EA Needs to F*** off and die
- Thread starter HowDroll
- Start date
I won't, the game requires neighbors who give a shit about their cities in order for yours to thrive and is nearly unplayable without them. Fuck forced multiplayer.
Oh, and because of shit like this where EA put out a press release saying they will refund your money if you are unhappy with your purchase, and then do this:
http://www.gamechup.com/ea-refuses-to-refund-user-for-simcity-threatens-account-ban/
Thread title is still apt.
Oh, and because of shit like this where EA put out a press release saying they will refund your money if you are unhappy with your purchase, and then do this:
http://www.gamechup.com/ea-refuses-to-refund-user-for-simcity-threatens-account-ban/
Thread title is still apt.
Yep, screw you EA. I was interested in this game but for the bullshit no local saves, always online and needing other people who care about their cities near you makes it a train wreck.
Good job EA. Keep destroying your franchises. The sooner you blow up the sooner some competent people can buy up your IP's. (a man can dream right?)
Good job EA. Keep destroying your franchises. The sooner you blow up the sooner some competent people can buy up your IP's. (a man can dream right?)
I too am a bit upset with Sim City being forced multi-player. I've bought every version so far. But I probably will not get this one.
I need to see if I can get, Sim City 2k, Sim Copter, and Streets of Sim City to work again... That was the best bit of marketing that they ever did with this game series. I'd like to see them do it again.
I need to see if I can get, Sim City 2k, Sim Copter, and Streets of Sim City to work again... That was the best bit of marketing that they ever did with this game series. I'd like to see them do it again.
Isn't 2K on Steam?
To be fair, the ban was threatened if the customer disputed the credit card purchase through his bank - effectively if he cancelled payment for the game with it still on his account. That much of it is justified.
As to refusing to honour a refund they specifically said they would give, well...that's just EA being EA.
My bad. My clipboard was still full from another paste. Here's the corrected link (and it is fixed in my previous post).
--Patrick
HAHAHAHAHA! Look at the metacritic ratings so far.
Has EA released anything lately that has gotten good ratings from both users and paid schills?
One thing I will say though, is that if you want to control every city in a region because you are a crazy bastard, you can do so and fuck off to having a social circle in the game. There are maps that only have 2 or 3 cities.
The server errors are total bullshit.
I really wish I could save my games locally for sure, because I'm sick of spending half the night trying to find a server that works and then have to start yet another new city/region. I like this version of SimCity, but GD it &!*)!&$*)!&*$)!&*)$&!$*)!.
Really I should just get my sewing done and forget I own this game for a few days.
The server errors are total bullshit.
I really wish I could save my games locally for sure, because I'm sick of spending half the night trying to find a server that works and then have to start yet another new city/region. I like this version of SimCity, but GD it &!*)!&$*)!&*$)!&*)$&!$*)!.
Really I should just get my sewing done and forget I own this game for a few days.
figmentPez
Staff member
All EA games have been removed from my Steam wishlist. I won't be buying EA until they get better customer support.
No, but I don't trust user reviews either. The Dead Space 3 user reviews are all over the place. It's literally a ton of people liking it and a ton of people hating it.
If it was actually a whole ton of people in the middle, I would feel comfortable thinking it's mostly a "meh" experience, but right now, it's either a bunch of people who rate 9/10 for everything mildly amusing, or people who rate a game 1/10 because of ACTIONNOTHORROROMGMICROTRANSACTIONS.
It's why I like RPS reviews. There's no fucking rating number, just long considered thought.
I trust the Giant Bomb crew because I listen to their podcast and they are really upfront about their tastes. Jeff Gerstman is kind of a curmudgeon for most genres, so he actually has people who are fans of a given genre do reviews for those types of games. He realizes that his tastes may not align with the general public. Knowing the personality of the reviewers, I can get a good idea of how their tastes will align with mine. For example, I tend to agree with Brad Shoemacher and Patrick Klepeck, so I'm able to judge their opinions on a game as close to mine.
