EA gets even stupider.

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Looks like the new simcity game requires always online connection, the save files aren't even hosted locally they are hosted on EA's cloud.

http://www.destructoid.com/simcity-cranks-the-always-online-drm-up-to-eleven-240898.phtml

Which means if you disconnect for any amount of time the game will shut you out, plus it also means that you can only play the game until ea gets tired of paying for the servers, which will probably be sooner rather than later, I think they have shutdown the multi on games that were just a year old before.

Which is why I'm not getting it.

 

[Souplex]

Actually, EA is more like Cassidy, no? Destroying all the lives (or developers) it touches, and royally fucking you over, no matter how 'friendly' it appears to be.

true..but EA doesnt think its your freind

has anyone read the comicbook Preacher? (if not go do so...NOW)

theease days EA are eather the allfather (the "pope" who is so fat he consumes and makes himself vomit so he can consume more) or the child (the "saviour" a kid so in-bred he's retarded) I have trouble deciding which

I did!
That bit in the meat plant made me want to be a vegetarian for about three hours after reading it!

I was eating beef jerky at the time 0_0

Mmmm. Jerky.
That must have been horrible for you.

 

[Frission]

Its not the goal of getting preventing piracy. This is a lost battle from day one.

It all comes down to a simple lesson Blizzard learned with WoW. The easiest way to get a new guy playing is by having his friend play with him.

By forcing the playerbase into an online community then that community becomes a force of its own and will add value to your game. It is downright counter productive to split your community and allow for half of them to do their own thing in this scenario.

So in other words it has never been about piracy at all. It was just an excuse. I hope you don't mind if I say your reasoning about splitting the community is stupid. Really. You're doing no one a service this way.

I'm also using this post to respond to alot of your other posts. I would like to say however, that I'm not attacking you personally. Now to begin.

[now had special privileges when it came to the franchisee?

Furthermore the "core" gameplay for you that I saw the last post isn't the "core" gameplay for me, so now what? We going to have a pissing contest over who is right here based on who is the bigger fan? Then the winner would get to say yay/nay to the game?

Or we could ignore each others opinions on the subject and get on with our lives. Buy the game if we like it and ignore it if we dont without the idea of self importance imposed by liking the last one.

I can understands gamers can sometimes whine. They will also always complain, however your attitude is different and has become prevalent in the game maker industry. You don't just censor out baseless criticism, you completely ignore any criticism. Eventually you're going to end in a situation where you self complete ignoring everyone.

You certainly can't please everyone, but you can't just say "fuck you" to your fans. That's is quite frankly a stupid way to run your company. You're free to do that, but don't be surprised when you lose sales and end up with a bad reputation, because you will have deserved it. I get the impression that you work or you're planning to work in games. If you're going to automatically blame clients for something the industry may do, then you're going to piss alot of people off. Don't set a relationship based solely on antagonism. Too many game companies operate seeing their main clients as their enemies.

I mean this is running a business 101 here.

I think what people are saying is that they dislike the fact that the old fans are being ignored to pander for a broader crowd, all the while taking out important features. Like we see in the latest news, games like that have a high sell rate at the start, but in the end don't sell as many copies, because they don't have a dedicated community. They didn't have good word to mouth and in the end were forgotten. Like a business you don't ignore the regulars. You don't listen to them a 100%, but you don't completely ignore them either.

You can dismiss my point by saying a publisher does what he wants, but I feel it's a good warning.

 

[Frission]

[

If your product is good it will stand on its own merits. If a game speaks to its player in ways they like then it will stand. Previous games are completely and utterly irrelevant to this point and by that merit so is the fandom.

Hey, you're the one saying this not me.

You didn't address the fact that you are in a way ignoring criticism. If you're going to tell fans to fuck off, then you are doing exactly what I'm saying. I don't even have to straw-man you.

Let me also refine stupid, to inconveniencing customers in a misguided attempt to help the "community" or whatever "forcing the playerbase into an online community" means.

 

[sageoftruth]

I've never been a big fan of piracy, but I hope everyone pirates the crap out of everything EA makes. It would be a beautiful irony to have EA's levels of piracy surpass Valve's.

 

[Frission]

Andrew C wondered where I got the idea of fan over inflated sense of self importance and here you are providing me with a direct example. Here you are making the old "Fans are the ones that make the success of the game you need their approval argument" and it is bogus.

While you're giving me direct proof of publishers who couldn't give a rats ass about the players. I never said anything about making the game, so kindly back off. I just said that bad PR is eventually going to cause problems. You're just jumping from one extreme to another.

I am pointing out that fan is a meaningless title. I am in no way saying you can ignore critique! I am saying you being a fan doesn't make critique anymore valid. Being a customer (or potential customer) makes the critique valid. Being a fan means no more that not being a fan.

