Launch Day Punishment: SimCity's Online-Only DRM Locking Purchasers Out Of Servers, Purchases
from the look-at-all-these-pirates-it's-hurting! dept
A few months ago, the SimCity devs stopped by Reddit for an AMA and found themselves fielding several questions about EA's plans to release the game with an "always online" requirement. Requiring an internet connection to play a game, even in single-player mode, has been utilized by more than one company, often with disastrous results. Still, game companies continue to craft software with this requirement, mostly for anti-piracy reasons, although they often play up the "social" aspects as a sort of (completely transparent) smokescreen.
As was pointed out by several Redditors during the AMA, the online requirement was ridiculous and seriously inhibited playability. For one, no one's internet connection is perfectly reliable. Secondly, SimCity was going further than most games, allowing only server-side saves, meaning that players could easily lose progress if their connections dropped.
Six weeks later, a different Redditor signed up for SimCity's closed beta. Even in this limited release, servers were swamped and EA's infrastructure couldn't handle the traffic, something that didn't bode well for the massive amount of players looking forward to playing the full version when it finally launched. The Redditor pointed this out to EA in a lengthy, well-worded forum post that cited previous issues with other online-only game launches that had gone horribly.
This brings us up to date and, now, SimCity has finally been released. One eager SimCity fan (and Redditor), who pre-ordered the game. thought he'd put a little playtime in before bed, and ran head on into this dialog box:
So, the reality is even worse than previously indicated. Not only are your saved games server-side only and an internet connection required to simply fire up the game, but every game is "multiplayer," whether you're interested in playing socially or not, and every game requires an open server slot.
As the Redditor points out, this simply isn't an acceptable situation:
I figured from everything I'd read that the always-on part of the game simply required an internet connection, not a slot on a server like I'm about to PvP or something. I'd be more understanding if I could just play my private region by myself like I intended.While many people were aware of the online-only requirement, this aspect of the game seems to have been completely underplayed. Why should a paying customer be forced to wait in line for an open server slot? This is a much more onerous requirement than simply requiring an online connection to verify software authenticity. Sure, it's meant to be a social game where people can visit the cities of others, but there should be some option for those wanting to play a "private" game.
EA had to have some idea of how much its servers were going be hammered after the issues it experienced during the closed beta. No one's expecting launch day to go flawlessly, but if you're going to require an internet connection that's reliant on open slots on regional servers, you are going to make paying customers very angry. Many of the people experiencing these problems paid for this game weeks or months ago and are having their loyalty rewarded with half-hour waits to spin the wheel on possibly accessing an open slot.
Not only are paying customers being locked out of playing the game they purchased, but other purchasers are still waiting for their downloads to complete or have their purchases authenticated and unlocked. The authentication servers are being hammered so badly that, according to TotalBiscuit's "review" video, people with pre-orders are purchasing second copies because these new purchases are unlocking immediately, while authentification of their pre-ordered copies is still seriously delayed.
Now, some people may ask, after viewing this dialog box, "Why not just play on another server with more open slots?" Well, therein lies another piece of bad news for SimCity players. Should you have actually managed to get online and start a city, you'll be exceedingly disappointed (and possibly homicidal) to discover that saved games DO NOT transfer between servers.
This all adds up to another spectacular DRM failure. When discussing piracy, game companies like to point out that a majority of their sales occur shortly after release, making these first few weeks critical to the success of the title. This critical sales period is used to justify DRM measures because, while every piece of software will eventually be cracked, anything that delays this inevitability results in a few more sales.
Sadly though, this same crucial sales period is when EA will be punishing its paying customers the most. By refusing to allow single players to start private, unconnected games (in case of a lost or unavailable connection), it's now racing around putting out server fires. Using the launch day traffic surge as an excuse for unplayable/unauthenticated purchases is not acceptable. EA knew the game would be popular. It even had advance warning thanks to the large number of pre-orders. But it's kind of hard to teach a company a lesson about DRM hurting paying customers when it already has their money.
For EA, this works out nearly perfectly. Sure, it's probably not evil enough to want players locked out for hours on end, but it probably considers these "hiccups" a small price to pay to keep piracy to a (temporary) minimum. Of course, considering someone else (the customer) is actually paying that price, it's really not sacrificing anything at all.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
The First Word
“So, video games DO cause violence!
