Discussion about Always-On Connection to Origin

[macvirt 361]

And I never said that the self-correcting aspect of the market would be the ONLY thing necessary. For an obvious exception, consider the casinos

I'm merely pointing out that no such thing as self-correcting exists. What we do see in this industry is that parameters are built in as tresholds, connected to signal methods. Alerting, if you will. After which intervention follows. A part of that tends to be programming, but with hard limits. Beyond those hard limits, you find manual intervention. That can take the shape of patches, even DLC introducing changes, but also direct intervention within the transactions or parameters for the market.

[John-SJ 13]

I know that others have already mentioned Cities XL and the community backlash to the online only option, but I just learned of this today and I was shocked and dismayed that EA/Origin didn't learn from the Cities XL experience, The game developer went bankrupt because of it for Pete's sake!

I know EA/Origin will not suffer that fate, but come on! Didn't they learn anything?

So, just in case they missed it, we don't WANT multi-play, we want the ability to build cities and create mods. An always online requirement can only DECREASE the user base.

Signed,

Annoyed!

[macvirt 361]

I know that others have already mentioned Cities XL and the community backlash to the online only option, but I just learned of this today and I was shocked and dismayed that EA/Origin didn't learn from the Cities XL experience, The game developer went bankrupt because of it for Pete's sake!

I know EA/Origin will not suffer that fate, but come on! Didn't they learn anything?

So, just in case they missed it, we don't WANT multi-play, we want the ability to build cities and create mods. An always online requirement can only DECREASE the user base.

Signed,

Annoyed!

Eh, no ... really, think about it. How many people (available as a volume of market out of basic economic requirements) are there who out of principle or derivative circumstances do not wish or cannot meet an online play requirement. Then think about what percentage they constitute of available volumes of users globally available as market.

Online play only increases the available market.

The same goes for the sandbox / builder / puzzle / core type of user. There are quite simply less of those users, and they cost more to make happy, than there are potential users of the casual and leisure and social type categories who just want to play a game, shout about it, and coast along while being an easy target (because of the behavioral connections to those type categories) for the next shiny to spend more and more on the same game.

It is a personal decision, an individual and subjective decision - to buy or not to buy. There is an excellent exchange of arguments and insights in here by the way on that. Which includes the bright sides and prospects.

Just please, don't confuse SC4 with SC2013 from the point of expectations. Same franchise, different era - different market and user focus. As long as the product sells enough there is potential for caring devs (who can do smart sales presentations internally and to EA) to deepen the experience - which some may see as "finishing" the product, but so be it, that is the reality of this industry today.

[baertooth 330]

I read a tech/nerd blog called Slashdot.org. I consider it a real barometer of the views of the market that's going to primarily buy this game (and understand that at $60+ dollars, this isn't so much a causal game any more). There was an article recently posted there talking about a related subject and in the comments section, without prompting, the issue about ORIGIN and Simcity being online only came up. I don't know what's going to happen. Maybe SC2013 reboot will be successful. Maybe not. All I know is Slashdot crapped all over the idea and I'm waiting to see if it's worth buying (and right now I'm leaning against), and this is coming from a customer who should have been a guaranteed sale otherwise.

And this is Slashdot, a blog that's followed by a million nerds. This isn't some forum or blog that's easy to dismiss. It's visited a group of people who are smart, tech savvy, parents, employed, and who game in their spare time. At no point was there ever any support for EA or anyone who said, "Yes, this is what I want." concerning the subject of online only. In fact it was very negative.

I'm not a smart person. But to me that says they shrank their market, not expanded it. And the reality is EA, Maxis, and SC2013 reboot have a serious problem. Most of what I read (from people, not "reviews and previews" of SC2013) is mixed at best, leaning to negative.

If EA and Maxis really wanted to expand their market, they should have made it more inclusive (online and offline) instead of exclusive (online only).

