Slashdot Mirror
In Wake of Poor Reviews, Amazon Yanks SimCity Download
An anonymous reader writes with an excerpt from Geek.com: "In what must be a big blow for EA and Maxis, Amazon has stopped selling download copies of the just released SimCity. The game has at time of writing received 833 reviews on Amazon, and has an average rating of just one star. That's because 740 of those are one star reviews. Only 20 people gave it 5 stars. There's few better ways to gauge how a game has been received, and this is pretty damning as to how EA has handled the launch."
Not sure if this is good for the PC games industry, or bad. It's good, because games with bad DRM shouldn't succeed. It's bad because I like PC games, and want the industry to focus on PC games again.
Any other big releases with always on drm that actually are playable in the first few weeks that you can remember?... I can't remember any such titles recently.
I bought the sucker yesterday and it doesn't work at all. Can't get past the launcher. If only I had just downloaded the pirated version I would have a working game.
Too bad they made all the money from the idiots who pre-ordered. Never-ever-ever-ever pre-order a game, unless you don't mind getting literally nothing in return. Uninformed markets are broken markets.
I really want to buy SimCity, it looks pretty awesome, but I'm not going to allow EA to treat me like a thief and I'm certainly not going to pay them for the privilege.
Use always-on, internet-requring DRM they said. It will work fine, they said.
Sadly, EA will not admit DRM is the problem, they will just attribute it to "overwhelming demand".
Not to exempt the game from all criticism, but the one that's constantly cropping up is 'always on DRM'. Perhaps there is, I honestly don't know, but if so it's only part of the story.
The game is partly calculated server-side. This is why you need a constant internet connection, because some of their servers are doing the work for you. This is almost certainly also why they've collapsed in a heap.
It seems there are enough legitimate criticisms of the game without trotting out the true-but-half-the-story "always on DRM" line. I assume they'll eventually fix the servers and I need to wait for the Mac version anyway, but I'm still concerned - much more worried by fundamentals such as the overall city size for instance.
Cheers,
Ian
Since it's not in the summary, here's a (referral-free!) link to the download, where you can read the reviews.
Joy! Beautiful spark of the gods!
Alegedly it's not "just" DRM. EA has stated that their servers are handling some portion of the gameplay itself.
Anyway, it sucks that this game probably won't be playable after the servers inevitably go offline in a few years. Guess there's no room for nostalgia in the world of cloud computing.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
The game has at time of writing received 833 reviews on Amazon, and has an average rating of just one star. That's because 740 of those are one star reviews. Only 20 people gave it 5 stars. There's few better ways to gauge how a game has been received...
A star rating on Amazon is one of the best ways to gauge a game's reception? On the contrary, I'd say the fact that 20 people rated a game that lacks basic functionality as worthy of five stars is an indication that the star system is ineffective and fails to tell you much of anything. Were those 20 people rating the graphics of the splash screen? We're they rating what they imagined the game would be like once they could save? Were they purists who believe saves are a form of cheating, and they welcome this new, more-realistic gameplay?
Actual discussion of what is good and bad is and always will be the best way to gauge a product's reception.
Alegedly it's not "just" DRM. EA has stated that their servers are handling some portion of the gameplay itself.
They are. It's actually pretty damn good, when it's working. It's funny, because I didn't even know people were having problems until the /. article yesterday. I was too busy enjoying the game to see what other people thought about it.
Another failure, i wonder when they'll learn. Sad part is Maxis is the one that's gonna end up getting hurt. City size is a joke (see SimTown). Can't actually save (thats half the fun!). No map editor (really!?). Dumbed down mechanics. Oh, and the kicker, ALWAYS ON DRM bahaha. No thanks. Did you see Amazon yanked it because it received so many bad reviews?
Wasn't there a similar backlash over Spore, another EA title?
What I want to know is why people still give money to EA when they pull these sorts of shenanigans.
The servers are handling a part of the game which is not that important. That is: The global marked placed. And while it is an interesting feature it is in no way vital to the system.
And I know this because I bought the game, and managed to play half an hour with absolut no internet connection and it worked fine. But then I wanted to change region, and I have been unable to play since. But once you get a game started you can normally play until you want to change to a new city. (Or the game crashes, or you look the wrong way).
even when 740 out of 833 people give something a one star review, 20 people will still give it 5 stars.
You mean, EA has only 20 employees?
