# EA Refuse to Refund SimCity - Possible account ban if you take action



## Wizerzak (Mar 8, 2013)

So if unless you've been living under a rock for the past few days, you may have noticed (it's hard to miss) the recent debacle regarding EA's new reboot of SimCity. Always-online DRM even for a single-player game already had gamers raising their clenched fists; but coupled with extreme under-estimates of server load on EA's part, launch adopters of the game have faced persistent problems ranging from disconnects and loss of save data to simply being unable to access their game.


While the server stress appeared to be improving as it released in Europe this wasn't to last and it seems for those who are unhappy with their purchase things have just taken a turn for the worse. Tom Reiertsen, a reader of Eurogamer, has reported that EA are refusing to refund his purchase regardless of his claims of the game being "broken" and "unplayable". Under EU law this is normally grounds to demand a full refund of your purchase, no matter what the product is and this should still be the case here. However, EA state that they are "unable to offer a refund on digital downloads" and, to make matters worse, any attempt to claim a refund charge through your bank account will result in your entire Origin account having "action taken against it". Read the full conversation below:


> info: You are now ready to chat with Brian.
> you: Hi
> you: I would like to request a refund for the game SimCity that I bought on Origin. I cannot play the game because of consistent server issues. I deem the Product not working and by Norwegian Consumer laws I request a full refund and that the game is removed from my Origin Account.
> you: Hello?
> ...


 
 Via Eurogamer.net


----------



## Hadrian (Mar 8, 2013)




----------



## Rizsparky (Mar 8, 2013)

> you: No, thank you for nothing. I am disgusted that you can even think of threatening to Block my Origin account over this when it is you who are clearly in the wrong. Appalling.


Ohlawd


----------



## Flame (Mar 8, 2013)

Damn, homie. In high school you was the man, homie. what the fuck happened to you EA.


----------



## BORTZ (Mar 8, 2013)

I have already posted this today, but relevant.


----------



## Dr. Ivo Robotnik (Mar 8, 2013)

Wow.

It just goes to show that these companies are only kept afloat by a few flagship juggernaut franchises. If there was any kind of 'justice' in this sort of stuff, EA would go under bloody soon.

Oh, and for those thinking that perhaps Brian was just a prick and the rest of tech support might be less bad (naive, but possible)

http://imgur.com/gallery/lAnTGEM


----------



## duffmmann (Mar 8, 2013)

That is of course, if you can manage to move around and get out of my building.


----------



## Chary (Mar 8, 2013)

This news makes me fEAr for the future of EA...


----------



## Gahars (Mar 8, 2013)

I think this what pros in the industry refer to as a "Total Fucking Disaster".

Seriously, "SimShitty" is a more apt title at this point.


----------



## LightyKD (Mar 8, 2013)

duffmmann said:


> That is of course, if you can manage to move around and get out of my building.




LMFAO! What episode was that?!


----------



## Dr. Ivo Robotnik (Mar 8, 2013)

Gahars said:


> I think this what pros in the industry refer to as a "Total Fucking Disaster".
> 
> Seriously, "SimShitty" is a more apt title at this point.


 
I believe the pros may also refer to it as "shooting oneself in the foot so badly it took the left and the other foot along with it."


----------



## duffmmann (Mar 8, 2013)

LightyKD said:


> LMFAO! What episode was that?!


 
The Crack Baby Olympics episode or whatever that one was called.


----------



## Species8472 (Mar 8, 2013)

Season 15 Episode 5: Crack Baby Athletic Association. About a minute and a half before the episode is over.


----------



## Gahars (Mar 8, 2013)

The situation seems to have gotten even uglier.

How much uglier, you ask?

EA's suspending marketing for the game.


----------



## LightyKD (Mar 8, 2013)

Species8472 said:


> Season 15 Episode 5: Crack Baby Athletic Association. About a minute and a half before the episode is over.


Just finished watching the whole episode. It had so many lulz! I especially loved the part where they rib EA for making all this money off the NCAA games yet, never paying the players.


----------



## Dr. Ivo Robotnik (Mar 8, 2013)

Gahars said:


> The situation seems to have gotten even uglier.
> 
> How much uglier, you ask?
> 
> EA's suspending marketing for the game.


 
Having not bought any of EA's games in absolute bloody ages, I'm more inclined to laugh at this than anything else, but this is still bloody pathetic.


----------



## RupeeClock (Mar 8, 2013)

It simply needs to be said at this point, that Amazon have even halted sale of SimCity because the game is basically broken at the moment.
And Origin will actually threaten to ban your account if you want a refund for your defective product? That's just galling.


----------



## Rizsparky (Mar 8, 2013)

RupeeClock said:


> It simply needs to be said at this point, that Amazon have even halted sale of SimCity because the game is basically broken at the moment.
> And Origin will actually threaten to ban your account if you want a refund for your defective product? That's just galling.


I foresee lawsuits


----------



## corenting (Mar 8, 2013)

And this :






People should buy another old Simcity game like Simcity 4 (8€ on Amazon)...


----------



## emigre (Mar 8, 2013)

Just noticed this has got a 72.90% aggregate score on GameRankings. Not a bad score considering no one is able to play the game.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 8, 2013)

Dr. Ivo Robotnik said:


> It just goes to show that these companies are only kept afloat by a few flagship juggernaut franchises.


That's how it is in the gaming world in general.  Most large companies make pants-on-head retarded decisions, and only their publishing key franchises from others (that they can't damage to an extent) keeps them alive.

An old thread I made about this issue...
http://gbatemp.net/threads/is-it-just-me-or-are-most-video-game-companies-stupid.312221/


----------



## Hadrian (Mar 8, 2013)

corenting said:


> And this :
> People should buy another old Simcity game like Simcity 4 (8€ on Amazon)...


Yup, and they'll still be able to play all of the old ones in the future because EA are kinda shitty with keeping servers open.  They not too good with newly released games let alone older ones. It's one of my worries about the future of gaming, not being able to play the games in 10 years time. Some are ok, you can hack the shit out of them but SimCity that isn't the case.


----------



## corenting (Mar 8, 2013)

Hadrian said:


> Yup, and they'll still be able to play all of the old ones in the future because EA are kinda shitty with keeping servers open. They not too good with newly released games let alone older ones. It's one of my worries about the future of gaming, not being able to play the games in 10 years time. Some are ok, you can hack the shit out of them but SimCity that isn't the case.


 
Yes this game needs to be cracked if we want to play it in 5 years


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 8, 2013)

Makes me glad I only pirate EA games and even then I hardly ever do that.


----------



## Dr. Ivo Robotnik (Mar 8, 2013)

Rydian said:


> That's how it is in the gaming world in general. Most large companies make pants-on-head retarded decisions, and only their publishing key franchises from others (that they can't damage to an extent) keeps them alive.
> 
> An old thread I made about this issue...
> http://gbatemp.net/threads/is-it-just-me-or-are-most-video-game-companies-stupid.312221/


 
Essentially, yes. UbiSoft's keeping itself afloat thanks to series such as Assassin's Creed, Activision's piling in the money from the horror that is CoD and, of course, being paired up with Blizzard (who only ever PRODUCES juggernauts ) doesn't hurt their chances.

Oh well, I suppose it helps that I very rarely purchase games from any of these companies anymore these days.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Mar 8, 2013)




----------



## pokefloote (Mar 8, 2013)

I see they've disabled some features from the game to attempt to fix it.
I'm assuming EA will charge everyone to get those features back as a DLC.


----------



## BasedKiliK (Mar 8, 2013)

I didn't think EA could honestly sink any lower. Weren't they rated 2012's worst company in the world?

Might as well rename themselves "*E*gotistical *A*ssholes".


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 8, 2013)

I don't know what you guys are complaining. Rome wasn't built in a day, apparently neither were the Sim City servers.

Joke is something about city building but I'm kinda blank.


----------



## Dr. Ivo Robotnik (Mar 8, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I don't know what you guys are complaining. Rome wasn't built in a day, apparently neither were the Sim City servers.
> 
> Joke is something about city building but I'm kinda blank.


 
It's not so much the shoddy release as much as it is EA's singularly atrocious handling of the fallout of same. Offering refunds and then instantaneously reneging on it, going so far as to threaten account bans if users felt forced to take steps on their own end, being too slow to fix things, and so on.

Of course, I'm merely speaking from an observer's position, not having gotten the game, but that's my belief on it.


----------



## tbgtbg (Mar 8, 2013)

Hadrian said:


>


needs more mass effect


----------



## Hadrian (Mar 8, 2013)

tbgtbg said:


> needs more mass effect


And Medal of Honour, that was a fine series until they went modern.  I hope Tomb Raider 2013 teaches companies how to reboot a series properly.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 8, 2013)

Looks like they're knee deep in the hooplah.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Mar 8, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Looks like they're knee deep in the hooplah.






I like this City song better lol

I think I found a video of EA customer support in action.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Mar 8, 2013)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> I like this City song better lol
> 
> I think I found a video of EA customer support in action.


 
Man I loooove me some KISS.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 9, 2013)

Wizerzak said:


> So if unless you've been living under a rock for the past few days you may have noticed (it's hard to miss) the recent debacle regarding EA's new reboot of SimCity. Always-online DRM even for a single-player game already had gamers raising their clenched fists; but coupled with extreme under-estimates of server load on EA's part launch adopters of the game have faced persistent problems ranging from disconnects and loss of save data to simply being unable to access their game.
> 
> 
> While the server stress appeared to be improving as it released in Europe this wasn't to last and it seems for those who are unhappy with their purchase things have just taken a turn for the worse. Tom Reiertsen, a reader of Eurogamer, has reported that EA are refusing to refund his purchase regardless of his claims of the game being "broken" and "unplayable". Under EU law this is normally grounds to demand a full refund of your purchase, no matter what the product is and this should still be the case here. However, EA state that they are "unable to offer a refund on digital downloads" and, to make matters worse, any attempt to claim a refund charge through your bank account will result in your entire Origin account having "action taken against it". Read the full conversation below:
> ...


 

*Reads about Origin* So, EA is upset that Nintendo never wanted this system implemented? Can't say as I blame them for not wanting. Man, that EA rep was a real dickweed. I know where NOT to purchase games.

Product doesn't work
Customer contacts EA via chat
Rep answers question like a dick
Customer demands a refund
Rep "apologizes" for the inconvenience and threatens to lock account

Makes sense to me.

And people say digital downloads will overtake physical copies.


----------



## Auryn (Mar 9, 2013)

When you guys will learn to keep your money in your pocket even if you would like to play a game that badly??
The thing about always online was know from day 1 so why buy the game at all??
You sure can let a note to EA somewhere saying "i am not buying the game becase xxxx disturbs me".
I understand this is an indirect problem that could not be see before trying the game but I am sure that if you are a sim city fan, you have heared of the server problems soon enough.
If all Sim City fan just don't buy the game, EA has to remove the DRM.
Never forget that we have the power to make any gaming company do what we want, just take the right actions at the right moment.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Mar 9, 2013)

Auryn said:


> When you guys will learn to keep your money in your pocket even if you would like to play a game that badly??
> The thing about always online was know from day 1 so why buy the game at all??
> You sure can let a note to EA somewhere saying "i am not buying the game becase xxxx disturbs me".
> I understand this is an indirect problem that could not be see before trying the game but I am sure that if you are a sim city fan, you have heared of the server problems soon enough.
> ...


 
What did you just call my mother?


----------



## DJPlace (Mar 9, 2013)

wow man this is the last time I'm buying an EA  digital... unless it's only digital. I bought burnout for ps3 and my account is locked on my email and they won't change  it so fuck that...


----------



## Catastrophic (Mar 9, 2013)

Why on earth would someone make an online only game that clearly has single player? Do they care more about pirating than their own reputation?


----------



## pokefloote (Mar 9, 2013)

Catastrophic said:


> Why on earth would someone make an online only game that clearly has single player? Do they care more about pirating than their own reputation?


That is about right. They care more about money than their reputation. Thing is, the money will slow if this keeps up, I wish they would realize this.


----------



## Qtis (Mar 9, 2013)

I found a pretty intensive review of SimCity, and I think it sums the whole game up nicely. Amazing features and everything, why are people upset about some kind of nonexistent issue? Oh, the review is here.

The refunding problems will hit legal issues especially in Europe. I don't know the exact wordings, but the country's laws > corporate "laws". While the contract may say what they like, it's the legislation of said country that has the final word. In most cases it's "refund has to be possible till X days or unless product doesn't work as described".


----------



## wrettcaughn (Mar 9, 2013)

Remind me why I don't PC game again?


----------



## Qtis (Mar 9, 2013)

An update via Ars Technica: Amazon is refunding the game due to the circumstances.


----------



## Deleted-188346 (Mar 9, 2013)

Auryn said:


> Never forget that we have the power to make any gaming company do what we want, just take the right actions at the right moment.


Actually no. Video Game Publishers actually have more power than us.

Have you ever seen a boycott of a video game actually work? Of course not, because the people saying "I'm boycotting ____" represent about 0.005% of the population that purchase games. Gamers are a disorganized, inconsistent, and easily manipulable crowd. Marketing is more powerful than a bunch of forum users, redditors, 4chaners, etc. crying for people to boycott.


----------



## Gahars (Mar 9, 2013)

Puppy_Washer said:


> Of course not, because the people saying "I'm boycotting ____" represent about 0.005% of the population that purchase games.


 
And most of them purchase the game anyway.

Anyone remember the Modern Warfare 2 boycott?



Spoiler


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Mar 9, 2013)

Gahars said:


> And most of them purchase the game anyway.
> 
> Anyone remember the Modern Warfare 2 boycott?
> 
> ...


You know what, this talk about Boycotting has got me inspired. I'm gonna Boycott the Pokemon anime until they bring Veronica Taylor back.

Oh shit.. the new episode just finished downloading... okay ima talk to you guys later.


----------



## narutofan777 (Mar 9, 2013)

dis is wat the future will b liek.

b prepared.


----------



## Joe88 (Mar 9, 2013)

narutofan777 said:


> dis is wat the future will b liek.
> 
> b prepared.


After reading that, I am scared.


----------



## pokefloote (Mar 9, 2013)

okay I'm done


----------



## Bladexdsl (Mar 9, 2013)

still waiting for a crack. It's only am matter of time EA then I can play this in peace and be rid of your DRM bullshit


----------



## FireEmblemGuy (Mar 9, 2013)

According to EA the game is broken because it's too enjoyable:
http://www.destructoid.com/ea-simci...oo-much-fun--248186.phtml#JWTv2fot0cH62CJq.99


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 9, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> You know what, this talk about Boycotting has got me inspired. I'm gonna Boycott the Pokemon anime until they bring Veronica Taylor back.
> 
> Oh shit.. the new episode just finished downloading... okay ima talk to you guys later.


 
I don't blame ya, English dubs for most anime are done professionally...oh wait.


----------



## Jax (Mar 9, 2013)

FireEmblemGuy said:


> According to EA the game is broken because it's too enjoyable:
> http://www.destructoid.com/ea-simci...oo-much-fun--248186.phtml#JWTv2fot0cH62CJq.99


Not sure if serious...


----------



## chyyran (Mar 9, 2013)

Bladexdsl said:


> still waiting for a crack. It's only am matter of time EA then I can play this in peace and be rid of your DRM bullshit


Will probably take a while, since it needs EA servers to do some processing


----------



## Bladexdsl (Mar 9, 2013)

only a matter of time


----------



## Hells Malice (Mar 9, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> Remind me why I don't PC game again?


 
because you'll accept inferiority for convenience?

/just answering the question honestly


----------



## ov3rkill (Mar 9, 2013)

This is just plain greed. EA is just getting greedier and it's getting worse. Corporate greed...


----------



## shakirmoledina (Mar 9, 2013)

EA, what the hEAll
kinda reminds me of what ubi is doing with AC3. they say for the pc version,
you: My game runs at 10 FPS in boston. It's not playable!
Ubi: Please send us your specifications as PCs have multiple configurations
you: Its an i5 with AMD Radeon 6990 Crossfire with 6GB RAM
Ubi: Please send a report using our support
you: Okay done, what can I do while I wait for a solution
Ubi: There are a couple of things that can be done. Try switching off vsync and lowering the in game graphics options. Also make sure your drivers are updated. Thank you
Later
you: I have received a reply that the issue has been forwarded to the upper management, how long will this take?
Ubi: We are trying to resolve the issue, please try the other options mentioned in our support.
you: But there is no difference!
Ubi: Thank you for purchasing AC3.


----------



## ferofax (Mar 9, 2013)

Hells Malice said:


> because you'll accept inferiority for convenience?
> 
> /just answering the question honestly


Seeing as I play retro games on handhelds, and handhelds in general, "Why, yes! That's exactly right!". Although I do enjoy gaming on my non-gaming laptop as well. Stuff like Disciples II, Humble Bundles, and so on.

...inferiority can be so fun.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 9, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> Remind me why I don't PC game again?


Because you're scared of change, and the idea of having to do any more setup than "insert CD and hit play" strikes fear into your heart?

Consoles get bad shit too, the answer is always to check out a game before you buy it.


----------



## Count Duckula (Mar 9, 2013)

Catastrophic said:


> Why on earth would someone make an online only game that clearly has single player? Do they care more about pirating than their own reputation?


 
It's as much if not more about planned obsolescence and control than traditional copy-protection DRM.
Kill used sales, cut off the servers when they feel fit so that anyone who wished to play it will have to buy the 'latest and greatest' version (or the older versions designed in times that were better for consumers).

I can't decide if the whole server capacity issue is a good or bad thing. It sucks for those trying to play now but surely someone evil being bad at what they do is a good thing, if only because it makes it plainly obvious to the masses the downside of the new model.
If it worked perfectly they would only learn this down the track when EA no longer feels keeping the servers going is in their financial interest.


----------



## chris888222 (Mar 9, 2013)

I'm not sure if anyone has seen this:

http://m.kotaku.com/5989630/ea-will-give-a-free-pc-game-to-anyone-who-bought-simcity


----------



## Rydian (Mar 9, 2013)

Count Duckula said:


> It sucks for those trying to play now but surely someone evil being bad at what they do is a good thing, if only because it makes it plainly obvious to the masses the downside of the new model.


Spore, Assassin's Creed, whatever other games.

