

SimCity’s first post-release DLC is a Nissan ad - shawndumas
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/04/simcitys-first-post-release-dlc-is-a-nissan-ad/

======
UnoriginalGuy
SimCity's first free and optional DLC is a Nissan sponsored recharging
station.

Is it DLC? Yes. Is it a sponsored piece of DLC? Yes. Does it 1:1 replace a
small park? Yes (in terms of in-game cost, and all other functionality).

Basically it is an in-game park re-skinned as a Nissan Leaf re-charging
station. Given away for free to those who purposely go and download it from
EA's web-site, and then purposely build it in their city.

Oh the horror?

Plus SimCity is one of those games that broadly speaking benefits from real
establishments and real brands appearing in the game. It is much more fun to
see McDonalds on your little digital street than it is to see "Generic Burger
House 10101."

This whole article and the people that whining about this are just looking for
any reason to beat up EA/Maxis. This is not a valid reason.

There are tons of valid reasons: The broken game, the small city sizes, their
misleading remarks (e.g. always on DRM), amongst other things. People are
misfiring here.

~~~
marshray
> It is much more fun to see McDonalds on your little digital street than it
> is to see "Generic Burger House 10101."

I beg to differ.

I loved SC2000. I would have purchased this SimCity right away had it not
required DRM or constant online connection.

But after seeing the first McDonalds or other licensed or paid-placement crap
show up in the game I would have never played it again.

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
> But after seeing the first McDonalds or other licensed or paid-placement
> crap show up in the game I would have never played it again.

You mean the optional "paid-placement crap" that you have to purposely go
download and then purposely build within your city?

That isn't at all rational. Tons of games have had sponsored promotional
items, World of Warcraft's Mountain Dew thing for one very large scale
example.

But just like WoW's Mountain Dew thing this too is entirely optional.

~~~
marshray
As long as it's optional, I have no problem with it.

Do I expect EA to be able to resist the urge to try to slip this crap in with
other parts of the game? Do you?

~~~
pifflesnort
Given that EA's Monopoly for the iPad has a built-in Prius to serve as one of
the game pieces, I'd say not trusting them is wise.

------
ChuckMcM
I thought it was a pretty sad commentary. The sad part is that the thing
doesn't even _pretend_ to be part of the city, no power requirement etc. Ah
well, I was waiting to buy a copy once the bugs had been worked out,
apparently I can skip it entirely.

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
> no power requirement

It is solar powered.

It is identical to parks in terms of how it functions.

~~~
iuguy
> It is solar powered.

Oh that's good that it sounds authentic, because cities all across the world
must get enough solar power to charge electric cars without pulling from the
power grid all day long, right?

~~~
kalleboo
[http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-25/tesla-
fires-...](http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-25/tesla-fires-up-
solar-powered-charging-stations)

~~~
jeltz
Those are connected to the grid though and will send excess power to the grid,
and I assume when there is on solar power they will get their power from the
grid. Having them connected to the grid makes way more sense since then you
can sell excess power and use the grid to fuel the few cars arriving at night.

------
ijk
The huge problem here is not just that there's a blatant ad in a SimCity game.
Product placements and tie-ins are actually pretty common in Facebook games.
Advergames date back to the '80s.

The deeper problem is that SimCity is being presented as a relatively serious
simulation. The mechanics of the game are intended to represent an
approximation of the real world. People will learn about how the world works
through playing the game--I know that I learned about zoning and traffic
engineering and a whole host of urban problems through the original SimCity.
And so did a lot of other people.

In fact, a lot of people recognized early on that SimCity had the potential to
educate and influence a lot of people. It's even been criticized on the ground
that it limits the ways that the various problems can be approached, for
example disallowing alternate methods of taxation to completely replace
property tax. (Ian Bogost has argued that the best way to deal with this is
procedural literacy, that is, learning to critically read a game system like
we would a book or a film.)

Introducing a magic electric car recharging station isn't just a tasteless ad.
It's deliberate propaganda. Even if you support the cause (more electric cars)
the way the system works subverts the basic mechanics of the game. This isn't
like Maxis adding the recycling centers to SimCity 3000, or the way that
nuclear power has always been risky since the first SimCity. Don't forget,
this isn't just any electric car, this is a "Nissan LEAF(R)". Players who play
the game with this DLC will be subjected to the continual message that adding
a Nissan(TM) charging station to their city makes everything better, with no
downsides. That may be an agreeable message if it gets us more electric cars,
but it subverts the basic urban simulation model in service of propaganda.
Imagine if it was, say, Shell or BP doing this with a regular filling station.
Or McDonalds. And you'll note that Tesla doesn't have a SimCity recharging
station...

Even players who see through the transparent propaganda will be influenced by
it, in the same way that advertizing always influences our behavior, even when
we realize that it is having an effect on us.

