EA back at it, Sim City 5 will be online/Origin dependent

[thespyder]

The only point they didn't include (to my mind) was that people may HAVE internet access but may not want to USE internet access for a single player game.

And yes, consumers can definitely vote with their money. But (a) that is assuming that consumers are actually reading/paying attention to what they are buying. Sure that is buyer beware. And it is what the Publishers are counting on (which really says something about the publisher's unethical behavior). And (b) short of a consumer wide stance, abstinance only hurts the consumer. Without unity, the publishers are not going to take notice of a select few individuals taking a stance.

But it does sound like (from the article) Publishers have gotten some significant push-back on these types of schemes. Apparently not enough as they keep on trying to move forward with the agenda. What they need is a real wake up call.

 

[shortylickens]

That chick has balls. My guess is she won't be around long.

Yup, we already know any author at GS with an unpopular opinion risks their job.

 

[TheSlamma]

Hopefully they blame bad sales on the DRM and not the fact that Sim City hasn't been good in a loooooooooooooooong time

 

[Martimus]

The only point they didn't include (to my mind) was that people may HAVE internet access but may not want to USE internet access for a single player game.

And yes, consumers can definitely vote with their money. But (a) that is assuming that consumers are actually reading/paying attention to what they are buying. Sure that is buyer beware. And it is what the Publishers are counting on (which really says something about the publisher's unethical behavior). And (b) short of a consumer wide stance, abstinance only hurts the consumer. Without unity, the publishers are not going to take notice of a select few individuals taking a stance.

But it does sound like (from the article) Publishers have gotten some significant push-back on these types of schemes. Apparently not enough as they keep on trying to move forward with the agenda. What they need is a real wake up call.

The problem woth the "buyer beware" stance from a publisher is that it is only a short term gain. That customer will probably never buy another product from that publisher even if they fix the practice. Mostly because most people don't check up on whether someone who screwed them in the past will still screw them the next time, they will just avoid them.

 

[thespyder]

The problem woth the "buyer beware" stance from a publisher is that it is only a short term gain. That customer will probably never buy another product from that publisher even if they fix the practice. Mostly because most people don't check up on whether someone who screwed them in the past will still screw them the next time, they will just avoid them.

Buyer Beware is a (in my opinion) wholly unethical stance. If you willingly and knowingly sell a substandard (by definition of the consumer) product and "Hope" that they don't figure it out before they give you their money is just loathsome. Yet it is done.

And by and large, unless a publisher really REALLY screws a given consumer, they are unlikely to lose that customer's custom. And sometimes not even then. Consumer memory in the entertainment industry is very short lived. While there might be a hue and cry at the time, memory fades. A new and shiny product comes out and people either forgive or forget or simply don't pay attention to what company produces the product. That is why Hasboro is still around. That is why EA is such a HUGE company and growing, despite rampant disgust about their practices.

Someone comes along and says "Don't buy from them!!" The vocal online community rallies behind it for a little while. Sales maybe drop a tenth of a percent. Then a new game comes out (or a sequel to a much loved franchise) and all is forgotten. It's a shame really because only through a united front will any sort of message get through.

 

[shortylickens]

The problem woth the "buyer beware" stance from a publisher is that it is only a short term gain. That customer will probably never buy another product from that publisher even if they fix the practice. Mostly because most people don't check up on whether someone who screwed them in the past will still screw them the next time, they will just avoid them.

Yeah, I'll admit EA and Activision put out some decent games once in a while. Shame I'll never buy them cuz the bastards dont need encouragement.
I used to pay and then get the no-disc patches, then realized they count me as a pirate and I dont wanna give them more excuses.

Oh, and I think Buyer Beware applies more to the auto industry than anything else. But its dangerous for software companies cuz they rely on short, quick sales constantly throughout their relationship with the customer.

 

[Rikaelus]

EA needs to read a little history. Any time a governing body tries to control and force certain behaviors, the more people will rebel against it. If Origin is EA's attempt to stop piracy, they're doing it the wrong way.

Any software can be pirated.

Sure, you might lose things like multiplayer play, but then that makes the multiplayer component all the DRM you need, for those players who want it. Many won't care. SimCity 5 is forcing the use of the unpopular Origin service and is forcing multiplayer play that a lot of people don't want. Those people are being pushed, by EA, to obtain pirated versions of the software.

I wouldn't be able to play SC5 when I go on my family's favorite road trip to the wilderness. I wouldn't be able to play SC5 if I'm sent on a business trip and can't get the wi-fi working. I'd have to install the walware known as Origin. I can't pre-order the best version on Steam. I might not be able to play the game at all once EA chooses to close down its multiplayer servers.

So, EA: tell me why I shouldn't just pirate a version of SC5 that I can play without Origin and without going online? What's my incentive to play it legit?

I love Sim City. I played it since the original on my Tandy 1000 in the 80's. I'd gladly fork up the money for this title and then some. But all the crap baggage you're putting on it is changing my mind.

P.S. Oops, just realized this thread is pretty old. Blame Google for showing it in my search results!