How many times will it take?



chris888222 said:


> I'm not sure if anyone has seen this:
> 
> http://m.kotaku.com/5989630/ea-will-give-a-free-pc-game-to-anyone-who-bought-simcity


Because changing the game is out of the question?

Are they that intent on making consumers get used to an online-only format or something?  'Cause that'd be scary.


----------



## ov3rkill (Mar 9, 2013)

Latest news is that they're offering a game as compensation for the trouble. Not sure what game though.

Once and for all, online-only single player game just doesn't work. I hope it will not repeat over and over again just like with Diablo 3.


----------



## Rizsparky (Mar 9, 2013)

chris888222 said:


> I'm not sure if anyone has seen this:
> 
> http://m.kotaku.com/5989630/ea-will-give-a-free-pc-game-to-anyone-who-bought-simcity


Free game.. with micro transactions


----------



## chris888222 (Mar 9, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Because changing the game is out of the question?
> 
> Are they that intent on making consumers get used to an online-only format or something?  'Cause that'd be scary.


I dunno. I never really support EA anyway. I just saw this on the web and thought that it was quite a horrible refund.


----------



## Dr. Ivo Robotnik (Mar 9, 2013)

Well, at least they're doing a free game thing, I suppose. Doesn't really make up for this idiotic horror, but finally a semi-positive move's been made.


----------



## The_Hulkster (Mar 9, 2013)

To be fair, they will only "take against his account" when he claims the transaction as a fraud with his credit card company.
This is rather normal.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Mar 9, 2013)

ov3rkill said:


> Latest news is that they're offering a game as compensation for the trouble. Not sure what game though.
> 
> .


any $ it will be at least a 2-3 year old game it won't be anything NEW


----------



## Dr. Ivo Robotnik (Mar 9, 2013)

The_Hulkster said:


> To be fair, they will only "take against his account" when he claims the transaction as a fraud with his credit card company.
> This is rather normal.


 
True. By contrast, however, offering refunds and then instantly going back on it is what sparked it, and I feel that an outrage over THAT is perfectly acceptable, perhaps even a necessity.


----------



## The_Hulkster (Mar 9, 2013)

Dr. Ivo Robotnik said:


> True. By contrast, however, offering refunds and then instantly going back on it is what sparked it, and I feel that an outrage over THAT is perfectly acceptable, perhaps even a necessity.


 
Also true.
I was merely pointing out an invalid argument.


----------



## Dr. Ivo Robotnik (Mar 9, 2013)

The_Hulkster said:


> Also true.
> I was merely pointing out an invalid argument.


 
Duly noted. It's a legitimate thing to do - someone withdrawing funds after purchasing a product should see account action.

However, the circumstances SHOULD serve as a mitigating factor, in my view.


----------



## DSGamer64 (Mar 9, 2013)

I hope this is the straw that finally breaks the camels back and that consumers file a class action lawsuit against EA. They deserve it, this is the second colossal cluster fuck and attempt at banning Origin accounts in less then a year, the last was how much they fucked up the Mass Effect 3 ending. There is a reason why I stopped buying EA products for the PC, if they have the testicular fortitude to ban players just because their products suck and they file complaints, I don't want to support companies who behave like that. It's absolutely retarded that EA thinks their business practices are acceptable, and I hope this bad PR ultimately kills them as a company.


----------



## trance (Mar 9, 2013)

EA can't refuse refunds in regions with established Consumer Law or similar protection (against things like either not fulfilling a purpose, or inability to be ready (or repaired) in a decent period of time), and they know that.

But, I know for a fact that Australian Consumer Law has classified digital software sales a merchantable quality regardless of physical or digital sale, or whatever a digital seller says in their TOS or equivalent. It's worked against Nintendo, for example, who state in their policy that they don't refund digital sales, yet they had no choice but to.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 9, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> I hope this is the straw that finally breaks the camels back and that consumers file a class action lawsuit against EA. They deserve it, this is the second colossal cluster fuck and attempt at banning Origin accounts in less then a year, the last was how much they fucked up the Mass Effect 3 ending. There is a reason why I stopped buying EA products for the PC, if they have the testicular fortitude to ban players just because their products suck and they file complaints, I don't want to support companies who behave like that. It's absolutely retarded that EA thinks their business practices are acceptable, and I hope this bad PR ultimately kills them as a company.


 
Having an ending you don't like is absolutely no basis for a class action lawsuit. Let's not forget they released, I dunno, a free bunch of DLC to "fix" the ending and a ton of free multiplayer DLC as well.

But boohoo EA is evil because I buy luxuries from them that I don't like.

I think gamers don't need to sue EA, they need to grow a fucking brain and realize that buying games with DRM is a terrible idea and sends them the message that DRM is fine since people buy it anyway.

EDIT: For the record what EA is doing here is inexcusable but consumers are just so goddamn blind that they didn't give a shit about always-online DRM. EA won't change because of a class action lawsuit by whiny neckbeards over "I DIDN'T LIKE THE MASS EFFECT 3 ENDING!" They see numbers, and when their numbers are low because they put stupid shit like this into games, then they'll change.

...But this leads to the point that gamers are also retards and will say "I'll boycott this evil game!" and then buy it anyway.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Mar 9, 2013)

I should have known EA would find a way to fuck up simcity. They've done it to every single game now like red alert, the sims you name it and they've fucked it! I wish they never enslaved bought maxis


----------



## DSGamer64 (Mar 9, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Having an ending you don't like is absolutely no basis for a class action lawsuit. Let's not forget they released, I dunno, a free bunch of DLC to "fix" the ending and a ton of free multiplayer DLC as well.
> 
> But boohoo EA is evil because I buy luxuries from them that I don't like.
> 
> I think gamers don't need to sue EA, they need to grow a fucking brain and realize that buying games with DRM is a terrible idea and sends them the message that DRM is fine since people buy it anyway.


 
You'd think that EA would have grown a brain by now, but they have been doing stupid shit for ages, as soon as Origin came out, gaming was doomed. I think a class action lawsuit over SimCity 5 is necessary in order to get EA off this stupid egotistical high horse that they have been riding the last few years.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 9, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> You'd think that EA would have grown a brain by now, but they have been doing stupid shit for ages, as soon as Origin came out, gaming was doomed. I think a class action lawsuit over SimCity 5 is necessary in order to get EA off this stupid egotistical high horse that they have been riding the last few years.


 
It's not really "stupid" by their standards when people are still buying the game en mass and the DRM is preventing piracy for now. It's stupid for gamers to buy this.

However some great SGS material there.

EDIT: But on the Mass Effect 3 thing since it really boggles my mind that anyone would consider that evidence in a class action lawsuit...


George Lucas releases THREE Star Wars prequels, all of them absolutely terrible which ruined so much of the franchise. No lawsuits, the movies do amazing in theaters and such.
George Lucas re-releases the original Star Wars movies with terrible digital re-edits and refuses to re-release the original, untarnished Star Wars. No lawsuits.
But "MASS EFFECT 3'S ENDING WAS BAD THIS DESERVES A LAWSUIT." Grow the fuck up gamers.


----------



## Dr. Ivo Robotnik (Mar 9, 2013)

I have to agree on the whole Mass Effect 3 controversy. Yes, the ending was probably shit, and poor marks to the creators. 

Suing someone for finishing up a story badly? That's so preposterously stupid it's ludicrous.

My dear mr. McCommunist, would you be so good as to stop speaking my thoughts out loud, or at least writing them out verbatim before I can state them? It's mildly vexing. 




Yes, this is my way of saying "I agree totally".


----------



## Wizerzak (Mar 9, 2013)

shakirmoledina said:


> EA, what the hEAll
> kinda reminds me of what ubi is doing with AC3. they say for the pc version,
> you: My game runs at 10 FPS in boston. It's not playable!
> Ubi: Please send us your specifications as PCs have multiple configurations
> ...


Out of interest, did they ever fix that? I might reinstall it if they have.


----------



## Kouen Hasuki (Mar 9, 2013)

http://kotaku.com/5989630/ea-will-give-a-free-pc-game-to-anyone-who-bought-simcity

Lol looks like they're worried xD


----------



## Minox (Mar 9, 2013)

shakirmoledina said:


> EA, what the hEAll
> kinda reminds me of what ubi is doing with AC3. they say for the pc version,
> you: My game runs at 10 FPS in boston. It's not playable!
> Ubi: Please send us your specifications as PCs have multiple configurations
> ...


To be fair, they do have the right to try to find a solution to your issue before they have to issue a refund.

Granted, in said situation you might've just reached a standstill where absolutely nothing happened and you were stuck with an unplayable copy but even so I think there's room to give them some benefit of doubt.


----------



## Rogue_Syst3m (Mar 9, 2013)

imo ea is notorious for buying out titles, ruining them and we end up arsed out... thanks EA ( pricks )


----------



## SifJar (Mar 9, 2013)

Looks like they do have one happy customer...


----------



## ferofax (Mar 9, 2013)

SifJar said:


> Looks like they do have one happy customer...


*chuckles* EA's licking his own balls. Funny.


----------



## ForteGospel (Mar 9, 2013)

can someone explain to me what is all the buzz about?
diablo 3 had the same problem when it was released
guildwars 2 had the same problem when it was released
hell im sure even wow had the same problem when it was released

does this game actually *has* a single player? i mean, diablo doesnt, guildwars doesnt...
there is a difference between *playing alone* to *single player*...
playing alone: while everything is saved on their servers where you can share and play with others by just checkboxing an option
single player: where the save is saved on your computer, no reason to share nor being connected to the internet

i have no problem with diablo being always online because thats the direction the developers chose, hell there is hardly a reason to play offline because the game pretty much sucks
on the other hand you have AC II always online drm that doesnt make any sense


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 9, 2013)

ForteGospel said:


> can someone explain to me what is all the buzz about?
> diablo 3 had the same problem when it was released
> guildwars 2 had the same problem when it was released
> hell im sure even wow had the same problem when it was released
> ...


 
No offense but you basically just explained the obvious. People are upset about SimCity because it's an always-online single player game.

I mean I'm sure people were a bit upset with Guild Wars 2 and such but they NEED to be online because they're MMOs. Plus I think GW2 was resolved rather quickly.

People complained about Diablo III a lot though. People still do.


----------



## ForteGospel (Mar 9, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> No offense but you basically just explained the obvious. People are upset about SimCity because it's an always-online single player game.
> 
> I mean I'm sure people were a bit upset with Guild Wars 2 and such but they NEED to be online because they're MMOs. Plus I think GW2 was resolved rather quickly.
> 
> People complained about Diablo III a lot though. People still do.


you didn't answer my question though, does the game still has single player or have they changed to a kind of "mmo", because that's what happened to diablo 3...


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 9, 2013)

ForteGospel said:


> you didn't answer my question though, does the game still has single player or have they changed to a kind of "mmo", because that's what happened to diablo 3...


 
I'm pretty sure it's mostly single player and doesn't have anything MMO-ish like Diablo III. Correct me if I'm wrong, someone.


----------



## LockeCole_101629 (Mar 9, 2013)

Diablo also had multiplayer feature, and blizzard at least been known with their capability to handle their online games.
Guildwars2 is MMORPG.

reading from the comment, Simcity doesn't have both, it's pure single player only with Cloud  environment.
but I believe it's something they want to add in the future (you know... DLC for another $$$ to spent)
or adding small element with another $ to spent, I'm not surprised.

they bluntly said going to add Micro Transactions in their game.
I doubt someone will be able to pirate this game, just like diablo III
This is the best review so far (for me).
http://www.amazon.com/review/R3HI7AMO8MJ9PF/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R3HI7AMO8MJ9PF


----------



## SifJar (Mar 9, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I'm pretty sure it's mostly single player and doesn't have anything MMO-ish like Diablo III. Correct me if I'm wrong, someone.


I believe there is a multiplayer mode, but I'm pretty sure that single player mode is the "main feature". It's certainly not an MMO.


----------



## fafaffy (Mar 9, 2013)

I guess I'm the odd one out?
Even though they had server problems, they'll fix it. It's not the end of the world, and they're even giving you a free game as compensation.

Also, many other games had a rough start, but a week from now, this problem should cease to ever exist again.

As for the always-online drm, I can see the problem that some people will have with it, but I'm in favor of that. I'm online 24/7 and the save file is 1 less thing I ever have to worry about. It also provides a good feeling that the global statistics are legitimate rather than hacked or modded unfairly.

I bought it even after reading all the hate comments, and I'm pretty happy with my purchase.


----------



## Gahars (Mar 9, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> as soon as Origin came out, gaming was doomed.


 
_Riiiight_.

Am I the only person happy to see Origin kicking around? Sure, it hasn't been well-managed, and I'd have no intention of ever using it, but I think it's good to see a publisher with a massive ppol of resources try to compete with Valve. I doubt they could win, but competition is good for consumers; the better Origin gets (they have to get something right eventually, even if it's only by accident), the more incentive Valve has to make Steam that much better.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 9, 2013)

Gahars said:


> _Riiiight_.
> 
> Am I the only person happy to see Origin kicking around? Sure, it hasn't been well-managed, and I'd have no intention of ever using it, but I think it's good to see a publisher with a massive ppol of resources try to compete with Valve. I doubt they could win, but competition is good for consumers; the better Origin gets (they have to get something right eventually, even if it's only by accident), the more incentive Valve has to make Steam that much better.


 
But everyone knows that gaming would be better with only one publisher, one console maker, and one distributor. Right? Because that works for every other industry! Monopolies are good!


----------



## xist (Mar 9, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> But everyone knows that gaming would be better with only one publisher, one console maker, and one distributor. Right? Because that works for every other industry! Monopolies are good!


 
92.3% of GBAtemp would be happy with a Nintendo moustached world.


----------



## MushGuy (Mar 9, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> No offense but you basically just explained the obvious. People are upset about SimCity because it's an always-online single player game.


Which is not even working. That's the REAL complaint.

Also, this.


----------



## loco365 (Mar 9, 2013)

corenting said:


> And this :
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is actually the version I play on DOSbox.

And there is one word I can quote to sum all of this up.


> Appalling.


Why the hell do you need to constantly be online to play offline? That makes no fucking sense.


----------



## shakirmoledina (Mar 9, 2013)

Wizerzak said:


> Out of interest, did they ever fix that? I might reinstall it if they have.


 
no they never did



Minox said:


> To be fair, they do have the right to try to find a solution to your issue before they have to issue a refund.
> 
> Granted, in said situation you might've just reached a standstill where absolutely nothing happened and you were stuck with an unplayable copy but even so I think there's room to give them some benefit of doubt.


Yes I can accept that you can give them the benefit of doubt for whatever problem they must be facing. It's a new engine and everything so these things happen.
But when you visit their forum, you see 10s of people saying the same thing. 'Contact support'-'we have received' then nothing.
Its like they are toying with the people. I can't complain cause I finished the game as I was getting 15-30 or so FPS and well it was quite playable to me. Great game destroyed by bugs like scrolls and fallout.
Fallout was terrible for me because I really liked it but it kept on crashing for me no matter what I did. Until I read someone say, 'I have tried everything and nothing works!'

Here's something their forum staff posted (4 months after release)
"Hey guys, am sorry to hear you are still having issues with your frame rates.

There are so many factors that can cause drops in FPS, it would require a full troubleshoot. If you can create a ticket, I will gladly help in any way that I can. PM me your ticket number after creating it."


----------



## Dr. Ivo Robotnik (Mar 9, 2013)

That comparison chart is actually rather impressive. I think the most interesting one is calling a 2*2 km hamlet a 'city'. Seriously, it'd have to have several kilometer high skyscrapers to accomplish that.


----------



## cotyboy (Mar 9, 2013)

Is there a working crack already?


----------



## ForteGospel (Mar 9, 2013)

cotyboy said:


> Is there a working crack already?


chances are there won't be... unless someone pirates a server...


----------



## Bladexdsl (Mar 9, 2013)

oh well fuck it up next for me bioshock 3 you disappointed the shit out me EA ONCE AGAIN!


----------



## wrettcaughn (Mar 9, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Because you're scared of change, and the idea of having to do any more setup than "insert CD and hit play" strikes fear into your heart?
> 
> Consoles get bad shit too, the answer is always to check out a game before you buy it.


Scared of change? joodoneevinnomehomie...
It's possible I don't care about BetterDealsForGamesI'llNeverGetAroundToPlaying or MadGraphixYo!
Or maybe I don't want to pay $300+ for a PC that can handle the games I want to play when my console I paid 1/2 as much for handles them just fine.





Hells Malice said:


> because you'll accept inferiority for convenience?
> 
> /just answering the question honestly


I'm curious as to how consoles are inferior.
If your answer is:
- Better Graphics
- Games so cheap you can build up a backlog you'll never play
- 60FPS
...no need to bother replying.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 9, 2013)

ForteGospel said:


> you didnt answered my question though, does the game still has single player or have they changed to a kind of "mmo", because thats what happened to diablo 3...


Diablo III went online-saves-only partially to combat cheating (see this for some comparison info).  Sim City, from what I understand, doesn't need anything like that, but is always-online anyways as a form of DRM.

The fact that most people are having trouble _playing the game_ because the servers keep going down when the servers aren't even a requirement for any other game in the series is just a kick in the balls too.

So this is DRM that's stopping a large percentage of paying customers from actually playing.  Which is bad.



fafaffy said:


> Also, many other games had a rough start


The problem is this isn't required.  Most games you play do not have always-on DRM and would not run into this type of issue.  This is caused purely by the DRM.



fafaffy said:


> but a week from now, this problem should cease to ever exist again.


The fact that it's here in the first place is wrong.

You might be fine with letting them rip you off, but most people aren't.



ForteGospel said:


> chances are there won't be... unless someone pirates a server...


Happened for Assassin's Creed IIRC.  The server feeds critical resources to the game, so somebody just logged the resources in transmission, whipped up a little script for Apache to send the right responses, then bundled it so pirates could run their own local server.



wrettcaughn said:


> ~



Far better graphics are possible.


You can play tens of thousands of games _that will never reach whatever console you have_.


You can play pre-release versions of games.


If you want, you can even make your own for free, and give it to whoever wants it, for free.


You can run whatever sort of additional software you want, PCs have been multi-tasking since far before the first console.


You can mod the games.  Some games have been played for years after their initial time only thanks to mods being made.


