You know how the industry keeps labeling people "entitled" whenever they take any issue whatsoever with what it's doing? Well this form of always on DRM that Sim City is using - you know, the reason why many who bought the game can't play it at this moment - is an example of why people take umbrage.
Everyone understands that companies have the right to, and a need to, protect their property as well as do the best they can to ensure sales. That's normal, expected, and accepted. But when you pay for a game, you ARE "entitled" to be allowed to play said game. Especially when their own people not 24 hours earlier go into interviews and talk about how the servers have been stress tested and are ready for launch. Those interviews aren't just innocent, excusable interactions with fans and media personnel. They're ADVERTISING.
When you advertise that your servers are ready for launch, and people pay for the game partially on the basis of that advertisement, they ARE "entitled" to get what they think they paid for. This is why always-on DRM gets such a bad rap, and why people don't understand and don't accept being called "entitled whiners" by the industry they love and want to support in exchange for gaming experiences they desire.
Meanwhile, pirates manage to crack these forms of DRM in short order. So it doesn't do a lot to deter piracy, and only really causes an inconvenience for paying customers. If it's not going to deter piracy more than an activation key, then why not take a hint from companies like Stardock, and just use activation keys? Stardock's philosophy seems to be that more intrusive forms of DRM don't protect them more than activation keys do, and they *shock and gasp* would rather not INCONVENIENCE THEIR PAYING CUSTOMERS. I know. What a radical concept, right?
That's why they get the kind of loyalty that ensures that many will ride out buggy launches like Elemental, and still be around when they finally fix the game and release something like Elemental: Fallen Enchantress. And they are only one example of companies who treat their customers right and get their loyalty in return. EA: please take note.
http://rampantgames.com/blog/?p=5626
Great blog from indie developer Rampant Coyote on this. Here's an excerpt:
"In response to requests to enable an offline mode – a feature that would have saved the launch in the first place, the Maxis (EA) general manager claimed it was just not possible – online play was just too heavily woven into the fundamental architecture of the game. She claimed, “With the way that the game works, we offload a significant amount of the calculations to our servers so that the computations are off the local PCs and are moved into the cloud. It wouldn’t be possible to make the game offline without a significant amount of engineering work by our team.”
"Oh, well. There IS that. Then I guess it was really stupid of them to slack off on the load testing and underfund the server farm, then, huh?
"Except it is appearing more and more than the statement is – well, there’s no other way to put this – a lie. Whether said general manager knew it was a lie, or it was simply one she passed on out of ignorance, we won’t know.
"First, a Maxis insider blew the whistle anonymously to journalists that the game was quite playable offline.
"Then people ran tests, discovering the game could run for several minutes even after their Internet connection was switched off. So whatever online component there was, it was a rare event.
"Now a third-party modder has created a hack that allows the game to play offline just fine – in fact, better, as you can go outside the very restricted borders of the unmodded game. There is one major problem – no saving or loading – but depending on how that is handled, this could be an issue that is solved before the weekend is over...
"Now, I’m not saying that making a game that is fundamentally tied to an online experience and not playable offline is necessarily a bad thing. I’ve MADE those kinds of games, and may do so again. And I’ve played a few MMOs in my time… but many of those MMOs no longer exist, and their boxes and installation discs sit in my “gaming closet” as mute testaments that out of all the money I spent on them, I now have nothing to show for it but some old screenshots and some memories. Which may be enough – I don’t have any real regrets – but I’m also a lot more hesitant to jump into future games that are only limited-time services.
"And I really am not keen on publishers redefining what it means to ‘own’ a game in such a twisty way that it deceives customers and ultimately hurts their experiences, and hurts gaming as a whole as a result."
I suppose I just don't understand how it would be an entirely different game. You can already play with regional play in single player. And allowing us to do so offline wouldn't preclude allowing the networked, online functionality they already have as well for those wanting to play in a region with other players. It would have been nice to have the option. That's all I'm saying.
That, and that I don't like being lied to about how giving us that option would be "impossible" without prohibitively substantial additional engineering, which increasingly appears to be a false statement.
doubt anyone here cares, but hey
http://venturebeat.com/2013/03/15/eas-lucy-bradshaw-acknowledges-simcity-stumbled-out-of-the-gate-with-our-service-interview/
Read the article from Venture beat and to me, it sounded like googly eyed reporter asking weak questions. I preferred the one from PC Gamer that I posted. Anyway, she said, “The game we launched is only the beginning for us—it’s not final and it never will be,” she continues later. “In many ways, we built an MMO.”
