Discussion about Always-On Connection to Origin

[crashx 18]

 

 

I find it almost hilarious that so many people still do not realise that all the issues of launch fit perfectly in the marketing. It is of severe interest to look at the target user categories for the type of game, and observe the correlations between the management of triggers and stimuli for the variables of exposure and user behaviour. Ofcourse there are launch issues, EA has applied a few lessons from studies and is milking it for what it is worth. More and more people look at the game, there is no such thing as bad press especially when you compensate customers with a free title pick and you can make a grand show of all the effort undertaken on making it right for customers. 

 

Ofcourse that is rather simplified, the complexities of this kind of marketing do require a rather intrinsic balance between messaging and trending, but sofar EA is doing very well. And as a bonus it is shedding a few user types who for the long run can pose issues because these user types tend to maintain deeper expectations over time.

 

The chief problem is they're also shedding a vast number of the ever impatient casual gamer crowd as well.

 

But I imagine there's probably enough fools who'll take the bribes EA are offering.

 

The casual crowd doesn't really care. They care about playing the game and getting enjoyment for however long they play it. That's pretty much it, they don't care about some battle against DRM as long as they play their game and have fun doing it then it really doesn't matter much.

 

It's not that they are fools or are stupid, they just aren't that seriously invested to care. They get their entertainment out of the product and really that is what will count.

 

They spend 60-80$ on a game they can't play and probably will never play stably, and that isn't stupid or foolish?

 

What entertainment did they get out of it, as a frisbee or a drinks coaster?

 

And now they've bought into always-online and other stupid EAxis decisions, the quality of their future games will continue to decrease, which I think is pretty a stupid way to behave.

 

Never play stably? That's probably over stating things as people are starting to get playing now.

[jacksunny 741]

^I've yet to experience any issue with servers. I load the game, select my usual server (Oceanic 2 because it's the only one that is always available when I'm on), and play with no problems. It's just a matter of selecting the right server. Many of the original problems have now been fixed, so yes, this game will be almost completely stable soon. 

[xfalcon12x 8]

don't bother with this game anymore it's pointless. without the offline mode function you're not able to save your own games. I just came back from going out for a little bit. to find the 3 cities that I've been working on for the last week are all gone. nice to see that somebody else has taken the ground were my city was... I was trying to be patient but I really want my money back.

[Subgrav 32]

The problem, of course, is that once EA gets the servers sorted - more or less - and people get to playing, we're going to see a a lot more of them saying "what are you on about? it works great for me" or some such nonsense.

And that, sadly, will include a fair number of people who are right now complaining about access and demanding an end to the "always on" DRM - how quickly the tune will change :-(

 

I only wish that even once we get access and start enjoying the game, we remember the last few days and realise that EA's answer to it, basically, was rubbish.

 

The answer of adding extra servers only works as long as the servers are up.
The next time the servers crash, or the next time you visit your grandma on the farm who "don't have no inner-nets" and want to play SC, you'll maybe realise that the problem was not solved by adding more servers, but could have been solved if EA had done away with the "always on" requirement.

 

Just my 2¢ as we are seeing more people "now" claiming that its all good in SC nirvana -- Just because the wound isn't bleeding doesn't mean you are healed.

[aparrot7 82]

-snip- sorry about the double post

[crashx 18]

The problem, of course, is that once EA gets the servers sorted - more or less - and people get to playing, we're going to see a a lot more of them saying "what are you on about? it works great for me" or some such nonsense.

And that, sadly, will include a fair number of people who are right now complaining about access and demanding an end to the "always on" DRM - how quickly the tune will change :-(

 

I only wish that even once we get access and start enjoying the game, we remember the last few days and realise that EA's answer to it, basically, was rubbish.

 

The answer of adding extra servers only works as long as the servers are up.

The next time the servers crash, or the next time you visit your grandma on the farm who "don't have no inner-nets" and want to play SC, you'll maybe realise that the problem was not solved by adding more servers, but could have been solved if EA had done away with the "always on" requirement.

