I hate EA, please join me.

[BruceWayne]

You cannot make a game, which has parts of its simulation calculated in the cloud, suddenly change to work on a single machine. That's why they had to take out "cheetah" speed (which is the fastest the simulation can run) in order to control the server issues. The DRM isn't even DRM for DRM's sake, but for the game mechanics itself. I wouldn't even be half as pissed off about the game, if they called it SimCity Online. All they said beforehand was, that it has online features, but never did they say that it has to run online to work at all.

 

This is bad news for modding as well, because if parts of the mechanics are run on the servers, I see little possibilities to have "core mods", other than the occasional recolor of Maxis buildings/props.

[gregathit]

This is bad news for modding as well, because if parts of the mechanics are run on the servers, I see little possibilities to have "core mods", other than the occasional recolor of Maxis buildings/props.

 

 

Yea but that should not be surprising as EA has never really been known to be mod friendly.  They would rather force you to always be connected and buy stuff through them via micro-transactions (hint diablo 3).  Hopefully EA keeps F'ing up and pissing off folks enough that people stop buying their products.  EA going out of business would be a short term hurt, but a long term gain for the gaming industry.

[ChancellorKremlin]

Bottom Line: Don't buy games from EA. I learned that after Battlefield 2142... 

[polluxval]

Bottom Line: Don't buy games from EA. I learned that after Battlefield 2142... 

 

 

but what if EA release a nice game (wich is pretty hard but plausible)? O_O

 

naa... who am I trying to fool...

 

[BruceWayne]

 

 

This is bad news for modding as well, because if parts of the mechanics are run on the servers, I see little possibilities to have "core mods", other than the occasional recolor of Maxis buildings/props.

 

 

Yea but that should not be surprising as EA has never really been known to be mod friendly.  They would rather force you to always be connected and buy stuff through them via micro-transactions (hint diablo 3).  Hopefully EA keeps F'ing up and pissing off folks enough that people stop buying their products.  EA going out of business would be a short term hurt, but a long term gain for the gaming industry.

 

 

 

This is not true, it hasn't always been that way. Simcity 4, the Sims 2, Battlefield 2, Dragon Age: Origins and some others were pretty mod friendly or came with their own toolkits( DA:O, SC4). I only recently started playing Simcity 4 again. EA released pretty extensive modding tools for that one, so they haven't been always this restrictive. Heck, that game was in itself a mod tool, with the world builder and all. I'm not saying to condemn EA because they want to try to make money, which is their right, but there is and there have been ways to do it, without screwing everyone over. Bethesda comes to mind here.

It's almost as if EA released some good games in the past to get the "core" gaming crowd all excited and hopped up for every piece of shit they have or going to release afterwards. Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect 1 come to mind, which were basically aimed at "old school" RPG fans (DAO more so than ME), only for them to cash in with cheap knockoffs afterwards. Like they would do with their sports titles. 

 

I think the comic polluxval sums it up pretty well. Maybe with the exception that Maxis was laying in the hole all along (The Sims).

[gregathit]

Actually DA origins was well along in the process and came before EA started getting its fingers into the daily workings of Bioware.  That is the only reason it got a toolkit.  Notice that DA2 came along and bingo.....no toolset.  Battlefield 2 predates the new "bust the clients balls" policy that EA seems to have adopted, with forcing multiplayer and microtransactions into games that don't need it.  While their dumbing down of Mass effect series with the latest release irritated me greatly and the miserable failure that DA2 was irked me more, it was the brutal murder of Command and Conquer that really made me hate EA. 

 

I can't honestly think of another company that has taken a good game or series and run it smack into the ground as often as EA has.  Am I missing the boat and not noticing other companies doing the same thing on the scale that EA has been?

[polluxval]

Actually DA origins was well along in the process and came before EA started getting its fingers into the daily workings of Bioware.  That is the only reason it got a toolkit.  Notice that DA2 came along and bingo.....no toolset.  Battlefield 2 predates the new "bust the clients balls" policy that EA seems to have adopted, with forcing multiplayer and microtransactions into games that don't need it.  While their dumbing down of Mass effect series with the latest release irritated me greatly and the miserable failure that DA2 was irked me more, it was the brutal murder of Command and Conquer that really made me hate EA. 

 

I can't honestly think of another company that has taken a good game or series and run it smack into the ground as often as EA has.  Am I missing the boat and not noticing other companies doing the same thing on the scale that EA has been?

 

Bethesda?

 

[zippy57]

You cannot make a game, which has parts of its simulation calculated in the cloud, suddenly change to work on a single machine.

Suddenly? No. Practically impossible? Also no. They made the game in the first place, I'm sure they can figure out how to make a patch for it.

