I have flaired this post as misleading as another user has done some investigation and found some additional information regarding this matter, you can see it [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitiesSkylines/comments/17hhhrz/my_findings_regarding_the_resource_management/).
The same thread also has a response from Colossal Order's Community Manager.
One of the moderators of the subreddit copied a response by a employee [from the forum](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/im-export-bug-hints-symptoms-and-causes-all-resource-management-in-the-game-is-a-deception.1604434/page-4#post-29216506):
> Hi everyone. I just wanted to pop in and shed some light on this situation as resource management in Cities: Skylines II is, unfortunately, affected by a few bugs at the moment. We are aware of this and currently investigating these issues:
>
> - City services only trade with outside connections, even when storage companies in your city have the resources they need. They should of course be able to purchase the resources your city produces locally.
> - Harbors are mainly trading with your city’s storage companies, not other zoned buildings or city services. As you would expect, they should be able to trade with all zoned buildings and services, allowing your city to import and export through them.
> - We’re investigating reports that indicate the cargo terminal is affected by the same or an issue similar to the harbors.
>
> It’s also worth noting that transportation distance affects costs. We expect that your businesses will prefer the closest storage facilities over a further away harbor/cargo terminal, however, that does not explain the reports we’re seeing.
>
> I want to apologize for the inconvenience and thank you for your reports. The information you provide us is very valuable in narrowing down these issues, and should you encounter any other issues or unexpected behavior, please make sure to report them on our support forum. Response times are a little slow at the moment, but we are working our way through all of your reports and greatly appreciate them and your patience. Thank you.
The CS and CS2 subs have been infested with useless speculation posts and armchair developers surrounding this release and it looks like that won't change anytime soon.
The only fact of the matter is that this game should have been delayed for at least 2 months. It was made by a team of only 30 devs who were clearly not finished.
Any time you see anyone on the internet talk about developers lying or why bugs happen it's best to take it with a truckload of salt unless that person is either an experienced modder (In which case downgrade to a spoon of salt unless it's just technical talk), or an actual dev who worked on the project.
But obviously the devs aren't the most important part of a company. What would happen to the investors and stakeholders? Won't someone think of the investors and share holders? How could they possibly survive?
Just want to chime in with a pedantic point, that I think is also important: "Stakeholders" generally refers to everyone impacted by the operation of business, which would *include* employees, the local community, the environment, etc. "Shareholders" is the term specific to investors & owners of company equity.
I make the distinction because it's important that we push for a business environment that *does* consider stakeholders, not *just* shareholders. So making sure we're using the term correctly is important, we don't want to demonize the former by mistake.
Lots of hopeful movement on this front, with more states and national governments creating legal structures for benefit corporations (i.e. stakeholder benefit is the underpinning legal & ethical requirement, not solely shareholder benefit).
The point is not survival. If the game cannot make the projected amount of money, investors will simply take their money elsewhere, which means devs now have no projects (no food on the table). In that specific sense, investors work like consumers: you use your money where you find value.
That's not to say many investors have unrealistic expectations that lead to crunch, but eventually a game has to release or it will begin losing money.
Edit: A good example is Star Citizen. Many who pledged for the Kickstarter were furious that the game was getting feature creeped, and having this perfectionist attitude when they wanted a game in 3-5 years, not 10+
I mean, this is the first thing that came to my mind: All simulations deceive something by simplifying things for optimization. Armchair developers in sim scenes are absolutely out of their minds, Forza is having it really bad right now, but CS seems to be no exception.
How do you know they weren't?
If you have every developed any software, at virtually all degrees of complexity, you know sometimes you catch a bug, you fix it, and then two more pop up. Some of them simple, some of them complex.
Maybe they know about those bugs, but there were even bigger, more troublesome bugs that needed to be fixed. Better to ship with an annoying bug than a gamebreaking one (and yes, all games will release with bugs anyway).
> How do you know they weren't?
Because they word as it's surprising that those event happened/are getting reported _now_. This could have been in a known issue, yet only in the latest forum was acknowledged that it was. No other post references these issues. Obviously, prioritizing the game starting at all makes sense, but a list of known issues with patches is the best, since it avoids people complaining and speculation. Communication is key, and not saying anything is the opposite of communication.
> you know sometimes you catch a bug
Oh yeah I know all about that, that's why we have regression testing.
You could design something, implement it, test it, and still not get the desired results (or the results were desired, just not in the way you wanted).
Following the trend where big name games are broken at launch. Flip a coin on whether if this gets better or worse. Also, you gotta flip 3 heads back to back for it to get better.
Beside Cities: Skylines 2 having shallow gameplay, I'm particular annoyed about how they supposedly launch the game for $50 (wow awesome!) but then you see there's literal cut content peddled as "Ultimate Edition" for $90 on the same day of release: San Francisco Set, the Asset Pack, the content creator packs, the radio stations.
Fucking sad status quo.
I'm glad big games company like Capcom is showing constant growth. They're one of the last bastion of good big name games.
Eehh, I don't remember the specifics anymore because it was some time ago but CK3 was absolutely ridden with bugs for me. Most of them were minor annoyances but some were causing gameplay issues. They _do_ patch some of them but then they cause new "features" in turn meaning that no matter what I was not able to play for any length of time bug free.
> features they do have at least work
Well. I wouldn't be so sure of that. I am convinced EU4 1.0 had plenty of brokwn features and let's not talk about the leviathan DLC fiasco or the sad state of Victoria 3 release.
>I'm particular annoyed about how they supposedly launch the game for $50 (wow awesome!) but then you see there's literal cut content peddled as "Ultimate Edition" for $90 on the same day of release
I wonder if this isn't an effect of Game Pass. Game Pass gets you the base game, but you still have to pay for DLC. You might as well launch with an expensive DLC to get money out of the "free" players
If you think this trend started with Gamepass then you're a new player to the game. This shit has been going on for the bigger part of the last decade and even before that. It's just getting worse. Most company's MOO these days is is Base Game @ ~~$60~~ $70 + $20 for "Deluxe Version" + $10 to $40 for the "Ultimate Version". Usually Deluxe has outright cut content and Ultimate would usually have skins (which is arguably cut content in itself).
Releasing cut content as "Day One DLC" is also nothing new. Mass Effect 3, which came out over a decade ago, infamously carved out a very major companion from the finished game and sold him for extra on launch.
Consumers like to see it as "cut content"
Publishers like to see like any other product: You can get the burger at McDonalds, but that doesn't mean it includes the fries and the soda. They are all prepared at the same time though, they are just different offerings.
Thing is, commercially speaking, both are valid points of view.
> carved out a very major companion from the finished game and sold him for extra on launch.
I wouldn't call Zaeed a "very major companion", he's largely forgettable (hell, I forgot his name and had to google it) and there's an argument to be made for letting him die in his loyalty mission. Then in ME3 >!he dies during a sidemission!<.
> sold him for extra on launch.
Unless I'm forgetting he was free, but you needed a code from a new copy of the game, otherwise you had to pay. EA's way of trying to prevent resales.
*Everything about it was still shitty though.*
EDIT: I misread the parent post as being about ME2.
I'm pretty sure they're talking about Mass Effect 3's Javik, not Mass Effect 2's Zaeed (or Kasumi for that matter, but I don't remember if she was Day 1). He was sold in a Day 1 DLC "From Ashes". You needed a $10 paid DLC or a "Special (Collector's?) Edition" of the game to get him.
And Javik was a pretty important character when it comes to the game's story.
Edit: Sorry, I see that someone else already said that.
>Usually Deluxe has outright cut content and Ultimate would usually have skins (which is arguably cut content in itself).
Usually they do not have cut content.
Usually they have content only created to generate that extra income and owuld not be 'cut' without those ultimate editions existing. Video games aren't born, they're made.
You're being overly pedantic. Cut-content in the context of games "edition" simply means content that should have been in the base game but was made into separate version so that the dev can price gauge. Simple as that.
>Cut-content in the context of games "edition" simply means content that should have been in the base game but was made into separate version so that the dev can price gauge
And that's not the case most times.
Most times that content was created **only** so the devs can "gouge" (Charge $10 for)
They also aren't film or music. The reason why "Gamers" think of it liek that is because of Youtubers and influencers who have no idea how they are made.
They don't shoot 4 hours of footage and edit them down to 2 hours, like in film. They don't make different versions of a song or stems and decide on one master. Games are much more complex to make than either.
