SimCity's Launch Isn't Going So Well

@magzine said:

That's what I thought. :/

@haggis: RTFT

You're not arguing with me? Seems like you are. There's not a lot of context here. Someone claimed the game wasn't ready to be released because the servers weren't ready. Your response was, "what was it about the game itself that is not ready to launch? p.s., servers aren't part of the game itself."

Except servers are a part of the game itself, and as I pointed out, even with the servers up, key functionality wasn't working correctly.

And you've been arguing with me since then. Unconvincingly, but still arguing. I wasn't the only one who pointed out that your perspective on this seems out of date, given the facts. So, if I'm missing some crucial context here, please point out exactly what that is.

@haggis: I'm not arguing with you. You're arguing with something I agree with and is tangential to the original person's post. Jesus Christ. Go back to the original post I replied to and get some context.

@ben_h: well, for me I couldn't play D3 but once in the first week (in the middle of the day), could only randomly connect for almost a month, and lost all sorts of progress with disconnects so I don't know how much "better" it was than this.

I think some people have been wearing rose-colored glasses with respect to how horrible the D3 launch went and at least EA/Maxis is owning up to this and offering a free game unlike Blizzard who seemed to blame it on too many people buying their precious game and provided zero compensation of any form.

Wow. Doubling down, I see. Server access is part of the product. Without it, the game doesn't work. Period. So, if I download the game and don't buy a physical, manufactured disc, is it no longer a product?

Clearly the product is the software--the combined client and server software. Which is why denying access to one half of it (on the server) means that the product is broken. This isn't a difficult concept, you know.

A couple of people have mentioned this, but even console gaming has its problems in terms of convenience. Some single player games on consoles downloaded from PSN/XBL, and even a few disc games, don't work unless you're signed in the respective game network. You haven't encountered it personally. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Need I also remind you that EA is not all game developers and should not represent all game developers that develop games for PC. Also, stuff like graphics card issues are just things PC gamers tend to live with, especially if those issues only affect a relatively small number of users. If in the end is a better gameplay experience on PC than on console, then it's usually worth it.

I don't know about Heavy Rain or Portal 2, but there are several single player games on PSN that require you to be signed in to play them. During the outage Bionic Commando Rearmed 2 was the most notorious, I think, and some Final Fight game was affected too. I've noticed that I can't play my digital copy of Far Cry 3, not even the single player part, when PSN or Uplay is down for maintenance either, so that certainly happens on consoles.

It's not obvious, because it seemed as though you were lacking contextual information.

But context isn't important, right?

Also, the server is not a separate product because a server isn't a product in this case. The game is.

prod·uct

/ˈprädəkt/

Heavy Rain was released over a year before the PSN hack, but I see what you are trying to get it. That game could still be played, as well as the single player of Portal 2 which came out during the PSN hack debacle. You don't need to sign on the PSN to play a single player game. So if they couldn't play those games when Sony got hacked, they were doing it wrong.

I'm like you with this. I really wonder who eventually makes the decisions inside EA. I mean, how does the same company that greenlights Mirror's Edge, force always online DRM and rushed products to store shelves?

The problem is that when the servers were up, the saves weren't working fine. They sometimes worked, sometimes didn't. The whole game wasn't working fine. The software on the disk (or the download) didn't work fine. Plus, you know, the game on the disk doesn't work without the servers functioning.

We're arguing with you because we disagree with you, and because we think your comment about the servers and the game being separate products is wrong. Obviously.

A lot of people don't follow gaming news, they just seek out reviews for purchasing advice. In that aspect, Polygon is the only review site to properly guide the consumer (something a lot of reviewers, @jeff among others, see as their primary objective) every step of the way. I'm sure they'll adjust the score one final time once all the kinks are worked out, but for now Polygon describes a four as:

"Fours fail completely in one of three ways: design, execution or basic functionality — or they fail a fair amount in all of them."

Seems to fit SimCity perfectly in it's current state, and I bet the average score of the game would be a lot lower if every reviewer had to re-write their review after its launch.

What? No, it's not up for interpretation (check out their review policy) . It's a 4, dude:)

@n2nother: Right, so all the people that couldn't play games like Heavy Rain on the PS3 when Sony got hacked and they took down their network for that extended period of time were just imagining it?

Meh, it isn't like there have been bumpy releases on consoles. For instance COD4 with disconnects and lag which caused a cascade of players joining and leaving and the dreaded "migrating host" loop.