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
A few hiccups are normal at the start. Bunch of whiners. They can just play the single-player mode until EA sorts it all ... oh, wait.
Biggest duds of the year? For whom? Certainly not Activision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_III#Sales
Sales
Before its release, Diablo III broke several presale records and became the most pre-ordered PC game to date on Amazon.com.[98] Activision Blizzard reported that Diablo III had broken the one-day PC sales records, accumulating over 3.5 million sales in the first 24 hours after release and over 6.3 million sales in its first week, including the 1.2 million people who obtained Diablo III through the World of Warcraft annual pass.[99] On its first day, the game amassed 4.7 million players worldwide, an estimate which includes those who obtained the game via the World of Warcraft annual pass.[99] In its second quarterly report, Diablo III was reported to have pushed Activision Blizzard's expectations. As of July 2012, more than 10 million people have played the game.[100] Diablo III remains the fastest selling PC game to date, and also one of the best-selling PC video games. As of the end of 2012, it had sold more than 12 million copies.[5]
Certainly not from critics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_III#Critical_reception
So unsuccessful that it was the 3rd best selling PC game of all time....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PC_video_games
The only alarm bells that will be ringing over at EA is that Amazon is full of libelous astro-turfers from "the competition" and internet trolls who are jelly of EA's success. The "poor sales" will be seen as a sign that their new-angled DRM is working since most people are Pirates and can't handle their masterful security scheme.
It isn't poor sales that is closing it down... It is high returns and chargebacks.
People are going first to their retailer (Amazon) for a refund, then the factory (EA) then their banks (Amex,Visa,MasterCard) ... If they follow that, at one of the three steps they will get a refund. And the people to fit the bill at the end of the day will be EA (and I don't know if you have ever seen amazon chargeback fees...).
Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
What is the reason for running aspects of effectively single player game play on a server?
Yep DRM.
even when 740 out of 833 people give something a one star review, 20 people will still give it 5 stars.
You mean, EA has only 20 employees?
Only 20 dedicated to astroturfing on Amazon.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
It's also apparently not working. Over on the Answers HQ forum, there are more than a few people complaining about corrupt cities that can either be abandoned or rolled back, usually resulting in huge population and money loss. I can only imagine what kind of chaos this causes with the influence that cities are supposed to have over each other. I wasn't able to even get into the game in the 2 days since it launched so I requested, and received, a refund from Amazon. Last EA game I ever buy.
They are hilarious. One person wrote about how the game had given him back his (real) life during the time it spend trying to connect to the server.
Maybe we aren't giving EA enough credit. Maybe they discovered the best DRM was to make a total crap game that no one would even attempt pirate.
We can't, though. You're anonymous.
/* No Comment */
It didn't sell to me either. I did, however, buy a 4-pack of its primary competitor, Torchlight 2 for $60 (the cost of 1 copy of D3) so that I could play with 3 of my friends. Torchlight 2, incidentally, was developed by the same team that developed Diablo 1 and 2. Funny how things work like that sometimes.
Eh? I see 1039 one star reviews.
To be fair, a lot of those one star reviews flat-out said they were refusing to buy the game due to "always-on DRM". I think Amazon has a policy that you're only supposed to review products that you actually own.
Alegedly it's not "just" DRM. EA has stated that their servers are handling some portion of the gameplay itself.
I call BS on that one. The servers may be handling the inter-city calculations but that's it. There's just no way that these mini-cities have so many calculations that a decent desktop stumbles with them.
Actually, it'd probably run a *lot* better if it was running entirely on the local machine. But that's not the point.
As was mentioned several times in yesterday's story, the setup itself was almost certainly designed this way as a form of DRM. It makes perfect sense- if enough critical parts of the game code run on the servers (and the end-user doesn't have direct access to the code), they can restrict access to paying customers only.
Sure, people can still pirate the "game" (or rather, the game client), but without access to the servers, it's pretty worthless in itself. You'd need to replicate the server functionality too- but EA obviously aren't going to let you have the code needed to run them! Sure, you could rewrite it, or hack the game to be entirely client-based, but if enough of the game is server-based, you'd have to rewrite a significant portion of the entire game from scratch.
Expect to see a lot more software (games *and* applications) use this model in future. I predicted it a few years ago- as a lot of people probably did, since it was a pretty logical step.
Of course, if a publisher is going to run things this way, they have to make sure that the servers run smoothly and are able to handle the load. Oops...
