The Journey to Launch - Mini Documentary about the Release and Future of Cities: Skylines II

[Dale]

The question is, what does this exactly mean? The simulation might be as they envisioned on paper. So the theoretical simulation might be final. But what is currently in-game might not yet reflect that due to bugs and balancing issues. I feel like this is also what is hinted at in the video.

I think if they meant bugs, they would say bugs (as has been said about exporting issues previously). But the comments about the simulation being what they envisioned was in the context of design and implementation.

Honestly, a lot of posts in here seem to just assume the worst. I'm disappointed as well. A lot of things could have been done better with the release. Especially more transparency from the start. But as a developer myself, I can totally see a blindness developing over time, especially if you start from a very much worse state. I experienced projects myself, where it got released after it no longer had any high critical and only 10 critical issues (and infinite high issues). Is it a valid excuse? No, not really. But it is an explanation.

Personally I don't see any point in being angry. It won't change anything. I want a good game. So I hope they take it seriously and improve on the game. I'm just going to put my last bit of trust for CO into the future of the game. But at this point there is not much trust left. I don't want my money back, I want a good game. Kind of luckily I bought the ultimate edition, thus I don't need to put any additional trust over the next year or so by buying any additional content. I'm hoping CO can redeem themselves over that time and become trustworthy again.

Happy holidays CO. Take the time to recharge batteries to build back the lost trust in you in 2024.

I'm not angry, and I don't think many in any forum discussing CS2 is truly angry. I think we are, however, extremely disappointed.

 

[SuspectPizza]

I paid 80 bucks *and* I bought a new computer for this game. Granted, I did want to upgrade for a while, and my computer was a ship of Theseus from 20 years of upgrading by hand, so I wanted a brand new computer anyway. But it was *for* this game.

I feel you. Hopefully you'll get your money's worth in the near future.

 

[SuspectPizza]

I feel like this point is not actually true. CO has specifically stated on numerous occasions that the simulation is what they envisioned, is what the game is going to be like, and if you don't like it then this game isn't for you.

So no, I feel like they are NOT listening and trying to incorporate feedback, because they've already stated the simulation is finished.

I think I understand what you're getting at. In its current state, the simulation isn't what it's supposed to be. What CO probably means by saying that the simulation is "finished" (although I'd like a direct quote on that, I don't recall them putting it that way) is that all the features that are supposed to be there, are actually there. However, it's currently buggy and unbalanced, which is something they're working on.

As a developer I know that the customer doesn't care whether something is "just broken" or actually not yet implemented, it all looks the same from the outside. But internally there's a huge difference, especially when looking at the time required to get it to a satisfactory state. So from my POV, looking at the patches and communication since launch, they DO seem to be listening and fixing the game. It's just gonna take some time. Which is of course no excuse for the state in which the game released and people have every right to feel angry and disappointed, but I don't think CO are just gonna abandon the game and leave it as is.

Edit: What I would like from CO however is some sort of an apology at least and to claim more responsibility. I don't think they've done that up to this point.

 

[Dale]

I think I understand what you're getting at. In its current state, the simulation isn't what it's supposed to be. What CO probably means by saying that the simulation is "finished" (although I'd like a direct quote on that, I don't recall them putting it that way) is that all the features that are supposed to be there, are actually there. However, it's currently buggy and unbalanced, which is something they're working on.

As a developer I know that the customer doesn't care whether something is "just broken" or actually not yet implemented, it all looks the same from the outside. But internally there's a huge difference, especially when looking at the time required to get it to a satisfactory state. So from my POV, looking at the patches and communication since launch, they DO seem to be listening and fixing the game. It's just gonna take some time. Which is of course no excuse for the state in which the game released and people have every right to feel angry and disappointed, but I don't think CO are just gonna abandon the game and leave it as is.

Edit: What I would like from CO however is some sort of an apology at least and to claim more responsibility. I don't think they've done that up to this point.

"When it comes to the gameplay and simulation we set goals for the game and we have reached those goals.
Surely there are issues that we're looking into and fixing bugs, but the overall gameplay experience is what we aimed for. Cities: Skylines II is the better game compared to the first one. If you dislike the simulation, this game just might not be for you."

IE: The simulation is "as designed" and complete. If you don't like it, don't play it. In that same post she further clarifies that the comment is specifically for 'gameplay and simulation', and that performance will be worked on.

