Sim City: Ruined by DRM?

[Pob255]

Interesting thing this has kicked up is that simcity plays have been very popular on twitch tv atm, esp during the times when people couldn't log on to play the game.

[Andeh13]

Including me. But i would have been disappointed with the map size, no doubt. I like to build massive cities.

Couldn't agree more. I'd have bought it had it not been for the DRM, and forced small cities! Won't touch it till barging bucket now

[Spud1]

Added the fact that you can't even play offline puts me off, I travel a lot with my Laptop and play a lot of games while on the train, my current routes have many spots where the connection breaks.

On top of this, there are "mods" that allow you to enter other peoples cities and DESTORY them fully and that you can't even load up a save to restore it makes me want to avoid this game like it was the plauge.

Also, the fact that EA and Maxis lied about the game doesn't want me to put any money in their pockets.

You can still play on a train with a 3G stick, as there is a 20 minute "grace" period (well, its roughly 20 min) where it doesn't need an internet connection. 3G should be fine for it too as it doesn't send a lot of data.

There are no "mods" that let you actually destroy another players city - at least not permanently. The game doesn't save what you do, so the other play never knows you have "destroyed" their city..so this really is a non-issue. Yes in theory you could spoof another player id and origin account, and bypass any security..but at the moment that isn't possible.

I don't think that EA or Maxis have actually lied to us about the game either - yes there were major issues at launch (it was unplayable) and yes it's overpriced, but the game itself is actually very good and extremely addictive, once people get off their high horses and actually just play the game. lots of people are realising this.

I had similar negative opinions a week ago, then I played a friends copy..I've now bought it (thankfully with a 50% off code) and sunk 12 hours into the damn thing this weekend already..running 4 cities on Antarctica without any server issues/queues, and cheetah mode is available/working...

One last thing - I completely get why being an always on multiplayer game makes a difference - this particular iteration of Sim City would be no fun at all on your own, and would be much harder. It's very focussed around the multiplayer interaction and working together to build (or destroy) cities/wonders etc. I can see potential for "world economic wars" here inside a region, a decent in-game marketplace (not micro transactions..talking more stocks/shares).

It's not the single player Sim City that many wanted - in the same way that Aliens:Colonial Marines was not the sequel to AvP that we all wanted, or Deux Ex 2 IW wasn't the sequel to Deus Ex, or the new C&C going FTP...we have to just deal with the fact that sometimes games companies don't make exactly what we want.

[xodianbarr]

I don't think that EA or Maxis have actually lied to us about the game either - yes there were major issues at launch (it was unplayable) and yes it's overpriced, but the game itself is actually very good and extremely addictive, once people get off their high horses and actually just play the game. lots of people are realising this.

Yes they have. A small point but EA publically lied about the reason why it has to be 'always on', and where found out by a hacker who proved they we're lying about it. Havent you read the news reports?

[Spud1]

Most pirates do it because its a) really easy to get hold of, and b) digital content is massively overpriced.

This is sort of true - but digital content is even easier to get hold of than to pirate things (sign in to steam, click buy, next, next and its downloading), and I would bet my house that if you gave people two options:

1) Pay £2.99 for StarCraft 2 and instant download, 1 click.
2) Pay £0.00 for StarCraft 2 and instant download, 1 click.

The vast majority would take option 2. Not nice to thing that way but I can guarantee it. As Saracen says, most people would rather have something for nothing, provided the risk is low (which in reality, it is).

Before anyone starts, i dont want to hear about the 'poor developers who get a modest sum', that may be true, but thats only because the software houses pay them so.

Well you are almost right here but also rather wrong - it depends on the size of the software house. When you take a company like Activision/Blizzard I actually agree with you - as the sales of a game do not directly affect the developer's salary. Blizzard pay rather well too, so most of their developers don't get a "modest" sum its decent enough. That said, with smaller software houses and independents, its a different story. In those companies quite often you have a small team who's wages are directly related to sales..as they own the company or have a stake in it. A big publisher like EA will pay them a royalty based on sales, which then pays the wages. Piracy directly impacts these small dev teams bottom line, even though it may be a big joke of a company like EA who is selling the game. So yes, piracy does directly affect developers and puts many out of business, it is a valid point to make.

