8 ms·

I would like to say this means I won't buy an EA game but considering how many good franchises they own that would just be a lie. I was going to pick up Sim Cit

• Mithaldu 14y ago
  > considering how many good franchises they own that would just be a lie Which? The last game they made that can be described as "more than mediocre" was Mirror's Edge.
  • jiggy2011 14y ago
    I found Mirror's Edge to be distinctly mediocre but I imagine Battlefield and the fact that they seem to create most of the "official license" sports franchises is what is being referred to.
    • illinx 14y ago
      Just curious, did you play ME on console? It's vastly, vastly improved w mouse aiming.
      • jiggy2011 14y ago
        Yes, on the xbox. The main problem I had with the game was that there was a lot of time spent running around fairly drab indoor environments trying to find the right thing to jump on rather than the fast building scaling action I was expecting.
      • prawks 14y ago
        Agreed, it was rather fun when I remember playing it on my PC.
    • bobsy 14y ago
      Its funny that Mirror's Edge has been brought up. I literally completed it yesterday. I am trying to go through my back catalog of unplayed games. Ran through it on the PS3 I think it had the makings of a fantastic game and was let down by pretty much every element. Initially I found the game was pretty exciting, unfortunately getting shot at made it tedious. There was a point where I got ran over by a train and fell off my chair. First game that made that happen. (I looked left, looked right, no train. Stepped out. HONKING TRAIN! Scared the crap out of me. I play games with the TV really loud) The cityscape was bland, the story was meh, the free running was trial and error, getting shot at constantly was pretty tedious and combat was awkward. That said the idea's in the game were good. I feel it could be rebooted into an excellent game. I enjoy Fifa and Battlefield. I am sure there are many more in the list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Electronic_Arts_games http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Electronic_Arts_games Worryingly though EA are getting pretty good at breaking franchises. Age of Empires, Ultima Online and Sim City specifically.. Fifa on the Vita severely damaged that franchises reputation.
• moepstar 14y ago
  >>> I might have my facts incorrect here but if an App is removed from the Play / iOS app stores isn't it removed from users devices? No, it's not (at least on iOS) Source: I've bought a Navigation-App which since seems to be discontinued (N-Drive or something like that).
  • anoncow 14y ago
    Not on android either. Even if you dissociate your account from the device, the apps live on (you don't get updates though)
  • jordan0day 14y ago
    What if you buy a new device? Does the purchase live in your account into perpetuity, or are you out of luck when you upgrade to the "next" iDevice?
    • pilif 14y ago
      If you use iCloud backup and don't ever sync to a local iTunes, then you're out of luck. If you sync with a local iTunes, the app will be in iTunes and will be installed to the device. Unless of course something on the new device prevents the app from running due to technical reasons, but that's the same with old games and new hardware/OSes
      • davidjade 14y ago
        I'm not sure this is absolutely true. Years ago I installed an app on my iPhone (Now Playing, a movie times app). That app was removed from the store years ago by the author. Recently I bought an iPad and if I go to "purchased/not on this iPad" in the App Store on the iPad, the app still shows as available for download. You can't search and find it in the store though. Maybe it still shows because all my devices are iCloud backed up and I never removed it from my iPhone.
        • adamisen 14y ago
          I believe the key is that it was removed by the author. Apps that are pulled for violating the App Store rules don't show up in Purchased, to my knowledge. I know I have a couple IPAs floating around just in case I need an emergency tether or something.
• jiggy2011 14y ago
  The government will usually be about 10 years behind what is actually happening. If we want a solution that works it has to be a market based one. For example, if one wanted to create a DRM free version of Sim City now would be an excellent time to start a kickstarter.