 

[blurredvision]

EA needs to read a little history. Any time a governing body tries to control and force certain behaviors, the more people will rebel against it. If Origin is EA's attempt to stop piracy, they're doing it the wrong way.

That doesn't really apply here IMO. It's just (mostly) irrational hate for EA. If EA came out and said, "You HAVE to use Steam to buy and play Sim City, no if's and's or but's about it," nobody would say a word. But since you have to use Origin, people bitch and moan.

I can understand and respect some's earned dislike for Origin, but most just jump on the EA-hate bandwagon with no real reason for complaining.

 

[Rikaelus]

That doesn't really apply here IMO. It's just (mostly) irrational hate for EA. If EA came out and said, "You HAVE to use Steam to buy and play Sim City, no if's and's or but's about it," nobody would say a word. But since you have to use Origin, people bitch and moan.

Maybe because they don't like Origin for some reason? You seem so ready to dismiss complaints... have you ever considered the fact people might have legitimate complaints?

I'll give you a hint:

http://tos.ea.com/legalapp/eula/US/en/ORIGIN

2. Consent to Collection and Use of Data.

You agree that EA may collect, use, store and transmit technical and related information that identifies your computer (including the Internet Protocol Address), operating system, Application usage (including but not limited to successful installation and/or removal), software, software usage and peripheral hardware, that may be gathered periodically to facilitate the provision of software updates, dynamically served content, product support and other services to you, including online services. EA may also use this information combined with personal information for marketing purposes and to improve our products and services. We may also share that data with our third party service providers in a form that does not personally identify you. IF YOU DO NOT WANT EA TO COLLECT, USE, STORE, TRANSMIT OR DISPLAY THE DATA DESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION, PLEASE DO NOT INSTALL OR USE THE APPLICATION. This and all other data provided to EA and/or collected by EA in connection with your installation and use of this Application is collected, used, stored and transmitted in accordance with EA’s Privacy Policy located at www.ea.com. To the extent that anything in this section conflicts with the terms of EA’s Privacy Policy, the terms of the Privacy Policy shall control.

EA has absolutely no business tracking what software I install or uninstall, or what applications I use outside of their own. If they want to scan hardware and their software for the purposes of their games, even that should be optional.

If you buy a game you should absolutely not have to forfeit this level of personal information in order to play it.

And yes, their EULA allows them to be far, far more intrusive than Steam's. I love Steam. I despise Origin. And the above is the reason why I refuse to install the latter, and thus am unable to play any of their games--even if I pay for them.

Edit:
I'd also just like to point out how much I love the line: "IF YOU DO NOT WANT EA TO COLLECT, USE, STORE, TRANSMIT OR DISPLAY THE DATA DESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION, PLEASE DO NOT INSTALL OR USE THE APPLICATION."

Do they even realize that by suggesting this, they're suggesting we can't install all the games we've purchased that require Origin? Didn't we buy them? Isn't it our right to play them without the constant consent of the publisher?

 

[Rifter]

Also, EA simply cannot be trusted. Without a shred of doubt simcity5 validation servers will be shutdown upon arrival of simcity6.

1000000000000000000000000% this

 

[Kalmah]

1000000000000000000000000% this

times infinity... + 1

 

[Kalmah]

This sucks. I really want to play a good and new Sim City game. Oh, and Dungeon Keeper 3. I'll hold a grudge against them until I die because of that. My famous last words will be, "damn you EA!!!"(with a clenched fist) as I take my last breath.

That was a little dramatic. Anyways, fuck em.

 

[thejunglegod]

My famous last words will be, "damn you EA!!!"(with a clenched fist) as I take my last breath.

Hahahaha. Too bad you'll have bigger and some real issues by the time you die.

 

[Coldkilla]

Online only doesn't bother me. Everything I do requires that. That said, twice a day my internet disconnects randomly for 10 seconds. I will HATE to be kicked out of a 3+ hour game and have that happen.

 

[Fire&Blood]

Online only doesn't bother me. Everything I do requires that. That said, twice a day my internet disconnects randomly for 10 seconds. I will HATE to be kicked out of a 3+ hour game and have that happen.

That's exactly what' will happen, you will get kicked out of your session.

What's the point of gaming laptops if you are restricted to playing only in locations where you can use internet?

I get the publisher's perspective but not only does it hurt/restrict legit consumers, it's counter productive. In forced online single player modes, pirated games actually have an edge over retail. When a game you paid for denies you access, whatever the reason for no internet at the given moment, it's inconvenient to say the least. Inconvenient enough to look for a workaround and it's a rather short trip from GCW for a offline patch for a game consumer buys to a full blown aaargh website for a "free game".

It's aggravating enough that I had to wait a month longer than consoles to get my GR:FS. Ubisoft, or any other publisher for that matter should get creative and find ways to fight piracy without aggravating loyal consumers.
True story: The pirated game has been available for like a week now while I am still waiting to start the download via steam. I was looking at the forum to find out the the exact launch time and actually saw threads about issues with the cracked copies... Considering all these factors, publishers are hurting consumers and shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[zinfamous]

Yup, we already know any author at GS with an unpopular opinion risks their job.

well, looks like she is still there, almost 3 months later. It has been re-published in light of how prescient her criticism became after the release of D3.

