EA and the spectacular failure of SimCity

[Thanatos 2,847]

I know a few of you were looking at buying the new SimCity.

 

Don't.

 

It has been one of the most disastrous first months for a game ever. Having to be online the whole time was a major blow, but it's one EA has constantly kept on doing for their newer games. Not to mention the terrible service that is Origin.

 

But then, we have this.

 

Source

 

As one of the most Internet-savvy demographics on the Web, gamers are generally the wrong group to provoke. Nevertheless, Electronic Arts — not gaming's favorite company at the best of times — has botched the release of its new 'SimCity' title in some of the worst ways possible.

'SimCity,' not to be confused with the 1989 title of the same name, is the latest entry in the popular city-building franchise. This time around, the game requires players to always be online, even when playing alone.

 

This design decision invited two problems right off the bat: Many players who paid for the game cannot find open servers, and when they can, the servers have proven to be less-than-stable. Whether playing alone or with friends, a dropped connection translates to a one-way trip back to the starting menu, often accompanied by hours of lost progress. Consumers also lambasted the relatively miniscule city size as opposed to previous games.

 

Disgruntled users have taken to Metacritic in order to "review bomb" the game. This practice entails gamers traveling en masse to the prominent review collection site and spamming the title with outraged "0/10" reviews.

 

Gamers behaved similarly for controversial titles like "Mass Effect 3" and even well-liked ones such as "Bastion," creating sharp dichotomies between the professional critic reviews and the user scores. Metacritic has since cracked down on the practice, but culling unhelpful content from over 1,200 is time-consuming and inefficient.

 

EA has taken the time to respond through multiple avenues, but its response has been inconsistent. Two days ago when the game first launched, a community manager named Marcel Hatam addressed the 'SimCity' community forums. He explained that EA was working on addressing the title's launch issues, and assured players that, "If you regrettably feel that we left you down, you can of course request a refund for your order."

 

When one user put this policy to the test, though, he found that a request did not necessarily translate to a refund. In a live chat with EA tech support that went viral, a customer service rep named Adrian refused to reimburse a dissatisfied customer. Since then, Hatam has revised his post to remove any promise of refunds. [see also: 12 Biggest Game Fails of 2012]

Furthermore, Adrian advised the customer that his EA account would be banned if he disputed the result. For those who are not familiar with EA's Origin distribution service, an account ban not only prevents users from playing online or buying games, but also bars them from accessing games they have already purchased.

 

In an attempt to solve problems, EA may have further exacerbated its 'SimCity' situation. A community manager who calls herself "LadyCoconut" posted, "We are in the process of deploying a hotfix to all servers." Unfortunately, in order to fix the game's core issues, the hotfix disables a number of secondary features, such as leaderboards and achievements.

 

Over the coming days and weeks, EA will undoubtedly repair the issues that plague 'SimCity,' but the fixes might prove too little, too late for a fan base that feels very badly burned right now. The fact that its professional review scores have been almost universally high is worth noting, suggesting that EA's servers were much more stable and reasonably populated during the game's pre-release.

Gamers may remember that "Diablo III," another game that embraced always-online single-player gameplay, encountered its share of problems at launch, too. Perhaps it's best to leave a constant Internet connection for online games like "World of Warcraft."

 

The chat referred to in the article is here:

 

 

So basically, there were told they could request a refund when company policy is not to give any refunds. Just lol.

 

People just need to stop buying any EA product that requires you to be online to play, (unless its an MMO, of course). Heck, they really ought to just boycott the company entirely.

Edited March 16, 2013 by Thanatos19

[OSUViking 505]

I've always hated EA.

[Vin+ 3,121]

The downside of requiring an always on connection to play.

 

[RANGA+ 1,210]

EA fucked up big time. Sim City is already one of the worst rated products of ALL TIME on Amazon. But the funniest thing is, a few days ago this article came out:

 

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/03/12/simcity-server-not-necessary/

 

With a Maxis employee stating that the Sim City servers are actually not necessary, because no computations are run on it, and it would not take much work to make the game offline-capable. It is basically just another form of DRM, which also enables EA to include in-game purchases with their store.

 

Then furthermore, this came out:

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-14-simcity-modded-so-it-can-be-played-offline-indefinitely

 

Where some modder figured out themselves, a way to run the game in offline mode. However, the only way to save your current city is to reconnect to the server.