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Do you think that EA employees would rate their games that high? They've seen what goes in to the sausage...
Seriously - they're like the Mountain Three Wolf Moon Short Sleeve Tee
Here are some choice examples of 5-star reviews:
"Got me off my video game addiction!"
"Like Russian Roulette, slot machines and slicing your wrists all in one!"
"Great Loading and Queue screen simulator!"
Disclaimer; actually, it seems that EA may have been lying about the importance of the servers ain running Sim City. However, the principle stands (unfortunately); it should be possible to design software such that the client did the hard work, whereas the servers ran less intensive *but entirely critical and hard to replicate* code.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Given what peanuts it costs to rent some EC2 instances or something, I do expect anybody who wants to require a bunch of fancy server hooks to get it right. If they can't do that, perhaps they should back off and take on a challenge more in line with their abilities.
Yeah, and out of everyone I know who played the game (dozens, including me) there are maybe 1 or 2 that continue to play the game (I don't, though I'll pop in from time to time to see if anything has changed). The initial success was great and it sold like hotcakes. The continued success? Not so great because the game is so damn boring. I don't believe I'll be playing D3 in a decade from its release, like I was with D2- partly because the game sucks and mostly because I doubt Blizzard will keep its servers going that long.
EA ruins game. Amazon saves day.
I did this. Amazon was great. Return/refund is the only way EA will ever take a hint.
I suggest:
1. If you bought from Amazon return it. Amazon made it painless for full refund of my opened game.
2. If bought from Orgin ask for refund. EA says in press release you can do this. Though I hear problems from customer service
3. If you cannot get refund from Orgin/EA call credit card company and have them stop payment for defective product.
Maybe EA will fix if this hurts their bottom line?
If problems get fixed in a month or so you can always buy the game again. Otherwise not worth my time now to play with so many problems
I preordered a physical copy several weeks ago. I was never able to play the beta, because Amazon delayed my access code until it had ended. I have still not played the game, despite owning a physical copy. Tuesday, the game spent two hours completely downloading itself all over again, despite the physical copy. I was unable to join any servers in the US. It them refused to create a city once I was able to join a server in Europe. I gave up. Tried again Wednesday, still could not creat a city. Today, all servers were busy. Eventually got through, but was only allowed to play the tutorial, and about two minutes in the servers dropped out. Then back to unable to create city. Frankly, I knew this was coming. I hate EA for what they've gradually done to Maxis since the acquisition. I knew always-on DRM and shunting the region math onto the cloud was going to mean connection issues. What I didn't fully know is that my saves are on the server, and I cannot even create a game if the server is down. I love SimCity...I can remember many hours spend with SimCity (the original), SimCity 2000, SimCity 3000, and SimCity 4...and this looks like a welcome update. Shame I cannot play it.
http://www.gamechup.com/ea-refuses-to-refund-user-for-simcity-threatens-account-ban/ Very interesting chat-log... customer purchases the game which doesn't work, EA puts out a press release telling them that they will issue refunds, customer service associate tells customer to pound salt! Like he said... I hope this goes viral!
Diablo 3 was "unsuccessful" because people "only" played it for 60+ hrs before getting bored/disinterested/frustrated, instead of the 1,000,000 hrs they thought they'd get out of it after playing Diablo 2.
And those same people could log back in right now, patch to 1.07, and end up with an experience that was a lot closer to the D2:LoD clone they were hoping for.
Blizzard doesn't care what you do after the purchase, or whether you keep playing. They already have your money. If anything, many people stopping playing after first few days is better for them - less server load.
Yes, Diablo 3 was a roaring success - it made Blizard loads of money. I'd hazard a guess that this is big part of why EA dared to come up with similar scheme.
It's probably just SC's equivalent of matchmaking and DRM. If some minor calculations were being done server side, they could probably be done on any client machine and the lack of any subscription cost with the game means they certainly didn't invest much more in server hardware than they needed to prop up their DRM scheme. In any case it was shown that no more than 40 MB were downloaded from the servers for every hour of play and unless there's some serious number crunching to produce that data that any moderately powerful dual core processor can't handle, that functionality could have been emulated for an offline mode especially if it is all based around your interactions with other players.
There is no memory shortage. yes I have heard of XFCE. Go away.
I think there needs to be some clarification as to the nature of why the game thinks it needs to be always online. Some people have suggested that ALL the computing and simulation logic happens on EA servers, but this isn't true.
