All the servers are once again, fucked.

@artisanbreads said:

The sensible thing to do would have been to factor the always-on component into the original review score as a negative, rather than for Polygon to pretend that all of this has come as a shock. The root problem is the principle that an essentially single player experience is being crippled by the limitations of an always-online model. Journalists on the whole don't like calling this out because they're too chummy with publishers to say outright that 'your DRM/microtransactions stink and they're detracting from the gameplay experience'. Instead they want to pretend that botched launches like this happen in a vacuum.

Even when all of the issues are resolved, if the score is bumped back up to 9.5 then that ignores the looming prospect of probable server deactivation in a few years.

EA's next game will be co-produced with AT&T, you'd have to get a 2 year contract for a high speed hot spot wifi service through their DSL internet service which will be available 11:00pm-2:00am(EST) Sun-Fri & maybe unavailable Sat-Mon due to random service maintenance.... pre-order now and get crappy promotional skinned in game object of some sort & 5% off your next Origin pre-order..

Translation: I don't understand server costs and a willfully ignorant gamer who will wah wah wah not understanding how the world works, gimmie my bottle!

You think that Blizzard didn't know how many people would go play diablo 3? Activision blizzard has 7738 employees and you think that they are all so dumb to not know that Diablo 3 is going to be some super popular game?

If you need to support more players you need to buy more boxes of servers for the more players you plan to support simultaneously. Does it make any sense for you to support the 3 million people out the gate when the game is launched, spend millions on these physical server boxes, setting them up, installing your linux distros and server programs only for that number of simultaneous users to go down to 300 000, two weeks later? Blizzard makes the same choices, Valve makes the same choices, and EA does as well. It simply doesn't make any economic sense to spend millions of dollars on server boxes just for 72 hours of a single games life that is only going to happen for 2 days out of something like 3 years.

So... can anyone explain why we still can't have refunds in this day and age? I mean I get in the past that you had a game that had a CD Key and it typically was never tied to any other accounts. But now with this always online bullshit that ties the Key directly to your account is there any reason other than being pieces of fucking shit why it isn't allowed. All it would take is revoking the CD Key on that specific account and offering a full refund, as should happen with any shitty product.

Games are the only thing that don't do refunds to my knowledge. I get a DVD that doesn't work, refund. I buy some terrible food that makes me sick, refund. I buy a computer part that bricks after a week, refund. I buy a game that doesn't work... nope. Again I get in the past why it wasn't allowed, but now it's fucking crooked.

And this is a question that the media should be asking instead of going 4/5, 8/10, 10/10, GOTY ALL YEARS, obviously not in regards to SimCity though. Start helping out consumers for a change instead of being perpetual hype machines for these assholes that don't give a FUCK about their customers.

Remember E3 when everyone was all excited about a cool new SimCity?

It takes a special kind of negligence to squander all the goodwill of people who wanted to like this game. Hell, I'm not a Sim guy at all and I was planning on buying the game. Now I'm happy waiting until I see it for 5 bucks on Steam someday, if I don't just forget about the game outright.

tried to play today and I might be wrong but I was back at the getting started so I realllly hope all my stuff is steal there

Im going to wait until this whole thing blows over before even entertaining the idea of picking this up, games are often messy at launch but this is ridiculous...

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.

Day one is looking good!

This is hilarious to witness. It really is.

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.

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

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.

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

Fucking EA...

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.

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

@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.

@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.

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."

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?

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.

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.

@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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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?

try to ease server load. C'mon bro.

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.

Thats not needed here dude.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

@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.

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.

@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?

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

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.

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.

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?

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.