Alternate and configurable control schemes.  Use tons of different controllers (even console ones) in addition to mice, trackballs, etc.


You can access all sorts of services (voice in game, messaging, etc.) without it being officially supported by the console first.


You can record and edit your gameplay without additional hardware.


You can stream your gameplay without additional hardware.


Unless it requires a third-party server (MMO-style), online play is free (yes this is an easy-as-hell jab at Xbox Live).


Cheats are possible without specific hardware needing to be developed and licensed, as it can be done in software.


And for older games, the most powerful emulation you can get, without needing somebody to release a hack, and without compromising your ability to access the latest games.

But sure, go on and continue being scared and lazy.  Was it you (before the name change) that was bitching that you needed to install a game from disc before you could play it?


----------



## DSGamer64 (Mar 9, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> But everyone knows that gaming would be better with only one publisher, one console maker, and one distributor. Right? Because that works for every other industry! Monopolies are good!


 
Yes, because PC gaming was so bad off with Steam as the most widely adopted digital game distribution service on the market, which in itself was a monopoly right? 

And no, having one console is a bad idea, having multiple consoles that are all the exact same experience is a bad idea.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 9, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> Yes, because PC gaming was so bad off with Steam as the most widely adopted digital game distribution service on the market, which in itself was a monopoly right?
> 
> And no, having one console is a bad idea, having multiple consoles that are all the exact same experience is a bad idea.


 
No two consoles have had the same experience.

And with Origin as competition, it means better experiences for customers. Steam introduces a new feature, Origin tries to match it. Origin puts a game's price cheaper, Steam tries to match it.

One of the basic principles of business is that competition is good for the customer.


----------



## DSGamer64 (Mar 9, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> No two consoles have had the same experience.
> 
> And with Origin as competition, it means better experiences for customers. Steam introduces a new feature, Origin tries to match it. Origin puts a game's price cheaper, Steam tries to match it.
> 
> One of the basic principles of business is that competition is good for the customer.


 
I'd argue that at the core, the PS3 and 360 offer the exact same gaming experience, multiple titles are available on both platforms. When it comes to what matters, and that is games, the PS3 and 360 are almost identical in terms of offerings.

EA is hardly doing any competing. They don't have the indie scene support that Steam has, Valve has GreenLight which is allowing for a lot of new titles to constantly be published. If EA were actually trying to compete with Valve, most game prices would be lower on both platforms, or many of the games available on Steam would also be on Origin, but neither of those things are true.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 9, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> I'd argue that at the core, the PS3 and 360 offer the exact same gaming experience, multiple titles are available on both platforms. When it comes to what matters, and that is games, the PS3 and 360 are almost identical in terms of offerings.
> 
> EA is hardly doing any competing. They don't have the indie scene support that Steam has, Valve has GreenLight which is allowing for a lot of new titles to constantly be published. If EA were actually trying to compete with Valve, most game prices would be lower on both platforms, or many of the games available on Steam would also be on Origin, but neither of those things are true.


 
So a few multiplats and they're the same gaming experience? Let's not count different features, different infrastructures (both hardware and online), and different games. Hell one's got the Move, one's got the Kinect. That's a big difference right here.

EA competes because their big titles come to Origin. Like Mass Effect 3, Battlefield 3 (and the upcoming Battlefield 4), etc.

Steam definitely is dominant in the market but providing some competition is healthy. Wanting Origin to die purely out of spite and some misguided notion that EA is worse than Hitler is both bad for the customer and just a severe misunderstanding of business.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 9, 2013)

The 360 and PS3 tend to have the same types of games and such because they have the same target audience (that good ol' 14-19 or whatever everybody on earth targets).  As Guild said, the way they go about their goals is different.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Mar 9, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Far better graphics are possible.
> 
> You can play tens of thousands of games _that will never reach whatever console you have_.
> 
> ...


 
So I'll preface my response to your bullet-points with "video games take up about 1.5% of my time"


Spoiler




Don't care
Don't care
Don't care
Don't care
Don't care
Don't care
Don't care
Don't care
Don't care
Don't care
Don't care
Don't care
Don't care



The correlation between scared/lazy gamers and console gamers is not as tight as you seem to think...  Some people really just don't care and game to escape for a short while.  I suppose I'd be a scared and lazy driver for not owning a Ferrari too, right?  My Honda Civic gets me where I need to go, thanks.

As far as bitching about installing a game from disc before playing it?  You'll have to link me to that one...  I install all my games.  The only time I've even commented with anything even remotely resembling negative was when some numbnut here was claiming Rage needed all 3 discs installed in order to play (which was bullshit) and I only had a 20GB harddrive at the time (each disc was 7GB).


----------



## jalaneme (Mar 9, 2013)

hopefully EA do more micro transactions in their games and it makes them completely bankrupt, hurry up EA make another way to fuck over your customers! i want to see you dead as a company, they are the worst gaming company in history.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 9, 2013)

jalaneme said:


> hopefully EA do more micro transactions in their games and it makes them completely bankrupt, hurry up EA make another way to fuck over your customers! i want to see you dead as a company, they are the worst gaming company in history.


 
Fuck the jobs of thousands of people and the customers who do enjoy EA games (like the millions who buy Battlefield and do like it), I've got a high horse to ride!


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Mar 9, 2013)

jalaneme said:


> hopefully EA do more micro transactions in their games and it makes them completely bankrupt, hurry up EA make another way to fuck over your customers! i want to see you dead as a company, they are the worst gaming company in history.


 
No they aren't, shut up.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Mar 9, 2013)

jalaneme said:


> hopefully EA do more micro transactions in their games and it makes them completely bankrupt, hurry up EA make another way to fuck over your customers! i want to see you dead as a company, they are the worst gaming company in history.


I can't help but imagine a 13 year old with pale, pale skin and the ever so slight crusting of mucus around each nostril when I read posts like these...


----------



## Rydian (Mar 9, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> So I'll preface my response to your bullet-points with "video games take up about 1.5% of my time"
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Could apply to consoles too. 

Why have such a strong stance on the matter if you don't care?  (Hint: you _do care_ enough to automatically reject anybody trying to dissuade you from your current opinion.)



wrettcaughn said:


> The correlation between scared/lazy gamers and console gamers is not as tight as you seem to think...  Some people really just don't care and game to escape for a short while.


I wasn't talking about console users in general (ease of use for a more limited experience is still ease of use).



wrettcaughn said:


> I suppose I'd be a scared and lazy driver for not owning a Ferrari too, right?


lolno, nice try though.  PC gaming is affordable to the average person (a Ferrari is specifically noted as not.)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883227448
$479, $120 less than the price the PS3 came out at, and will play future games for a while.
(Just a quick prebuilt example, if you want actual suggestions that's better for another thread.)

"But consoles get cheaper over time" - Because the hardware they're using gets older.  Same with PCs.  That PC has way more modern parts than the PS3, for example.  I could find you a cheaper/used one along the level of the PS3, but even theoretically you'd be much happier with newer parts than older ones.



wrettcaughn said:


> My Honda Civic gets me where I need to go, thanks.


And my computer does what I need it to, while a console doesn't... and my computer does more that I _enjoy_ as well, such as letting me mod games and multi-task, record gameplay and tweaks, etc.

It's fine if you don't want to do that stuff, but don't try to pretend none of the advantages exist when you directly ask for them. XD



wrettcaughn said:


> As far as bitching about installing a game from disc before playing it?  You'll have to link me to that one...  I install all my games.  The only time I've even commented with anything even remotely resembling negative was when some numbnut here was claiming Rage needed all 3 discs installed in order to play (which was bullshit) and I only had a 20GB harddrive at the time (each disc was 7GB).


The thread was about the PC, somebody was complaining that they needed to install a game from a disc on the PC and couldn't just run it immediately like on older consoles.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 9, 2013)

If you play games casually (i.e. not a whole lot because, y'know, you have a life), a console is perfect. It's cheaper, it's streamlined, and it works well for multimedia too.

Like there's some PC games I'd like to play but I'd more so upgrade to a better PC for 1) video production and 2) to play with my friends.

I wouldn't say PCs are better than consoles since they all have their pros and cons.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Mar 9, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> If you play games casually (i.e. not a whole lot because, y'know, you have a life), a console is perfect. It's cheaper, it's streamlined, and it works well for multimedia too.
> 
> Like there's some PC games I'd like to play but I'd more so upgrade to a better PC for 1) video production and 2) to play with my friends.
> 
> I wouldn't say PCs are better than consoles since they all have their pros and cons.


----------



## DSGamer64 (Mar 9, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> So a few multiplats and they're the same gaming experience? Let's not count different features, different infrastructures (both hardware and online), and different games. Hell one's got the Move, one's got the Kinect. That's a big difference right here.
> 
> EA competes because their big titles come to Origin. Like Mass Effect 3, Battlefield 3 (and the upcoming Battlefield 4), etc.
> 
> Steam definitely is dominant in the market but providing some competition is healthy. Wanting Origin to die purely out of spite and some misguided notion that EA is worse than Hitler is both bad for the customer and just a severe misunderstanding of business.


 
Sure, Origin is getting EA's games, but they aren't getting a whole lot else, and whatever else comes to Origin, will already be on Steam aside from EA games since other developers have the brains to recognize that the wider your sales base, the more copies of your product you can sell. When you, as a company, go out of your way to pull games from one service because you dislike having to pay to have the updates hosted, that shows you are a complete dickweed of a company who doesn't care about marketability and appeasing your customers. The last EA game I bought on Steam was Battlefield: Bad Company 2, I am still mad that they refused to release anything after that on Steam  aside from Mass Effect 2 I think, and that also includes Mass Effect 3 which I wanted to play. There are many PC gamer's like myself who refuse to buy into Origin because of EA's atrocious business ethics, so as much as they want to save money, they are losing customer support and potential buys by limiting their games on PC to using and requiring Origin to play.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 9, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> So a few multiplats and they're the same gaming experience? Let's not count different features, different infrastructures (both hardware and online), and different games. Hell one's got the Move, one's got the Kinect. That's a big difference right here.
> 
> EA competes because their big titles come to Origin. Like Mass Effect 3, Battlefield 3 (and the upcoming Battlefield 4), etc.
> 
> Steam definitely is dominant in the market but providing some competition is healthy. Wanting Origin to die purely out of spite and some misguided notion that EA is worse than Hitler is both bad for the customer and just a severe misunderstanding of business.


 
EA still has dick policies nonetheless, despite making huge financial successes. The very fact they refuse to refund paying customers is absurd. And yet they sit around wondering why piracy is rampant.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 9, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> EA still has dick policies nonetheless, despite making huge financial successes. The very fact they refuse to refund paying customers is absurd. And yet they sit around wondering why piracy is rampant.


 
https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=8360-wejc-2625#refund

Because you can always get refunds for digital games.


----------



## ForteGospel (Mar 9, 2013)

how this started to be a pc vs consoles discussion anyway?

ontopic:



Rydian said:


> Diablo III went online-saves-only partially to combat cheating (see this for some comparison info). Sim City, from what I understand, doesn't need anything like that, but is always-online anyways as a form of DRM.


I don't have the game nor have I followed this version, but from what I heard your city is part of a larger online province, where you can make traffic connections, trade resources with other players and even make cooperative construction projects with other players. thus making this into a mutiplayer game at its core.




> Happened for Assassin's Creed IIRC. The server feeds critical resources to the game, so somebody just logged the resources in transmission, whipped up a little script for Apache to send the right responses, then bundled it so pirates could run their own local server.


yeah I knew about the assassins drm, but that's a single player game...


----------



## Gahars (Mar 9, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> Sure, Origin is getting EA's games, but they aren't getting a whole lot else, and whatever else comes to Origin, will already be on Steam aside from EA games since other developers have the brains to recognize that the wider your sales base, the more copies of your product you can sell. When you, as a company, go out of your way to pull games from one service because you dislike having to pay to have the updates hosted, that shows you are a complete dickweed of a company who doesn't care about marketability and appeasing your customers. The last EA game I bought on Steam was Battlefield: Bad Company 2, I am still mad that they refused to release anything after that on Steam aside from Mass Effect 2 I think, and that also includes Mass Effect 3 which I wanted to play. There are many PC gamer's like myself who refuse to buy into Origin because of EA's atrocious business ethics, so as much as they want to save money, they are losing customer support and potential buys by limiting their games on PC to using and requiring Origin to play.


 
I fail to see how this makes EA a "dickweed" of a company.

EA sees the market for digital distribution is thriving and wants a piece of the pie, so they start up their own service. Making their games exclusive to Origin isn't malicious - it's just common sense. It just attracts customers who might otherwise ignore the service. It's not malicious in any way, shape or form, and it certainly isn't "bad business ethics" at all. What, is Valve a complete dickweed because they don't offer Half-Life 2 on Green Man Gaming?

EA pulls dick moves all the time, absolutely, and the SimCity debacle is a fuck up of colossal proportions. I'll be the absolute first person to agree there, but whining like this is beyond obnoxious. EA is not the big bad bogeyman of the games industry.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 9, 2013)

ForteGospel said:


> how this started to be a pc vs consoles discussion anyway?
> 
> ontopic:
> 
> ...




Well people still complain about Diablo III's DRM. Like they should have the game very online oriented but also offer it to be played offline. Multiplayer is still probably the best piracy deterrent that people like. You make a game with solid online and people will probably end up buying your game to play online with everyone else.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Mar 9, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> Sure, Origin is getting EA's games, but they aren't getting a whole lot else, and whatever else comes to Origin, will already be on Steam aside from EA games since other developers have the brains to recognize that the wider your sales base, the more copies of your product you can sell. When you, as a company, go out of your way to pull games from one service because you dislike having to pay to have the updates hosted, that shows you are a complete dickweed of a company who doesn't care about marketability and appeasing your customers. The last EA game I bought on Steam was Battlefield: Bad Company 2, I am still mad that they refused to release anything after that on Steam aside from Mass Effect 2 I think, and that also includes Mass Effect 3 which I wanted to play. There are many PC gamer's like myself who refuse to buy into Origin because of EA's atrocious business ethics, so as much as they want to save money, they are losing customer support and potential buys by limiting their games on PC to using and requiring Origin to play.


 
What EA is doing is no different than Nintendo keeping Mario and Zelda and Pokemon exclusive. No different than Sony keeping Uncharted and Killzone exclusive. It's to sway consumers to your products and services.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 9, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=8360-wejc-2625#refund
> 
> Because you can always get refunds for digital games.


 
Yeah, you're right, Steam has invasive DRM and always forces games to be online...oh wait....*switched to offline mode*


----------



## Minox (Mar 9, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=8360-wejc-2625#refund
> 
> Because you can always get refunds for digital games.


That is not entirely true. They do not offer refunds on games that works on your computer, however they have on several occasions issued refunds when games don't work.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Mar 9, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> Yeah, you're right, Steam has invasive DRM and always forces games to be online...oh wait....*switched to offline mode*


 
Except if the internet goes out before you have the chance to switch to offline mode, then you can't play them. I ran into this a lot. Our internet would go out, and all of a sudden, I can't play any steam games.


----------



## ForteGospel (Mar 9, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Well people still complain about Diablo III's DRM. Like they should have the game very online oriented but also offer it to be played offline. Multiplayer is still probably the best piracy deterrent that people like. You make a game with solid online and people will probably end up buying your game to play online with everyone else.


geez there are people complaining about diablo 3 drm? seriously I never had any problem with it... also why does no one say that online only games are a way to incentive online playing?
like... diablo 2 had lots of fans, but many of them didn't play online, hell they didn't even got an original copy of the game, thus lowering the possible players for online...

now on 2013, if a company creates a game to motivate online interaction gets bashed?
also to prove my point:


from 06:30 to the min 8:06 you can this is not a single player game any more...


----------



## Rydian (Mar 9, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Except if the internet goes out before you have the chance to switch to offline mode, then you can't play them. I ran into this a lot. Our internet would go out, and all of a sudden, I can't play any steam games.


I had that issue too, but then realized that the reason Steam wouldn't go into offline mode was because it THOUGHT I still had internet access, and was trying to synch some saves before going offline.  The obvious problem being that I didn't have internet access.

In my case, it was the virtual adapter for Hamachi, which lies about it's status and was reporting an internet connection even if there wasn't one.  Removed Hamachi, Steam was no longer lied to, offline switching has worked just fine for me for months.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 9, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Except if the internet goes out before you have the chance to switch to offline mode, then you can't play them. I ran into this a lot. Our internet would go out, and all of a sudden, I can't play any steam games.


 
Well, there are ways to hack steam.dll to bypass the validation check, but they might find out and ban your account. My internet stopped dropping, but it still sucks big time; I hate our current ISP, and it's not even Comcast!

Again, EA are being arrogant douchebags about it and don't care about paying customers, Steam on the other hand, doesn't go about bragging about their DRM. At least they let you play games if there's no connection (assuming you enter offline mode).


----------



## wrettcaughn (Mar 9, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Could apply to consoles too.
> 
> Why have such a strong stance on the matter if you don't care? (Hint: you _do care_ enough to automatically reject anybody trying to dissuade you from your current opinion.)
> 
> ...


What you seem to be missing here is that you're trying to convince an adult (with a 50 hour a week job, and a family) that the way he partakes in a hobby (in which he only spends _maybe_ 3 hours a week doing) is inferior because he is not spending $500 on hardware to do it. Also, showing me that a PC is $120 less than the PS3 was when it came out is certainly not a head-turner... I will never spend more than $300 on a video game console. Video games are not a high priority.


> "But consoles get cheaper over time" - Because the hardware they're using gets older. Same with PCs. That PC has way more modern parts than the PS3, for example. I could find you a cheaper/used one along the level of the PS3, but even theoretically you'd be much happier with newer parts than older ones.
> 
> And my computer does what I need it to, while a console doesn't... and my computer does more that I _enjoy_ as well, such as letting me mod games and multi-task, record gameplay and tweaks, etc.


Right. I have a console for when I want to play video games. And I have a laptop that I take with me pretty much everywhere I go for work. One stays home, while the other goes. One remains in use by family while the other is used by me. And I promise that I paid less for both of those combined than you did for your PC (that I'm guessing can only be used by one person at a time).