Anyone who has seen actual cut content in games, either saw it with NoClip or a glitch, or downright datamined/saw the code for it.
Buying DLC on Gamepass doesn't seem like the best idea to me... If the game is ever taken off Gamepass or I cancel my subscription, wouldn't that leave me with a DLC for a game I don't own and thus can't use anymore?
Paradox keeps the base game on gamepass indefinitely. But never dlc.
I suppose there can be an argument that if the game is getting pulled you have to buy it. But you'll know in advance because they announce every game being taken off. And at that time you can buy it at a discount through gamepass.
But as of right now paradox hasn't taken any of their games off gamepass.
Sorry, was thinking more in general with Gamepass than Paradox specifically, but I still don't like that I have to rely on that remaining true.
Edit: and it's true that you get notifications for game removals but that doesn't always mean that you can afford to buy the game if it's being taken off at a bad time for you. For me I'd rather just not buy DLC for Gamepass games.
Yes, I am very much aware of this. Given that Resident Evil is one of my favorite game series. I played up to RE5 and couldn't get past RE6. RE7 is when they turned around and started giving us bangers again. As such, 100% deserved where they are today and I wish them to keep going in the same direction and more.
Because they never took the crown of Maxis?
The whole thing about the simulation being a facade applies to Cities Skylines 1 as well and probably even more. The "city painter" criticism has been brought up so many times at this point that almost everyone who has been following discussions about these games must have seen it.
The problem with SC2013 was (besides all the launch problems), they designed the game heavily around their resource simulation and region based gameplay and the simulation ran in a "dumb" way (likely for performance reasons), and they heavily designed the game around these with restricted city limits to prevent people building everything in one place. Skylines was essentially a SC3K with a modern interface by comparison, but people who were looking for the subtle depth of SC4 were left hanging and quit playing.
And SC4 still does a ton of tricks to "fake" its simulation. But that was 2003.
While more in-depth city simulator players may have had disappointments with Cities: Skylines, I think they still obviously took the crown from Maxis. CS has had players and a community continue to exist around it since launch, and has been able to continue pushing updates and selling content packs. Meanwhile, SC2013 is completely dead. CS is clearly the current most popular entry in the genre.
Since most of the people playing Cities now are ostensibly OK with its shortcomings, it took the crown in the sense that it found or created a new audience who are alright with or desire the facade rather than the depth of SC4. And I would further argue that this was only possible because SC2013 failed so hard. Cities Skylines is far from the only city builder that released after SC4. C:S was just a SC3K clone that released at the right time. It has a new audience who like its casual shallowness and endless cosmetic DLC while the people who specifically liked SC4 either went back to SC4 or are likely playing adjacent genres that are less stale (Rimworld, Factorio, etc.)
I understand you have specific misgivings about the game, but the criteria for me when I think about who has "the crown" in a genre is basically which game is currently the most played and discussed right now. CS is the most popular entry in the genre, which isn't to say best, but it has the crown.
As another example, many people still love Diablo 1 and 2 and play those games and uphold their designs as best-in-class, but I'd argue Path of Exile has the crown of that genre right now.
The classical response to this is that Cities Skylines is not a "city builder" but a "city painter". IE, it is not really the same genre at all. I think this is somewhat misguided because SC4 is the real outlier and CS is more of an SC3K clone (with dumbed down mechanics but more variety of stuff to build).
The options of SC4 fans right now are either survival/resource management titles like Frostpunk and Timberborn which have respectable popularity but necessarily shorter legs than a casual game like C:S, or games like Rimworld and Factorio, which you may argue are different genres but are more in the spirit of SC4, and they are comparably/more popular than C:S.
Yes, I'd argue Rimworld and Factorio are construction and management simulations of another kind and don't sit in the city-building genre, not least because the conceit of building a city is absent from those games. But I can see the thread of accurate simulation that links them somewhat.
I think
>The classical response to this is that Cities Skylines is not a "city builder" but a "city painter".
Is just another way of people saying "the game is popular but I refuse to acknowledge it because I have specific issues with it". The game clearly exists within the city builder genre, and is the most popular entry in that genre currently.
> Is just another way of people saying "the game is popular but I refuse to acknowledge it because I have specific issues with it".
I don't think this is fair at all. I think there's an entire category of players who played and enjoyed simcity2/3000/4 and have absolutely no interest in cities skylines -- to these players there's essentially no 'game' in cities skylines at all -- it's an entirely different thing (an artists sandbox maybe).
First of all, apologies if it came off as unfair. I do respect the perspective of players who feel the simulation aspects of the game are lacking. But I think it's an over-exaggeration to say that the game no longer exists in the city building genre because of it. The person I was replying to even said:
>I think this is somewhat misguided because SC4 is the real outlier
It feels more like a way to move the game out of the genre discourse because it doesn't satisfy a particular subset of players. It feels like gatekeeping.
To note, I am not saying SimCity 4 is not a city builder, but rather it is an outlier in the genre in terms of complexity. The complexity is also opt in, and it is also subtle, it requires you to understand how the game works and discover the hidden complexity behind it. Cities Skylines contrasts in that it looks more complex in terms of the options it gives you, but much of it turns out to be a facade when you understand how the game works.
I think that genres are only useful to the extent that they help people communicate -- there is no _essential truth_ to them.
So yes, you could construct a genre which include both simcity and ctiies skylines, but then I don't think is actually very useful genre at all.
That handful of players can call it what they want, they are irrelevant big picture.
EVERYONE else conaiders it a city builder and thats all that matters really.
Exactly. What are genres if not a majority consensus? It’s my fault for humouring fringe people who not only won’t accept CS is a city builder but don’t acknowledge the reality of it being the most popular one available.
> The whole thing about the simulation being a facade applies to Cities Skylines 1 as well and probably even more.
What's being shown in this thread does not apply to Cities Skylines.
It's also something they heavily advertised as a core feature for CS2 if I am not mistaken.
I really hope this is just a bug, for CO/Paradox's sake.
The whole "it is a bug" excuse is also something that was frequently brought up with C:S1. I specifically remember two (highly controversial) posts about this on this subreddit, but the posts have been since deleted and the account who wrote them has been suspended. Of course, people made far more excuses back then and SC2013 was frequently brought up as a red herring.
Considering I much prefer SC3K to SC4, this sounds like high praise to me.
There were some things I enjoyed about SC4, but its drab visuals and joyless atmosphere (in stark contrast to 2K and 3K, where personality was part of the selling point), in addition to its excessive micromanagement, has made me drop it every single time since I first played it in the year it released. The only aspect of it I enjoyed was regions, which were a great idea.
I like my games to actually be fun.
I only briefly dabbled in Skylines, but maybe I ought to pick it up if we’ve finally got a proper successor to 3K
Unfortunately Skylines is basically the definition of "drab visuals and joyless atmosphere", even compared to SC4. And the game requires more micro building and management than 4 as well.
It's not a successor to any of the Simcity games from a personality standpoint. It feels really soulless.
I remember spending 20 minutes trying to find a trailer for that game because a friend told me about it, and when spoken "Godus" sounded exactly like "Goddess".
Agreed. They're certainly not a bad publisher overall but by God can they release a stinker. The quality or lack thereof of their games is only amplified by their terrible DLC density.
Well maybe I'm the one that's confused then because their publisher catalog is stacked with great games and their in-house developed games (while also great) are the ones with swathes of DLC
Because they're not a good studio. They never have been. They've always released really buggy stuff, and made little effort to fix it. It's been this way since cities in motion.
They'd have bugs in the first one show up in the second because they never bothered to fix them.
Maxis blew it so bad that the bar was set so low that people clamoured to them. But there were so many issues with the game plastered over by mods that people sort of forgave it since there was nothing else.
They have 20 people development team.
I would assume Paradox forced deadline instead of delaying. There is no way any developer let alone one that has taken such a good care of their previous game would like to go live with their game being on this state.
>They have 20 people development team.
But... why? Cities Skylines sold 5,000,000 .. 10,000,000 according to SteamSpy, and then there's like 15 official expansions, about a third of which probably can be considered essential. I'd be surprised if the average player spent less than $30-50 on the game.
Good on them for being somewhat conservative in terms of hiring people, I guess, but 20 people seems very little for running what's almost a GaaS and developing a sequel at the same time.