Another point to make is that if piracy was eliminated, do you really think it would result in any large increase in sales for digital content? If you ask me, people will still only go out and buy what they can afford. So they certainly wouldn't rush out and start buying these products they previously copyrighted. If digital content was more affordable, people on the whole would be less likely to pirate it.

There would definitely be an increase - although as I think you are getting at it wouldn't be a like-for-like. People are pirating partly because it's free, and they wouldn't spend the money on the game otherwise. This is one of the arguments pirates actually try and use to defend their activity, by saying "well I wouldn't pay for it anyway" It seems to almost justify what they are doing...but of course this is all hogwash. Sure they wouldn't pay anyway, but that doesn't justify it There would clearly be an increase in sales but it might only be 10-20%.

I agree with the sentiment that if digital content were cheaper (and it should be) then there would be a direct link with a drop in piracy, but it wouldn't be that massive as people still want something for nothing.

Remember, that EA is just a business trying to make money. It has no morals, it has no scruples, and has but one agenda - to make money.

On this last point we are in full agreement again They are ruthless and seem intent on destroying the game industry for consumers

Yes they have. A small point but EA publically lied about the reason why it has to be 'always on', and where found out by a hacker who proved they we're lying about it. Havent you read the news reports?

Re-read the interview/discussions/threads - the game does send a bunch of information over to Maxis servers for processing, and the game as a whole doesn't function properly without this (although the simulation still runs in a single city). It is also not easy to convert this to single player, as the "hacker" who messed with the code said in his reddit post(s) - possible, yes, but quick and easy? No. Again this would only be part of the game too (the single player) and not the game as a whole..so even if its on a technicality, they were right.. Don't believe everything you read in the news reports, check the sources first...

[xodianbarr]

This is sort of true - but digital content is even easier to get hold of than to pirate things (sign in to steam, click buy, next, next and its downloading), and I would bet my house that if you gave people two options:

1) Pay £2.99 for StarCraft 2 and instant download, 1 click.
2) Pay £0.00 for StarCraft 2 and instant download, 1 click.

The vast majority would take option 2. Not nice to thing that way but I can guarantee it. As Saracen says, most people would rather have something for nothing, provided the risk is low (which in reality, it is).



Well you are almost right here but also rather wrong - it depends on the size of the software house. When you take a company like Activision/Blizzard I actually agree with you - as the sales of a game do not directly affect the developer's salary. Blizzard pay rather well too, so most of their developers don't get a "modest" sum its decent enough. That said, with smaller software houses and independents, its a different story. In those companies quite often you have a small team who's wages are directly related to sales..as they own the company or have a stake in it. A big publisher like EA will pay them a royalty based on sales, which then pays the wages. Piracy directly impacts these small dev teams bottom line, even though it may be a big joke of a company like EA who is selling the game. So yes, piracy does directly affect developers and puts many out of business, it is a valid point to make.



There would definitely be an increase - although as I think you are getting at it wouldn't be a like-for-like. People are pirating partly because it's free, and they wouldn't spend the money on the game otherwise. This is one of the arguments pirates actually try and use to defend their activity, by saying "well I wouldn't pay for it anyway" It seems to almost justify what they are doing...but of course this is all hogwash. Sure they wouldn't pay anyway, but that doesn't justify it There would clearly be an increase in sales but it might only be 10-20%.

I agree with the sentiment that if digital content were cheaper (and it should be) then there would be a direct link with a drop in piracy, but it wouldn't be that massive as people still want something for nothing.