[macvirt 361]

I read a tech/nerd blog called Slashdot.org. I consider it a real barometer of the views of the market that's going to primarily buy this game (and understand that at $60+ dollars, this isn't so much a causal game any more). There was an article recently posted there talking about a related subject and in the comments section, without prompting, the issue about ORIGIN and Simcity being online only came up. I don't know what's going to happen. Maybe SC2013 reboot will be successful. Maybe not. All I know is Slashdot crapped all over the idea and I'm waiting to see if it's worth buying (and right now I'm leaning against), and this is coming from a customer who should have been a guaranteed sale otherwise.

And this is Slashdot, a blog that's followed by a million nerds. This isn't some forum or blog that's easy to dismiss. It's visited a group of people who are smart, tech savvy, parents, employed, and who game in their spare time. At no point was there ever any support for EA or anyone who said, "Yes, this is what I want." concerning the subject of online only. In fact it was very negative.

I'm not a smart person. But to me that says they shrank their market, not expanded it. And the reality is EA, Maxis, and SC2013 reboot have a serious problem. Most of what I read (from people, not "reviews and previews" of SC2013) is mixed at best, leaning to negative.

If EA and Maxis really wanted to expand their market, they should have made it more inclusive (online and offline) instead of exclusive (online only).

I definately agree with your closing comment. But this is the result of how one hand decides the strategic focus on a basis of completely different targets and motivations than the other (subordinate) hand who does the actual work. What is important here to realise is that this industry is increasingly dividing itself in (more or less) two schools of thought for mainstraim titles / franchises: those that believe that profit and continuity comes from control, and those that believe the answer lies not in control but in synergy (the interaction between all parts of the picture, where the whole is bigger than the mere sum of parts or the latest projections for bonus payouts).

It does not take a genius to see how in commercial terms the latter has more breath than the first. The reality however is that in today's trends of cultural development worldwide that is irrelevant. The first makes more money faster, and thus increasingly negates the potential of the second to also make money (and last longer to make more money). Look at most studio's today, they end up becoming part of the first - it is not without reasons why companies like EA buy them. It's not because greed is good, but because of the perception that without the short term prioritisation they cannot set long term goals (which is where they get caught up in the confusion of their mentality, because they always end up with long term goals that come down to nothing other than control).

On the point of Slashdot, to a degree I agree. That is, there is always a risk using the methods of today that the marketing soap gets rinsed off by enough momentum to expose a reality (or create a perception of one) that it creates an effect on consumption patterns. The trouble is, Slashdot has become an increasingly US centric community (so to speak, demographics) which does make it a managable community to track. It helps that the US market is marginal for today's industry, other markets are just vastly larger (and cheaper). What matters in such exposure trends is not whether something pops up in, or even "takes over" one such community / information source, but whether multiple ones start interfacing by means of social media. Visiting forums is one thing, a niche thing if only because these are communities with a deep rather than wide angle. Social media however does not see such walls or canals. It's the proverbial air that all those places breathe, and they share it.

So the interesting point is not so much what is said at Slashdot, but how that is shared - by what means. If that is social media, that is a potential problem. Not just because so much of the sales potential depends on exactly those same social media, but because the pace of social media is not something any company can ever hope to compete with. It's a race against a million bunnies at lightspeed. By the time you have a meeting done they have bred a trillion screaming mutants You get the idea.

What is interesting in industry research is that - there are exceptions (related to lines publishers should not cross, like being seen to squeeze the customer or brushing off the customer publicly once caught) - for the most part it really does not matter what is said in even the largest information hubs. Not even how vehemently that is discussed. What matters is the cross hub and speed factors of social media. This is not simply a case of "that creates a trend", no. It creates a "verdict". There is no competing with impressions already shared at high speed everywhere.

