EU release of SimCity officially bombs (who would have thunk it!)
- Thread starter raankh
- Start date
Recommended Videos
LOL! A bunch of people had a serious "Ooooh shiiiit" moment right there! Hmm ... maybe my estimate of an ETA for next week was a bit too optimistic. Doh.Colt47 said:
I'm beginning to lean towards the "they f**ked up something baaaaaad" idea more and more. This isn't looking like a simple issue of capacity. I'm thinking a department manager or KAM probably freaked out over something and started giving absurd orders a couple months back or something like that. "Get it out BEFORE the quarterly, or we DIE!" Cue the corporate pirates from Monthy Pyhton's Meaning of Life.
EDIT:
Found this on the amazon page, from a user:
"For those here who purchased the game through Amazon, I contacted them and they refunded the cost of the game and removed it from my library for me."
I'm guessing people are getting a refund since they can just buy it again if it's ever fixed. Not an option for me. I'm playing Sim City. At some point. Maybe. Damn it.
EDIT 2:
Hahaha, they've already stopped giving refunds .... The fun continues!
I'm in the UK ours comes out tomorrow, for some strange reason. But it was just a thought as I said, speculating on potential issues.N3squ1ck said:
Load testing a web server intended to host hundreds of thousands of people at once is harder than you'd think. They have to find some way to;Xarathox said:
a) accurately predict the number of people playing on launch day, so preorders + day one purchases;
b) do it early enough to perform the tests and still have time to make changes, so during the QA period probably a few months before launch;
c) actually simulate that predicted number of people playing the game on their servers, which is not as straightforward as it sounds given that video game software is a mite more complicated than a word processor or an email service.
Basically, day-one server problems for games with always-online requirements are the rule rather than the exception. It's very difficult for even large publishers like EA to accurately model demand and the capabilities of their own servers and still fit it into their development budget and timetable. Especially when it's much, much easier to do all of that after launch, where the load testing has been done for you by all the people actually playing (or trying to play) the game.
That part is understandable, if a developer has one mmo game running it doesn't make sense to buy all these servers to handle the launch then watch them sit unused after it dies down. For a smaller developer that could bankrupt them.Ranorak said:
But these is EA we're talking about. I would think they should be able to actually afford to keep those extra servers around because once the initial rush dies down for this game they can just prep those extra's for the next big game coming out. There's also the fact that unlike other developers they're trying to run a digital sales platform here.
We'd all love that, but the triple-A industry is under the delusion that it's them or the commie pinko thieving pirates.Mr Ink 5000 said:
Now, if only they developed *good* games that *didn't* cost an arm and a leg to produce and didn't insult the consumer with brazen nickel-and-diming, things might be different. DRM of this nature exists so the publishers have an iron-clad guarantee of recovering their expenses. If SimCity had been released as a single-player title with optional online features, EA would've lost a metric fuckton of sales.
And, unfortunately, seeing as the bottom line is what's most eloquent for EA, they'll repeat the experience. I paid for it, others paid for it - so they'll understand that as a green light to repeat the process. This just pushes games further towards a point of pre-programmed obsolescence and penalizes players for suffering from connection issues that are totally outside of their control.
DRM aside, though, and those asinine online features notwithstanding? It's quality Maxis stuff. It's deep and intricate and engrossing, and the addition of Specializations adds other means for your metropolises to make money.
So SimCity was actually a pretty good game until EA shat all over it?IamLEAM1983 said:
That's good to know I guess.
Captcha: vegan zombie wants grains!
Hi everyone.
I've registered to this forum just to say that I'm fed up by all you people still complaining that single player this, you're not interested in that, EA should have made the game like thia and that...
STOP COMPLAINING!
- The game IS multiplayer. Period.
- The game requires constant internet connection
- A company, even a multi-billion company like EA, CANNOT waste money to buy servers to accomodate the user rush the first week or so from the launch, sinche those servers will be useless a month from now; who should they sell them to at that point? You?? It would be a waste of money. Companies shut down for wasting money.
This game is made like it is. Is it crap that we cannot play at launch after we paid our money? yes.
Is it true that EA doesn't care because they already have our money? Go tell this to the tech guys that are constantly trying to fix all the issues since US launch last week.