  • mhurron 14y ago
    > now would be an excellent time to start a kickstarter. Or you could just go get Cities XL
    • fennecfoxen 14y ago
      Unfortunately, Cities XL sucks. http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/cities-xl http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/cities-xl they pissed everyone else off at launch, too http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/cities-xl-2012 http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/cities-xl-2012 not much better
      • smacktoward 14y ago
        SimCity 4 is still available (~$20 on Steam & Origin), and it's quite good, without any of the online nonsense that infects the current iteration. Haemimont's Tropico games are also very good (Metacritic: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/tropico-4 http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/tropico-4) city-builders, with a smaller scale than traditional SimCity titles but more flavor and atmosphere. Steam has a bundle with the latest version, Tropico 4, plus all its expansions for $40 (http://store.steampowered.com/sub/19282/ http://store.steampowered.com/sub/19282/).
        • jiggy2011 14y ago
          There's also "towns" which looks interesting http://www.townsgame.com/ http://www.townsgame.com/ though I have not yet played it.
          • oxide 14y ago
• maxerickson 14y ago
  It isn't that hard to factor the downsides into the price you are willing to pay. The internet whinging machine should focus on clear statements of what the product does and consumer education. EA should only get in trouble if they fail to make it clear that the game requires a network connection or if they fail to provide servers for the advertised period. Selling a game with online features should not have to be a commitment to provide those features forever, so finding decent middle ground is the only solution.
  • T-hawk 14y ago
    > It isn't that hard to factor the downsides into the price you are willing to pay. This. I've bought a number of $10 games on Steam because I figure I'll get that much value out of a game even if Steam disappears next month. But I won't go much higher for anything encumbered by online DRM or other means of remote shutdown. I can afford more, but the reasoning is psychological. I'll care and get agitated if a $60 investment disappears, but I can write off $10.
    • nemof 14y ago
      Steam have always said that if for some unfathomable reason they shut down the service they would make sure our games would continue to be playable.
      • whatshisface 14y ago
        Yeah, I've always wondered about that... I have a small number of games in my library, maybe 12, and I only have 3 of them installed on this computer. If they went out of business, it would be physically impossible for them to send me the files. Yes, I know they could have some sort of "graceful shutdown period", but what if I don't hear about it?
      • T-hawk 14y ago
        Yes, they have said that, and with the best intentions. But one can never predict what will actually happen with a company in the throes of shutting down. The lawyers could kick out the programmers before they can throw the killswitch, or even obtain an injunction against doing so. Picture a hypothetical event where Valve enters bankruptcy and shuts down service, but an acquirer intends to resume it, but the case gets stuck in the courts for years. (IANAL and I'm exaggerating to make the point, but you get the idea.) We're dependent on Valve's good will and intentions for Steam. There is no technical solution that the community can implement without Valve's blessing. All of the above should be factored into the grandparent post about factoring DRM into discounting the price you're willing to pay. Valve's reassurance reduces but does not eliminate my personal DRM discount. By contrast but also comparison with Valve/Steam, the attitude of EA and many other publishers and platforms instantly pegs my personal DRM discount at 100%.
• JangoSteve 14y ago
  I might have my facts incorrect here but if an App is removed from the Play / iOS app stores isn't it removed from users devices? What happens to any money you put into those apps? Technically speaking, Google does have this capability to remotely wipe apps from devices [1], but they only do it when the app constitutes a security threat (i.e. malware) to users who were tricked into installing it. As far as I know, they've only done it twice ever [2]. iOS also has this capability [3], and similarly has not done it often (someone correct me if I'm wrong, I'm only an occasional iOS user). [1] http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2010/06/exercising-our-remote-application.html http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2010/06/exercising-ou... [2] Both times were to proof-of-concept apps. http://jon.oberheide.org/blog/2010/06/25/remote-kill-and-install-on-google-android/ http://jon.oberheide.org/blog/2010/06/25/remote-kill-and-ins... [3] http://techcrunch.com/2008/08/07/apple-can-remotely-remove-applications-from-your-iphone/ http://techcrunch.com/2008/08/07/apple-can-remotely-remove-a...
  • eridius 14y ago
    Your techcrunch link is wrong. It's linking to another source, which spouts what turns out to be incorrect conjecture from a random developer. It's referring to a CoreLocation blacklist, which I believe isn't even consulted on more recent versions of the OS.