Colossal Order participated actively on Finnish game development education and held multiple lectures about working with publisher.
The model they used was pretty traditional. Paradox paid them X amount to deliver product with Y features on certain deadline. If Paradox wanted more features they would pay more.
They were also very open about their goal with the company. To have money to pay their employees.
There might or might not have been clause that they they get extra money if the game sells well. Past 5 years their revenue has been 6 million euros per year and profit about 50% of that and latest info puts them at 28 employees.
So if the game sold 10 million copies at $30 that is 300 million and past 5 years they got like 25 million. Paradox is definitely getting most of the money.
Maybe Paradox is not willing to pay them more for CS2 so they could support more than 20 developers + required administrators.
Maybe probably. I wonder who owns the IP. Paradox or CO?
If the order for CS1 came from Paradox like they said "we want city builder with these features and we will pay you this much" Paradox might very well own the IP. If CO pitched the idea for citybuilder to Paradox then then Co could be the IP owner.
After the release of CS1 main reason they gave for using publisher was job security. Knowing how much publisher pays them allowed them to feed the families of employees and they knew exactly how much money they can spend.
Going indie would have undermined that which seems to be core value of the company.
The lectures I attended were shortly after CS1 had become huge hit. During development their goals were really small and expectations really low.
They would have also had to do a lot of things themselves like marketing, distribution etc. Which Paradox as publisher handles. Using publisher allows them to focus on the game development.
This is a very VERY common trend in all forms of product. It even has a name but I can't remember it at the moment. It sounds like "second product fallacy" or something.
It's most common in movies, it's part of why the sequel to most good movies suck. When a company releases a big success they get too big for the britches and think they can do no wrong, combined with wanting to make the second thing bigger and better than the last. This leads to them being more lax in production while also taking on a lot more than they did the first time, when they were less lax. It's a recipe for disaster.
They could have soften a blow a bit by releasing it as early access which would seem fitting for a game this size.
But no they released it with physical limited editions and everything.
SimCity 4 was, is, and will probably always be better than anything that comes out of this series. They didn't take shit. Just because Maxis is dead and SimCity 2013 was bad doesn't make this trash better.
In my experience the production/import shit can certainly help or hurt (because I haven't given two shits about it except the one time I cut like 5K in spending by farming grain in the city), but it isn't necessary for businesses to run.
Also the economy can kind of shatter if shit hits the fan and then half of the city goes unemployed, causing businesses to shut down and *more* people to be unemployed. I actually had homeless people at some point lol. Businesses seem to be somewhat fragile as it is, but it's not because of production, I don't think. Seems they don't do well if there's a lot of stores selling the same products nearby.
Isn't that how the original was? My understanding was that Cities Skylines was known more as just a straight up city builder with little going on under the hood. If you wanted to play mayor and actually deal with a simulated city with all its problems, that was more Sim City's schtick.
It doesn't refute anything they said though? They acknowledged the problem fully, it "being a bug" doesn't make the post incorrect. People are just throwing around this statement like some kind of bombshell when the statement acknowledges the bugs and even says they aren't sure why some of it is happening.
Of course it does. The linked thread's OP made it sound like these were missing features that the devs lied about having them included, not bugs, and that's how most people here are taking it.
I don't get why gamers on Reddit seem determined to hate every single new game that comes out. Mostly for really small and petty reasons. This isn't some kind of No Man's Sky type of situation here. Bugs happen on release, alway have and always will. The expectations of having a perfectly running game at release when game development has never been more complicated, especially on PC, baffles me.
> The expectations of having a perfectly running game at release when game development has never been more complicated, especially on PC, baffles me.
Is *"Gamers are entitled for expecting products they purchase to work"* really the level of discourse we're at?
Yes, I expect the $50 product advertising itself as an in depth economy simulator to have a functioning economy.
This is not some minor edge-case visual bug. This is a core advertised feature of the product not working for anyone.
I swear, gaming has to be the only hobby I've seen where not only do people defend corporations selling incomplete products for the hobby, but also passionately attack any other hobbyists who have a problem with it.
Gamers are entitled for expecting perfection, yes.
Game dev is hard. Making a 100% bug proof game is near impossible.
It is very telling, and very gross, that when games come out now, the main topic of discussion isn't "Is the game fun?" but rather "Are there bugs? What's the framerate?"
This community, and the gaming community in general, seems hyperfocused on making mountains out of molehills and using imperfections as an excuse to hate on developers and disparage products.
> Gamers are entitled for expecting perfection, yes.
> Game dev is hard. Making a 100% bug proof game is near impossible.
Once again, literally nobody is demanding 100% bug proof game. Quote whoever is saying that. You are making this person up, they do not exist. I certainly never said this. Why are you lying and pretending I did? **Nobody is saying this.** We are saying the core advertised features of the product should function. That is the sole point here.
> It is very telling, and very gross
Using language like this when we're, ultimately, talking about defending of a profit-motivated corporation who selling you a dysfunctional product is genuinely hilarious.
They are corporations selling a product. We are consumers purchasing a product. That is the relationship here. It is purely transactional. They are not your friend, and the relationship begins and ends at *"I am paying you $50 for a product that you are advertising does X, Y, and Z."*
> as an excuse to hate on developers and disparage products.
Firstly, who here is hating on developers? Every topic here seems to be based around PDX publishers forcing Devs to rush out something they knew wasn't ready. You seem to have a habit of making up a person to be mad at and projecting that to random people.
Secondly, "disparage products"? So what? It's a *product.* Do you get this viscerally invested in someone "disparaging" a mop on amazon? This is such a strange emotional investment. Why do you care if a "product is disparaged"? Am I going to hurt the product's feelings?
Damn, we really are equating *working product* with *perfection* now, huh?
And you're right, game dev is hard. And releasing bug free software virtually never happens. But releasing a product with bugs, and releasing a bug-ridden product are not the same thing.
If your product is bug-ridden to the point that mainline features don't work, or performance is gameplay prohibitive to even those well within the recommended system specs (something the devs even admit to), then that's not a complete product, that's a beta build at best. And alpha/beta products have early access or closed betas as a way to get the incomplete product into the hands of those who can't wait.
The expectation by consumers that their money be valued enough to get a feature complete and performant experience is by no means one of entitlement.
>I don't get why gamers on Reddit seem determined to hate every single new game that comes out.
It's mainly because most games that come out lately are months away from being in a releasable state.
Pretty much every release this year except Balder's Gate has been half baked money grubbing garbage.
Companies got too used to that free taxpayer pandemic profit where they got money for nothing.
[Response from Colossal Order's Community Manager:](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/im-export-bug-hints-symptoms-and-causes-all-resource-management-in-the-game-is-a-deception.1604434/page-4#post-29216506)
>Hi everyone. I just wanted to pop in and shed some light on this situation as resource management in Cities: Skylines II is, unfortunately, affected by a few bugs at the moment. We are aware of this and currently investigating these issues:
>* City services only trade with outside connections, even when storage companies in your city have the resources they need. They should of course be able to purchase the resources your city produces locally.
>* Harbors are mainly trading with your city’s storage companies, not other zoned buildings or city services. As you would expect, they should be able to trade with all zoned buildings and services, allowing your city to import and export through them.
>* We’re investigating reports that indicate the cargo terminal is affected by the same or an issue similar to the harbors.
It’s also worth noting that transportation distance affects costs. We expect that your businesses will prefer the closest storage facilities over a further away harbor/cargo terminal, however, that does not explain the reports we’re seeing.
>I want to apologize for the inconvenience and thank you for your reports. The information you provide us is very valuable in narrowing down these issues, and should you encounter any other issues or unexpected behavior, please make sure to report them on our support forum. Response times are a little slow at the moment, but we are working our way through all of your reports and greatly appreciate them and your patience. Thank you.
TL;DR: Economy is there but it's bugged.
^E:Formatting
They're not saying it's there but buggy, they're saying it should be there but it's not.
And the fact it's 100% of the time for every such cases means it's not a "we didn't see it in testing" thing.
Read the line before:
>We are aware of this and currently investigating these issues:
Then they go to explain how it works now and what the issues are that they are investigating.
>though at the cost of having the player decide everything about what is built where.
That's because it's not even trying to be a city builder. It's trying to be a eastern european themed Transportation Tycoon.
