EA lost me as a customer because they treated us as a hostile agent that was somehow infecting their project goals.
The condescending attitude toward what we all knew was one thing. Refusing refunds was another. But when EA started to threaten banning customers from their Origin accounts (an EA only app store in which customers may have made multiple purchases) that was it for me.
EA took what was once a source of immense enjoyment and nostalgic memories and twisted it into one of the few battles I went nuts over.
It will be a long, LONG time before I consider purchasing another EA game (despite my addiction to sports games on the consoles).
The ability to play offline is far down the list of improvements they could make to this game. For a start, the inability to create any meaningful regions means players just end up building a few specialised 'neighbourhoods' separated by a couple of miles of grass or forest.
The highways and railways only seem to link up 4 neighbourhoods at a time so your 'Metropolis' ends up being more like 4 seperate, non-connected towns, each consisting of 4 little neighbourhoods.
EA massively missed the goal posts on SC5. Players enjoyed crafting a whole world of their own, micromanaging it down to the nth degree. I didn't spend hours and hours playing SC1,2000,3 & 4 thinking "if only my city could be smaller and it was compulsory to play with strangers who don't share my design ideas".
The only thing they got right, in my opinion, was the graphic refresh and bendy-roads.
I did buy the game when it came out, even had to buy the Windows 8 upgrade pack to play it! I don't know what I was more disappointed with, SC5 or Windows 8. I can't remember to be honest because, after 1 week of playing the game, I booted back into Linux and haven't restarted since.
The way handled this game is really quite sad. I was excited for it, the previews looked promising ... but the fact that the server performance was newsworthy, and the small-city problem, meant that I never bothered buying it. I imagine I'm not alone.
Not having actually bought the game I can't say for sure, but I wonder if the much-touted online features haven't been as popular as they hoped ... which means that this now 7-month old game is probably quite expensive for them to keep running into perpetuity. Ripping the online features out, and allowing offline only, could allow them to save on running costs?
I have absolutely nothing to back this up, but I feel that the vast majority of gamers that would be interested in this game probably didn't have the slightest clue about any issues the game has had. I read tech sites regularly and as such I, like you, chose not to buy it, but it wouldn't surprise me if sales were to still be fairly good. The problems were newsworthy, but in the UK I only noticed a few articles stating the issues, and compared to other games the news seemed fairly tame when you look at the severity of the issues. It wouldn't surprise me if this news was largely ignored by those that found out through mainstream news sites.
The thought of being happy about a games failure feels quite bad, considering those that worked on it are real people who would probably like some successful projects under their belt, but in a way I'd be quite happy to see that EA had suffered because of this release.
"Exploring the possibility" is more about deciding how to spin the fiasco to show that they intended to offer an offline play option from day one and it was all a big misunderstanding on the customers' part. You see, they'll have to show that the initial problems with the servers was because the online option was so popular and so heavily desired by customers that they had to focus on that before offering the option that hardly anyone really wanted in the first place.
There already is a half working offline mode server emulator (made by one person). And EA has a "Team" working on exploring the idea of possibility of having an offline mode.
I'm sure they'll look into it after they fox all the glaring simulation issues graphical glitches and severe city size limitations. The bigger problem, and I realized this after just a couple days of playing is that the game just isn't fun like the previous ones were.
Being sick in a tiny city, yet completely overwhelming every public transport option with teens of thousands of people hanging out at single bus stops, with no ability to build a subway is a huge simulation failure.
So many game regressions replaced with dumber alternatives. I ended up uninstalling it after a couple weeks and loading up sc4k instead.
I completely agree (see my comment along similar lines).
The online/offline debate has diverted far too much attention away from other, more important aspects of the game (at least to players) that badly missed the mark. I'm certain SC5 would have been slated as "the disappointment of the decade" even if 'online-only-gate' had not happened.
How long are people even going to care about them bungling things like this? Admittedly, I'm not a super hardcore gamer, but as indie games and iOS games achieve ever higher levels of polish and depth, I find it hard to lament any one company's flops - there's too much good stuff out there to enjoy in just about every genre.