 

So basically, EAs' whole bullshit about not being able to fix the server problem because its a necessity of the game, was a complete an utter lie. Fuck I hate them. All they do is buy up good developers and run them into the ground. I hope this serves as a lesson to all, and the backlash causes a mass boycott of their products.

[56AceInDaPlace 110]

Yeah fuck EA. Im glad i dont play SimCity.. Glad that guy put that message box on the internet lol. Bitchass EA. Hopefully fans stop buying and EA loses out on ratings, money and fanbase. Maybe then theyll stop being so fucking lazy and cheap in their games.

[Zack_of_Steel+ 3,014]

Boom. Fucking dickshit cunts.

[56AceInDaPlace 110]

Boom. Fucking dickshit cunts.

 

Thats still too generous.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I have actually read the game is solid, but... It just isn't wise for one of the worlds worst providers of online gameplay to require you to be online at all times. I mean, whose idea was that exactly?

[OSUViking 505]

Related to EA... am I the only one whose EA Online servers crash on Madden/NCAA as soon as you log on? And do you sporadically lose connection to online games such as Battlefield and MOH?

[Bucman 891]

Some lawyer is gonna love this class action lawsuit. EA sold a defective product and won't give refunds for it. I'm pretty pissed I bought they game and can't get a refund when the product obviously doesn't work. EA doesn't stand a chance in court.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Unfortunately, I think you're wrong. EA will probably win the court case. We are so far behind as far as electronic rights go. The debacle of the ending that was ME3 should have got them in court for false advertising. You can pretty much say your game will be anything and do anything and get away with it.

[Bucman 891]

Its damn shame EA has ruined so many series and potentially good games. I blame them for Bioware going out of business. All the sim games they develop now friggin suck.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Unfortunately, I think you're wrong. EA will probably win the court case. We are so far behind as far as electronic rights go. The debacle of the ending that was ME3 should have got them in court for false advertising. You can pretty much say your game will be anything and do anything and get away with it.

 

Mind you, I haven't played through ME3 yet... but false advertising? Care to explain?

[OSUViking 505]

At least some of us still have ArmA.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Mind you, I haven't played through ME3 yet... but false advertising? Care to explain?

 

I'd spoil the game if I went into detail, but basically they claimed the ending of the game would be a lot of things it wasn't, and claimed it wouldn't be exactly what it was.

 

 

They said that there wouldn't be some Deus Ex machina, that you wouldn't find some long lost reaper off-switch that had been hidden somewhere. The entire plot revolves around the Prothean's secret weapon that you can use to destroy the reapers.

 

They claimed that whether or not you saved the Rachni would have a large effect on the game as a whole, and especially on the ending. You don't even see the Rachni after you start the assault on earth, and they have no effect on the game save for giving you either +100 if you saved the queen and +75 if you didn't, to your total force.

 

They claimed that all the choices that you have done over the past two games and ME3 would matter in the end, and that someone just jumping in wouldn't have the same endings, because, "to give everyone the same endings would be against the themes of Mass Effect." Yet a completely new player to the trilogy can get the exact same endings I can. There are only three possible endings, and your choices don't matter at all, save for pushing forward an arbitrary number that unlocks the next two endings, and given that the first ending unlocked is actually the best in many people's eyes, that doesn't really matter either.

 

Nothing matters. In short, they claimed that the choices you made would make a difference, and they didn't change shit.

 

Yes, I am still bitter about what EA did to Mass Effect.

 

[RANGA+ 1,210]

I'd spoil the game if I went into detail, but basically they claimed the ending of the game would be a lot of things it wasn't, and claimed it wouldn't be exactly what it was.

 

 

They said that there wouldn't be some Deus Ex machina, that you wouldn't find some long lost reaper off-switch that had been hidden somewhere. The entire plot revolves around the Prothean's secret weapon that you can use to destroy the reapers.

 

They claimed that whether or not you saved the Rachni would have a large effect on the game as a whole, and especially on the ending. You don't even see the Rachni after you start the assault on earth, and they have no effect on the game save for giving you either +100 if you saved the queen and +75 if you didn't, to your total force.

 

They claimed that all the choices that you have done over the past two games and ME3 would matter in the end, and that someone just jumping in wouldn't have the same endings, because, "to give everyone the same endings would be against the themes of Mass Effect." Yet a completely new player to the trilogy can get the exact same endings I can. There are only three possible endings, and your choices don't matter at all, save for pushing forward an arbitrary number that unlocks the next two endings, and given that the first ending unlocked is actually the best in many people's eyes, that doesn't really matter either.

