathan
I hopefully be there, just because I want to talk with someone ;D
Seriously, you can expect me to be there! I can't wait to talk about that game :P
I'm kinda curious, can the people involved in the discussion talk about it?
The main thing I want to know if you all got a positive or negative feeling about it. :)
Again, just curious. ;)
It was a friendly and interesting conversation indeed :thumbsup:
No many conclusions yet ;)
Baa, stupid having to work. Would love to get into that conversation :'( Can't wait to hear about this "interesting conversation" $%#Ninj2
Below is the transcript from the Chat with Philippe da Silva four days ago.
Everybody involved has approved to let us post it here.
Let me first of all thank Philippe for initiating this discussion,
and for letting us bring forward some of our ideas and concerns.
At this stage this discussion must be seen as the first step forward regarding Custom Content production for Cities XL.
No decisions have been made based on it, and nothing said must be taken as either promises or denials.
Further discussion will certainly still be needed.
People taking part in the discussion were (rougly in order of appearance):
- Philippe da Silva (PhilippeCitiesXL)
- Joe (JoeST)
- Shaun (Diggis)
- Barby (BarbyW)
- Richard (Zero7)
- Tage (RippleJet)
- Piotr (Sheep49)
- Jonathan (Warrior)
- Glenni (Glenni)
- Lee (Callagrafx)
- Jeroni (Jeronij)
- Pat (plfd648_pat)
- Fred (freedo50)
- Adam (Ennedi)
All timestamps are UK DST (GMT+1).
Quote from: #sc4d.log
17:01 < PhilippeCitiesXL> So, in order to introduce this meeting, I think it would be better for everyone to introduce him/herself so I know who is who as you may already know each other
17:01 -!- zero7 [i=4f45a87d@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-bfbb3214f8cc6622] has joined #sc4d
17:01 < PhilippeCitiesXL> I start
17:02 -!- callagrafx [i=5686d735@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-0b76c0cde24da137] has quit [Client Quit]
17:02 < PhilippeCitiesXL> I'm Philippe Da Silva, Internet Director at Monte Cristo and working on the web side of things for CITIES XL
17:02 < diggis> I'm Shaun from New Zealand, living in London, known as diggis
17:02 < barbyw> I'm Barbara Winterton of BSC. I don't BAT but I do lot and mod.
17:03 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Hi Diggis
17:03 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Hi Barbara
17:03 < RippleJet> I'm Tage Lindfors, naval architect, living on Åland, known for making some modding...
17:03 < RippleJet> Åland is in Finland :P
17:03 < barbyw> I live in Brittany.
17:03 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Oh, and I live in Paris, France ;)
17:03 < zero7> I'm Richard Pluck - long time producer of BAT buildings. I'm in the UK
17:03 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Hi Richard
17:03 < Sheep49> I'm Piotr from Poland, live in Gdynia, I'm known as Sheep49
17:03 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Hi Piotr
17:04 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Piotr, I love Krakovia
17:04 < Warrior> I'm Jonathan (Jon) a member of the NAM Team, I live in England and go to school
17:04 < barbyw> Hi Rich
17:04 < zero7> Hi Barby
17:04 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Hi Jon
17:04 < Sheep49> hi everyone
17:04 < RippleJet> Hi everyone :)
17:04 -!- callagrafx [i=5686d735@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-74fe78466e963d76] has joined #sc4d
17:04 < PhilippeCitiesXL> ok, I think everyone introduced imself except Glenni :P
17:04 < Glenni> i'm writing the sentance already:P
17:05 < RippleJet> lol
17:05 < diggis> ohh blue
17:05 < Sheep49> lol
17:05 < callagrafx> Sorry about that....Bloody Windows got a virus, had to switch back to Mac
17:05 < Sheep49> ok
17:05 < PhilippeCitiesXL> I first want to thank you all for being here
17:05 < Glenni> I'm Glenn Ruben, I've been making BATs for the past 3 years, now part of NDEX;)
17:05 < PhilippeCitiesXL> It's always great to talk about what we are doing with CITIES XL and I know you may have a lot of questions
17:05 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Hi Glenn
17:06 < Glenni> and i'm a bit of an ammateur not exactly a proffesion, so to say, strictly a hobby in my spare time.
17:06 < PhilippeCitiesXL> In order to organize ourselves for this meeting, I'll lead the discussions and I would appreciate if you could make a RAISE HAND when willing to talk
17:06 < diggis> a what?
17:06 < callagrafx> que?
17:06 < PhilippeCitiesXL> RAISE HAVE
17:06 < PhilippeCitiesXL> SOrry
17:06 < PhilippeCitiesXL> RAISE HAND
17:06 < diggis> just write that?
17:06 < PhilippeCitiesXL> When you want to talk yes
17:07 < callagrafx> ok
17:07 < PhilippeCitiesXL> thanks
17:07 < Glenni> allrighty
17:07 < PhilippeCitiesXL> So, the main topic today
17:07 < PhilippeCitiesXL> is
17:07 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Custom Content and CITIES XL
17:07 < PhilippeCitiesXL> :)
17:07 < PhilippeCitiesXL> We all know that SimCity 4 is still around thanks for all the great job modders and batters have been doing
17:08 < PhilippeCitiesXL> And reported to players thanks to the great community websites such as sc4devotion and Simtrop to name only those two
17:08 < PhilippeCitiesXL> With SIMCITY 4, you had to get into the deep analysis of binary files so to understand how you could mod the game
17:08 < PhilippeCitiesXL> And you had a few editors to bat your buildings for the game
17:09 < PhilippeCitiesXL> As a start, I would like to ask you all a question:
17:09 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Who didn't read the blog entry we made recently about Isabella's House?
17:09 < RippleJet> RAISE HAND I didn't
17:09 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND nor me
17:10 < diggis> RAISE HAND ummm... me, to be honest I haven't followed any development
17:10 < barbyw> RAISE HAND I didn't
17:10 < Warrior> RAISE HAND I skimmed over it
17:10 < Sheep49> RAISE HAND I didn't see it
17:10 < PhilippeCitiesXL> ok
17:11 < PhilippeCitiesXL> I really invite you all to read it as you will see the overall principles behind modeling and texturing a building for CITIES XL
17:11 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Let me copy past the url
17:11 < PhilippeCitiesXL> http://www.citiesxl.com/index.php?/content/view/36/1/lang,en/
17:11 < PhilippeCitiesXL> You should definitivelly have a look at it so to understand what is behind it
17:12 < PhilippeCitiesXL> At Monte Cristo, we are not against having custom content on CITIES XL
17:12 < barbyw> RAISE HAND I am reading it now
17:12 < PhilippeCitiesXL> However, what you used to do with SimCity 4 won't necessarly work with CITIES XL
17:12 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND so I am I...so the main principle will be detail done with normal mapping...we're talking very low poly models, correct?
17:13 < PhilippeCitiesXL> cal: we are talking about low poly models
17:13 < PhilippeCitiesXL> yes
17:13 < PhilippeCitiesXL> We have 4 LODs (level of details)
17:13 < PhilippeCitiesXL> the biggest is around 1000 polys
17:13 < zero7> RAISE HAND Yes, there are clear differences between the high poly modelling in SC4 compered to the low poly modelling in CXL
17:13 < PhilippeCitiesXL> the 4th one is around 100
17:14 < PhilippeCitiesXL> There are a lot of technics to get high poly renders to low poly textures
17:14 < PhilippeCitiesXL> but you may have to learn them in order to produce custom content for the game
17:14 < Glenni> RAISE HAND, i think you can get some rather decent models in this game, despite the fact that the models won't be as detailed as in sc4 though.
17:14 < diggis> RAISE HAND so we have to manually create all 4 levels?
17:15 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Glenni: Yes
17:15 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Diggis: yes
17:15 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND actually Richard no, the models used in SC4 are even lower....but with XL the buildings will have to look very detailed but with very few polys....bit of a challenge but can't see a problem. Using 3DS Max Phillipe?
17:15 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Internally, our artists take around 5 dedicated full days to create one building from scratch
17:15 < Glenni> RAISE HAND, does it matter which version of max you use?
17:15 < PhilippeCitiesXL> cal: yes we do use 3DSMax
17:16 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Glenni: it does in a sense because we developed our tools and exporters for the game on only one version
17:16 < Glenni> RAISE HAND; which particular version are we talking about then?
17:16 < PhilippeCitiesXL> However, this is not a final statement as our export format is XML based which could allows us or some other programmers to develop exporters for other 3D software
17:17 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Glenni: 2008
17:17 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND Chris Adams has done a lot of work re-engineering those scripts Glenni
17:17 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND You've custom written an export Plugin Phillipe?
17:17 < PhilippeCitiesXL> So, we are opened to other 3d software if someone in the community would want to do so
17:17 < PhilippeCitiesXL> cal: yes
17:17 < PhilippeCitiesXL> so that it matches our texture and shader requirements in the game
17:18 < JoeST> RAISE HAND hey, sorry bout me not actually being her
17:18 < JoeST> here*
17:18 < PhilippeCitiesXL> ok
17:18 < PhilippeCitiesXL> So, each building in CITIES XL is divided into the following content:
17:18 < PhilippeCitiesXL> A. 4 models low poly (1000 to 100)
17:18 < Glenni> RAISE HAND, is it possible that you could make these scripts compatible with the older versions of 3DSmax though, like say 9.0 or even 7.0?
17:18 < PhilippeCitiesXL> B. One diffuse texture
17:19 < PhilippeCitiesXL> C. One ambient texture
17:19 < PhilippeCitiesXL> D. One lightmap texture
17:19 < Warrior> RAISE HAND Would the exporter take the high poly model and create lower poly models for you or would you have to do it manually?
17:19 < PhilippeCitiesXL> E. One normal map texture
17:19 < PhilippeCitiesXL> F. One Specular map texture
17:19 < PhilippeCitiesXL> and a few other textures for some more details
17:19 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND: Question? Why use so many lights in a scene when 4 photometrics would do the same?
17:20 < Glenni> RAISE HAND, as for normal maps, would we maybe get some tutorials on these? i know what they are of,r but quite frankly i have made nor edited one.
17:20 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Glenni: we won't make this but we could imagine to share our xml file definition to have other programmers working on it
17:20 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Warrior: Models are built manually
17:20 < Glenni> never made*
17:20 -!- CasperVg [n=CasperVg@78-21-12-254.access.telenet.be] has left #sc4d []
17:21 < PhilippeCitiesXL> cal: I'm sorry, but I'm not a graphics expert and the art pipeline is the responsability of Florent (Art Director of the game). I may ask him someday this question
17:21 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Glenni: On normal map tutorials, I don't know if we will have time to help you out on that
17:21 < PhilippeCitiesXL> So
17:22 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND ok, just a thought. Glenni, there are plenty of tutorials out there to help. It's not up to MC to teach us how to model :-P
17:22 < PhilippeCitiesXL> just to sumarize, I think you now have a better view on the differences between creating a building for CITIES XL and SC4
17:22 < PhilippeCitiesXL> It's important that you understand that on your side for the sake of the conversation
17:23 < PhilippeCitiesXL> :)
17:23 < diggis> RAISE HAND: When you said building, do you actually mean a whole Lot? Thats the impression I get from the link you provided
17:23 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND the principles are the same, the difference is the final result. The big issue is the modding aspect I think
17:23 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Diggis: The building and the lot are two different things
17:23 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Diggis: I was talking about the Building itself
17:23 < zero7> RAISE HAND The key for me is getting from a model to a working game object
17:24 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Cal: Mostly but you have much more work because of the different textures
17:24 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Zero7: You are right, we are now getting into the second part of the discussion:
17:24 < Glenni> RAIS HAND, are the "lots" bult like in city life? And will they be editable as with the building editor that came with City Life Deluxe for instance?