Once upon a time ceo's and marketeers alike were convinced that there is no such thing as bad press. These days it still largely does not matter whether press is good or bad (so to speak), what matters is whether you can control the speed of press. This today is one of the biggest reasons why in this industry people are so increasingly careful with how little to say before release. Heck, no such risk is even taken with beta programs, they now only really exist as means towards exposure with limited time until product release.

I should mention, keep in mind that the majority of verbosity online in community or information hubs rests with vocal minorities. While others see or hear that, it remains within the walls, and the underlying motivators are often simply not shared. For example, people may create a (justified) drama on EA's Origin.. Trouble is, most people do not blink twice or think twice. Or even care. At the end of the day, societies are made to be tired and sit with a desire to not think too much and be entertained.

Don't get me wrong here, SC2013 is increasingly turning out to just not be my type of game. I had hoped for it, but so be it. I expect, even need, a deeper reach for the fun and spoils I seek. Maybe that will come over time, perhaps with DLC expansions that make the game less shallow and shiny. Perhaps only after proper moddability is enabled (aka once Maxis decides it is up to the customers once again to nurture SC2013 the way they did with SC4 to keep the franchise and flagship perception alive cheaply).

On the bright side, perhaps people can put together enough information so that the people at Maxis can make a sales presentation pitch to EA so EA sees the point of how history in any industry shows that not forcing customers creates cheaper and more financially (short and long term) rewarding revenue tracks than the perpetual costly race of trying to control customer trends (and just compensating by trying to sell the accumulated profiling data)

[John-SJ 13]

Sixty dollars plus?

In that case, it doesn't matter how good the game is, or how good it is claimed to be. I will not spend $60 on any game.

Many of the arguments being made in favor of SC2013 sound very similar to the arguments made by Monte Cristo around the time of the release of Cities XL. I have to admit, the arguments made then by Monte Cristo and now by EA/Origin/Maxis/Whoever sound real good on paper. But as Monte Cristo found out, sounding good on paper is not exactly the same as being good where the rubber meets the road, in the market place.

I get no satisfaction over seeing companies/games fail, but as things stand right now, I for one will not beadding to its success by supporting it with my dollars,

[macvirt 361]

Sixty dollars plus?

In that case, it doesn't matter how good the game is, or how good it is claimed to be. I will not spend $60 on any game.

Many of the arguments being made in favor of SC2013 sound very similar to the arguments made by Monte Cristo around the time of the release of Cities XL. I have to admit, the arguments made then by Monte Cristo and now by EA/Origin/Maxis/Whoever sound real good on paper. But as Monte Cristo found out, sounding good on paper is not exactly the same as being good where the rubber meets the road, in the market place.

I get no satisfaction over seeing companies/games fail, but as things stand right now, I for one will not beadding to its success by supporting it with my dollars,

CitiesXL was a classic case where the marketing talk was just that, marketing talk. No vision for depth beyond the idea of rapid revenue generation (for which the game quite simply lacked what was needed to spur deeper immersion than just what the marketing focus delivered).

This question of "is the marketing all it is" really is always the big question with most releases these days. Some titles do the marketing but also do the game, and that turns out fine. Sometimes those struggle a bit because prospect customers do not get a whole lot more until release than just the talk (something which impacts things like anticipation and expectation alike).

Never buy in to any marketing. Just dive in upon release, accept that it is not a next SC4, and see for yourself with the information available after release whether it ticks for you. If it does, cool. If it doesn't, maybe DLC will make it tick for you in time. Cause DLC these days is really the only mechanism (sometimes) allowed to deepen the product experience over time.

[brynhyfryd 222]

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2013/01/snes_classic_simcity_removed_from_wii_virtual_console

The above article shows just how easy it is for games to be taken away.

Expect a similar fate for SC2013 after 2 years when EA shut down the servers due to online only DRM.

[cirugo 1,889]

Sixty dollars plus?

In that case, it doesn't matter how good the game is, or how good it is claimed to be. I will not spend $60 on any game.