Actually, in terms of PC gaming, flops can be more devastating simply because of the quality options available that don't treat customers as hostile parties. It just depends on whether the game is flop because it isn't good or because the game would be good if not for the publisher's incompetence and/or stupid decisions.
But then again, many of the big publishers tend to write off PC gaming every few years as a lost cause until they "discover" this wonderful new source of revenue. This usually happens during the lead-up to a new console generation release. But then it doesn't always work out for them at first because the core audience has long memories. Plus these days, as you say, there are other, and often better, options out there.
I, for one, am still hesitant to buy anything from Ubisoft because of their incredibly stupid online DRM fiasco. Yes, I know they've moved beyond that era of hating their customers for buying their products more than the people who steal it. I don't care, I still hesitate.
Just a second. EA is one of the big publishers when it comes to the Windows platform. Meaning they have quite a few franchises that have followers. However they have been vilipending their paying customers as potential thieves for a very long time with quite a few blow back and under delivering compared to the customer's expectation. So, sure you can enjoy 'indie' games on other platform, but as publisher go, I would advise to look and think twice before you buy any games from EA.
On the technical side, I am far from surprised at the BS official answer from EA regarding the feasibility of offline mode, and bigger playground.
Is it possible that EA is finally (belatedly) learning to listen to their customers? Could this be the point that they turn around as a company and become player centric?
Let's not pretend that the reason EA made this game online online wasn't primarily an anti-piracy strategy.
The reason they may be considering an official offline mode now is that a) it's been cracked anyway and b ) the majority of game sales happen in the first few months.
What online mode? SimCity, SimCity 2000, SimCity 3000, and SimCity 4 all still work offline.
Oh, they mean SimCity Online! Why would they want to remove online mode from SimCity Online? Surely they didn't bill it as a single player game that needed an online component!/s
When they announced a new SimCity game there was no mention of it being SimCity online - that was only announced later.
Sure, you can say that people shouldn't get excited about a game until they have something more solid than initial announcements and rumours but if companies want to benefit from the pre-release anticipation, they need to make sure they don't mismanage that expectation.
EA on not allowing larger cities: "The system performance challenges we encountered would mean that the vast majority of our players wouldn’t be able to load, much less play with bigger cities."
Seriously? If they had allowed offline play in the first place, the city size would only be limited by the player's own hardware.
Isn't all this moot if the RCI is just faked? The glassbox is not an engine at all. Nothing you do in game actually effects the economy or labor force directly.
How is offline mode going to change the fact that the game is not a simulator but a really pretty linear RPG.
>> Isn't all this moot if the RCI is just faked?
What!? Is this true? I've avoided this sequel (to one of my favorite games of all time) because of all the other user-hostile moves made, but I'd not heard anything about this. If that's true, there's nothing left of the spirit of the game. Why would anyone play this game, ever?
What, you mean the same offline mode that people hacked into it shortly after it was launched? To say it would take significant engineering work, when people have already done it fairly quickly, just makes you look like an incompetent liar.
To be fair to them they have to support the thing - a crack may be good enough to get someone up and playing but from their perspective they need to make sure it's rock solid else they'll face a repeat of the backlash they had when the online version was flaky.
[+] [-] ChikkaChiChi|12 years ago|reply
The condescending attitude toward what we all knew was one thing. Refusing refunds was another. But when EA started to threaten banning customers from their Origin accounts (an EA only app store in which customers may have made multiple purchases) that was it for me.
EA took what was once a source of immense enjoyment and nostalgic memories and twisted it into one of the few battles I went nuts over.
It will be a long, LONG time before I consider purchasing another EA game (despite my addiction to sports games on the consoles).
[+] [-] dragontamer|12 years ago|reply
But 2K Sports also has a license for NBA teams, in NBA 2k14 for instance. And I actually do like the Nintendo-based sports games a lot. :-p
[+] [-] _mulder_|12 years ago|reply
EA massively missed the goal posts on SC5. Players enjoyed crafting a whole world of their own, micromanaging it down to the nth degree. I didn't spend hours and hours playing SC1,2000,3 & 4 thinking "if only my city could be smaller and it was compulsory to play with strangers who don't share my design ideas".
