Print

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

[alexandertnt]

Seems like if they just put in an offline singleplayer everyone would have been happy and most of these problems would not have existed...

[jocan2003]

Seems like if they just put in an offline singleplayer everyone would have been happy and most of these problems would not have existed...

Exactly, and now invite me to your region! (jocan2003)

[Greenbane]

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.

I get what you're saying, but I insist on the notion that EA would likely patch the game to be server-independent if they were to shut down said servers. This is still a game that could function, albeit somewhat diminished, in singleplayer mode.

I read through the list, and save for MMO products/Facebook-style casual gimmicks, no games have been killed by their online components going down. And that's what the list is about: shutting down online stuff, not games altogether (again, save those that don't have any form of singleplayer). The vast majority of them, as far as I can tell, are games that can very well survive offline. And SimCity could be patched relatively easily to be one of those.

In the case of sports franchises in particular, the playerbases tend to naturally migrate to newer installments, but even then, the prequels aren't simply shut down. While the online aspect might be gone, the games appear to remain very much playable.

[Pnx]

From what I've been told, the game would be significantly less functional as a single player game right now given that it's orientated toward cooperation between cities.

They could put in AI players or change the mechanics, but I honestly don't think they're going to do that, especially since I suspect they made it so heavily multiplayer oriented, not because they believe a social multiplayer game to be the way of the future, but in an attempt to curb piracy.

[BuriBuriZaemon]

I read through the list, and save for MMO products/Facebook-style casual gimmicks, no games have been killed by their online components going down. And that's what the list is about: shutting down online stuff, not games altogether (again, save those that don't have any form of singleplayer). The vast majority of them, as far as I can tell, are games that can very well survive offline. And SimCity could be patched relatively easily to be one of those.

And this is what I am trying to get across... SimCity is built around its online components. No amount of patching can change that. Even if it's possible, it's going to require significant amount of resources (e.g. development time, human resources) at their end to be allocated to a game that is soon to be succeeded by a newer game (and therefore, not generate any more revenue). From business perspective, that is not very ideal.

[Sensei]

Hey, if the game actually does get shut down, there will definitely be cracks by then. Like I said before, it's only ever a matter of time. Knowing EA, they'd just plagiarize a pirate's crack and call it good.

Look at Diablo 3: There's cracks and server emulators made at least as early as late December 2012. That's an impressive several months to crack, and may have even actually earned a few sales from people who would otherwise have pirated it (many games are cracked before the release date). Nonetheless, the crack is there, and will be if Diablo 3 ever shuts down its servers. I'm sure it will be the same for Sim City.

[Greenbane]

From what I've been told, the game would be significantly less functional as a single player game right now given that it's orientated toward cooperation between cities.

They could put in AI players or change the mechanics, but I honestly don't think they're going to do that, especially since I suspect they made it so heavily multiplayer oriented, not because they believe a social multiplayer game to be the way of the future, but in an attempt to curb piracy.

As far as I know, there's little several players can do that one can't. It's already possible to set up private regions, playing alone and alternating between cities without ever inviting anyone else (kind of like SC4 worked). The functionality's already there. Sure, there's no realtime cooperation since one person can't manage multiple towns at the same time, but that's not a crippling detail. Most of the work this hypothetical patch would require concerns bringing a bunch of currently server-side processing to be done locally.

Whatever the resource requirement (which should be nowhere near excessive), it doesn't really matter if it's not ideal from the business standpoint. It's their obligation.

Hell, they're even offering a free game to everyone who bought SimCity right now, to compensate for the ongoing server troubles. That shows at least a shred of ethics and responsibility, and it's not earning them any extra revenue, that's for sure. So while demonizers might argue EA cares about nothing but profits, consumer confidence is another important factor that must be cultivated if people are to buy your games in the future.

Ultimately, none of us can be certain about this matter. These hybrid social-singleplayer games, like Diablo III and now SimCity, are just starting to crop up, and there's just no precedent to be sure what'll happen to them in 5-10 years.