Many of the arguments being made in favor of SC2013 sound very similar to the arguments made by Monte Cristo around the time of the release of Cities XL. I have to admit, the arguments made then by Monte Cristo and now by EA/Origin/Maxis/Whoever sound real good on paper. But as Monte Cristo found out, sounding good on paper is not exactly the same as being good where the rubber meets the road, in the market place.

I get no satisfaction over seeing companies/games fail, but as things stand right now, I for one will not beadding to its success by supporting it with my dollars,

CitiesXL was a classic case where the marketing talk was just that, marketing talk. No vision for depth beyond the idea of rapid revenue generation (for which the game quite simply lacked what was needed to spur deeper immersion than just what the marketing focus delivered).

This question of "is the marketing all it is" really is always the big question with most releases these days. Some titles do the marketing but also do the game, and that turns out fine. Sometimes those struggle a bit because prospect customers do not get a whole lot more until release than just the talk (something which impacts things like anticipation and expectation alike).

Never buy in to any marketing. Just dive in upon release, accept that it is not a next SC4, and see for yourself with the information available after release whether it ticks for you. If it does, cool. If it doesn't, maybe DLC will make it tick for you in time. Cause DLC these days is really the only mechanism (sometimes) allowed to deepen the product experience over time.

If the online requirement isn't fixed I would recommend people steer clear. It's the only way that companies will stop doing it.

[Jim14409 448]

<quote>If the online requirement isn't fixed I would recommend people steer clear. It's the only way that companies will stop doing it.</quote>

I could not agree more. We all need to learn to take a stand and not be manipulated if we want things to change. Big business will only look out for their interests and not ours as long as it doesn't impact their bank account.

If I buy a game I expect to be able to play it whenever or wherever I want to without any restrictions other than something to play it on. An always on connection or online play takes those options away from players. I'm not interested in renting the game.

[macvirt 361]

Yep, this game needs to have an independent, offline single player mode where we can connect multiple cities in a region.

Period. End of story.

Ofcourse it does. Look at the type of game that it is. It engages people to create, to replicate and to simulate. It sells a dream, even more so than that it sells a virtual world. People tend to invest a lot in that, as long as they are flexibly enabled to make it "theirs".

Yes, social and sharing is a hot item. Yes, it is financially very valuable to collect, sample and sell accumulated profile data on users and trends. Yes, it is also valuable to be able to reach those with snapshot extra sales.

But Maxis should make EA clear that this is not a shooter. This is not even a "god game". To a degree it is, but a god game is a game where people are enabled to apply actions (calculated and arbitrary) but ultimately it is not "theirs" as a dream. Ofcourse it can be a dream to meddle with those puny mortals, but it is one thing to mess with their dreams than messing with your own. And that is the hallmark here (a lesson Firaxis actually also learned from similar challenge points following the Civ V release), SC is bought because you can make it yours to create, yours to replicate, yours to simulate. Many will shout about that, many will play with others with or without shouting about it.

Ultimately this is a sales issue. Do you engage in the race to continuously refresh sales points via DLC to users who are the leisure type players? Ofcourse, but we all have the research available that shows that those user types buy less DLC than those who are core users. Ofcourse, we can try to turn leisure type players into casual or core types - it's not like we have not seen three dozen other studio's figuring out that the turnover from that is utterly neglegible for longer than a 1 to 3 DLC pitch.

I can go on, but really this is a case of 1) brand value of long term customer loyalty and exposure, 2) franchise customer communications, 3) franchise customer sales cycles and 4) the lolinternets. Sorry, could not resist that last one

It's simple, these matters are why it is smarter to guide customer trends to adaptation without forcing adoption. I know, nobody has dared to actually present that sales research slide yet at EA HQ. Someone will have to do so however. For a company that operates as an investment fund it is easier to function the way it does now, but in relation to what goes in and out the effective margin is really getting quite low.

[snick25 384]

If the online requirement isn't fixed I would recommend people steer clear. It's the only way that companies will stop doing it.