17:24 < PhilippeCitiesXL> So
17:24 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Once buildings are modelled, we have to place them on lots
17:25 < zero7> RAISE HAND Also which game objects can be customised vehicles, roads etc.
17:25 < PhilippeCitiesXL> We have inner tools that are not suitable for release as they are really made for internal usage ;)
17:25 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Quite complicated to be honest
17:25 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Moreover, we merge two things into the building editor we have:
17:25 < JoeST> RAISE HAND are you going to help the community make their own tools?
17:26 < PhilippeCitiesXL> 1. Take art assets and place them in lots
17:26 < PhilippeCitiesXL> 2. Associate Game level design elements on them so they act in the game and simulation
17:26 < PhilippeCitiesXL> JoeST: we will help if it makes sense to... If we can spend time we'll do, for sure
17:26 < PhilippeCitiesXL> It depends on many points
17:27 < PhilippeCitiesXL> The Level Design of buildings
17:27 < PhilippeCitiesXL> is made internally by our teams
17:27 < diggis> LOWERS HAND: Right, sorry I can't stay, but it's 5:30 in London and that = Pub. Good luck all. :P
17:27 < PhilippeCitiesXL> cheers diggis
17:27 < PhilippeCitiesXL> ok
17:28 < PhilippeCitiesXL> So, on the Building Editor, we put all the tags required for the game to use as well as the properties
17:28 < PhilippeCitiesXL> We also place some dummy points for the trafic system, and other animations
17:28 < RippleJet> RAISE HAND So there will be no way for us to mod the properties ourselves?
17:28 < PhilippeCitiesXL> So that we have cars getting out and in houses our buildings as well as pedestrians
17:29 < PhilippeCitiesXL> RippleJet: that's not going to happen and I'll explain why
17:29 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND Sorry, it does make sense to provide us with the necessary tools...Maxis figured that out and SC4 is still for sale in shops.
17:29 < PhilippeCitiesXL> 1. We have an online side of the game and we need to make sure we have a good control of the buildings that are on the online game to avoid cheating
17:29 < PhilippeCitiesXL> cal: I never said we won't do it, I said we may do it
17:29 < barbyw> RAISE HAND: so it appears that the answer to David's question: "Will CXL offer to the user community tools, such as SC4's Building Architect Tool ("BAT") and Lot Editor, so that individual game purchasers can develop custom content?" is No
17:30 -!- diggis [i=522c7f54@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-9643f6bdc409072c] has quit ["http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client"]
17:30 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Barb: not necessarly
17:30 < PhilippeCitiesXL> However, we cannot give you full control on the building properties
17:30 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Let me explain you what we would like to achieve
17:30 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Ideally
17:31 < PhilippeCitiesXL> We would like players willing to go on the Custom Content creation to have the right tools (provided by us and other dedicated community members) to create Art Assets
17:32 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Once those assets are made, we would take them and place them in our level design pipeline with YOUR recommendations as how they should react in the Sim
17:32 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND: Without full control, how can we add content that fits in-game? We submit it to MC for inclusion? So you want control of all content made for CXL? Do you realise the sheer volume of work you're opening yoursleves up for?
17:32 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Then, we would take care of its distribution to players throught our website and our dispatcher system that allows players to download and manage their buildings
17:33 < PhilippeCitiesXL> cal: Yes we do
17:33 < PhilippeCitiesXL> cal: But there is no other way around
17:33 < zero7> RAISE HAND Given how quickly the LEX and more particularly the STEX move that will create a massive bottleneck and need for contant resource from MOnte CRisto
17:33 < PhilippeCitiesXL> We need to have a good control on it for two main reasons:
17:33 < Warrior> RAISE HAND So we can not make custom content and then play with it in game before it has gone through MC?
17:34 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND How do we test stuff then? Quality is a big issue for a lot of us
17:34 < zero7> RAISE HAND Surely a better way would be to restrict the online game to certified content - so MC just act as a quality filter. Leave the offline game free as SC4 is
17:34 < PhilippeCitiesXL> cal: you'd have a viewer that would show you the end result of the building
17:34 < PhilippeCitiesXL> in the game engine
17:35 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Zero7: it's not that easy
17:35 < PhilippeCitiesXL> there are a lot of concerns on the technical side especially on the fact that we would have to manage the loading of both types of buildings
17:35 < PhilippeCitiesXL> So
17:36 < Sheep49> RAISE HAND: Sorry. I have to go to the psychologian now ;) Thanks for explaining a lot to us
17:36 < Sheep49> Have a nice day all
17:36 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Custom Buildings is definitivelly possible and we also want to help the community to spread it to players by having a shared content system
17:36 < PhilippeCitiesXL> By Sheep
17:36 < PhilippeCitiesXL> and thanks for being here ;)
17:36 -!- Sheep49 [n=Sheep49@acrq190.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl] has quit ["Leaving"]
17:37 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND ok, that would make sense....however I have to tell you that the current SC4 community would probably not develop content for CXL based on these parameters. Only a small proportion create the models, others like Warrior and Ripplejet play with the "engine"
17:37 < PhilippeCitiesXL> We need to maintain level design properties for game consistency
17:37 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND We're pretty good at that already, as we;
17:37 < PhilippeCitiesXL> cal: On the engine, or say modding, that is something we haven't look at to be honest
17:38 < callagrafx> 've improved SC4 beyond anything Maxis could have imagined
17:38 < PhilippeCitiesXL> I know cal you are, I've seen what you've done with the NAM
17:38 < barbyw> RAISE HAND: will the user community be free (meaning no interference, oversight, royalty charges or other regulation by Monte Cristo ("MC")) to create independent fansite exchanges of custom content such as those on SC4 fansites such as SC4Devotion or Simtropolis?
17:38 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Barb: I cannot tell you that for now
17:39 -!- jeronij [i=5801bbb4@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-b01158cc04ca30b8] has joined #sc4d
17:39 < PhilippeCitiesXL> But I have a big surprise for our website birthday
17:39 < PhilippeCitiesXL> :)
17:39 < PhilippeCitiesXL> We don't want players to be forced to pay anything for custom content
17:40 < PhilippeCitiesXL> So, to sum up things:
17:40 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND We've never charged for content and we cannot without breaking the EULA
17:40 < PhilippeCitiesXL> cal: yes
17:40 < PhilippeCitiesXL> By the way
17:40 < jeronij> hello to all
17:40 < PhilippeCitiesXL> May I ask you all a question?
17:40 < PhilippeCitiesXL> hi Jeronij
17:40 < jeronij> just arrived ;)
17:40 < PhilippeCitiesXL> thanks for joining
17:40 < barbyw> RAISE HAND: hello Jeroni
17:41 < jeronij> I'lll sit and listen until I get the main idea ;)
17:41 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND Ola
17:41 < RippleJet> RAISE HAND I suppose you will be restricting yourself to a certain number of standard buildings in that case?
17:41 < RippleJet> RAISE HAND Jeroni, say RAISE HAND if you want to talk lol
17:41 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Jeronij: can I thank you so much for the great custom content you brought to my own SC4 installation?
17:42 < PhilippeCitiesXL> RippleJet: No, we want players to develop whatever building they want for the game
17:42 < jeronij> Really ?? .... it is always great to know that people enjoys my CC ???
17:42 < RippleJet> RAISE HAND Ok, so a commercial office with a subway station and a functional medical clinic on the first floor would be fully possible?
17:42 < PhilippeCitiesXL> RippleJet: yes
17:43 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND lol Don't forget the helipda
17:43 < callagrafx> *helipad
17:43 < PhilippeCitiesXL> However, you would have to state us what you would like the building to be on their function
17:43 < PhilippeCitiesXL> And then, we would simply apply ourselves the required properties
17:43 < RippleJet> RAISE HAND Who would decide the capacity for the subway station and the clinic?
17:43 < PhilippeCitiesXL> We would but you could share with us some recommendations
17:44 < PhilippeCitiesXL> We need to make sure the economics are consistent
17:44 < PhilippeCitiesXL> with the sim
17:44 < RippleJet> RAISE HAND Can custom queries be made for buildings?
17:44 < PhilippeCitiesXL> We would ideally want to work hand in hand with Custom Content makers
17:44 < PhilippeCitiesXL> RippleJet: yes
17:44 < RippleJet> RAISE HAND and can those queries e.g. report variabled from within the simulator?
17:44 < RippleJet> variables*
17:45 < PhilippeCitiesXL> RippleJet: yes
17:45 < Glenni> RAISE HAND there is a probblem with though, as the years pass it's always the risk of the developer of a game to move on from the game, and abandondoning it's fanbase, not maintaining the modsite for it anymore, meaning no custom content can be uploaded, because there's noone on the other end to receive the files you sned in.
17:45 < zero7> RAISE HAND What happens to custom content production when MC need all their resource to create another game?
17:45 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND the problem comes when MC move onto the next project and all support for CC and CXL disappear, as what happened when Will Wright started Spore
17:45 < Glenni> send*
17:45 < zero7> RAISE HAND cal - great minds ...
17:45 < callagrafx> great minds :-)
17:45 < Warrior> RAISE HAND that is not a coincidence I was thinking the same thing
17:45 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Glenni: that won't happen
17:46 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Glenni: we are commited for a long term support for CITIES XL!
17:46 < Glenni> RAISE HAND: are you absolutely sure about that?
17:46 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND because we've all experienced it. Anyone been to simcity.com recently?
17:46 < PhilippeCitiesXL> We put all our resources and money: we are a ONE product based company now
17:46 < Glenni> RAISE HAND: Spambox,com? yeah... not for the past months though XD
17:46 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Guys, CITIES XL is MC's future!
17:46 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND You still have to pay your staff to maintain something you may not be getting sales revenue from
17:46 < PhilippeCitiesXL> MC is not leaving CITIES XL unless it doesn't work!
17:47 < RippleJet> RAISE HAND will you accept all custom content sent in to you, or will there be some kind of criteria for what is good enough?
17:47 < PhilippeCitiesXL> And if it doesn't work, nothing forbids us to give you more control on the Single player side of things
17:47 < Warrior> RAISE HAND Then can you do that (give more control to us in single player) striaght away?