I think that basic transparency is what makes them come off as way more genuine than reviewer x who you don't know anything about.
I think that basic transparency is what makes them come off as way more genuine than reviewer x who you don't know anything about.
Oh, the GiantBomb guys as a whole are great. Not only are they super in-depth, but they really went out of their way a while back to shepherd their community into not being a bunch of assholes.
I loved Sim City, but after the disaster that was the game launch, I will not be buying until DRM and Multiplayer is removed.
figmentPez
Staff member
Woah, did Joystiq just actually make a reasonable argument?
Editorial: SimCity, Diablo 3 and a review of customer service
Select quotes:
I agree with this. Customer service is part of a product. How well the game is supported by the publisher, how well it's delivered to the gamer, is part of the gaming experience and it is completely fair to incorporate those elements into a games overall score.
Editorial: SimCity, Diablo 3 and a review of customer service
Select quotes:
I agree with this. Customer service is part of a product. How well the game is supported by the publisher, how well it's delivered to the gamer, is part of the gaming experience and it is completely fair to incorporate those elements into a games overall score.
Reviewers arguing the DRM and the always on nonsense and such is separate and shouldn't be counted when reviewing a game are fucking out of their minds. Straight up.
THIS GAME IS AMAZING, 10/10.
I can't log into it because the servers are down.
YEAH, BUT THE GAME IS AMAZING, 10/10.
But I can't play it.
IRRELEVANT! 10/10
THIS GAME IS AMAZING, 10/10.
I can't log into it because the servers are down.
YEAH, BUT THE GAME IS AMAZING, 10/10.
But I can't play it.
IRRELEVANT! 10/10
Studies say up to 30% of "consumer" critics are paid for as well, and about 10% of critics will give bomb reviews to even great games 4theLULz or however they're writing it today, though both off those numbers can vary wildly by genre etc. Having extreme criticisms can be realistic - there are those "love it or hate it" types of games. I'm honestly not sure which one's at play here, but generally speaking, a game with 10 9/10 reviews and 10 1/10 reviews is probably more fun to try out than a game with 20 5/10 reviews. The latter's utterly meh, while the first one could be great, could be an awesome game with crippling bugs, could be beatiful but unintuitive,... I'm not tempted to pick up a meh game, even on sale, but a game with a huge difference in opinions? Mught be worth checking out in a sale.
Also, professional critics and game designers are still saying gthat multiplayer functionality and further integration of Facebook and Twitter and whatnot, all the socializing, blahblah blah is the new future of gaming. It's the wave of the future! Vocal minority or not, gamers on message boards all over the internet, and MetaCritic, strongly disagree. Perhaps a lot of gamers do like it, but I have the impression at least a decent-sized subset of gamers doesn't. I'm glad this is a stronger/bigger group than the "anti-DRM" group, since that apparently wasn't big enough to have much of an impact.[DOUBLEPOST=1362750923][/DOUBLEPOST]It's developers pushing for games to be considered a service instead of a commodity. If so, they need to accept that they'll be graded on service quality as well. You can have the fastest taxi business in tow,-n, if your drivers are illiterate jerks with Tourettes, the taxi cabs don't have passenger seat belts, they r andomly blow up, and smell of vomit, you won't be doing much business pretty soon. Either a game's a commodity - and I buy my car based on how good the car is, not on how symathpetic the salesman is - or it's a commodity and the service I get and customer delight do play a huge role in where I'm buying my hamburger. They can't have it both ways.
We review food and service separately all the time. The largest, most used restaurant review guide in the country has done it for years. Yelp reviews everything together, but that's why you can't trust yelp reviews without reading dozens of them, because no one gives food/service/decor/etc. the same weight as anyone else.
Furthermore, the analogy wouldn't even work if everyone did it the same way. The game is not a restaurant, it's a meal. This is important because the chef's (the devs, to torture the analogy further) can have completely different styles working in the same restaurant (publisher).