 

Nothing matters. In short, they claimed that the choices you made would make a difference, and they didn't change shit.

 

Yes, I am still bitter about what EA did to Mass Effect.

 

 

While I agree that ME3 ruined what was previously looking like potentially one of the best game franchises ever made, I really doubt that EA as a publisher has much say in what happens in the actual story arc of a game. That fuck-up was completely on the developer, Bioware. Sure you might be able to argue that EA theoretically could have push a tight deadline on Bioware to get the game out, but they don't really get involved in the actual gameplay/storyline side of things.

[Bucman 891]

I'm going off assumptions and what I know about EA. Mass Effect was a great series before EA got involved, gotta assume they had a big hand in that.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

As Bioware come out and said as much? Because I am sure it played some sort of role... But those dudes (who developed ME) were HEAVILY invested into it. And when the fan outcry started, a lot of them took it horribly, couldn't handle, etc.. And names are slipping my mind but didn't a few move on even?

 

Again, not saying EA is to be absolved, but Bioware steadfastly defended their direction from what I gather.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Favre4Ever

[Thanatos 2,847]

While I agree that ME3 ruined what was previously looking like potentially one of the best game franchises ever made, I really doubt that EA as a publisher has much say in what happens in the actual story arc of a game. That fuck-up was completely on the developer, Bioware. Sure you might be able to argue that EA theoretically could have push a tight deadline on Bioware to get the game out, but they don't really get involved in the actual gameplay/storyline side of things.

 

How on earth is telling Bioware that they had to release it far earlier than they had planned, (some of the inside guys said they weren't going to release it till March of this year), NOT on EA?

 

It was EA that set up the day-1 DLC, which was originally going to be part of the campaign when it came out. It was EA that pushed the MP aspect of the franchise, which given the fact that they were already rushing them, allowed BW even less time to work on the singleplayer.

 

EA actually did get involved in the storyline. The original ending was leaked, and it was EA's call to force Bioware to change the story as late as November of 2011, four months before the game came out.

 

And yes, Favre, both the top guys in Bioware moved on. Their public statements didn't really say anything, but privately, forbes claimed to have access to a couple of sources that stated they were furious with Electronic Arts for the way they were being treated.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Thanatos19

[SteelersNation36 128]

Ea is just full of wankers, the type who all they care about is the bottom line. Money, greed...this is what greed does. Go eat shit EA.

[RANGA+ 1,210]

How on earth is telling Bioware that they had to release it far earlier than they had planned, (some of the inside guys said they weren't going to release it till March of this year), NOT on EA?

 

It was EA that set up the day-1 DLC, which was originally going to be part of the campaign when it came out. It was EA that pushed the MP aspect of the franchise, which given the fact that they were already rushing them, allowed BW even less time to work on the singleplayer.

 

EA actually did get involved in the storyline. The original ending was leaked, and it was EA's call to force Bioware to change the story as late as November of 2011, four months before the game came out.

 

And yes, Favre, both the top guys in Bioware moved on. Their public statements didn't really say anything, but privately, forbes claimed to have access to a couple of sources that stated they were furious with Electronic Arts for the way they were being treated.

 

I never said pushing a deadline wasn't on EA. I was saying that the deadline may or may not have had an impact on the crappy ending. Nothing is black and white in this case, and we as consumers obviously don't have all the details of what happened.

 

But yes, I did forget about the leaked ending in 2011, so my bad. EA definitely had their dirty hands all over this game. Totally fucked up ME3 and they did the same to Dragon Age 2 as well. They are literally destroying some of the best games I've ever played

 

Edited March 18, 2013 by RANGA

[OSUViking 505]

 

 

 

[RANGA+ 1,210]

BREAKING NEWS:

 

EA CEO Riccitello Resigns

 

REDWOOD CITY, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Electronic Arts Inc. (NASDAQ: EA) today announced that John Riccitiello will step down as Chief Executive Officer and as a member of the Board of Directors, effective March 30. The Board has appointed Larry Probst as Executive Chairman to ensure a smooth transition and to lead EA's executive team while the Board conducts a search for a permanent CEO. The Board will consider internal and external candidates with the assistance of a leading executive search firm.

 

http://investor.ea.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=749234

 

 

Moral of the story: don't treat your customers like shit.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I would like to thank the members of TGP for setting this into motion.

[RANGA+ 1,210]

I would like to thank the members of TGP for setting this into motion.

 

We did good