17:47 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Cal: Free content may also be mean more reasons for players to buy the game and stay on the online offer
17:48 < PhilippeCitiesXL> RippleJet: We will have some criterias: technical & editorial (no porn or other content the like :))
17:48 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Warrior: no we cannot because of the Online part
17:48 < PhilippeCitiesXL> The same buildings are used on both sides of the game
17:49 -!- plfd648_pat [i=44bfa349@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-52bb9433fb644a8c] has joined #sc4d
17:49 -!- freedo50 [i=56a0e07c@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-2ce111a3f22e4996] has joined #sc4d
17:49 < freedo50> hey
17:49 < Glenni> RAISE HAND: You will, eventually, and that's the worriying part, it's not that big of an issue for SC4 for istance, as we can somewhat survive on our own, without support from EA any more. But thew difference here is that in order to release custom content, the building model does first have to be brough to you, and when you are not here any more for whatever reason other projects, or even bankrubtcy, who will do the modding
17:49 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND true, but if you only want models, you'll find the custom content offering slim as there are only a few of us with a) 3DSMax and b) the expertise to create low poly models.
17:49 < PhilippeCitiesXL> hi freedo50
17:49 < RippleJet> RAISE HAND Hi Fred :9
17:49 < RippleJet> :)
17:50 < barbyw> RAISE HAND Hi Fred
17:50 < Warrior> RAISE HAND You said you could give us more control over the Single player side of things if all doesn't work
17:50 < Warrior> RAISE HAND Hi Fred
17:50 < jeronij> Hola Fred ???
17:50 < Glenni> RAISE HAND: you really should try splitting the online part off from multiplayer somehow
17:51 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Glenni: we should know quite soon if the whole thing won't work at all: and if so, for us, it's a matter of a few weeks of work to remove all the Online part which would prevent players to get full custom conrol on thigns
17:51 < zero7> RAISE HAND Just separate building install directories. Online and offline.
17:52 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Cal: We don't necessarly want models: we will provide buildings over time ourselves! We just know that some of you want to participate on creating custom buildings and we would like to consider it as part of our art pipeline
17:52 < Warrior> RAISE HAND But then Zero (Sorry forgot your name) some people might move buildings from one directory to the other
17:52 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Exaclty
17:52 < PhilippeCitiesXL> That's not obvious really
17:52 < Glenni> simple
17:52 < Glenni> block all custom content on the online one
17:52 < Glenni> there are numerous games where this works
17:52 < PhilippeCitiesXL> But you would have to provide a way to differenciate them
17:53 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Look at it this way:
17:53 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND Glenni no, as the online game would probably be more interesting....I'm thinking Trackmania
17:53 < PhilippeCitiesXL> By promoting custom content ourselves in the game, we get everyone happy:
17:53 < PhilippeCitiesXL> 1. We get player happy with more content
17:53 < Warrior> RAISE HAND Are cities transferable from single player to online? So I can start a city in Single player and thn deicde to go online with the city?
17:53 < PhilippeCitiesXL> 2. We get custom content makers happy as they can see it in the game
17:54 < PhilippeCitiesXL> 3. We get ourselves happy because we are providing some more content and additional features to players which should result with better results ;)
17:54 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Warrior: no they aren't
17:54 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Warrior: No cheating
17:54 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Warrior: In Solo mode, you can accelerate time while not in the Planet Offer :)
17:55 < PhilippeCitiesXL> If you could upload a solo mode city, what would forbid you to accelerate time, get a lot of money and get online with it ;)
17:55 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND In other words, we're providing the content, giving you longevity but we have no control over the modding and distribution of that content...what about IP? grey area
17:55 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Cal: IP is another issue we would need to talk about
17:55 < Warrior> RAISE HAND Then could you make a file type that is only comaptible with single player mode and not mutliplayer will not recognize it?
17:55 < PhilippeCitiesXL> We would put your name as the author of the building
17:56 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Warrior: no, that's the same point: you would get people tweaking files and would have quickly some not authorized buildings in the online side
17:57 < Warrior> RAISE HAND I guess i would work similar to some BATers, who make the BATs and then pass them on to others who Lot them
17:57 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Cal: But you would lease your rights on distributing it to MC and Players to use it
17:57 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Warrior: basically ye
17:57 < Glenni> RAISE HAND: it sounds tedious, there's no guarantee that you will stop caring about the CXL fanbase over time, it would be better off iff we were free to mod the game as we see fit within certain boundaries as in sc4
17:58 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Glenni: what do you have in mind?
17:58 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND Or after a certain timescale (BAT and LE weren't released until after RH)
17:59 < PhilippeCitiesXL> cal: we would release as soon as we could editors for you to play with
17:59 < Glenni> RAISE HAND: I can tell already that this Upload model > You mod > you upload it back again is not going to work in the long run. Such systems barely ever work and grow old after a few months, at most a year.
17:59 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Glenni: We will do it for our own buildings
17:59 < PhilippeCitiesXL> We will deliver consistently new buildings to players
18:00 < PhilippeCitiesXL> The same way you do with SC4
18:00 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND Not to mention a large proportion of the current SC community are modders and LOTers...3D modelling is a skill not everyone possesses (pink box anyone?)
18:00 < Glenni> RAISE HAND: i thought you said you were going to restrict what WE could make too? As in we could only do the models themself?
18:00 < PhilippeCitiesXL> cal: true but modding isn't the subject
18:00 < barbyw> RAISE HAND: if you are going to upload new buildings will they be free or paid for?
18:00 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Topic is Custom Content and CITIES XL ;)
18:00 < RippleJet> RAISE HAND For that to work in the long run, I guess you will be charging for the new buildings as well... if you do that, would custom building creators get a share of that?
18:01 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Barb: I can't tell right now or I would have to kill you :P
18:01 < PhilippeCitiesXL> RippleJet: that was actually my question:
18:01 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND Modding and LOTing are custom content. We re-use buildings and resources on a daily basis
18:01 < Warrior> RAISE HAND I am just thankful the MC actually care about the quality in the online game some game designers wouldn't care what was used online
18:01 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Would you like to make revenue out of buildings you would produce for players?
18:01 < Glenni> RAISE HAND: Uh, modding,= custom content, ring a bell? it's as much as part of custom content as a new 3d model is, phillipe. Modding is part of creating custom content for billions of other games.
18:01 < zero7> RAISE HAND In terms of custome content modding is very much an issue - without modding you don't get boundaries pushed and new inspiration for model makers.
18:01 < PhilippeCitiesXL> ok guys
18:02 -!- mode/#sc4d [+o JoeST] by ChanServ
18:02 < RippleJet> RAISE HAND Since I'm only a modder, not a batter, that wouldn't help me :P
18:02 < PhilippeCitiesXL> So, I made a mistake: I'm not native english ;)
18:02 < Warrior> RAISE HAND I Would especailly like to know about transit networks and if we can make our own?
18:02 < Glenni> take the nam
18:02 < PhilippeCitiesXL> I meant Adding Custom Assets to CITIES XL
18:02 < Glenni> RAISE HAND: that is a combination of extensive modding as well as many custom models brought along.
18:02 -!- ChanServ changed the topic of #sc4d to: Custom Content in CitiesXL
18:02 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND No I would not like to make a revenue. I do stuff for free so people can enjoy themselves. Not everyone is over 18 or has a credit card
18:03 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Guys, you have to quit the SC4 mind
18:03 < PhilippeCitiesXL> really :)
18:03 < Warrior> RAISE HAND Will the NAM be possible in CXL?
18:03 < Glenni> RAISE HAND: it's not just SC4, phillipe, i can name numerous games that have many similar mods
18:03 < plfd648_pat> RAISE HAND: but that is why we love the game so much cause we give out of free will
18:03 < PhilippeCitiesXL> With CITIES XL, MC wants to listen to players and tweak the game so that it reflects what should be the game
18:03 < PhilippeCitiesXL> It's all about interactions
18:03 < barbyw> RAISE HAND: so your term Custom Assets is basically just buildings?
18:04 < Glenni> RAISE HAND: extensive mods that combine new features added to the game in addition to models brought a long.
18:04 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Buildings for now, but we may look at other assets such as furnitures
18:04 < Warrior> RAISE HAND so we can not get the same enjoyment of modding out of CXL than SC4?
18:04 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND? Why? it's been a huge success model. If Maxis had made 5 the way people wanted it, this conversation would not be happening to be honest
18:04 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Guys, Modding was the solution for you all to tweak a game that was abandonned by its developer
18:04 <@JoeST> RAISE HAND if the community ends up eventualy modifying the game in a way that is benificial to the game but a way that is not easily integrated into the old upload-mod-download cycle will you compensate?
18:05 < Glenni> RAISE HAND: modding is a an extensive part in many other games that are yet to be abandoned by their devs too...
18:05 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Our goal is to stay long term with CITIES XL (remember the online part) and therefore, we will make the changes that are needed to preserve the fun in the game
18:05 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Glenni: Does anyone mod MMORPGs? No, they mod the interface
18:05 < Warrior> RAISE HAND But modding is also 100x more fun (Which is what a game is for) then giving suggestions to the game developer and it only turning out half of what you wanted
18:06 < barbyw> RAISE HAND: I think you need something stronger than coffee, Philippe.
18:06 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Modding is not a game!
18:06 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Barb ;)
18:06 < RippleJet> RAISE HAND Without modding SC4 would have been dead today
18:06 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Yes, because Maxis hasn't done anything after RH
18:06 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND To some it is...some like playing with lego, others with an abacus
18:06 < Glenni> RAISE HAND Let me list up a good number of extensive mods for games, adding hundreds of new features. Half life > Garry's Mod, GTA San Andreas > GTA Berlin > GTA San Andreas Multiplayer. STALKER > Oblivionlost These are mods for games that are still very much alive.
18:06 < PhilippeCitiesXL> If They would have been doing the NAM for SC4, the Tteam would be dead
18:07 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND They did...Simcities Societies :-(
18:07 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Glenni: you are quoting games that have no Persistent side
18:07 < Glenni> Garry's Mod is an online Mod...
18:07 < PhilippeCitiesXL> You should compare CITIES XL to MMOs, not single player game
18:07 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Online is different that MMO
18:08 < PhilippeCitiesXL> You miss the persistency
18:08 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Virtual worlds
18:08 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Cal: come on! don't compare ...
18:08 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND What about The Sims? People can make their own content for that and it's the biggest game of all time and they don't have to submit it to the development team
18:09 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND No comparison. They went from a simulator to a cartoon
18:09 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Cal, yes, but you don't have players interacting with each other in an online universe
18:09 < PhilippeCitiesXL> You could compare that side to Second Life:
18:09 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Look at what they did:
18:09 < PhilippeCitiesXL> You can do whatever you want on it
18:09 <@JoeST> RAISE HAND, so is there any possibility that in the future you would release the rights to modding and distrobution to a group/team of prolific creators?