[Silent_Thunder]

As a side note to this, as far as managing multiple cities, I dont see why this at all would be considered difficult. In SC4 I regularly have to cycle between a dozen and a half individual cities simply to grind time to let the changes that are occuring in my region to effect each, just so my current project city can get past its current RCI sticking point.

[BuriBuriZaemon]

Hell, they're even offering a free game to everyone who bought SimCity right now, to compensate for the ongoing server troubles. That shows at least a shred of ethics and responsibility, and it's not earning them any extra revenue, that's for sure. So while demonizers might argue EA cares about nothing but profits, consumer confidence is another important factor that must be cultivated if people are to buy your games in the future.

Consumer confidence already lost when EA won the Worst Company in America in 2012. I agree this was a knee-jerk reaction because I believe there were/are worse companies out there that did not get the spotlight. However, the fact that EA did win the award tells us how EA is perceived by consumers.

Whatever the resource requirement (which should be nowhere near excessive), it doesn't really matter if it's not ideal from the business standpoint. It's their obligation.

How do you know it is an obligation? Is it stated on their T&C?

Even if it is, an obligation is not effective unless the counter-party (people who bought the game) can exercise its right by taking legal action. And again, we're talking about playerbase scattered across different regions and jurisdiction, which mean organising a class action will be more than challenging. Correct me if I am wrong, please, but I am not aware of any (successful) legal action taken by a group of consumers against a particular game publisher.

Ultimately, none of us can be certain about this matter. These hybrid social-singleplayer games, like Diablo III and now SimCity, are just starting to crop up, and there's just no precedent to be sure what'll happen to them in 5-10 years.

This type of games have existed since years ago. I played Diablo 2 offline and online.  Always-online DRM puts Diablo 3 and SimCity closer to an online game than an offline game.

[Mech#4]

Hm, is the Sporepedia segment of Spore still running?

[Shadowlord]

Hell, they're even offering a free game to everyone who bought SimCity right now, to compensate for the ongoing server troubles. That shows at least a shred of ethics and responsibility, and it's not earning them any extra revenue, that's for sure.

I would be surprised if they did anything other than giving away one of the games in one of their multi-game series, e.g. Dead Space 1 or 2. As far as I've seen, they never said you'd actually be able to choose what game you received, and talked about it like it was a "gift" they were "buying" for their customers (except that it doesn't cost them anything but bandwidth if they made it, does it?).

[lordcooper]

Hey, if the game actually does get shut down, there will definitely be cracks by then. Like I said before, it's only ever a matter of time. Knowing EA, they'd just plagiarize a pirate's crack and call it good.

Look at Diablo 3: There's cracks and server emulators made at least as early as late December 2012. That's an impressive several months to crack, and may have even actually earned a few sales from people who would otherwise have pirated it (many games are cracked before the release date). Nonetheless, the crack is there, and will be if Diablo 3 ever shuts down its servers. I'm sure it will be the same for Sim City.

Those cracks and server emulators don't work.

[MrWiggles]

Hell, they're even offering a free game to everyone who bought SimCity right now, to compensate for the ongoing server troubles. That shows at least a shred of ethics and responsibility, and it's not earning them any extra revenue, that's for sure.

I would be surprised if they did anything other than giving away one of the games in one of their multi-game series, e.g. Dead Space 1 or 2. As far as I've seen, they never said you'd actually be able to choose what game you received, and talked about it like it was a "gift" they were "buying" for their customers (except that it doesn't cost them anything but bandwidth if they made it, does it?).

In the strictness sense, it counts as a loss of sales to hand it out for free.

[BuriBuriZaemon]

In the strictness sense, it counts as a loss of sales to hand it out for free.

Not quite if the consumers don't intend to buy another EA game.

[lordcooper]

I'm pretty sure the unspecified free game thing is intended to drive further sales.  Why else have an arbitrary date in the future as a cutoff point.

"Oh sweet, I get a free game if I buy it now."