> It's fine if you don't want to do that stuff, but don't try to pretend none of the advantages exist when you directly ask for them. XD


I don't argue at all about the advantages of PC gaming. However, none of those advantages apply to me as I'm not the "target audience". I am a budget gamer who cares little for having the latest tech or playing the latest games. I didn't even get into the current gen until December 2009 and even then bought a ms refurbed xbox and 5 games for a whopping $150. PC gaming is affordable to the average person? What exactly denotes average? I'm married with one child, a nice home in a nice neighborhood with a two-car garage. That sounds pretty average. Yet...I still can't justify dropping $500 (or more) for the latest anything... Maybe that's why I'm living so comfortably?



> The thread was about the PC, somebody was complaining that they needed to install a game from a disc on the PC and couldn't just run it immediately like on older consoles.


Yeah, not clicking. Though, why shouldn't I be able to play my PC games off disc? I could play Number Munchers and Oregon Trail right off the disc...


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 9, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> Well, there are ways to hack steam.dll to bypass the validation check, but they might find out and ban your account. My internet stopped dropping, but it still sucks big time; I hate our current ISP, and it's not even Comcast!
> 
> Again, EA are being arrogant douchebags about it and don't care about paying customers, Steam on the other hand, doesn't go about bragging about their DRM. At least they let you play games if there's no connection (assuming you enter offline mode).


 
I never recalled EA "bragging" about their DRM. Hell Maxis even called it "dumb".

Like EA does have shitty business practices but I find people play them out to be more of the comical Eurovillain than they really are. The fact that it beat Walmart in the user poll is just outrageous. EA has microtransactions, boohoo. Walmart moves into a town, literally kills all local economy, and absorbs it like some Blob.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 9, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I never recalled EA "bragging" about their DRM. Hell Maxis even called it "dumb".
> 
> Like EA does have shitty business practices but I find people play them out to be more of the comical Eurovillain than they really are. The fact that it beat Walmart in the user poll is just outrageous. EA has microtransactions, boohoo. Walmart moves into a town, literally kills all local economy, and absorbs it like some Blob.


 
I couldn't care less about Walmart; they treat their employees like crap and I cannot understand why they're so f***ing popular.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 9, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> ~





wrettcaughn said:


> Remind me why I don't PC game again?


If you don't like this type of discussion, then why openly invite it? 



wrettcaughn said:


> Yeah, not clicking. Though, why shouldn't I be able to play my PC games off disc? I could play Number Munchers and Oregon Trail right off the disc...


With more modern games, load times are a main factor.  Modern harddrives are slow, but still faster than disc-based medium.  It's not as much of an issue on consoles because they have less resources (lower-resolution textures and such) and can more easily stream off the disc (though as we've seen lots of games need installs now on consoles).


----------



## Gahars (Mar 9, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> I cannot understand why they're so f***ing popular.


 
Because they sell their goods at very low prices?


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 9, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> I couldn't care less about Walmart; they treat their employees like crap and I cannot understand why they're so f***ing popular.


 
Because their prices are cheap and they're convenient. Like I go to Walmart as much as the next average American but they do so much terrible shit, much worse than EA. And especially when it comes to luxuries, I'm not going to throw a fit over something I like. If EA is a dick here, it's not gonna stop me from buying Dragon Age III (if DA3 looks good that is). I'm not gonna limit my entertainment over pointless "ethics" here. Maybe if their money supported child slavery then yeah but over microtransactions and DRM? Give me a break.


----------



## DSGamer64 (Mar 9, 2013)

Gahars said:


> I fail to see how this makes EA a "dickweed" of a company.
> 
> EA sees the market for digital distribution is thriving and wants a piece of the pie, so they start up their own service. Making their games exclusive to Origin isn't malicious - it's just common sense. It just attracts customers who might otherwise ignore the service. It's not malicious in any way, shape or form, and it certainly isn't "bad business ethics" at all. What, is Valve a complete dickweed because they don't offer Half-Life 2 on Green Man Gaming?
> 
> EA pulls dick moves all the time, absolutely, and the SimCity debacle is a fuck up of colossal proportions. I'll be the absolute first person to agree there, but whining like this is beyond obnoxious. EA is not the big bad bogeyman of the games industry.


 
No, it's not common sense to limit your PC distribution to one service and hard copies, of which both versions require the same program to even run. The fact of the matter is that EA not putting the games they publish on Steam is now detracting from bigger sales numbers. Sure, they can have Origin to sell their games on, that has never been my biggest issue with EA the last few years. My issue has been with the fact that even if I bought an EA game in a store, I would still have to use Origin to run it. You don't need Steam to be online to play your games and pretty much every development studio has come to accept that Always Online requirements are absolutely fucking stupid.

EA threatened to ban people from Origin because of the Mass Effect 3 ending, yeah that's some stupid shit to complain about, but EA releasing a broken single player game that requires you to be online all the time and has no offline mode to speak of, on top of the fact that it requires Origin to play, is terrible. EA is notorious for fucking with PC gamers though, and whether or not you think they are the "big bad boogeyman of the games industry", they have a really bad track record when it comes to PC gaming and their lack of interest in putting out a quality product or even one that is available through multiple sources.


----------



## kristianity77 (Mar 9, 2013)

I never PC game because its more hassle and costly than it's worth.  But only knowing EA from consoles, what happens to Sim City on the PC when EA decide they can't be arsed anymore and pull the server?  Does the game become unplayable for all who purchased it?


----------



## EyeZ (Mar 9, 2013)

kristianity77 said:


> I never PC game because its more hassle and costly than it's worth.  But only knowing EA from consoles, what happens to Sim City on the PC when EA decide they can't be arsed anymore and pull the server?  Does the game become unplayable for all who purchased it?


 
Yes, unless EA can put out a patch to change this.


----------



## kristianity77 (Mar 9, 2013)

eyes said:


> Yes, unless EA can put out a patch to change this.


 
To be honest then, EA have got everyone who buys this game by the balls.  In honesty then, anyone who bought this game, gets whats coming to them.  Lesson learned, dont buy into this kind of shit and you'll never feel aggrieved.


----------



## EyeZ (Mar 9, 2013)

kristianity77 said:


> To be honest then, EA have got everyone who buys this game by the balls. In honesty then, anyone who bought this game, gets whats coming to them. Lesson learned, dont buy into this kind of shit and you'll never feel aggrieved.


 
I'd never even thought of the prospect of not being able to play a game of Sim City offline, I dunno why they went for online only for this game.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Mar 9, 2013)

Rydian said:


> If you don't like this type of discussion, then why openly invite it?
> 
> With more modern games, load times are a main factor. Modern harddrives are slow, but still faster than disc-based medium. It's not as much of an issue on consoles because they have less resources (lower-resolution textures and such) and can more easily stream off the disc (though as we've seen lots of games need installs now on consoles).


I understand the need for installs 
was joking

Also, woe is he who asks the rhetorical question...


----------



## kristianity77 (Mar 9, 2013)

eyes said:


> I'd never even thought of the prospect of not being able to play a game of Sim City offline, i dunno why they went for on-line only for this game.


 
Pure greed i expect.  The same as they do with console gamers.  If they were to pull in hundreds of thousands of punters with this online only rubbish, then technically it paves the way for them to shovel Sim City into players faces every year, ala FIFA, Tiger Woods etc.  They can then shut off the servers, and charge players full whack, for a slightly updated game year up year upon year.  

But the sad fact is, there are obviously people in the world, willing to chuck money at the screen to fund this sort of rubbish.  Sad times


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 9, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> No, it's not common sense to limit your PC distribution to one service and hard copies, of which both versions require the same program to even run. The fact of the matter is that EA not putting the games they publish on Steam is now detracting from bigger sales numbers. Sure, they can have Origin to sell their games on, that has never been my biggest issue with EA the last few years. My issue has been with the fact that even if I bought an EA game in a store, I would still have to use Origin to run it. You don't need Steam to be online to play your games and pretty much every development studio has come to accept that Always Online requirements are absolutely fucking stupid.
> 
> EA threatened to ban people from Origin because of the Mass Effect 3 ending, yeah that's some stupid shit to complain about, but EA releasing a broken single player game that requires you to be online all the time and has no offline mode to speak of, on top of the fact that it requires Origin to play, is terrible. EA is notorious for fucking with PC gamers though, and whether or not you think they are the "big bad boogeyman of the games industry", they have a really bad track record when it comes to PC gaming and their lack of interest in putting out a quality product or even one that is available through multiple sources.


 
You mean like Valve does? Oh wait, they're the majority in PC gaming so it's fine.

I'm pretty sure it's something like 30% of profits go to Valve on Steam purchases. EA simply wants to cut out that 30% to maximize profits. Simple as that. Gaming is a business, it's about maximizing profits.

The point Gahars (and myself as well) are making is not that DRM is a good idea. It's a bad idea and statistically it doesn't help piracy. It's that everyone makes EA out to be worse than Hitler when they're really know worse than a lot of other companies. They're just an effigy to burn.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Mar 9, 2013)

eyes said:


> I'd never even thought of the prospect of not being able to play a game of Sim City offline, I dunno why they went for on-line only for this game.


I would guess that Sim City is exactly the type of game someone would want to pirate rather than purchase.  Still a shitty way to go about it though...


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 9, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Because their prices are cheap and they're convenient. Like I go to Walmart as much as the next average American but they do so much terrible shit, much worse than EA. And especially when it comes to luxuries, I'm not going to throw a fit over something I like. If EA is a dick here, it's not gonna stop me from buying Dragon Age III (if DA3 looks good that is). I'm not gonna limit my entertainment over pointless "ethics" here. Maybe if their money supported child slavery then yeah but over microtransactions and DRM? Give me a break.


 
They remind me of Bank of America, but I'd rather not get started on why I hate them.


----------



## chartube12 (Mar 9, 2013)

"The remainder of her responses debunked previous rumors that EA's Origin service would ban someone who demanded a refund, and pleaded with customers to stick with the game. EA is offering a free game to those who bought SimCity, as a makegood."

So yeah. Please do not tell lies.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 9, 2013)

chartube12 said:


> "The remainder of her responses debunked previous rumors that EA's Origin service would ban someone who demanded a refund, and pleaded with customers to stick with the game. EA is offering a free game to those who bought SimCity, as a makegood."
> 
> So yeah. Please do not tell lies.


 
Heard the free game isn't that great...just sayin'.


----------



## Gahars (Mar 9, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> Heard the free game isn't that great...just sayin'.


 
How? We don't even know what it is yet.

It might end up being a lame token offer ("Hey, guys, how about a free copy of Madden 08? No online, though."), but we just don't know one way or the other.


----------



## xist (Mar 9, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> Heard the free game isn't that great...just sayin'.


 
I actually can't believe just how anti- you are...



> And to get us back in your good graces, we’re going to offer you a free PC download game *from the EA portfolio*.


http://www.ea.com/news/a-simcity-update-and-something-for-your-trouble


How about you back up what you heard by sourcing that reliable goldmine of information you have?


----------



## ForteGospel (Mar 9, 2013)

kristianity77 said:


> I never PC game because its more hassle and costly than its worth. But only knowing EA from consoles, what happens to Sim City on the PC when EA decide they can't be arsed any more and pull the server? Does the game become unplayable for all who purchased it?


the same thing that will happen when any other online game company decides they won't support their games any more... they will close it, not so hard to understand...

also for the fifth time I think... sim city is not a single player game any more, it's not always online drm it's just always online play, just like diablo, just like any other online game


----------



## Dr. Ivo Robotnik (Mar 9, 2013)

ForteGospel said:


> the same thing that will happen when any other online game company decides they won't support their games any more... they will close it, not so hard to understand...
> 
> also for the fifth time I think... sim city is not a single player game any more, it's not always online drm it's just always online play, just like diablo, just like any other online game


 
I think that some nuance is important here. It has an online component - fine. But does it force you into multiplayer, or are you also perfectly capable of playing completely solo? If it's the latter, then it is my belief that one should be able to play without the need for this persistent online bollocks. ESPECIALLY if support would be closed down, it should be possible to play the single player game, at least. Buying a game is not a rental, after all.

Also, always-online is a tad more worrying with specific companies than it is with others. To go to your reference to Diablo - Blizzard has maintained the servers for, to my knowledge, every single one of their games. Diablo 1 on battle.net? Certainly still possible. And the same holds true for all their other games. EA, in contrast, has a nasty history of having cut support for games, sometimes within as little as a year or a year and a half, so I can understand why the fears for the game's support and servers being cut without much warning are so much more prevalent.


----------



## ForteGospel (Mar 9, 2013)

Dr. Ivo Robotnik said:


> I think that some nuance is important here. It has an online component - fine. But does it force you into multiplayer, or are you also perfectly capable of playing completely solo? If it's the latter, then it is my belief that one should be able to play without the need for this persistent online bollocks. ESPECIALLY if support would be closed down, it should be possible to play the single player game, at least. Buying a game is not a rental, after all.
> 
> Also, always-online is a tad more worrying with specific companies than it is with others. To go to your reference to Diablo - Blizzard has maintained the servers for, to my knowledge, every single one of their games. Diablo 1 on battle.net? Certainly still possible. And the same holds true for all their other games. EA, in contrast, has a nasty history of having cut support for games, sometimes within as little as a year or a year and a half, so I can understand why the fears for the game's support and servers being cut without much warning are so much more prevalent.


from what I saw, it's the latter, where your city is located in a province/country/state and your city gets affected by your neighbor cities (like pollution an so)

then the customers should know what they are getting into if they buy EA games... like when I got diablo 3, I knew that from now to 10 years I will be able to play it online... at the same time I knew about EA shutting down servers so I might not get sim city (that and I don't want origin on my pc either...)

by the way, I don't know where I heard this so might as well just ignore it, but when you buy a hard copy of a cd, you don't own the album, you don't own the music, you just own the rights to play it, same thing with a dvd, you don't own the movie but the rights to watch it...
same thing for games, you don't own the game but the right to play it... that's the whole idea of digital copies... you don't own anything... but the rights download the game and play...
maybe it was from the user agreement from the ps3 where it said you don't own the console but the rights to use it? can't remember...


----------



## Dr. Ivo Robotnik (Mar 9, 2013)

ForteGospel said:


> from what I saw, it's the latter, where your city is located in a province/country/state and your city gets affected by your neighbor cities (like pollution an so)
> 
> then the customers should know what they are getting into if they buy EA games... like when I got diablo 3, I knew that from now to 10 years I will be able to play it online... at the same time I knew about EA shutting down servers so I might not get sim city (that and I don't want origin on my pc either...)


 
Given the whole being affected by other players in that way, I'll grant it adds to the user experience. It'd also be fairly easy to turn off for single player and just add a random catastrophe generator, if you will, but still, I'll allow for multiplayer there. 

"You should know what you're getting into" is all well and good, but as far as I'm concerned, just cutting support altogether, effectively reducing a game you paid money to own to a shiny piece of plastic/a useless collection of unplayable coding is completely, utterly unacceptable. Yes, I know EA's wont to do this, which is why I've avoided their titles with always-online, yet am a cheerful owner of Diablo III, but that does not and SHOULD not excuse these kinds of business practices.


----------



## Jan1tor (Mar 10, 2013)

Real simple, even though it looks great, I would NEVER buy a game that you MUST be connected online to play unless it was an mmo. Single player should be just that, single without need of any connectivity. Downloading patches, extras pieces parts would be the only exception. And there should be NO NEED for single player to be online anyways.

I hope EA eats this one big time.


----------



## Wizerzak (Mar 10, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=8360-wejc-2625#refund
> 
> Because you can always get refunds for digital games.


Here in Europe you can almost guarantee a refund on Steam if you are willing to send a few messages.

Section 7 of Steam's Subscriber Agreement:


> 7. DISCLAIMERS; LIMITATION OF LIABILITY; NO GUARANTEES
> 
> FOR EU CUSTOMERS, THIS SECTION 7 DOES NOT REDUCE YOUR MANDATORY CONSUMERS’ RIGHTS UNDER THE LAWS OF YOUR LOCAL JURISDICTION.


----------



## kristianity77 (Mar 10, 2013)

ForteGospel said:


> by the way, I don't know where I heard this so might as well just ignore it, but when you buy a hard copy of a cd, you don't own the album, you don't own the music, you just own the rights to play it, same thing with a dvd, you don't own the movie but the rights to watch it...
> same thing for games, you don't own the game but the right to play it... that's the whole idea of digital copies... you don't own anything... but the rights download the game and play...
> maybe it was from the user agreement from the ps3 where it said you don't own the console but the rights to use it? can't remember...[/B]
> maybe it was from the user agreement from the ps3 where it said you dont own the console but the rights to use it? cant remember...


 


Yes, but if you buy a CD or a DVD you may well buy the rights to play it.  But that isn't time limited is it.  So long as they are cared for and looked after, CDs and DVDs you can play to your hearts content forever and a day so long as you have the hardware to play them. 

This isn't nearly the same, because EA can pull the servers whenever they want to, and that game that you paid for, digital or otherwise, no longer works anymore.  Totally different from buying a CD or DVD


----------



## Wizerzak (Mar 10, 2013)

Also relevant:


----------



## Rydian (Mar 10, 2013)

Wizerzak said:


> Section 7 of Steam's Subscriber Agreement:~


This.

I don't know why people think companies can do anything they want just because they put a disclaimer in an EULA.  They're subject to the laws too.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Mar 10, 2013)

Rydian said:


> I had that issue too, but then realized that the reason Steam wouldn't go into offline mode was because it THOUGHT I still had internet access, and was trying to synch some saves before going offline. The obvious problem being that I didn't have internet access.
> 
> In my case, it was the virtual adapter for Hamachi, which lies about it's status and was reporting an internet connection even if there wasn't one. Removed Hamachi, Steam was no longer lied to, offline switching has worked just fine for me for months.


No I can switch to offline. What I'm saying is if I'm online, and say im away from my computer, and the internet goes out, I can't switch to offline anymore, I have to wait until Steam goes back online before I can switch to offline... unless they changed it.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 10, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> No I can switch to offline. What I'm saying is if I'm online, and say im away from my computer, and the internet goes out, I can't switch to offline anymore, I have to wait until Steam goes back online before I can switch to offline... unless they changed it.


Yeah that's the issue I had too, and fixed.


----------



## Hells Malice (Mar 10, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> Scared of change? joodoneevinnomehomie...
> It's possible I don't care about BetterDealsForGamesI'llNeverGetAroundToPlaying or MadGraphixYo!
> Or maybe I don't want to pay $300+ for a PC that can handle the games I want to play when my console I paid 1/2 as much for handles them just fine.
> 
> ...