Then you should've marketed as a MMO and then everyone wouldn't be upset because they, the consumers, would know exactly what they are buying instead of the bull-crap you past off to people who enjoyed playing this franchise. Is it so hard to have both, on and off line play.
This game will be heavily pirated in the days to come. The very opposite of what they were trying to do...
Agreed.
I do care. I will be the first to give them credit for the things they are doing (what I consider) right. I think there is a perception that people like myself who take such strong issue with some of these things are just perpetually angry, bitter, and unappreciative of these people's work and efforts. I can't speak for anyone else of course, but I can say that that isn't the case for me.
Look. EA and Maxis have both been very successful. And they've done so by correctly predicting and keeping their fingers on the pulse of what are likely to be emerging trends moving forward (and are now becoming mainstream trends, in fact.) They've been extremely savvy, intelligent, and forward thinking. And it has served them exceptionally well. I do not begrudge them their success, or their prescience in perceiving that this is - whether I like it or not - where the industry is headed in due time.
And I have no doubt that Maxis poured their lives into this product. There's no question in my mind that, like any other development process, they worked long hours, missed time with their families, and made sacrifices both personal and professional to deliver this game and bring it to market. And yes, I do acknowledge and appreciate that they are being at least partly straightforward in their willingness to acknowledge that mistakes were made.
BUT... when the way you come forward and make a mea culpa is sort of general, but at the same time includes essentially telling what is proving to be an outright falsehood with regard to the reasons for certain design decisions just to appease people, then it strikes me as extremely disingenuous. Yes, mistakes were made and I give them credit for admitting that. But they are only halfheartedly acknowledging those mistakes, and completely omitting or even lying about others. And they are glossing that over by saying, essentially, "Well, since that doesn't match the vision we had for the game anyway, it doesn't really matter why that's the case. A lie is just as good as the truth since we didn't care about that option anyway."
Allow me to phrase it this way: appreciating their hard work and passion, and disagreeing with or being insulted by their deceptive response to people's complaints and their disenfranchisement of part of their former target audience, are not mutually exclusive feelings or sentiments.
Every PC game is heavily pirated. Hell.....my wife and I lost friends when I overheard the sons of friends of ours laughing at how nice it was that Sins of a Solar Empire (the original) was so easily pirated and I took the sons to task over their comments. As a result, our relationship with that family is no more.
I don't believe it for a second that if a company puts less effort into attempting to secure their IP that it will be pirated less. I believe the pirate connections to the Demigod servers over the first few days played a large role in why the servers couldn't initially handle things. On various forums/websites it was stated that the pirate connections were in the 100K range, where as the legitimate client connections on day-one numbered less than 20K. So is the company to blame there when the 'paying customer' can't play their game? I think not. It always has been, and always will be the scum pirate who ruins it for everyone. Let's keep the blame where it belongs.
Do I support more and more stringent controls (which do also inevitably impact me the paying customer)? No, however something has to keep being done. Unfortunately we live in a world where if it can be taken without recompense, it is. Again, while I find many of the 'controls' put in place to attempt to stem such theft problematic myself I would not choose the alternative (no controls) since that just signals the world that everything is free for the taking (which so many are vigorously working to prove anyway).
What I don't understand is this. How do those groups in society who not only espouse such entitled viewpoints but also facilitate the distribution and consumption of pirate goods believe that newer product will be produced? I mean if those groups were to have their way then no one (even me) would pay for anything. Ok, so once that goal is achieved.......where to next? Nothing more will be produced because no one is paying for anything. So is that the end of piracy? When nothing more is produced? Hmmm.......
Yes, every PC game is pirated. Thats a matter of fact.
It is also a matter of fact that NO DRM has EVER been successful in stopping piracy. As a business man, I entirely failed to understand why companies where bothering themselves with things like Starforce or SecurRom... WASTED MONEY.... ANGRY CUSTOMERS.... and PIRATES WHO LAUGH THEIR ASS OFF.
For your information... Sim City 2013 is available freely available on the internet... has been since release day if you believe the date of some entries. Even more devastating... it is a working version.... if you beleive the comments on said entries.
Yeah... thats right.... people who pirated it had no issues playing.... something that could not be said about the - dumb - paying customers.
That is really a great DRM system.... it does absolutly nothing in stopping piracy... it merely hinders and annoys the paying customer.
So maybe it would be a good business decision to stop wasting money on DRM.... it is not doing anything besides pissing of the remaining legitimate customers and making it clear beyond any doubt to the pirates that pirating it was the right choice to begin with.
But then nowadays DRM is not really about piracy anymore.... it is way to ineffective to have any notable effect on piracy.
Piracy is the best thing that has ever happened to the industry... it allows them to justify measures that would get any other company in any other branch sued to death for fraud.