It has been shown that if you lose a net connection/connection to the server, the game will continue to run offline for about 20 minutes. During this time, YOUR city will continue to simulate properly. However, neighboring cities being developed by other people will freeze in time and be held in this state until such time that your connection is reestablished (if it doesn't before the timeout, the game session ends). Once it reconnects, the state of your neighbors is synced with your city and hence any changes to your neighbors' cities during the time you were offline will immediately be represented.
If you connection drops, your city lives in isolation. Once it reconnects, it returns to the world and is affected by the effects of your neighbors. If you happen to be developing a city next to a tard who is polluting like crazy, your city will suffer the effects. That's the whole purpose of the always-online feature - to provide this MMO-style relationship between players. BUT, given the game runs fine with your city if the connection drops, this is bullshit because it means it should be trivial to enable the player to just play on their own.
The simulation logic is there, available on the installed game. EA just doesn't feel it's worth having an offline mode despite it basically being readily set up for it - it thinks being interconnected with other players who might be dicks and ruin your city is much more important.
Raenex is a dickhead
This absolutely not true. Of course Blizzard cares about whether people are going to keep playing or not. It is a brand. It is IP with value. They do not want it watered down. Future sales matter, people's passion about it fuels the RMA, people buying collectors editions of future Blizzard games because of access to D3, posters, merch, a steady stream of small sales (like D2 got). On top of those concerns, top talent wants to go to places where they make great games. There are real people in these places.
Z
The global marked placed
You know how I know you posted from a mobile device?
Yeesh.. at least there's some good reviews out there.. for instance this one.
http://www.jonathancresswell.co.uk/2013/03/review-simcity/
"It's bad because I like PC games, and want the industry to focus on PC games again."
I call Troll. This is all bad and everyone knows it. There is no 'PC gaming industry'...the Personal Computer (PC) is a type of platform for consumer games.
The problem is the notion of requiring an internet connection to use. The problem is FEE PER USE.
DRM is bad for *any* industry in its current usage. Sure there is no law against properly implementing DRM in the right situation so not to harm your users, but that virtually never happens. Once DRM creeps into a type of media it is historically resulted in anti-user DRM implementations.
Lamenting something like 'PC games' is the exact wrong thing to notice. Lament FEE PER USE as industry standard across all gaming platforms.
Thank you Dave Raggett
otherwise it would be far too easy to cheat by hacking client-based logic.
it is quite easy to cheat. what's hard is getting away with it. they have sophisticated detection mechanisms along with an army of real people that monitor the online world for strange happenings.
The latency and bandwidth needed to send calculations back and forth to the server would be a huge waste and probably make it run slower than just 100% local calculations. The only real way to do server side calculations is to offload 100% (or near to it) to the server and then send what's needed to the client for the display and receive input from the client.
As a sucker who bought this game, let me share my two days experience with it.
Half the time the game won't even launch - It briefly flashes "Servers not available" then the text changes to "checking for update" with a progress bar 100% full. If you just let it sit there, nothing happens. Ever. What you need to do is alt-F4, and then try again until the server is back up. Once the server is up, you get to launch the game.
There are only two servers per most regions, and only one for Oceania. I signed up for West Coast, US #2, correctly guessing it would be available more often than US #1. By day 2, West Coast #2 was stuck on "Busy" so I switched to Oceanea
EA has been promoting the fact that the servers aren't region locked, but it seems like a stupid move given the game releases in those regions today and tomorrow, but they're already full with overflow players from north america....
I did not play Sim City as a child and so don't have any sentimental attachment to it - I enjoy the game but find the multiplayer experiance oddly silent. I was expecting voice chat, as is normal in multiplayer-emphasized games but rarely have I gotten so much as a chat response. Because literally every game is hosted online (single player regions are just locked games), EA had to use asynchronous communications - Functionally when you send a written chat, it has to be delivered to the other regional players in a periodic region update so chat messages can sometimes lag 2 or 3 minutes before showing up.
Now granted, I didn't go into this with a full origin friends list so it's been all pubbies, but in 7 games with 20+ players I've gotten one response to a basic greeting, that's a terrible ratio and I'm pretty charming.
The real kick to the shins is that most of the time the game just doesn't work. I've got a DVD in my drive that says Sim-CIty on it, and I just want to get back to Myrtle City - my highly successful singleplayer region on the Oceania server and continue work on New Wageslavedom, the adjacent settlement I'm also mayor of.
