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

[Rikaelus]

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.

Not only that, but if cities are really affected by their neighbors, then some idiot 10 year old neighbor could get bored and burn his city to the ground and your city would suffer negative repercussions of it. And make no mistake, if that's possible then you'll have a subculture of SC5 players intent just on griefing other players' cities.

In SimCity4 I'd always prefer building on the largest plots. To get the economy of that primary city going, however, I'd create secondary cities in smaller, surrounding plots. Then, when I built up my primary city it benefited from all the workers and jobs of those neighbors. Neighbor cities even allowed your city to be off-balance between R, C, and I.

If SC5 is going to have a similar relationship to it between cities, then a player destroying their city could have some serious effects on yours. And their little demo video kind of alludes to this. If your neighbor was providing you a lot of your workforce or jobs, losing that could absolutely wreck the balance of your own city.

That would just be 100% messed up.

 

[thespyder]

Yep, not going to play that game. I have visions of KoC on Facebook where people are going to intentionally sabotage other players merely for the fun of it. And if you don't monitor your city(s) every single day you are going to get hosed.

 

[thejunglegod]

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.

Online only games are going to be the death of gaming. I hope thay keep and offline option for people who do want to play by themselves without another intruding player. Letting your city get destroyed by Robots, Lava, tornadoes and earthquakes were so much fun. And i hope these get integrated into the game somehow.

 

[diesbudt]

Online only games are going to be the death of gaming. I hope thay keep and offline option for people who do want to play by themselves without another intruding player. Letting your city get destroyed by Robots, Lava, tornadoes and earthquakes were so much fun. And i hope these get integrated into the game somehow.

Its possible an offline single player mode will be added, after the Diablo 3 release and all the hubbub that brought about always being online.

 

[PowerYoga]

Its possible an offline single player mode will be added, after the Diablo 3 release and all the hubbub that brought about always being online.

It'll be years later down the road when RMAH costs more to maintain than the profit they get off it. Not to mention a lot of the core gameplay mechanics are based online so I doubt they will remove it in a timely fashion.

 

[diesbudt]

It'll be years later down the road when RMAH costs more to maintain than the profit they get off it. Not to mention a lot of the core gameplay mechanics are based online so I doubt they will remove it in a timely fashion.

I was saying about sim city 5. If Ea was smart they would release all the qq and issues and refusal of buying Diablo 3 because of only online play, that they may think about adding an offline single player to SIm city 5 before release.

 

[thespyder]

I was saying about sim city 5. If Ea was smart they would release all the qq and issues and refusal of buying Diablo 3 because of only online play, that they may think about adding an offline single player to SIm city 5 before release.

EA has already gone on record in saying that they are committed to always online for all future releases on their part. I don't think they are going to eat crow quite so soon. Besides, the Diablo 3, although there is quite a controversy, it is still being seen as widely a success. The vocal online crowd is being seen as vocal but a significant minority and therefore ignored by the big companies. not that EA ever listens to it's constituents.

 

[Martimus]

Online only games are going to be the death of gaming. I hope thay keep and offline option for people who do want to play by themselves without another intruding player. Letting your city get destroyed by Robots, Lava, tornadoes and earthquakes were so much fun. And i hope these get integrated into the game somehow.

I am seeing more DRM free games now than I have in years. Sure they are generally smaller publishers, but the games themselves are better than anything EA has released in years so that doesn't really matter. I don't think that anything will kill video games short of a nuclear winter.

 

[thespyder]

I am seeing more DRM free games now than I have in years. Sure they are generally smaller publishers, but the games themselves are better than anything EA has released in years so that doesn't really matter. I don't think that anything will kill video games short of a nuclear winter.

I don't think that Online only or DRM - online will be the DEATH of gaming. I do think that it is a path that very quickly has to change. As you say, a lot of independent and Kickstarter games are coming out with better quality and less hoops to jump through than are generally being put out by the big companies. And I think the major companies will eventually realize that they are gouging their profits and do something about it.

The question is what will they do? And what will the next thing be?

 

[Kalmah]

The question is what will they do? And what will the next thing be?

When their spreadsheets show that they are losing more money over drm than over piracy. It's easy to make up fake numbers about piracy though so this may never happen.

Instead of working with the consumer, I think they will more likely just beat us into submission.

 

[thespyder]

When their spreadsheets show that they are losing more money over drm than over piracy. It's easy to make up fake numbers about piracy though so this may never happen.