I could not agree more. We all need to learn to take a stand and not be manipulated if we want things to change. Big business will only look out for their interests and not ours as long as it doesn't impact their bank account.

If I buy a game I expect to be able to play it whenever or wherever I want to without any restrictions other than something to play it on. An always on connection or online play takes those options away from players. I'm not interested in renting the game.

I echo these sentiments. Those who like the idea of what SimVillage stands for, go ahead and buy it, but those who don't do their research and buy the game because "it's the next SimCity" are simply wasting their money. Why? It isn't SimCity. Not what it once stood for, at least. Is that bad? Not necessarily; that question is entirely subjective. But the online, cloud nature of this game, combined with the infamous invasiveness of Origin, as well as the suffocating restrictions imposed on the player can hardly be seens as good things. At least IMO.

[LegacyID 7]

For me is simple by each day this game is aproaching the release day. This game look ore like SimCity Societies close to SimCity then a continuation of SimCity. I think the ones leading Maxis now was only juniors when SimCity 4 was out if any of them survived EA or at least none of those I have seen in videos about new SimCity are old enough to know something about the history of this game.

That woman which represent EA saying DRM always on is cause the game have to simulate 100.000 peoples of one city seems to know nothing about SimCity 4 which had cities with milions peoples and was runing fine on computers with lower specifications than we have now (i first playied SC4 on 800MHz cpu if I remember right) and the problem was the long comuting time created by the traveling between cities. We had CitiesXL experience let them have it too.

Origins is another reason I decided to not buy this long waited game, I cannot agree with their EULA and the way they are interfering with my computer so for me this long waited game is no more a waiting game. I only hope EA go bankrupt and a company interested in continuing the SimCity will buy the rights for the game or like it happend to another games downed by their publisher to become live by fans support.

[macvirt 361]

Sixty dollars plus?

Looks like EA has set the Deluxe Edition to €79,99 ...

Starting to wonder how much they are going to charge for custom regions. But we too will be able to create and share our own custom regions right? Right Maxis?

[Xenocity 343]

http://www.nintendol...virtual_console

The above article shows just how easy it is for games to be taken away.

Expect a similar fate for SC2013 after 2 years when EA shut down the servers due to online only DRM.

That is a bad example.

Nintendo had to license all the 3rd party games from the 3rd parties to get them on the Virtual Console.

Most of those licenses had experiation dates, including this version of Simcity which Nintendo co-owns with EA.

Simcity 2013 runs on Maxis servers not the EA servers.

Maxis has control over the servers they own as does every studio outside of the main EA brand.

Bioware and Dice also owns their own servers for their games (hence why Mass Effect and Battlefield games are still playable online)

Edit: you can still redownload any game you have bought digitally on a Nintendo system, even those that have been removed from purchase.

It just means no one can buy the game anymore.

[macvirt 361]

Trouble with that reasoning is the same set of arguments, just from a strategic perspective. EA decides strategic focus, and sets requirements and policies for studios.

Don't get me wrong, I doubt even EA would be that wierd in its reasoning (as to cutting off servers without allowing Maxis to present a continuity of use scenario). I cannot discount the possibility however as EA is EA. Particularly sad considering its origins, but the evolution of EA from creative umbrella to gaming house to something close to an investment fund has forced me to - over time - adjust my expectations of it. Only natural, as they changed, methods and priorities changed with it.

If I then look at how EA has presented itself, on purpose or through error, I can't really blame people for looking at it with an eyebrow raised, to a degree one of something close to mistrust even. On the bright side, folks at Maxis are not exactly stupid. And they do know how to make their case, relations even between studios and common publishers tend to have room for input as long as the studio knows when to make what case, and how.

[xelanamyt 0]

Hi,

I realise I will have to get Origin to get the new simcity which I have yet to do as I have always used Steam or GoG for my pc games over the past 5 years and therefore I have a few questions for people who have experience with Origin.