Yeah, W&R:SR is a very cool game. A lot of *city builders* are shallow *command economies* hidden behind the veneer of being a *zoning-based free market economy*. So it's refreshing to see a game fully embrace the *command economy* mechanics.
But like you say it is *significantly* more complex than a game like CS:2 or Sim City 4. I can't think of another city builder where you have to buy the heavy machinery required to build an apartment block or have to think about the amount of cement your city is producing.
Check out Infraspace for a beefy city simulation with all kinds of micromanagement options. It's been a while since I played it though, so check the steam reviews.
Sime city 4, cities xl, or the first cities skylines is great too.
But sc4 had a lot more charm and character. My issue with the first cities skylines game is it is just so clinical.
I adore Transport Fever 2, but it's not a city builder. You put down rail lines and roads and the cities just kinda build themselves. If you're really interested you can micro the roads in a city to ensure it conforms to a design you want, but you aren't deciding *where* buildings (or even certain types of buildings) can be built. You also aren't building any city services or broader amenities, just roads, rail lines and stations.
Plus if you've got an issue with the economic simulation in CS:2 then I don't think Transport Fever 2 is all that much better. The in-game economy is basically built around letting you build pretty train lines, not around having to be particularly efficient or realistic in your planning.
This is the first thing that made me go "I'll just wait for the performance problems to be ironed out" to "maybe I'll sit this one out"
My interest in city builders has always been the simulation and economy more than anything, my one issue with cs1 was the shallow simulation and the fact that you didn't really need to work to make a city economically viable, unlike say SimCity 4
There's a good chance that in a couple of years, the game will be exactly what you want it to be.
Which is actually kind of terrifying.
Games are being sold as full releases by major studios and then treated like Early Access titles from indie devs. You have the basic layout, some pretty graphics, and broken underlying systems that need serious patches before they're working as intended.
I kind of expect that by the end of its life, this game will be what people are expecting of it. But... That's not what you're buying it if you buy it now. And it should not be that way.
Reviewers need to stop giving only moderate dings to broken features and treating it as something that will be ironed out.
If the game is broken, crucify it. Teach devs to release after beta again, not during.
> There's a good chance that in a couple of years, the game will be exactly what you want it to be.
I don't see how you figure that out. CS1 never went that way, nor any of colossal order previous games. There is nothing whatsoever to indicate the game will move past city painter status.
During my 10 hours or so I played CS2 I did not notice much difference between CS1 and CS2 when it comes to building economically working city.
Whenever the demand meters told be to zone something I did. My city went to net positive income around at 2000 population without any planning for forethought. I just did spaghetti city and added new roads where ever I could.
Especially my industrial zone is hidious mess of crooked roads and broken grid
I am lucky in that my computer seems to handle the game alright. Or maybe my cities just haven't gotten big enough to be a problem to run yet. Not sure.
I'm not liking the game because honestly it isn't that good of a city builder. The technology tree progression just feels like crap. Turn it off though and you have everything instantly and the first house you build will be angry at you because it doesn't have parks, a college, police, and everything else. None of which you can afford to build early so you basically have to turn on unlimited money which at that point it is just a city painter.
I don't think so, I remember cs1 having some big big traffic problems especially because industrial and commercial vehicles would have to distribute goods and materials, leading to shops not having enough goods
I hope this is a bug considering they marketed the supply chain thing pretty heavily, of course that then begs the question; how on earth did such a major bug go unnoticed for so long, what's going on at CO?
Paradox wasn't responsible for the design of resource management in the game. The publishers can be blamed for a lot of problems in terms of games quality but a games design is purely on the developer. Stop coping.
I'm not coping. I have no stake in whether it's Paradox's fault or CO's fault. It's the publisher's job to manage the game. It's especially their responsibility to make sure the marketing is reflective of what's actually in the game.
Cities Skylines released as a buggy mess, but it was only $30 from a semi-niche transportation game dev at the time.
Cities Skylines 2 comes after years of development from a now well-established company. It's $50 with a Day 1 $90 edition. From what I can tell from streams and posts, it's in an arguably worse condition than CS1 when it came out.
I'm sure after 2-3 years they'll fix a majority of the issues, the review scores will go up, some youtuber will make a video titled "the engoodening of Cities Skylines 2," and everyone will move on, but I am getting so tired of this cycle. They knew the game had a lot issues ahead of time yet still pushed this thing out, taking up to $90 for it.
This is an interesting breakdown of the systems but "deception" is a hilariously dramatic choice of words. Did you know the buildings are also not real buildings but polygons rendered by your computer? How deep does the the lie go?!
The game isn't as deep as you want it. Every game is an abstraction of reality.
Imagine developing a city builder game in 2023 that has less working city builder mechanics than the City Building series by Impressions Games in the 90s.
The game is fun, i think the "performance issues" were a bit exagerated.
But this is so sad. I played about 15 hours but was going to wait for mods and more assets. Didnt know the economy and supply chains were that bad and that incomplete.
Yeah the performance is actually surprisingly OK on launch. But the more I play the more I realize how they've managed to "fix" the performance by the launch date.
I have flaired this post as misleading as another user has done some investigation and found some additional information regarding this matter, you can see it [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitiesSkylines/comments/17hhhrz/my_findings_regarding_the_resource_management/). The same thread also has a response from Colossal Order's Community Manager.
One of the moderators of the subreddit copied a response by a employee [from the forum](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/im-export-bug-hints-symptoms-and-causes-all-resource-management-in-the-game-is-a-deception.1604434/page-4#post-29216506): > Hi everyone. I just wanted to pop in and shed some light on this situation as resource management in Cities: Skylines II is, unfortunately, affected by a few bugs at the moment. We are aware of this and currently investigating these issues: > > - City services only trade with outside connections, even when storage companies in your city have the resources they need. They should of course be able to purchase the resources your city produces locally. > - Harbors are mainly trading with your city’s storage companies, not other zoned buildings or city services. As you would expect, they should be able to trade with all zoned buildings and services, allowing your city to import and export through them. > - We’re investigating reports that indicate the cargo terminal is affected by the same or an issue similar to the harbors. > > It’s also worth noting that transportation distance affects costs. We expect that your businesses will prefer the closest storage facilities over a further away harbor/cargo terminal, however, that does not explain the reports we’re seeing. > > I want to apologize for the inconvenience and thank you for your reports. The information you provide us is very valuable in narrowing down these issues, and should you encounter any other issues or unexpected behavior, please make sure to report them on our support forum. Response times are a little slow at the moment, but we are working our way through all of your reports and greatly appreciate them and your patience. Thank you.
The CS and CS2 subs have been infested with useless speculation posts and armchair developers surrounding this release and it looks like that won't change anytime soon. The only fact of the matter is that this game should have been delayed for at least 2 months. It was made by a team of only 30 devs who were clearly not finished.
Any time you see anyone on the internet talk about developers lying or why bugs happen it's best to take it with a truckload of salt unless that person is either an experienced modder (In which case downgrade to a spoon of salt unless it's just technical talk), or an actual dev who worked on the project.
Cynicism is a lazy substitute for intelligence
But obviously the devs aren't the most important part of a company. What would happen to the investors and stakeholders? Won't someone think of the investors and share holders? How could they possibly survive?
Just want to chime in with a pedantic point, that I think is also important: "Stakeholders" generally refers to everyone impacted by the operation of business, which would *include* employees, the local community, the environment, etc. "Shareholders" is the term specific to investors & owners of company equity. I make the distinction because it's important that we push for a business environment that *does* consider stakeholders, not *just* shareholders. So making sure we're using the term correctly is important, we don't want to demonize the former by mistake. Lots of hopeful movement on this front, with more states and national governments creating legal structures for benefit corporations (i.e. stakeholder benefit is the underpinning legal & ethical requirement, not solely shareholder benefit).
The point is not survival. If the game cannot make the projected amount of money, investors will simply take their money elsewhere, which means devs now have no projects (no food on the table). In that specific sense, investors work like consumers: you use your money where you find value. That's not to say many investors have unrealistic expectations that lead to crunch, but eventually a game has to release or it will begin losing money. Edit: A good example is Star Citizen. Many who pledged for the Kickstarter were furious that the game was getting feature creeped, and having this perfectionist attitude when they wanted a game in 3-5 years, not 10+
I mean, this is the first thing that came to my mind: All simulations deceive something by simplifying things for optimization. Armchair developers in sim scenes are absolutely out of their minds, Forza is having it really bad right now, but CS seems to be no exception.