Instead of working with the consumer, I think they will more likely just beat us into submission.

Oh, it is much worse than that. I am sure that the higher ups are looking at the bottom line wherein DRM costs are rolled into piracy losses in the spreadsheet. As the DRM costs go up, all they are seeing is the overall losses attributed to piracy (and it's prevention) are going up.

And they are also looking at the fact that, even if DRM doesn't stop piracy, investors like the idea of DRM and will invest more freely if they have it. It's like wearing a helmet when riding a motor cycle. Chances are an accident is still going to leave you dead, but with a head in better shape than otherwise.

And I agree, they will try and modify the consumer's behavior rather than adapting to it. But that is true of all large corporations.

 

[Rikaelus]

EA's just being plain stupid. The more you regulate something and the more inaccessible you make it, the more you push people towards the black market. And it certainly doesn't help them that software piracy is free.

Funny thing is, I suspect their EULA grants them access to monitor all software on your system so they can make sure you're not installing/running pirated versions of their software. The very versions they're pushing people towards using with excessive DRM.

And with the threat of EA locking them out of any legitimate games they have on Origin, people will either have to stay 100% legit or go 100% pirate and avoid Origin altogether.

Only ignorant rich investors would believe EA's tactics are sound. In reality they just keep making the piracy problem worse, feeding a culture that not only hurts their bottom line, but those of all publishers and development houses.

 

[thespyder]

EA's just being plain stupid. The more you regulate something and the more inaccessible you make it, the more you push people towards the black market. And it certainly doesn't help them that software piracy is free.

Funny thing is, I suspect their EULA grants them access to monitor all software on your system so they can make sure you're not installing/running pirated versions of their software. The very versions they're pushing people towards using with excessive DRM.

And with the threat of EA locking them out of any legitimate games they have on Origin, people will either have to stay 100% legit or go 100% pirate and avoid Origin altogether.

Only ignorant rich investors would believe EA's tactics are sound. In reality they just keep making the piracy problem worse, feeding a culture that not only hurts their bottom line, but those of all publishers and development houses.

I don't believe that such an EULA would be defensible in court. Far too invasive. And I guarantee people wouldn't stand for it.

As far as rich / Stupid investors, there is no end to them. People buy stocks and trade based on the direction of the market, not (generally) on the individual products produced or on business practices. Oh, good word of mouth on an individual product can stimulate investors, but generally it's "X stock is on the rise. Buy low and sell high."

 

[Rikaelus]

I don't believe that such an EULA would be defensible in court. Far too invasive. And I guarantee people wouldn't stand for it.

Maybe not, but it'd take a lot of people getting together to challenge it, which EA might be betting won't happen.

I've already heard stories of people losing access to all their Origin games just based on bad behavior in EA's forums. It definitely looks like EA is setting themselves up to be in a power position over a person's game library. If you do something they don't like, they revoke access to all your games. And the EULA gives them a lot of freedom to look around your system for things they don't like.

 

[thespyder]

Maybe not, but it'd take a lot of people getting together to challenge it, which EA might be betting won't happen.

I've already heard stories of people losing access to all their Origin games just based on bad behavior in EA's forums. It definitely looks like EA is setting themselves up to be in a power position over a person's game library. If you do something they don't like, they revoke access to all your games. And the EULA gives them a lot of freedom to look around your system for things they don't like.

there is a big difference between shutting off access to games that need to be authenticated via a remote server (Origin) and being allowed to snoop someone's hard drive. One is a (stupid and selfish) business practice. The other is invasion of privacy. And yes, if EA (or any other company) tried to do that, there would be more than a hue and cry about it.

Not that they wouldn't like to do it, but the EULA can only go so far. And invasion of privacy on that level would violate quite a bit more than the constitution. And the technical community would very quickly go from disgruntled to aggressive (me thinkst).

 

[zinfamous]

there is a big difference between shutting off access to games that need to be authenticated via a remote server (Origin) and being allowed to snoop someone's hard drive. One is a (stupid and selfish) business practice. The other is invasion of privacy. And yes, if EA (or any other company) tried to do that, there would be more than a hue and cry about it.

Not that they wouldn't like to do it, but the EULA can only go so far. And invasion of privacy on that level would violate quite a bit more than the constitution. And the technical community would very quickly go from disgruntled to aggressive (me thinkst).