[gregathit]

 

You cannot make a game, which has parts of its simulation calculated in the cloud, suddenly change to work on a single machine.

Suddenly? No. Practically impossible? Also no. They made the game in the first place, I'm sure they can figure out how to make a patch for it.

 

 

Zippy57 is correct, it is most certainly doable.  Maxis has even stated that they are considering it: http://www.slashgear.com/simcity-increases-stability-and-considers-offline-mode-in-the-future-10273225/ and http://games.on.net/2013/03/maxis-will-look-into-offline-mode-for-simcity-as-they-work-around-the-clock/

[BruceWayne]

Will it work? Probably. Will it work well? Probably not.

Again, they had to globally patch out the highest game speed setting(!) to not overload their servers ("improve performance"). If you ever played Simcity, that's a pretty big deal.

And honestly, I don't see why they would offer an offline mode in the "undisclosed" future. Maybe as part of a 40$ addon. They got the biggest chunk of profit for the game from launch. Offline mode would be counter-intuitive for the most likely soon-to-follow DLC extravaganza.

Sorry for the rants folks, but I really was hoping that SimCity could be a good game...

[gregathit]

Well, I think we have beaten this particular horse to a bloody pulp, so to summarize EA's stupid choice at including DRM requiring always online connection to their servers for a single player game and failing to have enough servers to handle the traffic from day one through a full week, and still not getting things working right, I submit the following picture to "convey the message" to EA:

 

 

 

 

 

[polluxval]

Sometimes I feel the need to shake that greedy bastards and scream to their ear:

 

[BruceWayne]

Well, I think we have beaten this particular horse to a bloody pulp, so to summarize EA's stupid choice at including DRM requiring always online connection to their servers for a single player game and failing to have enough servers to handle the traffic from day one through a full week, and still not getting things working right, I submit the following picture to "convey the message" to EA:

 

 

 

 

Lol, yeah. Maybe John "Multiplayer for everything" Riccitello will see the monetary and image damage done and see that his "multiplaying" ways have failed for this one.

 

The biggest problem I see is EA has NEVER been a big fan of anything online that they didn't soon afterward close down. (I'm not a Sims fan so I wouldn't know about that part of it) I wouldn't look for this to last more then a year (sucking the consumer dry time) before they shut it down. They have done it many times before. The DRM is nothing more then a warning to all...."We shit in your cheerios and your gonna like it". Look at how many times there customer base has been pissed by what they've done, then turned right around and followed them down the same damn road AGAIN. Dev's like Bioware (before EA infested them) pounded out some good games, then comes EA and to the toilets they go. But the "Good Games" are remembered and EA rides that all the way to the bank. They definitely know how to steal money, well actually they know how to get people to give it to them for no real content. That's why there one of the largest publishers in the world.

 

That's exactly what I thought as well. Show us one game that is good and then rob us afterwards. Not anymore.

I think Sims is doing well enough for them to keep their microtransaction-stores up and running. I've read somewhere that it is one of the most played PC games worldwide (might be some while ago). And judging by the number of "expansion" packs they put out year after year it is very much alive and kicking.

[larryrunner]

Are the server problems restricted to NA? Because I have played this since day 1 in Europe without any problems.

[sniperdoc]

First off, every major newly released PC game becomes the "most played" game on the planet. Until people get frustrated and it peters off to nothingness.

What really gets my goat, is responses like this:

Nope it's not illegal and the delevoper has the right.

 

Either get used to it or you won't be buying PC games in the future. More and more games are going like that.

 

Personally I think it's a good thing.

 

It's not their fault that you didn't research into the product before buying it.

 

Signing a petition is going to do fuck all considering most people don't mind "always online" and or are always contacted to the internet.

 

Always online worked for Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3.......

 

Starcraft 2, completely different model. Same with Diablo 3, however D3 wasn't without its hicups either and they lost an extremely large user base that was interested in SINGLE PLAYER only mode. I personally know of about 6  people that refused to buy it due to the always-on persistent Internet connection required component.

What I don't appreciate, is people responding like they THINK they know it all and dismissing other people's concerns and valid problems. Saying things like "Either get used to it" or "It's not their fault that you didn't research... blah blah" only serves to somehow grow their e-peen and make themselves feel like they actually know something.

The fact of the matter is, that even people that DID research the product have issue with a lot of what Maxis has done to SimCity. The other comment, stating "it's a good thing" is personal preference and I can respect that... however, I'd like to know WHY you think it is a good thing.

Here is why I think it isn't:

1. We, as consumers, are steadily losing our rights in how, when and where we can use a product we purchased in good faith. The good faith component arises in the assumption that said "service provider" will protect our private data, will provide us with 99.999% reliable service. With fairly recent events like the PSN outage, the Blizzard account hackings and a host of other issues, this is pretty much removing our trust in a provider's ability to reliably service us for the money we pay/paid to them.
 