18:09 < PhilippeCitiesXL> But at the end, you don't get any fun, because that's just that: a virtual world with no gameplay
18:10 < Glenni> RAISE HAND: What is so great about MMOs anyway? They are massively overated features to a game
18:10 < Warrior> RAISE HAND As amazing as game creators are they cant think and do everything
18:10 < PhilippeCitiesXL> JoeST: that is not in our aim right now, but that could be a direction... We would have to investigate
18:10 < Glenni> RAISE A) they are always full of trolling people up to no good. B) Just to have some silly online feature you have removed the chance of having a very moddable game.
18:10 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Glenni: we do believe the MMO side in CITIES XL will bring a lot of fun ;)
18:11 < Warrior> RAISE HAND Philippe The Online side will bring a load of fun, and I can see where MC are coming from about the quality for online play.
18:11 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Glenni: Going on the MMO side of things, we are making a bet, that's true but we really do believe on it. It brings replayability and real fun.
18:12 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Warrior: thanks for the support.
18:12 < Warrior> RAISE HAND but the MMO shouldn't take away what we can do with the single player, they should really be 2 seperate things
18:12 < Glenni> RAISE HAND: idea of fun for who? 8 year olds? casual gamers? Honestly MMO's are part of what is ruining the game industry, it is all casualising games, and are aimed for the stupid masses.
18:12 < PhilippeCitiesXL> warrior: yes, we don't want to alienate players that want to play the Solo mode
18:12 < zero7> RAISE HAND Agree with Warrior on that. Online by it's nature has to have limitations.
18:13 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Glenni: you don't even know what we are planning to do on CITIES XL...
18:13 < jeronij> interacting with other players will attract only a % of the potential players. interacting with the game will attract all of them ;)
18:13 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND For how long? Most games have a shelf life because either a) you complete them or b) you bore of them. Going online may increase the longevity for a while but there will come a time when b) overtakes the novelty
18:13 < PhilippeCitiesXL> The main idea is to bring a Real City builder game with an Online mode for players to interact between each other.
18:14 < PhilippeCitiesXL> jeronij, you are right
18:14 < zero7> RAISE HAND I like the idea of beng able to 'wander about' in someone elses city. But I also like the idea that I can create content just for my own use.
18:14 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND This is the issue...people don't want a city game, they want a city simulator
18:14 < zero7> spot on cal
18:14 < PhilippeCitiesXL> cal: That's where we do bring new things: we'll animate the game online.... We'll bring new content, we'll organize online events, competitions, etc...
18:14 < Warrior> RAISE HAND In all there needs to be the same kind of modding for single player as in SC4 while still having the online mode as great quality
18:14 < PhilippeCitiesXL> But we'll also bring NEW features over time to the core game
18:15 < PhilippeCitiesXL> not talking about the GEMs that are also another way to find new replayability to the core game
18:15 < PhilippeCitiesXL> ok cal! We are making a City Builder GAME!!!!
18:15 < PhilippeCitiesXL> That's our goal really
18:16 < RippleJet> RAISE HAND What's in the simulator then? :)
18:16 < Warrior> RAISE HAND If you let us do what we want with the single player while having the control over the online play.
18:16 < Glenni> RAISE HAND: i'm pretty sure most people woudl prefer to build their dream city, and not walk arround speaking to premature kids who either "typ liek diz" or "r173 l13k dizz"
18:16 < Warrior> RAISE HAND CXL will be massive hit
18:16 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Warrior: that's really not obvious from a technical stand point
18:16 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND LOL @ Glenni
18:17 < Glenni> RAISE HAND And don't even get me started on the mic spammers
18:17 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Glenni: you are limitating your views on the onlinde side really
18:17 < PhilippeCitiesXL> ok guys
18:17 < PhilippeCitiesXL> I need to put an end to this discussion now
18:17 <@JoeST> ol
18:18 < PhilippeCitiesXL> We have been chatting for almost 1hour and 1/2
18:18 < jeronij> thanks for your time Phillipe
18:18 < Glenni> RAISE HAND or the random yoofs that will write "One day there was a girl, she was killed by a napkin if you don't send this to 56 people within 5 hours you will get an angry chainletter"
18:18 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Could we try to sum up a bit things?
18:18 * JoeST can PM/email anyone the logfile/transcript :)
18:18 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND really...Indeed, thank you
18:18 < jeronij> it's been a very instructive conversation ??? :D
18:18 < barbyw> RAISE hAND: thank for the time, Philippe. I think you deserve a large glass of red wine
18:18 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND Joe, I think it should be posted in the SC4D thread
18:18 -!- Ennedi [i=51a8d618@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-0b61872179e8dc97] has joined #sc4d
18:19 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Actually, i'm about to have one Barb: we have a small "pot" outside with the rest of the team ;)
18:19 < PhilippeCitiesXL> We are getting some beers and cheers :P
18:19 < jeronij> Phillipe ->yes please, sum up briefly please
18:19 < barbyw> RAISE HAND: Salut
18:19 < zero7> RAISE HAND Thanks Philippe. Gives us more of an idea of what to expect.
18:19 < Warrior> Thanks very much Phillipe, if I had been you I would have left this converstion a while ago, I really do admire you and MC
18:19 < RippleJet> RAISE HAND Thank you Philippe! Maybe there's reason to continue another time? Enjoy the beer!"
18:19 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND and what not to
18:19 < plfd648_pat> RAISE HAND thank you Philippe for your Time and devotion to us SC4 players
18:19 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Guys, I do'nt think this conversation is over
18:19 <@JoeST> RAISE HAND Thanks for coming Philippe
18:20 < PhilippeCitiesXL> There is still a lot of things to sove
18:20 < PhilippeCitiesXL> solve
18:20 < PhilippeCitiesXL> and we are open minded
18:20 < Warrior> RAISE HAND End of the chapter but not the book?
18:20 < plfd648_pat> OK lets solve it then here here!!!
18:20 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Exactly Warrior :)
18:20 <@JoeST> hey Ennedi and Pat
18:20 < plfd648_pat> Hi Joe!!!
18:20 < callagrafx> RAISE HAND indeed...plenty of time, we want it right, not rushed
18:21 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Ok, guys, talk to you soon, and I'll see you in the SC4devotion forums ;)
18:21 < Warrior> RAISE HAND Absolutely right Cal
18:21 * JoeST descreens and retrieves the log
18:21 < PhilippeCitiesXL> thanks for the chat
thanks for the log RJ....this has been most illuminating.
As a batter, I'm not sure I like the idea of making 4 different models of the same structure to meet the poly requirements?
As a lot technician I'm not sure I like the ideaof you guys handing over your models to get theminto the game. I shall be unemployed :'(
As a BATer, what I find most disturbing is that Monte Cristo want to be the sole distributor of custom content, with "leased" IP rights, and not give us any facility to mod or create LOTs. Problem for me is what control do I have if I decide to pull my stuff from the public domain? None, basically. My take on the session was they want custom content, they want us to create it (for free) and then take it away to do what they like with it...there's even the hint that they'd be charging for it, either as an online subscription or per item.
However good the game may turn out to be, unless content created by 3rd parties is openly distributable and free from charges, here's one BATer who will not provide content.
callgrafx, that was the purpose of this discussion. We are not getting into any direction now but talking with you all about it. :)
The questions raised by me, especially about paid custom content was to define which directions people that spend their time making valuable custom content are willing to take. We now know that you are not seeking for any return on cash from players to access custom content. :thumbsup:
As for the fact of being the sole distributor, it brings one constraint but it would also provide players with two advantages which are the fact that we would manage for them the fact of downloading and installing custom content on their CITIES XL installation and they wouldn't have any issues on placing the content on the wrong directory or taking care of dependencies as they would be defined by us.
You mentioned the fact that you would want to be able to pull your stuff from the public domain... May I ask you why you would? &Thk/(
Quote from: dasilva on September 30, 2008, 09:44:41 AM
callgrafx, that was the purpose of this discussion. We are not getting into any direction now but talking with you all about it. :)
I have to be blunt about this point...we heard exactly the same from Tilted Mill about SC:S and they too were full of "we're listening" comments, but the game was already developed and into Beta, so any "suggestions" were ignored as they already had direction, as you must have too at this stage.
Quote from: dasilva on September 30, 2008, 09:44:41 AM
The questions raised by me, especially about paid custom content was to define which directions people that spend their time making valuable custom content are willing to take. We now know that you are not seeking for any return on cash from players to access custom content. :thumbsup:
You should already know that from the way we manage ourselves with SC4 content. Even if it weren't part of the EULA, people would still do it for free. It's not just us....look at Mozilla, OpenOffice and Wikipedia.
Quote from: dasilva on September 30, 2008, 09:44:41 AM
As for the fact of being the sole distributor, it brings one constraint but it would also provide players with two advantages which are the fact that we would manage for them the fact of downloading and installing custom content on their CITIES XL installation and they wouldn't have any issues on placing the content on the wrong directory or taking care of dependencies as they would be defined by us.
Until such time as revenues dry up from sales and you have to create a new product to pay the developers who take our custom content and put it into your game. You also may be aware that this community has some exceptional talent and I'm sure we could figure out where to place files on a hard drive ::) And this community is well versed in the art of dependencies, I can assure you :D :D
Quote from: dasilva on September 30, 2008, 09:44:41 AM
You mentioned the fact that you would want to be able to pull your stuff from the public domain... May I ask you why you would? &Thk/(
I'm not saying I would, I am simply concerned that my rights as an author are wholly protected and that you do not profit from my work I create for free. In the event you (or your FD) decide you need to fund the custom content process & website either through subscripton or any other method, I would object to my work being used in this way. I hope you understand that this is not through malice or a wish to be recompensed, but merely that I create content for my own enjoyment (btw, I 3D model professionally) and share it freely with anyone who wants it. I do not charge for my free time, why should you?
I know this sounds a little beligerent...but I speak my mind and if I have concerns, I voice them. I do appreciate that you do not have to engage this community in any way to develop your product and that you could quite easily ignore us all and still release, but you should at least consider opening the game up as fully as Maxis did....SC4 Deluxe was still in the bestselling lists this time last year, 4 years after it's release and it's because they opened the file formats up.
Quote from: dasilva on September 30, 2008, 09:44:41 AM
As for the fact of being the sole distributor, it brings one constraint but it would also provide players with two advantages which are the fact that we would manage for them the fact of downloading and installing custom content on their CITIES XL installation and they wouldn't have any issues on placing the content on the wrong directory or taking care of dependencies as they would be defined by us.
This is exactly how EA started with the official exchange as they take the files that are uploaded and all dependencies and download what they think a user needs. Unfortunately as they have become less and less interested in the exhange it has become a place for plagiarised work and outdated dependencies. I know you will reply that you do not intend your "exchange" to be abandoned but then I think EA/Maxis would have also said that 4 years ago.
I found the discussion the other day disappointing. So much of what I have seen on the CXL website has given me cause for optimism that here was a worthy successor to SC4. The graphics are superb, the road network makes the NAM look like an antique (even though you've been very quiet on train, trams etc.), the economic model sounds like a big step forward. The missing piece of the jigsaw was custom content - match SC4 and CXL becomes the new gold standard. But it seems MC just can't let go ... the corporate need for control has reared its ugly head.
The problem with SCS is slightly different from the one I perceive happening with CXL.