BE PATIENT!!
In a few days the situation will smooth out.
Asking that this game should be played offline because you want to play it that way, ignoring all the "multiplayer" infrastructure that you don't care a dime about is nonsense. It's like asking to remove the Desmond parts in Assassin's Creed or letting Aerith live in FFVII.
THIS GAME IS SUPPOSED TO WORK THIS WAY! DEAL WITH IT.
If you want to ignore parts of it that are core to its structure, you're free to so that, but stop complaining that the game doesn't work like you wanted it to.
What you have in mind is a different game; go play it in your head!
I've registered to this forum just to say that I'm fed up by all you people still complaining that single player this, you're not interested in that, EA should have made the game like thia and that...
STOP COMPLAINING!
- The game IS multiplayer. Period.
- The game requires constant internet connection
- A company, even a multi-billion company like EA, CANNOT waste money to buy servers to accomodate the user rush the first week or so from the launch, sinche those servers will be useless a month from now; who should they sell them to at that point? You?? It would be a waste of money. Companies shut down for wasting money.
This game is made like it is. Is it crap that we cannot play at launch after we paid our money? yes.
Is it true that EA doesn't care because they already have our money? Go tell this to the tech guys that are constantly trying to fix all the issues since US launch last week.
BE PATIENT!!
In a few days the situation will smooth out.
Asking that this game should be played offline because you want to play it that way, ignoring all the "multiplayer" infrastructure that you don't care a dime about is nonsense. It's like asking to remove the Desmond parts in Assassin's Creed or letting Aerith live in FFVII.
THIS GAME IS SUPPOSED TO WORK THIS WAY! DEAL WITH IT.
If you want to ignore parts of it that are core to its structure, you're free to so that, but stop complaining that the game doesn't work like you wanted it to.
What you have in mind is a different game; go play it in your head!
ACtually EA did do large scale testing in their beta. They had all of these problems then as well if I remember correctly and one person got lifetime banned from ea for talking about it.Xarathox said:
I don't understand: Amazon has pulled the digital version from the store but not the physical one?
The reason was the server issues EA is experiencing at launch. The problem is not with the download of the digital version. Both digital and physical game users will have a hard time logging to the servers and playing the game for a few days.
Why pull just the digital download???
EA would be evil, but Amazon is plain dumb!
The reason was the server issues EA is experiencing at launch. The problem is not with the download of the digital version. Both digital and physical game users will have a hard time logging to the servers and playing the game for a few days.
Why pull just the digital download???
EA would be evil, but Amazon is plain dumb!
1. You said that on the Internet, Do you really think that's going to fix all the issues that everyone has with the game?Toothsaw said:
Just if they just kept it single player and without DRM, we wouldn't be in this massive mess.
2. If we don't complain, then in a years time, we'll be right back in this mess again this time next year with Sim City Ver. 2014.
Consumers have the right to complain and seeing how most people here bought an unplayable game, I mean, if I bought a bottle of Coke but got a leaking water bottle, I'd complain too.
3. ....You really signed up for this reason alone?
We know that and they know that, the problem is even knowing that, EA managed mess up their own DRM, preventing customers who paid 60 Euro a pop from using them game they spent their money on.
The Consumer knew the requirements, it was EA who dropped the ball by not being able to accommodate the DRM and Server usage they themselves arranged.
Sure, some people are sore about the switch from "player" to "players" but both sides of the coin are being screwed over by their failure.
Computer Servers for a Software Company with Online Games, No. Tanks around London City and a million dollar launch day, yes?
Look, They shut down Servers for older games all the time, can't be that hard to use some of the old Servers from FIFA 2012 and use them for FIFA 2013, right?
This isn't some Indie Company, these guys are loaded and if they got their act together, they could easily get the extra servers.
And even if they are un-used in a few months, plenty of other companies with online games to sell them too, could even make a profit if they play their cards right.
But more importantly, How do you know all those servers will be useless? Do you know something the rest of us don't? Even if half the Day 1 userbase drops off, there are still a large number of people who want to play the game they paid for.
Fair enough, but a company that big really should have saw this coming better.
Add this cock up to several other EA mess ups leading up to the release and it's kinda hard to cut them some slack.