 
Games looking better, playing better, and costing less is a turn off for you?
Activision and EA must love you to death.

Well aside from that, there's also superior control capabilities I can use a mouse and keyboard for a majority of games, and plug in my 360 controller for anything else (like RPGs).
There's superior mod support (or, mod support period really...). Games like The Elder Scrolls, or FPS that allow mods, etc.

There's probably more but i'm just too busy laughing at you.


----------



## ferofax (Mar 10, 2013)

Hells Malice said:


> Games looking better, playing better, and costing less is a turn off for you?
> Activision and EA must love you to death.
> 
> Well aside from that, there's also superior control capabilities I can use a mouse and keyboard for a majority of games, and plug in my 360 controller for anything else (like RPGs).
> ...


Wow, you're still waving that PC master race stick?


----------



## Rydian (Mar 10, 2013)

ferofax said:


> Wow, you're still waving that PC master race stick?


The guy he's quoting asked for it.

Like, with a question mark and everything.


----------



## ferofax (Mar 10, 2013)

Rydian said:


> The guy he's quoting asked for it.
> 
> Like, with a question mark and everything.


Ah, then sock it to him! LOL


----------



## Rydian (Mar 10, 2013)

Just pointing out it's not random gloating.


----------



## pokefloote (Mar 10, 2013)

I heard Maxis accepted responsibility for this and says that EA had nothing to do with enforcing the DRM used. Was this proven or whatever?

edit: http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/03/simcity-boss-on-games-failure-this-is-on-maxis-we-own-it/


----------



## Rydian (Mar 10, 2013)

pokefloote said:


> I heard Maxis accepted responsibility for this and says that EA had nothing to do with enforcing the DRM used. Was this proven or whatever?
> 
> edit: http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/03/simcity-boss-on-games-failure-this-is-on-maxis-we-own-it/


That's not what the quote in the source says.  It's just about them taking the blame for the failed launch.


----------



## dgwillia (Mar 10, 2013)

Jeez, now I remember why I never got into PC gaming. Seems like more of a hassle now a days


----------



## Rydian (Mar 10, 2013)

dgwillia said:


> Jeez, now I remember why I never got into PC gaming. Seems like more of a hassle now a days


Oh yeah, it was much less annoying back in 1993 when Master Of Orion came out, and every so often in-game you'd be asked to identify ships, which you needed the manual for.  And hey, what about The Journeyman Project, also released in 1993?  How in order to progress through the game you needed key codes for certain areas, and they were printed in the manual?  That was much better.

Yeah, companies totally didn't put in annoyance measures as DRM until recently!


----------



## dgwillia (Mar 10, 2013)

Well yeah, I know they had DRM back then too. Though now it just seems to have gotten much more widespread and cash grabby in the past few years. Constantly having to be logged in, overwhelmed servers, etc.

I'd rather be asked to put in a serial Key or identify a ship than literally not be able to play the single player in a game I just brought.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 10, 2013)

One-time serial activation is about the best we can hope for nowadays.


----------



## Gahars (Mar 10, 2013)

dgwillia said:


> I'd rather be asked to put in a serial Key or identify a ship than literally not be able to play the single player in a game I just brought.


 
If you lost the manual or book packaged with it, the effect was just the same.

Plus, yeah, this sucks, and it's all over the news, but this is just one game. There's always going to be some bad eggs, but I don't see how one screw up (as large as this one may be) invalidates the entirety of PC gaming.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Mar 10, 2013)

Hells Malice said:


> Games looking better, playing better, and costing less is a turn off for you?
> Activision and EA must love you to death.
> 
> Well aside from that, there's also superior control capabilities I can use a mouse and keyboard for a majority of games, and plug in my 360 controller for anything else (like RPGs).
> ...


For the people who couldn't care less about any of that, who just want to play a game once in while and relax, you've just listed a bunch of shit they've paid extra for hardware-wise and have no need for...  _One_ of my other hobbies is playing guitar...but I'm not going to go drop $2000 on a Martin when the $500 x-series does what I need it to do.  You (and Rydian) can look down your noses and laugh all you want about how "affordable" a passable gaming PC might be, but as I pointed out to Rydian, my family gets far more function out of an xbox and a laptop than they would a single PC.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 10, 2013)

I repeat: you asked for it.  This was not random gloating, you ASKED for everything I gave.  You asked to be responded to, you asked for a list, etc.  *If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question.*

If the computer doesn't need to game they can get a lot cheaper though.  Netbooks have improved a lot since the first few outings, I know plenty of people who just buy cheap netbooks for their kids or something.


----------



## DiabloStorm (Mar 10, 2013)

I learned to boycott EA after Sims Online got shut down, don't even get me started on that, this will go down the same exact way. Horrible company.


----------



## Pleng (Mar 10, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> EA won't change because of a class action lawsuit by whiny neckbeards over "I DIDN'T LIKE THE MASS EFFECT 3 ENDING!" They see numbers, and when their numbers are low because they put stupid shit like this into games, then they'll change.


 
Trouble is, it probably wouldn't work like that. They'd likely have to murder a good few franchises and bring themselves to the point of collapse before finally get the message. You think if sales were poor they'd think "Ahh must be the DRM"? More likely they'd deduce that people just aren't interested in SimCity anymore, and would stop developing SimCity games....

Then move onto the next franchise....

Eventually they'd have killed all their single player games... would they finally see that DRM is what's killed them? I think it's more likely they'd conclude that "these days people are only interested in multiplayer games"...


----------



## nukeboy95 (Mar 10, 2013)

don't know if posted but


----------



## Sicklyboy (Mar 10, 2013)

I can't wait to advise all the customers at work that this game is pretty unplayable at the moment.


----------



## Qtis (Mar 10, 2013)

Sicklyboy said:


> I can't wait to advise all the customers at work that this game is pretty unplayable at the moment.


Arrange an Offline SimCity sale like steam? Just imagine the success when people buy 2 games just to be sure


----------



## Bladexdsl (Mar 10, 2013)

cmon skidrow don't let me down


----------



## Dr. Ivo Robotnik (Mar 10, 2013)

Why on earth has a PC vs. Console debate suddenly popped up?

It's really one of the most pointless concepts I can imagine. I have a PC, on which I game. I also have a PS3, on which I game. As well as a DS, a GBA, a PS2, a Dreamcast, and a couple of others. On which I game.

What's the POINT in trying to declare the innate superiority of one over the other? Focus on the simcity bollocks, PLEASE. 

And  on that note - at least Maxis admitted fault for a flawed launch, but this is still massively embarrassing on EA/Maxis'  part.


----------



## xist (Mar 10, 2013)

Dr. Ivo Robotnik said:


> And on that note - at least Maxis admitted fault for a flawed launch, but this is still massively embarrassing on EA/Maxis' part.


 
And sadly, as soon as the issues are resolved it will all be forgotten (because the game actually appears to be decent). If this really does blow over it's a massive kick in the teeth to consumers and proof that byzantine ideas about DRM, no matter how oppressive, will still get put into place.


----------



## chartube12 (Mar 10, 2013)

The game is very decent. I was able to download, install and play it on launch day just fine. It wasn't til Saturday when things started getting wonky.


----------



## DSGamer64 (Mar 10, 2013)

Pleng said:


> Trouble is, it probably wouldn't work like that. They'd likely have to murder a good few franchises and bring themselves to the point of collapse before finally get the message. You think if sales were poor they'd think "Ahh must be the DRM"? More likely they'd deduce that people just aren't interested in SimCity anymore, and would stop developing SimCity games....
> 
> Then move onto the next franchise....
> 
> Eventually they'd have killed all their single player games... would they finally see that DRM is what's killed them? I think it's more likely they'd conclude that "these days people are only interested in multiplayer games"...


 
Even Ubisoft learned pretty quickly that always online DRM was a bad idea with the whole UPlay fiasco and I believe it was Assassin's Creed 3 that had terrible sales on the PC and bad consumer reception because of the DRM. I doubt EA learns that quickly, they still haven't even learned all the past mistakes that Valve made with Steam


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 10, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> Even Ubisoft learned pretty quickly that always online DRM was a bad idea with the whole UPlay fiasco and I believe it was Assassin's Creed 3 that had terrible sales on the PC and bad consumer reception because of the DRM. I doubt EA learns that quickly, they still haven't even learned all the past mistakes that Valve made with Steam


 
Assassin's Creed III didn't have DRM except for a one-time connection to the internet to verify your game.


----------



## xist (Mar 10, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Assassin's Creed III didn't have DRM except for a one-time connection to the internet to verify your game.


 
They scrapped it -
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/09/05/ubisoft-scrapping-always-on-drm-for-pc-games/


----------



## BORTZ (Mar 10, 2013)

Apparently no one here knows how business works. 

Companies that understand business within capitalism and make good business decisions to compete and protect their products. Those companies stay in business. 

Companies who don't understand business and make bad decisions go under. 

So if EA is "such a bad company" why are they still in business? Hmmm?


----------



## Minox (Mar 10, 2013)

BortzANATOR said:


> Apparently no one here knows how business works.
> 
> Companies that understand business within capitalism and make good business decisions to compete and protect their products. Those companies stay in business.
> 
> ...


Some decisions have short-term effects and some have long-term ones. Just because they haven't gone under doesn't mean that they've made good decisions.


----------



## xist (Mar 10, 2013)

BortzANATOR said:


> Companies who don't understand business and make bad decisions go under.


 
In the UK at least, financial institutions are exempt from this rule. In fact when they screw up people give them MORE money.


----------



## DiabloStorm (Mar 10, 2013)

BortzANATOR said:


> Apparently no one here knows how business works.
> 
> Companies that understand business within capitalism and make good business decisions to compete and protect their products. Those companies stay in business.
> 
> ...


 
Stupid consumers. I blame them. Just because they make money doesn't mean they aren't bad.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Mar 10, 2013)

Rydian said:


> I repeat: you asked for it. This was not random gloating, you ASKED for everything I gave. You asked to be responded to, you asked for a list, etc. *If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question.*
> 
> If the computer doesn't need to game they can get a lot cheaper though. Netbooks have improved a lot since the first few outings, I know plenty of people who just buy cheap netbooks for their kids or something.


Show me where I've said anything negative about either of the answers provided. I've pointed out why those answers are meaningless to me (prior to either of you even posting...), but have not discredited them in any way... My only negative reaction is to the condescending tone you've both posted with.

And you're kind of upselling it like a Burger King cashier...
"I'd like a Whopper"
"Wouldn't you like to add cheese?"
"No, thanks"
"But it's only $0.50 more...?"
"If I didn't want any cheese to begin with...why would I pay $0.50 more for it?"
"Okay...would you like to make it a meal?"
"All I want is a goddamned Whopper..."
"Okay...that'll be $3.20"
*hands cashier a $5*
"Would you like to donate a dollar to the 'Non-profit charity heads without BMWs' fund?"
*turns and leaves*


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 10, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> And you're kind of upselling it like a Burger King cashier...
> "I'd like a Whopper"
> "Wouldn't you like to add cheese?"
> "No, thanks"
> ...


You just lost $5 and you didn't even get the Whooper. Not only did you not receive what you wanted, you also parted ways with your money.

Burger King vs. wrettcaughn - 2:0

Double Flawless


----------



## DSGamer64 (Mar 10, 2013)

BortzANATOR said:


> Apparently no one here knows how business works.
> 
> Companies that understand business within capitalism and make good business decisions to compete and protect their products. Those companies stay in business.
> 
> ...


 
Companies that make bad business decisions wind up with a whole lot of negative PR and they wind up losing money on sales because people aren't buying the product. People pre-ordered SimCity 5 because of hype, let's not fool ourselves. EA figured that people didn't care about the always online DRM, but they failed to prepare themselves with servers that would run the game without players disconnecting all the time. Almost a week later, people are now pissed off and the always online DRM decision is looking like a pretty bad one in the wake of EA's failures with the servers. A good company that is prepared for the worst situation, won't make the bad decisions that will have a negative impact on the quality of their game and the overall happiness of the consumers.


----------



## Scuba156 (Mar 10, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> Show me where I've said anything negative about either of the answers provided. I've pointed out why those answers are meaningless to me (prior to either of you even posting...), but have not discredited them in any way... My only negative reaction is to the condescending tone you've both posted with.
> 
> And you're kind of upselling it like a Burger King cashier...
> "I'd like a Whopper"
> ...


Having a PC vs consoles war/discussion in a thread that has nothing to do with that is like trying to order said whopper at any other place than a burger king..... full of questioning looks and ending with a "get the fuck out"


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Mar 10, 2013)

Stop bitching and vote with your wallet. If you want to make an impact, if you want to change the bullshit, do what will hurt them the most. They want your money. If they don't have your money, they didn't accomplish their goal. Complaining will only get you so far. Especially if you have already put money in their pockets.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Mar 10, 2013)

Scuba156 said:


> Having a PC vs consoles war/discussion in a thread that has nothing to do with that is like trying to order said whopper at any other place than a burger king..... full of questioning looks and ending with a "get the fuck out"


Right, and tell that to the two people who took a rhetorical question and used it as an opportunity to say "consoles are inferior" and "console gamers are scared and lazy"...  But yeah, I get you.  I'll be right back though.  I have to go buy an iPad so I can listen to music while I'm jogging...because I enjoy paying money for extra functionality that I don't need...


----------



## Scuba156 (Mar 10, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> Right, and tell that to the two people who took a rhetorical question and used it as an opportunity to say "consoles are inferior" and "console gamers are scared and lazy"...  But yeah, I get you.  I'll be right back though.  I have to go buy an iPad so I can listen to music while I'm jogging...because I enjoy paying money for extra functionality that I don't need...


And I'll be right here listening to music using my galaxy 3 while I'm at work where the functionality is quite useful. My point? Everyone has different needs, and different opinions which both lead to different choices.


----------



## Arras (Mar 10, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Assassin's Creed III didn't have DRM except for a one-time connection to the internet to verify your game.


I'm guessing he meant Assassin's Creed 2? That had some pretty terrible DRM.


----------



## SuzieJoeBob (Mar 10, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> Even Ubisoft learned pretty quickly that always online DRM was a bad idea with the whole UPlay fiasco and I believe it was Assassin's Creed 3 that had terrible sales on the PC and bad consumer reception because of the DRM. I doubt EA learns that quickly, they still haven't even learned all the past mistakes that Valve made with Steam


EA learn from their mistakes??? Where have *you* been???


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 10, 2013)

Arras said:


> I'm guessing he meant Assassin's Creed 2? That had some pretty terrible DRM.


 
Well that was a while ago and Ubisoft learned from their mistake. Pretty sure they canned it on Revelations and so on.


----------



## Arras (Mar 10, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Well that was a while ago and Ubisoft learned from their mistake. Pretty sure they canned it on Revelations and so on.


Which was exactly his point. They learned from their mistakes and stopped using it.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Mar 10, 2013)

Scuba156 said:


> And I'll be right here listening to music using my galaxy 3 while I'm at work where the functionality is quite useful. My point? Everyone has different needs, and different opinions which both lead to different choices.


And that's exactly what I've been saying...


----------



## Veho (Mar 10, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> And that's exactly what I've been saying...


So you're saying you "don't PC game" because you have no need for the additional functionality of a PC? So it has nothing to do with this thread. In that case, was your supposed "rhetoric question" just a completely random off-topic and pointless interjection, or was it intentional flamebait?


----------



## nukeboy95 (Mar 10, 2013)

Sicklyboy said:


> I can't wait to advise all the customers at work that this game is pretty unplayable at the moment.


you work for EA?


----------



## Qtis (Mar 10, 2013)

nukeboy95 said:


> you work for EA?


Retail IIRC. Not EA.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Mar 10, 2013)

Veho said:


> So you're saying you "don't PC game" because you have no need for the additional functionality of a PC? So it has nothing to do with this thread. In that case, was your supposed "rhetoric question" just a completely random off-topic and pointless interjection, or was it intentional flamebait?


 
>Writes "Remind me why I don't PC game again?" expecting it to be read as "Glad I don't have to deal with shitty DRM or a shitty digital download service and its servers" (which it was by at least 3 people...)
>Gets caned by the PC master race who reads it as "zomgconsolesarebetterthanpcsateverything"
>Receives the obligatory accusation 8 pages later of posting off-topic by someone who has nothing at all to do with the conversation...


----------



## Veho (Mar 10, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> >Writes "Remind me why I don't PC game again?" expecting it to be read as "Glad I don't have to deal with shitty DRM or a shitty digital download service and its servers" (which it was by at least 3 people...)
> >Gets caned by the PC master race who reads it as "zomgconsolesarebetterthanpcsateverything"
> >Receives the obligatory accusation 8 pages later of posting off-topic by someone who has nothing at all to do with the conversation...


>comes in only to post "durr console superior hurr" 
>gets pissy when he's called out on it
>le meme arrows 
>master ruseman face dot bmp 

Hey look, I can greentext too. 

And I'll take that as "flamebait" then.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 10, 2013)

BortzANATOR said:


> Apparently no one here knows how business works.
> 
> Companies that understand business within capitalism and make good business decisions to compete and protect their products. Those companies stay in business.
> 
> ...





Rydian said:


> That's how it is in the gaming world in general.  Most large companies make pants-on-head retarded decisions, and only their publishing key franchises from others (that they can't damage to an extent) keeps them alive.
> 
> An old thread I made about this issue...
> http://gbatemp.net/threads/is-it-just-me-or-are-most-video-game-companies-stupid.312221/


----------



## wrettcaughn (Mar 10, 2013)

Veho said:


> >comes in only to post "durr console superior hurr"
> >gets pissy when he's called out on it
> >le meme arrows
> >master ruseman face dot bmp
> ...


 
Another eager PC beaver, eh? So quick to see offense where none is present...  At least _my_ first comment in this thread actually had something to do with the situation, but I'm glad you felt compelled to join the discussion as it was a little light on pretentiousness.  You totally called me out on my "flamebait", guy.  I'm not sure if it counts though seeing as there is not once in these 11 pages where I said "consoles are superior", only that a $500 PC is overkill for my purposes.  With Rydian and Hells Malice being so giddy for the "Ha, he thinks consoles are better than PCs" misinterpretation, it at least makes you seem more human, your susceptibility to peer-pressure and all...


