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 76
    More: Asinine, SimCity, copy protection  
•       •       •

13309 clicks; posted to Geek » on 08 Mar 2013 at 2:02 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-08 02:33:45 PM
16 votes:
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 01:39:49 PM
15 votes:
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 02:40:32 PM
9 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-03-08 01:27:29 PM
9 votes:
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
5 votes:
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 04:06:40 PM
4 votes:

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 02:16:04 PM
4 votes:
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 02:11:52 PM
4 votes:
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 05:28:13 PM
3 votes:
So people didn't learn from Spore, huh?
2013-03-08 02:25:16 PM
3 votes:

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 01:42:59 PM
3 votes:

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 01:18:17 PM
3 votes:
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 11:05:55 PM
2 votes:
I think it would be fun to dig out the old Spore threads and compare them to these now.
2013-03-08 05:39:18 PM
2 votes:

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 04:49:51 PM
2 votes:

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 03:10:31 PM
2 votes:
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 03:06:52 PM
2 votes:
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 02:51:01 PM
2 votes:

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 02:49:15 PM
2 votes:
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 02:44:52 PM
2 votes:
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 02:39:31 PM
2 votes:
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 02:30:30 PM
2 votes:
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 02:23:04 PM
2 votes:
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 02:20:26 PM
2 votes:
Look dude, I hate DRM too. But the problem here isn't DRM, it's that EA is completely incompetent.
2013-03-08 12:46:21 PM
2 votes:
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.
2013-03-11 05:55:27 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-03-10 12:02:28 PM
1 votes:

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 11:50:12 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-03-09 03:36:04 PM
1 votes:
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 01:07:09 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-03-08 11:56:06 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-03-08 11:33:58 PM
1 votes:

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 11:02:23 PM
1 votes:
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 11:01:41 PM
1 votes:
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 10:46:45 PM
1 votes:
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 09:52:55 PM
1 votes:

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 08:12:54 PM
1 votes:

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 07:44:13 PM
1 votes:
www.joymax.org
Works just fine, no waiting, no EA!
2013-03-08 06:47:26 PM
1 votes:

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 06:38:35 PM
1 votes:

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 06:27:44 PM
1 votes:

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 06:24:24 PM
1 votes:

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 06:18:55 PM
1 votes:
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 06:11:05 PM
1 votes:

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 05:42:46 PM
1 votes:

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 05:32:36 PM
1 votes:

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 05:31:18 PM
1 votes:

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 05:29:42 PM
1 votes:

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 05:17:35 PM
1 votes:

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 05:15:44 PM
1 votes:
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 05:07:09 PM
1 votes:
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 04:51:44 PM
1 votes:

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 04:44:23 PM
1 votes:

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 04:21:01 PM
1 votes:
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 04:07:51 PM
1 votes:

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 04:01:40 PM
1 votes:

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 03:59:48 PM
1 votes:

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 03:56:59 PM
1 votes:

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 03:52:40 PM
1 votes:

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 03:44:04 PM
1 votes:

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 03:22:33 PM
1 votes:

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 03:18:49 PM
1 votes:

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 03:14:09 PM
1 votes:

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 03:10:31 PM
1 votes:

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 03:08:15 PM
1 votes:

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

Theft of services


Pirating a game isn't a theft of services
2013-03-08 03:04:41 PM
1 votes:
art.penny-arcade.com
2013-03-08 02:57:46 PM
1 votes:

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 02:54:50 PM
1 votes:

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 02:51:20 PM
1 votes:

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 02:43:22 PM
1 votes:

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 02:39:58 PM
1 votes:

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 02:26:30 PM
1 votes:
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 02:25:45 PM
1 votes:
i'm so farking sick of people saying DRM
2013-03-08 02:21:59 PM
1 votes:
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 02:14:52 PM
1 votes:
Yeah I have no interest in this game.   Off to pirate it!
2013-03-08 02:08:25 PM
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 76 of 76 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report