The only thing they got right, in my opinion, was the graphic refresh and bendy-roads.
I did buy the game when it came out, even had to buy the Windows 8 upgrade pack to play it! I don't know what I was more disappointed with, SC5 or Windows 8. I can't remember to be honest because, after 1 week of playing the game, I booted back into Linux and haven't restarted since.
[+] [-] MikusR|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robgough|12 years ago|reply
Not having actually bought the game I can't say for sure, but I wonder if the much-touted online features haven't been as popular as they hoped ... which means that this now 7-month old game is probably quite expensive for them to keep running into perpetuity. Ripping the online features out, and allowing offline only, could allow them to save on running costs?
[+] [-] EnderMB|12 years ago|reply
The thought of being happy about a games failure feels quite bad, considering those that worked on it are real people who would probably like some successful projects under their belt, but in a way I'd be quite happy to see that EA had suffered because of this release.
[+] [-] brianherbert|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AbraKdabra|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] talmand|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] timje1|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] menubar|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MikusR|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chris_wot|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chris_wot|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bane|12 years ago|reply
Being sick in a tiny city, yet completely overwhelming every public transport option with teens of thousands of people hanging out at single bus stops, with no ability to build a subway is a huge simulation failure.
So many game regressions replaced with dumber alternatives. I ended up uninstalling it after a couple weeks and loading up sc4k instead.
[+] [-] _mulder_|12 years ago|reply
The online/offline debate has diverted far too much attention away from other, more important aspects of the game (at least to players) that badly missed the mark. I'm certain SC5 would have been slated as "the disappointment of the decade" even if 'online-only-gate' had not happened.
[+] [-] saturdaysaint|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] talmand|12 years ago|reply
But then again, many of the big publishers tend to write off PC gaming every few years as a lost cause until they "discover" this wonderful new source of revenue. This usually happens during the lead-up to a new console generation release. But then it doesn't always work out for them at first because the core audience has long memories. Plus these days, as you say, there are other, and often better, options out there.
I, for one, am still hesitant to buy anything from Ubisoft because of their incredibly stupid online DRM fiasco. Yes, I know they've moved beyond that era of hating their customers for buying their products more than the people who steal it. I don't care, I still hesitate.
[+] [-] touristtam|12 years ago|reply
On the technical side, I am far from surprised at the BS official answer from EA regarding the feasibility of offline mode, and bigger playground.
[+] [-] TheLoneWolfling|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GeorgeOrr|12 years ago|reply
Or am I naive and reading way too much into this?
[+] [-] benologist|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yelnatz|12 years ago|reply
Maybe he's the one leading the new EA.
I do remember everyone being confused when EA did the humble bundle where proceeds went to charity.
http://www.ea.com/news/humble-origin-bundle-results
[+] [-] justinhj|12 years ago|reply
The reason they may be considering an official offline mode now is that a) it's been cracked anyway and b ) the majority of game sales happen in the first few months.
[+] [-] FedRegister|12 years ago|reply
Oh, they mean SimCity Online! Why would they want to remove online mode from SimCity Online? Surely they didn't bill it as a single player game that needed an online component!/s
[+] [-] Tyrannosaurs|12 years ago|reply
Sure, you can say that people shouldn't get excited about a game until they have something more solid than initial announcements and rumours but if companies want to benefit from the pre-release anticipation, they need to make sure they don't mismanage that expectation.
[+] [-] CervezaPorFavor|12 years ago|reply
Seriously? If they had allowed offline play in the first place, the city size would only be limited by the player's own hardware.
[+] [-] frankydp|12 years ago|reply
How is offline mode going to change the fact that the game is not a simulator but a really pretty linear RPG.
[+] [-] wmeredith|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] devx|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] loydb|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nwh|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] islon|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 6d0debc071|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tyrannosaurs|12 years ago|reply