SimCity always-on and other crimes against humanity

According to this update from RPS, it's not technically an always-on requirement. That doesn't change the core points I've made in this post.  

I'm not going to be the only one saying this. In fact many people have been ranting about it already, and there has been much muttering of oaths and rending of...bits in the comment threads. But I'm going to say it anyway, because it needs to be said. It needs to be said multiple times, by many people with different voices, and it needs to be stated from a number of angles including education.

By requiring an internent connection at all times in order to play the new SimCity, EA is not only making a decision that flies in the face of the history of the series, but also making an incredibly bad choice as a business.

On the one hand, there's the fact that SimCity has always been a game about having your own city in a little bubble, unaffected by the choices of other players. Of course it can be played with a shared screen and a shared city, but I feel pretty comfortable in asserting that the relationship most people have had with the game involves that bubble.

In fact, I would go so far as to assert that the containedeness of SimCity, the very simulation like quality that it has, is the foundation of the experience that has made much of the Sim series successful. That said, I recognize that there may be a legitimate designed intent to break that bubble in a meaningful way with this game rather than bubble breaking being collateral damage from the full frenzied push to insert as many opportunities for microtransactions as possible into contemporary games.

Since a core part of the players' city simulations is in fact supposed to be fed by global and local data about other cities, it's actually reasonable as a designer to force a connection to play. It is, after all, how MMOs work, and in theory there's nothing wrong with a SimCity MMO.1 That said, SimCity is not and should not be purely an MMO for a number of reasons. Many people will write about many of those reasons elsewhere, but I just want to write briefly about the educational reasons why it's particularly problematic.

Public schools have a very complicated relationship with the internet. By forcing a connection to its servers, EA is going to guarantee that a substantial segment of potential educational users of the game will simply be unable to do so. For EA as a business that doesn't just mean that fewer teachers will buy copies. It means that fewer kids will have the chance to play an awesome game in the classroom and form a particularly strong identification with their brand. On top of all of this, now is an incredible (historically unprecedented) time to work on pushing "real" games into the education market.

It's really that simple. In addition to all of the angry fans who will refuse to buy the game if it is always-on for a number of legitimate reasons, most of the educational market for the game will simply not exist. Of course, in theory EA could take measures to counter this by investing in an education arm that specifically worked with schools and districts to ensure a trusted relationship with institutions in that market.2 Although the circumstances and mechanisms are different, Minecraft effectively has this. Of course as noted below, I believe the chances of this actually happening are witheringly small.

Finally, I'd just like to point out that there's an ironic turn to this whole thing. The concept of connected cities sounds really cool as a way of playing with friends over a long evening, and is likely an awesome feature for classroom purposes. Of course, both of those use cases are best met by enabling LAN functionality.

1. You can argue with me about this if you want, but please bear in mind I'm asserting it as a theoretical. It is not the argument I'm making in this post

2. I'm just trying to make sure I'm covering all my bases from a rational perspective as this is kind of an emotional topic.