No, todays DRM is no longer about preventing piracy... that is just the official empty word that is used to justify it.... todays DRM is about CONTROLLING the customer.... YOU....... to take away as much of your rights as possible.... and that is a job it is quite good at.
Finding a cheaper retailer? Not happening.
Selling your old game? Not happening.
Refunding? Muhahahahaha, not this century
Modding? Of course not... good mods could divert your attention from the small shitty DLC we want to sell to you for just 30 €.
And if that is not enough... we kill the servers after a few years.... so you have to buy the successor if you ever want to play a similar game again.
And this is the reason for always online... not piracy... not DRM.... but killing the - pathetic to begin with - customer rights.
No it wont be pirated less.
But it wont be pirated more too. And you wont have thousands of people screaming bloody murder arround the internet and nuking your amazon ratings into oblivion.
If the servers of Demigod accepted pirated connections, you should rethink your multiplayer model.
The serial protected multiplayer is a proven, customer friendly way of keeping your servers clean of those pirates.
If on the other hand you release a game with online activation or worse always online "features" it is YOUR GOD DAMM JOB to assure that your servers can handle the load. Including the load by the unsucessfull attempts of the pirates to log in. That is your general business risk.
Besides, usually the piracy wave is quite similar to the release buyer wave.... so after a few weeks you can probably decrease the server range again, once the initial request storm has died down.
NOBODY FORCED EA or any other company INTO GOING FULLY ONLINE. THAT WAS THEIR BUSINESS DECISION, and for that decision THEY ARE LIABLE down to the last penny.
Piracy is a well known problem in this branch.... to be surprised by it is cleary a sign of lack of market understanding... in which case you dont belong on that market in the first place.
So yes... the company is partially to blame... because they should have known that many pirates will attempt to log in onto their servers, because that is what always happens.
On a side note.... I am again and again astonished at the audacity of many pirates... if I would pirate a game..... (I dont, mind you). I sure as hell would block it in my firewall instead of letting it phone home, transfering god knows what information.
Many things are stolen in many stores every day. That is a sad fact, but it remains a fact. So if you want to sell 100 pieces of something you order 102..... this is simplified how it works in most stores.
Of course you could reduce stealing to nearly zero when everyone leaving the store (customers, workers... ect) were to be stripped naked and vigoriously searched.
Nobody would steal from you anymore... but then... nobody would buy from you anymore, too. Unless you have a monopoly or everyone is doing it... which is unfortunatly the direction the gaming industry is heading towards right now.
Yes, it is a sad reality... yes pirating software is wrong.... but it is the reality.
As a company operating in this branch.... you have to deal with this reality.... in a way that does the minimal ammount of damage to your paying customers.
IF DRM would work.... your point would be valid.
But it doesnt..... and dont let any Steamfanboy tell you otherwise.
A control that is not working is no more effective in hindering piracy than no control.
Yes.... there are some people who will never pay for anything..... I know one myself....
But the majority of pirates is not that criminal. The main reasons for piracy are imo:
That is an excellent point.... but for the hardcore pirates you will have to accept them as a business risk associated with this industry branch.... just like things stolen from the stores are a general business risk for the stores in real life. A risk that is priced in...... which is regrettable... but preferable over being vigouriously searched.
Instead you should do what all smart businesses do... focus on your PAYING customers. And if you treat them well.... you might notice that people who could easily pirate the game.... will actually buy it instead. Yes.... not all of them.... having stuff free is a powerful argument..... but enough of them.
Also your fans will praise your product on the internet... bless you with 5 star amazon ratings and so on. I dont think that Sim City 2013 current Amazon rating is helpful for sales at all, nor is the publicity.
Compare that publicity to Minecraft or FTL publicity.
It was a working version! If you have an account with the game already registered to it, it worked great!
Put your hands in the air, and step back from that poor, abused ellipsis. Slowly.
Simcity 5 hasn't been cracked. Other game forums have their large share of pirate babies complaining indignantly that they can't steal the game, yet. (They don't whine here, because they get kicked off quickly. I wish other forums weren't so tolerant.) But let's not put the onus for DRM and similar systems on the developers and game publishers. Sure, clumsy protection methods really infuriate many players, but the real culprits are the pirates. They're the reasons the companies are trying to protect the revenue that is rightfully theirs. And they have every reason to do so.
IF.... if..... and if you are very lucky.....
Way to many ifs, for something that should be a implicitness, that your piece of shitty software runs fine on release day. For everyone...... If the comments on most websites are any indication, people with trouble where a considerable majority.
...