@the_laughing_man

"Thats not needed here dude.

I feel super bad for Maxis I am sure EA forced this all ways online crap on them."

My opinion isn't needed here?

This is an article about yet ANOTHER pc game that has suffered a botched launch. I don't care what publisher, developer, or game it is, I've never experienced an instance where a single player game wasn't playable because of online server issues. Ever. I feel and have felt that consoles are preferable to PC. The game I was looking forward to was Tomb Raider. I bought it, opened it and played it. No sever issues and no graphics card issues.

You may not like it but I stand by my opinion thy consoles are better than PCs.

I'm not arguing it's not one game, I'm arguing that what draxyle originally said is dumb, pointless and baseless. If the servers were up, saving would work fine. The whole game would work fine. That piece of software you bought on the disk would work fine. You can QA and test a game all you want, and they did, and the game. is. fine. The servers aren't. There is only so much load testing and closed beta testing you can do before you just have to flick the switch and wait and see what happens.

Why are you guys arguing with me? You clearly do not know the original scope of Draxyle's argument, and didn't bother to look back to see what he said. I shouldn't have even replied to dumpling because that was evidently a waste of my time, I jsut didn't realize it wasn't the OP.

Please read above. Also read the original post I was responding to before declaring my argument invalid.

A Reboot of SimCity! Shut up and take my money!!

This is just ridiculous. Get your shit together EA before you start losing paying customers.

Bionic Commando Rearmed 2, Far Cry 3, SOCOM Confrontation and a bunch of PSN/XBLA shooters. Nexuiz for example doesn't run on 360 anymore, since THQ hosted the servers (thankfully, Illfonic hosted the PC server side stuff, so that version still works).

As far as I know, some games can't even be downloaded off of Xbox Live anymore, and due to the DRM they use in those machines, you couldn't make a backup of the installer to an external drive the way you can with your GOG or GamersGate, or to some extent even Origin and Steam games.

They're now labeling all "Busy" servers as "Available" on the server list. I guess that's one way to hide what a catastrophe this still is.

Thats not needed here dude.

I feel super bad for Maxis I am sure EA forced this all ways online crap on them.

And yet another reason why consoles are better than PC. I have NEVER played a game with these issues on a console. Especially single player focused ones.

try to ease server load. C'mon bro.

http://help.walmart.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/190/~/walmart-returns-center

I know because I've done it at walmart.

Do you wanna do this retail chain by retail chain?

New product returns

Returned product(s) must be in the original packaging and include any manuals, cabling and accessories in sellable condition. We reserve the right to limit returns to unopened or defective products. Defective product(s) will be replaced with a like item, upon return. Terms and conditions of manufacturer's warranty apply to defective video games systems and computer hardware after 30 days.

We do not accept returns of:

• Any product(s) returned more than 30 days from the date on the packing slip.
• Any product(s) that has been opened (taken out of its plastic wrap).
• Any product(s) not in its original condition.
• Any product(s) that is damaged, played, or is missing parts.
• Any product(s) that were sold as part of a bundle, unless the bundle is returned complete.

Right from Gamestop. what are you talking about?

Have to give EA a little bit of credit for the daily (or more) developer updates on the community boards. At least they're not greeting their problems with a stony wall of silence.

Except that venders of games have return policies and you can return games that don't work. What are you even talking about?

Well, I think it still sends them a great message - people are willing to pay for it despite it not utilizing any DRM whatsoever. It's not even on sale. I doubt it, but maybe, just maybe they'll get the message that their customers, not pirates, are the ones being hurt by online DRM, and that people are very much willing to pay for a 20 year old game, if the game and distributor treats their customers with respect, and you know, just let them play the game they've paid for.

Games come with Zero warranty, They come with zero guarantee that they will work. That is the agreement in all the EULAs. You are not entitled to a refund of anything when it comes to a game.

Is that something that should be fixed? Maybe, but that's not the arguement we're having right now. What everyone agreed to is to play a game that MIGHT not work.

Because gamers are spineless and will never, EVER hold to a "I'll never buy (insert company's) games again" claim. Zero consequences means nothing will ever really change. The guy you quoted making all the excuses is exactly the kind of customer the industry wants. "BUT YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND!!" Yeah, sure.