1. Can you pre-load games a few days early like you can on Steam?

2. When do the new games unlock to play? I ask as sometimes games on Steam unlock at a time in the US (eg PST) and I live in the UK so sometimes I have to wait longer and therefore its a bit pointless to use a days holiday for a new game on release day.

3. Any general points about Origin that might be unusual or unexpected after being used to Steam for so long.

Thanks very much.

[heetlv 0]

i Pre-orderit i got e-mail saying thanks for purchase that all and do not show in orgin it only shows 1 game not 2

[Xenocity 343]

I ordered my copy of Simcity through Amazon.com and will download it directly from them.

Though I will have to log into Origin servers via the game.

Only people who have to buy the game through Origin are:

• Mac users
  
• Those who want the Deluxe version (it is an Origin exclusive) on PC.
  

For the rest of PC users who are ok with the limited and regular editions, we can buy them from other retailers and forgo using the Origin Dekstop client.

Origin works similar to Steam.

[xelanamyt 0]

I ordered my copy of Simcity through Amazon.com and will download it directly from them.

Though I will have to log into Origin servers via the game.

Only people who have to buy the game through Origin are:

• Mac users
  
• Those who want the Deluxe version (it is an Origin exclusive) on PC.
  

For the rest of PC users who are ok with the limited and regular editions, we can buy them from other retailers and forgo using the Origin Dekstop client.

Origin works similar to Steam.

Thanks for the information, however I think I will have to buy it through Origin as I don't use disc based games anymore, to be honest with you I have no idea if my DVD drive works in my laptop, I haven't used it in over a year!

(p.s. Why was my post merged with this thread? I thought my questions were different enough from the usual "Origin" and "Always Online" questions/comments!)

[Xenocity 343]

I ordered my copy of Simcity through Amazon.com and will download it directly from them.

Though I will have to log into Origin servers via the game.

Only people who have to buy the game through Origin are:

• Mac users
  
• Those who want the Deluxe version (it is an Origin exclusive) on PC.
  

For the rest of PC users who are ok with the limited and regular editions, we can buy them from other retailers and forgo using the Origin Dekstop client.

Origin works similar to Steam.

Thanks for the information, however I think I will have to buy it through Origin as I don't use disc based games anymore, to be honest with you I have no idea if my DVD drive works in my laptop, I haven't used it in over a year!

(p.s. Why was my post merged with this thread? I thought my questions were different enough from the usual "Origin" and "Always Online" questions/comments!)

I ordered the digital download through Amazon, though it is only the limited edition ont the deluxe edition.

[Anderson Xeyed 23]

I didn't get Starcraft 2 or Diablo III or any other game that says "I'll have to be online" to play. Former "Cities XL from Monte Cristo", did the same and they died. will MAXIS follow the same way? I will not buy it if I have to be online to play, no way Sir.

That is it.

[Anderson Xeyed 23]

Sixty dollars plus?

In that case, it doesn't matter how good the game is, or how good it is claimed to be. I will not spend $60 on any game.

Many of the arguments being made in favor of SC2013 sound very similar to the arguments made by Monte Cristo around the time of the release of Cities XL. I have to admit, the arguments made then by Monte Cristo and now by EA/Origin/Maxis/Whoever sound real good on paper. But as Monte Cristo found out, sounding good on paper is not exactly the same as being good where the rubber meets the road, in the market place.

I get no satisfaction over seeing companies/games fail, but as things stand right now, I for one will not beadding to its success by supporting it with my dollars,

CitiesXL was a classic case where the marketing talk was just that, marketing talk. No vision for depth beyond the idea of rapid revenue generation (for which the game quite simply lacked what was needed to spur deeper immersion than just what the marketing focus delivered).

This question of "is the marketing all it is" really is always the big question with most releases these days. Some titles do the marketing but also do the game, and that turns out fine. Sometimes those struggle a bit because prospect customers do not get a whole lot more until release than just the talk (something which impacts things like anticipation and expectation alike).