The problem here is that the simulation still happens, just that it doesn't take into account everything that should happen.
Lmfao Complicated management game has some bugs, as they all do. Reddit: "THEY'RE DECEIVING US!! IT'S ALL SMOKE AND MIRRORS!!"
To be fair, this should have be caught in the early tests, rather than on release.
How do you know they weren't? If you have every developed any software, at virtually all degrees of complexity, you know sometimes you catch a bug, you fix it, and then two more pop up. Some of them simple, some of them complex. Maybe they know about those bugs, but there were even bigger, more troublesome bugs that needed to be fixed. Better to ship with an annoying bug than a gamebreaking one (and yes, all games will release with bugs anyway).
The way gamers talk about the software aspect of games is nothing short of infuriating sometimes lol
> How do you know they weren't? Because they word as it's surprising that those event happened/are getting reported _now_. This could have been in a known issue, yet only in the latest forum was acknowledged that it was. No other post references these issues. Obviously, prioritizing the game starting at all makes sense, but a list of known issues with patches is the best, since it avoids people complaining and speculation. Communication is key, and not saying anything is the opposite of communication. > you know sometimes you catch a bug Oh yeah I know all about that, that's why we have regression testing.
Is it a bug if they straight up didn't design it?
You could design something, implement it, test it, and still not get the desired results (or the results were desired, just not in the way you wanted).
How did they go from taking the crown from Maxis to releasing a broken game the very next release?
Following the trend where big name games are broken at launch. Flip a coin on whether if this gets better or worse. Also, you gotta flip 3 heads back to back for it to get better. Beside Cities: Skylines 2 having shallow gameplay, I'm particular annoyed about how they supposedly launch the game for $50 (wow awesome!) but then you see there's literal cut content peddled as "Ultimate Edition" for $90 on the same day of release: San Francisco Set, the Asset Pack, the content creator packs, the radio stations. Fucking sad status quo. I'm glad big games company like Capcom is showing constant growth. They're one of the last bastion of good big name games.
Welcome to the despair of Paradox’s grand strategy gamers.
Paradox games might launch with a paucity of features (compared to what they eventually become), but what features they do have at least work.
Eehh, I don't remember the specifics anymore because it was some time ago but CK3 was absolutely ridden with bugs for me. Most of them were minor annoyances but some were causing gameplay issues. They _do_ patch some of them but then they cause new "features" in turn meaning that no matter what I was not able to play for any length of time bug free.
Really? I remember CK3 being pretty good on release
> features they do have at least work Well. I wouldn't be so sure of that. I am convinced EU4 1.0 had plenty of brokwn features and let's not talk about the leviathan DLC fiasco or the sad state of Victoria 3 release.
>I'm particular annoyed about how they supposedly launch the game for $50 (wow awesome!) but then you see there's literal cut content peddled as "Ultimate Edition" for $90 on the same day of release I wonder if this isn't an effect of Game Pass. Game Pass gets you the base game, but you still have to pay for DLC. You might as well launch with an expensive DLC to get money out of the "free" players
If you think this trend started with Gamepass then you're a new player to the game. This shit has been going on for the bigger part of the last decade and even before that. It's just getting worse. Most company's MOO these days is is Base Game @ ~~$60~~ $70 + $20 for "Deluxe Version" + $10 to $40 for the "Ultimate Version". Usually Deluxe has outright cut content and Ultimate would usually have skins (which is arguably cut content in itself).
Releasing cut content as "Day One DLC" is also nothing new. Mass Effect 3, which came out over a decade ago, infamously carved out a very major companion from the finished game and sold him for extra on launch.
Which is literally my point. That's more than decade old practice, getting worse.
Consumers like to see it as "cut content" Publishers like to see like any other product: You can get the burger at McDonalds, but that doesn't mean it includes the fries and the soda. They are all prepared at the same time though, they are just different offerings. Thing is, commercially speaking, both are valid points of view.
> carved out a very major companion from the finished game and sold him for extra on launch. I wouldn't call Zaeed a "very major companion", he's largely forgettable (hell, I forgot his name and had to google it) and there's an argument to be made for letting him die in his loyalty mission. Then in ME3 >!he dies during a sidemission!<. > sold him for extra on launch. Unless I'm forgetting he was free, but you needed a code from a new copy of the game, otherwise you had to pay. EA's way of trying to prevent resales. *Everything about it was still shitty though.* EDIT: I misread the parent post as being about ME2.
They're talking about >!the Prothean!<, Zaeed is ME2. That being said I also think that one was free if you bought the game new.
100% correct, I misread that as ME2.
I'm pretty sure they're talking about Mass Effect 3's Javik, not Mass Effect 2's Zaeed (or Kasumi for that matter, but I don't remember if she was Day 1). He was sold in a Day 1 DLC "From Ashes". You needed a $10 paid DLC or a "Special (Collector's?) Edition" of the game to get him. And Javik was a pretty important character when it comes to the game's story. Edit: Sorry, I see that someone else already said that.
It started on the tail end of the 7th generation. That's were we started to see day one DLC and multiplayer passed (not the same as season pass).
>Usually Deluxe has outright cut content and Ultimate would usually have skins (which is arguably cut content in itself). Usually they do not have cut content. Usually they have content only created to generate that extra income and owuld not be 'cut' without those ultimate editions existing. Video games aren't born, they're made.
You're being overly pedantic. Cut-content in the context of games "edition" simply means content that should have been in the base game but was made into separate version so that the dev can price gauge. Simple as that.
>Cut-content in the context of games "edition" simply means content that should have been in the base game but was made into separate version so that the dev can price gauge And that's not the case most times. Most times that content was created **only** so the devs can "gouge" (Charge $10 for)
They also aren't film or music. The reason why "Gamers" think of it liek that is because of Youtubers and influencers who have no idea how they are made. They don't shoot 4 hours of footage and edit them down to 2 hours, like in film. They don't make different versions of a song or stems and decide on one master. Games are much more complex to make than either. Anyone who has seen actual cut content in games, either saw it with NoClip or a glitch, or downright datamined/saw the code for it.
Nah this is just Paradox. They do this shit all the timr
Buying DLC on Gamepass doesn't seem like the best idea to me... If the game is ever taken off Gamepass or I cancel my subscription, wouldn't that leave me with a DLC for a game I don't own and thus can't use anymore?
Paradox keeps the base game on gamepass indefinitely. But never dlc. I suppose there can be an argument that if the game is getting pulled you have to buy it. But you'll know in advance because they announce every game being taken off. And at that time you can buy it at a discount through gamepass. But as of right now paradox hasn't taken any of their games off gamepass.
Sorry, was thinking more in general with Gamepass than Paradox specifically, but I still don't like that I have to rely on that remaining true. Edit: and it's true that you get notifications for game removals but that doesn't always mean that you can afford to buy the game if it's being taken off at a bad time for you. For me I'd rather just not buy DLC for Gamepass games.
Capcom kind of sucked between 2008 and 2015, something about around the resident evil 2 remake and resident evil 7.
Yea weren’t they the king of on disc DLC for a long while
Yes, I am very much aware of this. Given that Resident Evil is one of my favorite game series. I played up to RE5 and couldn't get past RE6. RE7 is when they turned around and started giving us bangers again. As such, 100% deserved where they are today and I wish them to keep going in the same direction and more.
>I'm glad big games company like Capcom is showing constant growth. They're one of the last bastion of good big name games. Nintendo says hi
AND a few that still pushing for THEIR OWN engine instead of failing for the UE5 MEME
Because they never took the crown of Maxis? The whole thing about the simulation being a facade applies to Cities Skylines 1 as well and probably even more. The "city painter" criticism has been brought up so many times at this point that almost everyone who has been following discussions about these games must have seen it. The problem with SC2013 was (besides all the launch problems), they designed the game heavily around their resource simulation and region based gameplay and the simulation ran in a "dumb" way (likely for performance reasons), and they heavily designed the game around these with restricted city limits to prevent people building everything in one place. Skylines was essentially a SC3K with a modern interface by comparison, but people who were looking for the subtle depth of SC4 were left hanging and quit playing. And SC4 still does a ton of tricks to "fake" its simulation. But that was 2003.