....Does Desmond and Aerith prevent you from actually starting up the game? Period?
Desmond's existence doesn't prevent the free running and climbing mechanics from working, Aerith's death doesn't cause the Battle System to crash and stop you from attacking.
Plot events in games are MUCH different to actual gameplay and playing this game offline would solve COUNTLESS FUNCTIONALITY Issues.
And what about the people who do want to play single player? ignoring the fact that not everyone wants to play multiplayer all the time, something that you don't care a dime about is nonsense. That also would fix functionality issues and ease the strain on the EA Servers by lessening the workload.
Why should we stop? Imagine you bought a sports car that does 0 to 60 in .5 seconds and then it craps out before it even leaves the dealership.
"Stop complaining that the Car doesn't work like you wanted it to." says the dealer after he received YOUR money for a car that doesn't even work.
Wouldn't you be pissed?
Look, if you want to hold water for EA, all the more power to you, you have balls.
But if you do, Brace yourself, it's only going to get worse from here my friend.
Welcome to the Escapist!
Captcha: Bravo: Oh stop Captcha, you flatten me XD
1. Maybe they don't want to sell the game while it is still unplayable?Toothsaw said:
2. At least with a Disk, you actually have the game and can put it on your shelf for when the servers DO work.
Not sure if you can say the same thing about the Digital version, though I could be EXTREMELY wrong.
Besides, who buys Disk for PC games these days? That version wasn't going to get much sales anyway.
3. Well, I guess I was wrong about you carrying water for EA and I apologize.
Just the fact you said "EA Would be Evil".
Don't get me wrong.
EA did screw this up, just like Blizzard did 10 months ago with D3 and I'm angry as a bird for not being able to play the game whenever I want because the servers are too few to take the rush of users concurrently trying to log in and play.
They should have known better.
But the game IS supposed to work online for multiplayer interactions, even if we don't care and would like to play it offline as we did with all past SimCity games. But, as I said, this game is what it is: an online game that's built on multiplayer infrastructure.
I just said "stop complaining and be patient" because if EA, Acti-Blizzard, Ubisoft, you name it decide this is the way to go from now on, this will be the way to go from now on.
They are trying to fix the problem, they are not idling around, counting our money and laughing at server queues. They're doing the best they can and if it's not enough for us, they can't do any better right now.
We can flame out we don't want always-online DRMs, we can shout we want offline capable single player games, but there will be other games that get developed with an always-online structure in mind, or with DRMs that require constant internet connection and there will always be people who buy them and complain for the start-up mess and other that will take it easy and wait for the servers to balance the user count.
Gaming companies will not get better by reading our outlashes and our disappointment; they'll get better releasing more and more online-only games and trying different solutions each time.
In 10 years or maybe less we will suffer much less from this day-one, or week-one, issues. But not thanks to our harsh words and broken nerves, just thanks to their acquired experience and better online games infrastructure.
Regarding the pulling of digital edition by Amazon: if the servers for the game are still on, I will be able to download the game in the future; I won't be obliged to have a physical disk since, if the game is still supported, so will be the capability to get to my already purchased digital game.
Conversely, if the game servers will be shut down, having the physical disk is useless as it takes up space on the shelf and I can no longer play the game without a server running it.
In this scenario, having bought the digital version is better, since I won't waste space for a useless product.
What I think most of us are missing is that buying a game doesn't mean owning the game or having the right to play it whenever and however we want.
Has someone ever spent some time reading the End User Licence Agreement that comes with every game?
We buy the right to USE the software provided AS IT IS and the publisher has all the rights to change the way the software works or is available, unilaterally and without notice.
We agree to that every time we buy a game. Period.
If and when EA will pull the plug to SimCity servers, we will just stop receiving the service we have purchased; and this scenario is contemplated in the EULA. We can't complain that we bought a single player game and we want to play it in 20 years or so regardless of EA decision. We spent $60 on a service which will be delivered by EA for as long as they decide, not us.
If we don't agree to that, we don't buy the service, i.e. the game.
We can't buy it and then blame EA that one day the servers will be shut down and we won't be able to play anymore. They know that, we are supposed to know that and we are supposed to AGREE with that the moment we pay for the product.
Is it crap? Maybe. But still it's our choice.
