• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Yes, they likely intentionally shipped a buggy simulation due to a variety of factors. That doesn’t mean the simulation is fake, it means it isn’t finished, much like a lot of the rest of the game (missing LODs being a big one).

    I’m guessing they had a start on the simulation, but it wasn’t complete enough for release so they shipped with it partially enabled.

    • KᑌᔕᕼIᗩ@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      You’re just making excuses at this point.

      No it wasn’t finished but they shipped it as a full priced finished game and deceived a lot of people.

      They weren’t honest about the state of the simulation either, the UI updates as if there’s a full simulation running but it’s all magic fairy numbers to appear as if the simulation is functional. They faked it and just hoped nobody noticed.

      It’s like releasing a factory game but you don’t have to link anything up to churn out products, instead you can just plop down the final stage factory and call it a day. This isn’t just unfinished, it’s deceitful and unacceptable.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yes, the game absolutely failed to live up to the advertising on launch, and still falls short to this day. That’s a fact.

        That doesn’t mean the economy is fake, it just means the implementation of the economy at this point is buggy. The game has high CPU usage, so it’s obviously calculating something, I’m guessing it was just not well tested (if at all) like much of the rest of the game. The game was not ready for release, yet they released it anyway, and they seem to admit it (look at the last minute perf revision at launch as an example).

        I think the game was half baked and the execs decided to release anyway. The systems seem to be there, they’re just not properly hooked up/implemented, and they’re definitely buggy. That’s a very different thing from not existing whatsoever.

        The difference isn’t particularly important to players right now, but it is important for the game in a year or so down the line. If they acknowledge it as a bug, there’s a good chance they’ll fix it (and for something that big, that means it’s probably already partially implemented). If they say “working as intended,” it’s incredibly unlikely.

        • KᑌᔕᕼIᗩ@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          What you call a “bug” everybody else sees as fake.

          They literally didn’t implement a simulation, they simulated the simulation.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            No, from the evidence I’ve seen, they’ve partially implemented the simulation. It seems the code is there (from high CPU usage), it’s just not working properly.

            So it’s a bug. It’s not working as the developers have said it should, and they seem intent on fixing it.

            • KᑌᔕᕼIᗩ@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Those goalposts shift a lot. You are just guessing at this point despite the evidence being pretty much against any actual simulation happening.