----------



## Veho (Mar 10, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> So quick to see offense where none is present...


Indeed. I _see_ my simple question offended you to no end. I am relieved to hear this isn't so. 



> At least _my_ first comment in this thread actually had something to do with the situation


Nope, it was a completely pointless non sequitur. _Had you really wanted to comment on the situation_, you could have said "I'm glad consoles don't have similar DRM bullshit" (for now; who knows what the next generation will bring), but you didn't. And since you insist on steering every reply into "console VS PC" territory, it is now clear your intent was to troll from the get go. 



> Another eager PC beaver, eh
> pretentiousness.
> it at least makes you seem more human, your susceptibility to peer-pressure and all...


And now you're just reaching.


----------



## BORTZ (Mar 10, 2013)

So if EA is such a terrible company why do you people continue to support them? To anyone who bought Sim city, learn your lesson and stop bitching.


----------



## Black-Ice (Mar 10, 2013)

BortzANATOR said:


> So if EA is such a terrible company why do you people continue to support them?


Coz dey make FIFA and FIFA is a badman game,


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Mar 10, 2013)

BortzANATOR said:


> So if EA is such a terrible company why do you people continue to support them? To anyone who bought Sim city, learn your lesson and stop bitching.


 
I don't hate them, I'll still support them. It's because of them some of my favorites games are available, Mass Effect 2 and 3 which, with them publishing, made it sooo much better than the first Mass Effect, Mirrors Edge, NHL games...


----------



## emigre (Mar 10, 2013)

This thread has really put me in the mood to play some Fifa 13.


----------



## Dr. Ivo Robotnik (Mar 10, 2013)

Oh great heavens above, drop the console vs PC discussion. Someone started it, someone responded to it, I've already lost track of who, mostly because it's not worth thinking about. This is not the thread for that to be discussed in. Yes, I'm a newbie saying this, but good _grief._

I think that by this point, Simcity's at least more or less getting itself back on track. At least, from what I'm hearing. We'll just have to see what EA does next.


----------



## chartube12 (Mar 10, 2013)

The game isn't even unplayable. I was just playing it! Stop your bitching about a game you guys probably don't even own!


----------



## wrettcaughn (Mar 10, 2013)

Veho said:


> Indeed. I _see_ my simple question offended you to no end. I am relieved to hear this isn't so.
> 
> 
> Nope, it was a completely pointless non sequitur. _Had you really wanted to comment on the situation_, you could have said "I'm glad consoles don't have similar DRM bullshit" (for now; who knows what the next generation will bring), but you didn't. And since you insist on steering every reply into "console VS PC" territory, it is now clear your intent was to troll from the get go.
> ...


lol...if I was offended in any way I know where the report button is.  I'm just confused as to where you started reading this conversation...  It must've been sometime after Hells Malice started talking about one being superior over the other since I never said anything of the sort.  In fact, my stance has been _diffrint strokes for diffrint folks__.  _But go ahead and continue talking things out of context and assuming to know my intentions.  It's kind of ironic that you jumped into the conversation (after it had ended I might add) and made it a point to tell me my posts were off-topic without yourself adding anything of any substance to the thread...  "Report" and "Reply" have a few of the same letters so I can see how you might confuse the two, but "Report" is the one on the bottom-left of each post.  At this point, I'm either a troll or misunderstood, meaning, you're either feeding the troll or an asshole...

*“I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”*

- Robert McCloskey


----------



## Rydian (Mar 10, 2013)

chartube12 said:


> The game isn't even unplayable. I was just playing it! Stop your bitching about a game you guys probably don't even own!


So I assume you didn't read any of the articles announcing the problem, or any of the later articles where the companies admit the problem exists?

The issue is there's too few servers, so while some people can play, the majority who try to play the game cannot at any given time.

Seriously, start reading, it's helpful.


----------



## Veho (Mar 10, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> I'm just confused as to where you started reading this conversation...


Page 1. 



> At this point, I'm either a troll or misunderstood, meaning, you're either feeding the troll or an asshole...


I'm feeding the troll, then. I don't mind, you seem to cherish the attention.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Mar 10, 2013)

Rydian said:


> So I assume you didn't read any of the articles announcing the problem, or any of the later articles where the companies admit the problem exists?
> 
> The issue is there's too few servers, so while some people can play, the majority who try to play the game cannot at any given time.
> 
> Seriously, start reading, it's helpful.


TL;DR


----------



## WiiUBricker (Mar 10, 2013)

That's why I don't have origin.


----------



## Scuba156 (Mar 10, 2013)

Rydian said:


> So I assume you didn't read any of the articles announcing the problem, or any of the later articles where the companies admit the problem exists?
> 
> The issue is there's too few servers, so while some people can play, the majority who try to play the game cannot at any given time.
> 
> Seriously, start reading, it's helpful.


They're getting there. I haven't had any trouble connecting myself, but I've noticed that there are a lot of servers that are full, and if it's full then you can't retrieve your saved city on that server of course.

The only problem I've had is during gameplay, where all of a sudden I get a pop-up saying I've been disconnected from the server and it boots me back to the home screen. It then informs me that my save is corrupted and I need to either roll back to a previous one or abandon the save. The most I've lost is about 5 minutes of gameplay, but a lot was done in those 5 minutes. 

No cheetah speed is also annoying as it takes so long to build up large sums of cash. Achievements still seem to be working though as I've earned a couple, even though they said they were disabling them so I've got no idea what's going on there.

So yeah, there's still issues and hopefully they will be fixed soon as it is a really good simcity title. That guy has probably had little time playing the game, is lucky, or just ignorant.

EDIT: just started up simcity, and now I'm getting the server busy message so it looks like I can't join the server to play 

Another edit: Got in 5 minutes later


----------



## narutofan777 (Mar 10, 2013)

You see ea knows people will still buy their game. To that end it doesn't matter how many people complain; some people may try to boycott ea games but really how much will that accomplish? There are millions of people who buy games, and those few people who would effect a boycott are NOTHING compared to millions.

For another reference see diablo 3. It had no offline mode for pc so a bunch of haterz and a lot of people like to s--- on it. Blizzard still made *millions*.._lol_ 

ea and blizzard most definitely understand that.

Also I laugh when I read user reviews on diablo 3...lol blizzard got their money and it made them *$$$$$$$.*

*Either way ea and blizzard stay on the winning side of their bank manager*.


----------



## DSGamer64 (Mar 11, 2013)

BortzANATOR said:


> So if EA is such a terrible company why do you people continue to support them? To anyone who bought Sim city, learn your lesson and stop bitching.


 
I don't support them because they have been prone to doing stupid shit the last few years. I had no problem with them until they did stuff like can NHL games for the PC (that was ages ago though) and most of the sports games were never properly optimized for computers as well. Maybe if they went back to bringing sports games to the PC and did them properly, I'd be a little more inclined to support them. Maybe when they stop thinking about their pocketbooks and think about consumers when it comes to how they distribute games (i.e start putting games on Steam again), I will start buying their products again. When they get over this always online DRM for single player games, I will support them again. When Origin isn't required to play games, I will support them again.

All those blunders and poor business mistakes are what have turned me away from EA over the last few years. Sure, they might be business decisions in order to make money, but at the end of the day is the honest customer who is going to buy a product just because of it's name alone, worth more then a few pirates who might steal a game?




narutofan777 said:


> You see ea knows people will still buy their game. To that end it doesn't matter how many people complain; some people may try to boycott ea games but really how much will that accomplish? There are millions of people who buy games, and those few people who would effect a boycott are NOTHING compared to millions.
> 
> For another reference see diablo 3. It had no offline mode for pc so a bunch of haterz and a lot of people like to s--- on it. Blizzard still made *millions*.._lol_
> 
> ...


 

Except Diablo 3 had the Auction House, chat for item trading and friends lists (that also linked between SC2, WoW and D3 for chatting) going for it that made the always online component a little more bearable. What sucked about D3 was all the subsequent class nerfs (especially Demon Hunters) about a week or two after the game released, just because people were already clearing Inferno and farming Diablo for gear. Now it seems like the game is just one endless grind of the exact same thing over and over again in order to gear up just to progress. I seriously was gear swapping and upgrading for every boss in the first two acts on Inferno now and you just pretty much farm until you get your Monster Power level up to 100. It wasn't the always online requirement that pissed people off ultimately, it was how they handled the game after release.


----------



## Hop2089 (Mar 11, 2013)

Always online DRM ftl, this needs to die fast, same with online passes both are crossing international boundaries and now I see it in Japanese made games.

I'll just play Sim City 2000 on the GCW Zero's Dosbox once I get the system and not deal with the craphouse.  EA, you were great in the 90's but now you are a pile of elephant shit.


----------



## Black-Ice (Mar 11, 2013)

See guys, this is why you should just play League of Legends


----------



## Depravo (Mar 11, 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21741528


----------



## Qtis (Mar 11, 2013)

Depravo said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21741528


Going the good old 404 for some reason (even through the BBC site). Possibly up later on


----------



## Depravo (Mar 11, 2013)

Qtis said:


> Going the good old 404 for some reason (even through the BBC site). Possibly up later on


Odd, still working fine for me. Maybe it's a region thing.

Here's a copy of the article -


Spoiler



*EA apologises over 'dumb' SimCity launch*






Delays and crashes have dogged the launch of SimCity

Electronics Arts has apologised for the shambolic launch of the latest version of town-planning title SimCity.

Gamers have reported long queues to play, bugs and other glitches since SimCity launched on 5 March.

The company said the way it had set up the launch had been "dumb" and that it "really feels bad" about the way gamers had suffered.

As compensation, all those who bought SimCity will be offered a free Electronics Arts PC game this month.

Since the game launched, the online computers that co-ordinate play have been regularly overwhelmed.

Many gamers reported waiting 30 minutes or more before they could start to construct a city and said the game was sluggish once they were playing. Others said it often crashed or was slow to respond to changes.

The troubles led online store Amazon to briefly suspend sales of the download version of the game.

In a blogpost, Lucy Bradshaw, general manager for SimCity, said the way Electronics Arts (EA) and Maxis, the studio that created the game, had set up the servers had contributed to the problems.

Unlike all other versions of SimCity, the latest requires gamers to remain online while they play, as each city they construct sits on a chunk of virtual territory shared with other players.

These regions share certain over-arching characteristics such as crime levels, resources and pollution.

However, said Ms Bradshaw, the way people played the finished game was very different to what EA and Maxis had seen during early, or beta, testing.

She wrote: "A lot more people logged on than we expected. More people played, and played in ways we never saw in the beta."

"OK, we agree that was dumb, but we are committed to fixing it," she added.

To clear the queues, EA had doubled the number of servers supporting the game, Ms Bradshaw said.

In addition, it had engineers working on fixes for the bugs.

This work, said Ms Bradshaw, had led the number of "disrupted experiences" to drop by 80%.
Features that had been turned off late last week to help lighten the load on servers would be restored soon, she added.

As compensation for the trouble, players would soon be offered a free PC game from EA's catalogue, said Ms Bradshaw.

Emails detailing how to claim the free game would be sent out on 18 March, she added.


----------



## BORTZ (Mar 11, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> See guys, this is why you should just play League of Legends


GET OUT


----------



## Rydian (Mar 11, 2013)

Depravo said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21741528


Am I the only one that sees "We don't have enough servers because more people are playing now than played in the beta" and thinks "FUCKING DUH"?


----------



## McHaggis (Mar 11, 2013)

Rydian said:


> But sure, go on and continue being scared and lazy. Was it you (before the name change) that was bitching that you needed to install a game from disc before you could play it?


He asked why consoles are inferior, but much of what you said is at least possible or an advantage for gaming consoles too.



Spoiler




Far better graphics are possible.  *Granted, but not necessarily desired*
You can play tens of thousands of games _that will never reach whatever console you have_.* And consoles have many games that won't officially reach a PC until they're powerful enough to emulate it.*
You can play pre-release versions of games.* Consoles have (more?) demos, if you count those as pre-release versions (which is what they are)*
If you want, you can even make your own for free, and give it to whoever wants it, for free. *Most free games suck, just like most homebrew free games on consoles*
You can run whatever sort of additional software you want, PCs have been multi-tasking since far before the first console. *Not relevant (most non-PC gamers own a PC and do this anyway)*
You can mod the games. Some games have been played for years after their initial time only thanks to mods being made.* *points to mods for various console games**
Alternate and configurable control schemes. Use tons of different controllers (even console ones) in addition to mice, trackballs, etc. *PC games aren't usually made for "innovative" controllers (Wii remote, Eye Toy, Kinect, GamePad, Donkey Konga bongos )*
You can access all sorts of services (voice in game, messaging, etc.) without it being officially supported by the console first. *Granted, but not necessarily desired.*
You can record and edit your gameplay without additional hardware. *At the cost of taking resources away that might be required by your games*
You can stream your gameplay without additional hardware. *See above*
Unless it requires a third-party server (MMO-style), online play is free (yes this is an easy-as-hell jab at Xbox Live). *Online play is free on other consoles*
Cheats are possible without specific hardware needing to be developed and licensed, as it can be done in software. *Not always a plus, not something most gamers desire.*
And for older games, the most powerful emulation you can get, without needing somebody to release a hack, and without compromising your ability to access the latest games. *Granted, but emulation isn't always perfect, sometimes it's inferior to playing on the original hardware. So a modern PC is inferior when compared to a 10 year old gaming console in some respects *



But, you forgot "easily and progressively upgradeable" and "no regional issues", which is probably the most appealing thing about gaming on PCs (for me).  And let's not forget what can put PC gaming at a disadvantage:

Thousands of different hardware configurations and driver-related issues can cause games to be unplayable for some people until game updates or driver updates are released.  Lack of proper certification could mean some games will never run on some configurations.
Windows/Mac forced in most situations.  Switching between operating systems because of compatibility is really annoying.
Install times.
CD keys (don't lose that manual!).
Lack of commercially released games by Japanese developers.
Always online DRM. 
Easier online cheating because PCs don't need to be hacked first.
Seeing how you opted for the general PC software bullet-point, I'm going to say "malware".
Most gaming rigs are much bigger, heavier and less portable than consoles (bar the X51, those things are magnificent).
Someone said consoles are easier to use.  To elaborate, their operating systems are built around gaming and entertainment.  PC operating systems are built around general PC use.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just saying superiority of gaming platforms is subjective and relative.  PCs are more suited for gaming for some people, and consoles are superior in the eyes of others.  Personally, I don't have time to play every game that takes my fancy.  Gaming on consoles is better for me.  I work (from home) on my PC and I have difficulty keeping work and play separate if I have a ton of games installed.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 11, 2013)

Can we get off the PC high horse and just accept that consoles and PCs are entirely different entities each with their own sets of pros and cons?

It's really getting irritating.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 11, 2013)

If I took "but they might not care" into account, I wouldn't have even responded, as it's the universal cop-out.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Mar 11, 2013)

Rydian said:


> If I took "but they might not care" into account, I wouldn't have even responded, as it's the universal cop-out.


 


wrettcaughn said:


> Scared of change? joodoneevinnomehomie...
> It's possible *I don't care* about BetterDealsForGamesI'llNeverGetAroundToPlaying or MadGraphixYo!
> Or maybe *I don't want to pay $300+ for a PC that can handle the games I want to play when my console I paid 1/2 as much for handles them just fine*.


 
jus' sayin


----------



## Sicklyboy (Mar 11, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> jus' sayin


 
I wanna know what game consoles you're buying for $150, unless they're pre owned.

jus' sayin


----------



## wrettcaughn (Mar 11, 2013)

Sicklyboy said:


> I wanna know what game consoles you're buying for $150, unless they're pre owned.
> 
> jus' sayin


MS refurbed phat Xbox 360 - December 2009 - Console/headset/20GB HDD/2 controllers - $149.99+ MI sales tax...so you're right, I paid $158.98 which is more than half of $300.
Not sure where I suggested I bought anything new.


----------



## Wizerzak (Mar 11, 2013)

I can honestly think of literally only 3 reasons as to why consoles may be better than PCs:


Possibly a few days earlier launch on some titles
Good for people who are too lazy to update their GPU driver once in a while (takes 5 minutes at most).
Seriously, throw anything you want at me.


----------



## emigre (Mar 11, 2013)

Wizerzak said:


> I can honestly think of literally only 3 reasons as to why consoles may be better than PCs:
> 
> 
> Possibly a few days earlier launch on some titles
> ...


 

Console exclusives?


----------



## Scuba156 (Mar 11, 2013)

Wizerzak said:


> I can honestly think of literally only 3 reasons as to why consoles may be better than PCs:
> 
> 
> Possibly a few days earlier launch on some titles
> ...


How about a brick? Can I throw that at you?


----------



## Wizerzak (Mar 11, 2013)

emigre said:


> Console exclusives?


Dammit I thought I wrote that. >.<

Anyway, to counter, PC has literally tons of exclusive games (many being indie)that never arrive on console. Consoles have maybe 4 or 5 per console that don't make PC.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Mar 11, 2013)

Wizerzak said:


> Dammit I thought I wrote that. >.<
> 
> Anyway, to counter, PC has literally tons of exclusive games (many being indie)that never arrive on console. Consoles have maybe 4 or 5 per console that don't make PC.


 
Best solution - buy one of each.

PS3, 360, Wii, and PC.  Now I'm not missing anything.

Well, out of that generation, at least.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 11, 2013)

Sicklyboy said:


> Best solution - buy one of each.


 
Way ahead of ya. PS3, Wii U, desktop PC. Yep, I got it covered.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Mar 11, 2013)

Wizerzak said:


> I can honestly think of literally only 3 reasons as to why consoles may be better than PCs:
> 
> 
> Possibly a few days earlier launch on some titles
> ...


 
Personally:

Price
Portability
Ability to game/stream while someone else is computing (I can work on my _cheap_ laptop while my wife games/streams on our _cheap_ console, and vice-versa)
Convenience
No bullshit DRM
All of which I mentioned much, much earlier and was met with "you're lazy" and "consoles are inferior".  Contrary to popular opinion in this thread, I never said consoles were a superior gaming platform...  Someone else said consoles were "inferior" and I asked why.  People could not accept the notion that there are circumstances and situations where PCs are not the most economical option or that some people just want to play a game and have no need for the best graphics, access to thousands of exclusive/indie games, multitasking, gameplay recording, etc...  I might buy 2 new games a year and a handful of digital downloads/pre-owned titles.  Why would I need all that stuff?  Anyways, Scuba156 and McHaggis have already said everything I should have said to begin with...