CO Word of the Week #5

This week I’ll keep things brief and focus on what’s happening on modding. As suspected, modders wait for no-one and they have already achieved really cool stuff like maps and code mods which is amazing! Cities: Skylines II release build...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[SuspectPizza]

"When it comes to the gameplay and simulation we set goals for the game and we have reached those goals.
Surely there are issues that we're looking into and fixing bugs, but the overall gameplay experience is what we aimed for. Cities: Skylines II is the better game compared to the first one. If you dislike the simulation, this game just might not be for you."

IE: The simulation is "as designed" and complete. If you don't like it, don't play it. In that same post she further clarifies that the comment is specifically for 'gameplay and simulation', and that performance will be worked on.

CO Word of the Week #5

This week I’ll keep things brief and focus on what’s happening on modding. As suspected, modders wait for no-one and they have already achieved really cool stuff like maps and code mods which is amazing! Cities: Skylines II release build...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

Yeah, that was really poorly formulated. They have walked back on that statement very quickly:

I apologize for the formulation of my response above. My intent was to point out that while we do our best to improve the game we will never be able to please absolutely everyone. We are fixing bugs and improving the game combining our vision with the feedback and bug reports we're getting from you, the community.

As I said it's disappointing we weren't able to meet the expectations that were set by the stellar marketing campaign and the success of the first game. However working together with you is the best part of creating games, and together we can make Cities: Skylines II the best it can be. I truly believe that.

What they probably meant was that if you don't like the "vision" for the simulation (where it will eventually be, without all the bugs and issues), then the game might not be for you. And it's simply not true that only performance will be worked on - we've seen that in the recent patches and they've said that in every Word of the Week since . Now, I'm not one to just take their word for it, but so far they've been working of fixing bugs, adding improvements and making performance better, so I remain hopeful.

 

[neroden]

This video makes it abundantly clear that the game should have been released as Early Access. They core system architectures are implemented and good, which is nice. But they needed (tons) more beta testing, they needed the game to be tried on more computers to ID issues, they needed the game to be played by more players to ID issues, and they needed time to fix 1000s of bugs. And they needed to get some income. People accept all of this in an Early Access game. In fact, many C:S players would have welcomed it and paid to beta-test, ***if they knew that that was what they were doing***.

Releasing it as if it was finished, balanced, and polished, when it's blatanly sub-beta-quality (dead people are wandering the streets, literally every part of the economy seems to be broken, there seem to be *integer overflow bugs*) was deceptive marketing. This is something that they still haven't apologized for, and should apologize for. This video is not, yet, the apology they need to make.

 

[WaffleCheesebread]

Yeah there's not been a single apology the entire time. Releasing a video that literally confirms "We released the game broken and are using you to test it and report bugs, but we charged full price" and deflecting the blame on "the marketing" as if it's some outside force they couldn't control...and not apologizing...is...just...such a bizarre way to handle this.

I can't see how this video is supposed to appeal to players. I can't see how this video is supposed to appeal to shareholders or potential investors, or the production company. I don't understand how this is supposed to look good for anyone, it's embarrassing. Half of it's just deflection. There's accountability but there's no responsibility.

And the whole segment with the "ugly baby" thing is just really wholly unpleasant.

 

[Angius]

What they probably meant was that if you don't like the "vision" for the simulation (where it will eventually be, without all the bugs and issues), then the game might not be for you

Problem is... nobody knows what the vision is, yet, and has no chance of knowing for another half a year at least. The game is so rife with bugs and balance issues, that we have no way of knowing what is that desired simulation. Are wares teleporting a part of this vision or a bug? Are people never actually going to work a balance issue or how they envisioned it to work?
People who have the game have no way of knowing if they should keep the game or try to refund it. People who want to buy it, have no way to know whether it will suit their tastes, or will it simply be "not for them" either.

 

[Dale]

Yeah, that was really poorly formulated. They have walked back on that statement very quickly:



What they probably meant was that if you don't like the "vision" for the simulation (where it will eventually be, without all the bugs and issues), then the game might not be for you. And it's simply not true that only performance will be worked on - we've seen that in the recent patches and they've said that in every Word of the Week since . Now, I'm not one to just take their word for it, but so far they've been working of fixing bugs, adding improvements and making performance better, so I remain hopeful.

I've seen other comments from CO either implying, or stating, that the simulation won't be changed. Bugs fixed, performance improved, but the way the game works is settled. They are spread around and I just don't have the time, or really the interest, to hunt them all down for you.