While Joystiq is not as bad about their ratings process as a lot of them, I think we're better off just dropping ratings entirely (RPS-style) or just having a buy/rent/pass rating.[DOUBLEPOST=1362751396][/DOUBLEPOST]
You'd be better off with a random sampling of users using surveys, personal/group interviews, and actually trying to understand people in an engaged atmosphere.
Furthermore, the analogy wouldn't even work if everyone did it the same way. The game is not a restaurant, it's a meal. This is important because the chef's (the devs, to torture the analogy further) can have completely different styles working in the same restaurant (publisher).
While Joystiq is not as bad about their ratings process as a lot of them, I think we're better off just dropping ratings entirely (RPS-style) or just having a buy/rent/pass rating.[DOUBLEPOST=1362751396][/DOUBLEPOST]
I'm actually of the opinion that pubs/devs should read and then ignore metacritic, internet boards, and most amazon reviews. Squeaky wheels should not necessarily be listened to, and people who post "10/10 AWESOME!" are even more useless.
You'd be better off with a random sampling of users using surveys, personal/group interviews, and actually trying to understand people in an engaged atmosphere.
For this analogy...
Origin is the restaurant. It looks like shit and I'm pretty sure the waiters are listening in on our conversations, despite this being pretty illegal.
EA is the Chef and owner. EA CAN do some awesome stuff, but he's more concerned with pricing the plates than with providing a good deal to the guy at the table. He's also completely given up on advancing his skills in any fashion except for how the food looks.
EA's also responsible for the service, as he has his kids working the tables. Unfortunately, all the kids are assholes who don't know to do their jobs, but even if they DID know how to do them, they wouldn't be able to because EA won't spring for enough tables for everyone.
Sim City is the meal. By itself it's pretty amazing, even if you have to pay extra for stuff you can get for free from other guys. Unfortunately it costs WAY too much and for some reason you food seems to get worse if the other guys at your table didn't get the right stuff.
Also, for some reason you can only order strawberry, blueberry, or mint ice cream for desert. All of these flavors taste the same, despite the color differences. What's up with that?
Origin is the restaurant. It looks like shit and I'm pretty sure the waiters are listening in on our conversations, despite this being pretty illegal.
EA is the Chef and owner. EA CAN do some awesome stuff, but he's more concerned with pricing the plates than with providing a good deal to the guy at the table. He's also completely given up on advancing his skills in any fashion except for how the food looks.
EA's also responsible for the service, as he has his kids working the tables. Unfortunately, all the kids are assholes who don't know to do their jobs, but even if they DID know how to do them, they wouldn't be able to because EA won't spring for enough tables for everyone.
Sim City is the meal. By itself it's pretty amazing, even if you have to pay extra for stuff you can get for free from other guys. Unfortunately it costs WAY too much and for some reason you food seems to get worse if the other guys at your table didn't get the right stuff.
Also, for some reason you can only order strawberry, blueberry, or mint ice cream for desert. All of these flavors taste the same, despite the color differences. What's up with that?
Actually if you want a close analogy: EA/SimCity is a restaurant where you can order food, but you'll only get to eat it when you buy it if you get lucky. In this scenario, you ordered the food, were told you were going to get it as soon as it was finished being cooked. Then the waiter said it was finished, but you can't eat it. Now you've paid for the food, been told it's ready and cooked, but you can't eat it. If you ask for a refund, you're thrown out of the restaurant and told you can never come back.
That's what EA/SimCity is like at the moment if you want to use restaurant analogies and the REASON why you can bundle service with the game complaints.
That's what EA/SimCity is like at the moment if you want to use restaurant analogies and the REASON why you can bundle service with the game complaints.
figmentPez
Staff member
Fair point, but notice that the service is rated. The current trend in video games is for reviewers to, by and large, disregard any publisher doings as irrelevant to the gaming experience, which is completely not true.
News flash: No analogy is perfect. Analogies compare specific points of similarity, there will always be differences between one thing and another that are not analogous; if those differences didn't exist then the analogy wouldn't either, because you'd be comparing something to itself.