In the case of SCS they made a very stupid decision - probably to save development time - of using a third party product to manage game objects leaving content creators with no ability to add new models due to licensing issues, but able to reskin existing ones.
Where Tilted Mill got it right was that the control of those objects within the game is very, very open. To that extent TM kept their promises.
From the discussion the other day CXL seem to have made an equal and opposite mistake. We can create models, but have no control over the configuration of them as game objects. I understand the need to prevent cheating in the online game, but to prevent us having control of off-line content is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. A much smarter solution is required.
If every model needs to be handed over to Monte Cristo to make it functional in the game you have a major bottleneck (you really need to see the rate of release of custom content in SC4 through 2004 and 2005 to appreciate just how much of one).
Also MC have not allowed for the fact that people will want to:
a) Practice. That means making objects in private until they are of releasable quality
b) Make game objects for their own use to make their cities unique or just because they are not interested in making it available for release.
c) Bend the rules. A lot of what is great in SC4 custom content comes from people twisting what is there into new forms, abusing the functions present in the game engine to deliver new possibilities - it is the modders art. To do that they need to be free to experiment on their own machine.
d) Reuse models for other purposes - an industrial building used as residential; a house reused as a farmhouse; an office building used as a library.
The bottom line is this - without the freedom to make a model and use it locally without intervention from outside, many (probably most) of those heavily involved in custom content production will not be interested - particularly the modders for whom the game will hold no interest at all (except maybe to decode the file formats and give us the freedom to manipulate the game objects - in which case you've lost control AND goodwill)
I hope Monte Cristo will take another look at how SC4 has maintained the loyalty of fans and enjoyed such longevity and realise that they have to stop trying to retain so much control. SC4's crown is there for the taking; it just takes a little bravery.
From a purely selfish standpoint, Phillippe, I thought through this morning based on the information you provided during the discussion how much of 3RR and the ancillary content that's originated there I could have done had CXL and not SC4 been the game in question 30 months ago.
I had to conclude: not much.
My 2c worth is that Monte Cristo would still find plenty of takers for its "captive audience" business model, even in spite of the "pay to play" aspect. With all due respect, I see MC's unwillingness to allow, much less promote a vigorous independent custom content user community as approaching a finger in the eye to those folks. What does your company have to lose? The existence of that community has not cost EA a dime with respect to SC4- far from it, EA has reaped the substantial benefit of a having a game that otherwise would have played out its product life cycle in the normal less than two years seeing that cycle extended to five years, and likely far beyond.
I share what is an apparent growing sense of disappointment over MC's course in developing CXL. When Tilted Mill ignored the freely given wise advice of the genre's dedicated fanbase, a group who also happened to be a potential major market for its product - well, sometimes mistakes are made. The same thing, though, appears to be happening again. A year from now, I suppose, we'll look at the sales stats and see.
Thank you, in any event, for hearing us out.
David
For online:
Take a look to http://www.igzones.com/, this is a FREE online site where up to 1,000 players plays different games such Age of Empires, I usually play there for fun, in case of Age of Empires we are allowed to create our custom maps and play them but we can't cheat in game, what could be interesting with CXL that allows us to create our own scenario where we going to build or whatever our city...
For "solo" playing...
I suggest at this case allows us to modify create anything we have in mid, we have two options:
-City Building: Following rules, objectives etc
-City Simulator: Somewhat to cheat!.... allow us to creatively build the city as we want without restrictions, its like to pait...
Of course in "solo" I hope to include custom content and modify the game as you want, something that you can't do in online playing... if these options were available i could pay 100 dollars for it...
Just suggestions, i hope that helps to MC for develop their game...
My two cents after reading the chat log is that the aspect of maintaining control will be a bit more than you can chew. It will take massive resources to make it work in practice, and without charging for the custom content I honestly have no idea how you will make ends meet. Why waste resources on something that we are willing to do for free?
What you guys should be concentrating on is to build a solid, bug free and open game. As for the online feature, why not release it later as an expansion? That will leave you with plenty of time to solve the issues concerning limitations for online gameplay. In addition, it will give you time to build up a fanbase for the game.
Throwing my hat into the ring aswell:
I see a lot of promise in CXL (as apposed to SCS, that I really don't see the point of). I will most likely buy a copy and try it out, no matter what changes are implemented as a result of discussions as these. So, cheers, you get a few of my bucks anyway you cut it. ;D
Now, the real issue for me is this: will I still be playing CXL five years after it's release (giving MC the opportunity to cash in on expansion sets, modules and extras)? Hmmm... now that depends on what the game can and cannot be used for. The sheer diversity of SC4 is the main reason for its' loyal fan base. I don't think many of us would be interested in simply running a city simulation game for hours at a time, day in and day out.
Personally, I don't really "play" SC4 anymore. I use it as a miniature model workshop. I think the same goes for a lot of us (badsim, rooker, dedgren, etc). Yet others are more interested in developing train skins, batting buildings, making maps, etc. etc. upto the people that spend most of their time developing software for the making of custom content (as terraformer, reader, sc4tool, etc).
Now, all you have to do to make this happen is: open the game files for us. It's pretty much as easy as that. And that is - most likely - the difference between selling copies when CXL is released and two years down the line, and still selling copies in 2015. I'm no bussiness analysist, but I do suggest you take those profit calculations seriously. ;D
But, I'm pretty confident that this will be a good simulation game, no matter which path you should chose to go. This is just an idea of what would make ME exchange SC4 for CXL...
One thing I think you (MC) may have overlooked is that a lot of people here LIKE tinkering under the hood. The NAM team is largely comprised of people who saw room for improvement in the networks and started pushing the limits to make them better. It's the challenge that drives them, not the game itself. I've spent countless hours in the last 4 or so months developing custom content of some sort or another, yet hardly have time to play the game... and you know what, I still have fun.
Agreed. It's probably a minority who really likes to dig deep in the game files, but exactly this minority is the one that keeps the game up to date. SimCity 4 wouldn't be that popular if there wasn't stuff like the Network Addon Mod, the Rural Highways, the Colossus Addon Mod, and other mods that modify in-game stuff to quite some extent. I can understand the concerns regarding unbalanced building stats - we were (and are) facing the very same problem with SimCity 4, and unfortunately, many of the flaws are a product of an unbalanced Maxis tool. The Plugin Manager that EA released for creating custom files is very basic, and it doesn't take into account the actual shape of the building, so most stats that are assigned to a lot are way over the top.
Personally, I think that the dedicated custom content creators are eager to produce balanced items, and by providing the proper tools that will produce those you will minimize the need of scrutineering those items. It's been more than five years since SimCity 4 was released, and we're still discovering new things within the game engine, and needless to say, we could have done those things earlier if Maxis provided us with the proper tools and information in the first place. Don't underestimate the community; after all, it was us who keep holding up the flag for a game like SimCity 4 - without being paid, just for the fun we have in both playing and developing new stuff for the game. :)
hmm, i think a third party modding engine is now at the top of the CXL custom content creation shopping list... im just glad we have daeley and ripplejet around :)
Hi Diggis,
We didn't overlooked it: you are part of the people we call "gardeners" because what most of you like is the end result and filling of the cities and not actually playing the game. You currently use SC4 as a playground where you place your stuff (buildings, canals, transport networks,etc..) so that it looks like a real city the same as when I was a kid I used to create some wood based landscapes and place my trains, stations, rails and the like $%Grinno$%
Now, CITIES XL will be a city builder game and, as I already stated in a PM I sent recently, we would like to join custom content makers into Monte Cristo continuous efforts (understand after release) to improve the game because we know there are a lot of talented people in this community and we feel like all together we could provide players with great content.
However, and this was the purpose of the online chat we had, we have some technical and artistic issues that need to be solved. We wanted to share with you these issues so that:
1. First, you understand where we stand as far as custom content is concerned,
2. You see the differences between creating custom content for SC4 and CITIES XL
3. we can state our position and clarify some premade opinions about Monte Cristo as a company.
It's a difficult message to communicate: "We are looking to include Custom Content makers into CITIES XL discussions"
My first analysis is that most of you are NOT used to have the opportunity to talk with a game studio that is actually really listening and sharing suggestions, opinions and positive or negative criticism. ()stsfd()
And therefore, with most reasons, you may have some doubts and fears on our approach. This chat we had the other day is also meant to provide you the first clues of our honnesty to the path of building trust in our relationship. :P
Do not misunderstand me, I cannot predict that the process I started with you now will have the expected win/win successful result but at least, I would have tried and that's already a step forward. ::)
Moreover, as an SC4 old timer, I also wanted to take the opportunity to talk with you all about custom content which, I may repeat myself, brought to me personally a lot of extended hours of gameplay around SC4. Thanks again :thumbsup:
I will be quite busy in the coming weeks so I will be following this thread every two days but still answer whenever required "$Deal"$
Cheers
The most obvious way to get around this problem is to have separate plugins for MP and SP. That way the control needed for MP is there, but we have free reign over SP.
Also like Phillippe has said, modding was an alternative to an active game developer, with Monte Cristo around there will be no need for modding. But this is not as fun for the modders, well CXL isn't there to be modded it's there to be played. And that is coming from someone who only mods and plays very rarely.
CXL is not the next in the Simcity series, it is a new game. It's meant/should to be different.
Yes custom content creators in the community do want to create fair content (most of the time). But those not in communities, may create Custom Content that is not fair, and then when they use it online, people will be unhappy.
In SP some people like cheating because it removes an element of the game they don't like to play. I have done this when I can't be bothered to lay all the water pipes and power poles.
Jonathan
But what if we were providing players with a totally "no city cash" mode? You wouldn't need anymore these $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Fountains anymore, would you? :P
Quote from: Warrior on October 01, 2008, 09:35:01 AM
Also like Phillippe has said, modding was an alternative to an active game developer, with Monte Cristo around there will be no need for modding.
To a degree, but it's down to the type of mod and the degree of flexibility in the game's user tweakable features. Had SC4 been supported by the kind of active developer that Philippe is telling us that Monte Cristo will be then we would have had much better transport networks (e.g. working canals), weather, surface water etc. that fit with the game's basic premise. But would a developer have committed resources to something as niche as SimMars?
I guess a game developer wouldn't have committed resources to making something like SimMars, but then SimMars should really be its own game.
Phillippe (Is that the correct spelling?), That is alright for people who want unlimited cash(and it did get annoying having to use cheats to put the money level back up), but what about removing the need for water pipes and power poles?
Jonathan
Hi again, Phillippe:Quoteyou are part of the people we call "gardeners" because what most of you like is the end result and filling of the cities and not actually playing the game
Even though that was part of a reply back to Shaun (diggis), I'll take gentle exception to it, at least speaking for myself, and perhaps for a few others as well.
There are many creators of custom content who are perhaps best characterized as pure modelers- those for whom the game is simply a context within which they do their thing. My hat is always off to anyone who can be that focused.