We can stop buying online games to show our disappointment with this kind of games. They'll keep on making them if they see that there still enough people that's ok with these terms of service.
Personally, if the game is fun and I have a great time with it, who cares if it's going to end some day? Surely, by then, I'll have plenty of other things to do. There are just a couple of games that I kept playing now and then 10 years or so from release, so I don't think I'll be playing this SimCity for the next 10 years.
I'm paying $60 for a game that I'll be playing for the next few months and maybe some more in the next 2-3 years. But then I'll be over it. And in the months and years I'll spend with the game, I'll be having fun, and that's all that count. And that's what I've paid for.
When the servers are done, I'll move on to something else.
Yes, we are losing time with this day-one crappy server thing, but it's not that EA is considering to shut down servers at the end of march. When the problems are solved, we'll have plenty of time to enjoy the game.
It's just crap we can't have a good time with it right from the start! Crap crap crap!!
EA, come on! Fix this mess quickly!! I want to PLAY!!!!
Oh well, I'll just play a bit of Darksiders II in the meanwhile...
EA did screw this up, just like Blizzard did 10 months ago with D3 and I'm angry as a bird for not being able to play the game whenever I want because the servers are too few to take the rush of users concurrently trying to log in and play.
They should have known better.
But the game IS supposed to work online for multiplayer interactions, even if we don't care and would like to play it offline as we did with all past SimCity games. But, as I said, this game is what it is: an online game that's built on multiplayer infrastructure.
I just said "stop complaining and be patient" because if EA, Acti-Blizzard, Ubisoft, you name it decide this is the way to go from now on, this will be the way to go from now on.
They are trying to fix the problem, they are not idling around, counting our money and laughing at server queues. They're doing the best they can and if it's not enough for us, they can't do any better right now.
We can flame out we don't want always-online DRMs, we can shout we want offline capable single player games, but there will be other games that get developed with an always-online structure in mind, or with DRMs that require constant internet connection and there will always be people who buy them and complain for the start-up mess and other that will take it easy and wait for the servers to balance the user count.
Gaming companies will not get better by reading our outlashes and our disappointment; they'll get better releasing more and more online-only games and trying different solutions each time.
In 10 years or maybe less we will suffer much less from this day-one, or week-one, issues. But not thanks to our harsh words and broken nerves, just thanks to their acquired experience and better online games infrastructure.
Regarding the pulling of digital edition by Amazon: if the servers for the game are still on, I will be able to download the game in the future; I won't be obliged to have a physical disk since, if the game is still supported, so will be the capability to get to my already purchased digital game.
Conversely, if the game servers will be shut down, having the physical disk is useless as it takes up space on the shelf and I can no longer play the game without a server running it.
In this scenario, having bought the digital version is better, since I won't waste space for a useless product.
What I think most of us are missing is that buying a game doesn't mean owning the game or having the right to play it whenever and however we want.
Has someone ever spent some time reading the End User Licence Agreement that comes with every game?
We buy the right to USE the software provided AS IT IS and the publisher has all the rights to change the way the software works or is available, unilaterally and without notice.
We agree to that every time we buy a game. Period.
If and when EA will pull the plug to SimCity servers, we will just stop receiving the service we have purchased; and this scenario is contemplated in the EULA. We can't complain that we bought a single player game and we want to play it in 20 years or so regardless of EA decision. We spent $60 on a service which will be delivered by EA for as long as they decide, not us.
If we don't agree to that, we don't buy the service, i.e. the game.
We can't buy it and then blame EA that one day the servers will be shut down and we won't be able to play anymore. They know that, we are supposed to know that and we are supposed to AGREE with that the moment we pay for the product.
Is it crap? Maybe. But still it's our choice.
We can stop buying online games to show our disappointment with this kind of games. They'll keep on making them if they see that there still enough people that's ok with these terms of service.
Personally, if the game is fun and I have a great time with it, who cares if it's going to end some day? Surely, by then, I'll have plenty of other things to do. There are just a couple of games that I kept playing now and then 10 years or so from release, so I don't think I'll be playing this SimCity for the next 10 years.
I'm paying $60 for a game that I'll be playing for the next few months and maybe some more in the next 2-3 years. But then I'll be over it. And in the months and years I'll spend with the game, I'll be having fun, and that's all that count. And that's what I've paid for.