 

Just my 2¢ as we are seeing more people "now" claiming that its all good in SC nirvana -- Just because the wound isn't bleeding doesn't mean you are healed.

 

If you know who Boogie is, a youtuber about video games he gives a pretty good solution I think.

 

Stop pre-ordering these games. This will be my last pre-order. I'll try my best not to do pre-order another game from here on out, it's guaranteed money for these companies and if the game gets bad reviews? well you already have the game. If the game has a game breaking bug or two...again you've already bought it.

 

I think gamers as a whole should stop pre-ordering these games, but they always get us with these little bonuses. You eventually just say "Well, I'm going to buy the game any ways might as well get the pre-order bonuses."

[jigsaw 227]

im trying to find an answer, but has anyone noticed how much bandwidth it uses? how thirsty is the always online feature on data per hour?

[GenXisT 127]

I haven't read thru this entire thread (lol, long one)... but I think my biggest issue is what happens when EA decide they don't want to support this game anymore?

This is something that never really occurred to me till a couple of days ago.

 

We're effectively stuck with a paper-weight game cuz we can no longer play it when EA pull the servers.

That isn't really fair for ANY product, not just a game.

 

If a consumer buys something, they're intrinsically buying the item to use at-will.

 

I want to drive my car when I want to.

I want to watch my TV when I want to.

I want to cook in my pans when I want to.

 

It is entirely disingenuous, dishonest and borderline fraudulent.

 

While I have been able to play a lot, except for yesterday when they were updating Europe West 3, I still think that's a problem.

Sure, I could've jumped onto another server and played, but I lost all of my data.  Start over?  I don't think so.  That's not right.

I don't need the company to control how/when I play.  I bought the product.

 

This was NEVER an issue with previous versions of SimCity, all of which I can still play just fine.

What if I want to play SC2013 in 5, 7, 15 years time?  I'm just screwed?

 

What if you wanted to drive your car later in time?

Or watch your TV?

Or cook your food?

 

Aside from whether or not those items are still physically functional, you have that right. 

With the way this is set up, that intrinsic product purchasing right by the consumer has been completely removed and we are at the whim of the manufacturer.

That is 100% wrong on all levels.

 

Of course during the downtime, I fired up another game to play...

[arcology 224]

Please take the time to sign this petition for an offline mode! Currently there is about 55,000 people who have signed! 

 

---> https://www.change.org/petitions/electronic-arts-inc-remove-always-online-drm-from-simcity-and-future-games <---

 

Please share this link!

 

 

There are over 60,000+ signatures, to date!

I haven't read thru this entire thread (lol, long one)... but I think my biggest issue is what happens when EA decide they don't want to support this game anymore?

This is something that never really occurred to me till a couple of days ago.

 

We're effectively stuck with a paper-weight game cuz we can no longer play it when EA pull the servers.

That isn't really fair for ANY product, not just a game.

 

If a consumer buys something, they're intrinsically buying the item to use at-will.

 

I want to drive my car when I want to.

I want to watch my TV when I want to.

I want to cook in my pans when I want to.

 

It is entirely disingenuous, dishonest and borderline fraudulent.

 

While I have been able to play a lot, except for yesterday when they were updating Europe West 3, I still think that's a problem.

Sure, I could've jumped onto another server and played, but I lost all of my data.  Start over?  I don't think so.  That's not right.

I don't need the company to control how/when I play.  I bought the product.

 

This was NEVER an issue with previous versions of SimCity, all of which I can still play just fine.

What if I want to play SC2013 in 5, 7, 15 years time?  I'm just screwed?

 

What if you wanted to drive your car later in time?

Or watch your TV?

Or cook your food?

 

Aside from whether or not those items are still physically functional, you have that right. 

With the way this is set up, that intrinsic product purchasing right by the consumer has been completely removed and we are at the whim of the manufacturer.

That is 100% wrong on all levels.

 

Of course during the downtime, I fired up another game to play...

