Sim City is now down, the maintenance message is amazing

onlyindreams said:
Since Maxis decided to give this game MMO-like features? It's not the same as the old games.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize having a multiplayer mode was justification for being forced to log in to EA's servers to play alone.
This is the same exact conversation that happened when Diablo 3 shit itself at launch.

Now, I should say - I don't mind at all having to log into a client to be able to play my games, as long as the service it runs on is reliable. This is not one of those cases.
 
Uthred said:
If you only saw the one post then why would you say "Wrong. Again"? Curious phrasing, no? Here's a link to the article in question - http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Va...u-Can-Now-Access-Your-Games-Banned-41650.html Anyhow, not sure how I got around to defending EA - though as I said previously people making up stuff when the facts themselves are already bad enough is just sad - so I'm out. Back to the wonders of the Queue!
Click to expand...

Yep. EA formally announced this in March but said it had already been in effect for a month (Feb) and the article above was in April while Valve had changef its policy two months before (Feb). Both changed the policy at the same time.
 
GrizzNKev said:
I don't mind at all having to log into a client to be able to play my games, as long as the service it runs on is reliable. This is not one of those cases.
Click to expand...
Yeah, because it's launch. This is pretty much going to be the fate of every online game that has any sort of anticipation behind it. It's nothing to get upset over.
 
onlyindreams said:
Since Maxis decided to give this game MMO-like features? It's not the same as the old games.
Click to expand...

you know, more and more you come across as a tool.

first I thought you really mean well with your advice on waiting a few days and so on but man..

Just go away and don't add insult to our injury.
 
Sounds like some people are giving publishers the perfect excuse for AO-DRM. All they have to do is design a game, any game, around online multiplayer and then it's not DRM anymore.
 
Vane_MagicCity said:
Sounds like some people are giving publishers the perfect excuse for AO-DRM. All they have to do is design a game, any game, around online multiplayer and then it's not DRM anymore.
Click to expand...

It is more costs and higher risk for them to make games fully reliant on online servers as well, I think they would rather everyone have a decent day 1 experience.

The issue i think is that it is harder to prove with existing data that by not having AO-DRM will gain more sales than the amount that would be lost to pirates.

Whereas there is tons and tons of data about loss sales and profits due to piracy due to lobbying groups and major publishers as well (some of the latter uses this as an excuse for lackluster games)
 
Valnen said:
It's reality and it's impossible to prevent. The only online games this doesn't happen to at launch are ones nobody cares about.
Click to expand...

>online game
>16 player multi
>impossible to prevent

Hmm, it's really tough to think of a game with 16-person online multiplayer that didn't have extreme server failure at launch. Right?

damn I should really stop reading posts from people on my ignore list
 
Razorwind said:
It is more costs and higher risk for them to make games fully reliant on online servers as well, I think they would rather everyone have a decent day 1 experience.

The issue i think is that it is harder to prove with existing data that by not having AO-DRM will gain more sales than the amount that would be lost to pirates.

Whereas there is tons and tons of data about loss sales and profits due to piracy due to lobbying groups and major publishers as well (some of the latter uses this as an excuse for lackluster games)
Click to expand...

I'm really not interested in the best way for publishers to make more money, I am more concerned about things from the consumer point of view. In fact, the reason publishers keep pushing us further and further down shit creek is because consumers spend too much time worrying about the publishers bottom line.
 
At work right now, hopefully the servers are up when I come back, left home and started the download.

I just don't understand how they could be so narrow sighted concerning this release. They never learn I guess.
 
Yes, many games are borked in the online or multiplayer department at launch, that still doesn't excuse the fact that Sim City shouldn't be having this problem to begin with.

Why couldn't there be social features without the need for always online DRM to be implemented in this new Sim City? How is always online benefiting a Sim City player? Riddle me that somebody.
 
I bet you I can go out and find a copy of Sim City for my SNES before this is fixed. And thats with the flea markets not opening till Saturday ahahahaha
 
I am definitely taking back my physical cop of Sim City in the morning. I am not going to be a part of EA making money for stupid shit like this. I hope one day all of us gamers will realize we can hold shitty companies accountable.
 
Valnen said:
It's reality and it's impossible to prevent. The only online games this doesn't happen to at launch are ones nobody cares about.
Click to expand...
More servers isn't some magic spell. EA decided to go cheap and didn't account for the server load, though the exact same thing happened in KOTOR. They knew this would happen, but they measured the costs, and decided to let it happen anyway since they have the money of these early adopters anyway, and assume the problems will be over by the time other people are jumping in. This is entirely EA's fault, and entirely within their power to prevent. They chose not to. Just like they chose this form of DRM for a game that has no same time multiplayer features.
 