2. Because we rely on trust and good faith, we expect SOME ability to go to said provider and say: "This is not acceptable. Give me some type of compensation for your inadequate/broken/discontinued product." However, due to overly restricted EULAs and completely unreasonable refund policies (what makes a physical copy of a game different than a downloaded one???) consumers have absolutely NO recourse if the product doesn't meet their expectations. (I can watch a movie in a theater, walk out half-way because I don't enjoy it, and get a refund. I can also watch a dvd, and if it doesn't meet my expectations or doesn't function, get a refund and/or store credit. It is... Entertainment)

3. Because corporations cause their own problems, consumers have even more rights removed. E.g. The PSN outage happened because Sony didn't securing their network to the best of their ability. Because of the major backlash from the consumer, an Anti-Class-Action clause was implemented in the EULA/Terms. Once precedent was set in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, video game publishers followed suit and started implementing the same clauses in their EULA/Terms, including Valve, which was one of the last hold-outs. So, again, the consumer paid the price for something that was out of their control.

4. I find it odd, that games that are, say "incomplete", without the server/client infrastructure are being sold at full price. A standard plain and basic version of SimCity isn't even available. The only versions being offered are the Limited Edition and Deluxe and EA/Origin charges $69+ for these versions. However owning the game comes with the following concepts and limitations:

a. The game cannot function without Internet access. This means the player is limited by the following:

-- i. The buyer of the game must have an Internet connection

-- ii. The publisher/service provider must have functional servers

-- iii. The publisher/service provider must have RELIABLE servers

-- iv. The publisher/service provider must have RELIABLE network infrastructure

b. The game SHOULD in essence have a reduced overhead:

-- i. Releasing of patches should be much more streamlined.

-- ii. Bug fixing should be much more efficient and successful due to massive data-mining capabilities.

-- iii. Technical issues should be reduced due to all the "testing/QA" due to all the data available (data mining).

 

So, why are we paying full price, and even more, for what is essentially half a game that we cannot play when, where and however we want?

So, ultimately the consumer is totally being shafted by the big guy without any recourse when something isn't working as intended. Personally, that doesn't sit well with me. And to be completely frank, anyone that says "get used to it" or "that's the norm" is ignorant and is just propagating the big corp's butt-raping the little guy.

 

What it comes down to is voting with your wallet. Yes, you, the consumer that purchased a product that didn't perform as expected, got burned. I would hope that you're not the type that will continue to put your hand on the stove you've previously burned yourself on and will apply that same logic when purchasing your entertainment software.

If Maxis screwed you over, don't buy their product. If EA screwed you over, stop buying their product. Does this mean you'll have slim pickin's? Absolutely... but there WILL BE NO CHANGE if you continue to feed the animal that bites you. EA has been through so many buyouts and reinvestment firms it is not even funny. The FACT that they're continuing to bring about their own demise and that they are not remedying the issue in the right way... good. Let EA die. I used to respect their company, but they've become way to involved in the product's evolutionary process. It's gone from the developer being the key influencer in product design to the publisher being the head honcho, one that has no idea what people want to begin with.

SimCity is and always will be a single player game. Multiplayer was a nice feature. Forced multiplayer was the worst idea Maxis and EA ever had. Period. If they'd have had single player stand-alone, they wouldn't be in the pickle they're in now... and that... is a fact. Anyone that says they have any idea of how many preferred the coop/multiplayer aspect over single player is full of it.

 

All I know, they've lost a lot of people when they announced it would not being a single player game and that, is extra revenue lost.

The fact that they need all this extra hardware, i.e. servers, means they've lost revenue and only gained overhead.

The fact that they need additional staff to monitor and provide technical support on that infrastructure, is overhead and lost revenue.

All the complaints because people can't play, lost their save games, requires technical support staff, which is overhead and lost revenue.

The returns of physical product because of EA having to honor their return policy of physical product is lost revenue.

The Internet service requirement alone, to support the huge bandwidth of the amount of players and to provide CONSISTENT service (albeit laughable right now) is nothing but overhead and lost revenue.

 

So, anyone saying that this was a good idea... needs to be fired and have their head examined.

 

The damage that has been done to EA and Maxis reputation alone is almost irreparable. Once again, I say:

 

VOTE WITH YOUR WALLET! (rather the absence of)

[gregathit]

Well said sniperdoc!  +10 AND an internet cookie for you!

[windpl]

My last week experience with ea products:

 

BF3 got update (premium user here).

Oh, new dlc is downloading cool.

"ERROR: Game file corrupeted! Run Origin "fix" service."* Okkkkkkkkk...