The analogy does work, because it is fair and reasonable to consider the delivery of a game when deciding if it is worth purchase. It is fair and reasonable to consider the service at a restaurant when considering purchasing a meal there. It doesn't matter if there are multiple chefs in the kitchen. It doesn't matter if the chef has little control over the wait staff. When it comes down to brass tacks, the best food in the world isn't worth ordering if it's delivered cold, has been spit-in by the wait staff and the silverware hasn't been washed. (For the record, that's just hyperbole, I'm not trying to suggest that any of those specific points are representative of specific flaws in a publisher's customer service... Though not being able to play a game on launch weekend does compare pretty well to getting cold food, now that I think of it.)
While it may not be fair to give a game a single rating that covers every aspect (some already argue that a game's art, single player, multi-player, story, etc. should already be ranked separately), it is most certainly reasonable to consider a publisher's customer service when deciding if a game is worth purchasing, (and that most definitely can be specific to a game.)
As has been stated, it's just pretty much impossible to give a meaningful review boiled down to one number. I don't give a rat's ass about multiplayer - if Diablo III had had NO on line capability, NO LAN capability, NO cloud saving, and NO auciton house, it would have suited my personal preference much better, but I'm well aware that it a) wouldn't have sold and b) would have been hated by three quarters of the community. I don't expect all games to conform to my personal view of what a good game should be or what it should look like.
Publishers/developers seem to have the idea that they, with market read-outs at the ready, can and should make that decision for everybody else - and I can't even really fault them for that, i nthe sense that they have to make the decisions that make most sense, business-wise. I do disagree with their opinion of the market and I think some of the big ones are making huge mistakes, but that's another discussion.
Anyway, I do think people need to give more varied reviews. I think a reviewer should be able to give, say, Mass Effect 3 a score of 7/10 for multiplayer, 9/10 f or graphics, 3/10 for campaign/single player, and so on. Why not give SimCity a 8/10 for gameplay, but a 1/10 for playability and technical issues? Why not list that a game like the new SimCity will not appeal to many of the original fans, as it was typically a game played by people on their own? I don't see why it should be horrible or bad to give a game a 8/10 as a shooter but only a 2/10 as n RPG - warning potential buyers that if they want a shooter with some RPGy bits, it's ok, but if they expect an RPG with some shooter elements, they're better off looking at another game?
Complicated? Sure. So? We're not all idiots.
Publishers/developers seem to have the idea that they, with market read-outs at the ready, can and should make that decision for everybody else - and I can't even really fault them for that, i nthe sense that they have to make the decisions that make most sense, business-wise. I do disagree with their opinion of the market and I think some of the big ones are making huge mistakes, but that's another discussion.
Anyway, I do think people need to give more varied reviews. I think a reviewer should be able to give, say, Mass Effect 3 a score of 7/10 for multiplayer, 9/10 f or graphics, 3/10 for campaign/single player, and so on. Why not give SimCity a 8/10 for gameplay, but a 1/10 for playability and technical issues? Why not list that a game like the new SimCity will not appeal to many of the original fans, as it was typically a game played by people on their own? I don't see why it should be horrible or bad to give a game a 8/10 as a shooter but only a 2/10 as n RPG - warning potential buyers that if they want a shooter with some RPGy bits, it's ok, but if they expect an RPG with some shooter elements, they're better off looking at another game?
Complicated? Sure. So? We're not all idiots.
No, the point is that large vast majorities of people can't play. When they CAN, they've admitted it's a great game. They just don't like forced Multiplayer.
Maxis = Responsible for being a great game.
EA = Responsible for thousands of people being unable to play it.
Correct. There's nothing wrong with the multiplayer, but not giving people an option is going to rub alot of people the wrong way, which is what's happening here. As for the off hours benefit, that's a given. However, if there was an exploit discovered at some point, and the servers were rolled back, imagine losing a day, a week or more (see Sony's DC Online issues) of gameplay. There's just too much wrong with always online DRM. This is the outcry of the community against EA.