 

 

That is exactly why so many are concerned with spending the amount of money they are asking for with this game.  It is alot to invest in, considering they haven't even added on to it, yet and what happens when it is no longer playable? 

[fretz- 1]

im trying to find an answer, but has anyone noticed how much bandwidth it uses? how thirsty is the always online feature on data per hour?

 

Less than 50MB per hour.

 

http://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/107699/how-much-data-does-simcity-transfer

 

 

The servers are only required because clent A doesnt have access to client B's city, so regional calculations are performed there. No city based simulation occurs there.

 

Some interesting speculation here...

 

http://www.reddit.com/r/SimCity/comments/19xx7d/trying_some_technical_analysis_of_the_server/

 

If you dont want to read the Reddit, its basic discussion is that the issue is not with server load, or with node quantity, but the actual db layer architecture itself being screwed.

[macvirt 361]

I will grin if it turns out to be the general issue that arose when the original Spore systems were proposed (later changed and ultimately post release changed again) where the cluster DB system had its bottleneck in the requirement of transferring user and action data + states to a seperate cluster proposed for data mining. 

[Hoipus 292]

AH.... AHHHHHH

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/03/12/simcity-server-not-necessary/

[Ocram's Razr 964]

1. I read that the servers disabled the following features: leaderboards (much touted), achievements, fast (cheetah) speed, and have fixed Global Market Prices.

2. I have read numerous reports of multiplayer being buggy to the point of being unplayable as well of saves becoming corrupted.

3. With all these problems and Hoipus's link that says that the servers are not necessary for the single-player aspect, why is there no offline patch in the foreseeable future?

4. From all this information I have been getting, I have changed my mind and decided to wait not for only an end to most bugs and return of most features but ALSO for an offline patch.

--Ocram

[Intrepid 20]

Looks like my Sim City 4 deluxe edition will be continuing to be played long after this new rentware crap is removed from their servers. I'm voting with my wallet, I will not buy any EA game until they allow me to save and play my games without an always on connection to some cloud that has no guarantee of lasting forever.

[macvirt 361]

AH.... AHHHHHH

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/03/12/simcity-server-not-necessary/

 

Yeah, only a matter of time until some professional pride got in conflict with EA's directives. Bit of a slap in the face of it all.

[Evil_One 119]

Wow, never expected to see professional pride from someone working at EA... I didn't think it existed there.

[macvirt 361]

It's a Maxis dev, not an EA staff member Any professional work ethos at EA only exists in service of meeting requirements of investment dependancies for the bonus payouts.

[Evil_One 119]

It's a Maxis dev, not an EA staff member Any professional work ethos at EA only exists in service of meeting requirements of investment dependancies for the bonus payouts.

 

Er... Maxis is actually EA Redwood Shores, the original Maxis no longer exists.

[macvirt 361]

True, with the exception of the managerial types the staff still see themselves as Maxis however. They are supposed to engage and believe in their own corporate identity, even though that identity is very little more than marketing. Don't wake them up too much, that increases the possibility of more leaks.

[Hoipus 292]

How do we wake them up more?

[macvirt 361]

Personally, I wouldn't. Most of them face a very strict set of dependancies for their career. Only very few are in a position to strike out elsewhere and independantly. It is very easy to cripple anyone's job prospects in this industry. It's one of those things that keeps the divide between the strategic and the real work alive.

[Cobraroll 138]

I wonder if EA, hypothetically, plans to hold on tight to the Online requirement until a well-functioning offline pirating tool spreads among the fans. Once the DRM barrier is broken through, they would have nothing to lose on lowering the online requirement (possibly to only requiring registration upon installation in order to play), and they could kill two birds with one stone by releasing the modding tools at the same time too, effectively shutting up the critics of the game and initiating a second wave of purchases. On the other hand, I think they'd be hard pressed to make such a move, as it would effectively mean rewarding pirates for hacking their game.