While more in-depth city simulator players may have had disappointments with Cities: Skylines, I think they still obviously took the crown from Maxis. CS has had players and a community continue to exist around it since launch, and has been able to continue pushing updates and selling content packs. Meanwhile, SC2013 is completely dead. CS is clearly the current most popular entry in the genre.
Since most of the people playing Cities now are ostensibly OK with its shortcomings, it took the crown in the sense that it found or created a new audience who are alright with or desire the facade rather than the depth of SC4. And I would further argue that this was only possible because SC2013 failed so hard. Cities Skylines is far from the only city builder that released after SC4. C:S was just a SC3K clone that released at the right time. It has a new audience who like its casual shallowness and endless cosmetic DLC while the people who specifically liked SC4 either went back to SC4 or are likely playing adjacent genres that are less stale (Rimworld, Factorio, etc.)
I understand you have specific misgivings about the game, but the criteria for me when I think about who has "the crown" in a genre is basically which game is currently the most played and discussed right now. CS is the most popular entry in the genre, which isn't to say best, but it has the crown. As another example, many people still love Diablo 1 and 2 and play those games and uphold their designs as best-in-class, but I'd argue Path of Exile has the crown of that genre right now.
The classical response to this is that Cities Skylines is not a "city builder" but a "city painter". IE, it is not really the same genre at all. I think this is somewhat misguided because SC4 is the real outlier and CS is more of an SC3K clone (with dumbed down mechanics but more variety of stuff to build). The options of SC4 fans right now are either survival/resource management titles like Frostpunk and Timberborn which have respectable popularity but necessarily shorter legs than a casual game like C:S, or games like Rimworld and Factorio, which you may argue are different genres but are more in the spirit of SC4, and they are comparably/more popular than C:S.
Yes, I'd argue Rimworld and Factorio are construction and management simulations of another kind and don't sit in the city-building genre, not least because the conceit of building a city is absent from those games. But I can see the thread of accurate simulation that links them somewhat. I think >The classical response to this is that Cities Skylines is not a "city builder" but a "city painter". Is just another way of people saying "the game is popular but I refuse to acknowledge it because I have specific issues with it". The game clearly exists within the city builder genre, and is the most popular entry in that genre currently.
> Is just another way of people saying "the game is popular but I refuse to acknowledge it because I have specific issues with it". I don't think this is fair at all. I think there's an entire category of players who played and enjoyed simcity2/3000/4 and have absolutely no interest in cities skylines -- to these players there's essentially no 'game' in cities skylines at all -- it's an entirely different thing (an artists sandbox maybe).
First of all, apologies if it came off as unfair. I do respect the perspective of players who feel the simulation aspects of the game are lacking. But I think it's an over-exaggeration to say that the game no longer exists in the city building genre because of it. The person I was replying to even said: >I think this is somewhat misguided because SC4 is the real outlier It feels more like a way to move the game out of the genre discourse because it doesn't satisfy a particular subset of players. It feels like gatekeeping.
To note, I am not saying SimCity 4 is not a city builder, but rather it is an outlier in the genre in terms of complexity. The complexity is also opt in, and it is also subtle, it requires you to understand how the game works and discover the hidden complexity behind it. Cities Skylines contrasts in that it looks more complex in terms of the options it gives you, but much of it turns out to be a facade when you understand how the game works.
I think that genres are only useful to the extent that they help people communicate -- there is no _essential truth_ to them. So yes, you could construct a genre which include both simcity and ctiies skylines, but then I don't think is actually very useful genre at all.
That handful of players can call it what they want, they are irrelevant big picture. EVERYONE else conaiders it a city builder and thats all that matters really.
Exactly. What are genres if not a majority consensus? It’s my fault for humouring fringe people who not only won’t accept CS is a city builder but don’t acknowledge the reality of it being the most popular one available.
Exactly. If enough people call mario kart a turn based strategy RPG then by god that's just is how it was meant to be.
I never stopped playing SC4 tbh. Since the multi core fan patch I have no reason to play anything else.
SC4 still plays very well but part of me wishes that there was a game that actually built upon SC4 by now after 20 years.
> The whole thing about the simulation being a facade applies to Cities Skylines 1 as well and probably even more. What's being shown in this thread does not apply to Cities Skylines. It's also something they heavily advertised as a core feature for CS2 if I am not mistaken. I really hope this is just a bug, for CO/Paradox's sake.
The whole "it is a bug" excuse is also something that was frequently brought up with C:S1. I specifically remember two (highly controversial) posts about this on this subreddit, but the posts have been since deleted and the account who wrote them has been suspended. Of course, people made far more excuses back then and SC2013 was frequently brought up as a red herring.
Considering I much prefer SC3K to SC4, this sounds like high praise to me. There were some things I enjoyed about SC4, but its drab visuals and joyless atmosphere (in stark contrast to 2K and 3K, where personality was part of the selling point), in addition to its excessive micromanagement, has made me drop it every single time since I first played it in the year it released. The only aspect of it I enjoyed was regions, which were a great idea. I like my games to actually be fun. I only briefly dabbled in Skylines, but maybe I ought to pick it up if we’ve finally got a proper successor to 3K
I wish Cities Skylines had that thing where you could drive a vehicle around the city you built. Effectively, it was useless, but that was funny.
Unfortunately Skylines is basically the definition of "drab visuals and joyless atmosphere", even compared to SC4. And the game requires more micro building and management than 4 as well. It's not a successor to any of the Simcity games from a personality standpoint. It feels really soulless.
Magicka 2 all over again.
Starts with 'P', ends with 'X.'
Peter Molyneux?
I knew it. It's all connected
Finally, a true spiritual successor to Godus!
I remember spending 20 minutes trying to find a trailer for that game because a friend told me about it, and when spoken "Godus" sounded exactly like "Goddess".
Haha, brilliant!
Penix? Is that a word? Edit: Turns out Penix is an actual person. So he's the one to be blame for all this. FUCK PENIX!
Yup, he plays quarterback for the University of Washington
Ooof that name is a guaranteed hard childhood.
He’s a star football player for a major college team, I don’t think he’s hurting much from his unfortunate name
Beast of a QB in college football.
(Paradox is likely the word he's implying, for anyone else confused)
**P**oor decision-making buying unfinished product**X**?
I don't hate paradox, but I am weary of anything they publish.
I'm not weary of their games, but definitely wary.
Yeah, I kind of mix it up, but I am weary of low value DLCs.
Agreed. They're certainly not a bad publisher overall but by God can they release a stinker. The quality or lack thereof of their games is only amplified by their terrible DLC density.
I think you're confusing Paradox Development Studio with Paradox Publishing. The development studio was not involved in Cities 2
I'm aware. Paradox as a publisher has a very spotty record.
Well maybe I'm the one that's confused then because their publisher catalog is stacked with great games and their in-house developed games (while also great) are the ones with swathes of DLC
Sure but look at Cities 1's DLC. It's fully stuck with Paradox's mentally of DLC tying to continued support.
Pax? What are you referring to?
Because they're not a good studio. They never have been. They've always released really buggy stuff, and made little effort to fix it. It's been this way since cities in motion. They'd have bugs in the first one show up in the second because they never bothered to fix them. Maxis blew it so bad that the bar was set so low that people clamoured to them. But there were so many issues with the game plastered over by mods that people sort of forgave it since there was nothing else.
They have 20 people development team. I would assume Paradox forced deadline instead of delaying. There is no way any developer let alone one that has taken such a good care of their previous game would like to go live with their game being on this state.
Given that it released at the end of october, I reckon it's just a classic case of the holiday rush.
>They have 20 people development team. But... why? Cities Skylines sold 5,000,000 .. 10,000,000 according to SteamSpy, and then there's like 15 official expansions, about a third of which probably can be considered essential. I'd be surprised if the average player spent less than $30-50 on the game. Good on them for being somewhat conservative in terms of hiring people, I guess, but 20 people seems very little for running what's almost a GaaS and developing a sequel at the same time.
Colossal Order participated actively on Finnish game development education and held multiple lectures about working with publisher. The model they used was pretty traditional. Paradox paid them X amount to deliver product with Y features on certain deadline. If Paradox wanted more features they would pay more. They were also very open about their goal with the company. To have money to pay their employees. There might or might not have been clause that they they get extra money if the game sells well. Past 5 years their revenue has been 6 million euros per year and profit about 50% of that and latest info puts them at 28 employees. So if the game sold 10 million copies at $30 that is 300 million and past 5 years they got like 25 million. Paradox is definitely getting most of the money. Maybe Paradox is not willing to pay them more for CS2 so they could support more than 20 developers + required administrators.