As for being a gardener, though... there are many creators of fine custom content who not only play the game, but are masters at it. You, I am certain, recall jeronij's Sculpting Columbia River and later Simtropia. Adam (Ennedi) has done fantastic work with BSC's modal region Shosaloza. Cedric (BadSim), Alex (Tarkus), even Shaun, who had a fine mayor's diary here called Watersford; these folks aren't simply creating the digital equivalent of a static model train layout. Their cities and regions are perfectly functional within the concept of the "game" of SC4. This site has taken a great deal of pride in having a staff that actually (and openly) plays the game we spend so much time talking about here.
As for myself, well- I started a session of SC4 coming up on about three years ago now that is still running, and remains much closer to its start than its end. Simply because I've elected to pursue that session in a larger context- maps and backstory, etc., doesn't leave my vision of what it is to "play" SC4 any less of an experience than what EA intended. I've always considered SC4 the ultimate open-ended gaming experience, and precisely because the box is so easy to get outside of.
A little insight- my own small sorties into the world of custom content- the road and rail stuff, ploppables, seasonals, all that, haven't been made because I enjoy creating content for the sake of creating it. I'm doing what I do because nobody else did- and I want it in the game I play. I feel confident in saying that, when I finally get to play CXL, I won't feel any different. I'll run up against something that the game won't do and I'll be thinking, "hey, what if I...?" If Monte Cristo cuts that possibility off at the knees, my guess is that I'll find myself in the company of many who find themselves frustrated by that position.
David
The idea is not necessarly to cut off these possibilities at the knees. What I'd ideally like to see happening is that Custom Content makers and Monte Cristo work hand in hand to bring them to players. The "Hey, What if I..." concept is something we internally already do a lot of times especially after reading some suggestions raised by the community on our website.
But instead of leaving it solely to Custom Content makers, wouldn't it be great (at least, that's what I feel) to work together on such things happening? The benefits could be enormous and things could come up in a better shape and faster pace as the dev team could be involved...
The idea is NOT really to say: "custom content making is impossible"
Rather: "Let's add custom content the best way we can so that players get new experiences and visuals, custom content makers find their fun level by creating new stuff for the game and Monte Cristo improves CITIES XL's features and content catalog" ;)
it does sound good for the start, Dasilva, it does, but you have to understand, that we don't entirely trust that it will stay like this for a longer.What guarantee DO we have that you WILL keep with us, and not just abandon us within a year like EA did?
All might be jolly and good for the first year,but what about after that? What will happen then? how do we know that your devs will still work WITH us after a while? &mmm
One thing is that I never knew of a forum for people to make comments and post opinions about the development of SimCity Societies, resulting in the biggest flop I've ever seen. CitiesXL, however, does have such a forum, where development news is posted for people to comment on and where people can make requests and post other opinions. That is at least a little bit of evidence that Monte Cristo may not perform an EA-style abandonment on us.
Another is that although I'm not sure how long it was between the announcement of SimCity Societies and its release, but I'm sure that the time between the announcement of Cities Unlimited (now CitiesXL) and now has already been much longer than that.
I want to say to everyone how much the extraordinarily professional tone of this thread is appreciated. Phillippe, you are a true hero of the community for coming over to SC4D and engaging in a discussion that is both rigorous and challenging, not to mention uncomfortably inside of the comfort zone of many (including me) folks here. Not everyone knows, and I think our MC friend is too self-effacing to let on, but Phillippe has been a part of the SC4 world for longer than many of us, and as such is and remains most certainly our friend.
I think everyone, truth be told, is inclined to give CXL a fair look, and maybe if some of our more bold suggestions aren't implemented at the time of the game's release, they will, for having been made in a respectful and thoughful manner, continued to be considered as the merits of MC's marketing strategy are judged by the marketplace.
I, for one, couldn't be more proud of everyone who has participated in this so far, and that we at SC4D have had the honor of hosting the discussion.
David
I must say, reading this topic has been extremely enlightening. Both sides have kept a remarkably mature tone while discussing passionate issues.
I understand MC's desire to have the final products of user made content go through them, however the artist in me could never do something like that. Not so much fear of others profitting off of my work, but because I like seeing my work from beginning to end. Recently while talking to Pat, he mentioned he could lot my house BATs. As kind an offer as this is, I passed. I have an artistic vision on how the lots should look in game (based on the fact they are modeled after real life houses and lots). No ammount of explaining on my end could get the lot to look exactly how I want it to because I'm not the one doing the work. Only when I do all the work do I feel like I have achieved something.
On the subject of potentially having to pay for the downloads. In reality, even if the content was released on user run sites like the SC4 community, MC ultimately would still be profiting off of our work (even if they weren't selling the content). Sure it is indirectly, but they would still profit. Just look at SimCity 4. It remained a top 10 selling PC game for years, and now with it being in the SimCity box as the core game/expansion (in my opinion), it is likely popping up again. Last year, SimCity 4 Deluxe Edition was the #8 selling PC game (counting expansions). It sold 294,000 units, dispite no offical content released since 2004. So it is fairly truthful statement to say that EA is profiting off of the communities freework. A perfect example of this would be the amazing work the NAM team has done. They took a game that was released about 80% done, and have done such amazing work with it that the NAM feels more like an offical update than a usermade thing (except it hasn't been abandoned like offical updates :D).
Source: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6185090.html?tag=result;title;0
Hi David,
You know, I already said this before, but I see these kind of discussions as a real life couple: some times you argue but as long as you care about each other, you make sure you don't cross the border line. ::)
This relationship we are trying to build is quite unique in the industry and it's the result of a set of happenings in the city builder genre which started with the great SimCity Classic (I don't know if Will Wright will ever read this message but I thank him and all the Maxis team at the time who brought this genre to light &apls) and continued thanks to a dedicated community of talents that brought so much more fun to a game that hosted so many plugins and custom content in my machines over the last 4 years.
Now, some of you raise the long term issue of seeing Monte Cristo not supporting CITIES XL custom content over time. I do understand that and I would react the exact same way if I didn't join Monte Cristo last year to work on CITIES XL...
But...
The solely reason why I can tell you that you shouldn't care about it is that CITIES XL will have this online mode that would require us to run a continuous service to support players playing all over the world at the same time.
This means that as long as we do offer the Planet Mode, we will HAVE TO support players by providing them with the best service quality online we can. Part of this service will be to have 24/7 uptime on our servers (except for maintenance of course :) ), technical and in game support if necessary but as any MMO game, we'll have to provide players with new content, events and the like for them to find replayability which is the core of a city builder game.
Therefore, as long as the Planet Offer is online, we will be in a position to support Content distribution including Custom made.
We'll release a game that is meant from the start to be upgraded/patched/extended over time to bring new challenges and fun to players (Solo and Online).
Make a small comparison to MMORPGs, if some of them are still around it's because they have a good fan base and Game Studios kept patching the game with new content for their subscribers since day 1.
They have been adding features, balancing the game play and adding new content all the way...
The difference with MMORPGs, except the fact it will be a City builder game :P, is the fact that we don't want to have players buying a box on retail and see their game end 1 month later unless they start paying a 15€ subscription fee...
With CITIES XL, we want players to have the choice to play the game for the price they'll pay for the retail box which will be a fully city builder game; As well as being able to subscribe for a smaller fee to the whole online additional gameplay features.
To get back to Custom Content, I'll state it again. If we succeed, you and MC, to find solutions to get Custom Content delivered in CITIES XL, we want players to have it for free either playing Solo mode or Planet Offer.
We still need to talk about all this but I'm quite positive we can find good ways to team up and see custom content being part of the whole CITIES XL ideology :)
Quote from: dasilva on October 03, 2008, 09:29:31 AM
Now, some of you raise the long term issue of seeing Monte Cristo not supporting CITIES XL custom content over time. I do understand that and I would react the exact same way if I didn't join Monte Cristo last year to work on CITIES XL...
But...
...but if... and if there were no if... but what if... ::)
- CXL would become a huge success (let's hope for it)...
- EA would realise how successful CXL became (let's not hope for it)...
- EA would offer to buy MC (let's hope MC would buy EA instead)...
Maxis also promised to support their official exchange... But... &mmm
Maybe I'm painting the devil on the wall here... But there are always Ifs...
I had no luck and wasn't be able to take a part in our discussion. I came home and looged in too late and the discussion was finished exactly when I was going to say anything :D
But it has a good side too, I had more time to think about the problem.
1. I'm sure you analysed the potential market for your product, but I'm not sure about your conclusions. I have spme observations about SC4 players' preferences, maybe they will be useful for you.
1.1. I don't know how big part of CS4 players become members of various fansites, but I think it's a main or at least significant part of them. I guess fansites members will be an important group for you too (if there will be any sense to create fansites :)).
1.2. Observing active members of various SC4 fansites we can divide their preferences into a few groups:
1.2.1. Some people take SC4 as a "game" ie. they use it to create as big city as possible, or to achieve as big income as possible. Some of them don't like to use custom content, they say that it can damage the game. It can be easily understood knowing how many stupid cheating stuff and poorly modded buildings were published earlier, especially on the official EA site.
These players are rather a minority. After achieving some experience they usually become to use custom content.
1.2.2. People fascinated in the game mechanics; they go deeper into more specific game aspects, such as solving transport problems, improving regional development or researching various demand issues.
These people research mods and use them extensively.
1.2.3. People who like to play in a "sandbox mode". Philippe, you described them quite accurately ;)
Quote(...) We didn't overlooked it: you are part of the people we call "gardeners" because what most of you like is the end result and filling of the cities and not actually playing the game. You currently use SC4 as a playground where you place your stuff (buildings, canals, transport networks,etc..) so that it looks like a real city the same as when I was a kid I used to create some wood based landscapes and place my trains, stations, rails and the like (...)
But I must add that these players have many fantastic achievements in various fields - recreation of real areas, realistic city layout and landscapes, custom airports and seaports, researching the scale issues and - last but not least - making beautiful pictures. This is an important players group and it would be very bad to neglect them. Their creations can play an incredible role in popularizing the game.
1.2.4. I think the main group of players is located somewhere between groups 1/2 and 3. They want to create fully functional cities, but the visual aspect is very important to them. This is my way of playing too ;D
2. Looking at players preferences described above I think that custom game objects (buildings, parks and plazas, industrial and transit-related stuff, various fillers and of course all these small details called props) are absolutely necessary for groups 3 and 4.
Everything related to terrain - water, flora, the environment, an ability to choose the terrain look and to terraform the terrain - is very important too. However, not many people develop this area extensively (quite many map makers, very few terrain mods and custom flora developers). Most of players would like too choose one one of several, ready-to-use options.
(I am the one of these few working with custom landscapes, I would be very glad to be able to work with them in the new game too... ;))Modding by itself is the main point of interest for a relatively small group of people. There are three main reasons of using mods:
a) Improving neglected, poorly developed by manufacturer or badly balanced game aspects; in fact it's a waste of time, but we must do it. If the game developer would make a good work, this type of modding would be unnecessary.
b) Assigning parameters to custom game objects; in SC4 it's a necessary part of creating them. MC doesn't want to give this ability to custom content creators. On the other hand, modding is usually not a goal for the BAT/LOT maker.