 

Anyway, once the barriers are broken (and I don't think we'll have to wait for very long), EAs preferred business model effectively becomes the worst and most cumbersome option for a consumer who wants to play their game.

[Intrepid 20]

I have read on a number of websites that claims that the EA rentware DRM system has actually increased piracy, with many people cracking their genuinely purchased games just so that they can play their games offline. I wouldn't be surprised if these claims were true.

[macvirt 361]

There is some research done in that regard, not a lot however, basically because people tend to dislike that kind of research so they do not buy the results of it. The company behind GD Mag, but also the people at Edge have done some limited studies, and there are indications that the biggest trend result may turn out to be a polarisation between market groups among consumers. Piracy in these matters depends on the availability of alternative mechanisms to those provided by publishers and their studios, and that is still rare. Ofcourse, what is always clear is that such matters are always a race between bullet and armour. If model X becomes the dominant model, piracy trends adjust accordingly. It's very much like Apple's issues in that regard with Jailbreaking initiatives. Except the scale is much larger at least potentially, because the markets are that much larger. 

 

Either way, we're going to have to wait for non American academic research initiatives really, because our industry has become a bit of a victim to picking that which fits expectations and targets. One thing I do think is indeed fair to say, is that upping the ante is never a good commercial approach in any anti piracy ventures. Not only do such initiatives not take in to account basic human psychology, but the simple economics should be clear to even the most stubborn ceo. It remains a non topic however, because the focus of investment cycles is always far shorter than such "conflict" cycles and trends.

 

I have read on a number of websites that claims that the EA rentware DRM system has actually increased piracy, with many people cracking their genuinely purchased games just so that they can play their games offline. I wouldn't be surprised if these claims were true.

[xfalcon12x 8]

I see two problems that arise on a communication level between game developers and end users.

First one is, that game developers think the ones against playing the game always with internet connection aren't such a big group of people. They should realise 99.746 % of gaming community across the board dislike or despise this option.

Even if we try to *tell* them their strategy is wrong by boycotting the game they would always blame low revenue on piracy and not on their dishonorable idea about needing internet connection just to play it offline.

Ah, well, SC 2013 was a good hype for me while it lasted. I'm astonished they managed to beat up my eagerness for a new Simcity game with just one easy statement.

[xfalcon12x 8]

I see two problems that arise on a communication level between game developers and end users.

First one is, that game developers think the ones against playing the game always with internet connection aren't such a big group of people. They should realise 99.746 % of gaming community across the board dislike or despise this option.

Even if we try to *tell* them their strategy is wrong by boycotting the game they would always blame low revenue on piracy and not on their dishonorable idea about needing internet connection just to play it offline.

Dont just boycott simcity, that won't! I know its going to be painful for some, but you have to boycott all of EA games to hurt their money or they will just keep doing it with more games.. I'am anti-EA until DRM

Ah, well, SC 2013 was a good hype for me while it lasted. I'm astonished they managed to beat up my eagerness for a new Simcity game with just one easy statement.

[Hellken 1,658]

|TWEET

[Exe19 22]

SimCity Update: Straight Answers from Lucy

So, could we have built a subset offline mode?

Yes. But we rejected that idea because it didn’t fit with our vision.

 

It feels like a slap in the fans' faces from EAxis...

[cirugo 1,889]

SimCity Update: Straight Answers from Lucy

So, could we have built a subset offline mode?

Yes. But we rejected that idea because it didn’t fit with our vision.

 

It feels like a slap in the fans' faces from EAxis...

same BS they've been peddling all year.  that's why I've been rooting for this game to fail.

[spiritbw 111]

Really, I suppose we should ahve expected that response.  They said from the start they were making it a multiplayer game.  The part they lied about was the possible difficulty in making an offline game. 

 

The slap in the face is seeing just how many problems they have been having, the PR backlash and then realizing they could have avoided it all, but decided not too just to hold to thier "vision".  Sicking to thier guns afte the fact to me seems like cutting off thier nose to spite thier face.