Originally Posted by Masked
I've seen 100s of these dog and pony shows, they're all the same dogs and the same ponies, playing the same games every single launch, not much changes.
I've seen DRM presented in over 100 ways because you don't actually have to say DRM in a press release NOR, do you have to say DRM to your parent company when designing a game.
I've also been involved in direct contact with studios, have family members that work in studios and have designed/installed entire layouts for studios.
I don't care what current policy at EA "supposedly is"...Or the fact that they're a subsidiary... The subsidiaries don't always communicate...Case in point/thread ending example: Aliens: Colonial Marines.
“DRM was never even brought up once,” says Gibeau.
Of course it wasn't because it was never actually presented to EA as being DRM, it was presented TO EA as being an on-line player experience.
In fact, he goes further, slamming the DRM as “a failed dead-end strategy; it’s not a viable strategy for the gaming business.”
Of course it is but, it was never actually presented to EA as being straight up DRM, just an on-line experience.
He acknowledges there was a failure in communicating what the game was.
Whether or not DRM was intentionally the stance of EA -- It was too late by the time launch rolled around because creation had already started -- Could they have updated to single player? That's arguably possible over a D/L but, at the point of launch and by the time it was understood AS DRM, it was too late so, they ate their losses and said "play on".
I'm not biased and not a fanboy...I actually don't even game that much anymore...My point is simple...You can't really understand that market unless you've been involved/worked there or know someone that's actually there because 90% of what you hear is actually BS. Most of these companies don't work well together, which is why they're subsidiaries in the first place...Communication is total garbage unless someone is holding hands and MOST of the time, the entire design of a game is kept under wraps until final review where as, they dodge the DRM issue incessantly.
I could tell a very long story about Assasin's Creed and it's DRM + The disagreement that took place by the big wigs but, unfortunately, once again, I'll be called biased.
The corporate world of game design/launch etc is messy...It's not this clean-cut world you all imagine it is...Just sayin.
Ok, but the point remains. If you read Frank Gibeau's statement from last year, that enforms everything the subsidiaries do. It doesn't really matter what Maxis wants or doesn't want, a new SimCity game could not have been released as a single player experience, and that is a fact.
What the consumers end up with is a product that had to have necessarily an always on-line component shoehorned, no matter whether it actually works (even conceptually, as the other players from neighbouring cities don't have to be playing at the same time as you are, they may not even play for days or weeks) or not.
Originally Posted by Rookie1337
Originally Posted by tpi2007
Really ? Read my post above. You are falling for EA's deceptive tactics.
And there's nothing stopping the consumer from seeing through that. Unless you assume that people are too stupid to run their own lives?
Your post doesn't make sense. I was arguing that it doesn't matter what Maxis wants or doesn't want, and that is a fact. Read my reply to Masked just above.
Originally Posted by -Apocalypse-
And the fallacy required to make the fallacy you described actually a fallacy is the assumption that SimCity was directed primarily at traditional SimCity fans. Just like Civilization V wasn't a replacement or a linear sequel to Civilization IV, SimCity is not a replacement or linear sequel to SimCity 4.
The problem with your argument is that when new players are reading reviews for such a kind of game with which they've had no previous experience, they are most likely to be reading from those who have grown up playing these games. And guess what ? Not catering to your original fanbase, but instead trying to conquer new markets by leveraging the brand name usually backfires. Examples: Windows 8 / RT and EA inviting CoD commentators while leaving Battlefield commentators behind for the new BF4 previews.
Originally Posted by Stealth Pyros
The Internet is the go-to place if you're looking for people that complain when developers throw in a single player mode (Battlefield) and complain when they don't (Sim City). It's a cash grab if they do it (because single player = COD noob crap, right?) and it's also a cash grab if they don't do it ("desperate" attempt at "forcing" DRM on the players that willingly
paid $60 for the game according to OCN).
Why is it that some people tend to generalize just to make an argument ? "The Internet has become this, OCN had become that."
Get your facts straight. People complained that BF3 had a below average single player experience. And that was because it felt tacked on, not to mention that it was short. I don't play multi-player games often, so I didn't even bother, as a 7 hour single player game is not worth the asking price (not to mention Origin, which just made the argument against buying BF3 a lot easier).
Originally Posted by Cheezman
"DRM is a failed dead end strategy, so we decided to call it something else instead!"
That is exactly what he said. And like I said in the first post, it's interesting that PC Gamer decided to omit the sentence where he says exactly that.
Here is the quote again for those who missed it:
DRM is a failed dead-end strategy; it's not a viable strategy for the gaming business. So what we tried to do creatively is build an online service in the SimCity universe and that's what we sought to achieve.
I mean, he's not even trying very hard to deceive people. I just laughed when I read the beginning of that second sentence - "So (...)"
EA: getting creative at finding new names for DRM. Remember, we don't green light any single player experiences.
Originally Posted by TheBlindDeafMute
Thanks! Edited by tpi2007 - 3/28/13 at 2:14pm