Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Putnam]

The response was identical this time around...

[Graknorke]

The response was identical this time around...

I know. That's what I was saying.

Responding to

The only reason this game has gotten this butt hurt because its EA and you gotta mindlessly rag on EA.

[forsaken1111]

I can't think of another game that forces you to always be online to play and then can't handle the traffic it's hyped up when it opens; and hasn't been called out for it.

Yeah.. World of Warcraft perhaps? That is EXACTLY the problem they had on launch. Servers were simply overwhelmed by the response and it was a week or more of constant downtime and maintenance.

And everyone went "Yeah okay this is fine" at that?

n...no? What? Nobody said this was fine for simcity either. Who are you arguing with?

I can't think of another game that forces you to always be online to play and then can't handle the traffic it's hyped up when it opens; and hasn't been called out for it.

Diablo 3?

And nobody thought that it was okay. People were upset with it not working; and they're allowed to be.

What? Of course nobody thought it was okay, but people got the hell over it because its an awesome game just like this is. Having an unexpected amount of traffic isn't something you can predict. They had servers in place that they thought would handle the load and they very clearly underestimated the number of people who were going to be playing.

The response was identical this time around...

I know. That's what I was saying.

Responding to

The only reason this game has gotten this butt hurt because its EA and you gotta mindlessly rag on EA.

Its true though, people DO mindlessly rage just because something is EA.

[MrWiggles]

I can't think of another game that forces you to always be online to play and then can't handle the traffic it's hyped up when it opens; and hasn't been called out for it.

Diablo 3?

D3 is the last triple A title that suffered from this opening issue. But every moderate to major MMO has server issues at opening, and every major patch day.

I can't think of another game that forces you to always be online to play and then can't handle the traffic it's hyped up when it opens; and hasn't been called out for it.

Yeah.. World of Warcraft perhaps? That is EXACTLY the problem they had on launch. Servers were simply overwhelmed by the response and it was a week or more of constant downtime and maintenance.

And everyone went "Yeah okay this is fine" at that?

But it was not at the level of Sim City 5. No one sent one star brigades to Amazon over that. There wants as massive out cry for refunds, over, what is the ultimate first world problem.


Halo 4 online multiplayer was horse shit for its opening week. This is notable, because its more likely folks are only playing it on line then the single player aspects. Even Spartan Ops requires net access to record stats.

SC2 opening week of beta had horse shit of a connection. You had to go on line to register it, and has a semi off line mode, that you can play custom games and the single player. But again, more then half, at least of the folks buying were buying it exclusively for its on line play.

And this is a list, I can compile, from memory, I'm sure we can find other games that had to be on line that had even worse server issues then Sim City 5 at opening.

[postal83]

For the most part, I've had a really good experience.  I haven't had any server issues or anything like that...except today

[BuriBuriZaemon]

EA didnt 'screw up' the servers. There was 700k+ cities made in 24hrs of release. That kind stress is mind boggling and not a trival task to overcome. The number of simultaneous user is both unquie and at its zenieth at opening. No other game has gotten this much butt hurt over opening week issue. The only reason this game has gotten this butt hurt because its EA and you gotta mindlessly rag on EA.

Sorry to rain down on your parade, but if you knew you're going to have a baby due in a few months, wouldn't you buy baby products in preparation for the baby's arrival? As the game's publisher, they knew how many people pre-ordered the game, yet they still did not prepare the right infrastructure to allow for a proper launch.

If you rewarded companies (not just game publishers) that acted in such anti-customer behaviours (and in EA's case, repeatedly), then the customer as a whole would be the one losing out. Aren't you a customer yourself?

[forsaken1111]

EA didnt 'screw up' the servers. There was 700k+ cities made in 24hrs of release. That kind stress is mind boggling and not a trival task to overcome. The number of simultaneous user is both unquie and at its zenieth at opening. No other game has gotten this much butt hurt over opening week issue. The only reason this game has gotten this butt hurt because its EA and you gotta mindlessly rag on EA.