Never buy in to any marketing. Just dive in upon release, accept that it is not a next SC4, and see for yourself with the information available after release whether it ticks for you. If it does, cool. If it doesn't, maybe DLC will make it tick for you in time. Cause DLC these days is really the only mechanism (sometimes) allowed to deepen the product experience over time.

If the online requirement isn't fixed I would recommend people steer clear. It's the only way that companies will stop doing it.

Myself didn't get the Monte Cristo Cities XL but only years late , when playing online talking stopped, that is by 2011. Didn't get neither Starcraft 2 or Diablo III , and I will steer out of Sim City, if it keeps mentioning online need. I don't want to be online and pay for telephonia companies services because they want me to...

[RoseCityAlive 9]

any word on the Mac version?

[Xenocity 343]

any word on the Mac version?

It is only purchasable through Origin.

should come out along side the PC version.

[Urban Cartographer 601]

Battle.net is becoming the next Origin in terms of pervasiveness.

I will not buy (primarily single-player) games that require an always-online connection. I want to play while not near a wifi hotspot, such as on the subway, on the road, or while waiting for an appointment.

[Herdervriend 46]

For me the online aspect of this game is actually not that big of a problem.

I have internet-connection 24/7 a day, though it's very slow (4MBPS).

So, I will not be really scared that I cannot play the game. For me there is a simple other reason.

The fact I do not have friends and I can't seem to make new ones either. That is what is worrying me.

Also, I have used Origin. But it's giving me troubles sometimes. Certainly with Battlefield 3.

It just seems to not wanna get started on my PC. While all needs are met for the game even on high lvl.

I liked how Cities XL was online at first moment. Way to buggy yes. But the fact you could actually play with unknown people. Was quite a lot of fun. Chatting while waiting for your stuff to build.

The last day of the online game version of that game was so awesome. I wished they could do it each day. But then, it ended. Which seriously traumatized me actually.

I played a lot of social network games also. Which sucked a lot. Because I couldn't get anyone to help me get better. Which also traumatized me a bit.

So in basic. For me the friend aspect of online play is the biggest problem I got. But the rest I do not really find any point in it.

For me it's just a question why they are making only games only lately. I mean. I do NOT download games, EVER! For me a game should be bought and not be downloaded to live the full experience. I sometimes get a keygen, just because I lost it from the original game I have at home. Where you can't find a new version of. But, I really hate downloading games. Quite hard to install to. The only things I download is music. And nothing more. So I find it hard. That I must suffer, for things other people do wrong. It's just unfair.

Though I will buy this game, just to test it out. But I do already know it's going to be a dissapointment, at least the online aspect. The building is nice.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I prefer having the physical disk for games as well but I have paid for digital downloads before. I also download from iTunes from time to time. I don't mind the online aspect, I just hope that Origin works the way I want it to.

--Ocram

[Dewm 177]

http://www.nintendol...virtual_console

The above article shows just how easy it is for games to be taken away.

Expect a similar fate for SC2013 after 2 years when EA shut down the servers due to online only DRM.

Simcity 2013 runs on Maxis servers not the EA servers.

Correct me if I am wrong, but at this point isn't SC:2013 SOLELY available on Origin?...which is EA's child?

I think you are wrong.. this is on EA servers...NOT maxis.

[P*Funk 12]

I prefer having the physical disk for games as well but I have paid for digital downloads before. I also download from iTunes from time to time. I don't mind the online aspect, I just hope that Origin works the way I want it to.

--Ocram

Well if Origin is charging $60 for the base copy while most new games on Steam are $50 with the only real exceptions being super super popular ones like CoD then they're already showing me an inferior option. They know this too, thats why they do exclusive product availability. Basically they bank on your interest being strong enough to make you shrug off that extra $10 that comes from doing business on Origin for a new game.