 

[cubby1223]

I'm curious...

"a global economy that all players can influence"

What exactly does that mean?

 

[diesbudt]

I'm curious...

"a global economy that all players can influence"

What exactly does that mean?

Probably supply and demand for people, resources, land, and so on.

 

[cubby1223]

I haven't gotten much into the multiplayer games, I prefer solo games, or games only with friends I know...

After experiencing Diablo 3 and how easily botters can ruin a game dependent on a virtual economy, it's pause for concern.

I don't know...

 

[Rikaelus]

I haven't gotten much into the multiplayer games, I prefer solo games, or games only with friends I know...

After experiencing Diablo 3 and how easily botters can ruin a game dependent on a virtual economy, it's pause for concern.

I don't know...

Yeah, and if cities are really integrated, other players could really screw you over. Like say you have a power shortage and negotiate a deal with a neighboring city to get power from them in exchange for a surplus of water you have. What happens if they cancel the deal while you're taking a break from the game? Will you come back to the game only to find your city has died?

It's a mixed blessing. To do interactions right, they have to be relevant, real time, and they have to be susceptible to deal breaking. But that kind of realism isn't practical in a game that you might step away from for long periods of time. And if they water it down so the interaction isn't realistic... what's the point of it being in a simulator at all?

SC4 let you make deals between different neighboring cities and I liked how that worked. But that's just not practical if you have other potentially-unreliable players in those cities. So either the mechanic is being changed, which sucks... or we need to trust other players, which sucks...

 

[diesbudt]

Yeah, and if cities are really integrated, other players could really screw you over. Like say you have a power shortage and negotiate a deal with a neighboring city to get power from them in exchange for a surplus of water you have. What happens if they cancel the deal while you're taking a break from the game? Will you come back to the game only to find your city has died?

It's a mixed blessing. To do interactions right, they have to be relevant, real time, and they have to be susceptible to deal breaking. But that kind of realism isn't practical in a game that you might step away from for long periods of time. And if they water it down so the interaction isn't realistic... what's the point of it being in a simulator at all?

SC4 let you make deals between different neighboring cities and I liked how that worked. But that's just not practical if you have other potentially-unreliable players in those cities. So either the mechanic is being changed, which sucks... or we need to trust other players, which sucks...

They may do deals based on "power size" not X power/water per X times.

So when you make a deal you would gain let us say X power for Y water. So until you use up X power (which based on city size would be Z amount of time) he would not be able to take that away from you since you already received it.

 

[StrangerGuy]

How many times people want to get fooled by EA even after the ME3 and SWTOR disaster?

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Someone on the hardocp forums pointed out that your city would be online only and it would affect neighbouring cities by other human players, and the knock on effect of this is that you cannot locally save your city.

The age old satisfaction of building up your city and then burning it to the ground with monster attacks, flash floods, riots and fire can no longer be done because it all does permanent damage to your city...reloading isn't an option.

People shouldn't really need telling why this is such a stupid idea, but I will anyway.

1) Online only means your user created content is at risk from permanent alteration and deletion if hackers get into your account, see Diablo 3 for this.
2) Auth servers are at risk from DDOS attacks, see Ubsioft and PoP for this.
3) Auth servers are at risk from premature deactivation, if popularity in the series drops or if EA wish to peddle the next version of the game, see numerous EA titles for this.
4) Authing is reliant on your internet connection not suffering interuption.
5) You lose control over your own game, removing the functionality to save your city is completely ridiculous.

If you buy this, and you get burned by any of these things above, I have absolutely no sympathy for you.

 

[crownjules]

Hopefully they blame bad sales on the DRM and not the fact that Sim City hasn't been good in a loooooooooooooooong time

Simcity 4 was an awesome game. Perhaps you're confusing it with CitiesXL which is terrible?

Anyway, I won't be buying DRM of this sort anymore. While I enjoy the game D3, after the experiences of the first few weeks I do not feel like supporting this style of DRM with my wallet anymore. If that means I miss out on a few titles I would have otherwise played, so be it. There's plenty of other games for me to enjoy.

 

[Rikaelus]

They may do deals based on "power size" not X power/water per X times.

So when you make a deal you would gain let us say X power for Y water. So until you use up X power (which based on city size would be Z amount of time) he would not be able to take that away from you since you already received it.

Hrm. In order to trade a resource in bulk rather than rate-over-time, they'd have to give you a way to store up surplus. That might be possible, but it'd also be a bit clumsy.

If your city is starving for power *now*, you might have a surplus output of other resources but you might not have the revenue or resources necessary to build up the infrastructure to build up a supply for trade, or the infrastructure to store the amount of power you'd get from the trade.

They could probably make it happen but I doubt it'd feel very natural. Storing water is obviously a real life thing, but cities don't have huge battery parks where they stockpile power.