You didn't bother to even read my post did you. You were actively saying that critique didn't matter. Where do you expect critique to come from? In the first few pages you brushed off critique saying that producers do what they want, without even acknowledging that some of those critiques or concerns might be valid. Nope, don't like don't play it. Either avoid it or buy it and shut up.

If you think that's stupid then watch this video. Then say whatever you want.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6098-I-Hate-Videogames-Because-I-Love-Them

You're the one distorting my arguments.

Furthermore I didn't say help the community. I said counter productive. Not for the players, but for those who make the game. There is the difference. Customers are not the be all end all in this equation. There are 2 sides. Not everything that is good for the customer is good for the publisher/developer. Here it is a pretty basic principal. In a multiplayer game more players = more content.
That you dont understand my argument doesn't make it stupid.

No the fact, that you can't see that being deliberately antagonistic to your customers is stupid. It's not a sound business model.

If you start seeing the people who buy your games as your main enemies, you're not helping your business. That's what you don't understand. Alienating people is never a good long term policy.

That's what you don't get. The publishers and the fans are in a way interrelated.

 

[Frission]

Find it and link it so I can know what you are referring to when you say I said "Ignore critique". Otherwise drop it.

"You dont like the product? By all means pass it up and look for a product that pleases you. Let that be that. Massive parts of the markets buy games for an online experience. Dont go arguing they are wrong just because dont want to be online."

I will talk about the absurdities of using always online on Simcity later.

It is like MMO's. They wont be able to to force people to play with each other, but they will be able to force them to play with each other. Ofc they will. There is absolutely no reason why Guild Wars couldn't have been made on the same model as Diablo 2 with a battlenet and an offline mode. BUT THEY CHOOSE TO MAKE IT AN MMO. Even thou it runs an instance based gameplay system that could easily be made into lan play, the whole idea was to get people online and form guilds and have tournaments.

You are not arguing what I am saying.

Of course I am. You're talking about a rapid shift that might anger or alienate fans, so whether it was intended to do so doesn't matter.

Besides Sim cities is not like Diablo. You can't make guilds or tournaments. If you want to do multiplayer then you should just use LAN. EA in this specific instance is being stupid.

Yeah I can see how that doesn't mean that the fans made the difference. I find it it more likely you cant read what you actually quote

I have to reiterate this since you made that argument up and then tried to put it in my mouth.

" I never said anything about making the game, so kindly back off. I just said that bad PR is eventually going to cause problems. "

P.S:

Avoid being condescending and saying "Wow strawman again and an appeal to emotion."
You're not an ace debater and I get the feeling you're just trying to use terms you learned in your high school debate club.

P.S.S: Yes I'm being condescending. I like using the other guys tactics.

 

[Frission]

Maybe you should have understood the concept of logical fallacies rather than just use Personal incredulity fallacy in order to defend yourself from me pointing out that you are using strawmen and appeals to emotion. At this point its not even a debate.

You think so? We can all day about special pleading, appeals to authority, the fallacy fallacy and false cause, peppered in with a bit of ad hominem. Avoid taking up debater lingo like that, especially when your application is arbitrary. Or composition and division about DRM.

"Yes me going around using your quotes to hold you accountable to what they say".

Funny, I would say the same thing.

""Fans are the ones that make the success of the game you need their approval argument" and it is bogus."

Are we going to keep quoting each other like this?

"Like we see in the latest news, games like that have a high sell rate at the start, but in the end don't sell as many copies, because they don't have a dedicated community. They didn't have good word to mouth and in the end were forgotten. Like a business you don't ignore the regulars."

I'm keeping that because it's true. A game in which can't build a dedicated following will not have alot of sells in the long run. It's especially hard when you're building off a completely new system off an old premise. So yes, that's what I said. There's alot of variables as you said, but I'm more pessimistic on the success of SimCity.

This is getting nowhere anytime fast. You're trying to make a point about me that I don't feel applies and I'm not sure whether you're just projecting or reading into my arguments. I'm pretty sure I'm doing the
same thing.

Let's stop this.

 

[Frission]

Ok there is the point of misunderstanding.

I read your full quote

I think what people are saying is that they dislike the fact that the old fans are being ignored to pander for a broader crowd, all the while taking out important features.

I thought you meant that that the dedicated community was the old fans since you brought them out.

That you were arguing a point I didn't make about ignoring all critique enforced this idea.

I am still just arguing that old fans shouldn't be pandered to on the premise that they are old fans.

You're right there. It should just be remembered that unless you're sure you'll get enough people to still like your game or enough "old fans" to jump to your old game, you're still doing a pretty risky thing. Something tells me that EA should just rethink this, because I'm not saying this out of spite. I have a sinking feeling that this game might tank.

I could be wrong though.

Anyway, I guess that's all I wanted to say and I got what you're trying to say.

Have a nice apocalypse.