If a modder is capable of making the game run offline, the usual suspects are probably quite capable of doing that, too.
A google search revealed several sites that claim to have a working crack. And members of those sites thanking the doubtful individual who posted it. Now... to be honest I dont know much about the "Scene" but somehow I doubt that people say thank you for something that does not work.
So far the more strict the DRM system was, the more sporty ambition those questionable individuals develop to break it.
No doubt there is a lot of people who wine.... usually the same people that allow their pirated piece of software to connect to the official server. Some of them are even more dumb....
The time were DRM was about stopping piracy is coming to an end. Today DRM is used to control the customer, to sell his data to the highest bidder and to kill the game when it is time to buy the sucessor.
This is far worse an offer for any gamer than what has been offered in the past.
And the sad thing is... people dont realize it.
The modder capable of making it run offline already had a purchased copy, and stated this was so.
I checked those out via Google just as you did, after you mentioned them. You neglected to mention that every one of them within a few hours was heavily lambasted with statements that they were fakes, along with the usual unimaginative expletives traded between kids who steal software and people who put out fake cracked software. And within a day, every one of the fakes I saw was taken down, and new fakes (you could tell, since the upload dates were different) were there. With yet more screaming from those poor, abused thieves.
Considering that in one case a person who said it worked was revealed by IP address to be the same person posting the fake through a new account, I suspect these can be safely placed in the "sucker born every minute" box. (But it *was* fun reading the whole mess, especially the moral outrage by kiddie thieves.)
My suspicion is that this game just won't be cracked in reality. Which is very, very good--except that it may lead to very similar cloud-based protection systems being deployed in the future, with all the caveats those entail. But again, the people responsible for this are the pirates, not the companies that use the protection.
Which doesn't excuse EA's terrible roll-out, or the lie about having to stay connected in singleplayer mode, or the way DRM is being used for data mining.
Seth Fitzgerald | On 17, Mar 2013
Despite repeatedly telling users that there was no way for SimCity to run offline, EA and Marxis have finally come out to say that is not true. Marxis General Manager Lucy Bradshaw announced in a post on the EA website that SimCity could have run in an offline mode but that it conflicted with the vision they had for the game.
Bradshaw says that even though the game would have been able to run in an offline mode, it would not be able to provide the same fluid multi-city experience that they tried to create for this iteration of Sims. Even though the first SimCity was very popular with its “single city in isolation” gameplay, Marxis wanted to provide a better user experience and expand what the game is capable of.
When it comes to one of the biggest issues that many people see with the game, always-on DRM, Bradshaw said the following:
Always-Connected is a big change from SimCities of the past. It didn’t come down as an order from corporate and it isn’t a clandestine strategy to control players. It’s fundamental to the vision we had for this SimCity. From the ground up, we designed this game with multiplayer in mind – using new technology to realize a vision of players connected in regions to create a SimCity that captured the dynamism of the world we live in; a global, ever-changing, social world
Even though EA and Marxis wanted to make the game capable of handling multiple cities, the vast majority of users liked the old SimCity way of playing. Which begs the question of why they had to choose one over the other instead of providing an online and single-player offline mode. Modders have already been able to get past the always-on requirement to allow offline modes for the game, so if you are really missing the ability to play offline, then look into some of the current SimCity mods.
Well, that didn't take long...
I realize I'm just an idiot, but I'm afraid it's beyond my understanding why having some people use singleplayer all the time would have conflicted with their vision of a huge number of people playing it in multiplayer.
In any case, it's nice to know that they have no designs on people's data for mining purposes. Oh, wait, they didn't address that. But they've only lied once in this specific game. How dare we think they might lie some more about it!
It wouldn't. For example, to make life easier, Minecraft now runs an internal server when playing single-player. To be sure, there's an associated CPU load with running a server on the same machine as a client but honestly, a lot of ridiculous gamer rigs could do this effortlessly.
The reason that EA didn't want to let you do this is so they can make more money by selling features and things to you the player. It's that simple. They're the Ferengi of the games market.
Ha!
C'mon, Ferengi might be pure capitalists but they are no where near that bad.
I recently looked up the definition of "buy", you know, that button everyone clicks without really thinking it has been redefined, only the Americans (US) added a section for renting a service. Those buttons should be made to state EXACTLY what you are paying for "Rent Now"
Ferengi Rule
54. Never buy anything you can't sell.57. Good customers are as rare as latinum—treasure them.
Yeah you're right. It's just that I really struggle to find anything to compare EA to.
