https://www.pcgamer.com/games/sim/cities-skylines-2s-first-dlc-beach-properties-is-out-now-and-players-arent-happy-this-is-a-disgrace/
Life's a beach.
This game was one of the very few I was waiting so badly to come out, and was so so disappointed with the launch. Still hasn't convinced me to try it, although it has come a long way
I'll just go play the first Cities Skylines. I didn't have many complaints with that one and still love it.
Except for traffic. That shit is a nightmare.
It was released along side mods (a very slow first party mod manager) so I guess they think it makes it better. The mods are good and it's a nice thing that they don't depend on the steam workshop anymore but they don't excuse releasing a £10 dlc along side it that just adds more skins for low density houses when the game still doesn't work
To be fair, adding skins is a lot easier than fixing performance issues, and probably involves different, non-overlapping teams
They also made some pretty significant improvements to performance, and importantly, simulation speed with this one. But yeah, the DLC is kind of insulting.
Yeah the DLC is really scummy imo. Definitely not worth the money. I'm just gonna ignore it. What's more hopeful is the free patch with the introduction of mods and a good amount of bugfixes. If they keep this going they might be able to pull a Cyberpunk (although slightly less dramatic).
Watching gamers back peddle on cyberpunk hurts my soul. Just because the game is good now doesn't excuse the bullshit they pulled on launch but peope just excuse it because it's good now, they get what they deserve.
I get what you say, but I bought Cyberpunk after the fixes and it's legitimately one of my favourite games I've ever played. They should've never been in this position, but they righted their wrongs instead of abandoning the game and they made it into the masterpiece it deserved to be.
What exactly do you want done about it? Are people not allowed to like a game if they had a bad launch but have since fixed it up?
Ultimately, the stakes are pretty low and you can avoid the risk of bad launches by just avoiding new launches in general and see where things stand with the game once the dust settles.
Personally, I'd take a bad launch year over MTX or invasive DRM/anti-cheat methods that don't even really work to stop piracy or cheating.
Bad launch is giving then the benefit of the doubt which they don't deserve. They intentionally launched an incomplete game so they could make the money now and look good for investors, and then just fix it post launch while also giving out 'free' updates that should have just been all there on launch.
Mind you I'm not complaining about the actual developers, it's always the executives who are to blame when this happens.
People need to vote with their wallets, if they stopped pre ordering and buying buggy messes at launch companies would be incentivised to actually release fully working/fully developed games.
Also the whole background of how the devs and play testers were treated is horrendous.
Yeah, if they can get performance better and bugs fixed, I'll get it. But not until then.
I wouldn't say so for most people. I bought it (figuring I could refund it if it was bad) and tbh the performance and buggyness weren't too much of an issue. A way bigger issue is the late game and how all the systems interact. These issues only became apparent to me deep into the game.
My main issues are how you're basically forced to work around cars. Every attempt I made to ditch cars or trucks would land me into bugs and unbalanced systems. I had a lot of issues with cargo train stations, I had weird deadlocks with trams and trains that grinded my city to a halt, I found that the bus lanes are just a suggestion and won't keep out traffic, and I started missing bikes more and more (they're not in the game). It's basically just a horrible American city simulator, and that's the only way you can play without running into trouble. A lot of that may be fixed, I haven't played after the patch, but still I feel like the game needs some time in the oven. Especially for the price.
IMO it was worth buying on launch. It's nowhere near the disaster people make it out to be. It's just a step back from CS1 with all its DLC and mods, but it will get there quickly once the asset editor is released. Bugs? Performance? Mostly fixed, quickly, although the land value still isn't perfect and they need to do something about children living alone with 5 dogs. But those aren't exactly game breaking. The art style is leaps and bounds better than CS1 and the roads are a dream comparatively. Personally, I've had a wonderful time with the game since day one.
For all saying the content pack is scummy, first the devs that work on things like this are not the same fixing bugs and issues, working on mod tools etc. Second, this pack is part of the Ultimate Edition, which plenty of people paid for already. It’d be really scummy to NOT release this in a timely fashion for the people who already spent their money expecting it.
I honestly don’t get the outrage at a freaking content pack that doesn’t affect anything at all…
I mean, there's obviously the stupid outrage of the "Why did they do this instead of fixing bugs?" variety (as if 3D artists can be reassigned to coding), but there's also, I think, an absolutely justifiable resentment at being asked to pay $10 for an absolutely tiny handful of assets. Like, apparently this is something like ten buildings and four trees? That's fucking weak. At around $3-$5 I think people would be fine with it, but $10 is just taking the piss.
I completely agree, the price is pretty ridiculous and almost no one seems to be focusing on that.
If the game has as many bugs as people say, then the devs working on this should instead be supporting on fixing issues. Reallocate your resources. Obviously they dont have the same skillsets but lets not pretend that nothing could have been done differently
The people who work on asset packs are artists… what the hell can they do regarding bug fixes?
Sure they make the artwork, but who integrates it? What if bugs occur from that? If content packs could be made by artists alone, everyone would be pumping out content packs constantly.
It’s basically the same as modding assets into the game. The game surely is built around being easy to put in new assets, it’s one of the main cornerstones of what made cities 1 popular in the first place.
Ah yes, just take a 3D modeller and reassign them to bug fixing. That'll work out great. While we're at it, your mechanic should start handling lung transplants since we're short on doctors.
Sure. But does the 3D modeller then integrate their changes into DLC format and bundle it to work with the main game and paywall mechanics? It goes both ways. There isn't just a 3D artist making a bug free DLC package on their own.
I understand the energy in these replies, but do you guys seriously think artists are packaging their work as a DLC and integrating it into the main game? There is still a lot of work that goes into any DLC or major integration that has to be done by the same people that fix bugs.
Games like Cities don’t need that much dev work for assets to be placed in game. I’m sure the game was built with that in mind. That’s how there are so many assets and content to be downloaded in the steam workshop for Cities 1…
I have Skylines 2 installed on Gamepass for PC and it updated the other day... 54 gigs.
Damn thing basically just re-downloaded itself.
It's kind of interesting that this franchise grew entirely out of the failure of SimCity in the same space. Now they are the ones fumbling their captive market and I wonder if another city builder franchise is going to spring up soon.