They already have the consequence, I didn't even buy Sim City, I just acknowledge the reality of hosting servers. I know for a fact MMO's aren't necessarily going to work day 1. I know that high demand games aren't necessarily going to work day 1. And the end result is that I don't BUY it day 1. If you don't like it, don't buy it, stop complaining all across the internet thinking there is "quick and easy solutions." If it was, and it was easy everyone would be doing it. It's not in EA's best interest or any company believe it or not to lose customers because THEY STOP PAYING FOR GAMES. At the same time it's not always economically viable to satisfy everyone 100% of the time, so sometimes they don't.

Polygon was exemplary, being at least honest with themselves and justifiably reactive toward the nascent problems with the game, admitting that the so called review samples were conducted literally in vacuum connected to servers earmarked just for that purpose. The change in score reflects the realization in journalistic process that parallels the experience of its readers coping with the introduction of online DRM and its implications, and brings journalists off the pedestal to the level of consumers, a very admirable thing to undertake. The change in score did not take over a long period of gestation period of varying product cycle, and was immediate in effect, informing still a very large swath of prospective buyers of the intermittent and consistent technical shortcomings the product harbors. If nothing else, the review article basically stands up for itself, with nothing edited, in which a fascinating look into how an editorial is formed and altered is transparently demonstrated. It takes some guts to do I applaud them for that.

Yep pretty glad I've waited and hopefully because so the price might go down a bit.

@magzine: You separate the concept of the server and the concept of the game. Yet you forget that in this instance the two are inseparable Without the server you have no game. They are co-dependant in terms of SimCity. So your argument seems invalid.

Because gamers are spineless and will never, EVER hold to a "I'll never buy (insert company's) games again" claim. Zero consequences means nothing will ever really change. The guy you quoted making all the excuses is exactly the kind of customer the industry wants. "BUT YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND!!" Yeah, sure.

EA will still get a taste of that though, right? It's cool that people are playing a great game like 2000, but it's a shame EA gets the small victory of a couple thousand dollars for GOG sales.

Do you understand that when you buy a product you expect the product to work out of the box. If it doesn't work you get a refund. Customers are not and should not be mindful of server issues because they didn't buy the game that says "will not work when you try to play" on the box. Your comment is so devoid of real world expectations that I don't even know what to say.

Do you think people buying the game in stores know that this single player game is dependent on servers to work properly?

I would venture a guess that it is on the EA/Origin side that is fucked up so bad. It is a shame that Maxis made (from what I have played/can tell) a well made "reboot" of the SimCity series. They just fell prey to the "worst company in America."

@bbalpert said:

I want to respect that Polygon wants to separate impressions of the game from impressions of Origin as a service for always-on DRM, but to me, it just re-iterates the fact that impressions from people you trust (the GB crew) will always trump arbitrary numbers at the end of a review.

@bbalpert: Yea, i wish i would have done the same. But for the hour of time i got to play it with a couple of friends it was fun. It's worth picking up at some point when it's not actively on fire in the coming months.

SimCity 2000 is the current best-seller of all genres on GOG. :)

This is so sad, the game is pretty great. I played it for several hours on launch day and had a ball, but I haven't been able to connect since then. I was initially pretty understanding of the always online requirement, I had faith in EA's ability to deliver a semi stable launch. If they don't get this thing worked out soon then I won't be able to support their products in good conscious any more.

Fucking EA...

why don't they just rent servers to like amazon or something?

This has to be one of the worst launches of all time. Must suck to work at EA right now... but they kind of did this to themselves, maybe they'll learn, but somehow I doubt it.

I remember when this happened with Diablo 3, and they totally bounced back... uh, sort of?

The problem is that the servers provide basic functionality--like saving your game. And that hasn't been working correctly or consistently. So to say that the "game itself is fine" isn't quite right. And if the servers are down, no one can play at all. EA chose to make the game nonfunctional without the servers. Therefore, when you're paying for the game, you're paying for access to the servers. It's all one product.

This is hilarious to witness. It really is.

Day one is looking good!

In a different context, I agree. In this context, I disagree. The servers and the game are two totally separate issues. The game itself is fine (some people might not like some of the mechanics, but it works), but the servers are lacking. It's a matter of resources. You don't hire QA people to test your cash flow do you? QA people to test your marketing people? They're resources. QA and testing affects a product, and servers aren't a product.

I'm sure loadtesting was done, but if there is more demand than they expected, then it's hard for them to really compensate for that.