Sorry to rain down on your parade, but if you knew you're going to have a baby due in a few months, wouldn't you buy baby products in preparation for the baby's arrival? As the game's publisher, they knew how many people pre-ordered the game, yet they still did not prepare the right infrastructure to allow for a proper launch.

If you rewarded companies (not just game publishers) that acted in such anti-customer behaviours (and in EA's case, repeatedly), then the customer as a whole would be the one losing out. Aren't you a customer yourself?

This is more analogous to expecting a baby and getting triplets or quadruplets.

[BuriBuriZaemon]

EA didnt 'screw up' the servers. There was 700k+ cities made in 24hrs of release. That kind stress is mind boggling and not a trival task to overcome. The number of simultaneous user is both unquie and at its zenieth at opening. No other game has gotten this much butt hurt over opening week issue. The only reason this game has gotten this butt hurt because its EA and you gotta mindlessly rag on EA.

Sorry to rain down on your parade, but if you knew you're going to have a baby due in a few months, wouldn't you buy baby products in preparation for the baby's arrival? As the game's publisher, they knew how many people pre-ordered the game, yet they still did not prepare the right infrastructure to allow for a proper launch.

If you rewarded companies (not just game publishers) that acted in such anti-customer behaviours (and in EA's case, repeatedly), then the customer as a whole would be the one losing out. Aren't you a customer yourself?

This is more analogous to expecting a baby and getting triplets or quadruplets.

As the game's publisher, they knew how many people pre-ordered the game.

[forsaken1111]

EA didnt 'screw up' the servers. There was 700k+ cities made in 24hrs of release. That kind stress is mind boggling and not a trival task to overcome. The number of simultaneous user is both unquie and at its zenieth at opening. No other game has gotten this much butt hurt over opening week issue. The only reason this game has gotten this butt hurt because its EA and you gotta mindlessly rag on EA.

Sorry to rain down on your parade, but if you knew you're going to have a baby due in a few months, wouldn't you buy baby products in preparation for the baby's arrival? As the game's publisher, they knew how many people pre-ordered the game, yet they still did not prepare the right infrastructure to allow for a proper launch.

If you rewarded companies (not just game publishers) that acted in such anti-customer behaviours (and in EA's case, repeatedly), then the customer as a whole would be the one losing out. Aren't you a customer yourself?

This is more analogous to expecting a baby and getting triplets or quadruplets.

As the game's publisher, they knew how many people pre-ordered the game.

Yes, but they had to guess at how many additional people would buy it. Probably they did not realize how much additional traffic would be generated with things like the leaderboard updating 28,000 times a minute and people creating 8 new regions because they messed up their city and want a do over and stuff. Blizzard knew how many people preordered wow and diablo 3 but they still underestimated the number of people who would be jumping online at launch. Its not an exact science, and companies tend to err on the side of caution.

[jocan2003]

Sorry to break the chain here, but im alone and looking to join a region

jocan2003 on origin/simcitythingy. Dont let me play alone tonight

[BuriBuriZaemon]

Yes, but they had to guess at how many additional people would buy it. Probably they did not realize how much additional traffic would be generated with things like the leaderboard updating 28,000 times a minute and people creating 8 new regions because they messed up their city and want a do over and stuff. Blizzard knew how many people preordered wow and diablo 3 but they still underestimated the number of people who would be jumping online at launch. Its not an exact science, and companies tend to err on the side of caution.

Since they have a studio designing the game engine, mechanics, and assets, they would've known this. Also, the fact that this same mistake has been done by other companies does not make it any less justified. Those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat the same mistake.

[forsaken1111]

Yes, but they had to guess at how many additional people would buy it. Probably they did not realize how much additional traffic would be generated with things like the leaderboard updating 28,000 times a minute and people creating 8 new regions because they messed up their city and want a do over and stuff. Blizzard knew how many people preordered wow and diablo 3 but they still underestimated the number of people who would be jumping online at launch. Its not an exact science, and companies tend to err on the side of caution.