Unfortunately the Oceania server has just filled up and after giving me the longest loading screen in the world, literally 10 minutes, it says my city isn't available right now.
Don't buy this game
Not all the reviews: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/03/simcity-impressions-we-waited-ten-years-for-this/
A policy as you outline would be illegal in all of the EU, so I guess the moral is to buy from amazon.co.uk, not amazon.com...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Without payment or sheep? What kind of entertainment is that?
Posted by fallingcow above, reposted here for exposure.
Origin's "refund" policy: "... at our discression".
Don't believe the press release; They're declining refunds. Get a CC chargeback.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
The global marked placed
You know how I know you posted from a mobile device?
That's just a pour excuse like when people mix up "their" and "there" and "they're" and blame it on the spell-checker. Miner typos on an informal internet forum are not a problem (except for us pedantic Spelling/Grammar Nazis) but it is a dangerous president for real work just to say "it's not my fault, the predictive text feature on my phone is doing it".
You are responsible for what you post. You knead to cheque what you right.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Or PeerGuardian Linux.
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PeerGuardian_Linux
Music is everybody's possession.
It's only publishers who think that people own it.
Fuck Beta
~John Lenno
For a start, ok, let's look at the server load issues. Other games had server load issues too. E.g., WoW at launch, EA's own TOR, etc. They just had a login queue, but the servers continued working, and whoever got a connection, actually kept having it.
In SimCity's case they supposedly had a "login queue"... except it wasn't actually a queue. It didn't keep an order or adjust its predictions based on how many quit in front of you. It was just an enormous time (20 minutes!) being blocked from trying again. The clue that it wasn't really a queue was that it didn't change or even start differently if you tried different servers. You always got blocked for the same time, and there is no indication that someone who wasn't blocked and tried at the right time wouldn't skip in ahead of you. So, yeah, in 20 minutes you'd just get blocked again for another 20 minutes.
Not that it mattered for most servers, because they just were down and weren't accepting connections at all. So you wouldn't even get that joke of a "queue", you'd just get a network error.
And not that it mattered if you actually managed to connect, the server would die and nix your connection before you even managed to actually claim a city, or while trying to claim a city. (I.e., get your empty map to start a city on.)
I'm sorry, making a server that can only take a finite number of connections is ok and natural. You don't have infinite memory, nor CPU power, nor bandwidth. Making a server that crashes and burns if too many people attempt to connect, though, is just bad quality.
Not that it's the only case of bad coding. The game for example seems to have serious trouble even remembering the fucking settings. E.g., I keep deactivating the option to publish my achievements, but it seems to randomly pop back on. Especially it seems that a server crash makes it forget that option, which is to say, they fail to persist it. (And on top of that, when they pester me with it at the main screen, the game can't seem to tell if it's on or off anyway.)
Really, how stupid and incompetent does one have to be to botch saving the options, e.g., as some simple key/value pairs? I'm pretty sure even complete novices would find it hard to screw that up.
And really, what did they need multiplayer for, anyway? Reading their blog makes it sound like it being multiplayer opens so many oportunities and, werily I say unto you, make it a whole new game... except it doesn't.
The game is multiplayer in the same sense as publishing your minesweeper score makes minesweeper multiplayer. I.e., I can't even imagine how much brain damage someone would need to think that.
You can't actually be in the same city with a friend or anything. At most you can have your cities in the same zone and have a look at each other's city.
Plus, the sad part is right on the main menu screen, where it pesters you with that publishing your city events. The game tells you something to the tune of "Playing is more fun with friends! We can publish your game events in the GameLog for your friends!" Not an exact quote, but close enough and the meaning is that.
I'm sorry, but that's not "playing with friends", it's just putting a frikken log on the web. It's no more "playing with friends" than keeping a list of your Minesweeper scores on a blog page is.
I can't even imagine what kind of sad moron are they aiming for as a target demographic, that actually thinks publishing a list of events from an essentially single player game, is anything like actually playing a game together with some friends. Where the heck is the "playing together" part, ffs?
Even skipping after that, who the heck even cares to read such drivel on a web page as, basically, "PigBenis City reached 50,000 people?" Seriously, if some marketroid moron from EA is reading this, trust me, even if I were your BFF, I still wouldn't give a flying fuck about mundane events from your single player video game. The only people who care about that are those who can get something out of th
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.