SimCity’s launch was a complete disaster

[DainBramaged]

Ever since SimCity’s reboot was first announced, I’ve been excited about the game’s release. I have fond memories of my older brother explaining the intricacies of SimCity 2000 to me years ago, and was eagerly looking forward to getting back into the series.

Building an awesome city, managing it and then eventually destroying it, never gets old. Maxis’ simplified and somewhat stripped down approach to this SimCity reboot, had me hooked and I’ve been following the game’s development for some time now.

While SimCity has received relatively positive reviews so far, it seems its launch was a complete mess because of online-only DRM (digital rights management) issues.

Player’s city saved files are stored in EA’s cloud servers, not on player’s actual computers. Also, cities are server specific, so if you want to play your saved city, be prepared to sit in line waiting before you’ll actually be able to play the game again. EA’s Origin servers just couldn’t handle the game’s launch day demand.


http://o.canada.com/2013/03/05/simcitys-launch-was-a-complete-disaster/

[Violet_Crumble]

1. It kind of sucks not being able to play it

Thank goodness I had the snazzy 3D collectors edition cover to keep me entertained yesterday.

[Posteritatis]

2. I wouldn't say the launch was so good as to merely be a complete disaster.. (nt)

[ZombieHorde]

3. WTF?!

Player’s city saved files are stored in EA’s cloud servers, not on player’s actual computers. Also, cities are server specific, so if you want to play your saved city, be prepared to sit in line waiting before you’ll actually be able to play the game again. EA’s Origin servers just couldn’t handle the game’s launch day demand.

Why would they want this? Are they trying to stop piracy?

[Posteritatis]

4. The big reason is so they can deactivate the game in a couple of years

EA's been pushing for a brief lifecycle for games for awhile; the goal of the top management is to release a game, remove it in a couple of years, and require people to buy the next game in the line.

[ZombieHorde]

5. In my opinion, the best way do that is to make the next game super awesome.

If a game is awesome, people will buy it. Bethesda has been making games people love (Elder Scrolls and Fallout), so they don't need to resort to these tactics. Of course that doesn't mean Bethesda won't resort to these tactics.

[Posteritatis]

6. That's more or less not how EA works these days, sadly

Their MO is to churn out acceptable-to-marketing, low-risk extruded game product, milk it for as much money as the consumer will tolerate, and then discard it as quickly as possible so they can renew the cycle and sell another stack of sixty-dollar licenses. To EA, someone buying a game and playing it for several years is a bad thing, so they've been making noises about actively preventing that for awhile now. Storing a lot of Simcity's stuff on their end makes that easier, but they also screwed up the implementation so bad that this thing's more likely to be looking at a lifecycle of weeks instead of a year or two.

[Dash87]

7. EA sucks as a company now. Didn't use to be this way.

I grew up with The Sims and Sim City. How the mighty have fallen.

EA, Activision, and all the big companies are all about bland corporate rehashes these days.

[ZombieHorde]

8. I loved Simcity when I was kid.

I'm really glad I didn't get it. I do love their Battlefield franchise though.