On this last point we are in full agreement again They are ruthless and seem intent on destroying the game industry for consumers




Re-read the interview/discussions/threads - the game does send a bunch of information over to Maxis servers for processing, and the game as a whole doesn't function properly without this (although the simulation still runs in a single city). It is also not easy to convert this to single player, as the "hacker" who messed with the code said in his reddit post(s) - possible, yes, but quick and easy? No. Again this would only be part of the game too (the single player) and not the game as a whole..so even if its on a technicality, they were right.. Don't believe everything you read in the news reports, check the sources first...

Who said anything about quick and easy? I read the news thoroughly, independent of this thread, which is why i make that statement. Firstly, they argued that it was unfeasable for the game to work offline because of the amount of calculations the online servers do (to reduce overheads on your home pc). That was clearly a weak argument long before anyone even tried to test the validity of it: firstly, if it was true, thats purely down to how they programmed the game. We arent all using Atari 2600's any more. Secondly, (on that point) their servers arent exactly doing a fantastic job at that are they . The lie was not on whether or not the servers provided vital functions, it was WHY they were so necessary to provide those functions. They argued it had nothing to do with DRM, but clearly it does. In a matter of hours a hacker managed to prove that it could be played offline, it just couldnt save. We all know how small a thing it would be to have made it saveable to your desktop, so i dont see your point.


As for the bitorrent things: Yeah, i can go with the majority of what you say, for the most part. I would like to point out though, i never suggested that everone pirates because prices are too high. Only that a lot more do. I honestly believe (and maybe i'm being niave here) that people WOULD pay the £2.99 for a good game over a pirated version. But a lot less would be prepared to pay £60.

[Spud1]

We all know how small a thing it would be to have made it saveable to your desktop, so i dont see your point.

It's much more complicated than you might think to save locally if the whole game is designed to sync with the server..and even if I am arguing on a technicality now - it's not possible to ever play the entire game offline..because it's a multiplayer game It's like trying to play WoW offline..sure there are hacks around to do it, but it's just not the same game. Anyway we all know that EA screwed up, not much need for us to argue technicalities.

That said however, it might be the game that lots of people wanted, with enough work..no multiplayer, hacks for bigger cities etc.

The closest "evidence" I could see for the piracy pay vs free debate is something like what Radiohead did with "in rainbows". OK so the album was absolutely terrible which doesn't help my case here, but people were given the choice - pay what you think it's worth, or pay nothing.

62% paid absolutely nothing for it.

[xodianbarr]

62% paid absolutely nothing for it.

Which means 38% did pay something. Its not an overwhelming majority that didnt.

Your comment is fair concerning the server syncing, except you're missing the point. It is only difficult a thing to change because they wrote it that way. There are hundred if not thousands of games that have online multiplayer, and offline single player.

[xodianbarr]

Thinking about it further, maybe it's me thats missing your point.

[Saracen]

Im sorry to say i disagree. Yes, there are a lot of people who given the chance would take something for free, but you cant generalise against all pirates in that way. As with anything there is a hardcore of people who would steal your grandmother if given the chance, but they are in the minority. Most pirates do it because its a) really easy to get hold of, and b) digital content is massively overpriced. Before anyone starts, i dont want to hear about the 'poor developers who get a modest sum', that may be true, but thats only because the software houses pay them so. Another point to make is that if piracy was eliminated, do you really think it would result in any large increase in sales for digital content? If you ask me, people will still only go out and buy what they can afford. So they certainly wouldn't rush out and start buying these products they previously copyrighted. If digital content was more affordable, people on the whole would be less likely to pirate it.

As for DRM being down to piracy.. No one is arguing that - of course it is. But its only because EA wants to protect its profits. Unfortunately at the expense of the consumer in this case. Remember, that EA is just a business trying to make money. It has no morals, it has no scruples, and has but one agenda - to make money.

I did say "a lot" will pirate regardless of price, not that all or even the majority would. And also, some people would buy at a lower price rather than pirate.

But not being able to afford something is no justification for piracy. It's a justification for going without. Or for saving up, or foregoing something else.

If a game, or anything else, is overpriced, just don't buy it. But it is up to the seller what they want to sell it for, and without knowing exactly what the company's cost structure is, we can't know if it's "overpriced" or not. And even then, any attempt to do so implies a value decision on what a "fair" profit level is.