It's only a way to achieve a goal ie. to create an unique, good looking object, incresing the game realism and it's diversity, and
properly functioning in the game.
A lot of best/most useful custom content is completely neutral from the simulation point of view.
Conclusion: maybe there is a way to satisfy players and meet MC requirements in the same time? I have an idea, look at point 3 ;)
c) Increasing game possibilities: this was greatly described by David (dedgren)
Quote from: dedgren on October 01, 2008, 06:05:56 PM
Hi again, Phillippe:
(...)
A little insight- my own small sorties into the world of custom content- the road and rail stuff, ploppables, seasonals, all that, haven't been made because I enjoy creating content for the sake of creating it. I'm doing what I do because nobody else did- and I want it in the game I play. I feel confident in saying that, when I finally get to play CXL, I won't feel any different. I'll run up against something that the game won't do and I'll be thinking, "hey, what if I...?" If Monte Cristo cuts that possibility off at the knees, my guess is that I'll find myself in the company of many who find themselves frustrated by that position.
David
There are not many people thinking this way, but they are the main force keeping the game still alive and showing directions of it's future development.
They can be the most demanding - and creative in the same time - testers for your new game. But I think it is crucial to find effective and satisfying ways of cooperation between MC and these people.
To summarize this point:
- Let's try to find a way to enable custom game objects;
- Please tell us much more about game options and customization possibilities of terrain, terraforming and related stuff;
- A big part of modding work can be probably avoided (points a and b); let's try to agree what can we do with the remaining part (point c).
3. Here is my idea:
3.1. MC prepares empty lots for all types of game objects - RCI buildings, utilities, parks and plazas, landmarks (if you provide them) and completely neutral lots - for various growth levels, wealth types and lot sizes.
3.2. Every lot of the certain type and size has
exactly the same parameters, so MC makes all necessary modding work earlier and don't need to wait for requests.
3.3. Empty lots are available for players as the "Lot library".
3.4. The custom content creator creates a model (or uses the ready one) chooses an apropriate lot from the library and fill it by textures, props and the main building (or only textures and props if it is - for example - an industrial filler or a plaza set part).
How many lots should be prepared?
I tried to calculate it. To have practically unlimited possibilities we would need approx. 4500 lots if it would be important which building side touches the transit network, and about 3000 if it would be unimportant. (Btw I think buildings should have a road access independently from their direction, and if they were be placed up to 1 grid tile away from the nearest network :))
It looks huge, but in fact MC must create even more lots and prepare them as empty places to fill by custom content would be a schematic and quick operation.
(If somebody would be interested in this idea, I'm ready to discuss it, show my calculations and talk about other aspects).
It means that if we have an ingame 3x3 tiles building from the 4th growth level, medium wealth and medium height, and the custom building from the same group, they would have exactly the same lot as a base and they could be replaced one to another without any influence on the simulation. Only the visual aspect would be changed. The custom content creator wouldn't manipulate with game parameters at all.
I suppose that lots made this way wouldn't need to be checked by the developer, and even more - they could be used in the online mode without any risk of cheating or other negative effects :)
A side idea: It would be fantastic to have a "replace building" option. If I don't like a building which growed on my 2x2 zone, I can click on it, choose "replace building" and see a list of alternatives according to specific conditions in this place and time. Then I click one of them and replace existing buildings by another one (for example to keep the style consistency along the street ;D). It is possible in SC4 too, but it is necessary to use a "BuildingPlop" cheat and it's up to me if I know which building can I build instead of an existing one without any negative effects. And of course I can't find a building with exactly the same parameters $%Grinno$%)
This post is too long yet. Please tell me if it's a step in the right direction.
At the end I would like to ask you Philippe what do you mean telling this:
Quote18:03 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Guys, you have to quit the SC4 mind
18:03 < PhilippeCitiesXL> really
I suppose you wanted to say something important, but I don't understand it :)
Adam
Adam: THAT IS FANTASTIC... wow, that last bit is just ace/great/amazing
I just wish it had come last year while UrbsUrbis was running :) that would have been discussed and been ace...
Joe
@AdamSection 3Phillipe says:
Quote18:03 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Guys, you have to quit the SC4 mind
18:03 < PhilippeCitiesXL> really
CitiesXL is going to be 100% different from SC4. The two most important factors that dicate this are that there is
no grid and the game is in 3D.
No GridRight now, in transit modding.... We have access to things called RUL files and they are pretty much the heart and sole of any transit addition to the game we have available in the community. RUL files are basically "IF then Statements" where IF the transit network is setup in "(this situation based on
the grid)" THEN replace it with "(this set of textures or models)". But, in Cities XL there is no grid... therefore Transit Modding the way we know it will not exist. Transit Modding will now become much more dynamic instead of the static system we have come to understand. Due to this new dynamic system everything will probably have to be editted at the EXE level for transit additions.
Lotting....
Once again, there will be no grid. 2x2, 2x3, 4x4, 6x5, etc size lots will probably not exist. Because there will be curved roads and roads on any angle imaginable, once again the lots will have to be dynamically implemented.
Now, I dont know exactly how this will be worked with but
my assumption is that there will not really be a "
lot" per se... Basically, I would assume that the building will have something similar to a desc file. Within this file there will be information containing but not limited to: (
SC4 Terms but may differ in CitiesXL)
1. Building Size2. Building Occupants (
sounds like multiple occupants will be possible)
3. Stage (
some sort of indication on when the building will be allowed to grow)
4. Amenities Consumed (
power, water, etc)
5. Pollution Generated (
air, water, garbage, etc)
Now this is where we may find differences: (
again, just assumptions)
6. Minimum Setbacks - Factor based on how close the building can be to the lot next door.
- There would be 4 of these for a setback from each property line (N,S,E,W).
- If the building were High Density CO, then you might want it to be close to the neighboring towers, but if it was
a R$$$ building you would want it to be further away from neighboring towers to get some landscaping.
7. Landscaping Type - This would determine the type of Landscaing that would occur around the building.
- Because the lots are not equal in shape or size and they are not necessarily in a grid fashion there can be no
static "props" as we are used to with lotting because there is no reference point that is guarenteed to exist unless
we included those static props as part of the building model. Therefore there is probably some sort of algorithim or
process which needs to be implemented to allow for landscaping to occur around a building in the given lot it grows
on.
- Again if CO, you would probably want concrete walkways with newspaper stands etc. Whereas a single family
home will have a tree, a few bushes, a deck and maybe a pool.
My assumptions probably will never be verified, but what is fact is the way Cities XL will deal with lots or any custom content cannot be equated to anything we have in SC4 simply because Cities XL by necessity has to be more dynamically open to different situations, where as SC4 doesnt deal with any of those situations.
From the assumptions above, this basically means the only modding that will be required for a lot will essentially be the occupant types, minimum setbacks of the building and the landscape type around it. And all it will be is a single desc file that we see in SC4 with the properties of the building. Hence it will probably take 10 minutes for the Cities XL team to mod a building, whereas in SC4 people spend countless hours on lotting when there will be no static lots like that in Cities XL, drastically reducing the time required to create a building for the game.
@Jason (jplumbley)
Thank you very much for this explanation! But even if there would be no grid as a basic principle to place game objects, the terrain will probably have any coordinate system, and every game object will have a certain position assigned.
Even if there will be no grid, it will be wise to limit possible sizes (ie. occupied areas) of buildings and other objects and if we will do it, my idea will be still valid (although we will not talk about "number of tiles" but simply about the size). I suppose it's also true concerning objects created by MC. It would be very uncomfortable to build a row of buildings if their sizes would be unlimited.
Even in real life many buildings are designed in a modular way. 3 or 6 m is a very popular module in industrial buildings.
It's good to talk with logically thinking people :thumbsup: and I'm very glad of this discussion. Talking about another game can put more light on our current game too :)
I'm very curious of Philippe's replies in above themes :)
Adam
Hi guys,
This is moving quite well forward :)
@Ennedi:
I think your analysis on players preferences is good because we got to the same conclusions ::) ;D
On 2, it's important that you understand the following:
a. We will continue developing new and improving existing features after the game release as well as balancing the game because whatever the time we will put on testing it, we'll never have as good feedback than when players will get their copy and play the game in real conditions. We're sure players will try to make things that we didn't thought of using all the features we'll provide.
And the main reason why we'll do so is because we have this online component that requires us to put a good effort on making sure that the game is fun and can be played for a long time and the Solo mode will benefit from this effort too.
b. That's not we don't want to let custom content makers change simulation variables and core engine features but instead we think it would be benefitial for all of us if we could team up to change or add things you would have liked to get in the game (that is direcltly link to point a. :)). This way we preserve the online mode from cheating and hacks while making moves forward the right directions with the help of custom content makers. We developed the game in a really modular system and we can have a deep look in a specific point and make changes to it so that it improves the whole experience.
As for your ideas, I'll talk about them internally but I don't think they'll make it (but I may be wrong as I don't have a view on details).
For the sake of the conversation, I'll explain you what is our Assets pipeline:
1. We decide to create an asset
2. Level Design team makes a description of the asset:
2.a Photo references for the style and type
2.b Name and quick description
2.c Impacts (Positive & Negative) on the different properties and layers of the simulation and economics
2.d Tags used for the Mass Placement Tool
3. Artists create the graphic asset:
3.a Model buildings with 3dsmax - 4 models, one for each Level of Detail
3.b Create the X textures for the models including ambient, diffuse, lightmap, normal, illumination map, etc...
3.c If some furnitures are required, they model and create the textures for them
4. Level Design team retrieves the graphic assets and create the LOT
4.a Level designer uses the Building Editor to load the building assets and furnitures and places them
4.b Level designer uses an internal tool (can't remember the name) to create the file that describes the Lot for the game (properties, layers, tags...)
4.c Level designer uses the Scene Editor to create Animations we call scenes and attach them to the Lot if required to bring some life to the Lot (i.e.: seeing cars getting out of the garage, children playing in the garden, etc.)
4.d Level designer submit the whole files to our Build System that compiles the whole thing into a set of binary files optimized for the game which makes sure that everything is done correctly by checking a set of rules
5. Lot is added to the Distribution System so that they are automatically distributed to all developers and internal testers machines for the QA phase
Then, when all that is done and if the game is released, we make it public so that players can retrieve the newly created lot and have it appear on their cities (either Solo or Online mode).
On our side, and that's what I tried to explain during the chat, the easiest first move we can make to custom content is by having 3d artists who want to provide new buildings to Cities XL taking the same role as our artists.
Then you could come up to us with the initial description document we use internally and our level design team would simply apply your recommendations in our internal tools if they are not conflicting with simulation rules or directions.
That'd be our first idea but we would need to know if anyone would do that before putting more resources and energy on it?... :-\
What will the terms of the upload process be?
Can I make, say, a McDonalds? Or are rules on the use of trademarks? Also, would you consider a gritty urban building with an XXX theatre "innappriopriate"? I suppose even if the answer is no to either it isn't the end of the world, but whatever...
Will you consider making a export tool for free software like Blender instead?