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The bottom line
What we have here is EA using their position to monopolize content and force more money out of their customers.
Just think about this:
" This all adds up to another spectacular DRM failure. When discussing piracy, game companies like to point out that a majority of their sales occur shortly after release, making these first few weeks critical to the success of the title. This critical sales period is used to justify DRM measures because, while every piece of software will eventually be cracked, anything that delays this inevitability results in a few more sales."
Now think about EA and how they've done everything to full their bottom line:
Starting a competitor to Steam and leaving the Stream customers in the wing.
Hated DRM that angered people in Spore, then bringing it back in this game.
There is more to it, but if EA coulee listen to its customers instead of listening to its shareholders, it might have seen this coming. But how it's organized its business insulates them from actual criticism that would have helped them avoid this costly experiment.
Because I honestly can't call this a "mistake". It's nothing more than a money grab from a company willing to screw over its customers and put profits over people. I doubt this will end in anything other than heartache.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The bottom line
Erm, I'm not sure you're using the right terminology. Unless it's open sourced, every publisher has a monopoly on every game they create, DRM or no DRM?
Now, if you want to claim that they're using anti-competitive practices to beat out competitors and try to control the retail channel then I'd agree. DRM is a big part of that. But they'd still have a monopoly on SimCity even if they released an offline-capable, DRM-free copy through Steam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The bottom line
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The bottom line
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The bottom line
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The bottom line
I never said anyone was forced to pay money, just that the underlying issues are with their ignorance of what their customers want. Just think able how large their marketing department is compared to their game making department and you can realize that they can sell the idea of a game better than they can make one that rises to the level of customer anticipation on day one.
What EA has done is listen to the concerns of shareholders over people which is a very short term thinking plan. No matter how you slice it, this is going to create blowback that EA might not be ready for. I recall that they lost millions from their decisions for microtransactions in every game, loss of sales for Origin and other loss leaders that are crippling its ability to function.
I just think that if EA actually listened to their fans instead of boogeymen, it may work out better for them in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The bottom line
You did say force. Otherwise, I wholeheartedly agree with your statements. You can look below this thread and there are many potential customers that have educated themselves on EA and decided to (rightly) give them the middle finger. Once EA has alienated the bulk of its customer base and starts failing to profit from its games then they will rethink their DRM strategy (or run to the government).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The bottom line
Still, they've been losing money for quite some time but that isn't stopping them from their monopolistic practices. As well as it won't. They're subsidizedby the taxpayer to create games, they use the money for the ESRB, and even if they go bankrupt, the rules will favor the CEO and shareholders over the programmers and people that create the games.
The point here is that they're insulated from criticism and it's going to take a long time for them to actually think about their customers over their shareholders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The bottom line
Look on the Internet for a Cracked Version or just the crack so you don't have to deal with their Garbage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The bottom line
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The bottom line
Having spoken to a number of low-level employees of EA and its subsidiaries, the best description of the corporation was "Masochistic Cthulhu". For example, EA are paying for an LGBT conference in California, and then they do stupid shit like this.
There is no coherency at the top of EA and the bean-counters are usually the ones listened to, rather than the techies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When pirates are not bothering to pirate your game then you have a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"But it's kind of hard to teach a company a lesson about DRM hurting paying customers when it already has their money."
Seems harder to teach paying customers not to give their money to these types of companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And this is why...
Come on, people! Wake up! Stop buying games that require online-only gameplay.
I refuse to spend my money on such a thing.
I won't even pirate it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Readers, the true reason for the setup has finally been revealed.
I've said it once, and I'll say it again: people who buy this crap knowing full well DRM will hinder their experience have no reason to complain.
It would be different if it's discovered without warning, but this was known for months.
EA didn't get the #1 spot for "Worst Company" because it knows its customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would ask them to give me the extra copy but I don't want an online-only drm-crippled game. Not even for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, I'm thinking EA does know its customers. They know they can shovel out crap and there is still a critical mass of people that will buy it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Having to wait in line to play my "private" region/city (which I think is something you can do--have a private city)... That's bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm shocked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Refunds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Refunds
That would be nice, but no go. In most areas (like mine) retailers will not refund money on games, DVDs , CDs ,etc.