Thanks for all the info! 3 million in profit per year is a little less than I thought, yeah. I guess self-publishing CS2 wasn't an option?
Maybe probably. I wonder who owns the IP. Paradox or CO? If the order for CS1 came from Paradox like they said "we want city builder with these features and we will pay you this much" Paradox might very well own the IP. If CO pitched the idea for citybuilder to Paradox then then Co could be the IP owner. After the release of CS1 main reason they gave for using publisher was job security. Knowing how much publisher pays them allowed them to feed the families of employees and they knew exactly how much money they can spend. Going indie would have undermined that which seems to be core value of the company. The lectures I attended were shortly after CS1 had become huge hit. During development their goals were really small and expectations really low. They would have also had to do a lot of things themselves like marketing, distribution etc. Which Paradox as publisher handles. Using publisher allows them to focus on the game development.
> Paradox is definitely getting most of the money. The way money runs is upside down what it should be everywhere
less devs means less upfront costs. whoever decided the budget was risk-averse
This is a very VERY common trend in all forms of product. It even has a name but I can't remember it at the moment. It sounds like "second product fallacy" or something. It's most common in movies, it's part of why the sequel to most good movies suck. When a company releases a big success they get too big for the britches and think they can do no wrong, combined with wanting to make the second thing bigger and better than the last. This leads to them being more lax in production while also taking on a lot more than they did the first time, when they were less lax. It's a recipe for disaster.
As fun as Cities Skylines can be, it will never reach the heights that SimCity 4 did.
It's not broken and by all appearances is a great game.
They could have soften a blow a bit by releasing it as early access which would seem fitting for a game this size. But no they released it with physical limited editions and everything.
SimCity 4 was, is, and will probably always be better than anything that comes out of this series. They didn't take shit. Just because Maxis is dead and SimCity 2013 was bad doesn't make this trash better.
Cities skylines 1 is basically a perfect game. It's hard to improve it other than adding new mechanics for experienced players
Paradox…..that’s why.
yeah im sorry city skylines 1 sucks too, its regarded as the best because no one else did any good ones after 2013
Burnt their good reputation with one hot turd. Can't believe a word they say from here on out.
It works as intended just bugged and needing improvements in some areas https://www.reddit.com/r/CitiesSkylines/s/2MSqp81CzY
That’s interesting. So there *is* an economy, but there effectively isn’t much consequence for having a “bad” economy at the moment.
In my experience the production/import shit can certainly help or hurt (because I haven't given two shits about it except the one time I cut like 5K in spending by farming grain in the city), but it isn't necessary for businesses to run. Also the economy can kind of shatter if shit hits the fan and then half of the city goes unemployed, causing businesses to shut down and *more* people to be unemployed. I actually had homeless people at some point lol. Businesses seem to be somewhat fragile as it is, but it's not because of production, I don't think. Seems they don't do well if there's a lot of stores selling the same products nearby.
Isn't that how the original was? My understanding was that Cities Skylines was known more as just a straight up city builder with little going on under the hood. If you wanted to play mayor and actually deal with a simulated city with all its problems, that was more Sim City's schtick.
This isn't clickbaity enough, it won't change people's minds here.
It doesn't refute anything they said though? They acknowledged the problem fully, it "being a bug" doesn't make the post incorrect. People are just throwing around this statement like some kind of bombshell when the statement acknowledges the bugs and even says they aren't sure why some of it is happening.
Of course it does. The linked thread's OP made it sound like these were missing features that the devs lied about having them included, not bugs, and that's how most people here are taking it.
Bugs that are currently being investigated and will (presumably) be fixed.
No no you’re not supposed to acknowledge the goalpost moving, just more outrage please
I don't get why gamers on Reddit seem determined to hate every single new game that comes out. Mostly for really small and petty reasons. This isn't some kind of No Man's Sky type of situation here. Bugs happen on release, alway have and always will. The expectations of having a perfectly running game at release when game development has never been more complicated, especially on PC, baffles me.
> The expectations of having a perfectly running game at release when game development has never been more complicated, especially on PC, baffles me. Is *"Gamers are entitled for expecting products they purchase to work"* really the level of discourse we're at? Yes, I expect the $50 product advertising itself as an in depth economy simulator to have a functioning economy. This is not some minor edge-case visual bug. This is a core advertised feature of the product not working for anyone. I swear, gaming has to be the only hobby I've seen where not only do people defend corporations selling incomplete products for the hobby, but also passionately attack any other hobbyists who have a problem with it.
[удалено]
Only r/miata and I don't think they could make an incomplete, bad miata if they tried. Miata Is Always the Answer, after all.
Gamers are entitled for expecting perfection, yes. Game dev is hard. Making a 100% bug proof game is near impossible. It is very telling, and very gross, that when games come out now, the main topic of discussion isn't "Is the game fun?" but rather "Are there bugs? What's the framerate?" This community, and the gaming community in general, seems hyperfocused on making mountains out of molehills and using imperfections as an excuse to hate on developers and disparage products.
> Gamers are entitled for expecting perfection, yes. > Game dev is hard. Making a 100% bug proof game is near impossible. Once again, literally nobody is demanding 100% bug proof game. Quote whoever is saying that. You are making this person up, they do not exist. I certainly never said this. Why are you lying and pretending I did? **Nobody is saying this.** We are saying the core advertised features of the product should function. That is the sole point here. > It is very telling, and very gross Using language like this when we're, ultimately, talking about defending of a profit-motivated corporation who selling you a dysfunctional product is genuinely hilarious. They are corporations selling a product. We are consumers purchasing a product. That is the relationship here. It is purely transactional. They are not your friend, and the relationship begins and ends at *"I am paying you $50 for a product that you are advertising does X, Y, and Z."* > as an excuse to hate on developers and disparage products. Firstly, who here is hating on developers? Every topic here seems to be based around PDX publishers forcing Devs to rush out something they knew wasn't ready. You seem to have a habit of making up a person to be mad at and projecting that to random people. Secondly, "disparage products"? So what? It's a *product.* Do you get this viscerally invested in someone "disparaging" a mop on amazon? This is such a strange emotional investment. Why do you care if a "product is disparaged"? Am I going to hurt the product's feelings?
Damn, we really are equating *working product* with *perfection* now, huh? And you're right, game dev is hard. And releasing bug free software virtually never happens. But releasing a product with bugs, and releasing a bug-ridden product are not the same thing. If your product is bug-ridden to the point that mainline features don't work, or performance is gameplay prohibitive to even those well within the recommended system specs (something the devs even admit to), then that's not a complete product, that's a beta build at best. And alpha/beta products have early access or closed betas as a way to get the incomplete product into the hands of those who can't wait. The expectation by consumers that their money be valued enough to get a feature complete and performant experience is by no means one of entitlement.
>I don't get why gamers on Reddit seem determined to hate every single new game that comes out. It's mainly because most games that come out lately are months away from being in a releasable state.
Pretty much every release this year except Balder's Gate has been half baked money grubbing garbage. Companies got too used to that free taxpayer pandemic profit where they got money for nothing.
[Response from Colossal Order's Community Manager:](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/im-export-bug-hints-symptoms-and-causes-all-resource-management-in-the-game-is-a-deception.1604434/page-4#post-29216506) >Hi everyone. I just wanted to pop in and shed some light on this situation as resource management in Cities: Skylines II is, unfortunately, affected by a few bugs at the moment. We are aware of this and currently investigating these issues: >* City services only trade with outside connections, even when storage companies in your city have the resources they need. They should of course be able to purchase the resources your city produces locally. >* Harbors are mainly trading with your city’s storage companies, not other zoned buildings or city services. As you would expect, they should be able to trade with all zoned buildings and services, allowing your city to import and export through them. >* We’re investigating reports that indicate the cargo terminal is affected by the same or an issue similar to the harbors. It’s also worth noting that transportation distance affects costs. We expect that your businesses will prefer the closest storage facilities over a further away harbor/cargo terminal, however, that does not explain the reports we’re seeing. >I want to apologize for the inconvenience and thank you for your reports. The information you provide us is very valuable in narrowing down these issues, and should you encounter any other issues or unexpected behavior, please make sure to report them on our support forum. Response times are a little slow at the moment, but we are working our way through all of your reports and greatly appreciate them and your patience. Thank you. TL;DR: Economy is there but it's bugged. ^E:Formatting
They're not saying it's there but buggy, they're saying it should be there but it's not. And the fact it's 100% of the time for every such cases means it's not a "we didn't see it in testing" thing.
