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

[kristianity77]

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]

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.

 

[retKHAAAN]

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]

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]

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.

 

[retKHAAAN]

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]

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]

"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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Also relevant:

 

[Rydian]

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.