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 11, 2013)

We'll use DRM they said. It will prevent customers from resorting to piracy they said.

So, company uses draconian DRM, they underestimate the no. of purchases, countless people try to log on and overload the severs' capacity, EA temporarily pulls ads for Sim City, possible account ban if you complain against EA for not refunding. Yep, a surefire plan for customer retention. Where have I heard of that happening before...oh wait, I never have.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 11, 2013)

Wizerzak said:


> I can honestly think of literally only 3 reasons as to why consoles may be better than PCs:
> 
> 
> Possibly a few days earlier launch on some titles
> ...


 

Cheaper console price (a great gaming computer that plays everything well will probably fetch around $1000+)
More streamlined
Local multiplayer
Better controls (for some people/games)
Some great exclusives


----------



## emigre (Mar 11, 2013)

Wizerzak said:


> Dammit I thought I wrote that. >.<
> 
> Anyway, to counter, PC has literally tons of exclusive games (many being indie)that never arrive on console. Consoles have maybe 4 or 5 per console that don't make PC.


 
I have around fifteen console exclusives on my shelf right now... 

I don't want to get into a consoles vs PC arguement  cuz each have their pros and cons. However I will criticise retarded points.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Mar 11, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> MS refurbed phat Xbox 360 - December 2009 - Console/headset/20GB HDD/2 controllers - $149.99+ MI sales tax...so you're right, I paid $158.98 which is more than half of $300.
> Not sure where I suggested I bought anything new.


For the record, I wasn't counting tax with that as it varies per state/province.  And that makes sense then, though I don't typically consider buying refurbished game consoles, though it's not a bad, cost efficient idea.



wrettcaughn said:


> Personally:
> 
> Price
> Portability
> ...


 

Price - neither here nor there.  Working retail I get to see game prices as they come out.  Most interesting example I saw where you're wrong on that is Prototype 2 - retailed at $60 for consoles, but was retailing at $50 for pc... then a week later was discontinued... I guess consoles won that one.

However, then you have digital download sales, on all platforms but more prominently on PC.

Portability - unless you're toting a gaming laptop, I'll give you that one.  I don't know many who would lug their PS3/360 somewhere (as I am bringing mine to my friend's tonight, go figure.)

game/stream - I mean... that *IS* kind of inherent when you have more than one device...

Convenience - if anything I see PC winning out here due to the fat that it's pretty much an all-in-one device.  Internet/Game/Multimedia/Emulation of most older consoles, and side-by-side processing of such tasks too.

No bullshit DRM - watch this change on next-gen consoles, I'm sure.  Probably going to be just as bad as it is on PC then.

Personally, I'd say that having a decent desktop is the king platform.  I know many who don't PC game though, and you ARE right in what you're saying.  What goes for others doesn't go for you, and vice versa.  I have all 3 game consoles from current/previous gen (Wii, 360, PS3), as well as a gaming desktop, a few Android devices, and most of the handheld game consoles currently.  I use my PC the most.  I also have the options of *ALL* of those other consoles, so I really can't complain period.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 11, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Cheaper console price (a great gaming computer that plays everything well will probably fetch around $1000+)
> More streamlined
> Local multiplayer
> Better controls (for some people/games)
> Some great exclusives


 

Don't forget not having to worry about DRM or rootkits that so-called anti-piracy measures install.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 11, 2013)

Wizerzak said:


> Dammit I thought I wrote that. >.<
> 
> Anyway, to counter, PC has literally tons of exclusive games (many being indie)that never arrive on console. Consoles have maybe 4 or 5 per console that don't make PC.


 
I have at least 7 PS3 exclusives sitting on my shelf right now.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Mar 11, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> We'll use DRM they said. It will prevent customers from resorting to piracy they said.
> 
> So, company uses draconian DRM, they underestimate the no. of purchases, countless people try to log on and overload the severs' capacity, EA temporarily pulls ads for Sim City,* possible account ban if you complain against EA for not refunding*. Yep, a surefire plan for customer retention. Where have I heard of that happening before...oh wait, I never have.


That is NOT what happened.  He didn't just complain or ask for a refund.  The idiot threatened to report EA for fraud.


----------



## Wizerzak (Mar 11, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> Personally:
> 
> Price
> Portability
> ...


 
As for the price:


Everyone has a PC nowadays, it's basically a requirement in 1st world countries. Besides, if you don't you have no business going and buying a console.

So, assume the average family PC costs about £300-£400. And a good gaming PC costs about £800
£800 - £350 = £450 (this is how much extra you are spending to get a gaming PC instead of a home pc, think of it like buying a home PC then a console on top)
Average console launch price (previous gen, maybe more next gen) = £300
£450 - £300 = £150

Now say you buy 15 games for that console over that 5 years (3 per year, still not a lot). Console prices per game are about £40 on average, but I'll be generous and say £30.
15 * £30 = £450
£300 (console) + £450 (games) = £750

I have 200 games in my Steam library over the past 2 years and haven't spent more than £100 thanks to Steam sales (probably a lot less actually). That makes PC games + PC cost:
£450 (PC) + £100 (games) = £550.

That's a whole *£200* _*cheaper *_than console gaming. Now you can argue the prices of peripherals, upgrading, buying second hand console games or whatever, but you're still not going to get close.

Not to mention the fact that you now also have a top-spec gaming PC not only for playing games but video editing, multi-tasking and emulating as well.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 11, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> That is NOT what happened. He didn't just complain or ask for a refund. The idiot threatened to report EA for fraud.


 
I'm going to agree here, if you're really trying to accuse a company of fraud due to a server issue which renders the game unplayable then yeah, they feel threatened and will take action.



Wizerzak said:


> Not to mention the fact that you now also have a top-spec gaming PC not only for playing games but video editing, multi-tasking and emulating as well.


 
You'll probably pay more/as much for good video production software than you're computer, since we're assuming we're all good little boys here who buy their software.

The Adobe Master Collection (which has video editing, animation, audio editing, etc included) is like... $2,600 on their site.


----------



## Dr. Ivo Robotnik (Mar 11, 2013)

Oh good grief. SIMCITY THREAD. NOT PC VS CONSOLE THREAD.

On the matter of the whole fraud accusation thing - I'm in two minds over it. On the one end, calling it fraud and claiming your money back as such is pointless and really rather sad. On the other end, the fact that EA promised refunds and instantaneously backpedaled behind their 'um, at our discretion, honest.' copout is equally pathetic and deserves to be called out.

So in conclusion - claiming money back on a fraud claim is stupid. Refusing refunds over an exceptionally shoddy release after promising same is nasty.


----------



## emigre (Mar 11, 2013)

Wizerzak said:


> As for the price:
> 
> 
> Everyone has a PC nowadays, it's basically a requirement in 1st world countries. Besides, if you don't you have no business going and buying a console.
> ...


 
Good gaming PC costs £800.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Mar 11, 2013)

Wizerzak said:


> As for the price:
> 
> 
> Everyone has a PC nowadays, it's basically a requirement in 1st world countries. Besides, if you don't you have no business going and buying a console.
> ...


And if my computing needs are limited to Word and Excel?  Who says I buy consoles at launch prices?  I usually try and stay 3 or so years behind "the latest thing" so as not to have to pay out the ass for it and then catch up on the big releases of the previous few years (which at this point are significantly discounted...).  If I only spent $150 (£100) on my console, then I've made up the £200 cheaper in your figures right there...not including discounted/pre-owned games.  Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Mar 11, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I'm going to agree here, if you're really trying to accuse a company of fraud due to a server issue which renders the game unplayable then yeah, they feel threatened and will take action.


 
At the same time, EA's EULA/Origin's TOS do not sit above EU law, where the good or service sold was not as advertised and/or defective (edit) which warranted a refund.

Though I don't know enough about EU law to back the intricacies of it, that is just what was where he got off saying he was going to claim a malicious charge on his card.


----------



## Wizerzak (Mar 11, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> And if my computing needs are limited to Word and Excel? Who says I buy consoles at launch prices? I usually try and stay 3 or so years behind "the latest thing" so as not to have to pay out the ass for it and then catch up on the big releases of the previous few years (which at this point are significantly discounted...). If I only spent $150 (£100) on my console, then I've made up the £200 cheaper in your figures right there...not including discounted/pre-owned games. Different strokes for different folks.


Fair enough, but:


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Mar 11, 2013)

Wizerzak said:


> As for the price:
> 
> 
> Everyone has a PC nowadays, it's basically a requirement in 1st world countries. Besides, if you don't you have no business going and buying a console.
> ...


Okay, I buy a used PS3 for $150.

And then I hack that PS3 so games cost a grand total of $0 (cause we're all pirates here right?)

That's a whole _*$150*_ compared to the $700+ you would spend on a gaming PC. Not to mention all the exclusives I would get.


----------



## Wizerzak (Mar 11, 2013)

soulx said:


> Okay, I buy a used PS3 for $150.
> 
> And then I hack that PS3 so games cost a grand total of $0.
> 
> That's a whole _*$150*_ compared to the $700+ you would spend on a gaming PC. Not to mention all the exclusives I would


Good luck getting a used console at / within a year or 2 of launch for $150.

Even more good luck getting a hacked console within 4 years of launch.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Mar 11, 2013)

Wizerzak said:


> Fair enough, but:


Come on now...  I got around to Portal in 2011...give me a little credit


----------



## Wizerzak (Mar 11, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> Come on now... I got around to Portal in 2011...give me a little credit


Did you know a Portal 2 is coming out in 3 years time?


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 11, 2013)

Wizerzak said:


> Good luck getting a used console at / within a year or 2 of launch for $150.
> 
> Even more good luck getting a hacked console within 4 years of launch.


 
Then get a console at launch. The Wii U is $300. The PS4 is rumored at $400.

Still beats the $1000+ you'll pay for a GOOD gaming computer.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Mar 11, 2013)

Wizerzak said:


> Did you know a Portal 2 is coming out in 3 years time?


Actually, I grabbed it for $10 during the Xbox Ultimate Games Sale last summer.  Still sitting on it though...was playing Fallout: New Vegas...


----------



## Wizerzak (Mar 11, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Then get a console at launch. The Wii U is $300. The PS4 is rumored at $400.
> 
> Still beats the $1000+ you'll pay for a GOOD gaming computer.


You appear to have missed my post with all the maths.


----------



## Dr. Ivo Robotnik (Mar 11, 2013)

I think the original point to this thread hasn't so much faded as much as it has been brutally butchered. Could be me. 

I'll go look into other things to post, I s'ppose.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 11, 2013)

Wizerzak said:


> You appear to have missed my post with all the maths.


 
I'm just not seeing the point in trying to disprove that PCs are "cheaper" when they're not. Yeah, if you pirate every game or get them on a lag then the game prices will be better but same on a console.

To go to the aforementioned car metaphor, a PC could be a Mustang and a console could be a Honda Civic. In the end they're still cars, in the end they'll still drive me from point A to point B in relatively the same manner, the difference is that one's a little fancier but more expensive. You invest more into something you get more.

Also consoles get a lot of exclusives that PCs don't. Just looking at my game shelf now we got: As I said before, I've got at least 7 PS3 exclusive games, not to mention PS2 HD ports and PSN-owned games.

Consoles have pros, PCs have pros, no one is superior, can we just fucking deal with it?

EDIT: For the record I drive a Honda Civic and have driven a Mustang. Mustang's drive nicer but I've driven the Honda a lot more and it's perfectly fine. It's reliable and has gotten me everywhere fine.


----------



## boombox (Mar 11, 2013)

It's pretty rich for them to ban your whole origin account on asking for a refund.
That's low. But EA are a bag of sh*t when it comes to customer service and infamous for DRM


----------



## Wizerzak (Mar 11, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I'm just not seeing the point in trying to disprove that PCs are "cheaper" when they're not. Yeah, if you pirate every game or get them on a lag then the game prices will be better but same on a console.
> 
> To go to the aforementioned car metaphor, a PC could be a Mustang and a console could be a Honda Civic. In the end they're still cars, in the end they'll still drive me from point A to point B in relatively the same manner, the difference is that one's a little fancier but more expensive. You invest more into something you get more.
> 
> ...


I'd rather the Mustang myself.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 11, 2013)

Wizerzak said:


> Good luck getting a used console at / within a year or 2 of launch for $150.
> 
> Even more good luck getting a hacked console within 4 years of launch.


Okay, I'll throw a curveball here.

Let's say that you have bought that gaming PC of yours at the beginning of the last generation, meaning late 2005 - early 2006. Can you honestly say that all contemporary video games are working perfectly fine on it now, in 2013, without having to upgrade any of the base components at all?

That's the whole point behind having dedicated gaming hardware - you pop a game in and it _"just works"_. With PC it's not always so simple - you have to consider background processes, increasingly demanding OS'es _(not memory-wise anymore, but Aero does take a toll on the GPU which is something worth noting)_, tons upon tons of libraries and loads of other gunk consoles simply don't have to deal with.

Regardless of whether it's 2006 or 2013, a PS3 and a 360 work the exact same way - pop a game in and it works. You have a guarantee that the game will be playable on your hardware. With PC, no such guarantee is given.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 11, 2013)

Wizerzak said:


> I'd rather the Mustang myself.
> 
> Just sayin'.


 
I would too but I don't shit bills and piss coins.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Mar 11, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I'm just not seeing the point in trying to disprove that PCs are "cheaper" when they're not. Yeah, if you pirate every game or get them on a lag then the game prices will be better but same on a console.
> 
> To go to the aforementioned car metaphor, a PC could be a Mustang and a console could be a Honda Civic. In the end they're still cars, in the end they'll still drive me from point A to point B in relatively the same manner, the difference is that one's a little fancier but more expensive. You invest more into something you get more.
> 
> ...


Be careful with the car analogies Guild...  I compared a PC to a Ferrari and console to a Honda Civic (which I also drive *high five*) earlier in the thread and it deemed ridiculous...




Wizerzak said:


> You appear to have missed my post with all the maths.


You appear to have missed the $s and £s...
$1000 = £670


----------



## Wizerzak (Mar 11, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> You appear to have missed the $s and £s...
> $1000 = £670


That would be nice.

It's more like $1000 = £850 unfortunately.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Mar 11, 2013)

Whether or not a refund was deserved is beside the point

He threatened EA as a company by reporting the charge as fraud.  That is a very serious accusation, one that leads to law suits.
Brian (the Customer Service employee) never said that the customer would have his Origin account blocked.  He said that there was a chance that action would be taken against it.  That means there was a POSSIBILITY of some sort of penalty.
Customer Service does not speak for EA as a company anyway.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Mar 11, 2013)

Wizerzak said:


> That would be nice.
> 
> It's more like $1000 = £850 unfortunately.


----------



## Wizerzak (Mar 11, 2013)

I mean, that's how it's MEANT to be. When it comes to consoles, games and PC components it's far from that for some reason. We really get screwed over here in Europe for seemingly no reason whatsoever other than they can charge they because we have no other option (see region locking).


----------



## SuzieJoeBob (Mar 11, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> lol...if I was offended in any way I know where the report button is. I'm just confused as to where you started reading this conversation... It must've been sometime after Hells Malice started talking about one being superior over the other since I never said anything of the sort. In fact, my stance has been _diffrint strokes for diffrint folks__. _But go ahead and continue talking things out of context and assuming to know my intentions. It's kind of ironic that you jumped into the conversation (after it had ended I might add) and made it a point to tell me my posts were off-topic without yourself adding anything of any substance to the thread... "Report" and "Reply" have a few of the same letters so I can see how you might confuse the two, but "Report" is the one on the bottom-left of each post. At this point, I'm either a troll or misunderstood, meaning, you're either feeding the troll or an asshole...
> 
> *“I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”*
> 
> - Robert McCloskey


lol. People _actually_ using the "Report" button. When did this happen???


----------



## TheDreamLord (Mar 11, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I'm just not seeing the point in trying to disprove that PCs are "cheaper" when they're not. Yeah, if you pirate every game or get them on a lag then the game prices will be better but same on a console.
> 
> To go to the aforementioned car metaphor, a PC could be a Mustang and a console could be a Honda Civic. In the end they're still cars, in the end they'll still drive me from point A to point B in relatively the same manner, the difference is that one's a little fancier but more expensive. You invest more into something you get more.
> 
> ...


PCs can emulate, therefore that's a few extra consoles in that one 1000$. Then you have the fact that it does a lot more than a gaming console, and does more. THEN you don't have to spend money on controllers(bar the keyboard and mouse), peripherals, and games tend to be cheaper through Steam. Also you can download the games, with the less hassle of moving around or scratching a disk. It's also a more customised experience.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 11, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Cheaper console price (a great gaming computer that plays everything well will probably fetch around $1000+)


I posted one $120 less than the PS3 launch...


----------



## TheDreamLord (Mar 11, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> Whether or not a refund was deserved is beside the point
> 
> He threatened EA as a company by reporting the charge as fraud. That is a very serious accusation, one that leads to law suits.
> Brian (the Customer Service employee) never said that the customer would have his Origin account blocked. He said that there was a chance that action would be taken against it. That means there was a POSSIBILITY of some sort of penalty.
> Customer Service does not speak for EA as a company anyway.


 
Yeah, but somebody else in this thread posted a conversation too. They were threatened with an actual ban. Not just a penalty. And they weren't threatening marking the charge as fraud.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Mar 11, 2013)

Rydian said:


> I posted one $120 less than the PS3 launch...


lol...a semester @ community college costs less than the PS3 launch...  Not the best console or time period to compare to...


----------



## Rydian (Mar 11, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> lol...a semester @ community college costs less than the PS3 launch...  Not the best console or time period to compare to...


Well the 360 was $400 if that helps?


----------



## JoostinOnline (Mar 11, 2013)

TheDreamLord said:


> Yeah, but somebody else in this thread posted a conversation too. They were threatened with an actual ban. Not just a penalty. And they weren't threatening marking the charge as fraud.


Where? I did a search and can't find it.

And why is everyone in a PC vs Console debate?  It has nothing to do with the topic.