I don't think the former practice is simply stupid and selfish. Revoking access to content that you have rightfully purchased is a violation of consumer rights.

If people have actually had their games removed, without refund (and, especially, if because of comments on a fucking gaming forum), then EA should expect to get their asses handed to them in court.

I can't but help believe these cases are a bit trumped-up, because there is no way that such a EULA, if challenged, would pass muster.

 

[thespyder]

I don't think the former practice is simply stupid and selfish. Revoking access to content that you have rightfully purchased is a violation of consumer rights.

If people have actually had their games removed, without refund (and, especially, if because of comments on a fucking gaming forum), then EA should expect to get their asses handed to them in court.

I can't but help believe these cases are a bit trumped-up, because there is no way that such a EULA, if challenged, would pass muster.

I agree with you 100%.

EA, however is of the stance that you aren't buying the game, but renting the right to play the game. And that they have the right to rescind access at any point. Personally, I hope this gets addressed by the courts so that other companies won't take the idea and run with it. And the sooner the better.

However, until it is ACTUALLY found to be illegal in a court of law, it is still only a stupid and selfish business practice. The other (surfing someone else's hard drive to "Verify" if there is illegal software) is a clear and prosecutable violation of privacy laws.

 

[thejunglegod]

Has online DRM actually been successful in reducing piracy at all? Barring D3, that can only be played on client side servers, hasn't everything else been cracked already? Even Ubisoft's infamous DRM has been cracked in games like ANNO, AC-II etc. There has to be some numbers somewhere which show that always online DRM has actually helped in bringing piracy down. Else, it just seems insignificant.

 

[Rikaelus]

The other (surfing someone else's hard drive to "Verify" if there is illegal software) is a clear and prosecutable violation of privacy laws.

But hardly without precedence. There's been games in the past that scan for running software indicative of piracy before, such as virtual drive software. And I believe those existed even with EULA's more restrictive than Origin's.

If you give consent for a scanning of your computer and delivery of said information, it'd be pretty defensible. All there is is a huge gray area right now. Eventually this will have to go to the courts to draw a firm line, but for now I suspect EA can get away with just about anything.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Its possible an offline single player mode will be added, after the Diablo 3 release and all the hubbub that brought about always being online.

I don't see this being likely, it's mostly just a way of killing piracy, and it's worked because there's no scene cracks, it's too involved and essentially means writing your own server side emulator, there's been some attempts at this as far as I know, not very successful ones.

Has online DRM actually been successful in reducing piracy at all? Barring D3, that can only be played on client side servers, hasn't everything else been cracked already?

Yes, exactly right, but that's why there's such a push to make games like Sim City to be inherently multi player and require always on connections. If it solves the piracy problem then this is the way a lot of games will go, and we'll all suffer.

 

[thespyder]

But hardly without precedence. There's been games in the past that scan for running software indicative of piracy before, such as virtual drive software. And I believe those existed even with EULA's more restrictive than Origin's.

If you give consent for a scanning of your computer and delivery of said information, it'd be pretty defensible. All there is is a huge gray area right now. Eventually this will have to go to the courts to draw a firm line, but for now I suspect EA can get away with just about anything.

Scanning your hard drive is one thing. Reporting it to an outside agency is something quite different. Anti-virus programs scan hard drives. But that isn't what was being discussed. Scanning your hard drive and reporting it to companies like EA was.

And if you give that kind of consent, you have to be pretty trusting. I bet most PC gamers would have problems with that to the degree that they probably wouldn't purchase. And hiding it in an EULA and pulling a surprise "See, you agreed to it." afterwards would not be defensible.

Just to be clear, Agreeing to an EULA that has something unconstitutional in it is not a defense in court. Or, if it were used as a defense, the judge would laugh the lawyers right out of the court room.

 

[Specop 007]

I see little reason for Origin.

 

[shortylickens]

I see little reason for Origin.

EA shareholders are quite demanding.
Thats the reason. Big business has somehow convinced itself that absolute control over its product is not only possible, but acceptable to the customers.

 

[thejunglegod]

If it solves the piracy problem then this is the way a lot of games will go, and we'll all suffer.

We've got a lot of suffering in store all right. So if all these companies come out with client/server side saves, then it must cost a hell lot to maintain these servers for over a period of years. Is this cost lesser than the amount they'd lose to piracy?

 

[Dominato3r]

As long as the community can still mod and build ploppables for this game, I'll be getting it. Oh and no extorting dlc...