Bottom line, the game is what it is, and regardless of feedback will not be changing. Thus, this whole video is just blame shifting, empty platitudes, and I still can't get past the fact the CEO blamed customers for having too high expectations after their own marketing campaign.

At this point only a full acknowledgement of responsibility, and an apology will calm the waters.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

deflecting the blame on "the marketing" as if it's some outside force they couldn't control.

I don't want to be pouring oil on any fires but I think it's fair to point out that CO are the developers and PDX are the publishers.

 

[WaffleCheesebread]

I don't want to be pouring oil on any fires but I think it's fair to point out that CO are the developers and PDX are the publishers.

Who wrote and participated in and was on screen in and talked to the viewer during all those videos in the lead up to launch? Was it CO or Paradox employees?

Mariina herself said that they, the developers, wrote the dev blogs, and they, the developers, thought they accurately represented the state of the game.

She says plain as day- we wrote them and we approve the messaging. Yes, the marketing department "wanted to make everything sound like it's the best thing ever" but she makes no concessions to them here, she takes the responsibility for all the marketing. We wrote it. We approve the messaging.

 

[purplegamer]

Anyone else think they intentionally buried this video by not 'announcing' it like they have previous weekly devblogs?

 

[prismaticmarcus]

Anyone else think they intentionally buried this video by not 'announcing' it like they have previous weekly devblogs?

No. It appeared in my Facebook feed a day or two after it dropped.

 

[purplegamer]

No. It appeared in my Facebook feed a day or two after it dropped.

Referring to the forum here, not your Facebook account.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

Referring to the forum here, not your Facebook account.

Well, Facebook has 3 billion monthly active users. I'm not sure what the forum's numbers are.

 

[WaffleCheesebread]

There's really no reason not to have posted it like a Word of the Week except to try and dissuade comments- and they were definitely successful as we're on page 2 in the time Word of the Week posts would be on page 8.

 

[TrevorHall]

This video looks to me like:
Dear sir, we are super sorry that we sold you a rat-infested kitchen. Our legal team thought it was OK to just define the location as "Central New York, prime location", without detailing that this was a prime location for the rat catching industry. You should have done an underground survey, where you would have found that the main New York sewer line runs right under the building. It is over 200 years old and badly maintained. So: It’s not our fault that there are huge cracks in the sewer pipes, through which 10,000 rats per day gnaw through any walls we can build and infest the kitchen. Thank you again for paying $50,000,000 for this amazing location. We knew about these issues, but thought that you would understand, especially after all the effort that our legal team did to hide the issues. Our marketing team also thought that the poster showing 100 customers smiling from their tables (taken at a film studio) was a fair representation of the property for sale.

 

[Tropod]

Admirable video. Shame it wasn't longer & showed & explained more behind the scenes stuff, especially the 3rd party & technology issues, because "whole build had to be refactored" really made it sound like a major software/programming misdesign issue took place.

Really love the ugly baby reference. Having dabbled in software programming myself, along with squishing bugs, can appreciate the challenges involved.
Love the focus moving forward, hopefully I'll be buying this game next year when it's in a more Fin(n)ish state .

 

[Rarzie]

The video pretty much is the embodiment of 'It's easier to ask forgiveness later than permission beforehand'. There's no way that they were unaware of the state of the game on release. It can be admitted later when it no longer matters to those that already bought the product. Now we can all go 'But it will be better in future, trust!'.

I was looking forward to C:S2 but this is just depressing. Maybe in a few years the game might be where it should have been at launch. No doubt after many, many times the initial cost price due to DLC.

 

[mackau]

Starting off the video with staff members making excuses and blaming fans for "pressure" that was a direct result of your marketing campaign is a bold move, I'll give you that.

Paradox & CO decided to launch it now to make money, and try to fix it later using the money they'd gained for their bug filled & incomplete product that in the own words of the CEO, "did not meet the expectations set by marketing".

It is absolutely not in any way, shape or form the fault of the customers.

No customer set the release date for this game.

No customer decided that CS2 needed an expansive marketing campaign promising features and gameplay systems that weren't at launch in order to drive sales.

No customer decided what engine to code the game in.

No customer decided that the game needed a delay on consoles, but that it was fine and dandy to release it to PC players as if it were a full paid beta program.

No customer cut the steam workshop out of the game in order to push a non-existent alternative that just might happen to support paid mods one day.

No customer knew how broken the game was and refused to delay it by the one or two years it clearly needed.

That is on Colossal Order and Paradox. No-one else.