You can only get a new copy of the same thing. It's been like this for a long time and, of course, 'piracy' is supposed to be the reason for it. They got things pretty damn good.
" The authentication servers are being hammered so badly that, according to TotalBiscuit's "review" video, people with pre-orders are purchasing second copies because these new purchases are unlocking immediately, while authentification of their pre-ordered copies is still seriously delayed. "
Considering what I previously said about no returns, this is so grievously stupid that just maybe they deserve to get soaked. They even knew before buying that a DRM scheme, one that has already proven to punish the buyer, was in place. No wonder companies keep doing this. They have no incentive to stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Refunds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Refunds
I bet there's language in the EULA that says you aren't allowed to sue them for any reason, and even if you CAN sue them you can't get more than $5, and even if you CAN get more than $5 you can't file class action, etc.
And, of course, there's probably a clause that says they expressly disclaim that the game will actually work at all, let alone on a given day.
On the other hand, a judge may well find that the "contract" is void due to one side not receiving ANYTHING of value, resulting in full refunds for everyone. (Of course, if they actually are offering refunds, you'd have to take advantage of that instead of filing suit.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Refunds
> you aren't allowed to sue them for any reason
EULAs are all well and good but they're not superior to, nor can they contradict, state consumer protection laws. Violation of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose comes to mind as a handy basis for a suit against this particular douchebag company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Refunds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Refunds
Awesome how people really don't give a crap anymore and just take this BS without any problems...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Refunds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Refunds
Technically it's supposed to keep people from buying a game, installing it, and then returning it for a full refund, but I'm sure crappy game companies like EA don't mind in the least how it also 'coincidentally' makes it impossible for people to demand a refund for a broken game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Refunds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Refunds
One of the "solutions" to this problem that came up yesterday was to use the European servers. Since save games do not cross servers, all those US players that started their cities on the EU servers will still be playing on the EU servers making that launch day even worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So in other words, they're REWARDING EA for crappy service by buying the game TWICE, and it's only been out for less then a day to.
If I ever buy a game twice I want it to be years later when my CD is starting to get too scratched up to be read properly (and I have done this a few times in my life, for good games that are still worth playing 10+ years later).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
STOP REWARDING BAD BEHAVIOR!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, video games DO cause violence!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Self Inflicted Losses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looks to me that DRM works, despite quibbling of start-up problems.
"you are going to make paying customers very angry." -- OOOH, the dreaded yapping of ankle-biters! -- You who are "serious" about playing games have NO perspective at all on how effective your yapping is. I predict that EA will go on without your approval. If you're fanboy to SimCity, you're locked into it.
And fact is, FANBOYS LOVE DRM! Complaining about it gives more depth to games. -- Dodging it (if possible) gives the thrill of "pirating". It quite literally unites a community. -- Like a benevolent deity bestowing paradise while at same time prohibiting unauthorized play. -- Is that straight out of Genesis, or what? Especially with the god-like powers in the simulated fantasy here.
Bottom line is: fanboys are fanboys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Looks to me that DRM works, despite quibbling of start-up problems.
Yes, it's called piracy - the thing that this crap encourages rather than stops.
"If you're fanboy to SimCity, you're locked into it"
Whereas casual fans like myself buy a competitor's products instead.
"Bottom line is: fanboys are fanboys."
Which is why you're so obsessed with posting here, despite having nothing to say, I presume. At least there's no "look at how stupid I am" signature this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Looks to me that DRM works, despite quibbling of start-up problems.
Well, I simply love SimCity. But I'm NOT buying DRM crippled stuff. The one and only time I did that stupidity was with Assassin's Creed (Ubisoft).
And fact is, FANBOYS LOVE DRM! Complaining about it gives more depth to games. -- Dodging it (if possible) gives the thrill of "pirating". It quite literally unites a community.
What weed are you smoking? There's no thrill in pirating. And complaining about DRM means people that actually have some brains won't buy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Looks to me that DRM works, despite quibbling of start-up problems.
Yes there is, I came across this yesterday while I was trying to convince people not to support EA in any way (pirate or pay). Too many people were far too happy to shove the prospect of piracy into the faces of the legitimate users.