Man, I feel so bad for the developers that had no part in the decision about the DRM issues. It must feel like shit to have something you worked so long/hard on release like this... hope it gets rectified someway or the other soon.
 
Gaming-wise this is as sad at it gets. I'd rather quit gaming than going down a possible mandatory always-online road in the future. Sometimes I "just buy" games without thinking about the technical framework surrounding it. But now I'm ready to be more critical, which simply means there will be less EA-related games in my library in the future.
 
Aaron said:
More servers isn't some magic spell. EA decided to go cheap and didn't account for the server load, though the exact same thing happened in KOTOR. They knew this would happen, but they measured the costs, and decided to let it happen anyway since they have the money of these early adopters anyway, and assume the problems will be over by the time other people are jumping in. This is entirely EA's fault, and entirely within their power to prevent. They chose not to. Just like they chose this form of DRM for a game that has no same time multiplayer features.
Click to expand...

Not that I disagree, but this happens in pretty much any single online release. They can't all of them be possibly THAT cheap can they?

It's certainly something that boggles the mind. It feels like it's something they just never learn, but it can't be that simple.
 
I feel like there's a massive gulf between 'This game's servers are over loaded so you can only play offline right now' and 'This game is literally non-functional because the servers are overloaded.'
 
Metalmurphy said:
Not that I disagree, but this happens in pretty much any single online release. They can't all of them be possibly THAT cheap can they?

It's certainly something that boggles the mind. It feels like it's something they just never learn, but it can't be that simple.
Click to expand...
Guild Wars 2 launch went pretty well, and they had big numbers. They had overflow servers set up to combat this problem. I think Tera and Rift did okay, though can't find any clear articles about them. Setting up extra servers is a major expense, which is wasted if you don't turn out to need them, but these launches always need them. It's not that simple, there are other issues, but this is a big one that EA just shrugs off.
 
Just stop preordering EA games. When the game comes out and it's either utter shite or the service is terrible. EA won't have your money. Decide on release, pre order bonuses are more often than not worthless tat.
 
HylianTom said:
The luddite within me is kinda giggling at some of these happenings.

"We want online! We neeeeed online! We can't play without online!" claimed gamers.

Well.. you're getting it now. Online enables some really neat stuff, but I haven't been that impressed with it. Online also enables all sorts of temptations for various companies - temptations that seem to be pretty difficult to resist. It's going to be hysterical and fascinating to see what kind of mischief arises over this new console generation.

I loved earlier Sim City games, so at the same time, it's sad to witness. Looks like I'll be going through a third generation without buying a single EA game.
Click to expand...

I still disagree - PC games usually don't have online-only crap. As people said before, it's essentially console "model" being forced in a PC environment.

TheForceWithin said:
Saw this on Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comme...ist_the_knife/


lol
Click to expand...

CityLife is the only one I don't have.
 
Another way to tackle it: OK, you have game features that demand constant online connectivity. Disable those features when a player wants to play offline. When the player goes online the features are enabled and his gameplay experience is enriched so the player is encouraged to play the game online as much as possible.

If you believe your gameplay features that warrant always-online are improving the game then use them as an incentive to get people to play the game online; to get the 'full' experience of Simciy; that they would prefer to play the game online rather than offline SP, even though it's entirely possible to play the game offline just w\o features that are understandable to work only online.

Make the players care and choose to go always-online for those features rather than force them on the customer, and in doing so creating situations like now that people can't even play any part of the game and that its basics aren't functioning.
 
So I come home tired from work at damn near 5 AM and this shit is still down!? Are you fucking serious with this, EA? Goddamn it.
 
Glad I don't buy EA games at launch. Or ever, if their recent track record is any indication. I can't stop laughing at the people defending this.

A dumbed down, limited-in-scope, DLC heavy, social-gaming version of a long standing and well respected franchise with deplorable DRM that isn't remotely playable after launch. Anybody defending this might as well pull on their wool sweater and say baaaaa...
 
I've not had any major problems, it doesn't kick you out of your game if you aren't online. Besides, the game doesn't play very well offline, you need other cities to succeed
 
Took me more than an hour to get the game to start up, immediately disconnected so I couldn't actually play. Given the poor reception it's had with customers even outside of server issues, I suppose the problem will soon be solved when people don't want to play the game anymore.

Oh well, time to play me some EU3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

This is a message to ChiefDada
2
61
3K
HogIsland replied
PSN is down (Update: Back up)
19 20 21 22 23
1K
66K
Negotiator replied
Whispers of the Eyeless - Cult management sim/dungeon delving RPG now in Early Access
1
225
SJRB replied
Stellar Blade Director Is Now One of the Richest People in Korea
2
99
4K
Felessan replied
  • Poll
Where would you rank the Switch now that end is approaching?
2 3 4
164
4K
James Sawyer Ford replied
Top Bottom