[xodianbarr]

I did say "a lot" will pirate regardless of price, not that all or even the majority would. And also, some people would buy at a lower price rather than pirate.

But not being able to afford something is no justification for piracy. It's a justification for going without. Or for saving up, or foregoing something else.

If a game, or anything else, is overpriced, just don't buy it. But it is up to the seller what they want to sell it for, and without knowing exactly what the company's cost structure is, we can't know if it's "overpriced" or not. And even then, any attempt to dovso implies a value decision on what a "fair" profit level is.

I wasnt quoting what you said, but what spud said. Also im not justifying 'why' people pirate, just pointing out peoples motivations for doing it. If i was trying to justify it, i would be saying the we live in a corrupt greedy capitalist society, where the rich get richer by stepping on the poor, and while there are people out there dying every day because they dont have food or clean water, why should they be so rich... ... but im not saying that. Im just giving you a reason why 'more' pirate.

[Saracen]

I wasnt quoting what you said, but what spud said. Also im not justifying 'why' people pirate, just pointing out peoples motivations for doing it. If i was trying to justify it, i would be saying the we live in a corrupt greedy capitalist society, where the rich get richer by stepping on the poor, and while there are people out there dying every day because they dont have food or clean water, why should they be so rich... ... but im not saying that. Im just giving you a reason why 'more' pirate.

Actually, you were quoting me. It was post #117.


You asked why piracy is so popular. I quoted that (my post #115) and said because "a lot of people" will take things for nothing given the chance.

You quoted that (post#117) with "I'm sorry to say I disagree ...".

My post #154 quoted your post #117, where I said "I did say "a lot .... not all or even the majority ....", and you quored that, saying you weren't quoting me. Sorry to point it out, but yes, you were.

But .... it doesn't really matter. There are multiple bilateral conversations going on here, multiplexed into one multilateral conversation, with a fair bit of crossover. It's extremely easy to get confused with who said what, in response to what was said and by whom.

It's the problem with a linear view of a multi-threaded, multi-participant discussion. of course, the advantage is that input from multiple people helps stop it going stale or, to a lesser degree, getting too circular.

[xodianbarr]

I wasnt quoting you when i referred to that 'in that comment'. I was 'directly quoting spud'. You can see it visually if you care to open your eyes. You're just getting picky about insignificant nothings. I may earlier have quoted you - in another post.. thats another post another issue regardless if it it was concerning the same things. Worst thing is: we agree on it, so why make an issue?

[Saracen]

I wasnt quoting you when i referred to that 'in that comment'. I was 'directly quoting spud'. You can see it visually if you care to open your eyes. You're just getting picky about insignificant nothings. I may earlier have quoted you - in another post.. thats another post another issue regardless if it it was concerning the same things. Worst thing is: we agree on it, so why make an issue?

Me make it an issue?

You quoted me in EACH of those posts, like a trail of breadcrumbs, including the last one, then said you're not quoting me, when you did.

And then come up with a patronising "if I care to open my eyes" remark.

This is the second time you've taken that patronising tone, last time against another member, and I warned you then.

Seeing as you didn't care to heed the advice that time, I'll be a bit more clear. Lose that patronising attitude, because next time I see it, I will suspend your account, without further warning.

[xodianbarr]

Me make it an issue?

You quoted me in EACH of those posts, like a trail of breadcrumbs, including the last one, then said you're not quoting me, when you did.

And then come up with a patronising "if I care to open my eyes" remark.

This is the second time you've taken that patronising tone, last time against another member, and I warned you then.

Seeing as you didn't care to heed the advice that time, I'll be a bit more clear. Lose that patronising attitude, because next time I see it, I will suspend your account, without further warning.

Yes sir.

[xodianbarr]

After reading back, i see you're right. I mistakenly assumed your quoting me was from my comment following spuds comment. So i acted rashly. I admit i am wrong, and take it back. But i still say you were making an issue out of a small thing.