----------



## TheDreamLord (Mar 11, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> Where? I did a search and can't find it.
> 
> And why is everyone in a PC vs Console debate? It has nothing to do with the topic.


It was either here, or on Reddit. I'm scatter brained or whatever that'd be called.
Also I'm not sure.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Mar 11, 2013)

TheDreamLord said:


> It was either here, or on Reddit. I'm scatter brained or whatever that'd be called.
> Also I'm not sure.


I don't put much faith in a conversation some random person posted on the internet.  Even if it's legit, my third point still applies.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 11, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Well the 360 was $400 if that helps?


 
That's still a $320 gap from your "cheap" PC example.

Especially nowadays consoles are cheaper. I mean they're from like $200-$350 ($350 being the high-end Wii U model). Sure, the Nextbox and PS4 will be more expensive, but not the $600 the PS3 was at launch. Everyone knows that was a huge mistake.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Mar 11, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> That's still a $320 gap from your "cheap" PC example.
> 
> Especially nowadays consoles are cheaper. I mean they're from like $200-$350 ($350 being the high-end Wii U model). Sure, the Nextbox and PS4 will be more expensive, but not the $600 the PS3 was at launch. Everyone knows that was a huge mistake.


In all fairness, the PC he linked earlier was $480. Still 20% more costly than the launch 360, but then again, also $280 more than _current_ 360 pricing.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 11, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> In all fairness, the PC he linked earlier was $480. Still 20% more costly than the launch 360, but then again, also $280 more than _current_ 360 pricing.


 
(Not directed entirely towards you but since you brought up the info I missed) How long will a $480 PC stay relevant and usable? I mean I can assemble a cheap gaming computer for probably $500-$600 but in a few years it's gonna age rather poorly. If I invest $1000+ in a gaming PC it'll stay relevant for several years. But I can also invest $400 in a PS4 and it'll be getting games consistently for the same time span.

Computers are a huge investment and not everyone wants to spend that money on one. Not to mention consoles bring a lot to the table. I'm only now looking for a high end computer for video production and that's because that's my major.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 11, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> That's still a $320 gap from your "cheap" PC example.


lolno, $479 - $400 is not $320.


Rydian said:


> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883227448
> $479, $120 less than the price the PS3 came out at, and will play future games for a while.
> (Just a quick prebuilt example, if you want actual suggestions that's better for another thread.)


 




Guild McCommunist said:


> Especially nowadays consoles are cheaper. I mean they're from like $200-$350 ($350 being the high-end Wii U model). Sure, the Nextbox and PS4 will be more expensive, but not the $600 the PS3 was at launch. Everyone knows that was a huge mistake.


Somebody better pick up that phone... because I *called it*.





Rydian said:


> "But consoles get cheaper over time" - Because the hardware they're using gets older.  Same with PCs.  That PC has way more modern parts than the PS3, for example.  I could find you a cheaper/used one along the level of the PS3, but even theoretically you'd be much happier with newer parts than older ones.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 11, 2013)

Rydian said:


> lolno, $479 - $400 is not $320.


 
I thought you were talking about $120 from the launch PS3 which was $600. So +$120 = $720. My bad (not sarcastic).


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 11, 2013)

I like it how you're trying to be the contrarian here Rydian, but the truth of the matter is that a gaming PC will not support games with consistent quality over the time span of 7+ years without any upgrades along the way _(unless you get a ridiculously expensive build)_ wheras console games are scaled to work... well, on a console. Like I said it earlier in this thread - pop it in and it _"just works"_, unlike with PC which is far more _"High-Maintenance"_ in comparison.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Mar 11, 2013)

Rydian said:


> lolno, $479 - $400 is not $320.
> Somebody better pick up that phone... because I *called it*.


 
Wait...does that $479 include a monitor?


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 11, 2013)

Gaming PCs don't have Dragon's Dogma so pffffffffft.

Go play your shitty RTS games, I'm gonna stab a dragon in its asshole while it flies off into the sunset.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 11, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I'm gonna stab a dragon in its asshole while it flies off into the sunset.


That sounds quite sexual.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 11, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I mean I can assemble a cheap gaming computer for probably $500-$600 but in a few years it's gonna age rather poorly.


My PC right now is using 2009 parts and still plays all the new releases.  New games are coming out with 5-year-old video cards listed in their requirements.

  The discrepancy is because you're not measuring PCs and consoles the same.


When it comes to PCs, you take a PC from a few years ago and compare it to a PC of today and it looks weaker.  You won't be able to turn the settings up as high, so you think you're getting less because you can see the "more" right there.


You take a console from a few years ago and compare it to a console of today and it's... *wait, it's the same console*.  There are no settings to tweak, and if there are they're locked at what the console can make, _so you don't think you're getting less because the "more" isn't dangled in your face_.

Technology has progressed in both cases, but the console in peoples homes have not, so there's no gap people _think_ they need to cross.  The gap is THERE, it's just the consoles don't display the progression as quickly.  If you get both a gaming PC and a Console at the same time, they'll continue to play games of the same level for the same amount of time.  Yes you will need to eventually lower the graphical settings on the PC, _just like ports to the console will cut back on features and graphics in order to run on the hardware when it gets older_ (or if it started out weaker than average in the first place, obvious Wii mention here).

Consoles aren't magic boxes, they're cheap prebuilt gaming computers with a locked OS/boot.  The CPUs they use are modified desktop CPUs, the GPUs are modified desktop GPUs (often less-so than the CPUs), etc.





Foxi4 said:


> I like it how you're trying to be the contrarian here Rydian, but the truth of the matter is that a gaming PC will not support games with consistent quality over the time span of 7+ years without any upgrades along the way


I've done it.  People just tend to get crap or don't get good deals for the money in the first place.  When you get a console you're getting a good deal on (mostly-)balanced hardware right off the bat.  There's no "Gaming computer!" with Intel graphics, if you get a 360 you're getting the same capability as your friend is, and you're getting the best deal the creating company could get to put acceptable hardware in that plastic case.  _They did it for you_.



Foxi4 said:


> _(unless you get a ridiculously expensive build)_


In general, people don't even mention stuff like the Geforce Titan because... that's just stupid.



Foxi4 said:


> wheras console games are scaled to work... well, on a console.


The phrase you're looking for is "cut-back" 





wrettcaughn said:


> Wait...does that $479 include a monitor?


No.

Does that $400 include a TV?

Nice attempt though.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Mar 11, 2013)

Rydian said:


> No.
> 
> Does that $400 include a TV?
> 
> Nice attempt though.


Attempt at what exactly? When you originally posted that PC my response was:


> I have a console for when I want to play video games. And I have a laptop that I take with me pretty much everywhere I go for work. One stays home, while the other goes. One remains in use by family while the other is used by me. And I promise that I paid less for both of those combined than you did for your PC (that I'm guessing can only be used by one person at a time).


What I failed to point out then, was that I actually paid less for my console and laptop combined than the cost of the PC you _linked_...(and my computer came with a screen)
I paid for the ability to do all the things I _want_ to do.
While you paid (substantially more, I'm sure) for the ability to do all the things you _want _to do, plus a plethora of things you'll never go anywhere near.
So, who got the better value?
Answer:
I got the better value for _my_ purposes while you got the better value for _your_ purposes.
I'm able to console game on the family TV (which we actually won in a raffle, otherwise we'd still be using our 32" CRT...) while my wife and son can look at dinosaurs on the laptop.
I can plug numbers into my Excel spreadsheets for work while my son is streaming Go Diego, Go! on Netflix.
You spend far more time on your computer so you are able to find more value in customization/power/multitasking/etc...

Not everyone is a gaming "purist" who needs to experience every pixel, blade of grass, indie game, etc... to find value in the experience. Claiming one to be superior over the other is simply a matter of perspective...


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 11, 2013)

Rydian said:


> No.
> 
> Does that $400 include a TV?
> 
> Nice attempt though.


 
TVs are a thousand times more commonplace than a monitor. It's not exactly a fair comparison to say that an investment in a monitor is no different than that of a TV.


----------



## McHaggis (Mar 11, 2013)

Sicklyboy said:


> At the same time, EA's EULA/Origin's TOS do not sit above EU law, where the good or service sold was not as advertised and/or defective (edit) which warranted a refund.
> 
> Though I don't know enough about EU law to back the intricacies of it, that is just what was where he got off saying he was going to claim a malicious charge on his card.


Yeah, that's pretty much it.  If he lives in the EU, they're not permitted to deny him a refund if the game doesn't work as advertised or described.  The UK's Sale of Goods Act bolsters that law; it's your statutory right to request a refund for defective goods and services within a specific time frame depending on the classification.  For example, a claim can be made against an electronics retailer for misrepresented or defective goods up to 6 years after purchase (not sure how it works with digital goods).  However, it's _always_ the seller's responsibility and _never_ the manufacturer's, so if he bought the game from a retailer he has to request a refund from them.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 11, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> TVs are a thousand times more commonplace than a monitor. It's not exactly a fair comparison to say that an investment in a monitor is no different than that of a TV.


Wasn't, just pointing out that the initial price isn't everything you need to enjoy it.

Also PCs with HDMI-out, TVs with VGA, etc... I can hook my PC and my dad's netbook and lots of laptops I've seen into my bedroom TV via HDMI and/or VGA depending on what's available.



wrettcaughn said:


> Attempt at what exactly?


Saying that my price wasn't the only purchase you need to game.

I mean depending on how technical you want to get there's things like an internet connection, a router for those consoles that are Wifi-only (remember the Wii U complaints?), etc.


----------



## xist (Mar 11, 2013)

I know that there's a tangential discussion going on here but i'm curious...does this always on DRM require a connection that works at a particular speed? I'm curious as to whether someone with a highly unreliable connection (in terms of speeds) would even be classed as having an internet connection (by the DRM).


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 11, 2013)

xist said:


> I know that there's a tangential discussion going on here but i'm curious...does this always on DRM require a connection that works at a particular speed? I'm curious as to whether someone with a highly unreliable connection (in terms of speeds) would even be classed as having an internet connection (by the DRM).


 
If the connection is so unreliable and unstable, chances are it may not even attempt to connect to verify the game. I've had rotten luck with that and certain games, so instead of trying to argue with the DRM and crappy ISP for their "service", I resort to other means to play the game I legally obtained. This right here is the very thing they claim the DRM curtails, which is ironic. Sad, but true.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 11, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> If the connection is so unreliable and unstable, chances are it may not even attempt to connect to verify the game. I've had rotten luck with that and certain games, so instead of trying to argue with the DRM and crappy ISP for their "service", I resort to other means to play the game I legally obtained. This right here is the very thing they claim the DRM curtails, which is ironic. Sad, but true.


Well assuming there's no actual packet loss and the issue is just low bandwidth, most DRM things can connect fine.  I downloaded/updated and played Steam games over a tethered cell connection for like two months.

It's when you have terrible jitter or straight-up packet loss that stuff goes sour.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 11, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Well assuming there's no actual packet loss and the issue is just low bandwidth, most DRM things can connect fine. I downloaded/updated and played Steam games over a tethered cell connection for like two months.
> 
> It's when you have terrible jitter or straight-up packet loss that stuff goes sour.


 
Which is what happens in my apartment complex, packets drop and jitter goes to hell faster than Oprah on a baked ham. The douchebags that set up the infrastructure use the world's worst routers where they try to have multiple apartments on the same router try to connect (often fifteen connections on one router, which is a generic D-link POS). To make matter worse, the routers use the same channel, which cannot be modified unless an IT "specialist" is on called to visit the complex to check it out. As a result, games that require internet DRM cannot be activated reliable, so what do I do? I find a patch, oh sorry, I meant to say "my connection is so reliable I don't have to worry, therefore I don't have to download those nasty cracks that evil pirates use since I'm a paying customer", am I right? 


Seriously, internet DRM only makes for more legit customers suffering and does not efficaciously curtail piracy.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Mar 11, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Wasn't, just pointing out that the initial price isn't everything you need to enjoy it.
> 
> Also PCs with HDMI-out, TVs with VGA, etc... I can hook my PC and my dad's netbook and lots of laptops I've seen into my bedroom TV via HDMI and/or VGA depending on what's available.
> 
> ...


 
Was merely saying that my $200 laptop does not require the purchase of a separate monitor or my taking over the living room TV in order to use it, whereas, the PC you linked costs nearly 2 1/2 times as much and requires a means of viewing it (making the living room TV unavailable should someone else want to use it).  We do not have flatscreen TVs in every room, nor do we have multiple computers or consoles.  Our priorities are savings, home equity, healthcare, and dependable vehicles (in no particular order).  My _cheap_ laptop is for work.  My _cheap_ console is for fun.  Avoiding paying for unnecessary bells & whistles by making purchases that reflect specific needs/wants really shouldn't be such a foreign concept, even to such a young community.

If I felt compelled to get a PS4, for instance, I could easily afford to save $50 a month from now until release and get one.  I could set aside $100 a month for the next 8 months and get a decent PC.  But I feel no compulsion.  I have better things to spend that money on (remodeling my kitchen, new carpet and paint in a couple bedrooms, a riding lawnmower, getting a few trees in the yard removed, a new treadmill, etc...). Perspective.


----------



## SifJar (Mar 11, 2013)

And now, the UI (and DRM?) source code of SimCity has apparently been leaked online: https://gist.github.com/anonymous/5133829 

EDIT: Of course, it's rather long, so I didn't bother trying to read it. It could just be random Javascript with some SimCity references added for all I know.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 11, 2013)

SifJar said:


> And now, the UI (and DRM?) source code of SimCity has apparently been leaked online: https://gist.github.com/anonymous/5133829


 
This is what I say to EA


----------



## Dr. Ivo Robotnik (Mar 11, 2013)

SifJar said:


> And now, the UI (and DRM?) source code of SimCity has apparently been leaked online: https://gist.github.com/anonymous/5133829
> 
> EDIT: Of course, it's rather long, so I didn't bother trying to read it. It could just be random Javascript with some SimCity references added for all I know.


 
That's not entirely unexpected. Amusing, though.


----------



## Scuba156 (Mar 12, 2013)

SifJar said:


> And now, the UI (and DRM?) source code of SimCity has apparently been leaked online: https://gist.github.com/anonymous/5133829
> 
> EDIT: Of course, it's rather long, so I didn't bother trying to read it. It could just be random Javascript with some SimCity references added for all I know.


I had a glance, all I can say is that they sure don't like to name their variables at all.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Mar 12, 2013)

2km x 2km cities what the fuck were they smoking?! this isn't simcity it's sim neighborhood!
cities XL is better than this


----------



## Pleng (Mar 12, 2013)

I read this thread yesterday (back when it was a SimCity thread) and ended up buying the original Worms on GOG.

Not sure how the link came about... but anyway!


----------



## McHaggis (Mar 12, 2013)

SifJar said:


> And now, the UI (and DRM?) source code of SimCity has apparently been leaked online: https://gist.github.com/anonymous/5133829
> 
> EDIT: Of course, it's rather long, so I didn't bother trying to read it. It could just be random Javascript with some SimCity references added for all I know.


After a quick investigation, the first part ironically appears to be source code for Google Closure Compiler, whose main purpose is to minify/obfuscate and improve code.  Which makes me wonder why they don't just include the minified output in the game.  Further investigation shows that the code was dumped from the public beta, not leaked (leaking implies an employee posted the code online).  Near as I can tell, it's completely useless for anything other than cheating at the game.  It won't help with the server issues because the game involves cloud computing, the server-side source code would need to be leaked and replicated to be able to crack it for playing locally.


----------



## Hadrian (Mar 12, 2013)




----------



## DSGamer64 (Mar 12, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> I like it how you're trying to be the contrarian here Rydian, but the truth of the matter is that a gaming PC will not support games with consistent quality over the time span of 7+ years without any upgrades along the way _(unless you get a ridiculously expensive build)_ wheras console games are scaled to work... well, on a console. Like I said it earlier in this thread - pop it in and it _"just works"_, unlike with PC which is far more _"High-Maintenance"_ in comparison.


 
And in the last few years we have seen how much consoles struggle to run games the same as PC's do at the highest settings. No console game runs at 1080p right now, hell they can't even break 720p with the 360 and PS3 anymore because the latest games are using all of the hardware to it's maximum potential.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Mar 13, 2013)

So, since I think this was at one point a thread about Sim City, I'm just gonna throw this out there for your reading pleasure.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/03/12/simcity-server-not-necessary/


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Mar 13, 2013)

I remember a time when this thread was about a PC game that was launched last week.... good times.. good times.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 13, 2013)

Sicklyboy said:


> So, since I think this was at one point a thread about Sim City, I'm just gonna throw this out there for your reading pleasure.
> 
> http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/03/12/simcity-server-not-necessary/


Yup, that's why I've been calling it nothing but DRM in my posts, since it's not a technical necessity (unlike MMOs and such).


----------



## JoostinOnline (Mar 13, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> No console game runs at 1080p right now, hell they can't even break 720p with the 360 and PS3 anymore because the latest games are using all of the hardware to it's maximum potential.


Actually the Wii U does.


----------



## DSGamer64 (Mar 13, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> Actually the Wii U does.


 
No, Wii U games at launch aside from Scribblenauts, are running at 720p


----------



## wrettcaughn (Mar 13, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> And in the last few years we have seen how much consoles struggle to run games the same as PC's do at the highest settings. No console game runs at 1080p right now, hell they can't even break 720p with the 360 and PS3 anymore because the latest games are using all of the hardware to it's maximum potential.


And for the thousandth time, no one here is arguing that console power is comparable to PC power.  Some people just put more into convenience and affordability than power.

I'm now convinced that there are more black Michael Richards fans than there are PC gamers who acknowledge resolution and graphics aren't the be all end all of gaming...


----------



## Sicklyboy (Mar 13, 2013)

My Sega Genesis doesn't run at 1080p and I still think the games on it look damn good.


----------



## Kouen Hasuki (Mar 14, 2013)




----------



## Sicklyboy (Mar 14, 2013)

Kouen Hasuki said:


>




Why... are they walking... why are they doing that...


----------



## Dr. Ivo Robotnik (Mar 14, 2013)

Sicklyboy said:


> Why... are they walking... why are they doing that...


 
Mostly because, from what I've read, the game's pathfinding isn't so much bad as much as it is practically non-existent.


----------