EA is an object lesson for those who assume that companies are entities, and never change. Back in the early 80's they were an excellent development and publishing house that gave some of the best games designers a good, well-paid, reasonably supportive environment in which to create new titles. Murder on the Zinderneuf, M.U.L.E., and Archon all came out in '83, a year after Trip Hawkins started EA up. Hawkins was smart enough at the time to support good people and leave them to do what they did best--something he forgot when he started up 3DO years later, and purchased New World Computing.
Nowadays they are the archetypal x-theory business that has management who have never programmed (or ever played games, as several have boasted in the past), and programmers who have never managed, with all the decisions coming down from the top. EA is famous for buying out small companies whose employees are soon fired and brands scuttled when expectations aren't quickly met, or just simply to kill off competition--they even won the 2012 Consumerist award for Worst Company in America because of building a history of this. They've also been caught out repeatedly lying to their players in order to boost sales. The advertising campaign and fake protesters hired to make a lot of noise against Dead Space 2 were good examples. A longtime friend and contemporary of mine, an associate professor in journalism, uses EA to provide multiple instances in his classes of how not to engage in marketing. He considers the company a classic in this respect for disrespecting and insulting its audience. I suspect Simcity 5's "won't work offline" lie will provide another example for him.
These aren't accusations. They're just a re-statement of facts meant to show in a very broad and brief way how companies change over time, depending upon their corporate culture. EA began as one thing, and shifted into something very different. It's probably not going to change again anytime soon--not with annual revenues in excess of $145 billion US--but it's important to understand that companies of that size aren't individuals, and can't be analyzed as such when puzzling out their decisions.
They could start by fixing the derpy motorists in SimCity.
Honestly, the number of times I've seen them turn left on a busy road, fire up the side street, and then turn back onto the same busy road to go the same direction they were going before... who wrote this traffic code? It's bad enough that intersections are a total traffic jammer without that going on as well. I think they did that on purpose just to annoy the hell out of me.
No... it is not a clandestine strategy... it is a strategy plainly visible to anyone with remote knowledge of PC gaming and the web.
My vision is, that I will not spent money on any game from EA.
200 Bars of gold pressed latinum the the person who kills this MarvinKosh! Comparing our proud merchant civilisation to EA.... How dare you? No... make that 400 bars!
signed
The Great Nagus of Ferenginar
Good one!
Electronic Arts' John Riccitiello is stepping down as chief executive officer. Effective March 30, former EA president and CEO Larry Probst will step in as executive chairman.
"We appreciate John's leadership and the many important strategic initiatives he has driven for the Company," Probst said. "We have mutually agreed that this is the right time for a leadership transition."
EA has not clarified whether or not this transition is related to its earnings decline. EA recently faced numerous layoffs as well.
In a press release statement, Riccitiello said, ""EA is an outstanding company with creative and talented employees, and it has been an honor to serve as the Company's CEO. I am proud of what we have accomplished together, and after six years I feel it is the right time for me pass the baton and let new leadership take the Company into its next phase of innovation and growth. I remain very optimistic about EA's future — there is a world class team driving the Company's transition to the next generation of game consoles."
EA did not provide an explanation for Riccitiello's departure. He served as CEO since 2007.
Developing...
Wow, That was unexpected....
EA has just sent along word that CEO John Riccitiello has stepped down after six years as head executive and an overall 13-year career with the publishing giant. Board Chairman and former CEO Larry Probst acts as interim leader until the company finds a permanent replacement.
“I am proud of what we have accomplished together, and after six years I feel it is the right time for me pass the baton and let new leadership take the company into its next phase of innovation and growth,” Riccitiello says in EA’s press release. “I remain very optimistic about EA’s future—there is a world class team driving the company’s transition to the next generation of game platforms.”
Riccitiello’s time at EA was marked highs and lows. He helped shift EA’s focus to digital content over packaged products, launching the Origin storefront in mid-2011 as a first-party provider of EA’s game stable. He also presided over the massively funded Star Wars: The Old Republic during its development at BioWare. The last major title launch he oversaw, SimCity, earned headlines for itsalways-online DRM, design flaws, and mixed reviews. The company also took a publicity hit when Consumerist readers voted it the worst company in America for 2012.
“We thank John for his contributions to EA since he was appointed CEO in 2007, especially the passion, dedication and energy he brought to the company every single day,” Probst says. “We appreciate John’s leadership and the many important strategic initiatives he has driven for the company. We have mutually agreed that this is the right time for a leadership transition.”
Oh, oh.... that is usually the euphemistic term used for "If you dont leave on your own accord we will fire you".
If the coming leadership of EA will prove more worthy remains to be seem.
Damn! You got integrity or the other couple are weird.
Completely agreed.
The pirates don't care or don't believe content will stop flowing.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
