Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Report this Comment
Use this form to report the selected comment to the moderators. Reporting should generally be used only if the comment breaks forum rules.

87. Re: SimCity Pares Down Features to Meet Demand Mar 9, 2013, 21:42 JohnnyRotten
nin wrote on Mar 9, 2013, 21:08:
I don't doubt your information, but it's interesting maxis continues to insist an offline mode isn't possible. Not unlike how blizzard insists D3 can't be run offline, but oh, wait, for PS4 it's suddenly possible (but not for you godless pirating PC heathens).

The whole thing stinks to me. If either item I posted is true (can play without being connected, traffic sniffer shows next to no traffic), then the server requirement thing is just simply BS.

Even without confirmation, I don't believe it.

The TL;DNR version: processing horsepower costs money, if you need so much more then a desktop can deliver, then you cannot run many instances of the game per server, and the upfront server cost alone is ridiculously far past the (instance * $60) price point.


Long version: If the game takes more CPU or RAM than the average desktop machine, it'll take up the same resources on the server. Yes, the server can drop more physical CPU's in then a desktop. Yes, you can drop in more RAM then the average desktop. But we're not talking orders of magnitude here. The gap between desktop and server CPU/RAM is not generational.

If this game is so heavy on resources (CPU/RAM), how many instances of it could you really run on a server? How is this ever going to be cost effective for EA based on a single $60 purchase - of which only a portion would be available for servers costs (upfront and long term). CPU and RAM isn't cheap for any platform. High end servers that can take multiple CPU's and dense RAM configurations are very expensive even before you drop the component pieces (CPU/RAM/disk) in them.

No, it just doesn't add up. The bottom line is that if you need more processing power per player then the average desktop can deliver, there is no business or technical model that I can think of that makes this financial viable for a single $60 per player purchase.

I also can't see any argument about scales of efficiency in processing or memory that simply couldn't just be transplanted to the desktop. Nothing is efficient about this arrangement - outside the need for physical servers, you need an expensive internet pipe to them, a place to house them, staff to maintain them, etc, etc, etc.

This stinks to high heaven.
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.


Blue's News logo