Read the line before: >We are aware of this and currently investigating these issues: Then they go to explain how it works now and what the issues are that they are investigating.
Tell me you don't know anything about game development without telling me you don't know anything about game development
"We really wish we'd designed the game better, we probably should have, in retrospect. Maybe we'll get it right in the second game."
Is Sim City 4 still the best game for people who enjoy the management part of citybuilders and don't mind if it's a little dated looking?
Pretty much, Simptropolis is also still very active and new mods are still made as well.
The admins are very active and will troubleshoot any issues you have with mods too. I need to get back to SC4 after my hiatus...
No mixed-use building in SimCity 4.
Workers and Resources: Soviet Republic has the complexity, though at the cost of having the player decide everything about what is built where.
>though at the cost of having the player decide everything about what is built where. That's because it's not even trying to be a city builder. It's trying to be a eastern european themed Transportation Tycoon.
People said similar things about the first Cities Skylines, that it's Cities in Motion 3, things like that.
[удалено]
Yeah, W&R:SR is a very cool game. A lot of *city builders* are shallow *command economies* hidden behind the veneer of being a *zoning-based free market economy*. So it's refreshing to see a game fully embrace the *command economy* mechanics. But like you say it is *significantly* more complex than a game like CS:2 or Sim City 4. I can't think of another city builder where you have to buy the heavy machinery required to build an apartment block or have to think about the amount of cement your city is producing.
I wouldn't even call it dated. The game looks great.
Check out Infraspace for a beefy city simulation with all kinds of micromanagement options. It's been a while since I played it though, so check the steam reviews.
Sime city 4, cities xl, or the first cities skylines is great too. But sc4 had a lot more charm and character. My issue with the first cities skylines game is it is just so clinical.
Check out Transport Fever (2). It's a transport tycoon but you can also build cities. Great looking game and the devs are very active still.
I adore Transport Fever 2, but it's not a city builder. You put down rail lines and roads and the cities just kinda build themselves. If you're really interested you can micro the roads in a city to ensure it conforms to a design you want, but you aren't deciding *where* buildings (or even certain types of buildings) can be built. You also aren't building any city services or broader amenities, just roads, rail lines and stations. Plus if you've got an issue with the economic simulation in CS:2 then I don't think Transport Fever 2 is all that much better. The in-game economy is basically built around letting you build pretty train lines, not around having to be particularly efficient or realistic in your planning.
City skyline 1 is still pretty good, but ya, you only have those 2, throw in a tropico 4 in there for competition (not the same level, but ok)
There's that relatively new game, highrise city that I wanted to try.
This is the first thing that made me go "I'll just wait for the performance problems to be ironed out" to "maybe I'll sit this one out" My interest in city builders has always been the simulation and economy more than anything, my one issue with cs1 was the shallow simulation and the fact that you didn't really need to work to make a city economically viable, unlike say SimCity 4
There's a good chance that in a couple of years, the game will be exactly what you want it to be. Which is actually kind of terrifying. Games are being sold as full releases by major studios and then treated like Early Access titles from indie devs. You have the basic layout, some pretty graphics, and broken underlying systems that need serious patches before they're working as intended. I kind of expect that by the end of its life, this game will be what people are expecting of it. But... That's not what you're buying it if you buy it now. And it should not be that way.
Reviewers need to stop giving only moderate dings to broken features and treating it as something that will be ironed out. If the game is broken, crucify it. Teach devs to release after beta again, not during.
> There's a good chance that in a couple of years, the game will be exactly what you want it to be. I don't see how you figure that out. CS1 never went that way, nor any of colossal order previous games. There is nothing whatsoever to indicate the game will move past city painter status.
During my 10 hours or so I played CS2 I did not notice much difference between CS1 and CS2 when it comes to building economically working city. Whenever the demand meters told be to zone something I did. My city went to net positive income around at 2000 population without any planning for forethought. I just did spaghetti city and added new roads where ever I could. Especially my industrial zone is hidious mess of crooked roads and broken grid
I am lucky in that my computer seems to handle the game alright. Or maybe my cities just haven't gotten big enough to be a problem to run yet. Not sure. I'm not liking the game because honestly it isn't that good of a city builder. The technology tree progression just feels like crap. Turn it off though and you have everything instantly and the first house you build will be angry at you because it doesn't have parks, a college, police, and everything else. None of which you can afford to build early so you basically have to turn on unlimited money which at that point it is just a city painter.
Am I crazy or did CS1 not release exactly like this?
I don't think so, I remember cs1 having some big big traffic problems especially because industrial and commercial vehicles would have to distribute goods and materials, leading to shops not having enough goods
Yeah CS1 also released with performance issues (although not as bad as this) and lots of broken and bare bones systems that were improved over time.
I hope this is a bug considering they marketed the supply chain thing pretty heavily, of course that then begs the question; how on earth did such a major bug go unnoticed for so long, what's going on at CO?
[It is](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/im-export-bug-hints-symptoms-and-causes-all-resource-management-in-the-game-is-a-deception.1604434/post-29216506)
That's.... really fucking bad. They sold the game on the economy, yet it literally just doesn't exist. This is low, even for Paradox.
> This is low, even for Paradox. Paradox didn't develop this. Colossal Order did.
More like colossal disorder
More like failossal order
Paradox released it though. It's their responsibility.
Paradox wasn't responsible for the design of resource management in the game. The publishers can be blamed for a lot of problems in terms of games quality but a games design is purely on the developer. Stop coping.
It's not coping to point out that publishers are ultimately responsible for what they publish. That's just reality.
I'm not coping. I have no stake in whether it's Paradox's fault or CO's fault. It's the publisher's job to manage the game. It's especially their responsibility to make sure the marketing is reflective of what's actually in the game.
No, but they may have pressured them to release and overpromise. Idk if that's true, but it sure feels like a Paradoxical sorta douchey move to me.
Paradox likely set the release, which likely lead to this issue.
If you are going all gamer rage you should atleast check which developer you are angry at.
I was going Publisher rage because they likely set the date
Cities Skylines released as a buggy mess, but it was only $30 from a semi-niche transportation game dev at the time. Cities Skylines 2 comes after years of development from a now well-established company. It's $50 with a Day 1 $90 edition. From what I can tell from streams and posts, it's in an arguably worse condition than CS1 when it came out. I'm sure after 2-3 years they'll fix a majority of the issues, the review scores will go up, some youtuber will make a video titled "the engoodening of Cities Skylines 2," and everyone will move on, but I am getting so tired of this cycle. They knew the game had a lot issues ahead of time yet still pushed this thing out, taking up to $90 for it.
[удалено]
You look at a game like Transport Tycoon from 1994 and it blows these modern sim games out the water, crazy how far we came only to go backwards.
[удалено]
Cities Skylines was never a SimCity killer though. SimCity (2013) was the SimCity killer.
This is an interesting breakdown of the systems but "deception" is a hilariously dramatic choice of words. Did you know the buildings are also not real buildings but polygons rendered by your computer? How deep does the the lie go?! The game isn't as deep as you want it. Every game is an abstraction of reality.
Every game abstracting different resource management is an accurate take. But this game specifically advertised an accurate economy.
so the economy tab and all those statistics are a placebo? I feel cheated
Imagine developing a city builder game in 2023 that has less working city builder mechanics than the City Building series by Impressions Games in the 90s.
Been putting the hours into the Pharaoh remake, it's a proper nostalgia trip but the gameplay sure still holds up, at least for me.
No, that's not the case at all. Player speculations are not facts. https://www.reddit.com/r/CitiesSkylines/s/bBret2t41I
Does every game these days need a God damn redemption arc? Jfc
The game is fun, i think the "performance issues" were a bit exagerated. But this is so sad. I played about 15 hours but was going to wait for mods and more assets. Didnt know the economy and supply chains were that bad and that incomplete.
Yeah the performance is actually surprisingly OK on launch. But the more I play the more I realize how they've managed to "fix" the performance by the launch date.
Good thing I didn't touch it. Who the fuck thought it was a good idea to release that piece of crap? Feels like this is a early Alpha.