But that just adds more to the pile of reasons not to use DRM. It's far to fun to play the game while laughing at those who can't play even though they actually payed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Looks to me that DRM works, despite quibbling of start-up problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Looks to me that DRM works, despite quibbling of start-up problems.
And please, don't compare anything from the bible with practices from a company that only thinks on enriching itself with shamefull deeds. As a christian, i find that disgusting. And shameful.
Oh and since you mentioned the bible (Genesis is the first book of the bible), i wonder what would happen if Jesus did what He did with bread and fish, by multiplying 5 loafs of bread and 2 fish and feeding 5000 people with it (Mark 6:30-44, or 38-44 if you want to skip the story and go straight to the point i am making).
I wonder if the copyright firms we have would sue Him for pirating bread and fish...
Moral of the story is:
Copyright law is broken. DRM is broken. The world is broken.
If you assholes tried to find ways to win the consumer's respect and attention (read money and riches as well) instead of trying to treat them like criminals and fuck'em up all the time in the process, piracy wouldn't exist.
DRM is one of the (if not THE) main reason people pirate a game, as gamers don't give a shit about costs, as long as they can play the game they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy delayed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy delayed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy delayed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Piracy delayed?
The problem with this style of DRM is that it's largely effective. An important cog is missing from the local machine and you need to replace it before it can run in a local manner. It takes a lot of time and effort to get around it.
Now don't get me wrong, people will get around it, there are pirated WoW servers for example but all EA sees is a very substantial gap between the point the game is on sale and when that is a viable piracy tool.
Which means if the game sales well they will chalk it up as a success even if there would be no way of telling what those salse would had been other wise. Still at lest if the game fails they can't blame piracy... but it's Sim City, it won't fail or they simply won't call it a failure as a result of them wanting to confirm their bias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Piracy delayed?
I'll often wait patiently for simulations. And if they don't come I won't buy, simple as that. Diablo 3 was an exception, I haven't paid for the game =D
Still at lest if the game fails they can't blame piracy... but it's Sim City, it won't fail or they simply won't call it a failure as a result of them wanting to confirm their bias.
Piracy will always be blamed. Unless they manage NOT to let anyone pirate.
I'll give you an example: Wii, Xbox360 and PS3. PS3 went on largely without any piracy and yet it had the exact same levels of revenue the other two that were easily unlocked. I suspect that if PS3 was unlocked early it would have shot way up. Sony tends to forget their previous consoles only got an awesome lead because people could run whatever they wanted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The lilliputian maps, anti-customer online requirements, and lack of necessary features makes this the worst Sim City game ever made. Good job, EA.
Unsupported Statement Which I Nevertheless Feel to be True: No dedicated single player game has made the transition to multi-player without suffering for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't feel bad for the players
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't feel bad for the players
Of course I do. I'm not a monster. That what they did was stupid doesn't, and shouldn't, affect that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't feel bad for the players
There's doing something stupid when you had no way of knowing what would happen. Then there's doing something stupid when everyone around you is telling you not to do it for the fifth time.
If someone sticks their tongue in a socket for the fifth time, I'll get them medical treatment, but I won't feel sorry for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't feel bad for the players
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't feel bad for the players
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't feel bad for the players
The biggest problem is not the consumer, but a market that allows exploitation of bad habits or ignorance of consumers.
Are they at fault? Probably as much at fault as an obese that eats fast food, he can't help it. But I'd say so is the toxic corporation who exploits and thrives of this situation as if they are not responsible at all.
You might as well ask why do we allow these corporations to make these types of games now, and why are we going to do about it.
Don't give me the market crap, by the time people stop being ignorant and boycott the likes of EA, the top CEOs and executives will laugh at you and say "hey you finallly decided to do something, to bad I am now filthy rich and your money will never come back, but thanks for playing."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time to break out the schadenfreude
They knew ahead of time the game had an 'internet connection required' form of DRM...
They knew ahead of time that it was EA, most hated company in america, putting it out...
And they bought it anyway.
So for anyone who got burned on this game(especially the complete morons who bought it twice to be able to play), I can't help but think they got their well deserved reward, and one they will hopefully actually learn from for any future situations that pop up with similar circumstances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time to break out the schadenfreude
also the comments
"this wont affect me"
"get to 2013 all people has internet"
"is not drm is a feature"
of the fanboys god i was interested at first but the always online drm killed any interest in the franchise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And yet, probably millions will buy the game, and then complain about what EA has done.
News flash, there is no democracy when it comes to corporate decisions, you as consumers bought the product, do you have the right and the obligation to complain? Yes.
But you know what would be even better than crying hopelessly at the mercy of an obsolete and harmful corporation like EA?
To not buy their s*it in the first place. Not now, and never again, take a stand otherwise you are all hopeless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is not all
Now to be fair I think it should also be pointed out that EA and Maxis have stated that you have to play on their severs because the region simulation is handled on their end. I'm not sure if they've ever outright said it would be imposable for a machine to run regions locally but they've made a big deal about wanting the game to run on a wide range of specs.
To me it seems like a co-op out along the lines of Blizzards Diablo 3 reasoning. It's no doubt true that region play is handled on the servers, and that makes sense for muiltplayer but I find it incredibly hard to believe such simulation is to grate for mid range gaming PC these days let alone high end. Pushing that narrative is just an easy out.
Having the saves on servers, having the regions simulated for online play, that all makes sense for the muiltplayer. But if you want to play the game solo not only do you still have to put up with all those problems, you lose the ability to control your saves and mod the game. While this game clearly has a multiplayer focus the only reason I can really think that they don't allow the option for single player is purely because doing things this way puts them in control of everything.
The cynic in me also thinks that it's much harder to sell the kind of DLC they are already peddling to people who can mod the game and that it's much easier to sell to people who have pressure to "keep up with the Jones'" so to speak. There are DLC building that give active benefits (like a super hero who will help fight crime) and when the game is pushing scores and leader boards as such a big deal can they be sure they won't end up realising DLC that ends up being a must have?
All in all I actually would like to play the game, it's not the Sim City I was hoping for but for the game it is it's interesting buuuuut the server play is something I think is bullshit and there in a large part due to it use as DRM. A lot of what the game does is the kind of anti consumer bull crap I can't get behind. There are other people more deserving of my time and my money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EA is not going to say "hey, we may have made a big mistake making this online only." No, they're sitting in their boardrooms RIGHT NOW saying "We need more hardware to handle the load." Their fundamental grasp on reality has slipped away. They're going gung-ho to treat a symptom with zero thought as to what the underlying cause of it is.
And nothing will change because of it. Millions of people will still buy Diablo 4, forgetting (or ignoring) the infamous day that Diablo 3 came out.
Eliminating piracy at the expense of pissing off your customers? At EA, absolutely. After all, the majority of their customers already hate them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Duh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Duh!
The average consumer doesn't give a single f**k about the war on piracy. They don't care about DRM and they don't care about the pirated version. They only want to play the game. The only time DRM ever crosses their mind is when they can't do that. This is when people start looking at piracy as an option.
"And idiots who already paid for a pre-order are buying another copy just to get online"
Or they go out and purchase another copy because they have more money then brains.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Duh!
This is also when people start looking at piracy as the "cause" of their grief. Count the number of comments from people who blame those that pirate games -- not EA or any other purveyor of lame DRM schemes -- as the root of the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Duh!
Looking at the Youtube comments (and I have been since yesterday), far more people blame EA for this then the pirates.
The average consumer doesn't care about the piracy war. If they can play the game without the DRM screwing with them, they will play it.
But, if they can't play the game, what do they see? They see a program intentionally placed in the game by EA that's stopping them from playing. The reason why doesn't matter to most, they just care that they can't play.
Even if they do know the root cause, piracy, they still see it as EA's fault. The pirates didn't fire that shot, EA did. Not only that, EA fired that shot at paying customers, not the pirates. It doesn't matter that EA was trying to stop the pirates, it's still a shot at those who aren't pirating.
Taking it even one step further; pirates don't attack paying customers, they attack EA. So customers see EA firing indiscriminately but pirates firing vary carefully.
Yes, there will be people who see all that and still defend EA and blame pirates. But after all that, I think it's a mistake. EA made the decision to attack paying customers, not the pirates. I can blame the pirates for starting this war, but I can still blame EA more for targeting innocents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Duh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Won't buy it then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Won't buy it then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Won't buy it then.
plus a friend went from pc to mac so he gave me his useless sims2 and sim city 3000?? there are still hours of sandbox play for me without an online connection or upgrade.
I feel over consumers need to get burnt to fix what i see as excessive consumption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM destroys value
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM destroys value
You have no idea. The overloaded SimCity servers were causing all kinds of problems in Origin. I heard complaints that people couldn't activate or even play completely unrelated games yesterday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM destroys value
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DRM destroys value
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DRM destroys value
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: DRM destroys value
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM destroys value
I used to play The Sims 3, another title of EA, and before that played The Sims 1 and 2, and bought all the expansions for them.
At first I bought the expansion packs for the Sims 3, but then EA tried to make the game more and more online required, and the lag and load times and bugs kept on increasing with each new expansion pack.
At first I was like "ok, I won't buy any new expansion packs since they just make the game worse". But then the new patches kept on screwing up more then they fixed.
EA has the worst quality control I've ever seen with patches. It's one thing to create a horrible game that can't be salvaged with patches and fixes, it's quite another to take what WAS a pretty good game when it first launched, and then RUIN it in patches with all the new bugs and problems you introduce.
It's to the point now that I seriously doubt I'm going to be willing to spend even $1 to buy The Sims 4 if and when it comes out. The way EA is heading with DRM and online only play, and buyable content is another reason why I don't have much hope for The Sims 4 being that good a game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Refunds, second copy, server saves
Refunds: EA said they would allow refunds, however, I've seen several posts saying that you had to contact EA support by phone to get one, and that getting a hold of a human being right now was next to impossible.
People purchasing second copy: Totalbiscuit put that out there as a rumor, so I'm not sure if I would be comfortable citing that as a source of fact as even he didn't know for sure.
Server saves: My understanding is that they have regional server farms - US and Europe at the least. Where the save game thing comes into play is if you are a US player trying to play in Europe, etc. If you continue to play in your region, your save should be there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...And here some other bad news for purchasers
Even worse, chances are you are now locked into the EA "upgrade" cycle. EA tends to milk properties with an online component by regularly releasing incremental (imho) changes as a new product. For example, for the vast majority of their sports games, there is a new "version" every year (updated roster, generally minor tweaks to game play) at the full retail price.
The consequences to you, the renter of their games, is that once the new version is out, the previous version's online services are shut down by EA, forcing you into a full box price repurchase (rerent?) if you want to keep playing online.
The sports games generally have an offline component that does continue to function. With SimCity, you are now doubly screwed (twice the screwing, half the fun!) as there is no offline component AND your saves are on their servers. Once they decide to shut down SimCity, or go to the next version, the game and anything YOU created in the game your purchased is gone.
The lesson here? If you want your game purchase to be under your control, and available to you long term, don't rent your game from EA or any other company that controls how and when you play your game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dead alread
That alone is enough to stop me from buying. I have games from the 80s that I still play. In fact I think I have the original sim city somewhere and I can still play it if I feel like it. This new one? You can only play for as long as EA feels like letting you......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy winning?
I find it sad that pirates do more for fans than the companies who should be living and dying by their customer service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy winning?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No new news here?
is NOTHING NEW.
This was discussed long ago when first rumors of a persistent internet connection requirement were mentioned.
I don't mean to invalidate that this is an issue, it is a major problem, but definitely shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone that's followed the previews of SimCity.
So, whoever touted how awesome this was going to be, welcome to reality. This is precisely where all the people that are OK with this type of scheme, are allowing the industry to take OUR PROPERTY... our licenses. OUR ability to dictate when and where we can play OUR purchased property.
Sorry... but I saw this coming from miles away and is no surprise.
I for one, will not be supporting EA/Maxis in this endeavor... stupid move that'll kill a great franchise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really EA?
EA thinks that the consumer will just roll over and accept this crap... I'm choosing not to be bothered with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's in the game!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forget Cracks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Forget Cracks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Forget Cracks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Um
I'll wait until the SimCity expansion with bigger maps and offline play before I buy this. And I LOVE (past) SimCity games :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Online-only isn't just about DRM
However, this isn't a simple case of "online-only DRM". The reason you need a server slot is that you are actually playing the game online. SimCity does so many calculations that they can't do it in real-time on a person's computer, so it's architected to do it on a server farm. From a technical perspective, the game actually is an MMO.
This came out during the AMA, and I was surprised at how few people picked up on it in their anti-DRM rage. I hate EA more than the next person, but I have to come to Maxis' defense for putting together what they thought was the best experience with the computing power available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Online-only isn't just about DRM
If it takes this much, PER PLAYER, to run the game, than there is no server architecture that would support this and be financial viable for a one time $60 per player purchase. And for me, that�s where the smell comes from.
* To forestall the obvious; yes, if you are running a 386 without the math co-processor on the desktop, it�s probably not going to do very well compared to a modern CPU in the server. The argument assumes that we�re talking about generally similar desktop and server CPU�s. There isn't a magic server CPU that does things automatically faster than their desktop brethren. If there was, every gamer on the planet would be using them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Online-only isn't just about DRM
Bullshit. Other SC games could and as it seems they were more complex since the terrain were larger. This is total bs. If they wanted to make it run on any computer they could have made it so the slower ones could use their online processing while the freking badass 8-core ones with shitloads of simply raw processing power (AMD I'm looking at you) could do all the processing locally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Online-only isn't just about DRM
It all sounds like excuses to avoid having to admit that, yet again, paying customers are being screwed by a company so scared of piracy that it doesn't mind screwing those who do pay. If there truly is a technical reason why online has to happen and why these problems are here, then perhaps EA's publicity people should be releasing statements to counter the impression that it's DRM designed from the beginning to screw people. Otherwise, that's exactly how people see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Online-only isn't just about DRM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Best Comment...
"I feel kinda bad about pirating, but I flat out refuse to give money to an industry which takes a shit on its customer's faces."
Pretty much sums it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sorry, you did WHAT?!
You just got shit on, and you're coming back for more?!?! WTF?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm sorry, you did WHAT?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I want to know who it is so I can slap the shit out of them. This, if nothing else, is concrete proof that EA does not give two shits about its customers. They know people will buy it, so they don't even bother trying to fix issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A fool and his money are soon parted
Don't be one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hell, even if I'd been dumb enough to pre-order* I wouldn't bother to try and get online in the first week and a half or so, because this always happens. Always. And guess what? Millions of copies sold as pre-orders, and more on release means that this shit is obviously perfectly acceptable to consumers, so big companies will keep bundling it in!
* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AS IF, I have never and will never buy sight-unseen. Fuck DLC, especially day one DLC, and fuck DRM. The latter always fucks up, no exceptions, viva la cracks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, we know that online game companies (Blizzard, that's you) are notorious for not being willing/able to ramp up server capacity to handle a launch day peak that will probably not be matched for a long time. The point is that Sim City DID NOT HAVE TO BE THAT WAY! Even Ubisoft, who ostensibly has abandoned always-on DRM, did not require a crippling amount of server interaction with a healthy connection.
If the DRM on your single player game is so intrusive it brings down YOUR servers at launch, you're doing it wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The ball is back in your court."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i asked about this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are soon to be obsolete. The educated consumers thank you for expediting this by pulling game launch snafus such as this.
In case you have not heard, small game developers are making decent games people actually want. They're doing it because they love games and want to treat other gamers how they want to be treated. I'm sure some worthless exec is sitting there saying "Bah! what does this idiot know?!"
See a little story here about how a sequel to an old school RPG met it's $900,000 funding goal in less than 6 hours on Kickstarter.
http://games.slashdot.org/story/13/03/06/224231/planescape-torment-successor-funded- in-6-hours?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed
Sincerely... nvm, idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While this is a combination of several factors, in all honesty, I just want to be able to save the game to my computer. I wouldn't mind being online all the time, but requiring server-side saves is an absolutely abysmal addition.
EA, you've actually convinced me, all on your own, to spend that cool 60 dollars elsewhere. Congrats!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It should be clear by now that loyalty to a big publisher will not get you rewarded but exploited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
umm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
do not buy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same as Diablo3
Blizzards Entertainment took about 3 months to get the server loadings right, guess how long would EA take to correct it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What was the point of the dics then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“Best Comment...
...over on the Reddit thread:"I feel kinda bad about pirating, but I flat out refuse to give money to an industry which takes a shit on its customer's faces."
Pretty much sums it up.