And for the subset of the player who might be skeptical about electric cars,
this building also won't help. Because the building has no downsides, what
happens when the player learns more about the real world and realizes that
there are, in fact, problems that such a building would create (like drawing
down a lot more power than just the solar panels can provide). Disillusionment
is bad for advocacy. The resulting cynicism won't just sour them on Nissan,
it'll sour them on electric cars in general.

If they had created a more balanced building (or even a whole system of
electric cars and public transportation) supported by Nissan as an in-game ad
it would be less disturbing, because it would fit with the system and be a
less transparent cash-in. (On the other hand, there's something to be said for
the blatant transparency, since at least it's blindingly obvious propaganda.)

------
Tiktaalik
My main issue with this is that the special building doesn't actually play by
the rules of the game. It's a charging station that somehow doesn't draw power
from your grid. Bizarre and stupid (like so many decisions EA made when
developing this game).

~~~
Osiris
Didn't you notice the solar panels on the top? _Of course_ those panels
generate enough electricity to power all give charging ports at the same time.

However, I agree with the promoted comment on the site, they are pushed
advertising over fixing serious issues with the game, or at least that's how
it appears.

~~~
uptown
I'm just surprised they found a company willing to associate themselves with
the SimCity brand given the past month of turmoil. Presumably there was
already a contract in-place for this deal - but still, you've got a bunch of
pissed off fans for a game that still sits with a massive 1-star rating on
Amazon, and that's scheduled to have a new wave of Mac users come on-board
putting additional stress on their infrastructure. Plus how many people are
going to rush out and buy a Leaf because they saw it in SimCity?

~~~
rhizome
A month, when the Nissan deal has probably been in the works (at least) for a
year and will go on for years (unless EA claws back IAPs at some point). To
them the "turmoil" is a momentary bit of nerd rage leading to some copy.

------
unoti
Is it just me, or has EA gone completely off the rails? How does this happen?
Do all organizations lose their ability to care about their customers at some
point along their growth?

~~~
pokpokpok
the key factor here is how a corporation works. by definition, they can't do
anything besides pursue short term profits

~~~
slapshot
This is an oft-repeated line that is entirely false. Ben & Jerry's ice cream
spent decades turning down good business deals to stay true to their ideals.
The Chicago Cubs notoriously refused to play night baseball games at home for
decades after it became popular, and were even sued by shareholders to try to
force them to install lights at Wrigley. The Court ruled that management of
the Cubs could choose to ignore short-term profits from night baseball if it
thought that the franchise was best served by keeping the traditional purity
of the game.[1] (Of course, the Cubs ultimately relented, but maybe that's why
they haven't won the World Series). Craiglist, to the extreme consternation of
its investors, has prioritized a certain long-term vision of the service over
lots of short-term profits.

Even publicly-traded companies can choose to pursue long-term goals over
short-term profit. Autodesk is rumored to be setting up a subsidiary that
blends profit and non-profit motives, and plenty of companies have done other
acts that are not in their short-term interests.

[1] Shlensky v. Wrigley, 95 Ill. App. 2d 173 (1968).

~~~
marshray
> Ben & Jerry's ice cream spent decades turning down good business deals to
> stay true to their ideals

If, instead of succeeding, Ben & Jerry's had joined the ranks of the many
other failed food retailers wouldn't the corporate officers have faced the
potential of shareholder lawsuits for having blatantly "turning down good
business deals" along the way?

------
vor_
Its positive effects are so lopsided that you're practically obligated to
accept the advertising in your city.

~~~
gertef
sounds like real life.

------
dboat
I dislike this not for what it is by itself, but for the door I fear it opens
in the industry.

When Activision thinly disguised their DRM by calling Diablo 3 an MMO, it was
a notable and large step for the industry in the direction of removing value
rather than adding it in order to accomplish an objective. If anything, I wish
the backlash was much harsher, enough to convince EA not to do the same thing
with SimCity.

It may be disproportionate to the case at hand, real brands may be actually
appropriate in a game of this type. I prefer that door remain firmly closed,
rather than opened with some cause and later reopened with none at all. EA has
a very bad track record. Having brands in SimCity would only add to the
immersion of the experience if they were all over place, which EA couldn't do
if they wanted to.

------
seanalltogether
Sim city 4 has a lot of user made mods that replicate real life buildings,
like mcdonalds as an example. So while this may seem like a cynical
advertising ploy, the fans themselves set the precedent that this is a
desirable feature.

~~~
mmanfrin
I think intention has a lot to do with acceptability. User-made mods to add
realism are _much_ different in intent than an ad that, while functionally the
same thing, is meant simply to sell ad space.

------
mccolin
I found it funny that below this article about in-game advertising creep, the
first comment is a "promoted comment," pinned to the top of the list and
praising the ad effort.

------
InclinedPlane
B.E.S.U.R.E.T.O.D.R.I.N.K.Y.O.U.R.O.V.A.L.T.I.N.E.

------
Fizzadar
Wouldn't expect anything less from EA!