THERE IS NO SUCH THING IN ORIGIN! FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!

 

 

Bought Simcity 5

Cool, it looked nice on tesers.

Well, It didn't fucking work at that time. Great!

Whined here on loverslab about it, and got warning for "incureging piracy"

Sweet.

 

I havent even try to run BF3 or SC5 since that.

 

And this is only from last week, to add cheery on top I'm also playing warhammer online anyone playing that propobly will understand my fucking iritation with EA products.

 

So yes, I love EA

 

 

[BruceWayne]

*snip*

 

 

That is the only solution.

 

The escapist has an opinion as well, here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6978-SimShitty

 

[polluxval]

What I can't really understand is that they are supposedly a "serious" company and they have competent workers. Why in the hell did they ever make this mistakes? It should be a market strategy "before" trying to do this kind of crap. They pay people to work on a "plan" before releasing the game, isnt that correct?. I assume this are the QA, planning and market employees at EA (and part of the game makers for sure):

 

[sniperdoc]

Thanks guys. I just get really angry when people that THINK that what they believe applies to everyone else push their garbage out like it's fact. I don't like it when peoples issues and problems get invalidated by asshats like that. People have valid problems and are just venting. So, comments like "either get used to it" or "you should have done your research" only serve to make themselves feel like they're some type of authority and really only makes them a troll.

It's called being a good human being.

 

BTW... I suggest that everyone sign and spread this asap: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/institute-industry-wide-return-policy-video-games-rely-remote-servers-and-drm-function-properly/nMy1wrtC

 

It might do nothing, but at least you can say you tried. Right?

[BruceWayne]

If I were an american, I would certainly consider signing.

 

The gov. consumer protection agency where I'm from, is/was actually investigating EA/Origin, because of it's "spyware" components and murky EULAs, for which they got warned and fined last year. I'm certainly hoping they'll take a good look at it again.

[zippy57]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't EULAs largely unenforceable since most of the time you don't get to see the EULA until after you've paid for the product? A contract that gives one party no negotiating position is not a legal contract.

[BruceWayne]

Well, I'm no lawyer, but I don't know, if agreement=contract, there might be some differences here.

 

But the unavailability of the EULA pre-purchase was exactly one of the reasons they got warned. The second was data mining and the creation of user profiles for "advertisement" (*ahem* Origin), which wasn't made apparent on the game boxes. The third reason was constant internet connection, which also wasn't prominently labeled on the box. This all let the agency to state, that they started researching into it, because it seems highly unnecessary for a game to require all this stuff.

 

This was all part of the Battlefield 3 release last year. In the end EA caved and made some changes, to calm them down. I can't really tell you what they are, because I haven't played an EA game since.

[Someone92]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't EULAs largely unenforceable since most of the time you don't get to see the EULA until after you've paid for the product? A contract that gives one party no negotiating position is not a legal contract.

Not sure about the laws in other countries but in Germany the end-user licence agreements are basically void, it merely serves to scare unaware people with law suits.

[sniperdoc]

If I were an american, I would certainly consider signing.

 

The gov. consumer protection agency where I'm from, is/was actually investigating EA/Origin, because of it's "spyware" components and murky EULAs, for which they got warned and fined last year. I'm certainly hoping they'll take a good look at it again.

 

Well, the whole "unenforceable" thing changed with the AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion case... immediately after the court ruled in favor of AT&T, EA, Ubisoft and Valve immediately jumped on the class-action waiver clause bandwagon. Sony, because of their PSN outage, I think, did it before the court case... I'm not 100% on that though, but should be an easy check to see when Sony changed their EULA/Terms.

 

This unfortunately opened up more of a can of beans against the consumer and makes EULA's no less legally binding as it was enforced per the California Supreme Court and would make future debates against it, nigh impossible.

 

EULAs, Terms and SLA (Subscriber Licensing Agreement - Steam's wording to basically allow them to say that you're just subscribing to your games, that you don't actually own them) are entirely unconscionable. The thing is, we as gamers, we allowed them to change the wording, and add clauses and whatever else, because no one gave a shit... literally.

 

When was the last time, that you/we read a EULA before it was ok'd and you/we just installed the game? Probably a very high percentage of people just click "I Accept" and move on, because the service or game you bought, usually works without incident.

 

The problem usually arises when we have issue with something, whether the game is broken, became broken, or doesn't meet up to what  WE assumed to be reasonable expectations. Then the publisher/developer throws in our face, something that we signed and agreed to, the EULA/Terms/SLA, and usually we have no recourse because the terms THEY set forth are entirely one-sided and unconscionable.

 

We literally are stewing in our own mess. Now it is up to US to change it.