| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (15)

Posted: Jan 27th 2010 11:32AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This is no surprise at all. Not to kick a dead horse, but the CitiesXL Planet Offer was way too expensive for the limited amount of interaction available. I always suspected that they would move it to ad supported or free to play with microtransactions. Without the online aspect, why would anyone choose this game over SimCity?

Posted: Jan 27th 2010 12:17PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Cities XL always seemed like a mediocre SimCity clone with a chat room and trading options stuck to it. Quite why they thought the incredibly limited interaction was worth $10 a month, I will never know.

Love creative MMO ideas, but they need to succeed at the implementation as well...

Posted: Jan 27th 2010 12:30PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I remeber playing this on trial. Not surprised it's being shut down so soon.

Posted: Jan 28th 2010 11:03AM Rytharr said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think this could of done better with a f2p model heck people spend money on the stupid facebook games. I wanted to play but was not going to buy the game and pay a monthly.

Posted: Jan 27th 2010 12:31PM BIZKeT said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I picked up the game mostly for the single player aspect. I think it is a pretty fun game and I have gotten into it more than I ever did any of the SimCity games. Couldn't tell you why though. I played around for a bit with the free month of online play and just didn't see any reason to stay with it. If they went to a free / ad based model I would probably play online exclusively.

Posted: Jan 27th 2010 1:38PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
MC, that's what you get for NOT listening to the players and NOT taking any action! Even EA Mythic was guilty of this and the result - very few subscribers for both games.

Give us what we want and we will pay for what we want.

Posted: Jan 27th 2010 2:33PM Bezza said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This is good news as far as I am concerned. The items they were holding back to subscribers will now be available to everyone who bought the game and was bitter that you had to subscribe to get content such as 'public transport'.

MC should learn a lesson from this, you just can't ignore player feedback compleatly, you can't not have forums and player community and if you charge a subscription fee you need to offer something worthwhile in return, not just give content you would otherwise hold back.

Posted: Jan 27th 2010 3:14PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
To quote Tom Hanks in Big

"What's fun about playing with a building?"

Posted: Jan 27th 2010 9:22PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You got all these games with high system requirements and all of them want to charge to play online.

I don't see how they could of expected a game like that to sustain itself with subscriptions.

Devs... Don't expect subscription based games to survive.

I am so sick of the route the industry is taking.

Posted: Jan 27th 2010 9:49PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I gave folks hints that this was coming..even here. MC is in SERIOUSLY dire financial straights. I don't know that this will fix it. The two insulting things about their announcement, though, is the possibility that players will have to pay again for the FULL version when its renamed cxl2011...and, the ludicrous idea that they "tried everything" to make the P.O. work.

As I posted on another site:

Really, you guys "tried everything"?

Did you try any of the ideas about how to make the P.O. work that were talked about on the old forums for two years before release? Simple ideas, like creating "competition" or "cooperation", or limiting resources and citizens?

Did you implement ANY of the mmo suggestions presented from day one of open beta? Even the easier ones, like reordering the maps, creating regions/countries/nations, making changes to transportation rules, or expanding the number of resources?

Did you try to do anything with the Blueprint system that players suggested, like making them "rarer" to earn, harrder to build, unique to planets, or giving them importance?

Did you try ANYTHING new with the avatar system to make it unique from the chat window?

Did you regualrly patch the game with unique content? How about fixes for the MAJOR issues that were reported, like the memory bug that is STILL in the game.

Did the community events team ever get any "events" off the ground? If so, did it get mentioned to any sites?

Did you keep contact with players regularly after you closed the official forums? Did you make regular appearances to answer questions and promote the game on mmo forums?

Did you clamp down on the cheaters in a timely fashion? Did you delete unused cities according to the plan you had in place? Did you have a design document for content creation that you shared with players to give them an idea of when they may be able to make their own content, or even if they could, for the P.O.?

From everything I've read, the answers to all of that are "no"...so I wouldn't agree that MC tried "everything" to make the P.O. work. The fact that MC seems to have had no plan for "if" sub numbers were lower than expected after three months (something almost ALL MMO'S prepare for), and therefore must shut down, suggests that the company was little prepared to make this thing work.

They made the P.O. a "pay for the full version" feature, not an mmo. In doing so, they created a spectacular failure that MAY kill any chance of a city building mmo in the future. Ridiculous.

Posted: Jan 27th 2010 10:54PM Suplyndmnd said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wow, i hate to admit it but i'm glad this failed horribly. 3 Months is 2 more than i expected but yeah. I was so amped for this game when it was announced years ago then when i heard that you basically bought a gimped single player game and had to pay per month to actually get a decent game I said screw it. I'd been looking forward to this game almost as long as I did Spore and was so utterly pissed when i heard about the subscription part. Now i'll wait and see if they put all that content into a single player game and if so, maybe buy it then. Maybe not though. Let them learn their damn lesson.

Posted: Jan 29th 2010 8:51PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'll give them a A for trying, but city building is much more niche compared to when Sim City 2000 and 3000 were out.
For some reason.... gamers don't like to build and manage stuff anymore. More and more tycoon games are disappearing, and even my most respected studio Bullfrog (now Lionhead studios) have gone into making RPGs and some weird human simulator.....

I miss the day when Theme Park World and Dungeon Runner ruled the markets.

Posted: Feb 1st 2010 7:55AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Agreed. I'm 16 and I happen to absolutely love it. Its the younger kids that are the lazy ones, they prefer to play causal "run up and die" games *Cough* CallOfDuty. Its a bit annoying to see the whole market shifting to games that require NO logic to play or NO dedication, just so the lazy generation will compulsively buy them.
Reply

Posted: Jan 29th 2010 8:51PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sorry that was Dungeon Keeper.... Dungeon Runner is NCsoft's MMO.. :P

Posted: Feb 5th 2010 9:29AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
RoboHunterX....you make me glad I'm gonna have kids soon.

Im only 30, but it does seem that anyone under 20 just expects everything without any work.

Even 10 years ago there wasnt that gap.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW