Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(PC Magazine)   An open letter to EA: I farking told you this would happen   (pcmag.com) divider line 379
    More: Asinine, SimCity, copy protection  
•       •       •

13314 clicks; posted to Geek » on 08 Mar 2013 at 2:02 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



379 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-08 12:46:21 PM  
As usual, attempts at DRM hose the honest customers, and EA refuses to do right by those customers.

And then they wonder why their stuff is pirated so much.
 
2013-03-08 01:18:17 PM  
The best part of this is if you look at the Metacritic reviews, the critics loved it and the users hated it.  The only reason to users hated it was because of the complete inability of EA to make Sim City work on Day 1.  If EA hadn't farked it up, they might have gotten away with their ass hole DRM.  But they did, so they didn't.
 
2013-03-08 01:27:29 PM  
Let EA be the wrecked ship on the rocky, treacherous shores of DRM that show other companies where not to sail.
 
2013-03-08 01:31:00 PM  
This whole thing is absolute proof that people who pirate are getting the better end of the deal than the customers who actually want to support the devs. I sincerely hope EA & Activision go DIAF and part their IPs out to gaming companies that give a shiat about games and not squeezing every extra penny they can from a customer while holding a gun to their head to make sure they aren't stealing.
 
2013-03-08 01:39:49 PM  
See, here's the thing. I'm not much of a gamer, period. I don't do online gaming at all. There are only a few games that I enjoy playing for a long time, and those tend to be games that I can immerse myself in and play a little at a time, by myself, for my own amusement (Civilization, Skyrim, etc etc). Back in the day, SimCity was one of those games. And when I heard there was a new one coming out, I got mildly interested. Not ecstatic...I haven't thought about SimCity in years, after all, and didn't know a new one was coming out. But mildly interested. Like, "Huh. You know, maybe I'll download that from Amazon for $60. I enjoyed it before, it could be fun."

But then I found out that it forces me to play online, and that building a real city requires me to collaborate with other people. I don't want to. Why should I have to do that to enjoy a game I've always enjoyed playing by myself? Multiplayer should be an option, not a requirement.

I don't care if the game wants to check to make sure it has a valid license. Fark all that, it doesn't matter to me. But you're going to make me collaborate in a multi-player game? Fark you. I'll never buy that. And I can't believe I'm all that rare in feeling that way. Why the hell would EA turn off that entire segment of its potential audience?
 
2013-03-08 01:42:59 PM  

kumanoki: Let EA be the wrecked ship on the rocky, treacherous shores of DRM that show other companies where not to sail.


See... I wouldn't really have a problem with EA destroying them self.  Glob knows they've been trying for years.  The problem I have is that they're a black hole of suck, drawing in development studios and franchises... pulling the good parts of the industry deep within their dark maw.  Never to be seen again.

Never.  To be seen.  AGAIN!
 
2013-03-08 01:52:11 PM  
I've come to the compromise that I'll buy games on Steam to support the devs, but I still have a "extra" copy on my external drive if someone ever gets lawsuit happy and forces Steam to take it down.
 
2013-03-08 01:55:45 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-08 02:08:25 PM  
Pssssh.  I've been boycotting EA ever since they pulled the plug on Motor World Online, the best racing game of all time.

/they said they needed the server space for Sim City
//they even offered me a free copy of Sim City, I told them to shove it
///get off of my lawn.
 
2013-03-08 02:11:52 PM  
Good letter. I'm not interested in playing this game, but I'm going to pirate it and let the .iso sit on my hard drive, just because fark you, EA.
 
2013-03-08 02:14:52 PM  
Yeah I have no interest in this game.   Off to pirate it!
 
2013-03-08 02:16:04 PM  
I think it goes to show that the gaming industry has become so paranoid about piracy that it's destroying itself.

I very rarely want to give Apple it's due, but they have shown that you can curtail piracy by making the purchasing process less painful than the process to steal the material.
You never will get rid of all thieves, some people are just wired that way. But their numbers can be minimized pretty easily.
 
2013-03-08 02:18:27 PM  
yeah, when you make it too hard for honest customers to play a game, you've farked up.

I would like to play Dead Space 3 (and I wouldn't mind playing a newer version of Sim City) but I hate all this DRM and forced online crap. I already have to play so much shyte with Steam running, why do I need to add an extra layer of BS?

\lookin' at you, Microsoft, for making me jump through hoops just to play Bioshock 2
 
2013-03-08 02:20:26 PM  
Look dude, I hate DRM too. But the problem here isn't DRM, it's that EA is completely incompetent.
 
2013-03-08 02:21:59 PM  
I won't pay a cent for this game until the major issues (reloadable saves, always-on and forced multi-player) are fixed.

I am willing to pirate it, not even to play but just so some EA asshat can watch the number of torrents and downloads sky rocket.
 
2013-03-08 02:23:04 PM  
Also, a prediction for the future: if you release an expansion or paid DLC to make the extremely small city areas bigger (instead of making it a free fix for one of the game's legitimate mechanical flaws), people are going to be unhappy all over again. We're all expecting it, and none of us are going to appreciate it when it happens.

Subway DLC. Book it. Done.
 
2013-03-08 02:25:16 PM  

Virtual Pariah: I think it goes to show that the gaming industry has become so paranoid about piracy that it's destroying itself.

I very rarely want to give Apple it's due, but they have shown that you can curtail piracy by making the purchasing process less painful than the process to steal the material.
You never will get rid of all thieves, some people are just wired that way. But their numbers can be minimized pretty easily.


Valve did the exact same thing.  Which is why it's baffling that nobody else seems willing to learn from that example.

Treat people like what you want them to be.  Treat them as valued customers, and they'll be that.  Treat them as thieves, and they'll be that too.
 
2013-03-08 02:25:45 PM  
i'm so farking sick of people saying DRM
 
2013-03-08 02:26:30 PM  
EA used to be one of the best game companies, now it's one of the worst. Their games reek of them trying to nickle and dime you on anything and everything possible. Unlike most Farkers I am not "DRM OMG!! They will own my soul!!!" But EA is way beyond that. Seems you buy a game for the same price every other game is, it has tons of in game advertising, and to be able to do anything you must by lots of DLC. And on top of that the interfaces are torturous. It feels to me they spend 90% of their time figuring how to make money on a game and about 10$ on trying to make sure the game actually doesn't suck.
 
2013-03-08 02:29:04 PM  

pacified: i'm so farking sick of people saying DRM


Well, I don't see you suggesting any new names!
 
2013-03-08 02:30:30 PM  
The video game industry is about to die, and the problem is the software companies attempts at ending piracy and used gaming that's going to cause it, sadly, they are too stupid to actually realize it, and when the video game industry tanks, they will go down blaming pirates while ignoring failures like this.

How bad is the video game industry doing?  I have friends who work at the Gamestop Corporate office.  Years ago, Gamestop used to be on the Fortune 500.  Gamestop had piles of money and they used it to do upgrade sections of the corporate office, they bought some off site property to expand their refurbishment department, picked up several companies to expand their brand.  Now, in late January they eliminated several positions in the corporate office as well as closed over 80 stores, dissolving several districts.  Right now is annual review time and so far everyone who's gotten their review back has had poor reviews.  Some think that the company might be gearing up for another round of lay offs, others think the poor reviews are Gamestop's way of avoiding payraises that they've already announced that they can not afford.  Part of the problem is that it's been six years since a major console was released and with the next gen consoles not expected to be out until Maybe December of this year, it's going to be a hard year for Gamestop.  Another problem for Gamestop is the software company's war against used gaming, and Gamestop is their target (and gamers the victims).  They argue that Gamestop has made a billion dollar empire off of used games, but gives none of that money to the software companies (which makes as much sense as Carmax selling used cars but not sending any of that money to the auto makers).  There are several rumors about the next Playstation and Xbox not allowing used games by requiring online connection to verify that the disk is a new disk, to activation codes to on line only.  All moves that will ultimately kill the video game industry, at least the console gaming industry.

But, the software publishers aren't the only reason why Gamestop's in trouble.  The rise of mobile platform gaming and Gamestop's inability to compete with iTunes, plus their buying of companies and not really knowing what to do with them after purchasing hasn't made Gamestop look any more responsible than a 17 year old rap star rushing out and buying twenty Ferraris.

EA has been the absolute worst when it comes to video game publisher dickery.  It was announced several years ago that they were charging money for DLCs that weren't actually DLCs, but part of the disk that you already paid for.  Basically, you spend $60 for the disk, then pay more money for more features that only EA can unlock.  Honestly, I think that the only thing that has kept EA in business is their Madden contract.  The Madden series is a big game launch each year.  EA can charge $60 for the disk, then $15 to unlock each team on the disk, and people will still buy those games.  The worst part about it that the software publishers are looking at EA and saying "Yeah, they appear to be screwing over the customers, but they are still buying the games, so if they can do it, so can we."  Meaning that what EA is doing, we can expect to see from other companies in the near future.
 
2013-03-08 02:30:39 PM  
Is it out of the question for game companies to rent servers from Google/Amazon/whoever for a few weeks or months to handle the initial rush of new players for a new game? After the initial demand dips back down to normal levels, scale back server capacity. If that were possible, I would imagine it would be worth avoiding all this bad press and supporting the idea that always on DRM is to be avoided at all costs.
 
2013-03-08 02:31:07 PM  
This really sucks. I don't game much anymore, but Simcity was going to be an insta-purchase until I saw the troubles it was having.

The invisible hand smacks EA yet again. Will they listen? Or will some other company innovate themselves a better solution that the market wants.
 
2013-03-08 02:32:13 PM  
TFA: Let me say this straight off: the DRM and online features in a game are part of a game

A-ha, so your first challenge in the game is to get through the DRM. THIS IS PART OF THE GAME.

Wait, I have an idea for a new game genre. There will be nothing in the games but dozens of DRM algorithms and the goal will be to get through all of them. Sounds good, no? First one wins, others can EABOD.
 
2013-03-08 02:33:45 PM  
I play games when I DONT want to interact with people.  I don't want facebook integration.  Or leaderboards.  Or resource sharing.  I want to be THE hero of the world, not just another guy who clearly isn't the best at whatever.

The only thing online integration does is make my experience less meaningful.  It adds an element of competition where it doesn't belong.  That's not fun.  Games are supposed to be fun.
 
2013-03-08 02:34:28 PM  

JustMatt: Is it out of the question for game companies to rent servers from Google/Amazon/whoever for a few weeks or months to handle the initial rush of new players for a new game?


Shouldn't one of the largest video game companies be able to do this?
 
2013-03-08 02:36:24 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Also, a prediction for the future: if you release an expansion or paid DLC to make the extremely small city areas bigger (instead of making it a free fix for one of the game's legitimate mechanical flaws), people are going to be unhappy all over again. We're all expecting it, and none of us are going to appreciate it when it happens.

Subway DLC. Book it. Done.


Yeah, they're probably going to roll out every feature of SimCity 4, $10 at a time.
 
2013-03-08 02:37:38 PM  

ManRay: This really sucks. I don't game much anymore, but Simcity was going to be an insta-purchase until I saw the troubles it was having.

The invisible hand smacks EA yet again. Will they listen? Or will some other company innovate themselves a better solution that the market wants.


It won't smack them hard enough.  shiat like this is exactly why they push pre-orders so hard; to insulate themselves from things like bad reviews and launch fiascoes.
 
2013-03-08 02:38:19 PM  
So going from the Assassins Creed release, when do EA turn around and blame the outage on the ebil piwates DDOSing them?

Because it's always interesting to watch a master demonstrate putting a fire out by pouring petrol over it.
 
2013-03-08 02:39:31 PM  
This guy (from the Amazon reviews) has a better letter:

Dear EA/Maxis/Origin:

You killed the child inside me.

The one who remembers playing SimCity. The *first* one. Who recalls fondly a childhood of Sim games, spending countless hours on my Compaq 486 sx33 living simulated lives in simulated bliss. I played all the iterations: I built theme parks and zoos and I even went so far as to adore SimAnt. Anyone remember SimAnt? You were a yellow ant. And did... Ant things... Simulated Ant things. I did that.

Over the years, as I grew in to an adult, SimCity grew with me. Through every evolution, I enjoyed it. I bonded with it. I dreamed of living in an Arcology one day, in the distant future. Maxis, you stimulated my impressionable mind and gave me critical thinking skills and a grounded conduit for my creativity.

For all those years, I am thankful. I even played "The Sims" a bit, but became busy being an adult and living a non-simulated life.

When I read about a year ago there would be a new SimCity game, I was ecstatic. I immediately sent links to my childhood friends, started reading every piece I could about it, and gleefully watched sneak previews on YouTube. I was excited.

I Pre-Ordered it on Amazon. Then I ordered it on Origin because I could get it two hours earlier- that's how excited I was to download it.

Now. Listen, EA. You know where this is going. You know what happened. You know what you did. We all know what you did.

You killed a little boy. Metaphorically, of course. I'm fairly sure none of your products have or ever will cause actual death. Unless it's suicide induced by trying to deal with your customer support, online or by phone... Actually yea, I can see someone on the desperate brink of ending their own life as a result of the incomprehensibly atrocious "Help" and "Contact" system you have in place on Origin. I can't even find an email address. AN EMAIL ADDRESS, EA. YOU GET LIKE THIRTY OF THOSE FREE WHEN YOU SIGN UP FOR COMCAST. HELL, I'LL GIVE YOU LIKE 28 OF MINE YOU CAN USE.

I digress. Let's not even talk about how it won't work, at all, right now. How there's not a single player mode. How the only mode is a crippled, severely limited, and quite honestly child-like version of what should be a powerful piece of gaming art.

It was pre-ordered, EA... and no one could download it. At all. You knew how many copies were going to be downloaded. You knew exactly how many downloads would be happening. Who does the math there? Who didn't figure out the server load? Are there koala bears doing math there?

AND if you DID do the math....

WHY IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS GOOD DID YOU NOT ALLOW PRE-DOWNLOADS?

I just... this is just.. unfathomable... you've done it before, with other popular games. I mean, it's not like this is the first game release EA and Origin has had... Right? Were you worried about piracy? Well. It's an online only game. The piracy rate of something like this (Or Diablo 3, or WoW, or whatever) has to be remarkably lower than the old "make a burned copy of CD and get a keygen from your buddy" days.

Online only. No single player version. I hate playing games with people. That's why I want to play a game where I control everyone and everything. To be away from the real world. In MY Sim-World...

And don't think we can't see what you're doing here, Maxis. There's $500 worth of "The Sims 3" add-ons out there. Shoot, even the initial download of this new SimCity tried to squeeze another 20 bucks out of us for.. I don't know, Germany or something?

How man versions would there be?
How much money would it cost to have a complete SimCity? A grand?

No.

No thank you. To any of this. This is, without a doubt, the last PC game I buy. Steam, Origin, whatever non-sense BattleNet decides to use... No more. Not when there are three consoles sitting in front of me, eager to play games immediately, the first time. In fact, my new Mass Effect 3 DLC just installed. Quickly. The first time.

In closing:

You've done terribly. You've ruined it. For everyone. Why? Because money. Because lack of foresight and smug, self-satisfied designs that would ensure we all had a SimLeech bloodsucking us for years to come.

So it wouldn't download. And now it won't play. And now I can't get my money back. Or even talk to anyone related to the game whatsoever.

And even if it did play, the part of me that would enjoy it, he's face down in a wading pool anyhow.

Thanks. You've made my laptop my imagination's Hiroshima.
 
2013-03-08 02:39:58 PM  

Great Janitor: EA can charge $60 for the disk, then $15 to unlock each team on the disk


Wow, I thought it was overpriced to begin with, but this is real? Holy shiat, glad I was never interested in getting it.
 
2013-03-08 02:40:32 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-08 02:43:15 PM  

show me: Great Janitor: EA can charge $60 for the disk, then $15 to unlock each team on the disk

Wow, I thought it was overpriced to begin with, but this is real? Holy shiat, glad I was never interested in getting it.


No.  Well, the $60 for the game is real, plus more money for unlocking parts of the disk.  The $15 to unlock each team I made up as an example to show just what EA could do and how the fans would still buy.

EA, if you do this, you're a dick.  Secondly, it was my idea, I expect a cut of the profits.
 
2013-03-08 02:43:22 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: This guy (from the Amazon reviews) has a better letter:

Dear EA/Maxis/Origin:

You killed the child inside me.

The one who remembers playing SimCity. The *first* one. Who recalls fondly a childhood of Sim games, spending countless hours on my Compaq 486 sx33


Ha! I had a 486 DX33! Suck it, dude!
 
2013-03-08 02:44:52 PM  
PCMAG.com has popups.  2 of them in fact.
This is just as annoying as single player games requiring server access.
When will web sites learn?

1. Enter profanities in the questionnaire
2. Enter false, disgusting email address.
3. Avoid the offending web sites.
4.... nothing.
 
2013-03-08 02:45:12 PM  

Great Janitor: Gamestop's inability to compete with iTunes


I don't have the number handy, but I'm pretty sure Steam still makes way more money on game sales than iTunes.
 
2013-03-08 02:45:13 PM  
I'm glad I'm on vacation.  They better have this cleared up by Sunday though.
 
2013-03-08 02:45:51 PM  
 
2013-03-08 02:46:23 PM  

Great Janitor: show me: Great Janitor: EA can charge $60 for the disk, then $15 to unlock each team on the disk

Wow, I thought it was overpriced to begin with, but this is real? Holy shiat, glad I was never interested in getting it.

No.  Well, the $60 for the game is real, plus more money for unlocking parts of the disk.  The $15 to unlock each team I made up as an example to show just what EA could do and how the fans would still buy.

EA, if you do this, you're a dick.  Secondly, it was my idea, I expect a cut of the profits.


Wait till Madden 2014, they'll do it. That is, if it isn't out already. I know they are always ahead on the years. Like, didn't they put Peyton Manning on the cover the year he didn't even play?
 
2013-03-08 02:46:26 PM  
no it isn't real. use your brain
 
2013-03-08 02:46:28 PM  
A botched launch gets more greens than a school shooting and the gun threads or a cop killer hunt.
 
2013-03-08 02:47:44 PM  

palladiate: Great Janitor: Gamestop's inability to compete with iTunes

I don't have the number handy, but I'm pretty sure Steam still makes way more money on game sales than iTunes.


I was referring to mobile gaming, but still, Gamestop hasn't had success against Steam either.
 
2013-03-08 02:49:15 PM  
These companies need to realize that a pirated copy is not a lost sale and move on. Lots of people would gladly take something for free that they would never want if they had to pay for it. The difference here is, you don't actually lose anything when someone pirates a game. They aren't stealing a physical object.

So stop pissing off your paying customers to protect yourself from NOTHING
 
2013-03-08 02:49:34 PM  
the amount of nerd crying in this is the annoying part.   I get it, the servers aren't working right.  But is it worth all the wrist slitting emo bullshiat?  fark.  You nerds need better priority.
 
2013-03-08 02:50:49 PM  

lucksi: A botched launch gets more greens than a school shooting and the gun threads or a cop killer hunt.


But not nearly so many responses as The Wrestlers of Our Lives.
 
2013-03-08 02:51:01 PM  

Great Janitor: How bad is the video game industry doing?  I have friends who work at the Gamestop Corporate office.  Years ago, Gamestop used to be on the Fortune 500.  Gamestop had piles of money and they used it to do upgrade sections of the corporate office, they bought some off site property to expand their refurbishment department, picked up several companies to expand their brand.  Now, in late January they eliminated several positions in the corporate office as well as closed over 80 stores, dissolving several districts.  Right now is annual review time and so far everyone who's gotten their review back has had poor reviews.  Some think that the company might be gearing up for another round of lay offs, others think the poor reviews are Gamestop's way of avoiding payraises that they've already announced that they can not afford.  Part of the problem is that it's been six years since a major console was released and with the next gen consoles not expected to be out until Maybe December of this year, it's going to be a hard year for Gamestop.  Another problem for Gamestop is the software company's war against used gaming, and Gamestop is their target (and gamers the victims).  They argue that Gamestop has made a billion dollar empire off of used games, but gives none of that money to the software companies (which makes as much sense as Carmax selling used cars but not sending any of that money to the auto makers).  There are several rumors about the next Playstation and Xbox not allowing used games by requiring online connection to verify that the disk is a new disk, to activation codes to on line only.  All moves that will ultimately kill the video game industry, at least the console gaming industry.


Gamestop is dying because of digital distribution, Amazon, and the general price point for new video games. End of story.

Gamestop's fate has very little to do with the do with the health of the video game industry as a whole.
 
2013-03-08 02:51:20 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: In fact, my new Mass Effect 3 DLC just installed.


So I know a lot of people felt burned by ME3, and I hated the ending just as much as anyone (more numb to it now), but the "Citadel" DLC is awesome. It's nothing but pure fanservice, and that's what makes it great. It's the ending that people wanted, but at the same time there's no way they could've put it in the main game. This is DLC done right.
 
2013-03-08 02:52:50 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: This guy (from the Amazon reviews) has a better letter:


Well said.
 
2013-03-08 02:54:50 PM  

Dr. Goldshnoz: This whole thing is absolute proof that people who pirate are getting the better end of the deal than the customers who actually want to support the devs.


Yep.

Oldie but goodie:
www.thebuzzmedia.com
 
2013-03-08 02:57:11 PM  

Trollin4Colon: [i.imgur.com image 850x744]


And that's now posted to my FB wall.
 
2013-03-08 02:57:41 PM  

Great Janitor: show me: Great Janitor: EA can charge $60 for the disk, then $15 to unlock each team on the disk

Wow, I thought it was overpriced to begin with, but this is real? Holy shiat, glad I was never interested in getting it.

No.  Well, the $60 for the game is real, plus more money for unlocking parts of the disk.  The $15 to unlock each team I made up as an example to show just what EA could do and how the fans would still buy.

EA, if you do this, you're a dick.  Secondly, it was my idea, I expect a cut of the profits.


I was perusing through the Playstation Store a while back and wandered into the Madden 201x DLC. They have stuff like $2.99 for some coach or something that can watch for player trades, or something like that. Some mundane task that you can pay to have automated. And there's quite a few of them. It's actually kinda sickening.

I think the last EA game I bought was MoH: Vanguard on PS2.
 
2013-03-08 02:57:46 PM  

from my blood: PCMAG.com has popups.  2 of them in fact.
This is just as annoying as single player games requiring server access.
When will web sites learn?

1. Enter profanities in the questionnaire
2. Enter false, disgusting email address.
3. Avoid the offending web sites.
4.... nothing.


What are 'ads'?
 
2013-03-08 02:58:58 PM  

pacified: the amount of nerd crying in this is the annoying part.   I get it, the servers aren't working right.  But is it worth all the wrist slitting emo bullshiat?  fark.  You nerds need better priority.


Yeah, I don't see the point in getting emotional about it but a big company costing cutting off its nose to spite its face is pretty farkworthy.
 
2013-03-08 03:00:16 PM  
also, its not a single player game anymore.  so stop trying to pretend it is.
 
2013-03-08 03:03:40 PM  
SimCity jumped the shark with SimCity 2000.  (A long time ago.)

So, nothing new.  Add to that "always-on" internet DRM, and I won't buy it.  Learned my lesson with SCII.
 
2013-03-08 03:04:41 PM  
art.penny-arcade.com
 
2013-03-08 03:05:02 PM  

CPennypacker: They aren't stealing a physical object.


Theft of services
 
2013-03-08 03:06:52 PM  
I own quite a few games that require DRM, Arkham City, Heroes of Might and Magic 6, etc. Here's the issue:

Games with DRM:
1.I launch the game.
2.It brings me to a page to log into, but not the game. Usually a page that lists the games I own by the developer that requires a username and password.
3. I log in... if I can remember the randomly generated username assigned to my account name, but I can't use my real account name, just the alias they assigned me for my protection.
4. Reset my username on a 2nd website.
5. Reset my password on a 3rd website.
6. Set the interface to always remember my username and password... again.
7. Log in.
8. Close down 'special offers' for new games or DLC's.
9. Turn down speakers as the developer's fancy logo screen appears (that can't be turned off) and hope my speakers aren't now cracked.
10. Go through the distributor's fancy logo screen
11. Intro to the game comes on. Sometimes I can actually escape out of this!
12. Turn volume back up as the game volume is so much lower than the wall splintering loud logo splash screens
13. Start playing the game

Steam Games:
1. Launch Steam from the toolbar directly to my games library
2. Click play
3. Escape through logos
4. Play the game

GoG Games:
1. Double click the shortcut
2. Play the game

My understanding of Pirated Games:
1. Double click the icon
2. Play the game

OR

1. Mount the .iso in an Emulator
2. Play the game

For convenience, it seems Steam, GoG and piracy is the way to go if ou want to play now. The games I have with DRM have barely anytime played on them for the above mentioned reasons. I will forget about the hassle of logging into them and decided to play them every now and again. I am greeted with the DRM crap. 7 times out of 10, I just turn the game off and go play something else. Hell, I have 130+ games on my Steam account and a couple dozen directly installed from GoG (that I import into Steam for launching).

I have also given up on playing games at launch. Back in the day it was neat as you'd get weird bugs that made the game interesting at times, infuriating at other times, and then you'd go to the developer's website and download the patch. Then the developer's started putting patch buttons in their games, so you could choose to install the patches. All in all, it was a much easier time.

About 10 years ago, people started literally paying to be able to beta games for the developer (purchase discs and have them shipped to you, and the like) and the developers and distributors began to realize the gamers are foaming at the mouth for the game. What would happen if they shipped the game incomplete? They tried it, people biatched, but they still bought and played the games. Then they started selling DLC's for the games as extras, little boosts to the game that would enhance it's playability without giving the player an unfair advantage. Then they started with holding integral parts of the game, and offering it as Day 1 DLC. Hell, discs are being shipped with DLC on it and they have to pay to unlock code on the freaking disc!!

Who is to blame? We, the gamers are to blame. Or at least the younger generation that's been raised in the internet era of everything being available immediately to them. The rush to be first, to somehow stand out above the rest of the riff raff is a powerful motivator. We so want to be the first to accomplish something, earn an achievement or unlock something special, we're clamoring for the game NOW NOW NOW. These developers and distributors know, that even though we complain, biatch, make petitions and slaughter their game scores, we'll still buy it. We'll still play it. We'll be IN THE GAME complaining about the game, but won't log out of the game we're complaining about!!

How many games have been threatened with class action suits? D3? SWTOR? WoW? now SimCity? How many of those Class Action lawsuits have been picked up by lawyers? How many have gone to trial? All these gamers demanding recompense for the game not working are dumb. They feel they are entitled to whatever it is they claim over the emotional distress of the game not working. Flawed Product. Unusable product. "If I bought a car and it didn't work, blah blah blah..." Apples and oranges my friends. If you think for one second EA doesn't have this all wrapped up legally within the EULA you didn't even scan through while furiously clicking Accept, you're deluded enough to think you have a legal leg to stand on.

So, keep on thinking it's the developer's fault, and I'll be back for the next big game launch to remind you exactly why you are dumb for having done this yet again. I'm sure you think it'll be different next time, because it's another developer with another distributor, but the sole fact you purchased this game simply proves it's a viable resource for the developers and distributors to to utilize to release their game.

Tl:DR crowd?

It's your own damn fault.
 
2013-03-08 03:08:15 PM  

Teiritzamna: CPennypacker: They aren't stealing a physical object.

Theft of services


Pirating a game isn't a theft of services
 
2013-03-08 03:09:40 PM  

show me: rufus-t-firefly: This guy (from the Amazon reviews) has a better letter:

Dear EA/Maxis/Origin:

You killed the child inside me.

The one who remembers playing SimCity. The *first* one. Who recalls fondly a childhood of Sim games, spending countless hours on my Compaq 486 sx33

Ha! I had a 486 DX33! Suck it, dude!


I played all of the old Maxis games (SimCity, SimAnt, RoboSport) the way they were meant to be played.  On a Mac! (with a tiny little built in black and white monitor)
 
2013-03-08 03:10:31 PM  
1) EA can eat a dick, mainly because they were bad at DRM, not because of the DRM itself.

2) looks like another thread where people front the old false choice:

I can either (a) get X unlawfully, or (b) get X lawfully but with lots of annoying things attached (DRM, Cable TV to wtach HBO show, trailers, commercials, etc.).

This of course forgets the key third choice:

(c) i can go without.

I just find it really funny that in every one of these threads there is the sense that people are entitled to a thing in exactly the way they want it.  If they cannot buy it exactly the way they want it, they will obtain it unlawfully.  That is not a justification . . . its not even really an excuse. 

If you think EA sucks, you can not buy EA's products.  You have that right.  And if enough people do that, EA will either fold or will need to do what people want.  There is, however, no moral justification for saying EA's policies are dumb, so i will unlawfully obtain their product.
 
2013-03-08 03:10:31 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: ...


Anyone else find it slightly ironic that in the midst of that long complaint about how much EA sucks and paying for features sucks, he pays lip services to using consoles to play... an EA game & praises the DLC install?
 
2013-03-08 03:10:36 PM  

Rincewind53: Great Janitor: How bad is the video game industry doing?  I have friends who work at the Gamestop Corporate office.  Years ago, Gamestop used to be on the Fortune 500.  Gamestop had piles of money and they used it to do upgrade sections of the corporate office, they bought some off site property to expand their refurbishment department, picked up several companies to expand their brand.  Now, in late January they eliminated several positions in the corporate office as well as closed over 80 stores, dissolving several districts.  Right now is annual review time and so far everyone who's gotten their review back has had poor reviews.  Some think that the company might be gearing up for another round of lay offs, others think the poor reviews are Gamestop's way of avoiding payraises that they've already announced that they can not afford.  Part of the problem is that it's been six years since a major console was released and with the next gen consoles not expected to be out until Maybe December of this year, it's going to be a hard year for Gamestop.  Another problem for Gamestop is the software company's war against used gaming, and Gamestop is their target (and gamers the victims).  They argue that Gamestop has made a billion dollar empire off of used games, but gives none of that money to the software companies (which makes as much sense as Carmax selling used cars but not sending any of that money to the auto makers).  There are several rumors about the next Playstation and Xbox not allowing used games by requiring online connection to verify that the disk is a new disk, to activation codes to on line only.  All moves that will ultimately kill the video game industry, at least the console gaming industry.

Gamestop is dying because of digital distribution, Amazon, and the general price point for new video games. End of story.

Gamestop's fate has very little to do with the do with the health of the video game industry as a whole.


thank you.  the business models are shifting.  more and more people are gaming.   you're seeing a shift from the industry focusing resources on "serious" gaming (consoles, PC)  to the casual, mobile crowd.   a means that cannot be attained by going to a used game store.
 
2013-03-08 03:11:26 PM  
Now they're just farking with everyone.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2416398,00.asp
 
2013-03-08 03:13:38 PM  

YodaBlues: [i.imgur.com image 574x650]


I fell really bad for laughing at that.  And now other people in the office are asking me what's so funny and I don't dare show them.
 
2013-03-08 03:14:05 PM  

Teiritzamna: 1) EA can eat a dick, mainly because they were bad at DRM, not because of the DRM itself.

2) looks like another thread where people front the old false choice:

I can either (a) get X unlawfully, or (b) get X lawfully but with lots of annoying things attached (DRM, Cable TV to wtach HBO show, trailers, commercials, etc.).

This of course forgets the key third choice:

(c) i can go without.

I just find it really funny that in every one of these threads there is the sense that people are entitled to a thing in exactly the way they want it.  If they cannot buy it exactly the way they want it, they will obtain it unlawfully.  That is not a justification . . . its not even really an excuse. 

If you think EA sucks, you can not buy EA's products.  You have that right.  And if enough people do that, EA will either fold or will need to do what people want.  There is, however, no moral justification for saying EA's policies are dumb, so i will unlawfully obtain their product.


Its not a justification of piracy, you're missing the point. They are showing how badly paying customers get screwed over by trying to deter theft while the thieves have a better experience.
 
2013-03-08 03:14:09 PM  

Great Janitor: The video game industry is about to die, and the problem is the software companies attempts at ending piracy and used gaming that's going to cause it, sadly, they are too stupid to actually realize it, and when the video game industry tanks, they will go down blaming pirates while ignoring failures like this.

How bad is the video game industry doing?  ...


Rebuttal:  The kickstarter for Planscape:  Tides of Numenera Reached its funding goal of 900k in 6 hours, and is sitting at 2.1 million after 1.5 days.

Shadowrun Returns put out an alpha gameplay video that looks BETTER than most of the production/beta crap we've been seeing.  Not only that, it has shown up on a couple of 'most anticpated games of 2013" lists

Wasteland 2 recently put out a gameplay video showing off some features and gameplay, as well as also getting onto the same lists as Shadowrun Returns.

The days of large video publishers are likely to wane somewhat, but there are good games out there to find (and fund!) if you keep an ear to the ground.  The funding and distribution systems are changing.
 
2013-03-08 03:14:57 PM  

HST's Dead Carcass: It's your own damn fault.


It's the fault of gamers for continuing to want to play games even when they get dicked by game publishers that have bought up most of the decent IP that has existed and milks it dry?

k.
 
2013-03-08 03:18:49 PM  

CPennypacker: Its not a justification of piracy, you're missing the point. They are showing how badly paying customers get screwed over by trying to deter theft while the thieves have a better experience.


While that is a point, it is not the point i was addressing.  It was the point made throughout the thread that DRM is why people obtain the game unlawfully.  As if they had a right to it.  Saying: "you know what, this DRM is ridiculous so I shall not buy this POS game" is a 100% morally/legally justifiable statement.  Saying, "you know what, this DRM is ridiculous so I shall not buy this POS game but instead will torrent it" is not.

See also  art.penny-arcade.com
 
2013-03-08 03:19:10 PM  
uboachan.net
 
2013-03-08 03:21:15 PM  
EA had $3.58 billion in net revenue in 2011 and $4.14 billion in net revenue last year.  They'll get their servers up and running, issue an apology for the inconvenience, and wait for everyone to start liking the gameplay more than hating the launch.

Problem solved!  These things take care of themselves, you see.
 
2013-03-08 03:22:33 PM  

Teiritzamna: CPennypacker: Its not a justification of piracy, you're missing the point. They are showing how badly paying customers get screwed over by trying to deter theft while the thieves have a better experience.

While that is a point, it is not the point i was addressing.  It was the point made throughout the thread that DRM is why people obtain the game unlawfully.  As if they had a right to it.  Saying: "you know what, this DRM is ridiculous so I shall not buy this POS game" is a 100% morally/legally justifiable statement.  Saying, "you know what, this DRM is ridiculous so I shall not buy this POS game but instead will torrent it" is not.

See also  [art.penny-arcade.com image 800x408]


As a publisher they should be less concerned with what people have a right to do and more concerned with satisfying their paying customers and not pissing them off. Do enough to combat piracy to make pirating a game annoying enough to the average person and move on. Anyone who puts any more effort into it wasn't going to give you money for the game anyway. Its not a lost sale.

Piracy is wrong. I don't do it and neither should you. Doesn't justify the publishers pissing off the people who are actually opening their wallets to buy their crap.
 
2013-03-08 03:24:30 PM  

PanicMan: I play games when I DONT want to interact with people.  I don't want facebook integration.  Or leaderboards.  Or resource sharing.  I want to be THE hero of the world, not just another guy who clearly isn't the best at whatever.

The only thing online integration does is make my experience less meaningful.  It adds an element of competition where it doesn't belong.  That's not fun.  Games are supposed to be fun.


Yelp, the last online game on thought was mildly fun was Quake 3.

//My age..
 
2013-03-08 03:24:37 PM  

Dr. Goldshnoz: It's the fault of gamers for continuing to want to play games even when they get dicked by game publishers that have bought up most of the decent IP that has existed and milks it dry?

k.


Yep. If it was really that important to a gamer to make a stand on a game interface, they shouldn't buy it. If DRM is really that bi of an issue, they shouldn't buy it. Let the game companies know it's an unacceptable practice that you refuse to support.

BUT!

We're gamers. So, we buy the game, tell everyone how much it sucks, demand recompense for the game in one form or another for being put out by the game, and this whole time they are playing it. Everyone knew this was going to be a constant connection game, and with history proving how bad this is, they bought it anyway, then have the nerve to be shocked that it doesn't work. They proclaim their shock while pointing out the failures of every other DRM launched game. It's quite the ironic statement, really.

I digress, though. If people stopped buying constant connection/DRM games, the developers would stop making them. Plain and simple. Too bad gamers are slaves to their own desire.

So keep on thinking this is going to change because the launch was a failure. They made quite a huge stack of cash on this, and though EA greatly desires to fix this black eye, the sole fact it sold so well proves to their company this is the way to go.

Thank you gamers for making this the new future of gaming, you only have yourself to blame.
 
2013-03-08 03:28:32 PM  

peewinkle: Pssssh.  I've been boycotting EA ever since they pulled the plug on Motor World Online, the best racing game of all time.

/they said they needed the server space for Sim City
//they even offered me a free copy of Sim City, I told them to shove it
///get off of my lawn.


Wait, what?  They tried to pull the server space card in 2013?  When services like Amazon Web Services and Windows Azure are storing terabytes of data and pushing numbers in the gigabytes every second?

Wow.
 
2013-03-08 03:28:42 PM  

CPennypacker: As a publisher they should be less concerned with what people have a right to do and more concerned with satisfying their paying customers and not pissing them off.


This is true.  It is also irrelevant to my statements were were focused upon the non corporate response side of this standard dance.  Of course i believe companies should be smarter with their resources and should always focus on making a better product rather than market manipulation.  However, that is a totally different question.  Not corporate action, but consumer action.

When confronted by a company that hasn't learned the lesson that it should make a better product, as stated above a consumer has three options.  (1) buy anyway (valid) (2) not buy (valid) (3) obtain but do not buy (invalid).  All i was saying is that it remarkable how many people do not seem to realize that (2) is an option, which allows them to use the poor acts of the company as a justification for (3)
 
2013-03-08 03:30:30 PM  

HST's Dead Carcass: Dr. Goldshnoz: It's the fault of gamers for continuing to want to play games even when they get dicked by game publishers that have bought up most of the decent IP that has existed and milks it dry?

k.

Yep. If it was really that important to a gamer to make a stand on a game interface, they shouldn't buy it. If DRM is really that bi of an issue, they shouldn't buy it. Let the game companies know it's an unacceptable practice that you refuse to support.

BUT!

We're gamers. So, we buy the game, tell everyone how much it sucks, demand recompense for the game in one form or another for being put out by the game, and this whole time they are playing it. Everyone knew this was going to be a constant connection game, and with history proving how bad this is, they bought it anyway, then have the nerve to be shocked that it doesn't work. They proclaim their shock while pointing out the failures of every other DRM launched game. It's quite the ironic statement, really.

I digress, though. If people stopped buying constant connection/DRM games, the developers would stop making them. Plain and simple. Too bad gamers are slaves to their own desire.

So keep on thinking this is going to change because the launch was a failure. They made quite a huge stack of cash on this, and though EA greatly desires to fix this black eye, the sole fact it sold so well proves to their company this is the way to go.

Thank you gamers for making this the new future of gaming, you only have yourself to blame.


Or, more likely, they would just cancel whatever series sold bad due to gamers not buying it, lay off the staff and close the studio. Its not so black and white. The DRM sucks, and is added into the value equation for the game. For some people, the game is still a net positive value, discounting the negative aspects like DRM and the cost combined. That doesn't mean they don't have a right to complain about the stuff they don't like.

The thing is, its a very strong negative and will tip the value proposition for a lot of potential buyers. It did for me. I would have bought this game. Maybe when the price drops, but this debacle at $60 isn't worth it, even for a new Sim City.
 
2013-03-08 03:31:45 PM  
Would've been easier to just say "You're a bunch of farking idiots, still."
 
2013-03-08 03:32:05 PM  
They do this every time.  They did it with every Battlefield (Bad Company 2, BF3, BF1943) game I bought.  The servers were overloaded for too long and then they said more people bought it than they expected and the servers couldn't handle the load.  FU EA.  Say what you want about Activision but I never had a day one problem playing COD.
 
2013-03-08 03:32:12 PM  

Talondel: show me: rufus-t-firefly: This guy (from the Amazon reviews) has a better letter:

Dear EA/Maxis/Origin:

You killed the child inside me.

The one who remembers playing SimCity. The *first* one. Who recalls fondly a childhood of Sim games, spending countless hours on my Compaq 486 sx33

Ha! I had a 486 DX33! Suck it, dude!

I played all of the old Maxis games (SimCity, SimAnt, RoboSport) the way they were meant to be played.  On a Mac! (with a tiny little built in black and white monitor)


I played Sim City on the Amiga500 at a friends house. Then begged my grandparents to buy it for me on the C64.
Good grief, it sucked compared to the Amiga version. (same thing happened with Lotus Esprit Turbo Challenge)

I am a long time fan of the series, even had it as original on the C64 (and not many people can say that) and I still play SC4 on giant custom maps. But I will not be buying this one.

I am not saying you should pirate EA games, but I would understand.
 
2013-03-08 03:32:52 PM  

Teiritzamna: CPennypacker: As a publisher they should be less concerned with what people have a right to do and more concerned with satisfying their paying customers and not pissing them off.

This is true.  It is also irrelevant to my statements were were focused upon the non corporate response side of this standard dance.  Of course i believe companies should be smarter with their resources and should always focus on making a better product rather than market manipulation.  However, that is a totally different question.  Not corporate action, but consumer action.

When confronted by a company that hasn't learned the lesson that it should make a better product, as stated above a consumer has three options.  (1) buy anyway (valid) (2) not buy (valid) (3) obtain but do not buy (invalid).  All i was saying is that it remarkable how many people do not seem to realize that (2) is an option, which allows them to use the poor acts of the company as a justification for (3)


Oh agreed, but can you really blame people from groups 1 and 2 rooting for group 3 considering how pissed off they are, whether they bought the game and are pissed at how they are being screwed or didn't buy the game and are pissed at missing the actual game? At some point for me, even though I don't pirate, it comes down to, well fark you EA, you deserve it.
 
2013-03-08 03:34:27 PM  

Mechdemon: Great Janitor: The video game industry is about to die, and the problem is the software companies attempts at ending piracy and used gaming that's going to cause it, sadly, they are too stupid to actually realize it, and when the video game industry tanks, they will go down blaming pirates while ignoring failures like this.

How bad is the video game industry doing?  ...

Rebuttal:  The kickstarter for Planscape:  Tides of Numenera Reached its funding goal of 900k in 6 hours, and is sitting at 2.1 million after 1.5 days.

Shadowrun Returns put out an alpha gameplay video that looks BETTER than most of the production/beta crap we've been seeing.  Not only that, it has shown up on a couple of 'most anticpated games of 2013" lists

Wasteland 2 recently put out a gameplay video showing off some features and gameplay, as well as also getting onto the same lists as Shadowrun Returns.

The days of large video publishers are likely to wane somewhat, but there are good games out there to find (and fund!) if you keep an ear to the ground.  The funding and distribution systems are changing.



Link to the kickstarter:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/inxile/torment-tides-of-numenera
 
2013-03-08 03:36:07 PM  
If they would have called this game SimCity Online, there wouldn't be this uproar. Instead Maxis and EA tried to sucker the fans of the previous games into buying this jumped up version of Farmville. Serves them right.
 
2013-03-08 03:39:38 PM  

CPennypacker: Oh agreed, but can you really blame people from groups 1 and 2 rooting for group 3 considering how pissed off they are, whether they bought the game and are pissed at how they are being screwed or didn't buy the game and are pissed at missing the actual game? At some point for me, even though I don't pirate, it comes down to, well fark you EA, you deserve it.


Personally, no.  I suppose I have an issue with them because they are then used in the next round of terrible corporate justifications for ridiculous and annoying DRM.  Each party in this routine just gets to ratchet it up while the rest of us who just want to buy a good product get to stand there getting more disgusted. 

Additionally, the self-satisfaction on both sides involved rankles.*  EA acts big and dumb and arrogant, claiming that they had to do this, that there was no other way.  Whilst across the country self important internet anarchists get to feel like they putting it to the man when they instead are just unlawfully obtaining products.

/so vote republican?  Crap too much time on the politics tab.
 
2013-03-08 03:40:30 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: This guy (from the Amazon reviews) has a better letter


Without looking, I bet that's from Chris Kluwe.
 
2013-03-08 03:41:50 PM  
Geez, that always connected DRM stuff really blows. I guess I'll just stick with World of Warcraft.
 
2013-03-08 03:41:52 PM  

Teiritzamna: CPennypacker: As a publisher they should be less concerned with what people have a right to do and more concerned with satisfying their paying customers and not pissing them off.

This is true.  It is also irrelevant to my statements were were focused upon the non corporate response side of this standard dance.  Of course i believe companies should be smarter with their resources and should always focus on making a better product rather than market manipulation.  However, that is a totally different question.  Not corporate action, but consumer action.

When confronted by a company that hasn't learned the lesson that it should make a better product, as stated above a consumer has three options.  (1) buy anyway (valid) (2) not buy (valid) (3) obtain but do not buy (invalid).  All i was saying is that it remarkable how many people do not seem to realize that (2) is an option, which allows them to use the poor acts of the company as a justification for (3)


It's slightly cute that you're implying that your whole vote with your wallet and just not buy premise actually makes an impactl. It doesn't. You know it. I know it. EA knows it. A handful of people with the sense to know how bad they are getting screwed around with "just not buy the game" doesn't affect someone like EA. Compared to the ignorant masses that will deal with it because it is what there is, those that accept that they HAVE to endure getting biatchsmacked to have a product, it's a literal drop in the bucket. The same premise works in any industry. I can't make a difference by just not buying a new car because the annoying seatbelt alarm screams at me the second my ass hits the seat. I can't make a difference by just not buying a cell phone and cell service because I know that having sponsored apps and bandwidth caps is BS.
 
2013-03-08 03:44:04 PM  

Lumbar Puncture: rufus-t-firefly: This guy (from the Amazon reviews) has a better letter

Without looking, I bet that's from Chris Kluwe.


Ohh Kluwe's already weighed in on Twitter
 
2013-03-08 03:44:51 PM  
Did they not learn from the disastrous Diablo 3 launch? It's the same damn shiat but gamers keep falling for it over and over again.

Anyway, I couldn't help but notice, that -probably- in light of this, Tropico 4 is on sale for 75% off on Steam for the whole week. Hmmm, how 'bout that.

/might tempted
//not touching SimCity with a 20-foot pole.
 
2013-03-08 03:46:47 PM  

Pixiest: Geez, that always connected DRM stuff really blows. I guess I'll just stick with World of Warcraft.


LOLWUT? You're comparing a Massive Multiplayer-Online (bolded for emphasis) game, to a game that has been single-player since it's inception and had multiplayer elements/DRM shoehorned into it.
 
2013-03-08 03:49:47 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Lumbar Puncture: rufus-t-firefly: This guy (from the Amazon reviews) has a better letter

Without looking, I bet that's from Chris Kluwe.

Ohh Kluwe's already weighed in on Twitter


lol

I should've realized it wasn't him from the moment they said they would never buy a PC game again.
 
2013-03-08 03:50:15 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Lumbar Puncture: rufus-t-firefly: This guy (from the Amazon reviews) has a better letter

Without looking, I bet that's from Chris Kluwe.

Ohh Kluwe's already weighed in on Twitter


Hahah.  Wow.
 
2013-03-08 03:51:57 PM  

Dr. Goldshnoz: It's slightly cute that you're implying that your whole vote with your wallet and just not buy premise actually makes an impactl. It doesn't.


Yup, it is ridiculous that no product ever produced by a major corporation failed to sell well because of flaws such that people didn't buy it.  Yes-sir-ee, thank god no company has ever gone out of business/been bought out due to a bad launch or terrible product.  Especially in entertainment.

Dr. Goldshnoz: Compared to the ignorant masses that will deal with it because it is what there is, those that accept that they HAVE to endure getting biatchsmacked to have a product, it's a literal drop in the bucket.


imgs.xkcd.com

Dr. Goldshnoz: I can't make a difference by just not buying a new car because the annoying seatbelt alarm screams at me the second my ass hits the seat.


Well this would be because that is a regulated feature - such that there is not a real market anyway. 

And to finish off - your statements were addressing a point that i wasnt really making.  I was merely saying that the sentiment that obtaining a product unlawfully as a form of protest against a poor quality product is not morally justified because there is the actually justified action of simply not purchasing the thing.
 
2013-03-08 03:52:40 PM  

scottydoesntknow: rufus-t-firefly: In fact, my new Mass Effect 3 DLC just installed.

So I know a lot of people felt burned by ME3, and I hated the ending just as much as anyone (more numb to it now), but the "Citadel" DLC is awesome. It's nothing but pure fanservice, and that's what makes it great. It's the ending that people wanted, but at the same time there's no way they could've put it in the main game. This is DLC done right.


I was soooooo excited for ME3. And I figured I'd give Origin a shot because I like a free market and competition is essential to the free market. Then I got EA'd.

I had bought the game, but they also offered DLC for sale on farking LAUNCH DAY. Not only that, but the DLC was content that absolutely should have been part of the main game. On top of that - despite having stated numerous time before that you wouldn't have to - you had to play the multiplayer they had tacked on in order to unlock all the possible conclusions to the game.... which was the SECOND launch day crass cash grab - being that multiplayer had a whole other system for you to pay even more money for in-game content that they were trying to force you to participate in.

So yeah... that was the first and last time I buy a game through Origin. I'm also happy to avoid EA games in general when I can.

Steam for the motherfarkin' win.
 
2013-03-08 03:54:13 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Lumbar Puncture: rufus-t-firefly: This guy (from the Amazon reviews) has a better letter

Without looking, I bet that's from Chris Kluwe.

Ohh Kluwe's already weighed in on Twitter


Awesome.
 
2013-03-08 03:54:34 PM  
Last EA game I bought was ME2

I don't even pirate their shiat anymore.

This strategy has yet to fail me.
 
2013-03-08 03:56:59 PM  

Teiritzamna: CPennypacker: Its not a justification of piracy, you're missing the point. They are showing how badly paying customers get screwed over by trying to deter theft while the thieves have a better experience.

While that is a point, it is not the point i was addressing.  It was the point made throughout the thread that DRM is why people obtain the game unlawfully.  As if they had a right to it.  Saying: "you know what, this DRM is ridiculous so I shall not buy this POS game" is a 100% morally/legally justifiable statement.  Saying, "you know what, this DRM is ridiculous so I shall not buy this POS game but instead will torrent it" is not.

See also  [art.penny-arcade.com image 800x408]


The fact that you can have that conversation is proof that DRM does not work and is, in fact, completely and utterly pointless.
 
2013-03-08 03:57:48 PM  

Pixiest: Geez, that always connected DRM stuff really blows. I guess I'll just stick with World of Warcraft.


That's not a very good comparison. The whole point of an MMO is to play with other people, where SimCity has mostly been a single player game. Also, Blizzard at least refunded game time back in the early years of WoW when the servers were still fairly unstable and unplayable for days at a time. EA's strategy is "Too bad, we already have your money. Now GTFO"

/always online single player games are terrible and should have never come to pass
//I'm looking at you D3
 
2013-03-08 03:59:48 PM  

CPennypacker: Or, more likely, they would just cancel whatever series sold bad due to gamers not buying it, lay off the staff and close the studio. Its not so black and white. The DRM sucks, and is added into the value equation for the game. For some people, the game is still a net positive value, discounting the negative aspects like DRM and the cost combined. That doesn't mean they don't have a right to complain about the stuff they don't like.

The thing is, its a very strong negative and will tip the value proposition for a lot of potential buyers. It did for me. I would have bought this game. Maybe when the price drops, but this debacle at $60 isn't worth it, even for a new Sim City.


There are no new games in development. None. Every game is either a sequel, prequel or a straight rip off of another already established game. They keep making them because we keep buying them.

I wholeheartedly agree SimCity 2013 is not worth $60. I played the Beta and realized this was not a game I would buy at full price. The last game I bought at full price was Civ5. It was worth every penny. I also bought all the DLC's at full price. I am as much to blame as anyone else for the DLC's being a viable outlet for revenue when it should have been added to the game initially. I felt the game warranted the output of cash.

Nearly every other game I've bought in the last 3 years has been during a Steam sale. The only other games I bought at full price was Duke Nuke 'Em Forever and Homefront. I say this to simply prove: we as gamers are the problem. Neither DNF nor Homefront were worth their price for the game. They were short, they were nothing more than a new skin on an established genre, and as usual with FPS games, they direct attention away from the extremely short stories to laud the 'rich PVP environments'.

I'm torn now. Bioshock Infinite will be released soon. I was upset at how short of a game Bioshock 2 was, I finished it in one day on a weekend. Will this game be the same? I really want to buy it because I really want to play it, but how disappointed am I going to be in another short story $60 game? I'm all but convinced it's another sale buy, just like all other games.
 
2013-03-08 04:01:33 PM  
The real reason iTunes 'won' is that they made paying for the music easier than stealing it. Until gaming companies figure that out this'll happen again.
 
2013-03-08 04:01:37 PM  

MindStalker: PanicMan: I play games when I DONT want to interact with people.  I don't want facebook integration.  Or leaderboards.  Or resource sharing.  I want to be THE hero of the world, not just another guy who clearly isn't the best at whatever.

The only thing online integration does is make my experience less meaningful.  It adds an element of competition where it doesn't belong.  That's not fun.  Games are supposed to be fun.

Yelp, the last online game on thought was mildly fun was Quake 3.

//My age..


Then download Team Fortress 2.  Hell, it's free.
 
2013-03-08 04:01:40 PM  

Dr. Goldshnoz: Teiritzamna: CPennypacker: As a publisher they should be less concerned with what people have a right to do and more concerned with satisfying their paying customers and not pissing them off.

This is true.  It is also irrelevant to my statements were were focused upon the non corporate response side of this standard dance.  Of course i believe companies should be smarter with their resources and should always focus on making a better product rather than market manipulation.  However, that is a totally different question.  Not corporate action, but consumer action.

When confronted by a company that hasn't learned the lesson that it should make a better product, as stated above a consumer has three options.  (1) buy anyway (valid) (2) not buy (valid) (3) obtain but do not buy (invalid).  All i was saying is that it remarkable how many people do not seem to realize that (2) is an option, which allows them to use the poor acts of the company as a justification for (3)

It's slightly cute that you're implying that your whole vote with your wallet and just not buy premise actually makes an impactl. It doesn't. You know it. I know it. EA knows it. A handful of people with the sense to know how bad they are getting screwed around with "just not buy the game" doesn't affect someone like EA. Compared to the ignorant masses that will deal with it because it is what there is, those that accept that they HAVE to endure getting biatchsmacked to have a product, it's a literal drop in the bucket. The same premise works in any industry. I can't make a difference by just not buying a new car because the annoying seatbelt alarm screams at me the second my ass hits the seat. I can't make a difference by just not buying a cell phone and cell service because I know that having sponsored apps and bandwidth caps is BS.


It's not about having an impact.  It's about understanding that we are not entitled to the product of others.  If you don't like a game or the DRM involved, that's fine.  Just don't buy it.  That is well within your rights.  What you do not have the right to do (the royal "you," not you you), however, is play the game anyway without paying for it and then justify your illicit behavior as somehow being the fault of the company whose product you are enjoying.
 
2013-03-08 04:02:34 PM  

mongbiohazard: scottydoesntknow: rufus-t-firefly: In fact, my new Mass Effect 3 DLC just installed.

So I know a lot of people felt burned by ME3, and I hated the ending just as much as anyone (more numb to it now), but the "Citadel" DLC is awesome. It's nothing but pure fanservice, and that's what makes it great. It's the ending that people wanted, but at the same time there's no way they could've put it in the main game. This is DLC done right.

I was soooooo excited for ME3. And I figured I'd give Origin a shot because I like a free market and competition is essential to the free market. Then I got EA'd.

I had bought the game, but they also offered DLC for sale on farking LAUNCH DAY. Not only that, but the DLC was content that absolutely should have been part of the main game. On top of that - despite having stated numerous time before that you wouldn't have to - you had to play the multiplayer they had tacked on in order to unlock all the possible conclusions to the game.... which was the SECOND launch day crass cash grab - being that multiplayer had a whole other system for you to pay even more money for in-game content that they were trying to force you to participate in.

So yeah... that was the first and last time I buy a game through Origin. I'm also happy to avoid EA games in general when I can.

Steam for the motherfarkin' win.


The Prothean Day-One DLC was bullshiat I'll definitely say. But BioWare did listen and lowered the required readiness rating for the best ending from 4200 (which did need multiplayer to achieve) down to 3100, meaning you could get it without prior DLCs or multiplayer. Of course for some, that was too little, too late.

I got Citadel because it promised an actual goodbye, and in that aspect BioWare did deliver. Not just to the ME3 cast, but they brought back almost every voice actor from the other two games also. It felt like a worthy goodbye for the entire series, not just ME3.
 
2013-03-08 04:04:49 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: No thank you. To any of this. This is, without a doubt, the last PC game I buy. Steam, Origin, whatever non-sense BattleNet decides to use... No more. Not when there are three consoles sitting in front of me, eager to play games immediately, the first time. In fact, my new Mass Effect 3 DLC just installed. Quickly. The first time.


What? So EA doing a crappy launch of SimCity and having lots of DLC (in all likelihood) to nickle and dime you, causes him to abandon the PC as a gaming platform and instead spend money on DLC from an EA product on a console instead? I bet they are shaking in their boots at his decision to spend his money on a different one of their products due to how crappy their service is.
 
2013-03-08 04:06:40 PM  

lucksi: A botched launch gets more greens than a school shooting and the gun threads or a cop killer hunt.


Yeah, and the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" has as big a media cycle as 9/11. (I read that in a book somewhere...)

There are several reasons why this story is blowing up the internets. First, this story is about more than just one game, it's about the state of the industry. SimCity is an institution, and you've heard of it even if you've never played it. Most gamers knew about the launch, and they also knew about the always-on internet connection. That's a divisive topic already, as is any intrusive DRM, and SimCity was the perfect test-case for whether it is acceptable for a single-player game to have an always-on DRM. Yes, there was the same issue with Diablo 3, but the real-money auction house and more online-centered nature of the game made always-on internet more understandable. This, however was different. This was SimCity.

SimCity has always been a solitary affair. Those of us who grew up playing these games tended to play them single-player. Yes, some had multi-player options, but those were options. We mainly wanted to play with our toy in our own sandbox. Now, suddenly, we are told that we can't do that. That this game MUST be online and you MUST utilize multiplayer to really experience it. That it's not even a complete game and we'll probably pay more for DLC that gives us things that were already included in previous versions. We look at this and wonder what this means for every other game. If this happens to SimCity, will this happen to every single-player game? Is the current paradigm of being able to play games solely on our own consoles or systems over?

SimCity is a test case for that new reality, and its very public failure is a prime example of why it's a bad idea to make always-on internet DRM a component of single-player games. It's also a rallying cry for people to vote with their wallets and NOT buy games that do this. This could be a tipping point in the video game industry, and how we react will determine the future of gaming. Which is why I refuse to buy this game and give my money to Humble Bundle, GOG, and Steam (provided the game can be played in offline mode.)

There's another reason this is such a huge story. Just as the Janet Jackson "outrage" gave us relief from 9/11, anthrax, and the botched invasion of Iraq (not to mention the fact that George W. Bush was President), this story is giving us welcome relief from school-shootings, lethal super-storms, and the sequester. We need this. Just like gaming can be a catharsis for real world stress, bad news in the gaming world is a catharsis for bad news in the real world.

That's why this is a big deal to us.
 
2013-03-08 04:07:48 PM  

HeartBurnKid: The fact that you can have that conversation is proof that DRM does not work and is, in fact, completely and utterly pointless.


Short answer: Um . . . so?  What does that have to do with what I was discussing?

long answer: Like most things involving stopping people from obtaining products unlawfully, there is an arms race.  At some point, the cost of securing the product exceeds the costs of it being obtained illegally.  That would be the reasonable stopping point.  I dont know of any security measure, electronic or real world based, that prevents anyone from obtaining property unlawfully, if that intended tortfeasor really wants to obtain it unlawfully.  However, to say that therefore all security "does not work and is, in fact, completely and utterly pointless" seems to be overly broad.

We could of course have the more reasonable discussion about cost/benefit.  Here, it seems, EA's attempted security was woefully more expensive than the harms it would prevent.  Indeed, the phenomenon i was attempting to discuss above likely means that their security actually encouraged more unlawful acts.

So i would be quite happy to say that in this instance EA's poorly implemented DRM "does not work and is, in fact, completely and utterly pointless"
 
2013-03-08 04:07:51 PM  

jjmartin: The real reason iTunes 'won' is that they made paying for the music easier than stealing it. Until gaming companies figure that out this'll happen again.


A very smart guy named Gabe Newell has figured this out long ago.

Note that EA is one of only three significant companies (the others being the Minecraft guy (yeah, Notch is as important as EA, IMHO) and the Blizzard half of Activision Blizzard) not to use his service.
 
2013-03-08 04:08:07 PM  

Rincewind53: Great Janitor: How bad is the video game industry doing?  I have friends who work at the Gamestop Corporate office.  Years ago, Gamestop used to be on the Fortune 500.  Gamestop had piles of money and they used it to do upgrade sections of the corporate office, they bought some off site property to expand their refurbishment department, picked up several companies to expand their brand.  Now, in late January they eliminated several positions in the corporate office as well as closed over 80 stores, dissolving several districts.  Right now is annual review time and so far everyone who's gotten their review back has had poor reviews.  Some think that the company might be gearing up for another round of lay offs, others think the poor reviews are Gamestop's way of avoiding payraises that they've already announced that they can not afford.  Part of the problem is that it's been six years since a major console was released and with the next gen consoles not expected to be out until Maybe December of this year, it's going to be a hard year for Gamestop.  Another problem for Gamestop is the software company's war against used gaming, and Gamestop is their target (and gamers the victims).  They argue that Gamestop has made a billion dollar empire off of used games, but gives none of that money to the software companies (which makes as much sense as Carmax selling used cars but not sending any of that money to the auto makers).  There are several rumors about the next Playstation and Xbox not allowing used games by requiring online connection to verify that the disk is a new disk, to activation codes to on line only.  All moves that will ultimately kill the video game industry, at least the console gaming industry.

Gamestop is dying because of digital distribution, Amazon, and the general price point for new video games. End of story.

Gamestop's fate has very little to do with the do with the health of the video game industry as a whole.


I'm not a fan of Gamestop, but they make smart busniess moves. They're actually a Fortune 300 company now, with no debt, which is very rare for a retailer, especially one looking down the barrel of a 7-year console life-cylce. As long as they keep adding new business initiatives that make sense for them (high-end headsets, used ipods/ipads, tablets, buying Impulse and Kongregate). They aren't going anywhere, but just adapting to the market. Closing stores was inevitable since the EB merger there's no sense in having one on every block, but why close them all immediately if they're still profitable? Wait until the leases are up and it will cost a lot less.
 
2013-03-08 04:13:32 PM  
i.chzbgr.com
 
2013-03-08 04:14:52 PM  

soporific: We need this.


Because EA's the hero Gamers deserve, but not the one it needs right now. So, we'll hunt him, because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector. A Dark Knight.
 
2013-03-08 04:21:01 PM  
Didn't buy Starcraft 2, Diablo 3, nor Sim City.  First two because of the stupid Battlenet online verification crap and having to log in just to play the single player campaign.  Sim City seems to be suffering from that problem so won't be buying it either.
 
2013-03-08 04:22:03 PM  

Dr. Goldshnoz: Because EA's the hero Gamers deserve, but not the one it needs right now. So, we'll hunt him, because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector. A Dark Knight.


+1 for the fact that the Dark Knight soundtrack came on to the song that plays during that speech when i read that.

So creepy, it's like batman did it . . .

/batman's a scientist
 
2013-03-08 04:23:52 PM  
I learned my lesson with Diablo 3.  Never farking again.
 
2013-03-08 04:24:37 PM  

Shrugging Atlas: I learned my lesson with Diablo 3.  Never farking again.


I thought people had that problem more with Diablo 2 and World of Warcraft.
 
2013-03-08 04:25:55 PM  

Teiritzamna: /batman's a scientist


IT'S NOT BATMAN!
 
2013-03-08 04:30:33 PM  

PsyLord: Didn't buy Starcraft 2, Diablo 3, nor Sim City.  First two because of the stupid Battlenet online verification crap and having to log in just to play the single player campaign.  Sim City seems to be suffering from that problem so won't be buying it either.


SC2 only needed online verification to activate the game. You can still play the single player campaign offline as I did many times while underway on my ship while I was still in the Navy, you just wont get the achievements. I'm still angry with the inability to LAN with SC2 though.
 
2013-03-08 04:35:31 PM  
I'm sorry, but anyone who bought this game on launch day or this week knew what they were getting themselves into. Anyone who really thought EA would have stuff in place is delusional.

I'm not arguing what they're doing is OK at all, I'm just saying everyone who bought this on launch is a masochist. Same goes for people who complain about upcoming DLC when you know damn well you're going to buy it.
 
2013-03-08 04:35:34 PM  
YodaBlues: i.imgur.com

if you look you can see challenger crashing to earth in the back right
 
2013-03-08 04:39:02 PM  

HST's Dead Carcass: CPennypacker: Or, more likely, they would just cancel whatever series sold bad due to gamers not buying it, lay off the staff and close the studio. Its not so black and white. The DRM sucks, and is added into the value equation for the game. For some people, the game is still a net positive value, discounting the negative aspects like DRM and the cost combined. That doesn't mean they don't have a right to complain about the stuff they don't like.

The thing is, its a very strong negative and will tip the value proposition for a lot of potential buyers. It did for me. I would have bought this game. Maybe when the price drops, but this debacle at $60 isn't worth it, even for a new Sim City.

There are no new games in development. None. Every game is either a sequel, prequel or a straight rip off of another already established game. They keep making them because we keep buying them.

I wholeheartedly agree SimCity 2013 is not worth $60. I played the Beta and realized this was not a game I would buy at full price. The last game I bought at full price was Civ5. It was worth every penny. I also bought all the DLC's at full price. I am as much to blame as anyone else for the DLC's being a viable outlet for revenue when it should have been added to the game initially. I felt the game warranted the output of cash.

Nearly every other game I've bought in the last 3 years has been during a Steam sale. The only other games I bought at full price was Duke Nuke 'Em Forever and Homefront. I say this to simply prove: we as gamers are the problem. Neither DNF nor Homefront were worth their price for the game. They were short, they were nothing more than a new skin on an established genre, and as usual with FPS games, they direct attention away from the extremely short stories to laud the 'rich PVP environments'.

I'm torn now. Bioshock Infinite will be released soon. I was upset at how short of a game Bioshock 2 was, I finished it in one day on a weekend. Will this g ...


I felt that way about Dead Space 2. There was no need for a multiplayer PvP option; there just wasn't. It's not an FPS and it doesn't play like one.

Hopefully DS3 will be better. The drop-in/out co-op seems kinda neat, though.

On that note, Borderlands 2 is the only game I will actually play online. Maybe because it's fun to begin with.
 
2013-03-08 04:40:28 PM  

Dr. Goldshnoz: HST's Dead Carcass: It's your own damn fault.

It's the fault of gamers for continuing to want to play games even when they get dicked by game publishers that have bought up most of the decent IP that has existed and milks it dry?

k.


Yes.  Who cares how shiny the polished turd is?  After DA2, ME2, and C&C4 there should have been no EA titles ever bought again.  Lord knows they will never get another cent from me.  There are other distributors who put out quality games.  Give them your gaming dollars and let EA die the death it deserves for raping every damn franchise they get their claws on.
 
2013-03-08 04:40:37 PM  

you have pee hands: Shrugging Atlas: I learned my lesson with Diablo 3.  Never farking again.

I thought people had that problem more with Diablo 2 and World of Warcraft.


Couldn't say because oddly enough I never played either.  But D3 had all sorts of issues at launch first with just being able to get into the game at all, then with the auction house for weeks afterwards.  It sounds like Sim City has been worse though just from what I've been reading on Fark.

The sad thing is prior to hearing about the DRM 'solution' I had planned on buying this on day one without having even researched the game.  I've played every previous version, and it wasn't something I even considered skipping or thinking twice about.  But that was such a deal breaker I wouldn't have even regretted it had the launch gone well.
 
2013-03-08 04:41:51 PM  
soporific:  Yes, there was the same issue with Diablo 3, but the real-money auction house and more online-centered nature of the game made always-on internet more understandable. This, however was different. This was SimCity.

Nicely stated. Basically, that's where I stand on Diablo 3 (and StarCraft 2) and this Sim City debacle. I was largely OK with the "always-on" requirement for Diablo and StarCraft, since I'd more or less always played Diablo/StarCraft/WarCraft online. Sure, I'd play through the campaigns single-player, but there was always a multiplayer component (LAN parties, dialing in to my friend's modem to beat up a computer opponent, etc.).

But Sim City?
 
d3
2013-03-08 04:42:32 PM  
I had a simple solution to this years ago. I stopped buying EA games. They have been proven to treat their employees and customers like garbage. They don't deserve any of my money.

To up the ante a little, I could start playing all the free stuff they offer. The downside is they will just rely more on in -game advertising to make up for it.
 
2013-03-08 04:43:43 PM  

HST's Dead Carcass: CPennypacker: Or, more likely, they would just cancel whatever series sold bad due to gamers not buying it, lay off the staff and close the studio. Its not so black and white. The DRM sucks, and is added into the value equation for the game. For some people, the game is still a net positive value, discounting the negative aspects like DRM and the cost combined. That doesn't mean they don't have a right to complain about the stuff they don't like.

The thing is, its a very strong negative and will tip the value proposition for a lot of potential buyers. It did for me. I would have bought this game. Maybe when the price drops, but this debacle at $60 isn't worth it, even for a new Sim City.

There are no new games in development. None. Every game is either a sequel, prequel or a straight rip off of another already established game. They keep making them because we keep buying them.

I wholeheartedly agree SimCity 2013 is not worth $60. I played the Beta and realized this was not a game I would buy at full price. The last game I bought at full price was Civ5. It was worth every penny. I also bought all the DLC's at full price. I am as much to blame as anyone else for the DLC's being a viable outlet for revenue when it should have been added to the game initially. I felt the game warranted the output of cash.

Nearly every other game I've bought in the last 3 years has been during a Steam sale. The only other games I bought at full price was Duke Nuke 'Em Forever and Homefront. I say this to simply prove: we as gamers are the problem. Neither DNF nor Homefront were worth their price for the game. They were short, they were nothing more than a new skin on an established genre, and as usual with FPS games, they direct attention away from the extremely short stories to laud the 'rich PVP environments'.

I'm torn now. Bioshock Infinite will be released soon. I was upset at how short of a game Bioshock 2 was, I finished it in one day on a weekend. Will this g ...


I no longer consider paying more than about $10 for an FPS, the only reason to buy before they are down to that point is to play it multiplayer before the bulk of people have moved on to the next version/competitor, and that has never really attracted me in most cases anyway outside of a LAN environment where you know your opponents. Paying that little you can't really be let down by how short the single player is. About the only games I would pay a lot more for are the sort of grand strategy/economic sim games because I can seen myself playing those regularly for years to come (and sometimes in massive amounts). Obviously Sim City is now off the list as the servers will be deconstructed long before I would have stopped playing the game (unless it sucks in terms of gameplay as well).
 
d3
2013-03-08 04:43:56 PM  

peewinkle: Pssssh.  I've been boycotting EA ever since they pulled the plug on Motor World Online, the best racing game of all time.

/they said they needed the server space for Sim City
//they even offered me a free copy of Sim City, I told them to shove it
///get off of my lawn.


I thought it was Motor City Online. I had the alt of John Milner in that game. I pulled the plug when they refused to fix the rampant cheating. Haven't bought another EA game since.
 
2013-03-08 04:44:16 PM  
pxlboy: I felt that way about Dead Space 2. There was no need for a multiplayer PvP option; there just wasn't. It's not an FPS and it doesn't play like one.

Hopefully DS3 will be better. The drop-in/out co-op seems kinda neat, though.


Dead Space 3 was to Dead Space as RE5 is to RE4.
 
2013-03-08 04:44:23 PM  

rugman11: Dr. Goldshnoz: Teiritzamna: CPennypacker: As a publisher they should be less concerned with what people have a right to do and more concerned with satisfying their paying customers and not pissing them off.

This is true.  It is also irrelevant to my statements were were focused upon the non corporate response side of this standard dance.  Of course i believe companies should be smarter with their resources and should always focus on making a better product rather than market manipulation.  However, that is a totally different question.  Not corporate action, but consumer action.

When confronted by a company that hasn't learned the lesson that it should make a better product, as stated above a consumer has three options.  (1) buy anyway (valid) (2) not buy (valid) (3) obtain but do not buy (invalid).  All i was saying is that it remarkable how many people do not seem to realize that (2) is an option, which allows them to use the poor acts of the company as a justification for (3)

It's slightly cute that you're implying that your whole vote with your wallet and just not buy premise actually makes an impactl. It doesn't. You know it. I know it. EA knows it. A handful of people with the sense to know how bad they are getting screwed around with "just not buy the game" doesn't affect someone like EA. Compared to the ignorant masses that will deal with it because it is what there is, those that accept that they HAVE to endure getting biatchsmacked to have a product, it's a literal drop in the bucket. The same premise works in any industry. I can't make a difference by just not buying a new car because the annoying seatbelt alarm screams at me the second my ass hits the seat. I can't make a difference by just not buying a cell phone and cell service because I know that having sponsored apps and bandwidth caps is BS.

It's not about having an impact.  It's about understanding that we are not entitled to the product of others.  If you don't like a game or the DRM involved ...


Justify?  I don't justify anything when I pirate.  I know I'm not entitled to it, and I know I'm going to do it anyway because it's easy and I know I won't get caught.  It's quicker and easier to pirate than to buy and pirates actually get a better product free of all the advertisements and garbage publishers tack on.  Given the fact that there will always be people like me who for whom ethics are not a sufficient deterrent, what's a gaming company to do?  Well, maybe making it not be a pain in the ass to purchase and install would be a good start.
 
2013-03-08 04:48:24 PM  

JesusJuice: Justify? I don't justify anything when I pirate.


Ah how refreshing, a person who doesn't blame the corporation but instead admits that they want to obtain something unlawfully and there is nothing the company can do to stop that.

JesusJuice: It's quicker and easier to pirate than to buy and pirates actually get a better product free of all the advertisements and garbage publishers tack on.


Wait . . . i thought you said you weren't going to try to justify your malfeasance . . . .

JesusJuice: Well, maybe making it not be a pain in the ass to purchase and install would be a good start.


rlv.zcache.ca
Thanks, however, for being exactly the guy i was discussing.  It helps when the hypo examples show up to make your point for you.
 
2013-03-08 04:49:51 PM  

Teiritzamna: Wait . . . i thought you said you weren't going to try to justify your malfeasance . . . .


pointing out the painfully obvious is not an attempt at justification. It is simply the way it is.
 
2013-03-08 04:51:44 PM  

JesusJuice: rugman11: Dr. Goldshnoz: Teiritzamna: CPennypacker: As a publisher they should be less concerned with what people have a right to do and more concerned with satisfying their paying customers and not pissing them off.

This is true.  It is also irrelevant to my statements were were focused upon the non corporate response side of this standard dance.  Of course i believe companies should be smarter with their resources and should always focus on making a better product rather than market manipulation.  However, that is a totally different question.  Not corporate action, but consumer action.

When confronted by a company that hasn't learned the lesson that it should make a better product, as stated above a consumer has three options.  (1) buy anyway (valid) (2) not buy (valid) (3) obtain but do not buy (invalid).  All i was saying is that it remarkable how many people do not seem to realize that (2) is an option, which allows them to use the poor acts of the company as a justification for (3)

It's slightly cute that you're implying that your whole vote with your wallet and just not buy premise actually makes an impactl. It doesn't. You know it. I know it. EA knows it. A handful of people with the sense to know how bad they are getting screwed around with "just not buy the game" doesn't affect someone like EA. Compared to the ignorant masses that will deal with it because it is what there is, those that accept that they HAVE to endure getting biatchsmacked to have a product, it's a literal drop in the bucket. The same premise works in any industry. I can't make a difference by just not buying a new car because the annoying seatbelt alarm screams at me the second my ass hits the seat. I can't make a difference by just not buying a cell phone and cell service because I know that having sponsored apps and bandwidth caps is BS.

It's not about having an impact.  It's about understanding that we are not entitled to the product of others.  If you don't like a game or the DR ...


I do worry that the crack programs install mal-ware sometimes.
 
2013-03-08 04:52:11 PM  

lousyskater: pxlboy: I felt that way about Dead Space 2. There was no need for a multiplayer PvP option; there just wasn't. It's not an FPS and it doesn't play like one.

Hopefully DS3 will be better. The drop-in/out co-op seems kinda neat, though.

Dead Space 3 was to Dead Space as RE5 is to RE4.


Is that Cecilius or Kelvin?
 
d3
2013-03-08 04:53:14 PM  

lousyskater: Pixiest: Geez, that always connected DRM stuff really blows. I guess I'll just stick with World of Warcraft.

That's not a very good comparison. The whole point of an MMO is to play with other people, where SimCity has mostly been a single player game. Also, Blizzard at least refunded game time back in the early years of WoW when the servers were still fairly unstable and unplayable for days at a time. EA's strategy is "Too bad, we already have your money. Now GTFO"

/always online single player games are terrible and should have never come to pass
//I'm looking at you D3


You lookin' at me?!?
 
2013-03-08 04:53:29 PM  

BafflerMeal: lousyskater: pxlboy: I felt that way about Dead Space 2. There was no need for a multiplayer PvP option; there just wasn't. It's not an FPS and it doesn't play like one.

Hopefully DS3 will be better. The drop-in/out co-op seems kinda neat, though.

Dead Space 3 was to Dead Space as RE5 is to RE4.

Is that Cecilius or Kelvin?


I liked DS3. I don't play RE anymore so I don't know what his analogy means. The Resident Evil storyline is too stupid to live. Its almost as bad as metal gear.
 
2013-03-08 04:53:49 PM  
Like moths to a flame, gamers will keep coming back for punishment.  Keep throwing money at EA, guys.
 
2013-03-08 04:54:22 PM  

Girion47: I do worry that the crack programs install mal-ware sometimes.


friend of a friend assures me that when he does it he follows the instructions to turn off his AV during the installation, because it will just show false positives.
 
2013-03-08 04:54:26 PM  

scottydoesntknow: The Prothean Day-One DLC was bullshiat I'll definitely say. But BioWare did listen and lowered the required readiness rating for the best ending from 4200 (which did need multiplayer to achieve) down to 3100, meaning you could get it without prior DLCs or multiplayer. Of course for some, that was too little, too late.

I got Citadel because it promised an actual goodbye, and in that aspect BioWare did deliver. Not just to the ME3 cast, but they brought back almost every voice actor from the other two games also. It felt like a worthy goodbye for the entire series, not just ME3.


Oh yeah, IIRC I was already finished with the game when they lowered the readiness rating requirement. So yeah, too little too late.

There was nothing wrong with them tacking multiplayer on to Mass Effect.... what irked me was the backhanded way they were pushing people in to it who - like me - were only interested in the single-player. It was a dirty, greedy way to get more money out of us. So there I was, at the point of no return in the game, counting the minutes until I could quit playing the multiplayer I didn't want to play so I could continue the single player that I did.

ME1 and ME2 I played through multiple times. ME3 I played through once, then loaded up an old save to play the ending again when they fleshed it out more. That's all... So I actually had no idea they had even released a new DLC until it was mentioned in this thread and I just googled it.

Now I'm torn. I'm super-completionist, so I would like to play through the DLC and being that it sounds like they did a good job on it. But after they hosed me so much on ME3 originally I also don't want to give them any more money for it. I feel like I already paid them for DLC with the day 1 DLC, and it really didn't sit well with me. As time went on the audacity of it pissed me off more and more. So I'm actually tempted to pirate the game and new DLC now, copy my saves over from the legit copy I bought, and check out the DLC.

We'll see. I may just pass on it on principle. Maybe I can check it out on Youtube or something.
 
2013-03-08 04:54:49 PM  

JesusJuice: Justify?  I don't justify anything when I pirate.  I know I'm not entitled to it, and I know I'm going to do it anyway because it's easy and I know I won't get caught.  It's quicker and easier to pirate than to buy and pirates actually get a better product free of all the advertisements and garbage publishers tack on.  Given the fact that there will always be people like me who for whom ethics are not a sufficient deterrent, what's a gaming company to do?  Well, maybe making it not be a pain in the ass to purchase and install would be a good start.



I'm in this boat...for the most part. It's been ages since I've pirated any game, save for games that aren't ever coming to PC but have emulators for, or games that never got released in North America. But this sudden stop wasn't because it's wrong, or I'm afraid of getting caught, it's because I use STEAM, Amazon, GoG, and Indie bundle places (Humble Bundle, Indie Royal, Indie Gala a couple of times). Between their sales and ease of getting the games to play, it actually became a bigger pain in the ass to pirate the games I wanted to play.

EA gets every negative consequence they deserve. They've shown time and time again that they don't want to adopt any business practice of making the act of playing their games easy. It's always some bullshiat tacked on that sours the experience. My regret is that even this circus of a launch isn't going to be enough to really hurt them.
 
2013-03-08 04:55:27 PM  

Dr. Goldshnoz: pointing out the painfully obvious is not an attempt at justification. It is simply the way it is.


No, pointing out the painfully obvious as a justification for an act is in fact a justification.

Example time!

"Your pizza looked fresh and delicious and it was getting cold!" - Statement of the painfully obvious.

"I ate your Pizza.  It looked fresh and delicious and it was getting cold!" - justification predicated upon what is claimed to be painfully obvious.
 
2013-03-08 04:57:04 PM  
We knew this would happen in 1997 when EA took over Maxis.
 
2013-03-08 04:57:16 PM  

Teiritzamna: JesusJuice: Justify? I don't justify anything when I pirate.

Ah how refreshing, a person who doesn't blame the corporation but instead admits that they want to obtain something unlawfully and there is nothing the company can do to stop that.

JesusJuice: It's quicker and easier to pirate than to buy and pirates actually get a better product free of all the advertisements and garbage publishers tack on.

Wait . . . i thought you said you weren't going to try to justify your malfeasance . . . .

JesusJuice: Well, maybe making it not be a pain in the ass to purchase and install would be a good start.

[rlv.zcache.ca image 400x400]
Thanks, however, for being exactly the guy i was discussing.  It helps when the hypo examples show up to make your point for you.


What the hell point do you have, anyway? It seems more like you're going for a general statement like "the sky is blue, sometimes" rather than any actual attempt at a point worth discussion.

preemptive 9/10, though.
 
2013-03-08 04:58:20 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Pixiest: Geez, that always connected DRM stuff really blows. I guess I'll just stick with World of Warcraft.

LOLWUT? You're comparing a Massive Multiplayer-Online (bolded for emphasis) game, to a game that has been single-player since it's inception and had multiplayer elements/DRM shoehorned into it.


Actually, I was laughing at myself because that was the actual thought that went through my head. While it's not a perfect comparison for the reasons you point out, it's still basically the same thing. When the WoW servers eventually go down, my beautiful little Undead, with whom I've spent so much time, will be gone.
 
2013-03-08 05:00:41 PM  

Teiritzamna: Example time!


media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-08 05:01:01 PM  
Got burned on an EA game I bought years ago and have not purchased one of their products since. Screw them.
 
2013-03-08 05:01:20 PM  

Pixiest: scottydoesntknow: Pixiest: Geez, that always connected DRM stuff really blows. I guess I'll just stick with World of Warcraft.

LOLWUT? You're comparing a Massive Multiplayer-Online (bolded for emphasis) game, to a game that has been single-player since it's inception and had multiplayer elements/DRM shoehorned into it.

Actually, I was laughing at myself because that was the actual thought that went through my head. While it's not a perfect comparison for the reasons you point out, it's still basically the same thing. When the WoW servers eventually go down, my beautiful little Undead, with whom I've spent so much time, will be gone.


Ehh Blizzard still maintains original Starcraft/Diablo II servers. If it was EA, then yea I would be worried, but I'd say you've got enough years to actually tire out of the game before they shut 'em down.
 
2013-03-08 05:01:30 PM  

Teiritzamna: We could of course have the more reasonable discussion about cost/benefit.  Here, it seems, EA's attempted security was woefully more expensive than the harms it would prevent.  Indeed, the phenomenon i was attempting to discuss above likely means that their security actually encouraged more unlawful acts.

So i would be quite happy to say that in this instance EA's poorly implemented DRM "does not work and is, in fact, completely and utterly pointless"


...is it much of a leap then to say that many games with "always-on" DRM are as poorly implemented?  Some here are extending this sentiment to all games with "always-online" DRM are poorly implemented, though I cannot personally throw my hat in with this crowd (due to ignorancy).

My own person experience certainly suggests it, however (can't express the frustration of one of my  available times to play Diablo 3 is during their weekly server maintenance for a game I always play solo). If I knew of a pirated version of Diablo 3 that let me play solo, I'd have been all over it (even after legitimately purchasing it).

The real problem with this, is that if you look forward by evaluating another industry that's a little ahead in the DRM battle (ie, the movie industry) you will see that the motivation (not justification) for piracy is often the limitations placed on owned software by the DRM itself, which is the sole reason people are so outraged by it.  If DRM can be put in that has NO impact on legitimate owners, then it'd be accepted without hesitation.  But, it never seems to be able to be, as in this case (ie, servers are greatly struggling preventing solo-play).


[Cool-story bro Begins]

Another example of this is I had recently finally upgraded to a big 1080p TV and wanted to start purchasing blu-ray version of movies and add them to my digital DVD collection I have on my media server in my house.  The point of the media server is obvious:  I have several devices that I like to watch movies on (ie, Kindle Fire, laptops, PS3, etc) in various areas of my house.  In my mind, this is justifiable "fair-use" of my purchases--no one can illegally get the movies from me, and I am always only viewing one at a time in my house, and they were purchased.

However, to my disappointment, I discovered that the blu-ray movies now have watermarks in their audio such that DRM in my WiFi-enabled blu-ray players (including the PS3) will halt play-back after 20 minutes if detected, thus limiting my ability to play the movie how I want to play it.

But wait--I discovered that there exist blu-ray rips of said movies that have this water-mark removed (got the audio from a DVD source, or something, not sure how they do it).  Alternatively, I can "jailbreak" my devices and remove the DRM on the device (which is also illegal).   So, even though I WANT to legitimately purchase the movie, I have incentive to pirate it instead, ironically because of the DRM in place attempting to prevent me from pirating it in the first place!

So, here in-lies the actual dilemma I am now faced with:  do I go purchase the blu-ray disk and live with the fact that I can no longer add them to my media server library, or do I just pirate them (for free) and have a (from my perspective) better experience with the product?  Is it still "immoral" if I first purchase the movie, but then download a pirated copy that does what I actually want it to do?

/it's not only a question of morals, but also the fact there are incentives to "pirate" software
 
2013-03-08 05:01:42 PM  

show me: rufus-t-firefly: This guy (from the Amazon reviews) has a better letter:

Dear EA/Maxis/Origin:

You killed the child inside me.

The one who remembers playing SimCity. The *first* one. Who recalls fondly a childhood of Sim games, spending countless hours on my Compaq 486 sx33

Ha! I had a 486 DX33! Suck it, dude!


Ha!  I was playing SC2K, with SCURK, on a 486 sx25!  And I liked it that way.

Played tons of games below spec on that machine:
C&C (original)
Crusader, No Remorse
Sim City 2000

Well crap, all the games I had that weren't shareware were from developers that were bought by EA!

GDSM.
 
2013-03-08 05:04:46 PM  

Shrugging Atlas: you have pee hands: Shrugging Atlas: I learned my lesson with Diablo 3.  Never farking again.

I thought people had that problem more with Diablo 2 and World of Warcraft.

Couldn't say because oddly enough I never played either.  But D3 had all sorts of issues at launch first with just being able to get into the game at all, then with the auction house for weeks afterwards.  It sounds like Sim City has been worse though just from what I've been reading on Fark.

The sad thing is prior to hearing about the DRM 'solution' I had planned on buying this on day one without having even researched the game.  I've played every previous version, and it wasn't something I even considered skipping or thinking twice about.  But that was such a deal breaker I wouldn't have even regretted it had the launch gone well.


Woosh.
 
2013-03-08 05:05:25 PM  

CPennypacker: BafflerMeal: lousyskater: pxlboy: I felt that way about Dead Space 2. There was no need for a multiplayer PvP option; there just wasn't. It's not an FPS and it doesn't play like one.

Hopefully DS3 will be better. The drop-in/out co-op seems kinda neat, though.

Dead Space 3 was to Dead Space as RE5 is to RE4.

Is that Cecilius or Kelvin?

I liked DS3. I don't play RE anymore so I don't know what his analogy means. The Resident Evil storyline is too stupid to live. Its almost as bad as metal gear.


I'd recommend RE4 at least. Excellent game that's pretty standalone from the rest. Any RE game after it though was complete garbage.
 
2013-03-08 05:05:47 PM  

FarkGrudge: Teiritzamna: We could of course have the more reasonable discussion about cost/benefit.  Here, it seems, EA's attempted security was woefully more expensive than the harms it would prevent.  Indeed, the phenomenon i was attempting to discuss above likely means that their security actually encouraged more unlawful acts.

So i would be quite happy to say that in this instance EA's poorly implemented DRM "does not work and is, in fact, completely and utterly pointless"

...is it much of a leap then to say that many games with "always-on" DRM are as poorly implemented?  Some here are extending this sentiment to all games with "always-online" DRM are poorly implemented, though I cannot personally throw my hat in with this crowd (due to ignorancy).

My own person experience certainly suggests it, however (can't express the frustration of one of my  available times to play Diablo 3 is during their weekly server maintenance for a game I always play solo). If I knew of a pirated version of Diablo 3 that let me play solo, I'd have been all over it (even after legitimately purchasing it).

The real problem with this, is that if you look forward by evaluating another industry that's a little ahead in the DRM battle (ie, the movie industry) you will see that the motivation (not justification) for piracy is often the limitations placed on owned software by the DRM itself, which is the sole reason people are so outraged by it.  If DRM can be put in that has NO impact on legitimate owners, then it'd be accepted without hesitation.  But, it never seems to be able to be, as in this case (ie, servers are greatly struggling preventing solo-play).


[Cool-story bro Begins]

Another example of this is I had recently finally upgraded to a big 1080p TV and wanted to start purchasing blu-ray version of movies and add them to my digital DVD collection I have on my media server in my house.  The point of the media server is obvious:  I have several devices that I like to watch movies on (ie, ...


The trolls would argue that when you buy the movie, you're purchasing a license to watch the movie in a way approved by the distributor, that you have no rights to change your viewing experience beyond the original permissions.

And legally, these trolls are correct.   But ethically?  the trolls are in the wrong, but as long as law stands behind them they can be as self-righteous as they want.
 
2013-03-08 05:06:09 PM  

HST's Dead Carcass: OR

1. Mount the .iso in an Emulator
2. Play the game


I remember back in the day when you needed an emulator to mount ISO files.
 
2013-03-08 05:07:09 PM  
FTFA: Also, a prediction for the future: if you release an expansion or paid DLC to make the extremely small city areas bigger (instead of making it a free fix for one of the game's legitimate mechanical flaws), people are going to be unhappy all over again. We're all expecting it, and none of us are going to appreciate it when it happens.

Actually, if EA wants to salvage any goodwill they have left, they should let people know that if you purchased and activated the game while the servers were down, the first DLC pack will be free. Seeing as they are not giving refunds, it would be the least they could do.

/they won't do it
 
2013-03-08 05:08:26 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Also, a prediction for the future: if you release an expansion or paid DLC to make the extremely small city areas bigger (instead of making it a free fix for one of the game's legitimate mechanical flaws), people are going to be unhappy all over again. We're all expecting it, and none of us are going to appreciate it when it happens.

Subway DLC. Book it. Done.


And the people who have already bought the game will be compelled to buy it.

DLC is an amazing exercise in social engineering.
 
2013-03-08 05:10:27 PM  

Girion47: FarkGrudge: Teiritzamna: We could of course have the more reasonable discussion about cost/benefit.  Here, it seems, EA's attempted security was woefully more expensive than the harms it would prevent.  Indeed, the phenomenon i was attempting to discuss above likely means that their security actually encouraged more unlawful acts.

So i would be quite happy to say that in this instance EA's poorly implemented DRM "does not work and is, in fact, completely and utterly pointless"

...is it much of a leap then to say that many games with "always-on" DRM are as poorly implemented?  Some here are extending this sentiment to all games with "always-online" DRM are poorly implemented, though I cannot personally throw my hat in with this crowd (due to ignorancy).

My own person experience certainly suggests it, however (can't express the frustration of one of my  available times to play Diablo 3 is during their weekly server maintenance for a game I always play solo). If I knew of a pirated version of Diablo 3 that let me play solo, I'd have been all over it (even after legitimately purchasing it).

The real problem with this, is that if you look forward by evaluating another industry that's a little ahead in the DRM battle (ie, the movie industry) you will see that the motivation (not justification) for piracy is often the limitations placed on owned software by the DRM itself, which is the sole reason people are so outraged by it.  If DRM can be put in that has NO impact on legitimate owners, then it'd be accepted without hesitation.  But, it never seems to be able to be, as in this case (ie, servers are greatly struggling preventing solo-play).


[Cool-story bro Begins]

Another example of this is I had recently finally upgraded to a big 1080p TV and wanted to start purchasing blu-ray version of movies and add them to my digital DVD collection I have on my media server in my house.  The point of the media server is obvious:  I have several devices that I like to watch mov ...


I recently decided to go the route of paying for AnyDVD HD and ripping my BDVDs.  If one has the storage for it, it's nice to be in control of the ripping and re-encoding process rather than relying on third party up-loaders.  Plus I do it all at home, so no possible BS torrent allegations.

http://www.slysoft.com/en/anydvdhd.html
 
2013-03-08 05:13:28 PM  

BafflerMeal: Girion47: FarkGrudge: Teiritzamna: We could of course have the more reasonable discussion about cost/benefit.  Here, it seems, EA's attempted security was woefully more expensive than the harms it would prevent.  Indeed, the phenomenon i was attempting to discuss above likely means that their security actually encouraged more unlawful acts.

So i would be quite happy to say that in this instance EA's poorly implemented DRM "does not work and is, in fact, completely and utterly pointless"

...is it much of a leap then to say that many games with "always-on" DRM are as poorly implemented?  Some here are extending this sentiment to all games with "always-online" DRM are poorly implemented, though I cannot personally throw my hat in with this crowd (due to ignorancy).

My own person experience certainly suggests it, however (can't express the frustration of one of my  available times to play Diablo 3 is during their weekly server maintenance for a game I always play solo). If I knew of a pirated version of Diablo 3 that let me play solo, I'd have been all over it (even after legitimately purchasing it).

The real problem with this, is that if you look forward by evaluating another industry that's a little ahead in the DRM battle (ie, the movie industry) you will see that the motivation (not justification) for piracy is often the limitations placed on owned software by the DRM itself, which is the sole reason people are so outraged by it.  If DRM can be put in that has NO impact on legitimate owners, then it'd be accepted without hesitation.  But, it never seems to be able to be, as in this case (ie, servers are greatly struggling preventing solo-play).


[Cool-story bro Begins]

Another example of this is I had recently finally upgraded to a big 1080p TV and wanted to start purchasing blu-ray version of movies and add them to my digital DVD collection I have on my media server in my house.  The point of the media server is obvious:  I have several devices that I like to ...


still violates the DMCA.
 
2013-03-08 05:15:44 PM  
The pizza you failed to sell was cold and was loaded with two pounds of anchovy.

When you tossed it out, I ate it after replacing the anchovy with fresh tomatoes and mozarella and heating it up. Your dough is pretty okay; maybe people would actually buy your pizza if it was warm and you made the two pounds of anchovy optional.
 
2013-03-08 05:17:13 PM  
This is why I never buy a game on the first day it comes out.
Wait, I mean:
This is why I never buy a game. There.
 
2013-03-08 05:17:35 PM  

Teiritzamna: long answer: Like most things involving stopping people from obtaining products unlawfully, there is an arms race. At some point, the cost of securing the product exceeds the costs of it being obtained illegally. That would be the reasonable stopping point. I dont know of any security measure, electronic or real world based, that prevents anyone from obtaining property unlawfully, if that intended tortfeasor really wants to obtain it unlawfully. However, to say that therefore all security "does not work and is, in fact, completely and utterly pointless" seems to be overly broad.


Here's the problem:  The cost of it being obtained illegally has never, ever been quantified.  Organizations like the BSA and the ESA like to assume a 1:1 relationship between pirated copies and lost sales, but that is not and has never been the case; it's equally likely to be 0:1 as 1:1, and the truth, most assuredly, lies somewhere in between those two extremes (IMHO, it's most likely closer to 0:1 than 1:1, but I could be wrong).  DRM may even be causing these companies to lose money, if the number of people who swear off a game due to restrictive DRM (whether this means they pirate it or they don't play it at all, they are the same to the bottom line of the project) is greater than the number of pirates who end up buying it due to the presence of the DRM, or even if the two figures are roughly equal (DRM isn't free, after all).

And I'll be totally honest; the number of would-be pirates who end up buying a game due to DRM, in most cases, is 0 or close to it, since most DRM is cracked before the game is even released.

In short, even if the DRM were absolutely 100% perfect, it'd have some proving to do before it could be shown to serve its intended purpose (that is, to drive more sales).  Since it's far from perfect, and in fact poses little-to-no hindrance on piracy in a practical sense, I stand by my original statement; it's completely and utterly pointless.
 
2013-03-08 05:19:34 PM  

Teiritzamna: JesusJuice: Justify? I don't justify anything when I pirate.

Ah how refreshing, a person who doesn't blame the corporation but instead admits that they want to obtain something unlawfully and there is nothing the company can do to stop that.

JesusJuice: It's quicker and easier to pirate than to buy and pirates actually get a better product free of all the advertisements and garbage publishers tack on.

Wait . . . i thought you said you weren't going to try to justify your malfeasance . . . .

JesusJuice: Well, maybe making it not be a pain in the ass to purchase and install would be a good start.

[rlv.zcache.ca image 400x400]
Thanks, however, for being exactly the guy i was discussing.  It helps when the hypo examples show up to make your point for you.


Explaining why you do something is not the same as justifying it.  Below you will find two helpful examples to help you understand.  Let me know if you're still confused.


Not Justifying

Cop:  Why did you steal this bicycle?
Thief:  Because I liked it and I didn't think I'd get caught.

Justifying

Cop:  Why did you steal this bicycle?
Thief:  Well, I actually meant to buy it eventually but I figured there would be know harm in riding it around a bit first.  Besides, the cashier is such a pain in the ass that I just didn't want to deal with her so really it's the stores fault.
 
2013-03-08 05:22:01 PM  
Gonna go home tonight and buy SimCity 2000 for $5.99 on PSN. Is there a new SimCity game out or something?
 
2013-03-08 05:22:19 PM  
I like how every screen shot I've seen of SimCity so far has been of burning buildings.
 
2013-03-08 05:23:22 PM  

JesusJuice: bicycle


This only works if you are stealing a bicycle.
 
2013-03-08 05:23:25 PM  

Obbi: What the hell point do you have, anyway? It seems more like you're going for a general statement like "the sky is blue, sometimes" rather than any actual attempt at a point worth discussion.


Ok, let me do it nice and easy:

(1) People will always attempt to obtain products that cost money without paying.  There is no moral/ethical/legal justification for this act, but it is a fact of life.
(2) Companies produce products.
(3) Sometimes those products are modified to be less than good.
(4) Many people will still buy the products and biatch about them. This is justifiable.
(5) Many others will find the company's modifications to be objectionable and will refrain from buying.  This is also justifiable.
(6) However some people, the people discussed in (1) will obtain the product unlawfully.
(7) As noted this is a fact of life.
(8) Those tortfeasors will then say, I am justified in obtaining the product unlawfully because of the company's modifications.

What I am, discussing is (8) NOT (6)

I am discussing the phenomenon where people who are acting unlawfully and without justification use the poor decisions of another (the company) to justify their unlawful acts.   Its where people who have decided that they have a right to products without paying for them then also attempt to cast themselves as the hero in some melodrama where they strike a blow against the big, bad companies.

Its silly, and is totally undercut by the fact that there is a 100% morally/ethically/legally justified way of sticking it to those companies - (5) - they can just refrain from purchasing.
 
2013-03-08 05:23:47 PM  

Teiritzamna: Theft of services


Those all involve actual costs to the companies involved.
Meter tampering? Generation and distribution costs.
Evading bill? Opportunity cost.
Fare jumping? Fuel and maintenance costs.

I am against pirating, but Theft of Services is not applicable.
 
2013-03-08 05:26:00 PM  

fisker: JesusJuice: bicycle

This only works if you are stealing a bicycle.


media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-08 05:28:13 PM  
So people didn't learn from Spore, huh?
 
2013-03-08 05:29:12 PM  
It's funny that all of this comes around the same time that the godfather of modern computer role-playing, Richard Garriott (who's company -- Origin -- was devoured by EA back in the 90s), is announcing his return to the Ultima franchise with a new type of game that is technically single-player but you can invite your social circle to play it with you in a kind of MMO format.
 
2013-03-08 05:29:42 PM  

HeartBurnKid: And I'll be totally honest; the number of would-be pirates who end up buying a game due to DRM, in most cases, is 0 or close to it, since most DRM is cracked before the game is even released.


Notch (of Minecraft fame) wrote an excellent article a couple years ago regarding piracy and DRM: How Piracy Works

Exerpt:
If someone pirates Minecraft instead of buying it, it means I've lost some "potential" revenue. Not actual revenue, as I can never go into debt by people pirating the game too much, but I might've made even more if that person had bought the game instead. But what if that person likes that game, talks about it to his or her friends, and then I manage to convince three of them to buy the game? I'd make three actual sales instead of blocking out the potentially missed sale of the original person which never cost me any money in the first case.
 
2013-03-08 05:31:18 PM  

Teiritzamna: (1) People will always attempt to obtain products that cost money without paying.


Or they choose to pay for products that are going to be free.


/fark EA. I'm happy -- Ultima is coming back!!!
 
2013-03-08 05:32:36 PM  

HeartBurnKid: See also [art.penny-arcade.com image 800x408]

The fact that you can have that conversation is proof that DRM does not work and is, in fact, completely and utterly pointless.



More importantly, the person making the "pro-pirate" statements IS LITERALLY A STRAWMAN.
 
2013-03-08 05:32:39 PM  

Teiritzamna: (8) Those tortfeasors will then say, I am justified in obtaining the product unlawfully because of the company's modifications.


Actually, I have yet to see anyone make that claim outright. And even if they did, the problem with you spending time whiteknighting over it is you have to pretend you didnt put

Teiritzamna: (7) As noted this is a fact of life.

 
2013-03-08 05:34:33 PM  

Teiritzamna: Obbi: What the hell point do you have, anyway? It seems more like you're going for a general statement like "the sky is blue, sometimes" rather than any actual attempt at a point worth discussion.

Ok, let me do it nice and easy:

(1) People will always attempt to obtain products that cost money without paying.  There is no moral/ethical/legal justification for this act, but it is a fact of life.
(2) Companies produce products.
(3) Sometimes those products are modified to be less than good.
(4) Many people will still buy the products and biatch about them. This is justifiable.
(5) Many others will find the company's modifications to be objectionable and will refrain from buying.  This is also justifiable.
(6) However some people, the people discussed in (1) will obtain the product unlawfully.
(7) As noted this is a fact of life.
(8) Those tortfeasors will then say, I am justified in obtaining the product unlawfully because of the company's modifications.

What I am, discussing is (8) NOT (6)

I am discussing the phenomenon where people who are acting unlawfully and without justification use the poor decisions of another (the company) to justify their unlawful acts.   Its where people who have decided that they have a right to products without paying for them then also attempt to cast themselves as the hero in some melodrama where they strike a blow against the big, bad companies.

Its silly, and is totally undercut by the fact that there is a 100% morally/ethically/legally justified way of sticking it to those companies - (5) - they can just refrain from purchasing.


It's wrong to pirate.  I get it.  I don't care.

So farking what?  It doesn't change the fact that a lot of people who would otherwise buy the game choose not to do so because it's easier to pirate.  People will do what they always do and follow the path of least resistance.  The problem won't be fixed by getting up on a soapbox and chastising everyone, it will be solved when paying for the game is as easy as pirating it, and when paying customers actually get as good a product as the pirates.  Like a teenybopper in a miniskirt walking alone through Compton at 3am, it doesn't make what happens right, but it sure is predictable.
 
2013-03-08 05:35:29 PM  
Played for 3 hours last night and really enjoyed it. Now I haven't logged on to see if it's still there, but I dont care. It's my first city and it's on a really small map with only 2 other players so I dont plan to mess with it for too long.

That and I had to play with base graphics because I needed a better graphics card for the shiny stuff.

That card is sitting in my car right now, so happy.
 
2013-03-08 05:36:19 PM  

Teiritzamna: Obbi: What the hell point do you have, anyway? It seems more like you're going for a general statement like "the sky is blue, sometimes" rather than any actual attempt at a point worth discussion.

Ok, let me do it nice and easy:

(1) People will always attempt to obtain products that cost money without paying.  There is no moral/ethical/legal justification for this act, but it is a fact of life.
(2) Companies produce products.
(3) Sometimes those products are modified to be less than good.
(4) Many people will still buy the products and biatch about them. This is justifiable.
(5) Many others will find the company's modifications to be objectionable and will refrain from buying.  This is also justifiable.
(6) However some people, the people discussed in (1) will obtain the product unlawfully.
(7) As noted this is a fact of life.
(8) Those tortfeasors will then say, I am justified in obtaining the product unlawfully because of the company's modifications.

What I am, discussing is (8) NOT (6)

I am discussing the phenomenon where people who are acting unlawfully and without justification use the poor decisions of another (the company) to justify their unlawful acts.   Its where people who have decided that they have a right to products without paying for them then also attempt to cast themselves as the hero in some melodrama where they strike a blow against the big, bad companies.

Its silly, and is totally undercut by the fact that there is a 100% morally/ethically/legally justified way of sticking it to those companies - (5) - they can just refrain from purchasing.


The problem with #5?  There's no negative feedback for the company to change it's ways.
 
2013-03-08 05:37:31 PM  

Great Janitor: The video game industry is about to die, and the problem is the software companies attempts at ending piracy and used gaming that's going to cause it, sadly, they are too stupid to actually realize it, and when the video game industry tanks, they will go down blaming pirates while ignoring failures like this.

How bad is the video game industry doing?  I have friends who work at the Gamestop Corporate office.  Years ago, Gamestop used to be on the Fortune 500.  Gamestop had piles of money and they used it to do upgrade sections of the corporate office, they bought some off site property to expand their refurbishment department, picked up several companies to expand their brand.  Now, in late January they eliminated several positions in the corporate office as well as closed over 80 stores, dissolving several districts.  Right now is annual review time and so far everyone who's gotten their review back has had poor reviews.  Some think that the company might be gearing up for another round of lay offs, others think the poor reviews are Gamestop's way of avoiding payraises that they've already announced that they can not afford.  Part of the problem is that it's been six years since a major console was released and with the next gen consoles not expected to be out until Maybe December of this year, it's going to be a hard year for Gamestop.  Another problem for Gamestop is the software company's war against used gaming, and Gamestop is their target (and gamers the victims).  They argue that Gamestop has made a billion dollar empire off of used games, but gives none of that money to the software companies (which makes as much sense as Carmax selling used cars but not sending any of that money to the auto makers).  There are several rumors about the next Playstation and Xbox not allowing used games by requiring online connection to verify that the disk is a new disk, to activation codes to on line only.  All moves that will ultimately kill the video game industry, at le ...


Which is why I have high hopes for companies like InExile and other Kickstarter backed game companies. Crowd sourcing your costs has to prevent screwing your customers doesn't it? I mean if your customers are your source of funding and you screw them with DLC then why would they come back and fund your next venture?
 
2013-03-08 05:39:12 PM  
I was at EA's headquarters not too long ago. They still had Dante's Inferno banners hanging over the main entrance. I think that tells you a lot about EA.
 
2013-03-08 05:39:18 PM  

pxlboy: On that note, Borderlands 2 is the only game I will actually play online. Maybe because it's fun to begin with.


Borderlands 2 Multiplayer:
1. Log In (painlessly, at that)
2. Load character
3. Notice a friend is playing.
4. Click and join his game.

No backing out of one mode and going to Multiplayer Sessions instead of single session playstyle, no joining LAN, no setting up local servers to join, no entering room names and passwords, just: Hey, I think I'll join them!

This is multiplayer done right.
 
2013-03-08 05:40:52 PM  

Dr. Goldshnoz: whiteknighting


blog.angelatung.com

Also, as to the substance of what you were saying, note how (7) does not engender (8) - you can be a tortfeassor without crowing about how your tort was justified.
 
2013-03-08 05:41:03 PM  

FarkGrudge: So, here in-lies the actual dilemma I am now faced with: do I go purchase the blu-ray disk and live with the fact that I can no longer add them to my media server library, or do I just pirate them (for free) and have a (from my perspective) better experience with the product? Is it still "immoral" if I first purchase the movie, but then download a pirated copy that does what I actually want it to do?


Personally, I think you'd be justified in downloading a pirated if you already bought the disc, but the law hasn't quite caught up yet with respect to digital technologies.  The bigger issue, however, is that, were it not for piracy, you wouldn't have to jump through all these hoops.  The only reason DRM exists is because we haven't figured out a good way to police piracy so the companies have to do it themselves.  Steam has done a decent job of decreasing piracy for some games, but research has shown that a majority of music and movie/TV pirates haven't changed their piracy habits despite a marked increase in the number of legal streaming and purchase options.
 
2013-03-08 05:41:33 PM  

Teiritzamna: 1) EA can eat a dick, mainly because they were bad at DRM, not because of the DRM itself.

2) looks like another thread where people front the old false choice:

I can either (a) get X unlawfully, or (b) get X lawfully but with lots of annoying things attached (DRM, Cable TV to wtach HBO show, trailers, commercials, etc.).

This of course forgets the key third choice:

(c) i can go without.

I just find it really funny that in every one of these threads there is the sense that people are entitled to a thing in exactly the way they want it.  If they cannot buy it exactly the way they want it, they will obtain it unlawfully.  That is not a justification . . . its not even really an excuse. 

If you think EA sucks, you can not buy EA's products.  You have that right.  And if enough people do that, EA will either fold or will need to do what people want.  There is, however, no moral justification for saying EA's policies are dumb, so i will unlawfully obtain their product.


Correct.

I got sick of being fooled into wasting my money on DRM-laden bug-riddled crap fests. So I stopped buying games altogether. I would pirate a few here or there to see if they're worth buying in the past, but after Civ5 I literally gave up games altogether.

I got bored, but eventually I discovered bicycling, which I do instead of games. I have no intention of ever going back to games.

One could reasonably conclude that pirates are actually better for the industry than people who simply don't purchase games. When DRM became too intrusive, they pretty much assured that I would never be interested in games ever again. I can't help but wonder how many people have similar stories. Oh well. Their loss.
 
2013-03-08 05:42:46 PM  

peewinkle: Pssssh.  I've been boycotting EA ever since they pulled the plug on Motor World Online, the best racing game of all time.

/they said they needed the server space for Sim City
//they even offered me a free copy of Sim City, I told them to shove it
///get off of my lawn.


Fark your Motor World Online. They killed Mech Warrior Online in late Beta for that almost straight to bargain bin pos. Something like 80% of the testrrs signed a petition to just release as is. No support and we'd pay.
DIAF EA.
 
2013-03-08 05:42:50 PM  

Teiritzamna: Obbi: What the hell point do you have, anyway? It seems more like you're going for a general statement like "the sky is blue, sometimes" rather than any actual attempt at a point worth discussion.

Ok, let me do it nice and easy:

(1) People will always attempt to obtain products that cost money without paying.  There is no moral/ethical/legal justification for this act, but it is a fact of life.


Some will. Unfortunately, that is a given.
But, let's admit that the percentage of those are going to do so no matter what you do to prevent them. They are an outlier and not the mainstream.
Making things harder for everyone only drives up the percentage of theft and doesn't create a feeling of comfort for the actual paying consumers.

Seems that the supermarkets have the correct model as they take into account loss when pricing their product. Not that they like theft, and they do police it, but they have an acceptable number that is accounted for.

You would think that at $60 per unit, the publishers do have that part of the equation figured out. The rest seems to be over-reaching.
 
2013-03-08 05:46:02 PM  

Girion47: The problem with #5? There's no negative feedback for the company to change it's ways.


Wait what?  How can a loss of sales not be "negative feedback" given that sales is pretty much the major feedback a company gets?
 
2013-03-08 05:46:52 PM  

Teiritzamna: Dr. Goldshnoz: ...


Don't move the goal posts now.
 
2013-03-08 05:49:01 PM  
LOL, gotta love dumb people though...

On the Amazon link for the page, someone noted that they had "just informed the BBB". Of what? The fact that EA's servers are down? Seriously, you don't inform the Better Business Bureau that you got the product you had ordered, you tell them when you have been ripped off through fraud and stuff, not due to technical difficulties.

Probably the same kind of person who calls 911 for a lost dog because they don't understand the difference between "emergency" and "non-emergency".

/EA really screwed the pooch on this
//What the Hell does SimCity have to offer that's new enough for this many people to buy it?
//Seriously, I thought the game died off 15 years ago.
 
2013-03-08 05:52:08 PM  

Teiritzamna: Obbi: What the hell point do you have, anyway? It seems more like you're going for a general statement like "the sky is blue, sometimes" rather than any actual attempt at a point worth discussion.

Ok, let me do it nice and easy:

(1) People will always attempt to obtain products that cost money without paying.  There is no moral/ethical/legal justification for this act, but it is a fact of life.
(2) Companies produce products.
(3) Sometimes those products are modified to be less than good.
(4) Many people will still buy the products and biatch about them. This is justifiable.
(5) Many others will find the company's modifications to be objectionable and will refrain from buying.  This is also justifiable.
(6) However some people, the people discussed in (1) will obtain the product unlawfully.
(7) As noted this is a fact of life.
(8) Those tortfeasors will then say, I am justified in obtaining the product unlawfully because of the company's modifications.

What I am, discussing is (8) NOT (6)

I am discussing the phenomenon where people who are acting unlawfully and without justification use the poor decisions of another (the company) to justify their unlawful acts.   Its where people who have decided that they have a right to products without paying for them then also attempt to cast themselves as the hero in some melodrama where they strike a blow against the big, bad companies.

Its silly, and is totally undercut by the fact that there is a 100% morally/ethically/legally justified way of sticking it to those companies - (5) - they can just refrain from purchasing.


Alright, I'll agree with that.

Sorry, for some reason I thought you were arguing something a bit more broad that basically could be pointed to "a human justifies every action they make."

But yeah, the ones that pirate only add fuel to the fire. EA's approach they've justified that pirates are making them lose money. (some) People then pirate, justifying it because of EA's invasive, restrictive, and overall prohibitive anti-piracy approach.

Though to be fair, with EA I wouldn't hold a lot of faith to in changing their ways even if a game does poorly and wasn't pirated by anyone.
 
2013-03-08 05:52:17 PM  

Teiritzamna: Girion47: The problem with #5? There's no negative feedback for the company to change it's ways.

Wait what?  How can a loss of sales not be "negative feedback" given that sales is pretty much the major feedback a company gets?


Because by that logic every single person who didn't buy the game can be considered a lost sale. Unless they vocalize why they didn't purchase it, the company can chalk it up to a loss of interest in the IP, not a disgust of how they're managing the games.
 
2013-03-08 05:52:39 PM  
First sign that there might have been a problem?

You love playing SimCity so much you'll pay $60 for it the first day it comes out.
 
2013-03-08 05:52:52 PM  

JesusJuice: Like a teenybopper in a miniskirt walking alone through Compton at 3am, it doesn't make what happens right, but it sure is predictable.


Ok, just to check here - are you comparing yourself to a rapist, EA to a teen girl, and DRM as "she was asking for it"?

Because, I am not sure that is the analogy you really want to use.  I mean i get the distinction you are trying to draw, but as someone who does this professionally, i would really suggest staying away from the "i am just like the sex criminal" hypos. 

Also as a note - I do see your point, and i do in fact favor your argument much more than most - in that you are at least honest about the fact that you want to get something without paying for it because it is easier to do so than the alternative.  While i am not in any way saying that EA's maneuvers here are good practice, policy, or business, I will however say that in general without some enforcement it is always easier to get something without paying than to pay.
 
2013-03-08 05:52:52 PM  

Pocket Ninja: See, here's the thing. I'm not much of a gamer, period. I don't do online gaming at all. There are only a few games that I enjoy playing for a long time, and those tend to be games that I can immerse myself in and play a little at a time, by myself, for my own amusement (Civilization, Skyrim, etc etc). Back in the day, SimCity was one of those games. And when I heard there was a new one coming out, I got mildly interested. Not ecstatic...I haven't thought about SimCity in years, after all, and didn't know a new one was coming out. But mildly interested. Like, "Huh. You know, maybe I'll download that from Amazon for $60. I enjoyed it before, it could be fun."

But then I found out that it forces me to play online, and that building a real city requires me to collaborate with other people. I don't want to. Why should I have to do that to enjoy a game I've always enjoyed playing by myself? Multiplayer should be an option, not a requirement.

I don't care if the game wants to check to make sure it has a valid license. Fark all that, it doesn't matter to me. But you're going to make me collaborate in a multi-player game? Fark you. I'll never buy that. And I can't believe I'm all that rare in feeling that way. Why the hell would EA turn off that entire segment of its potential audience?


You have described my exact feelings on this matter.  SimCity looked compelling initially, but I made up my mind not to get it when I learned it was always online, always multiplayer.
 
2013-03-08 05:53:13 PM  

JesusJuice: fisker: JesusJuice: bicycle

This only works if you are stealing a bicycle.

[media.tumblr.com image 235x206]


Are you a lawyer? I assure you have not missed the point.
 
2013-03-08 05:53:33 PM  

Mikey1969: On the Amazon link for the page, someone noted that they had "just informed the BBB". Of what? The fact that EA's servers are down? Seriously, you don't inform the Better Business Bureau that you got the product you had ordered, you tell them when you have been ripped off through fraud and stuff, not due to technical difficulties.


So what do you call it when you are sold a product that does not work and refused a refund?  Because I call it a ripoff.
 
2013-03-08 05:55:28 PM  

Teiritzamna: JesusJuice: Like a teenybopper in a miniskirt walking alone through Compton at 3am, it doesn't make what happens right, but it sure is predictable.

Ok, just to check here - are you comparing yourself to a rapist, EA to a teen girl, and DRM as "she was asking for it"?

Because, I am not sure that is the analogy you really want to use.  I mean i get the distinction you are trying to draw, but as someone who does this professionally, i would really suggest staying away from the "i am just like the sex criminal" hypos. 

Also as a note - I do see your point, and i do in fact favor your argument much more than most - in that you are at least honest about the fact that you want to get something without paying for it because it is easier to do so than the alternative.  While i am not in any way saying that EA's maneuvers here are good practice, policy, or business, I will however say that in general without some enforcement it is always easier to get something without paying than to pay.


As you acknowledge this, then surely you must realize that making it even harder to pay and use your paid-for product, while not impeding those who would get it without paying at all, is not a productive approach?
 
2013-03-08 05:55:53 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Because by that logic every single person who didn't buy the game can be considered a lost sale. Unless they vocalize why they didn't purchase it, the company can chalk it up to a loss of interest in the IP, not a disgust of how they're managing the games.


You may be surprised to know this, but a media giant like EA has a massive apparatus to find out exactly why sales are below prospected values.  Its not like they are lumbering around blind.  Also, in instances like this, I don't think EA will have any delusions about what caused this game to tank - and that would happen without unlawful obtaining of software.  Finally, even if there was no way for EA to know about lost sales, how are they supposed to know a) about unlawfully obtained product and b) why that product was obtained unlawfully?
 
2013-03-08 05:56:14 PM  
Wow, EA's pushing the eject button on Sim City so hard that they're asking online affiliates to stop promoting the game. They're literally wanting to stop selling the game because it's such a PR nightmare now.

Too late now, biatches.
 
2013-03-08 05:56:44 PM  

scottydoesntknow: HeartBurnKid: And I'll be totally honest; the number of would-be pirates who end up buying a game due to DRM, in most cases, is 0 or close to it, since most DRM is cracked before the game is even released.

Notch (of Minecraft fame) wrote an excellent article a couple years ago regarding piracy and DRM: How Piracy Works

Exerpt:
If someone pirates Minecraft instead of buying it, it means I've lost some "potential" revenue. Not actual revenue, as I can never go into debt by people pirating the game too much, but I might've made even more if that person had bought the game instead. But what if that person likes that game, talks about it to his or her friends, and then I manage to convince three of them to buy the game? I'd make three actual sales instead of blocking out the potentially missed sale of the original person which never cost me any money in the first case.


Well also how many 14 year olds with no money will pirate your game, play it a lot, and then end up buying all the sequels (and the original game when it appears on GOG or Steam for nostalgia purposes) some years later once they actually start earning their own money. In this case even if you manage successful DRM and stop piracy you gain nothing now, and lose money in the future. I mean if I had got a pirated version of Resident Evil back in the day and liked it, I would probably have bought all the more recent ones, but because I never played the early ones I have no interest in joining the story midway through.

Ultimately for me the idea that there is this big portion of gamers that has lots of money but pirates games anyway, and that at some point there will be enough DRM on a game to turn them into paying customers willing to buy dozens of games every year at launch day prices is completely laughable.
 
2013-03-08 05:57:29 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Teiritzamna: Girion47: The problem with #5? There's no negative feedback for the company to change it's ways.

Wait what?  How can a loss of sales not be "negative feedback" given that sales is pretty much the major feedback a company gets?

Because by that logic every single person who didn't buy the game can be considered a lost sale. Unless they vocalize why they didn't purchase it, the company can chalk it up to a loss of interest in the IP, not a disgust of how they're managing the games.


They're free to vocalize. It's illegal to pirate a copy of their product as your platform of vocalization, however.

I think you raise a good point, though. There's really not that well paved avenue for people that want to express why they passed on purchasing a game. This seems really counter-intuitive from a business standpoint. I'm a developer for a company and we take prospective client feedback constantly and let them express what they don't like about our products. This lets us address these points. Later, our product is not as bad because we addressed people's problems with it.

EA bans people that express even the slightest bit of negativity about their games. Take that how you will.
 
2013-03-08 05:59:55 PM  
The belief that even a noticeable portion of pirates would ever buy th e game if piracy was not an answer is a ludicrous cancer.
 
2013-03-08 06:00:57 PM  

HeartBurnKid: As you acknowledge this, then surely you must realize that making it even harder to pay and use your paid-for product, while not impeding those who would get it without paying at all, is not a productive approach?


Oh of course - but my original and consistent argument has nothing to do with EA and its ridiculously stupid actions.  Of course the company is making it such that the only way the games are functional is through unlawful means.  But that is a different question.

Let me say it this way, perhaps.  Assume Ford produces a car that is terribly terribly flawed.  It is possible to make the cars run, but to do so would require some unlawful act.  You as a consumer have, again, three choices.  You can buy the shiatbox and use it as a paper weight.  You can say "screw you Ford," and walk away. Or you can do the illegal act.  Note: you have no right to a ford.  None.  Ford has all the rights in the world to make a terrible product, and you have all the rights in the world to not buy it.  But saying "hey they mad a stupid car so i had to do this illegal thing to make it work!  It's Ford's fault" is a fallacy.

The correct answer is to watch ford go down in flames because of their stupid decision and not drive that car.
 
2013-03-08 06:01:32 PM  

Dr. Goldshnoz: Don't move the goal posts now.


How so?
 
2013-03-08 06:03:00 PM  
And thisis why I think the Ouya will have a solid chance this year. If developers make a game like Sim City, offer a large chunk of it free-to-play, and don't fill it with DRM crap, they'll be way ahead of EA.

Just think Sim City players: You could have spent that $60 toward a new $99 console with games that won't f♥ck with you like EA does. NOW do you understand why supporting the Ouya and open development of games is a good idea?
 
2013-03-08 06:04:28 PM  
EA is run by an evil douchelord.....this latest clusterfark is just one in a long line of anti-consumer moves that this douchelord has implemented....it has nothing to do with making the best games, it only has to do with maximizing profit.
 
2013-03-08 06:05:30 PM  
Teiritzamna:
Let me say it this way, perhaps.  Assume Ford produces a car that is terribly terribly flawed.  It is possible to make the cars run, but to do so would require some unlawful act.  You as a consumer have, again, three choices.  You can buy the shiatbox and use it as a paper weight.  You can say "screw you Ford," and walk away. Or you can do the illegal act.  Note: you have no right to a ford.  None.  Ford has all the rights in the world to make a terrible product, and you have all the rights in the world to not buy it.  But saying "hey they mad a stupid car so i had to do this illegal thing to make it work!  It's Ford's fault" is a fallacy.

The correct answer is to watch ford go down in flames because of their stupid decision and not drive that car.



That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Are you saying if I buy this Ford I am not allowed to say lite it on fire or tear it down to nuts and bolts? I own the Ford I can do whatever I want to it... and games should be the same way.
 
2013-03-08 06:05:30 PM  

fisker: JesusJuice: fisker: JesusJuice: bicycle

This only works if you are stealing a bicycle.

[media.tumblr.com image 235x206]

Are you a lawyer? I assure you have not missed the point.


Sure, I'm a lawyer so fark you.
 
2013-03-08 06:06:09 PM  
I'm playing through ME for the first time cause I just found the 3 game pack at GS for pretty cheap on PS3. Can anyone tell me if the DLC that apparently fixed the end of ME3 is part of that 3 game release? or do I still have to download it?
 
2013-03-08 06:07:09 PM  
Well, EA has been shiatting out turds for a while now, and you morons just keep giving them 60 bucks. Why should they change?

EA could release a game called 'Turd in a box' that is literally just a turd in a box for 60 bucks and people would still buy it just to post online how bad it was. End result is EA gets rich and dumb suckers get to feel morally superior.


STOP BUYING EA PRODUCTS
 
2013-03-08 06:08:54 PM  

Teiritzamna: HeartBurnKid: As you acknowledge this, then surely you must realize that making it even harder to pay and use your paid-for product, while not impeding those who would get it without paying at all, is not a productive approach?

Oh of course - but my original and consistent argument has nothing to do with EA and its ridiculously stupid actions. Of course the company is making it such that the only way the games are functional is through unlawful means. But that is a different question.


No, it's not.  While it's hard to think of an example as spectacularly illustrative as the one EA has given us (Diablo 3 and Assassin's Creed 2 come close, but even those do not come close to the depths of the failure here), almost all DRM fundamentally makes the purchased product more difficult to use than otherwise.  I say "almost all" because there are some, like Steam, that actually make things easier in some respects even as they make them more difficult in others, and then it simply becomes a question of the balance between.

Teiritzamna: Let me say it this way, perhaps. Assume Ford produces a car that is terribly terribly flawed. It is possible to make the cars run, but to do so would require some unlawful act. You as a consumer have, again, three choices. You can buy the shiatbox and use it as a paper weight. You can say "screw you Ford," and walk away. Or you can do the illegal act. Note: you have no right to a ford. None. Ford has all the rights in the world to make a terrible product, and you have all the rights in the world to not buy it. But saying "hey they mad a stupid car so i had to do this illegal thing to make it work! It's Ford's fault" is a fallacy.

The correct answer is to watch ford go down in flames because of their stupid decision and not drive that car.


Oh, I completely agree, and I am not trying to justify anybody's piracy.  What I am doing is asking for a justification for intrusive DRM, as I believe there is none.  The idea that "we have to have this DRM to address piracy" is as big a fallacy as "I have to pirate due to the DRM", because DRM does not impede piracy.  It only impedes legitimate users.
 
2013-03-08 06:09:48 PM  

danknerd: That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Are you saying if I buy this Ford I am not allowed to say lite it on fire or tear it down to nuts and bolts? I own the Ford I can do whatever I want to it... and games should be the same way.


Sigh.  I realized that i messed up in the hypo - that problem being that the person with the car paid for it.  Which adds a moral/ethical justification.  So fair point, and hypo withdrawn.
 
2013-03-08 06:10:29 PM  

Subtle_Canary: Well, EA has been shiatting out turds for a while now, and you morons just keep giving them 60 bucks. Why should they change?

EA could release a game called 'Turd in a box' that is literally just a turd in a box for 60 bucks and people would still buy it just to post online how bad it was. End result is EA gets rich and dumb suckers get to feel morally superior.


STOP BUYING EA PRODUCTS


I think you're being a bit harsh.

I'm pretty sure they'd have to call it Sim 4 for people to buy into it.
 
2013-03-08 06:11:05 PM  

Girion47: BafflerMeal: Girion47: FarkGrudge: Teiritzamna: We could of course have the more reasonable discussion about cost/benefit.  Here, it seems, EA's attempted security was woefully more expensive than the harms it would prevent.  Indeed, the phenomenon i was attempting to discuss above likely means that their security actually encouraged more unlawful acts.

So i would be quite happy to say that in this instance EA's poorly implemented DRM "does not work and is, in fact, completely and utterly pointless"

...is it much of a leap then to say that many games with "always-on" DRM are as poorly implemented?  Some here are extending this sentiment to all games with "always-online" DRM are poorly implemented, though I cannot personally throw my hat in with this crowd (due to ignorancy).

My own person experience certainly suggests it, however (can't express the frustration of one of my  available times to play Diablo 3 is during their weekly server maintenance for a game I always play solo). If I knew of a pirated version of Diablo 3 that let me play solo, I'd have been all over it (even after legitimately purchasing it).

The real problem with this, is that if you look forward by evaluating another industry that's a little ahead in the DRM battle (ie, the movie industry) you will see that the motivation (not justification) for piracy is often the limitations placed on owned software by the DRM itself, which is the sole reason people are so outraged by it.  If DRM can be put in that has NO impact on legitimate owners, then it'd be accepted without hesitation.  But, it never seems to be able to be, as in this case (ie, servers are greatly struggling preventing solo-play).


[Cool-story bro Begins]

Another example of this is I had recently finally upgraded to a big 1080p TV and wanted to start purchasing blu-ray version of movies and add them to my digital DVD collection I have on my media server in my house.  The point of the media server is obvious:  I have several devices t ...



True.  I don't care.  The DMCA is a batshiat crazy piece of legislation.  We're all felons several times a day in the eyes of the CJ system.  I stopped caring about the letter of the law years ago and try to do what I agree with morally.
 
2013-03-08 06:11:49 PM  

Obbi: I'm pretty sure they'd have to call it Sim 4 for people to buy into it.


SimTurd 4, with the "flies and maggots" stuff pack.
 
2013-03-08 06:12:17 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Oh, I completely agree, and I am not trying to justify anybody's piracy. What I am doing is asking for a justification for intrusive DRM, as I believe there is none. The idea that "we have to have this DRM to address piracy" is as big a fallacy as "I have to pirate due to the DRM", because DRM does not impede piracy. It only impedes legitimate users.


Agreed - 100% agreed.  If you look up thread i even make this point.  However, i find that on the internet there are no shortage of people willing to call a company like EA on its ridiculous self serving bullshiat, but it is rare that people actually call the "so that's why i had to obtain it unlawfully" folks.  That is all I was discussing, which is why i called EA's rampant and obvious dickery irrelevant - i meant irrelevant to my point.
 
2013-03-08 06:12:19 PM  

Subtle_Canary: Well, EA has been shiatting out turds for a while now, and you morons just keep giving them 60 bucks. Why should they change?

EA could release a game called 'Turd in a box' that is literally just a turd in a box for 60 bucks and people would still buy it just to post online how bad it was. End result is EA gets rich and dumb suckers get to feel morally superior.


STOP BUYING EA PRODUCTS


No.

i.imgur.com

AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT!! HAHAHAHA!

/off to pre-order Polished Turd
//comes with a new skin!
 
2013-03-08 06:13:29 PM  
While they aren't giving refunds to pissed off customers, they are suspending their marketing campaign.  One day, this will be a case study in PR classes about what-not-to-do.

EA suspends SimCity marketing campaigns, asks affiliates to 'stop actively promoting' game
 
2013-03-08 06:18:55 PM  
You know, I kind of feel bad for the people who work at the lower levels at EA. They're taking all the worst shiat from this, and they're just ordinary schmuck trying to earn a living. Talk about a high-stress job...

You just know the EA CEO and Board of Directors don't give a shiat. They're letting other people suffer and sweat.

It's a shame this company-- a company that (along with Activition) started up trying do things differently from the draconian way Atari ran things in the 70s and 80s-- has actually become WORSE than Atari ever was.

The EA we loved is dead. All that's left is some bastard shell of a corporate entity that sees games as a way to pump customers for money in ever-increasing increments. They sold their soul a long time ago.

I think that right now, EA is less liked than Best Buy and AT&T.
 
2013-03-08 06:23:16 PM  

JesusJuice: fisker: JesusJuice: fisker: JesusJuice: bicycle

This only works if you are stealing a bicycle.

[media.tumblr.com image 235x206]

Are you a lawyer? I assure you have not missed the point.

Sure, I'm a lawyer so fark you.


i.imgur.com

Biggest farking child on the internet.
 
2013-03-08 06:23:21 PM  

ZeroCorpse: You know, I kind of feel bad for the people who work at the lower levels at EA. They're taking all the worst shiat from this, and they're just ordinary schmuck trying to earn a living. Talk about a high-stress job...

You just know the EA CEO and Board of Directors don't give a shiat. They're letting other people suffer and sweat.

It's a shame this company-- a company that (along with Activition) started up trying do things differently from the draconian way Atari ran things in the 70s and 80s-- has actually become WORSE than Atari ever was.

The EA we loved is dead. All that's left is some bastard shell of a corporate entity that sees games as a way to pump customers for money in ever-increasing increments. They sold their soul a long time ago.

I think that right now, EA is less liked than Best Buy and AT&T.


Definitely.  AT&T will actually give you a service credit if your phone service stops working.
 
2013-03-08 06:24:24 PM  

BafflerMeal: True. I don't care. The DMCA is a batshiat crazy piece of legislation. We're all felons several times a day in the eyes of the CJ system. I stopped caring about the letter of the law years ago and try to do what I agree with morally.


I think, from a professional standpoint, is that there are fundamental differences between whan an average person understands a license to be and what a corporate entity does.  From the standpoint of a company, the DMCA is pretty easy to work around.  The trick is, a company has lawyers who advise it on exactly how to comply, avoid the DMCA's provisions.  For lay people, if they even know if its existence, it feels like a crazy ass law that tells them that they do not own things they think they do.

/Also the statute itself is poorly written on par with the Lanham act or CERCLA.
//ok nothing is as bad as those two
 
2013-03-08 06:27:44 PM  

ZeroCorpse: The EA we loved is dead.


EA has always been dead. EA has been dead for 20 years, and like the dead it subsists entirely on sucking the lifeblood out of other gaming companies until there was nothing left but a soulless husk. Origin, Maxis, Bullfrog, Westwood, and now they're doing the same to Bioware. All great, fantastic companies completely devoured by EA's corporate vampires.

fark EA. They are the worst thing that has ever happened to gaming.
 
2013-03-08 06:27:55 PM  
EA hasn't gotten a dime of my money in years and thats not about to change until they drop the DRM crap.
 
2013-03-08 06:28:02 PM  

ZeroCorpse: I think that right now, EA is less liked than Best Buy and AT&T.


I think pretty lowly of EA, but I don't think any company will ever supplant my hatred of Best Buy. Not even Monsanto or Altria.
 
2013-03-08 06:32:09 PM  

The Bestest: ZeroCorpse: I think that right now, EA is less liked than Best Buy and AT&T.

I think pretty lowly of EA, but I don't think any company will ever supplant my hatred of Best Buy. Not even Monsanto or Altria.


Well, Monsanto really does suck.

But EA is killing the gaming industry. They're buying up all the good developers and then turning their work to crap. If gaming dies, it will be because EA pulled the trigger.
 
2013-03-08 06:33:30 PM  
Meanwhile, Tropico 4 is now on a week-long sale on Steam.

In my head, the folks at Valve and Kalypso sit at a banquet table, toasting each other with glasses of EA tears.
 
2013-03-08 06:34:17 PM  

Rincewind53: Great Janitor: How bad is the video game industry doing?  I have friends who work at the Gamestop Corporate office.  Years ago, Gamestop used to be on the Fortune 500.  Gamestop had piles of money and they used it to do upgrade sections of the corporate office, they bought some off site property to expand their refurbishment department, picked up several companies to expand their brand.  Now, in late January they eliminated several positions in the corporate office as well as closed over 80 stores, dissolving several districts.  Right now is annual review time and so far everyone who's gotten their review back has had poor reviews.  Some think that the company might be gearing up for another round of lay offs, others think the poor reviews are Gamestop's way of avoiding payraises that they've already announced that they can not afford.  Part of the problem is that it's been six years since a major console was released and with the next gen consoles not expected to be out until Maybe December of this year, it's going to be a hard year for Gamestop.  Another problem for Gamestop is the software company's war against used gaming, and Gamestop is their target (and gamers the victims).  They argue that Gamestop has made a billion dollar empire off of used games, but gives none of that money to the software companies (which makes as much sense as Carmax selling used cars but not sending any of that money to the auto makers).  There are several rumors about the next Playstation and Xbox not allowing used games by requiring online connection to verify that the disk is a new disk, to activation codes to on line only.  All moves that will ultimately kill the video game industry, at least the console gaming industry.

Gamestop is dying because of digital distribution, Amazon, and the general price point for new video games. End of story.

Gamestop's fate has very little to do with the do with the health of the video game industry as a whole.


Well that and because they never have Battletoads.
 
2013-03-08 06:34:38 PM  

The Bestest: So people didn't learn from Spore, huh?


I did.  I think that's the last time I fell for a major studio release.
 
2013-03-08 06:38:35 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Meanwhile, Tropico 4 is now on a week-long sale on Steam.

In my head, the folks at Valve and Kalypso sit at a banquet table, toasting each other with glasses of EA tears.


Valve is the proof you don't need to treat your customers like garbage to make money hand over fist.
 
2013-03-08 06:38:50 PM  

fisker: JesusJuice: fisker: JesusJuice: fisker: JesusJuice: bicycle

This only works if you are stealing a bicycle.

[media.tumblr.com image 235x206]

Are you a lawyer? I assure you have not missed the point.

Sure, I'm a lawyer so fark you.

[i.imgur.com image 380x380]

Biggest farking child on the internet.


thechive.files.wordpress.com

I am the law.
 
2013-03-08 06:42:26 PM  
Suits making customers miserable, meh.

Suits making our jobs miserable, sigh.

Suits making our pastimes miserable, I WILL CUT YOU!!!?
 
2013-03-08 06:46:02 PM  

Ishkur: EA has always been dead. EA has been dead for 20 years, and like the dead it subsists entirely on sucking the lifeblood out of other gaming companies until there was nothing left but a soulless husk. Origin, Maxis, Bullfrog, Westwood, and now they're doing the same to Bioware. All great, fantastic companies completely devoured by EA's corporate vampires.

fark EA. They are the worst thing that has ever happened to gaming.


That's basically what I was going to post.  EA is where good game companies go to die.
 
2013-03-08 06:47:26 PM  

pacified: the amount of nerd crying in this is the annoying part.   I get it, the servers aren't working right.  But is it worth all the wrist slitting emo bullshiat?  fark.  You nerds need better priority.


And you know what else else?

Your priority was to click on Fark, click to this thread, and then tell us all about how you feel about what others feel, denigrate the folks that might even read this thread, and then click again to post your 'opinion.'

Trolling or not, that's pretty pathetic. You wanted someone to notice you, you edgy Farker, you. Well, you win. Somebody noticed. Congratulations.
 
2013-03-08 06:49:06 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Played for 3 hours last night and really enjoyed it. Now I haven't logged on to see if it's still there, but I dont care. It's my first city and it's on a really small map with only 2 other players so I dont plan to mess with it for too long.

That and I had to play with base graphics because I needed a better graphics card for the shiny stuff.

That card is sitting in my car right now, so happy.


It might work better in your computer
 
2013-03-08 06:51:09 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Meanwhile, Tropico 4 is now on a week-long sale on Steam.

In my head, the folks at Valve and Kalypso sit at a banquet table, toasting each other with glasses of EA tears.


Thing is, I'd have bought that.. if Tropico itself didn't have an extra layer of DRM too.
 
2013-03-08 07:10:35 PM  
I really cannot believe the game is still so farked. It's as if EA and Maxis are just trying to provoke people now, as some kind of social experiment. How far can they push their customers before someone takes the law into their own hands.
 
2013-03-08 07:11:30 PM  
It's too bad as I was looking forward to play it this weekend. $80 for a game that is, so hamstrung by DRM? F'k that.
 
2013-03-08 07:13:35 PM  
This could have been so easily avoided by simply only selling as many copies of the game right at launch as you have server space to meet the assumption that every copy sold will be online for the first few days. Then trickle more copies out over the next few weeks, as the first round of buyers settles down and plays less frequently. Something like:

Week 1 - 300,000
Week 2 - 100,000
Week 3 - 100,000
Week 4 - as many as will sell
 
2013-03-08 07:16:08 PM  

Girion47: Yeah I have no interest in this game.   Off to pirate it!


Just out of curiosity, is that even feasible? Has someone already hacked the source code and released a version that doesn't ping EAs servers for license permission?
 
2013-03-08 07:16:22 PM  

The Bestest: HeartBurnKid: Meanwhile, Tropico 4 is now on a week-long sale on Steam.

In my head, the folks at Valve and Kalypso sit at a banquet table, toasting each other with glasses of EA tears.

Thing is, I'd have bought that.. if Tropico itself didn't have an extra layer of DRM too.


I don't know if it's true or not, but Steam Forums say "It's not DRM. It's slightly intrusive at worst, but not DRM. It enables some custom content and doesn't ever prevent you from playing the game."

Kind of like the DRM of Might and Magic Heroes 6. You get extra stuff if your internet is working and you're logged in, but the game still plays fine when the internet is down.
 
2013-03-08 07:16:40 PM  

HeartBurnKid: So what do you call it when you are sold a product that does not work and refused a refund? Because I call it a ripoff.


Caveat Emptor.

You should have read the EULA because it's all right there. No Refunds.
 
2013-03-08 07:17:49 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: I really cannot believe the game is still so farked. It's as if EA and Maxis are just trying to provoke people now, as some kind of social experiment. How far can they push their customers before someone takes the law into their own hands.


And does what, exactly?
 
2013-03-08 07:19:33 PM  

ZeroCorpse: But EA is killing the gaming industry. They're buying up all the good developers and then turning their work to crap. If gaming dies, it will be because EA pulled the trigger.


Because game developers are slaves to publishers and they cannot quit and start their own game studios...

Game devs are going to get tired of EA ruining their shiat and all of EA's best and brightest are going to leave to do their own thing.
 
2013-03-08 07:19:38 PM  
Servers Unavailable. See More Info link for details.

More Info.

/seriously
 
2013-03-08 07:24:01 PM  

JustFish: I'm playing through ME for the first time cause I just found the 3 game pack at GS for pretty cheap on PS3. Can anyone tell me if the DLC that apparently fixed the end of ME3 is part of that 3 game release? or do I still have to download it?


Not sure, but there's a lot of free downloads for ME3 on PSN anyways (mostly for multiplayer) that you might as well check.
 
2013-03-08 07:24:25 PM  

fluffy2097: And does what, exactly?


Use your imagination. Lots of unstable people out there.
 
2013-03-08 07:32:37 PM  
CPennypacker: They aren't stealing a physical object.

Teiritzamna: Theft of services


Theft of services isn't stealing a physical object, so Penny's statement is true.

And even then, it would be a misdemeanor since the value of said game is low (In most states, you need to steal $400 for it to be grand larceny, a felony).
 
2013-03-08 07:39:07 PM  

fluffy2097: HeartBurnKid: So what do you call it when you are sold a product that does not work and refused a refund? Because I call it a ripoff.

Caveat Emptor.

You should have read the EULA because it's all right there. No Refunds.


I love this idea that megacorporations are now justified in screwing you because they tell you they'll screw you in a giant, obtuse document you'll only see once they've already screwed you.
 
2013-03-08 07:44:13 PM  
www.joymax.org
Works just fine, no waiting, no EA!
 
2013-03-08 07:45:30 PM  
aedude01:  this will be a case study in PR classes about what-not-to-do.

Before or after they cover the launch of The Old Republic?
 
2013-03-08 07:47:02 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: Servers Unavailable. See More Info link for details.

More Info.

/seriously


Classic EA.
 
2013-03-08 07:48:53 PM  

vygramul: As usual, attempts at DRM hose the honest customers, and EA refuses to do right by those customers.

And then they wonder why their stuff is pirated so much.


Oh please. Stuff isn't pirated usually because people are protesting DRM schemes. They usually pirate it because it's "hey, free game".
 
2013-03-08 07:48:59 PM  

JustFish: I'm playing through ME for the first time cause I just found the 3 game pack at GS for pretty cheap on PS3. Can anyone tell me if the DLC that apparently fixed the end of ME3 is part of that 3 game release? or do I still have to download it?


I'm not entirely sure, but if it isn't, the download for it is free. IIRC, the only DLC from ME3 that comes with the trilogy is the From Ashes - Javik character pack.

/bring Javik with you on the Thessia mission in ME3 for lots of bonus dialogue
 
2013-03-08 07:53:35 PM  

MadSkillz: vygramul: As usual, attempts at DRM hose the honest customers, and EA refuses to do right by those customers.

And then they wonder why their stuff is pirated so much.

Oh please. Stuff isn't pirated usually because people are protesting DRM schemes. They usually pirate it because it's "hey, free game".


Sure.
But the question to ask is whether they would have bought the game anyway.

I don't think they are potential sales to make.
 
2013-03-08 07:54:22 PM  

ZeroCorpse: And thisis why I think the Ouya will have a solid chance this year. If developers make a game like Sim City, offer a large chunk of it free-to-play, and don't fill it with DRM crap, they'll be way ahead of EA.

Just think Sim City players: You could have spent that $60 toward a new $99 console with games that won't f♥ck with you like EA does. NOW do you understand why supporting the Ouya and open development of games is a good idea?


Yeah I'd love to buy a stationary cell phone that can only play games that I can already play on my PC.
 
2013-03-08 08:05:21 PM  

Pocket Ninja: See, here's the thing. I'm not much of a gamer, period. I don't do online gaming at all. There are only a few games that I enjoy playing for a long time, and those tend to be games that I can immerse myself in and play a little at a time, by myself, for my own amusement (Civilization, Skyrim, etc etc). Back in the day, SimCity was one of those games. And when I heard there was a new one coming out, I got mildly interested. Not ecstatic...I haven't thought about SimCity in years, after all, and didn't know a new one was coming out. But mildly interested. Like, "Huh. You know, maybe I'll download that from Amazon for $60. I enjoyed it before, it could be fun."

But then I found out that it forces me to play online, and that building a real city requires me to collaborate with other people. I don't want to. Why should I have to do that to enjoy a game I've always enjoyed playing by myself? Multiplayer should be an option, not a requirement.

I don't care if the game wants to check to make sure it has a valid license. Fark all that, it doesn't matter to me. But you're going to make me collaborate in a multi-player game? Fark you. I'll never buy that. And I can't believe I'm all that rare in feeling that way. Why the hell would EA turn off that entire segment of its potential audience?


My guess would be that EA truly believes that the only folks that play offline games are those that stole the game in the first place. If they didn't why would they mind proving that with a little bit of programming that connects the game to EA's DRM servers.

It's a load of shiat. Sure, put in a code that the game needs to play. After that, let me play when I want. If i want updates I'll connect, let you verify again if it's really needed, download the patch and away I go.
 
2013-03-08 08:12:54 PM  

Teiritzamna: BafflerMeal: True. I don't care. The DMCA is a batshiat crazy piece of legislation. We're all felons several times a day in the eyes of the CJ system. I stopped caring about the letter of the law years ago and try to do what I agree with morally.

I think, from a professional standpoint, is that there are fundamental differences between whan an average person understands a license to be and what a corporate entity does.  From the standpoint of a company, the DMCA is pretty easy to work around.  The trick is, a company has lawyers who advise it on exactly how to comply, avoid the DMCA's provisions.  For lay people, if they even know if its existence, it feels like a crazy ass law that tells them that they do not own things they think they do.

/Also the statute itself is poorly written on par with the Lanham act or CERCLA.
//ok nothing is as bad as those two


I don't think there's anything wrong with you raising the issue of abstract ethics in the context of this discussion - ethics always matter. But, the issue having been raised - how do you feel about EA's refusal to give refunds to those who have bought the game, and cannot play it? In a purely ethical sense, I mean?
 
2013-03-08 08:14:10 PM  

HeartBurnKid: I love this idea that megacorporations are now justified in screwing you because they tell you they'll screw you in a giant, obtuse document you'll only see once they've already screwed you.


I love how you think I'm justifying it when I'm explaining how reality currently works to you.

If you'd like to contest the terms of your EULA in court, you're going to have to find a way around mandatory binding arbitration. That means making mandatory binding arbitration illegal (unlikely) or getting your sim city EULA complains picked up by the Supreme Court.

Let the buyer beware. Everyone but you is out to fark you.
 
2013-03-08 08:17:29 PM  

ManRay: This really sucks. I don't game much anymore, but Simcity was going to be an insta-purchase until I saw the troubles it was having.


Never ever buy a game brand new. Give it a week, maybe three. Chances are the game has big problems, and those first few weeks are when the devs get around to fixing them.
 
2013-03-08 08:19:08 PM  

Tommy Moo: Girion47: Yeah I have no interest in this game.   Off to pirate it!

Just out of curiosity, is that even feasible? Has someone already hacked the source code and released a version that doesn't ping EAs servers for license permission?


No. And nobody has actually hacked Diablo III, either, although random ITGs claim to have. It is very likely that not only can it not be done, but that there is no way for these games to be "patched" by the developer to be playable offline - ever. When they shut the servers down to force you to buy their next P.O.S. , your game will be gone.
 
2013-03-08 08:20:55 PM  

fluffy2097: HeartBurnKid: I love this idea that megacorporations are now justified in screwing you because they tell you they'll screw you in a giant, obtuse document you'll only see once they've already screwed you.

I love how you think I'm justifying it when I'm explaining how reality currently works to you.

If you'd like to contest the terms of your EULA in court, you're going to have to find a way around mandatory binding arbitration. That means making mandatory binding arbitration illegal (unlikely) or getting your sim city EULA complains picked up by the Supreme Court.

Let the buyer beware. Everyone but you is out to fark you.


So, I shouldn't report this to the Better Business Bureau because... ?
 
2013-03-08 08:21:33 PM  
But I thought PC gaming is SOOOOO much better than console gaming!

I was told about this on Fark!
 
2013-03-08 08:24:43 PM  

jso2897: Tommy Moo: Girion47: Yeah I have no interest in this game.   Off to pirate it!

Just out of curiosity, is that even feasible? Has someone already hacked the source code and released a version that doesn't ping EAs servers for license permission?

No. And nobody has actually hacked Diablo III, either, although random ITGs claim to have. It is very likely that not only can it not be done, but that there is no way for these games to be "patched" by the developer to be playable offline - ever. When they shut the servers down to force you to buy their next P.O.S. , your game will be gone.


The developer patching Diablo 3 would be simple; they simply provide a local version of the server software for you to use. As for people hacking it, there's a number of projects in progress, and some of them actually look very promising.  Go Google Diablo 3 Server Emulator.

SimCity would be far simpler, since it doesn't actually rely on the online connection for any of the game logic.  Just patch out the bits like the global marketplace, and you're golden.
 
2013-03-08 08:26:04 PM  

TyrantII: But I thought PC gaming is SOOOOO much better than console gaming!

I was told about this on Fark!


Why don't you ask Sony about that?
 
2013-03-08 08:30:35 PM  

HeartBurnKid: So, I shouldn't report this to the Better Business Bureau because... ?


Because the BBB sucks?

Better Business Bureau: The Best Ratings Money Can Buy
 
2013-03-08 08:34:15 PM  
EA is the devil and will burn in hell for their greatest sin; ruining Bioware.
 
2013-03-08 08:38:04 PM  

HeartBurnKid: jso2897: Tommy Moo: Girion47: Yeah I have no interest in this game.   Off to pirate it!

Just out of curiosity, is that even feasible? Has someone already hacked the source code and released a version that doesn't ping EAs servers for license permission?

No. And nobody has actually hacked Diablo III, either, although random ITGs claim to have. It is very likely that not only can it not be done, but that there is no way for these games to be "patched" by the developer to be playable offline - ever. When they shut the servers down to force you to buy their next P.O.S. , your game will be gone.

The developer patching Diablo 3 would be simple; they simply provide a local version of the server software for you to use. As for people hacking it, there's a number of projects in progress, and some of them actually look very promising.  Go Google Diablo 3 Server Emulator.

SimCity would be far simpler, since it doesn't actually rely on the online connection for any of the game logic.  Just patch out the bits like the global marketplace, and you're golden.


I'll believe it when I see it. Those "projects" may look "promising" to you - to me, and a lot of other folks, they don't. You can hack a games code, but you cannot populate a server with content you do not have or possess the tools to produce.
Now, I guess you are right that Blizzard could give me the software to set up my own VM server - and that would be OK, I guess, but it can't be described as a "patch", and would be a lot more hassle than just patching a regular game. And anyway - they won't do it. They'll try to move us on to their next iteration.

Like it or not - "sell it like I want it or I'll pirate it" is fast becoming an empty threat. The aphorism "Anything man can make, man can crack" is just that - an aphorism. And aphorisms are not always true.
The only way to stop the making of games like this is to stop CONSUMING them - in any way, shape, or form.
 
2013-03-08 08:49:57 PM  
Isn't Origin's motto "We destroy dreams and sell you shiat in the process"?
 
2013-03-08 08:52:34 PM  

Teiritzamna: JesusJuice: Justify? I don't justify anything when I pirate.

Ah how refreshing, a person who doesn't blame the corporation but instead admits that they want to obtain something unlawfully and there is nothing the company can do to stop that.

JesusJuice: It's quicker and easier to pirate than to buy and pirates actually get a better product free of all the advertisements and garbage publishers tack on.

Wait . . . i thought you said you weren't going to try to justify your malfeasance . . . .

JesusJuice: Well, maybe making it not be a pain in the ass to purchase and install would be a good start.

[rlv.zcache.ca image 400x400]
Thanks, however, for being exactly the guy i was discussing.  It helps when the hypo examples show up to make your point for you.


If it makes you feel better, I only pirate games I want to play but can't afford/find/want to ensure it will play on my machine before I waste money on it.  It's purely selfish, and I really don't care.  I can honestly say that with an exception of Starcraft II, I've ended up purchasing legitimate copies of all the games I've ever torrented.  Starcraft II, though?  Blizzard can eat shiat and die,  I'll pay full price when they release the full game.
 
2013-03-08 08:56:24 PM  

jso2897: Like it or not - "sell it like I want it or I'll pirate it" is fast becoming an empty threat. The aphorism "Anything man can make, man can crack" is just that - an aphorism. And aphorisms are not always true.
The only way to stop the making of games like this is to stop CONSUMING them - in any way, shape, or form.


Well, if you're right, we'll see if the people saying that give in, or go without.  Personally, I've long since stopped pirating; I've got a ton of games I've bought on Steam that I haven't even played yet, so if a publisher does something stupid, I just skip their game altogether and go play one of those instead.
 
2013-03-08 08:58:05 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: EA is the devil and will burn in hell for their greatest sin; ruining Bioware.


You ain't farking kidding.  I'd still like to find out whose mouth I need to shiat in for making KOTOR a MMO.  Seriously, I want to know who they are, and I want my shiat in their mouth.  Sure, I could take this shiat in a toilet by myself, far away from other people, but it's more fun to SHARE WITH PEOPLE!  RIGHT!?  RIGHT!?
 
2013-03-08 09:13:30 PM  

HeartBurnKid: jso2897: Like it or not - "sell it like I want it or I'll pirate it" is fast becoming an empty threat. The aphorism "Anything man can make, man can crack" is just that - an aphorism. And aphorisms are not always true.
The only way to stop the making of games like this is to stop CONSUMING them - in any way, shape, or form.

Well, if you're right, we'll see if the people saying that give in, or go without.  Personally, I've long since stopped pirating; I've got a ton of games I've bought on Steam that I haven't even played yet, so if a publisher does something stupid, I just skip their game altogether and go play one of those instead.


Well, I am not going to rage about any of this. I bought DIII, and feel that I lucked out. My gaming experience with it has been satisfactory, and they haven't tried to jack me for extra money. So I think I will do what a smart man does when he lucks out - quit while I'm ahead. As it is, I won't be able to play it single player when they take the servers down, like I will DII when they take the servers down, or still can play the original Diablo.
No more online only games for me. And I don't pirate games.
Luckily, there are years worth of great games I've never played, and if I never buy a "new" game again, I'll be perfectly happy. I don't need the "latest thing" - I just like fun things. More and more, the new games are crap anyway - DRM or no DRM.
 
2013-03-08 09:21:50 PM  

jso2897: Teiritzamna: BafflerMeal: True. I don't care. The DMCA is a batshiat crazy piece of legislation. We're all felons several times a day in the eyes of the CJ system. I stopped caring about the letter of the law years ago and try to do what I agree with morally.

I think, from a professional standpoint, is that there are fundamental differences between whan an average person understands a license to be and what a corporate entity does.  From the standpoint of a company, the DMCA is pretty easy to work around.  The trick is, a company has lawyers who advise it on exactly how to comply, avoid the DMCA's provisions.  For lay people, if they even know if its existence, it feels like a crazy ass law that tells them that they do not own things they think they do.

/Also the statute itself is poorly written on par with the Lanham act or CERCLA.
//ok nothing is as bad as those two

I don't think there's anything wrong with you raising the issue of abstract ethics in the context of this discussion - ethics always matter. But, the issue having been raised - how do you feel about EA's refusal to give refunds to those who have bought the game, and cannot play it? In a purely ethical sense, I mean?


Oh I totally agree that EA's behavior here is so farking atrocious such that they are only a few rungs below monsanto on the WTF, you suck scale. They are obviously quite morally/ethically culpable.
 
2013-03-08 09:26:36 PM  

peewinkle: Pssssh.  I've been boycotting EA ever since they pulled the plug on Motor World Online, the best racing game of all time.


I bought that game a month before they pulled the plug, after only two years of being online. The game was rendered useless. With EA's history, you would have to be out of your farking mind to buy a game that required a connection to their servers.
 
2013-03-08 09:30:15 PM  

jso2897: HeartBurnKid: jso2897: Like it or not - "sell it like I want it or I'll pirate it" is fast becoming an empty threat. The aphorism "Anything man can make, man can crack" is just that - an aphorism. And aphorisms are not always true.
The only way to stop the making of games like this is to stop CONSUMING them - in any way, shape, or form.

Well, if you're right, we'll see if the people saying that give in, or go without.  Personally, I've long since stopped pirating; I've got a ton of games I've bought on Steam that I haven't even played yet, so if a publisher does something stupid, I just skip their game altogether and go play one of those instead.

Well, I am not going to rage about any of this. I bought DIII, and feel that I lucked out. My gaming experience with it has been satisfactory, and they haven't tried to jack me for extra money. So I think I will do what a smart man does when he lucks out - quit while I'm ahead. As it is, I won't be able to play it single player when they take the servers down, like I will DII when they take the servers down, or still can play the original Diablo.
No more online only games for me. And I don't pirate games.
Luckily, there are years worth of great games I've never played, and if I never buy a "new" game again, I'll be perfectly happy. I don't need the "latest thing" - I just like fun things. More and more, the new games are crap anyway - DRM or no DRM.



I can't tell if it's because I'm getting older or what, but I'm starting to feel this way.  I'm not very into online multiplayer, so MMOs and games like CoD/GoW/Halo don't really do much for me.  Great single-player is what I crave, either in the gameplay, the story, or both.  Those titles have started to get kind of...few and far between.  Rockstar and Bethesda keep me entertained, but now any new releases from them are far away.  Luckily, Steam and GoG still have plenty of awesome sales on older computer games I never got around to playing when they came out.  Scooped up the Total War Collection when it was on sale for $12 and that has been fantastic.  None of my older computers and laptops could really handle any of those titles, so it was great to finally play them.

/taking recommendations on older games I should play, btw
 
2013-03-08 09:33:14 PM  

Pocket Ninja: See, here's the thing. I'm not much of a gamer, period. I don't do online gaming at all. There are only a few games that I enjoy playing for a long time, and those tend to be games that I can immerse myself in and play a little at a time, by myself, for my own amusement (Civilization, Skyrim, etc etc). Back in the day, SimCity was one of those games. And when I heard there was a new one coming out, I got mildly interested. Not ecstatic...I haven't thought about SimCity in years, after all, and didn't know a new one was coming out. But mildly interested. Like, "Huh. You know, maybe I'll download that from Amazon for $60. I enjoyed it before, it could be fun."

But then I found out that it forces me to play online, and that building a real city requires me to collaborate with other people. I don't want to. Why should I have to do that to enjoy a game I've always enjoyed playing by myself? Multiplayer should be an option, not a requirement.

I don't care if the game wants to check to make sure it has a valid license. Fark all that, it doesn't matter to me. But you're going to make me collaborate in a multi-player game? Fark you. I'll never buy that. And I can't believe I'm all that rare in feeling that way. Why the hell would EA turn off that entire segment of its potential audience?


A-farking-men.
 
2013-03-08 09:38:36 PM  

mooseyfate: 'll pay full price when they release the full game.


I had a lot of bad feelings about the whole trilogy aspect of it too when I first heard, but honestly, Wings of Liberty has a hell of a good long campaign, and replay value is definitely there. I can't say with a straight face I feel completely ripped off there.
 
2013-03-08 09:41:06 PM  

Dragonflew: peewinkle: Pssssh.  I've been boycotting EA ever since they pulled the plug on Motor World Online, the best racing game of all time.

I bought that game a month before they pulled the plug, after only two years of being online. The game was rendered useless. With EA's history, you would have to be out of your farking mind to buy a game that required a connection to their servers.


I enjoyed Earth and Beyond. The nice thing about companies like EA pulling the plug on MMOs early is there is usually a big community effort to get a 3rd party server going. Most MMO's have this. Only notable exception I know of that ran into real problems was the first Final Fantasy MMO.
 
2013-03-08 09:47:18 PM  

jjmartin: The real reason iTunes 'won' is that they made paying for the music easier than stealing it. Until gaming companies figure that out this'll happen again.


Steam. Let me show you it.
 
2013-03-08 09:50:02 PM  

Dr. Goldshnoz: Dragonflew: peewinkle: Pssssh.  I've been boycotting EA ever since they pulled the plug on Motor World Online, the best racing game of all time.

I bought that game a month before they pulled the plug, after only two years of being online. The game was rendered useless. With EA's history, you would have to be out of your farking mind to buy a game that required a connection to their servers.

I enjoyed Earth and Beyond. The nice thing about companies like EA pulling the plug on MMOs early is there is usually a big community effort to get a 3rd party server going. Most MMO's have this. Only notable exception I know of that ran into real problems was the first Final Fantasy MMO.


Like Luse's comment on Mech Warrior Online, there were many people begging EA for the server code so we could continue playing, unsupported, and the fans would take care of all costs. Of course, EA would not release it.
 
2013-03-08 09:51:39 PM  

TyrantII: But I thought PC gaming is SOOOOO much better than console gaming!

I was told about this on Fark!


At this point, SimCity still runs better on PC than it currently does on consoles.
 
2013-03-08 09:52:55 PM  

PainInTheASP: Pocket Ninja: See, here's the thing. I'm not much of a gamer, period. I don't do online gaming at all. There are only a few games that I enjoy playing for a long time, and those tend to be games that I can immerse myself in and play a little at a time, by myself, for my own amusement (Civilization, Skyrim, etc etc). Back in the day, SimCity was one of those games. And when I heard there was a new one coming out, I got mildly interested. Not ecstatic...I haven't thought about SimCity in years, after all, and didn't know a new one was coming out. But mildly interested. Like, "Huh. You know, maybe I'll download that from Amazon for $60. I enjoyed it before, it could be fun."

But then I found out that it forces me to play online, and that building a real city requires me to collaborate with other people. I don't want to. Why should I have to do that to enjoy a game I've always enjoyed playing by myself? Multiplayer should be an option, not a requirement.

I don't care if the game wants to check to make sure it has a valid license. Fark all that, it doesn't matter to me. But you're going to make me collaborate in a multi-player game? Fark you. I'll never buy that. And I can't believe I'm all that rare in feeling that way. Why the hell would EA turn off that entire segment of its potential audience?

A-farking-men.


Thirded. I treasure gaming as a solitary activity. I have a busy life in the real world, clogged with people and their drama. I get very little time alone. And when I feel the need to impress other people, I like to go out in the world and impress  REAL people - not a bunch of shiat-mouthed twelve year olds on a server somewhere. There is absolutely no component of my self esteem that in any way revolves around being a little better than some other guy at pushing a series of buttons.
 
2013-03-08 09:53:10 PM  

Dragonflew: Of course, EA would not release it.


absolutely not surprising. they weren't making enough money off of it, why the hell should you get to enjoy it? luckily there are individuals in the world who love the challenge of a project like that to pad their resume/portfolio with.
 
2013-03-08 10:21:49 PM  
Reading this thread all I can think about is the similiarity between gamers and meth heads. Meth heads complain about their dealers and the unfair prices they are charged and bad drugs they get and getting shot at etc but at the end of the day they pay. I have been a gamer since Space Invaders so believe me I am there with all of you in your rage against what gaming has become but can you not see that this was inevitable. There are entire courses in MBA schools devoted to how to take advantage of addicts. EA is proof you can do whatever you want and make billions a year without even breaking a sweat. The only power consumers have is to not consume. That is it. So what do we do? I hate Activision but I pay 14.95 a month for Wow cause I like to play. I am part of the problem.
 
2013-03-08 10:26:13 PM  

HST's Dead Carcass: I'm torn now. Bioshock Infinite will be released soon. I was upset at how short of a game Bioshock 2 was, I finished it in one day on a weekend. Will this game be the same? I really want to buy it because I really want to play it, but how disappointed am I going to be in another short story $60 game? I'm all but convinced it's another sale buy, just like all other games.


If it helps, Bioshock Infinite is actually being made by the original Bioshock team, Bioshock 2 was made by entirely different people. I can't speak to how long it will actually be but Infinite has no multiplayer, and will be standing entirely on the merits of its campaign, so it better have a solid one.
 
2013-03-08 10:39:57 PM  

walkingtall: Reading this thread all I can think about is the similiarity between gamers and meth heads. Meth heads complain about their dealers and the unfair prices they are charged and bad drugs they get and getting shot at etc but at the end of the day they pay. I have been a gamer since Space Invaders so believe me I am there with all of you in your rage against what gaming has become but can you not see that this was inevitable. There are entire courses in MBA schools devoted to how to take advantage of addicts. EA is proof you can do whatever you want and make billions a year without even breaking a sweat. The only power consumers have is to not consume. That is it. So what do we do? I hate Activision but I pay 14.95 a month for Wow cause I like to play. I am part of the problem.


This is why I am so glad I am not a serious, hardcore, l33t gamer - and why I laugh so hard when same express their contempt for those who are not. "Oh dear - you have insulted me because I have only spent a tiny fraction of the time you have sitting on a couch pressing buttons!....... Now - let's have that lunch money, Cuthbert."
 
2013-03-08 10:41:56 PM  

Trollin4Colon: [i.imgur.com image 850x744]


(Long ass chat with EA support.jpg)

Note in particular, THIS LINE:
I must inform you that if you choose to dispute it, your account will be banned.

They are big fans of throwing that banhammer at EA when you annoy them, and the EA drone said, "ACCOUNT."  That means your registration on the EA forums, and it means every single game you own on Origin.  If the guy in that chat sessions disputes it, they won't just remove his ability to play the new Sim City, they are saying he won't be able to post on their forums, and he won't be able to play ANY OTHER EA GAME HE OWNS ON THAT ACCOUNT EVER AGAIN.

I bought Battlefield 3 on Origin, because I was a big whore for BF2, so I had no choice.  Fortunately for me, BF3 has left me flat, so I've kicked that jones.  I am going to try very hard to not purchase anything else on Origin, because I've found them to be rude and dismissive to their customers, and I don't want anything to do with them because of that.  I don't think they have any other properties that I'm looking forward to, so that will help.
 
2013-03-08 10:43:56 PM  

mooseyfate: /taking recommendations on older games I should play, btw


I don't know if it meets the definition of "older", but I've been playing Brutal Legend again.  Great game, really underrated.  I feel like a lot of people didn't know what to make of its RTS elements, and wrote it off solely on that.  To be fair, the hack-and-slash bit is bog standard, and the RTS bit is all a little basic and fiddly, but it's the combination of the two, and that heavy metal aesthetic laid over the top, that really solidifies it as something unique.  Plus, it has a really kick-ass soundtrack.  Ironically enough, it's another game that got screwed by EA; when they published it, they did everything they could to hide the fact that it's half-RTS, which led to people getting surprised and pissed off by that, and trashing the game as a result.  Doublefine has the rights back, though, and recently self-published a PC port (that's still a wee bit rough around the edges, but they're working on it).
 
2013-03-08 10:46:45 PM  
Have not read the whole thread, so if this has been covered, mea culpa.

Why is it so many American companies are so worried about pirating/copyright/IP protections, yet they send all their physical medium to be manufactured in China. The same China that scoffs at the very idea of Intellectual Property?

I try to think of it, and it makes my brain hurt.
 
2013-03-08 11:01:21 PM  

traylor: TFA: Let me say this straight off: the DRM and online features in a game are part of a game

A-ha, so your first challenge in the game is to get through the DRM. THIS IS PART OF THE GAME.

Wait, I have an idea for a new game genre. There will be nothing in the games but dozens of DRM algorithms and the goal will be to get through all of them. Sounds good, no? First one wins, others can EABOD.


Please have your code wheel ready.
 
2013-03-08 11:01:41 PM  
I never forgave EA for gutting Pandemic Studios.
I liked the Mercenaries games and thought Mercs 2 had potential, but EA rushed the title and killed the series. I think that's the last EA game I have bought.
 
2013-03-08 11:01:53 PM  

MrEricSir: Look dude, I hate DRM too. But the problem here isn't DRM, it's that EA is completely incompetent.


No they aren't.

They will fark up whatever they want, what they won't do is stray from their hard-line stance. In their book, if they keep pushing this drm shiat eventually people will just swallow it (and they may be right).

For every informed tech consumer that expects better there are at least 2 people out there that will never put 2 and 2 together regarding what publisher(s) continually crank out games that are a pain in the ass. They will keep buying titles based off the title alone (thus the reasoning behind EA vacuuming up every dev house with a good name/franchise).

EA knows this, it's how they got on top. They have displayed an absolute stunning "fark off plebs" attitude towards their consumers and it doesn't hit their bottom line hard enough for them to change course.

So, nothing new here, fark EA. But more importantly, what the author and others here need to realize is that there is simply nothing to be gained by biatching at EA. They do not care. Not one bit.

Where this author's focus should be directed, as well as everyone elses, is to educate others that are too stupid and convince people not to buy from EA and instead focus on supporting the developers and publishers that manage to deliver (from concept up to and past release date) a buyer-friendly product worth the $40-$60 you are paying.

And on that note, I hope you all preorder everything that CD Projekt Red produces,

cdpred.com

I hope when you next want to play an old game you go give gog.com $5 for it instead of digging out your old scratched CD or heading to piratebay (gog is owned by  cpr)

...because if that company becomes a titan in this industry, THAT is something EA will take notice of, and might even convince them (and others) to adopt their far superior gamer-friendly ideology.

Not to mention cpr gets big enough to start vacuuming up beloved IPs of yesteryear we can start seeing some reboots worth spending money on... not these *farkyou* blatant greed grabs that EA cranks out with every living breath it takes.

/stop wasting breath on EA, there isn't such thing as bad publicity to these people
//focus on the good, and support it with your $$
 
2013-03-08 11:02:23 PM  
EA's latest excuse for this mess is:

"What we saw was that players were having such a good time they didn't want to leave the game, which kept our servers packed and made it difficult for new players to join."

Think about that for a second. EA didn't realize that people who play SimCity like to play it for more than 15 or 20 minutes at a time. SimCity, possibly the game that *DEFINES* the phrase "addictive time suck". The game where every single version ever released, including the original, has ended up with scores of "So, I figured I'd load up the game for maybe a half-hour, and next thing I know, it's 3AM" stories. The game that has probably left more destroyed GPAs and undone housework in its wake than anything else.

The more EA talks, the more it's obvious that this whole thing was born of incompetence that is breathtaking in its magnitude.
 
2013-03-08 11:05:55 PM  
I think it would be fun to dig out the old Spore threads and compare them to these now.
 
2013-03-08 11:07:24 PM  

MurphyMurphy: MrEricSir: Look dude, I hate DRM too. But the problem here isn't DRM, it's that EA is completely incompetent.

No they aren't.

They will fark up whatever they want, what they won't do is stray from their hard-line stance. In their book, if they keep pushing this drm shiat eventually people will just swallow it (and they may be right).


Unless you're saying they intended for the servers to suffer a massive blackout that prevents people from paying a game they just paid $60 for, I'm not sure what you mean by asserting that they're not incompetent. That just doesn't make any sense.
 
2013-03-08 11:09:38 PM  
Oh, and to all of you dipshiats pulling the "THEN DNO'T BUY THE GAME U ENTITLED ENTITLEDS" horseshiat narrative:

www.gamesetwatch.com

www.gamesetwatch.com

They aren't buying the games.  And 2012 ended up down a total of ten percent for both digital and physical sales.  These are the worst numbers for the video game industry since the second crash thirty years ago.  So stop with the narrative that console and computer video game players will continue to shovel the same shiat into their throats, because they're not, and they're doing it in large enough numbers that the results are going to be catastrophic.
 
2013-03-08 11:12:51 PM  

Mike_LowELL: Oh, and to all of you dipshiats pulling the "THEN DNO'T BUY THE GAME U ENTITLED ENTITLEDS" horseshiat narrative:

[www.gamesetwatch.com image 450x450]

[www.gamesetwatch.com image 480x258]

They aren't buying the games.  And 2012 ended up down a total of ten percent for both digital and physical sales.  These are the worst numbers for the video game industry since the second crash thirty years ago.  So stop with the narrative that console and computer video game players will continue to shovel the same shiat into their throats, because they're not, and they're doing it in large enough numbers that the results are going to be catastrophic.


So when does the bleeding become enough for the industry to listen?
 
2013-03-08 11:19:02 PM  

Virtual Pariah: So when does the bleeding become enough for the industry to listen?


Unfortunately, probably not until EA, Activision, and/or Ubisoft go out of business. THQ was the warning shot, but I'm not sure anyone of importance recognizes it. (Yes, THQ was the victim of its own stupidity in many ways, but until recently, stupidity and/or evilness never affected the bottom line for any noticeable amount of time.)
 
2013-03-08 11:30:04 PM  

Joe_diGriz: Virtual Pariah: So when does the bleeding become enough for the industry to listen?

Unfortunately, probably not until EA, Activision, and/or Ubisoft go out of business. THQ was the warning shot, but I'm not sure anyone of importance recognizes it. (Yes, THQ was the victim of its own stupidity in many ways, but until recently, stupidity and/or evilness never affected the bottom line for any noticeable amount of time.)


Ubisoft actually saw the light and scrapped always on DRM for their products late 2012.
 
2013-03-08 11:33:58 PM  

MrEricSir: MurphyMurphy: MrEricSir: Look dude, I hate DRM too. But the problem here isn't DRM, it's that EA is completely incompetent.

No they aren't.

They will fark up whatever they want, what they won't do is stray from their hard-line stance. In their book, if they keep pushing this drm shiat eventually people will just swallow it (and they may be right).

Unless you're saying they intended for the servers to suffer a massive blackout that prevents people from paying a game they just paid $60 for, I'm not sure what you mean by asserting that they're not incompetent. That just doesn't make any sense.


Incompetence suggests they were simply unprepared for the launch fallout.

I'm telling you, they knew exactly what would happen. There was nothing incompetent about it.

Months before your new video game didn't work, they had meetings and detailed cost-benefit analysis that showed it would cost more money for them to have platforms in place to support the heavy user load than it would to just roll out a much lower cost solution.

Besides, from a pure cost-benefit standpoint... why spend the massive amount of money to KNOW you will be able to support a highballed guess at anticipated user load on release day? What if you spend too much and buy too many servers (which you most certainly will have to do)? That's money wasted in 6mos when user load is 40% of what it is now.

Just roll out the servers you know will support a conservative estimate of users, save yourself the money, and then use the stats of the customer's that can't play to make a calculated choice of how many more assets to deploy server-side.

You are buying the game either way, what difference does it make to them if you're inconvenienced for a couple/few weeks? Not enough customers are smart enough to know better and hit their bottom line on the next title.... sure people might catch on eventually, but if they haven't by now it's going to happen so far down the road that's someone elses problem.

Mind you I don't agree with any of this, but you're nuts if you don't think there aren't 2 dozen VPs at EA that make their living repeating this over and over again in meetings.

It's all about the bottom line, and no matter how many poor reviews they get on Amazon, they already made their money on this. They made all their development costs back before you all realized the servers weren't working. And when they release the next big title game, enough people will preorder to justify the continuation of this mindset.

You think their incompetent because they didn't give you a working game.

They don't exist to make you happy, they exist to take your money, and no matter how much biatching is done they keep succeeding in that department. I see no incompetence here on their part, only on that of gullible consumers and their expectations.

Go preorder their next game. I'm sure they'll learn all sorts of lessons and next time your game is going to work as awesomely as you expected. Next time for sure.
 
2013-03-08 11:35:10 PM  
sorry for the misplaced apostrophes here and there, I've not had my coffee yet
 
2013-03-08 11:36:52 PM  
I think there might be a few incorrect their/there/they're as well.

whatever, just call me EA, I do what I want
 
2013-03-08 11:45:15 PM  
EA will kiss everyone's boo-boos and make it better by giving anyone who bought Simcity a free EA game.
 
2013-03-08 11:47:13 PM  

carnifex2005: Joe_diGriz: Virtual Pariah: So when does the bleeding become enough for the industry to listen?

Unfortunately, probably not until EA, Activision, and/or Ubisoft go out of business. THQ was the warning shot, but I'm not sure anyone of importance recognizes it. (Yes, THQ was the victim of its own stupidity in many ways, but until recently, stupidity and/or evilness never affected the bottom line for any noticeable amount of time.)

Ubisoft actually saw the light and scrapped always on DRM for their products late 2012.


Good! I actually like Ubisoft.

/I do wish they'd move away from this notion that Splinter Cell should be all Jason Bourne, though
//I miss the good ol' days when you'd sneak into places and sneak out and no one got their heads smashed into a water fountain and the building didn't explode
 
2013-03-08 11:54:03 PM  
Anybody mentioning the BBB needs to realize that the bigger a company is, the less the BBB will do to it.  If they're Fortune 500, the BBB will bend over and kiss their asses.  Only the little fish get policed.
 
2013-03-08 11:56:06 PM  

Foxxinnia: ZeroCorpse: And thisis why I think the Ouya will have a solid chance this year. If developers make a game like Sim City, offer a large chunk of it free-to-play, and don't fill it with DRM crap, they'll be way ahead of EA.

Just think Sim City players: You could have spent that $60 toward a new $99 console with games that won't f♥ck with you like EA does. NOW do you understand why supporting the Ouya and open development of games is a good idea?

Yeah I'd love to buy a stationary cell phone that can only play games that I can already play on my PC.


It's going to be a lot more than that. Your cell phone has to maintain background processes, deal with a battery limitation (meaning less power to the CPU/GPU), deal with a form factor and heat limitation (again, can't run flat-out), and has games that are designed without physical controls in mind. It probably can't run games from external storage aside from an SD card, either.

People act as if the OS being Android-based means only casual games are going to be available. The reason cell phone games are usually casual games is because of the form-factor and power limitations of the phone/tablet; Not because the operating system is incapable of running games that are more complex. It isn't even going to be connected to Google Play. It's a whole different system, with a focus on gaming, which means more power can be used to make games run great and be more demanding than any current cell phone could handle. Sure, the CPU is the same, but there's a huge difference in how hard they can push performance because of the AC adapter, better cooling, and greater storage capacity.

The Ouya is capable of handling games that are somewhere between PS2 and PS3 in terms of complexity, graphics, speed, effects, etc.  It will also run Plex and XBMC. It handles HD video with no problems (which puts it a step above the Wii, actually). It is completely open, which means developers don't have to jump through a bunch of hoops and deal with some big company telling them how to market, encode, protect, or sell their games. You can connect an external hard drive to it and have as much storage space as you'd like for games, video, etc..

These are a bit more interesting than casual games, and they're just launch titles.
http://youtu.be/omFNaeQoD7E
http://youtu.be/o-cVSFyWVHc
http://youtu.be/ShRM6TotVe4
http://youtu.be/gqxEaiXKLxk
http://youtu.be/ngac4Dq8qb4

Even games that aren't yet optimized for it look pretty damned good.
http://youtu.be/Tq83J1NIqQ8

Benchmark info:  Pushing 5000 moving sprites in 1920*1080 @60fps on the OUYA.
The console's fan did start to whirl after a while :)
Asus' Nexus 7 ate around 4000 animated sprites in 1280*768 @60fps with same base code, so the OUYA is performing 25% better with even more resolution.
The Tegra3 inside the OUYA is a quad core T33, 1.6Ghz on four cores, 1.7Ghz on one core (1993.93 BogoMIPS per core
http://youtu.be/x-7B_hsr5as

Yeah, you can play games on your PC. So can I. But sometimes you want to play a game elsewhere. Sometimes your PC is busy rendering something, or being used for another purpose, and you want to play a game without a fuss. No, it's not a PS4. But it's $99 and it is completely open.

That last part is the whole point. We're here all biatching about EA, and then when an open console comes along, people all biatch that it's not "powerful enough" or that it won't have "real" games. The games look real enough to me, and the thing seems to have enough power to make the games look good and play smoothly. Will they have a bajillion light sources and all the newest graphical tricks? No, but some of the best games didn't-- Even this generation.

If you want to skip it, that's cool. I just think that if people want to see EA shiat their pants then supporting an open console would be a step in the right direction.  When a situation like Sim City comes along, you just KNOW there will be Ouya developers that see the gap and move in with a game that DOESN'T fail. And let's face it: Sim City doesn't require all that much power to be awesome. The Ouya will crush games like that without breaking a sweat.

But by all means, keep letting big companies bend you over with closed systems, though, if that's what you'd prefer.
 
2013-03-09 12:00:37 AM  

The Bestest: EA will kiss everyone's boo-boos and make it better by giving anyone who bought Simcity a free EA game.


ah for the days when a consumer could expect HIS MONEY BACK when he got the ol' bait and twist

Those were the days.

They also used to have these things called Class Action lawsuits, but corporate America has all but killed them off entirely. Besides, wouldn't you prefer a nice friendly arbitration?

"Sorry we farked you in the ass. We are willing to offer you your choice of a lollypop or ice cream to make up for it. We feel this is both an acceptable concession and reimbursement."
 
2013-03-09 12:01:46 AM  
'bait and switch' even

damn I'm off today.
My fingers are Bill Murray tossing his golf club all fark-it style.
 
2013-03-09 12:02:30 AM  

ZeroCorpse: The Ouya is capable


Vaporware. The word you're looking for is vaporware.
 
2013-03-09 12:05:05 AM  

MurphyMurphy: ah for the days when a consumer could expect HIS MONEY BACK when he got the ol' bait and twist


Ah the days when people didn't put their nuts in a vice and complain when someone turns the screws.

/NAM for Sim City 4 supports curved roads.
//And the maps are big enough to use them.
///Fixes all sorts of problems with the game really.
////And it still works, because there is no server to connect with.
 
2013-03-09 12:05:11 AM  

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Anybody mentioning the BBB needs to realize that the bigger a company is, the less the BBB will do to it.  If they're Fortune 500, the BBB will bend over and kiss their asses.  Only the little fish get policed.


Well, they are a toothless entity turned lobbyist group. They side with whoever pays them.

Don't let their non-profit status fool you, that just means they ship the money out the door (spend) the second it comes in.
 
2013-03-09 12:05:56 AM  

jso2897: I'll believe it when I see it. Those "projects" may look "promising" to you - to me, and a lot of other folks, they don't. You can hack a games code, but you cannot populate a server with content you do not have or possess the tools to produce.


There are multiple examples of fully-functional server emulators for games, including MMORPGs, which would be more complex than something like SimCity.  Essentially these emulators are simply reimplementing server code.  It's time consuming to be sure, but there are many examples of groups that have taken that time and done it before.
 
2013-03-09 12:07:01 AM  

fluffy2097: /NAM for Sim City 4 supports curved roads.
//And the maps are big enough to use them.
///Fixes all sorts of problems with the game really.
////And it still works, because there is no server to connect with.


I still rock simcity2k. I played 4 vanilla long ago and it didn't take. I probably still have it somewhere, maybe it's time to give it a second chance?
 
2013-03-09 12:07:11 AM  

MurphyMurphy: MrEricSir: MurphyMurphy: MrEricSir: Look dude, I hate DRM too. But the problem here isn't DRM, it's that EA is completely incompetent.

No they aren't.

They will fark up whatever they want, what they won't do is stray from their hard-line stance. In their book, if they keep pushing this drm shiat eventually people will just swallow it (and they may be right).

Unless you're saying they intended for the servers to suffer a massive blackout that prevents people from paying a game they just paid $60 for, I'm not sure what you mean by asserting that they're not incompetent. That just doesn't make any sense.

Incompetence suggests they were simply unprepared for the launch fallout.

I'm telling you, they knew exactly what would happen. There was nothing incompetent about it.

Months before your new video game didn't work, they had meetings and detailed cost-benefit analysis that showed it would cost more money for them to have platforms in place to support the heavy user load than it would to just roll out a much lower cost solution.


Having worked in the software industry for a number of years, I can assure you that it's just incompetence. Software engineers cost money, so the more time you focus on quality the less time you'll spend cashing checks. These are very simple trade-offs. The people who run EA aren't evil, and they are not involved in a conspiracy*. They simply do not care about quality.

And why should they care? Not caring about quality has worked damn well for them the past 10 years. A corporate executive doesn't need any kind of fancy math to tell you to stick with what already works. That's just common sense.

(* Well, not this conspiracy, but in fairness I should point out that EA has mastered the art of avoiding taxes. Romney looks downright honest compared to them.)
 
2013-03-09 12:11:19 AM  

MrEricSir: Having worked in the software industry for a number of years, I can assure you that it's just incompetence. Software engineers cost money, so the more time you focus on quality the less time you'll spend cashing checks. These are very simple trade-offs. The people who run EA aren't evil, and they are not involved in a conspiracy*. They simply do not care about quality.

And why should they care? Not caring about quality has worked damn well for them the past 10 years. A corporate executive doesn't need any kind of fancy math to tell you to stick with what already works. That's just common sense.

(* Well, not this conspiracy, but in fairness I should point out that EA has mastered the art of avoiding taxes. Romney looks downright honest compared to them.)


Did you just disagree with me, and then agree with me?

Are we talking past each other or is there a subtle point you're making that I'm not seeing.

You said it yourself, they don't care.
That's not incompetence, that's indifference.
 
2013-03-09 12:17:23 AM  
mooseyfate: /taking recommendations on older games I should play, btw

I just finished Knights of the Old Republic. Never played it when it came out, got it from Steam for $2.50 (on sale) and I loved it. Granted, there is a major bug with the movies, in that I had to disable them when I flew to a different planet so the game wouldn't crash. That was annoying, but other than that I had fun.

If you want to go even older school, GOG has the Quest for Glory series and the Baldur's Gate series. And if you've never played the Baldur's Gate games, you really need to. I also recommend Planescape: Torment, also on GOG.

While it's not that old a game, I'm really having fun with Orcs Must Die. I got the series pack from Steam (again on sale) and that's just fun. If you like Tower Defense and killing Orcs, you'll like it.
 
2013-03-09 12:18:35 AM  

Mazzic518: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Played for 3 hours last night and really enjoyed it. Now I haven't logged on to see if it's still there, but I dont care. It's my first city and it's on a really small map with only 2 other players so I dont plan to mess with it for too long.

That and I had to play with base graphics because I needed a better graphics card for the shiny stuff.

That card is sitting in my car right now, so happy.

It might work better in your computer


Ever think my computer is rigged up in my car?
 
2013-03-09 12:25:27 AM  

MurphyMurphy: Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Anybody mentioning the BBB needs to realize that the bigger a company is, the less the BBB will do to it.  If they're Fortune 500, the BBB will bend over and kiss their asses.  Only the little fish get policed.

Well, they are a toothless entity turned lobbyist group. They side with whoever pays them.

Don't let their non-profit status fool you, that just means they ship the money out the door (spend) the second it comes in.


^ So much this. BBB is more dishonest and bigger crooks than EA will ever be.
 
2013-03-09 12:25:27 AM  

soporific: If you want to go even older school, GOG has the Quest for Glory series and the Baldur's Gate series. And if you've never played the Baldur's Gate games, you really need to. I also recommend Planescape: Torment, also on GOG.


Torment is the best RPG, hands down.  Really big damn shame it never got a sequel, though the ending on it was very well done.  Amazing story either way.
 
2013-03-09 12:28:13 AM  

soporific: I just finished Knights of the Old Republic. Never played it when it came out, got it from Steam for $2.50 (on sale) and I loved it. Granted, there is a major bug with the movies, in that I had to disable them when I flew to a different planet so the game wouldn't crash. That was annoying, but other than that I had fun.


That sucks, I was playing that this yesterday morning and I'd drop to desktop but all I had to do was click on the program again and viola, fullscreen cutscene starts playing.

Windows 7 here, not sure if you're using a dif OS.

I did use uniws (and recommend it), maybe that actually made it more stable?
 
2013-03-09 12:28:50 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Mazzic518: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Played for 3 hours last night and really enjoyed it. Now I haven't logged on to see if it's still there, but I dont care. It's my first city and it's on a really small map with only 2 other players so I dont plan to mess with it for too long.

That and I had to play with base graphics because I needed a better graphics card for the shiny stuff.

That card is sitting in my car right now, so happy.

It might work better in your computer

Ever think my computer is rigged up in my car?


Sweet
 
2013-03-09 12:29:47 AM  

Mike_LowELL: So stop with the narrative that console and computer video game players will continue to shovel the same shiat into their throats, because they're not, and they're doing it in large enough numbers that the results are going to be catastrophic.


It doesn't matter whether or not people buy the games - it only matters that the suits who run the companies tell each other they will. They will just loot there own companies as they fail, and move on to new jobs in some other industry. Why should they care what some raging nerd whose money they already stole thinks?
They'll be far away and doing something else when the pigeons come home to roost anyway.
 
2013-03-09 12:33:49 AM  

MurphyMurphy: MrEricSir: Having worked in the software industry for a number of years, I can assure you that it's just incompetence. Software engineers cost money, so the more time you focus on quality the less time you'll spend cashing checks. These are very simple trade-offs. The people who run EA aren't evil, and they are not involved in a conspiracy*. They simply do not care about quality.

And why should they care? Not caring about quality has worked damn well for them the past 10 years. A corporate executive doesn't need any kind of fancy math to tell you to stick with what already works. That's just common sense.

(* Well, not this conspiracy, but in fairness I should point out that EA has mastered the art of avoiding taxes. Romney looks downright honest compared to them.)

Did you just disagree with me, and then agree with me?

Are we talking past each other or is there a subtle point you're making that I'm not seeing.

You said it yourself, they don't care.
That's not incompetence, that's indifference.


We are talking about the same thing, but at the same time we aren't -- you've made it sound like a series of intentionally nefarious acts on the part of EA's executives.

I don't think we can blame the executives because they're just doing the same shiat they always do. If we expect different outcomes that's our fault. It's the people who managed the project who dropped the ball by not load-testing the servers enough, and it's the customers' fault for buying this and other EA products.
 
2013-03-09 12:38:57 AM  

MurphyMurphy: soporific: I just finished Knights of the Old Republic. Never played it when it came out, got it from Steam for $2.50 (on sale) and I loved it. Granted, there is a major bug with the movies, in that I had to disable them when I flew to a different planet so the game wouldn't crash. That was annoying, but other than that I had fun.

That sucks, I was playing that this yesterday morning and I'd drop to desktop but all I had to do was click on the program again and viola, fullscreen cutscene starts playing.

Windows 7 here, not sure if you're using a dif OS.

I did use uniws (and recommend it), maybe that actually made it more stable?


Yeah, also Win7. But this was through Steam and there was no easy workaround except to disable movies, and I didn't have uniws. Still, it was quite fun.
 
2013-03-09 12:53:52 AM  

The Bestest: EA will kiss everyone's boo-boos and make it better by giving anyone who bought Simcity a free EA game.


Will they actually be able to play this one?
 
2013-03-09 12:55:00 AM  
Don't know what everyone's complaining about.  My pirated copy works just fine.
 
2013-03-09 01:07:09 AM  

Teiritzamna: 1) EA can eat a dick, mainly because they were bad at DRM, not because of the DRM itself.

2) looks like another thread where people front the old false choice:

I can either (a) get X unlawfully, or (b) get X lawfully but with lots of annoying things attached (DRM, Cable TV to wtach HBO show, trailers, commercials, etc.).

This of course forgets the key third choice:

(c) i can go without.

I just find it really funny that in every one of these threads there is the sense that people are entitled to a thing in exactly the way they want it.  If they cannot buy it exactly the way they want it, they will obtain it unlawfully.  That is not a justification . . . its not even really an excuse. 

If you think EA sucks, you can not buy EA's products.  You have that right.  And if enough people do that, EA will either fold or will need to do what people want.  There is, however, no moral justification for saying EA's policies are dumb, so i will unlawfully obtain their product.


There are myriad moral justifications for the scenario you mentioned. There are few (currently) legal justifications for doing so.

Take some time to research the concepts upon which you choose to pontificate; otherwise, the language you so hamhandedly dribble from your shapeless, sphinctoid mouth will serve only to drown you in the oily stench of your ignorance.

TL;DR Equating legality with morality is an inequity even retarded children know to avoid.
 
2013-03-09 01:22:31 AM  

MrEricSir: We are talking about the same thing, but at the same time we aren't -- you've made it sound like a series of intentionally nefarious acts on the part of EA's executives.

I don't think we can blame the executives because they're just doing the same shiat they always do. If we expect different outcomes that's our fault. It's the people who managed the project who dropped the ball by not load-testing the servers enough, and it's the customers' fault for buying this and other EA products.


Unless we have insider info from EA, we can only speculate as to whether this was due to poor testing and preparation or if engineering knew they wouldn't have the hardware to support the initial influx that most certainly will subside in a matter of weeks.

I respect you've worked in the industry, I've never worked in the gaming industry but I've been working with networks and servers on a small and large scale for some time and I see both situations more frequently than I'd like.

... the end result is the same, pissed off customers and a business that pays only lip service instead of offering full refunds. And this is the rub. No matter how they got to where they are, it's how they deal with it moving forward that counts, and no refunds means "fark you, we got ours".

I would point to their decision to refrain from even deploying an Asian server to their "yeah, we don't care enough to spend the money on hardware when we'll make the same either way" .. but I'm beating a dead horse.

I don't think 'massive conspiracy' is the right word for it, that's a bit of dismissal by semantics.

When you talk of an entity of EA's size and market share it's much sillier to insinuate that the corporate ladder folks and investors waiting for their pay-off are all as dedicated to providing you a good experience as the art guys and coders where many truly go to work to create a work of love and not just to make a dime (though they aren't doing it for free :P).

You might call me silly and say it's just a conspiracy theory, I'd say you haven't sat in enough rooms with big mahogany tables and heard what VPs and stock holders say when it's "bullet meets the meat" discussion.
I say indifference over incompetence because I'd bet my wallet that right now their discussions are rife with talk of 'realistic asset expenditures' and 'manageable customer expectations' and I'd just as easily bet it's not the first time they've had this discussion.

Do you hear them saying "wow we screwed up, we're deploying more servers and have all hands working on it"? No. And you won't, because they won't. They'll find a way to make it work with the people they have and the money they've already spent, or you won't get to play until load goes down. Not unless their experts tell them they risk a likely $ value impact in the future that's greater than the cost of throwing money at the immediate problem. This is business 101.

That covers conspiracy. As for nefarious, people expect better. Some do consider it nefarious, along the lines of a bait and switch. And what makes it so is the mea culpa b.s. pr statements instead of just giving customers the refunds they are rightly owed.
 
2013-03-09 01:34:47 AM  

Holographic Shimmering Pork: There is, however, no moral justification for saying EA's policies are dumb, so i will unlawfully obtain their product.


The beauty of a discussion about morals is, the topic is completely relative and abstract.

If you wanted to make a correct statement, you'd either need to replace your usage of the word 'moral' with 'legal', or simply add the words "in my opinion" somewhere in there.
 
2013-03-09 01:34:58 AM  

MurphyMurphy: Do you hear them saying "wow we screwed up, we're deploying more servers and have all hands working on it"? No. And you won't, because they won't.


http://www.ea.com/news/a-simcity-update-and-something-for-your-troub le

I don't really have a dog in this fight, I won't be getting Sim City, but in that post they say they screwed up and have deployed more servers.
 
2013-03-09 01:42:23 AM  

Yuri Futanari: MurphyMurphy: Do you hear them saying "wow we screwed up, we're deploying more servers and have all hands working on it"? No. And you won't, because they won't.

http://www.ea.com/news/a-simcity-update-and-something-for-your-troub le

I don't really have a dog in this fight, I won't be getting Sim City, but in that post they say they screwed up and have deployed more servers.


Fair enough, though as that is a PR statement it's got a good chance at being a load of horse hockey.

There isn't any real info provided outside of "In the last 48 hours we increased server capacity by 120 percent" which could mean any number of things (including nothing). I doubt it means they just unpacked enough servers to double their farm... but maybe.

....or maybe one of those experts I mentioned told them "we are definitely going to take it on the chin if we don't throw money at this problem" :P
 
2013-03-09 01:48:22 AM  
Someone  actually liked Diablo 3? Sad.

That game was terrible. Total disgrace to the franchise.
 
2013-03-09 01:52:18 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Torment is the best RPG, hands down. Really big damn shame it never got a sequel, though the ending on it was very well done. Amazing story either way.


This aims to be a sort of spiritual successor to PS:T.  Not by the same team, but some of the people they have in the project were creators of the Planescape setting for AD&D that Torment was based on.
 
2013-03-09 02:07:28 AM  

Yuri Futanari: MurphyMurphy: Do you hear them saying "wow we screwed up, we're deploying more servers and have all hands working on it"? No. And you won't, because they won't.

http://www.ea.com/news/a-simcity-update-and-something-for-your-troub le

I don't really have a dog in this fight, I won't be getting Sim City, but in that post they say they screwed up and have deployed more servers.



Nope, I was definitely wrong on at least that part.

It appears they did add multiple servers, 8 servers across 5 global regions.

Who knows how many physical boxes that is, but likely many. As many know, "one server" in this business is usually a whole cluster of them forming one logical entity.
 
2013-03-09 03:15:08 AM  

mongbiohazard: scottydoesntknow: rufus-t-firefly: In fact, my new Mass Effect 3 DLC just installed.

So I know a lot of people felt burned by ME3, and I hated the ending just as much as anyone (more numb to it now), but the "Citadel" DLC is awesome. It's nothing but pure fanservice, and that's what makes it great. It's the ending that people wanted, but at the same time there's no way they could've put it in the main game. This is DLC done right.

I was soooooo excited for ME3. And I figured I'd give Origin a shot because I like a free market and competition is essential to the free market. Then I got EA'd.

I had bought the game, but they also offered DLC for sale on farking LAUNCH DAY. Not only that, but the DLC was content that absolutely should have been part of the main game. On top of that - despite having stated numerous time before that you wouldn't have to - you had to play the multiplayer they had tacked on in order to unlock all the possible conclusions to the game.... which was the SECOND launch day crass cash grab - being that multiplayer had a whole other system for you to pay even more money for in-game content that they were trying to force you to participate in.

So yeah... that was the first and last time I buy a game through Origin. I'm also happy to avoid EA games in general when I can.

Steam for the motherfarkin' win.


I am not a gamer. I still would have bought this, but DRM + can't play offline + limited size + price tag= eff no. I bet EA had non gamers counted in projections and I doubt I'm the only one.

Last games ive played were Steam sales via the SO and World of Goo. The latter especially ... I played that with 2 kids in a dentist waiting room while we waited for my SO / their Mom to get out of surgery. No wifi. It was awesome fun.__
 
2013-03-09 05:25:06 AM  

MurphyMurphy: The Bestest: EA will kiss everyone's boo-boos and make it better by giving anyone who bought Simcity a free EA game.

ah for the days when a consumer could expect HIS MONEY BACK when he got the ol' bait and twist

Those were the days.

They also used to have these things called Class Action lawsuits, but corporate America has all but killed them off entirely. Besides, wouldn't you prefer a nice friendly arbitration?

"Sorry we farked you in the ass. We are willing to offer you your choice of a lollypop or ice cream to make up for it. We feel this is both an acceptable concession and reimbursement."


I think lawyers killed the effectiveness of class action lawsuits. Bunch of people sue apple over their kids' in-app purchases (which, really, the parents should have properly secured the iphones to require a password when buying anything, but I digress) and apple gives them a $5 Itunes gift card (and shiatloads of money for the lawyers).

I'm not saying lawyers are evil. But Class Action bullshift doesn't do anything but enrich one group from another's suffering. HOW IS THAT HELPING?
 
2013-03-09 05:57:45 AM  
EA ruined Ultima Online.
EA created the pedo creepshow that was The Sims Online
EA ruined what should have been the best MMO in history, Warhammer Online.
EA ruined a sure-bet hit in Star Wars: The Old Republic

I won't buy another game that is made by a company owned by EA, and usually won't buy a game that is in any way associated with EA, unless it is really damn good (see The Secret World, made by Funcom but published by EA). I will avoid giving them money in every way possible, because I hate them that much. After all of their previous failures, plus Blizzard's recent failure with always-on DRM in Diablo III, it was pretty easy to see how the new Sim City game was going to go. The only thing that surprised me was how many people seemed surprised by EA's complete failure.
 
2013-03-09 06:05:52 AM  
As someone who tried selling software only to have it pirated and generally crapped upon by the people who were happily using it for free - I'm pro-DRM.  I made more money from my software when I was getting 100 hits per month and selling 3 copies than I did when I was giving it away, getting 10k hits per month and dealing with the huge amounts of crap from ungrateful users who couldn't be bothered to read the three sentences unnecessary to understand how to use the damn thing.

And even then, I'd get nasty e-mails from users complaining about my forced ads that appear after the FIFTH time they ran my program.

Then you find that someone has taken the time to remove the forced ads.  I'm averaging .3 cents per user (not THREE CENTS, but ZERO POINT THREE CENTS) but no, that makes me a greedy fark - so screw me, pirate my software!

People are jackasses.  And I know that with an radiance the size Fark has - a handful of people are going to respond and say, 'No, not me, I support stuff I like by buying it', believe me, you are the tiny, tiny minority.  Most people will greedily take everything you give them, with no appreciation, and only demand more.  Write a free piece of software, give it away free.....and they'll demand that you also provide customer support.  They'll even demand features.  Not even request.  People are stupid, lazy, and greedy.  If they can pirate it easily, they will.  If they don't have to pay for it, they won't.

Businesses want to make money.  Businesses love DRM and always-on and downloadable content because it makes them money.  It's MORE WORK to make a game that is always-online and host servers and deal with all the issues that go with it.  It's more complex to develop, takes teams of people to support.....why do they all seem to desperate to find ways to do it?  Because it works.  Pirating a single-player game is trivial.  It takes one bored guy with a deep love of x86 asm to bypass the CD-Key check and upload it.  Compare that to the endless amount of work people have put into creating private WoW servers (that all suck and are perpetually behind the live servers).

As for the butt-hurt customers; I agree with them.  It sucks.  But it sucks because people are d-bags.  In a world of d-bags companies need to be d-bags to.  After two weeks, the game will be up and running fine.  If you purchased it at release, they've already got your money and, just like the PSN going down or WoW going down - as much as everyone complains *AS SOON* as it is back up and running, everyone shuts up and plays the game.  A tiny, tiny fraction of people bitterly swear to never buy a game from XYZ again.  That fraction of people is many times smaller than the would-be-pirates who purchase the game.  And as more and more game companies move to this model - any big name game is going to be 'off limits' for those types of people.
 
2013-03-09 06:21:56 AM  

Mike_LowELL: Oh, and to all of you dipshiats pulling the "THEN DNO'T BUY THE GAME U ENTITLED ENTITLEDS" horseshiat narrative:

[www.gamesetwatch.com image 450x450]

[www.gamesetwatch.com image 480x258]

They aren't buying the games.  And 2012 ended up down a total of ten percent for both digital and physical sales.  These are the worst numbers for the video game industry since the second crash thirty years ago.  So stop with the narrative that console and computer video game players will continue to shovel the same shiat into their throats, because they're not, and they're doing it in large enough numbers that the results are going to be catastrophic.


The charts tell barely any of the whole tale. There is a lot going on there - like the Guitar Hero bubble, the Wii Fit craze, etc, that drove people to the retailers who otherwise wouldn't go. NPD - the source of those charts - does not track digital distribution. Now there's the rise of the indie, and the huge move to digital distribution, the PC is emerging as the dominant gaming machine again in the face of underpowered console next-gen offerings, etc.

There's value to be gained from NPD's data, but it only scratches the surface - that surface being that B&M retail is trending down since 2009. Is it that people are bored by AAA games? Is it that we're seeing a receding to baseline sales after the "non-"gamer bubbles plus an end-of-life console cycle? Throwing charts around and saying "the video game industry is crashing!!!!!" is not really a complete analysis.
 
2013-03-09 06:21:58 AM  

MrEricSir: Look dude, I hate DRM too. But the problem here isn't DRM, it's that EA is completely incompetent.


No, it's DRM.  The game is designed around it.  That EA can't even manage to TRY and get their DRM correct is incompetent.

But seriously, without the stupid, unnecessary, ridiculous requirement that you save your game into the "cloud" every five minutes (a bullshiat DRM 'strategery') - this game would work.

So go fark yourself, EA shill.
 
2013-03-09 06:27:31 AM  

Lsherm: MrEricSir: Look dude, I hate DRM too. But the problem here isn't DRM, it's that EA is completely incompetent.

No, it's DRM.  The game is designed around it.  That EA can't even manage to TRY and get their DRM correct is incompetent.

But seriously, without the stupid, unnecessary, ridiculous requirement that you save your game into the "cloud" every five minutes (a bullshiat DRM 'strategery') - this game would work.

So go fark yourself, EA shill.


I guess understanding how software actually works makes you an "EA shill" on Fark. Should I try to be more reactionary and gullible from now on?
 
2013-03-09 06:33:50 AM  

Lsherm: MrEricSir: Look dude, I hate DRM too. But the problem here isn't DRM, it's that EA is completely incompetent.

No, it's DRM.  The game is designed around it.  That EA can't even manage to TRY and get their DRM correct is incompetent.

But seriously, without the stupid, unnecessary, ridiculous requirement that you save your game into the "cloud" every five minutes (a bullshiat DRM 'strategery') - this game would work.

So go fark yourself, EA shill.


Calm down, Sonny. Competence  can be defined as the ability to effectively do what one is endeavoring to do.
The people who run the big game publishing houses are not trying to make good games. They aren't even trying to make money. For the sort of people we allow to run our large business institutions these days, it ceased to be about money a long time ago - in most cases, it's about feeding their massive egos.
They will ride their failing businesses into the ground, insist that it is someone elses fault, and move on to their next job, where they will be hired BECAUSE they are an arrogant sociopath, rather than in spite of it.
American society, in fact, is failing because we have made the arrogant sociopath our role model for "success", and we should not be surprised by the ever-increasing waves of failure that are engulfing us.
 
2013-03-09 06:39:11 AM  

Holographic Shimmering Pork: There are myriad moral justifications for the scenario you mentioned. There are few (currently) legal justifications for doing so.


Alright, what might those myriad moral justifications be?

Holographic Shimmering Pork: Take some time to research the concepts upon which you choose to pontificate


I've spent over five years on the subject, but i do believe that one doesn't stop learning. So, if you could be a bit less obtuse in your objections and make an actual argument, it is possible that I could be convinced of a different view.

Holographic Shimmering Pork: otherwise, the language you so hamhandedly dribble from your shapeless, sphinctoid mouth will serve only to drown you in the oily stench of your ignorance.


You seem to be a bit, um, angry?  I mean you are evocatively angry, which i suppose is better than the baseline, but i do have to wonder who micturated into your breakfast foods?  However, this is the internet, and as, without actually engaging in dialogue, you launched directly into insult, i assume under GIFT, that your style is to be abrasive and insulting in an attempt to keep people off balance/gain much needed attention.  Thus, alas, i figure that instead of reasonable discussion, you shall respond with further gibbering bile.

Holographic Shimmering Pork: TL;DR Equating legality with morality is an inequity even retarded children know to avoid.


As someone who prefers utilitarian style law-and-economics models of jurisprudence, and as someone who is a giant nerd for Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., I would completely agree that there is no - and should be no - direct equivalence between legality and morality.  However, on the Venn diagram of legal, moral, and ethical there is usually a lot of overlap.  Now, it is true that morality is often subjective, so as noted, you may have a different line on why you think this is a morally justified.
 
2013-03-09 07:44:41 AM  

BafflerMeal: lousyskater: pxlboy: I felt that way about Dead Space 2. There was no need for a multiplayer PvP option; there just wasn't. It's not an FPS and it doesn't play like one.

Hopefully DS3 will be better. The drop-in/out co-op seems kinda neat, though.

Dead Space 3 was to Dead Space as RE5 is to RE4.

Is that Cecilius or Kelvin?


I think you mean Kevin.

/ Pet peeve
 
2013-03-09 08:18:18 AM  
If your game requires always being logged in and you can't manage something as simple as setting up a few servers? You deserve to go down in a raging inferno. Of course if you're forcing players in a single player game to always be online, you are so stupid you'll probably bring yourself down in a burning inferno.
 
2013-03-09 09:32:05 AM  

MrEricSir: Lsherm: MrEricSir: Look dude, I hate DRM too. But the problem here isn't DRM, it's that EA is completely incompetent.

No, it's DRM.  The game is designed around it.  That EA can't even manage to TRY and get their DRM correct is incompetent.

But seriously, without the stupid, unnecessary, ridiculous requirement that you save your game into the "cloud" every five minutes (a bullshiat DRM 'strategery') - this game would work.

So go fark yourself, EA shill.

I guess understanding how software actually works makes you an "EA shill" on Fark. Should I try to be more reactionary and gullible from now on?


You understand how software works, but you completely miss the point that the software is failing because of a DRM decision.

So maybe next time you get some sense.
 
2013-03-09 09:45:01 AM  

MurphyMurphy: Besides, from a pure cost-benefit standpoint... why spend the massive amount of money to KNOW you will be able to support a highballed guess at anticipated user load on release day? What if you spend too much and buy too many servers (which you most certainly will have to do)? That's money wasted in 6mos when user load is 40% of what it is now.


Because any company who has a brain knows that they can take the other 60% in 6mos and use them to reduce the overhead for the next farking game.  Even if they spend another 10-30% to up the hardware a bit, it's hardware that's already bought and paid for, so they can get the capacity of those servers for free or at deep discount because they already own the hardware.

If these 6 month old servers are suddenly "Obsolete", fine.  Obsolete is relative.  Relegate those servers to clusters to support older games and offer a new expansion pack, or stuff them to the gills with drive space and cluster them into SAN.
 
2013-03-09 09:50:55 AM  

Virtual Pariah: I think it goes to show that the gaming industry has become so paranoid about piracy that it's destroying itself.

I very rarely want to give Apple it's due, but they have shown that you can curtail piracy by making the purchasing process less painful than the process to steal the material.
You never will get rid of all thieves, some people are just wired that way. But their numbers can be minimized pretty easily.


This failure has nothing to do with piracy. No website you visit offers itself in source code form so you can use it offline whenever you want. There is a feature benefit to an "always connected" piece of software to the user. There is a production benefit to software like this for the maker. The Web is proof that the "always connected" model is perfectly viable.

You just have to have the capacity for it. EA's IT arrogance is what brought this launch down. They should have gone with a cloud provider instead of running their own servers. Was it for the "cost savings" of 30% or so hosting their infrastructure on-premise? Was there some bad technical decision that prevented them from taking advantage of the cloud? It's impossible to say from the outside, but software-defined infrastructure hosted with a provider like Amazon or Rackspace would have made this problem disappear. Why didn't they do it? Only their internal IT staff knows for sure.

I'm guessing they don't have automated deployment, and the "learning curve" of going to the cloud was too much for their shiatty IT guys.
 
2013-03-09 09:58:55 AM  

mooseyfate: /taking recommendations on older games I should play, btw


Looking at my list, obviously some you may have already played, and some might not be a genre you enjoy:

Paradox Grand Strategy (Hearts of Iron 2 or 3, Europa Universalis 2/3, Victoria 1/2, Crusader Knights, EU: Rome) - take a bit of getting used to, but massive depth and the flexibility to play and nation rather than being limited to a few options (depending on your computer the older ones may be more appropriate - the newer ones tend to have better UIs and are easier to play, but are not essential. Simpler but still good variants on the same theme are Making History 1/2 and Gary Grigsby's World at War

Civilization obviously (IV is my preference, 3 and 5 are both decent)

Master of Orion 3 (2 is also good) - note for MoO3 you need all the fan patches and probably one of the big mods - I think raspberry was the one I used most. Galactic Civilizations 1/2 and Space Empires IV/V are also pretty decent variations on this sort of game, for really old school Ascendancy was great (although probably need the AI patch and not the easiest thing to get running if you are post-DOS, obviously DOSBOX required but also need to mount the disk and so on)

UFO Aftermath/Aftershock/Afterlight - good updates of UFO/XCOM Enemy Unknown. Afterlight is the best balanced in my opinion, Aftermath is mostly good up until the aliens all have rocket launchers, although the unclear line of sight in enemy ships is also annoying, Aftershock has annoying base building mechanics. UFO Extraterrestrials Gold is another similar game that works quite well along the same lines.

Vampire Bloodlines - great 1st person RPG with a lot of atmosphere and story rather than being a stat/gear game - the abandoned hotel scene is particularly good

Freelancer - great open Elite type game with a reasonably large universe, main criticism is that the missions are lacking in variation

Railroad Tycoon 3 - I prefer this to RRT2 because it is more a large scale economic sim based around trains, rather than the previous version which more revolved around micromanagement of routes, loads and signals

FTL: Faster Than Light - not an old game, but very much in the style - it is a bit like a modernized version of EGA Trek - manage your power, crew, shield and weapons to defeat opposing ships and travel the galaxy

Panzer General/Allied General, etc. - classic hex based war game (there are also others such as Fantasy General, Space General but I wasn't so keen on those despite liking Fantasy/Scifi). There are also lots of free games in this mould of course (Battle for Wesnoth and so on), as well as updated versions - Domination, Massive Assault, Fantasy Wars, Elven legacy, etc.

Homeworld/Cataclysm/Homeworld 2 - one of the few RTS games I liked a lot, one key being carrying over forces from level to level, rather than starting with a blank sheet again, although it does mean if you get trashed in one level and barely make it through you can't finish the game unless it is really early on

Majesty - the other RTS style game I like, although the indirect control of the heroes can be frustrating at times

Torment Planescape is a great isometric RPG with a good storyline (with the same engine/style but not as good of course you have Baldurs Gate, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights, etc.)

Imperialism 1/2 - nice turn based grand strategy games with turn based combat

Jagged Alliance 2 Gold - squad building turn based tactical combat

Titans of Steel Warring Suns/Metal Brigade Tactics - both good turn based Mech combat games

Mech Commander 1/2 - squad building RTS style Mech combat. Steel Empire used to be a favourite in this sort of genre, but it is difficult to get the action part to run at a workable speed even with playing with DOSBOX settings (the strategy part is decent, but not enough to play on its own really)

Demigod - not all that old (although cheap already), but quite good semi-RTS/action game

Alien Shooter 1/2/R/V, Zombie Shooter 1/2 - good top down action shooters with huge gobs of stuff to gun down with exponentially more insane weaponry as you go on, good for a break from more serious strategizing

Altitude - fun little side scrolling biplane jousting game (with capture the flag, death match and soccer missions). Booster Trooper is a more recent game but similar sort of mechanics (just as a jet pack enabled soldier instead of a plane)

Patrician 3 (and probably 4 although I haven't played that version yet) - build up a shipping business, develop industries, and try to become popular/powerful. Sort of a renaissance era Ports of Call

X2 (and X, X:BTF, X3, etc.) - sort of updated Elite games, but you can build up fleets of automated craft, build lots of space factories, etc. Not the sort of game you can just pick up and play occasionally though, it is pretty in depth and complex (X3 might be better, haven't been able to commit the time to try playing it properly yet)
 
2013-03-09 10:15:21 AM  

mccallcl: This failure has nothing to do with piracy. No website you visit offers itself in source code form so you can use it offline whenever you want. There is a feature benefit to an "always connected" piece of software to the user. There is a production benefit to software like this for the maker. The Web is proof that the "always connected" model is perfectly viable.


Horseshiat.  Chrome OS and Office 365 Live both let you do work if you aren't online.  Hell, gmail will cache your emails offline and then send them when it gets connected.

This failure has everything to do with piracy.  You can keep insisting that it doesn't, but you'll have to get increasingly more ridiculous about it.
 
2013-03-09 11:42:30 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: As someone who tried selling software only to have it pirated and generally crapped upon by the people who were happily using it for free - I'm pro-DRM.  I made more money from my software when I was getting 100 hits per month and selling 3 copies than I did when I was giving it away, getting 10k hits per month and dealing with the huge amounts of crap from ungrateful users who couldn't be bothered to read the three sentences unnecessary to understand how to use the damn thing.

And even then, I'd get nasty e-mails from users complaining about my forced ads that appear after the FIFTH time they ran my program.

Then you find that someone has taken the time to remove the forced ads.  I'm averaging .3 cents per user (not THREE CENTS, but ZERO POINT THREE CENTS) but no, that makes me a greedy fark - so screw me, pirate my software!

People are jackasses.  And I know that with an radiance the size Fark has - a handful of people are going to respond and say, 'No, not me, I support stuff I like by buying it', believe me, you are the tiny, tiny minority.  Most people will greedily take everything you give them, with no appreciation, and only demand more.  Write a free piece of software, give it away free.....and they'll demand that you also provide customer support.  They'll even demand features.  Not even request.  People are stupid, lazy, and greedy.  If they can pirate it easily, they will.  If they don't have to pay for it, they won't.

Businesses want to make money.  Businesses love DRM and always-on and downloadable content because it makes them money.  It's MORE WORK to make a game that is always-online and host servers and deal with all the issues that go with it.  It's more complex to develop, takes teams of people to support.....why do they all seem to desperate to find ways to do it?  Because it works.  Pirating a single-player game is trivial.  It takes one bored guy with a deep love of x86 asm to bypass the CD-Key check and upload it.  Compare that to the endl ...


I tend to disagree with you, also as someone who once sold independently-developed software (now I'm working at a large software company).  Donationware and freemium software treated me better financially than trying anything more draconian.

Piracy didn't bother me for the reason it also didn't bother early Microsoft - when you're small and obscure, the #1 thing you need to make money is exposure.  Yes, it's better that people buy my product instead of pirating - but it's also better that people pirate instead of not using it at all.  Word of mouth was my primary source of spreading product awareness and pirates have mouths just like everyone else.  Nobody buys software without first knowing about its existence, and piracy is pretty much the cheapest form of advertising.

I also actually liked that I was getting feedback about usability and features from a larger group of people.  Even feedback from people who didn't pay is valuable at establishing patterns of complaints - if a hundred people say that feature X is nonintuitive, maybe I need to redesign that feature for improved usability.  Improving the quality of the product also leads to more revenue in the long run; when you are relying on word of mouth rather than controlled ad campaigns, your only control over the message is in the quality of the product - a hundred people satisfied with your software will spread a very different word of mouth than a hundred people disappointed.
 
2013-03-09 12:02:24 PM  
I really hope this is a nail in the coffin for Origin. Mass Effect 3 on Steam already pls.
 
2013-03-09 01:07:00 PM  

Tommy Moo: Girion47: Yeah I have no interest in this game.   Off to pirate it!

Just out of curiosity, is that even feasible? Has someone already hacked the source code and released a version that doesn't ping EAs servers for license permission?


I see 2373 seeders for it this very moment.  I'm not at all interested in it, even for free, but DRM does nothing to stop piracy.  Ever.
 
2013-03-09 01:13:35 PM  

Sum Dum Gai: Donationware and freemium software treated me better financially than trying anything more draconian.


I was just thinking EA is ending up with piracy problems for the same reason Adobe has them, the cost of the software. Photoshop has been pirated like crazy for years because it's so expensive that even people who really need it have a hard time justifying the price. Now you have games that sell for $60 and another couple hundred if you want all the stuff that makes the game fully playable. There's a limit to what people will pay before they go off to pirating. The best DRM EA could have at this point is kill DLC stuff, just have everything in the initial release of the games or as part of regular free patches and work on their pricing structure.
 
2013-03-09 01:55:28 PM  

Shrugging Atlas: you have pee hands: Shrugging Atlas: I learned my lesson with Diablo 3.  Never farking again.

I thought people had that problem more with Diablo 2 and World of Warcraft.

Couldn't say because oddly enough I never played either.  But D3 had all sorts of issues at launch first with just being able to get into the game at all, then with the auction house for weeks afterwards.  It sounds like Sim City has been worse though just from what I've been reading on Fark.

The sad thing is prior to hearing about the DRM 'solution' I had planned on buying this on day one without having even researched the game.  I've played every previous version, and it wasn't something I even considered skipping or thinking twice about.  But that was such a deal breaker I wouldn't have even regretted it had the launch gone well.


I bought it knowing about the DRM....  I hate that it must be always online, but I do love that I can save my cities to the cloud.  my biggest worry is how long they will keep the servers going.   Hopefully someone will hack an offline mode into a pirated version later.
 
2013-03-09 02:28:11 PM  

Lsherm: Horseshiat.  Chrome OS and Office 365 Live both let you do work if you aren't online.  Hell, gmail will cache your emails offline and then send them when it gets connected.


What about TotalFark? Are you saying I pay $5 a month and only get to look at the content when I'm connected to the internet? And it's multi-player only??!?!?

You knew what I was getting at, but good on you for scraping up a couple of counter-examples. Doesn't change the point: you're already soaking in always-on content. You get pissed about it because you think it's someone telling you what to do and you hate the exercise of authority. We get it! But don't pretend like you're suddenly getting screwed over by this recent development of storing content remotely and the only reason it exists is to stop piracy. You're wrong. There are a number of benefits to you the user (believe it or not) and also the maker of storing content online that have nothing to do with piracy.
 
2013-03-09 02:33:30 PM  

Sum Dum Gai: Piracy didn't bother me for the reason it also didn't bother early Microsoft - when you're small and obscure, the #1 thing you need to make money is exposure.


Different people make things to satisfy different concerns. You were in it for a profit, so you used the feedback of ungrateful users to develop your system. In a sense, all those idiots were working for you for free every time they complained. But some people work for the recognition, because they think that what they do is special. When you're motivated by acknowledgment and your users are griping about something they got for free, that can be demoralizing.
 
2013-03-09 02:37:39 PM  

HeartBurnKid: TyrantII: But I thought PC gaming is SOOOOO much better than console gaming!

I was told about this on Fark!

Why don't you ask Sony about that?


Hit a nerve?

Getting hacked vs Having a game that doesn't run are very two different things.  EA and their DRM for everyone policy isn't exactly the best best corporation either.
 
2013-03-09 02:40:49 PM  

Virtual Pariah: So when does the bleeding become enough for the industry to listen?


As it concerns the companies perpetrating the madness?  They won't.  That's not their job.  Their job is to make a profit for their shareholders.  They'll keep doing the same bullcrap until they go under.  The margins you need to survive with a game development model built for consoles is completely unsustainable now.  What, does anyone actually think they're going to be selling the same software and hardware that they sold during the go-go Wii years?  A lot of people are going to get hurt by this, and a lot of people already have.

jso2897: It doesn't matter whether or not people buy the games - it only matters that the suits who run the companies tell each other they will. They will just loot there own companies as they fail, and move on to new jobs in some other industry. Why should they care what some raging nerd whose money they already stole thinks?
They'll be far away and doing something else when the pigeons come home to roost anyway.


I'm wholly unconcerned about whether or not the suits run off into the sunset.  They'll hardly be the first people in the history of humanity to jump off the burning ship with a bag of money in both hands.  I'm concerned about the state of game development on the whole.  The console video game market, for all its troubles, is the last market with a true quality control mechanism.  It's the only market where you need to spend large amounts of money in order to gain an audience, it's the only market where you need to demonstrate some degree of craft in order to attract attention.  If those companies fark this up, it could be a very long time before you see new companies and faces try to take their place, trying to make the kinds of games which make video games great.  I really don't want a future where the behemoths are pouring all of their effort into crappy, disposable free-to-play titles.

starsrift: The charts tell barely any of the whole tale. There is a lot going on there - like the Guitar Hero bubble, the Wii Fit craze, etc, that drove people to the retailers who otherwise wouldn't go.


Absolutely.  The gigantic publishers were counting on those consumers to remain console video game players and continue to subsidize the riskier titles that become tomorrow's billion-dollar game series.

starsrift: NPD - the source of those charts - does not track digital distribution.


Correct.  And it disproportionately affects the console video game market that has become the lead platform choice (outside of a few monsters like Tencent and Nexon) for the largest companies in the industry.

starsrift: Throwing charts around and saying "the video game industry is crashing!!!!!" is not really a complete analysis.


I didn't say video games were crashing.  Video games will not crash.  The only thing that could "crash video games" is a complete collapse of society as we know it.  The model which has created some of the best video games of the last twenty-five years---console video games---is either going to crash, or decline so far that it becomes utterly secondary to computer game development.  And with that, one of the last arbiters for quality control in video games loses its meaning.
 
2013-03-09 03:33:14 PM  
TyrantII: HeartBurnKid: TyrantII: But I thought PC gaming is SOOOOO much better than console gaming!

I was told about this on Fark!

Why don't you ask Sony about that?

Hit a nerve?


No.

Getting hacked vs Having a game that doesn't run are very two different things.  EA and their DRM for everyone policy isn't exactly the best best corporation either.

Yes, EA does very much suck, as does always-online DRM.  Thankfully, the latter isn't all that common, and the former is easy to avoid since most of their games are trash.  But I find it hilarious that you trash PC gaming as a whole for one game having week-long capacity issues, but Sony's entire network having a month-long outage is just fine with you.
 
2013-03-09 03:36:04 PM  
Oh, BTW, there's now an offline crack for Sim City.  If you're still waiting to play the game you paid for, go Google it and go nuts.
 
2013-03-09 03:41:49 PM  
From TFA:

The game maker does offer a 14-day "unconditional guarantee" on any physical products sold through its Origin store, but the many players who downloaded the title directly to their computer have no options.

We have the option to never give EA any more of our money.
 
rpm
2013-03-09 04:23:55 PM  

MurphyMurphy: Besides, from a pure cost-benefit standpoint... why spend the massive amount of money to KNOW you will be able to support a highballed guess at anticipated user load on release day? What if you spend too much and buy too many servers (which you most certainly will have to do)? That's money wasted in 6mos when user load is 40% of what it is now.


And there's the flaw in your plan. Why would you buy any servers? Provision on AWS / Rackspace / Google and be done with it. Let it scale as needed.
 
2013-03-09 04:54:53 PM  

pacified: the amount of nerd crying in this is the annoying part.   I get it, the servers aren't working right.  But is it worth all the wrist slitting emo bullshiat?  fark.  You nerds need better priority.


You know, if you said that you actually *hated* gamers, in this thread which is specifically about a computer game, I could understand you. Because I hate gamers. I despise them with a bright and pure burning hatred, with every fibre of my being. They are not even human beings. They are pieces of amphibian shiat. They are the lowest farking form of life on Earth. I would not piss on a gamer if he were on fire. I would fark him in the ass and not even have the goddamn common courtesy to give him a reacharound.

But for you to come on here and confess, to *ADMIT* that you don't care either way...?

That's farking unforgivable.

I award you no points, and may whatever deity you are deluded enough to believe in have mercy on what remains of your soul.
 
2013-03-09 05:22:29 PM  

mccallcl: There are a number of benefits to you the user (believe it or not) and also the maker of storing content online that have nothing to do with piracy.


Funny no one can name any of these benefits. Nor can explain why it's a good thing that it's impossible to store things locally so the only option is storing it online. And EA isn't storing "in the cloud", they're using regular old network storage.

rpm: And there's the flaw in your plan. Why would you buy any servers? Provision on AWS / Rackspace / Google and be done with it. Let it scale as needed.


You buy servers because they're a tax write off, also it's not like it would take very many servers. Doing a quick back of the envelope calculation, it wouldn't take many servers to handle Simcity. Indeed the difference between everything go right and what happened could have been one or two servers, a few thousand bucks of hardware and a couple hours to put in place and get the software on.
 
2013-03-09 06:32:16 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Funny no one can name any of these benefits.


Yes, now that the Web has been out for more than a decade, no one can think of any benefit to storing content online. Now hold on while I burn this post onto a CD and mail it to you.

If you can't figure out what you're getting out of storing content remotely, I'm not going to waste my afternoon explaining it to you.

WhyteRaven74: Nor can explain why it's a good thing that it's impossible to store things locally so the only option is storing it online.


If it's going to be online, leave it there. Once something is stored in two locations, it has to be synchronized. Cache invalidation is one of the hardest tasks in programing, and is therefore expensive and troublesome. Being able to assume an internet connection is a luxury that only desktop systems can provide. May as well take advantage of it to keep development costs down.

I made my first sometimes-online app last year, before that, everything I made assumed an active internet connection since 1996. Gamers are spoiled.

WhyteRaven74: Doing a quick back of the envelope calculation, it wouldn't take many servers to handle Simcity. Indeed the difference between everything go right and what happened could have been one or two servers, a few thousand bucks of hardware and a couple hours to put in place and get the software on.


EA's IT is obviously shiat, but if you think you can do a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation and come up with better resource planning than they did, you are exactly the sort of person that argued against cloud servers in the first place. Pure arrogance.
 
2013-03-09 06:33:35 PM  

HeartBurnKid: TyrantII: HeartBurnKid: TyrantII: But I thought PC gaming is SOOOOO much better than console gaming!

I was told about this on Fark!

Why don't you ask Sony about that?

Hit a nerve?

No.

Getting hacked vs Having a game that doesn't run are very two different things.  EA and their DRM for everyone policy isn't exactly the best best corporation either.

Yes, EA does very much suck, as does always-online DRM.  Thankfully, the latter isn't all that common, and the former is easy to avoid since most of their games are trash.  But I find it hilarious that you trash PC gaming as a whole for one game having week-long capacity issues, but Sony's entire network having a month-long outage is just fine with you.


Who's trashing PC gaming?  I'm enjoying the new Tomb Raider this weekend as we speak, with sexy sexy TressFX  Tessellation.

Trashing the idiots whos' small egos forces them to have a stake in a single gaming platform and miss out on some really, really great games in a golden era of gaming?  Yeah, I'll trash them.  They need to get a life and stop doing some PR hacks job for them.
 
2013-03-09 08:36:03 PM  

mccallcl: May as well take advantage of it to keep development costs down.


because running a checksum on the local store and the remote store and seeing if they match is soooooo hard.
 
2013-03-09 08:52:37 PM  

rugman11: What you do not have the right to do (the royal "you," not you you), however, is play the game anyway without paying for it and then justify your illicit behavior as somehow being the fault of the company whose product you are enjoying.


A company does not have the right to accept payment for a product and then deliver a product that doesn't work without compensating the buyer for failure to deliver on what was promised. EA is refusing to give people refunds, is suspending people's accounts for other games if they do charge backs for Simcity, isn't doing anything for the people who are trying to play the game.
 
2013-03-10 04:09:10 AM  
Maul555:

I bought it knowing about the DRM....  I hate that it must be always online, but I do love that I can save my cities to the cloud.  my biggest worry is how long they will keep the servers going.   Hopefully someone will hack an offline mode into a pirated version later.

Go ahead and join a different server and see if you can load those cloud saves...

The only cloud saving I would accept if it is to backup my local saves. Pretty much like Sony does it now (still have it disabled though)
 
2013-03-10 09:13:55 AM  

mccallcl: No website you visit offers itself in source code form so you can use it offline whenever you want.


Chrome: view>developer>view source
 
2013-03-10 10:39:37 AM  

mccallcl: Lsherm: Horseshiat.  Chrome OS and Office 365 Live both let you do work if you aren't online.  Hell, gmail will cache your emails offline and then send them when it gets connected.

What about TotalFark? Are you saying I pay $5 a month and only get to look at the content when I'm connected to the internet? And it's multi-player only??!?!?

You knew what I was getting at, but good on you for scraping up a couple of counter-examples. Doesn't change the point: you're already soaking in always-on content. You get pissed about it because you think it's someone telling you what to do and you hate the exercise of authority. We get it! But don't pretend like you're suddenly getting screwed over by this recent development of storing content remotely and the only reason it exists is to stop piracy. You're wrong. There are a number of benefits to you the user (believe it or not) and also the maker of storing content online that have nothing to do with piracy.


Not for this game there isn't, and you haven't provided a single example of why it's an advantage.  It's DRM, plain and simple.  It's a negative, plain and simple.

How much is EA paying you?  It's certainly not enough, because just insisting that the sky isn't falling doesn't make it true.  In a just world, they would fire you.  However, since they are so committed to being delusional, you're probably safe.
 
2013-03-10 11:16:58 AM  

WhyteRaven74: mccallcl: May as well take advantage of it to keep development costs down.

because running a checksum on the local store and the remote store and seeing if they match is soooooo hard.


I didn't say it was hard. It's non-trivial, which comes with a cost. (It is actually hard, though, and you'd know that if you were ever anywhere near the inside of a computer program before).
 
rpm
2013-03-10 11:18:24 AM  

vygramul: Chrome: view>developer>view source


You do know that's (probably) compiled code, and not source? Source would be PHP, ASP, SSI, ColdCufsion, JSP, and more, none of which would show up in View Source where you get raw HTML. The only time that's source is if that is indeed the file they put onto the server.
 
2013-03-10 11:22:40 AM  

Lsherm: Not for this game there isn't, and you haven't provided a single example of why it's an advantage.


Saves hard drive space. Updates as you play instead of all at once at certain intervals. Allows for content created by other users. Keeps development costs down. That's four. I don't work for EA, but unlike seemingly almost everyone else in the thread, I do have experience making entertainment software. I'm sure there are many more advantages that I don't have time to give a shiat about.

Not everything everyone does is an attempt to screw you out of $60.
 
2013-03-10 11:25:47 AM  

WhyteRaven74: because running a checksum on the local store and the remote store and seeing if they match is soooooo hard.


How did it come out on the back of your envelope? When that envelope back ships, please let me know, I would love to play it.
 
2013-03-10 11:50:12 AM  

mccallcl: Lsherm: Not for this game there isn't, and you haven't provided a single example of why it's an advantage.

Saves hard drive space. Updates as you play instead of all at once at certain intervals. Allows for content created by other users. Keeps development costs down. That's four. I don't work for EA, but unlike seemingly almost everyone else in the thread, I do have experience making entertainment software. I'm sure there are many more advantages that I don't have time to give a shiat about.

Not everything everyone does is an attempt to screw you out of $60.


That is a reason an idiot would make up.  As for the other three, none of those require a constant connection.  None of them.  NONE OF THEM.

So yeah, it's an attempt to screw people out of $60.

Keep it up - you're making a great argument against stupid DRM strategies because every single time you try to defend it, you sound like a tard.
 
2013-03-10 11:59:34 AM  

rpm: vygramul: Chrome: view>developer>view source

You do know that's (probably) compiled code, and not source? Source would be PHP, ASP, SSI, ColdCufsion, JSP, and more, none of which would show up in View Source where you get raw HTML. The only time that's source is if that is indeed the file they put onto the server.


That is certainly most likely true today, although the desire to do that has little to do with preventing people from stealing your code. But we're drifting from the point - consider this not from 2013 or even 2001 but from 1997, when the vast majority of the web was hand-coded. The web was not being damaged by openness of the source code. If anything, it was helped by it.
 
2013-03-10 12:02:28 PM  

Lsherm: mccallcl: Lsherm: Not for this game there isn't, and you haven't provided a single example of why it's an advantage.

Saves hard drive space. Updates as you play instead of all at once at certain intervals. Allows for content created by other users. Keeps development costs down. That's four. I don't work for EA, but unlike seemingly almost everyone else in the thread, I do have experience making entertainment software. I'm sure there are many more advantages that I don't have time to give a shiat about.

Not everything everyone does is an attempt to screw you out of $60.

That is a reason an idiot would make up.  As for the other three, none of those require a constant connection.  None of them.  NONE OF THEM.

So yeah, it's an attempt to screw people out of $60.

Keep it up - you're making a great argument against stupid DRM strategies because every single time you try to defend it, you sound like a tard.


"Allows for content created by other users."

McCallcl can't be a PC gamer, Lsherm. Or if he is, he's come to it in the last 6 years. He just can't be, or he'd never have said that. No farking way.
 
2013-03-10 02:11:46 PM  

xria: mooseyfate: /taking recommendations on older games I should play, btw

Looking at my list, obviously some you may have already played, and some might not be a genre you enjoy:

Paradox Grand Strategy (Hearts of Iron 2 or 3, Europa Universalis 2/3, Victoria 1/2, Crusader Knights, EU: Rome) - take a bit of getting used to, but massive depth and the flexibility to play and nation rather than being limited to a few options (depending on your computer the older ones may be more appropriate - the newer ones tend to have better UIs and are easier to play, but are not essential. Simpler but still good variants on the same theme are Making History 1/2 and Gary Grigsby's World at War

Civilization obviously (IV is my preference, 3 and 5 are both decent)

Master of Orion 3 (2 is also good) - note for MoO3 you need all the fan patches and probably one of the big mods - I think raspberry was the one I used most. Galactic Civilizations 1/2 and Space Empires IV/V are also pretty decent variations on this sort of game, for really old school Ascendancy was great (although probably need the AI patch and not the easiest thing to get running if you are post-DOS, obviously DOSBOX required but also need to mount the disk and so on)

UFO Aftermath/Aftershock/Afterlight - good updates of UFO/XCOM Enemy Unknown. Afterlight is the best balanced in my opinion, Aftermath is mostly good up until the aliens all have rocket launchers, although the unclear line of sight in enemy ships is also annoying, Aftershock has annoying base building mechanics. UFO Extraterrestrials Gold is another similar game that works quite well along the same lines.

Vampire Bloodlines - great 1st person RPG with a lot of atmosphere and story rather than being a stat/gear game - the abandoned hotel scene is particularly good

Freelancer - great open Elite type game with a reasonably large universe, main criticism is that the missions are lacking in variation

Railroad Tycoon 3 - I prefer this to RRT2 because it is more a large scale economic sim based around trains, rather than the previous version which more revolved around micromanagement of routes, loads and signals

FTL: Faster Than Light - not an old game, but very much in the style - it is a bit like a modernized version of EGA Trek - manage your power, crew, shield and weapons to defeat opposing ships and travel the galaxy

Panzer General/Allied General, etc. - classic hex based war game (there are also others such as Fantasy General, Space General but I wasn't so keen on those despite liking Fantasy/Scifi). There are also lots of free games in this mould of course (Battle for Wesnoth and so on), as well as updated versions - Domination, Massive Assault, Fantasy Wars, Elven legacy, etc.

Homeworld/Cataclysm/Homeworld 2 - one of the few RTS games I liked a lot, one key being carrying over forces from level to level, rather than starting with a blank sheet again, although it does mean if you get trashed in one level and barely make it through you can't finish the game unless it is really early on

Majesty - the other RTS style game I like, although the indirect control of the heroes can be frustrating at times

Torment Planescape is a great isometric RPG with a good storyline (with the same engine/style but not as good of course you have Baldurs Gate, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights, etc.)

Imperialism 1/2 - nice turn based grand strategy games with turn based combat

Jagged Alliance 2 Gold - squad building turn based tactical combat

Titans of Steel Warring Suns/Metal Brigade Tactics - both good turn based Mech combat games

Mech Commander 1/2 - squad building RTS style Mech combat. Steel Empire used to be a favourite in this sort of genre, but it is difficult to get the action part to run at a workable speed even with playing with DOSBOX settings (the strategy part is decent, but not enough to play on its own really)

Demigod - not all that old (although cheap already), but quite good semi-RTS/action game

Alien Shooter 1/2/R/V, Zombie Shooter 1/2 - good top down action shooters with huge gobs of stuff to gun down with exponentially more insane weaponry as you go on, good for a break from more serious strategizing

Altitude - fun little side scrolling biplane jousting game (with capture the flag, death match and soccer missions). Booster Trooper is a more recent game but similar sort of mechanics (just as a jet pack enabled soldier instead of a plane)

Patrician 3 (and probably 4 although I haven't played that version yet) - build up a shipping business, develop industries, and try to become popular/powerful. Sort of a renaissance era Ports of Call

X2 (and X, X:BTF, X3, etc.) - sort of updated Elite games, but you can build up fleets of automated craft, build lots of space factories, etc. Not the sort of game you can just pick up and play occasionally though, it is pretty in depth and complex (X3 might be better, haven't been able to commit the time to try playing it properly yet)


Thanks for all the suggestions! The only two of those that I've played are Bloodlines (AMAZING!) and Torment. Haven't beat torment yet, I'm kind of hoping they do an HD version like they did with Baldur's Gate and are working on for BG2. The UI is just so damn clunky and takes up the entire screen, it feel like I'm playing from one room away, looking through a peephole and trying to control the mouse by shining a laser pointer at it and hoping the cat does the rest. The story, dialogue, and humor are all fantastic, though, I'd really like to finish it.
 
2013-03-11 05:55:27 AM  

mccallcl: Lsherm: Not for this game there isn't, and you haven't provided a single example of why it's an advantage.

Saves hard drive space. Updates as you play instead of all at once at certain intervals. Allows for content created by other users. Keeps development costs down. That's four. I don't work for EA, but unlike seemingly almost everyone else in the thread, I do have experience making entertainment software. I'm sure there are many more advantages that I don't have time to give a shiat about.


Saves hard drive space? In what year would that be an argument? 1985?
Updates as you play? Suuuure, the game will totally update itself as I play and not when I start it. And the servers will totally be online when they update something.
Allows for content created by users? The opposite is true. SC4 has mods and a still active modding scene. Unless EA officially accepts a mod from any user and puts it on their servers, there will be no mods
Keeps development costs down? Right. It is much cheaper to code a server for multiplayer as it is to code that your own machine is the server.

You are so full of shiat, you could be a politician. Or work for EA.
 
2013-03-11 12:52:31 PM  
lucksi:
You are so full of shiat, you could be a politician. Or work for EA.

I don't know about that, even EA's employees are disgusted with the company.
 
2013-03-11 06:24:04 PM  

Dragonflew: Dr. Goldshnoz: Dragonflew: peewinkle: Pssssh.  I've been boycotting EA ever since they pulled the plug on Motor World Online, the best racing game of all time.

I bought that game a month before they pulled the plug, after only two years of being online. The game was rendered useless. With EA's history, you would have to be out of your farking mind to buy a game that required a connection to their servers.

I enjoyed Earth and Beyond. The nice thing about companies like EA pulling the plug on MMOs early is there is usually a big community effort to get a 3rd party server going. Most MMO's have this. Only notable exception I know of that ran into real problems was the first Final Fantasy MMO.

Like Luse's comment on Mech Warrior Online, there were many people begging EA for the server code so we could continue playing, unsupported, and the fans would take care of all costs. Of course, EA would not release it.


Actually I meant Motor City Online and they pulled the server space for the Sims II. Yeah, it was that long ago. MCO worked well because the online game play was decent, despite it being 1998 and 90% of people were still on dial-up.

Yes, we had a bunch of people ask EA for the code too, to no avail.  One guy even offered to BUY EA A SERVER AND LET THEM RUN IT just so we could play. No dice.

There were a group of people coding a replacement, Motor World Online; but the website/forum disappeared a few weeks before it went beta.
 
Displayed 379 of 379 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report