When the servers are done, I'll move on to something else.
Yes, we are losing time with this day-one crappy server thing, but it's not that EA is considering to shut down servers at the end of march. When the problems are solved, we'll have plenty of time to enjoy the game.
It's just crap we can't have a good time with it right from the start! Crap crap crap!!
EA, come on! Fix this mess quickly!! I want to PLAY!!!!
Oh well, I'll just play a bit of Darksiders II in the meanwhile...
When you think about it in terms of potentially huge amounts of lost revenue the answer is clear:erttheking said:
$60 launch price is not enough
More Day-1 DLC
More DLC in general
Shut off servers sooner to save some pennies
Lay off some employees / close a few extraneous developer offices
Blame the consumer
I am one of those folks that actually love Sim City.
But, alas, so far I haven't even tried to go forth and throw money at something that's just bound, if not guaranteed to piss me off.
What's the price point in EU land EA is going for? Is it still along the lines of those 1.5x to 2x $ shenanigans?
I used to register with EA with a number of email adresses. In the past years and months, they've changed to address me not in English, but spam me up with the language they deemed most appropriate depending on the country of origin of every respective mail address. Last week, I've had enough and I shut it all down. I really don't feel like having to navigate through EA's online crap in random languages, never being too certain what game/software version I'd get if I really wanted to buy something from them online. It's just not something I want to waste any time with, so it's really going back to boxed goods for me. Nice try, EA, nice try. You just completely blew it. Better luck next time.
captcha: don't waste time
But, alas, so far I haven't even tried to go forth and throw money at something that's just bound, if not guaranteed to piss me off.
What's the price point in EU land EA is going for? Is it still along the lines of those 1.5x to 2x $ shenanigans?
I used to register with EA with a number of email adresses. In the past years and months, they've changed to address me not in English, but spam me up with the language they deemed most appropriate depending on the country of origin of every respective mail address. Last week, I've had enough and I shut it all down. I really don't feel like having to navigate through EA's online crap in random languages, never being too certain what game/software version I'd get if I really wanted to buy something from them online. It's just not something I want to waste any time with, so it's really going back to boxed goods for me. Nice try, EA, nice try. You just completely blew it. Better luck next time.
captcha: don't waste time
My biggest problem is their attitude, I... Just don't get it.
On a Norwegian gaming site, they tried to get a refund, that did not go down that well.
http://static.gamer.no/images/13/1382/138205/61bbe87891f267ba9e6ccbca4dfe2fa2_easupport2_1306x606.f.png
Gave me a good laugh though, it's just beyond stupid.
To add to that, it conflicts with our laws, so wonder how that will pan out.
And people wonder why I don't like EA...
At least they did not get my money this time! Hah!
On a Norwegian gaming site, they tried to get a refund, that did not go down that well.
http://static.gamer.no/images/13/1382/138205/61bbe87891f267ba9e6ccbca4dfe2fa2_easupport2_1306x606.f.png
Gave me a good laugh though, it's just beyond stupid.
To add to that, it conflicts with our laws, so wonder how that will pan out.
And people wonder why I don't like EA...
At least they did not get my money this time! Hah!
They already gave them their money. That's why their called customers.lRookiel said:More dissatisfied customers that will not be giving EA their money you say?
YAAAAY
It's sad that EA haven't yet internalised the basics of their own business model (To paraphrase Mr. Young). They want to pull this always online shit, they need to have the infrastructure. It's onerous enough on the customer to force them to always have an internet connection of a certain grade, at the least there needs to be enough servers to run the shit. This shouldn't fly.
And, because band-wagons are comfy: OP: Bomb means it didn't sell. Not that it doesn't work. If a release bombs, it doesn't sell. This one sold, hence some of the errors.
Well, you just can't blame EA if you register different e-mail addresses from different countries.Headdrivehardscrew said:
They try to send you newsletters in your own language; it's you that have messed up with loads of different countries.
What did you expect them to do? Call you to sort it out and ask what language and email you prefer their newsletter delivered?
Come on.. You could have gone to each of your different accounts on EA and select to receive the newsletter only on one of your accounts.