Since they have a studio designing the game engine, mechanics, and assets, they would've known this. Also, the fact that this same mistake has been done by other companies does not make it any less justified. Those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat the same mistake.

You make the amusing assumption that:

1. Everyone in a company talks to each other about everything.
2. Nothing unexpected ever occurs.

But you're the expert here. I guess they should have hired you to tell them how many people to expect.

[Greenbane]

Come on, people. I totally get the hate for the online DRM, but blurting out stuff like the servers being shut down in three years is quite the exaggeration. If it ever came to that, the company would patch the game so that the servers aren't necessary to play. Maybe they'd implement another form of DRM, or not, but they wouldn't take a huge dump on the hundreds of thousands that bought the thing and kill everyone's ability to play it. That'd just be a PR suicide. Come on.

Some people really seem to think certain game companies are truly, consciously and deliberately out to screw over their own customers. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Words in bold convey uncertainty. People paid $80 for uncertainty whether they would be able to play the game 5 years down the road.

And trust me, some businesses exist to simply make as much money as possible or short term profits, because that's how the execs performance is reviewed by the Board, which of course factors into how they are renumerated.

Several games have had their DRMs patched out after a few years. Anno 1404 comes to mind, and that one's quite relevant as I believe its protection scheme had an online component. And this is Ubisoft, the champions of draconian DRM.

It's just baseless cynicism to assume EA would simply shut down an entire game that can function as a singleplayer product. They would indeed suffer a big public relations hit, and leave themselves wide open to legal retribution unless the Terms of Service explicitly said something about the matter right now.

Someone said earlier they're not obligated to provide support for the game after X years, and I don't know if that's true, but even if it is, for games like this customer support is only part of the company's ongoing effort to keep the thing running. At the same time, we aren't talking about an MMORPG that simply cannot function outside a multiplayer environment, so reasonable measures can and probably will be taken when the time comes.

Sure, you can say my statements are baseless as well, but it seems a lot more likely that they wouldn't deliberately shoot themselves in the foot.

[The Darkling Wolf]

Naw man, this is EA. Not only will they shut down the servers, but they'll also come out to your house and burn your hard drives to remove every trace of the game. Then they'll have all the employees who worked on it shot so they can't re-create it. Also they'll kill some puppies with hammers.

[BuriBuriZaemon]

Several games have had their DRMs patched out after a few years. Anno 1404 comes to mind, and that one's quite relevant as I believe its protection scheme had an online component. And this is Ubisoft, the champions of draconian DRM.

It's just baseless cynicism to assume EA would simply shut down an entire game that can function as a singleplayer product. They would indeed suffer a big public relations hit, and leave themselves wide open to legal retribution unless the Terms of Service explicitly said something about the matter right now.

Someone said earlier they're not obligated to provide support for the game after X years, and I don't know if that's true, but even if it is, for games like this customer support is only part of the company's ongoing effort to keep the thing running. At the same time, we aren't talking about an MMORPG that simply cannot function outside a multiplayer environment, so reasonable measures can and probably will be taken when the time comes.

Sure, you can say my statements are baseless as well, but it seems a lot more likely that they wouldn't deliberately shoot themselves in the foot.

Technically, anything that is not 100% fixed is still an uncertainty. Looking at EA's history--a reasonable method to predict the company's future behaviours--it is more likely they take down the server than not.

If they allowed the game to function after their planned "product life cycle", then it'd be less incentive for SimCity players to upgrade to SimCity 2, as we've seen this pattern with their sport games. Since the game relies on online social interaction, having a split of playerbase between multiple games within the same franchise is not ideal for them, hence they will do whatever necessary to consolidate the playerbase.

We cannot assume individual customers have enough resources and incentive to take a class action against a listed corporate with strong legal and financial backing. Especially when the playerbase are physically segregated into different regions (unlike, say an airline service union doing a strike against the airline they work at).

Also: List of games EA recently shut down.

Mate, I love the SimCity franchise and I sure wish what you said were true.