Finally, what kind of quality is demanded? Obviously common sense says no untextured hot pink teapots on a stick, but if someone makes an honest first time effort that is only good but not great, will it likely be accepted? Sure you probably can't answer this now but I dunno, seems like an issue if you guys expect a large community to make stuff.
That's a good set of questions Zaphod ;D
Ok, I'll try to answer them:
Quote from: Zaphod
What will the terms of the upload process be?
The terms of the upload process still need to be defined but the most important three rules that would have to be applied:
1. Custom content makers would give the right to Monte Cristo to distribute the content for free so that players won't have to pay to get it.
2. Custom content makers would give the right to all players to download and use content on their cities.
3. Monte Cristo would garantee custom content makers their content to be associated with their name.
Quote from: Zaphod
Can I make, say, a McDonalds? Or are rules on the use of trademarks? Also, would you consider a gritty urban building with an XXX theatre "innappriopriate"? I suppose even if the answer is no to either it isn't the end of the world, but whatever...
It is totally forbidden by law to make use of trademarks without the agreement of its owner. As a consequence, in order to have such as a McDonalds restaurant, you would have to get their agreement. It is not an issue if this content is not much seen but you may expose yourself to some legal issues otherwise.
As for mature content, there are two answers for that. First, we may simply consider it innapropriate and breaking rules we would have set on the game custom content submission: after all, CITIES XL, as SimCity, should be 3+ rated game.
The other answer would be to manage a parental control system in custom content distribution: We would allow older than 18 players to download what they want and forbid some content considered as mature to the younger audience.
Quote from: Zaphod
Will you consider making a export tool for free software like Blender instead?
As I already said previously, we are internally using 3dsmax for our buildings. However, our exporter exports the whole building mesh and materials to a middleware XML file format that we then compile to a binary file format so that the game can use it.
We have no plans right now to develop an exporter for other 3d software but, if we do release this XML file format, the community could develop it and maintain it on their own. And if we have some time, we may even develop it ourselves for some other 3D packages.
Quote from: Zaphod
Finally, what kind of quality is demanded? Obviously common sense says no untextured hot pink teapots on a stick, but if someone makes an honest first time effort that is only good but not great, will it likely be accepted? Sure you probably can't answer this now but I dunno, seems like an issue if you guys expect a large community to make stuff.
There is 2 factors to Quality:
1. Respect the rules defined by our graphic pipeline (scale, number of polygons per LOD, texture sizes, all materials created such as normal map, light map, ambien occlusion map,etc...).
2. Graphic quality: we won't consider unfinish assets because therefore you would use the intellectual property of the submitted content so that our 3D artists polish it. That's not something we want to enter because we think it won't be fair.
I hope it gives you some enlightment ;)
Quote from: dasilva on October 16, 2008, 09:21:55 AM
It is totally forbidden by law to make use of trademarks without the agreement of its owner.
That very much depends on the usage...and a very, very, very grey area. I can take a photo of a MacDonalds and sell it through a photo library under license without having to pay MacDonald's a single penny. I created the photograph so I own the copyright irrespective of content....unless the content contained a person as a focus in which case I would need to secure a model release.
Lee brings up a good point - artistic depictions are generally considered 'fair use'.
You cannot depict a McDonalds without using their trademarked symbols; therefore, as use of those symbols is the only distinguishing factor in making a McDonalds identifiable as such, it is considered acceptable. (This does depend, of course, on the degree to which corporate pressure has overcome common sense in particular countries)
More pertinent from the point of view of custom content is that a city builder without real brands is not acceptably realistic. Just look at the number of well known brands that are depicted on models on both STEX and LEX - not to mention their popularity.
Zero7,
I agree with you on the fact that it brings a lot of realism but even if it serves the trademark, you are still using their trademark on a "creation" and not a picture which is slightly different and they can consider that you are violating either copyright or making use of their trademark in a way they don't like and therefore condamn.
I'm just saying that it's just that you are not allowed to use a trademark without getting their agreement otherwise you would expose yourself to a potential legal issue. &mmm
No ones been sued so far...and there are literally hundreds of trademarks being used both on LEX and STEX for years. As long as the trademark is not abused or altered then it comes under "acceptable use". Oh, and a photo is as much a "creation" as a BAT is :thumbsup:
Quote from: dasilva on October 17, 2008, 01:58:15 AM
I'm just saying that it's just that you are not allowed to use a trademark without getting their agreement otherwise you would expose yourself to a potential legal issue. &mmm
The reason for raising the realism issue is that people will inevitably want real world brands in the game and whilst trademarks may be an issue for a company - if CXL is successful you make yourself a target for litigious companies - but it is far less of an issue if 100s or 1000s of individuals are producing content - as with the SC4 content it isn't worth pursuing. Another reason to provide us with the tools to create game objects.
Also a potential legal issue is not the same as a real one. Better to put the content out there and wait for a cease and desist (that has never come in the case of SC4) than self censor.
Actually, I'm surprised that companies didn't pick up this idea in order to make money. They basically get advertising for free, and the players would accept it without even thinking about it! If you'd ask a player "Would you accept ads in your game?", the initial reaction is probably "No, of course not! Heck, I paid for the game, and now you want to pave it with ads?", but for us city builders, it just contributes to the realism. ;)
Quote from: Andreas on October 17, 2008, 10:36:04 AM
Actually, I'm surprised that companies didn't pick up this idea in order to make money. They basically get advertising for free, and the players would accept it without even thinking about it! If you'd ask a player "Would you accept ads in your game?", the initial reaction is probably "No, of course not! Heck, I paid for the game, and now you want to pave it with ads?", but for us city builders, it just contributes to the realism. ;)
And thus the wonders of product placement advertising. The issue comes up on if the downloads have to be paid for though. If they are making a financial gain on selling a product (the downloads), then it could become a huge issue with other companies. Fan made, free distributed buildings though, like seen in SC4, really don't stand to hurt a company so it would be seen as a low priority. There have been BATers that have recieved attention from local newspapers for recreating landmarks of the city, and to my knowledge nobody has ever recieved a complaint about modeling a companies building with logos included. I obviously can't say it would never happen, but I can see these major companies having bigger fish to fry than someone providing them free positive exposure.
Away from the subject of limitations. As far as online play is concerned I'm presuming that as well as allowing us to view each other's cities you are planning an economic aspect - such as trade between cities, economic alliances and tourism.
On the last point if your city can make money from tourism - based on real visits from other players - then building a city with a unique architectural style would be a huge attraction. So, even if MC do insist on converting all models to game objects, will content creators still be able to make buildings for exclusive use in their own cities?
You know it's common sense guys.
I don't think a "well we probably won't get caught so it's okay" attitude works for a business that wants to avoid being sued and losing money.
Obviously if theres an online persistent world it will have custom content limitations in some form. Functional gameplay will be more of an issue than content.
However if it will not be possible to freely add content to offline games (and probably also "mod" them) I will personaly be very disapointed. Content is more important than gameplay offline.
The pipeline as described above is not great for external "designers". Its much more fun to be allowed to finish the product and then have it "checked" and possibly its "stats" tweaked for online usage, than to have to weave in and out of a pipeline. Cooperation with the game developer is a cool new feature in any case.
So anything involving a trademark is not going to be possible online? Like real vehicles/billboards/trademarked landmarks/etc. - not tragic but definitely sad, this lowers the immersion level by a magnitude.
Something I've been wondering for about the past hour is the fact about this whole approval system. Who is to say that the next "X-tool" won't be produced, giving the bypass to MC's approval system. I know it'll happen, and it would be most unfortunate if our SimCity community has to go into "underground mode" to avoid problems. Free and open would eliminate any stemming problems and divides.
A easy program would work. Say MC makes a program "filterer" that determines building parameters based on size, shape and quality. If this program was released to the public, every CC creator could filter his/her work through this program and end up with an approved and accurate building. Yay for everyone.
With the corporate system, either ask McDonald's for permission, they give it to every other yahoo who doesn't bash them (which all the corporate BATs include a long, praising paragraph about the company) or just lightly alter it lke GTA4 has done. (3 arches instead of 2, McYummy's as a brand name whatev).
As a personal lotter, I am wondering if when these buildings are lotted, will there be certain parameters that fit with the non-grid system? One idea I had was having a list of prameters, such as
Fence: wood
Enclosed: true
Trees: 3
Biome: temperate
Grass: poor
auto: poor
etc for each prop added to the lot.
This would be like an XML type of formatting, would make us have control over parameters, make variable lots as well as conforming to this non-grid thing. This would also make lotting much easier and more customizable. One building could have 3 wealth types, terrain types, whatever is wanted. Barby may be out of a job, but she could create these distributions, and therefore have a job.
If this doesn't make sense, I think I could re-word it if you don't understand.
(happy thanksgiving)
-sean
As I understood it from the conversation we had, there will be no lots as such. Everything will be part of the major structure of the finished article and so I will be very much out of a job where CitiesXL is concerned :'(
As any content would be taken out of our hands by MC for inclusion, I fear that CXL custom content will certainly not be as widespread as with SC4...indeed the process outlined by Philippe would mean only 10-20 people who are making content at present would have the necessary software and knowledge to create the content.
Your LOTing days are certainly far from over....
Maybe Cities XL doesn't need custom content?
We are approaching this game as if it is going to replace "SimCity 4", and therefore we are acting as though it needs everything we know and love, such as Custom Content, in order to be successful. But, we will never replace SimCity 4, it has transcended the boundaries of video games and become something more. For those of you who are extremely active in the community, like teams like BSC HKBAT NHP TG etc., or CJs/MDs [unfortuantly, no nice little 3-4 letter abbreviations here :P] SimCity is no longer just another video game, but rather a legitimate hobby all on its own. In fact, when someone asks what game im playing, i feel inclined to say "not playing a game, im doing somthing in simcity". Its become that great.
So, in order to enjoy CXL, or any city game for that matter, don't compare it to SC4, and don't expect anything similar to SC4, and then you will be able to enjoy it.
I just read the chat, and although I appreciate MC trying to help modders, I don't think they are doing the right stuff.
First off, it's a tedious process, secondly, the lack of actual modding will keep CXL small and limited and thirdly the fact that they choose what is kosher and what is not is quite disturbing. What about Goober's naughty pack? ;)
So, the only conclusion I can make is that one of the first mods for CXL will be something to add buildings to the game without going through MC.
It's very sad that they don't differentiate online and offline gaming.
I don't see me doing an online game actually, I'm probably and offline gamer mostly, and I won't be the only one.
But to be honest, I haven't read this thread fully, nor the thread at CXL, and these threads are 4 months old, already, so maybe MC is already rethinking their strategy? :)
Maybe we shouldn't judge too early :). There were many thoughtful comments here and as we see, opinions are very different. But Monte Cristo has also some good reasons to go their way. Let's wait for the first release of the new game and we will see it in practice - both the game itself and the development of it's custom content :)
Adam
True that, Ennedi.
First see what will happen with the game, then judge it.
I am just fearful about the censorship, lack of control and such.
But we mustn't be too hasty.
On the other hand, MC is really coming forward to the community, and I very much appreciate that! ;D