• nekojima 14y ago
  "Pretty much any digital good you buy cannot be resold. Usually reselling your account under which you made such purchases is also not allowed. All in all its a shitty deal for anyone buying digital goods." You aren't buying digital goods, you are either renting or buying a lease on those digital goods. The terms and conditions of those purchases of leases or by paying rent do not provide you with the same rights and obligations as a hard copy or un-DRM version would normally provide (either through terms and conditions or various national legislation & regulations). That is part of the agreement you make when you pay for digital goods. It is for these reasons why I have stopped spending on large priced digital items and only buy a lease when the items are on significant discount, such as costing less than $10, or rent when substantially discounted. There are few things, including hot new games which I'd normally want to buy, that I'm willing to pay for a virtual copy. I have close to zero trust these services will be around in a few years, or that their servers are sufficient to not lose my purchase record in the coming year or two. While I'm sure I would get my $20-80 worth of use out of the game or book, the concept of the inevitable loss of the item is more important as an influence to me, than the utility & pleasure of the use of the item now.
  • pyrocat 14y ago
    So... what about GOG.com? And Kickstarter games? There are plenty of "digital goods" out there that don't have shitty DRM or require company servers to be online to access the content you paid for. Let's not talk about DRM like it's the only option.
    • toki5 14y ago
      What about them? Maybe I'm dense today, but I don't see how what you said relates to what he said. His mentioning DRM was ancillary to the main point, that you don't buy digital goods in the classical sense, but instead lease the right to use/play them. This applies to every form of software that has paid-for licensing, even those that don't have DRM attached to try and protect it.
      • charonn0 14y ago
• lgieron 14y ago
  As a person interested in developing games, I'd like to ask what's the aggravating factor here - the fact that many EA games require to be always online or the fact that EA's servers can't handle the load? I'm guessing the latter is the real problem, while the former is probably more a matter of principles (which for a majority of players don't matter) that a real annoyance.
  • Groxx 14y ago
    Both, I suspect, though not handling the load is as bad as shipping a game that simply doesn't work. But since they have to be online, you can't fire up a game on an airplane, for instance (unless you feel like buying the wifi). Nor in the car. Nor on the train. It also means it's simply a ticking time bomb - when they decide to end support, you lose your game, completely. I've out-lived a lot of products - why would <application X> be any different?
    • anywherenotes 14y ago
      It also means you can't play your game at home on your regular PC if your internet service goes out.
      • zem 14y ago
        which, were i a gamer, is exactly when i would want some large, complex game to occupy my time!
  • chc 14y ago
    The former is a real problem too. If your game is likely to just stop working sometime in the not-too-distant future, that drastically decreases its value to me. A game that I would have paid $60 for suddenly becomes at questionable deal at that price point, because you're essentially renting it to me. I would never pay the full price of a game for a rental. A lot of the people I know like to enjoy games for a long time, so if you take that guarantee away, suddenly I'm getting a lot less out of my purchase. TL;DR: If you're willing to charge in the single-digits for your game, sure, make it as limited as you want. If you want to charge like a real game, don't try to shortchange me with brittle DRM.
• Rickasaurus 14y ago
  They key is to never pre-order an EA game. You never know what you're getting into DRM wise.
  • mynameisvlad 14y ago
    Except they made it pretty clear that it will be an always-on game. :/
    • Anderkent 14y ago
      But they didn't make it clear it would be unplayable :)
• deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
• catchoftheyear 14y ago
  I'm the odd one out I know. EA refunded my money for BF3 after I complained about silly requirement for a browser plugin to play single player. Steam/Valve on the other hand actually did the opposite. They did not refund my money for games that had invasive DRM and were not marked but pointed me to their EULA that said they would disable my whole account if I made a charge back. https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=5406-WFZC-5519 https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=5406-WFZ... I despise online only DRM, but please lets not only bash EA here. Valve is just as bad.
• norswap 14y ago
  What's really terrifying about Diablo 3 is that it's the most in-piratable solo game yet. I think that most of the logic is server-side. So if Blizzard decides to pull the plug, you have no choice but to reimplement the whole server-side. Fortunately, Blizzard seems much more serious about the follow-up of their games than EA ever was (consider that Warcraft 3 patches are still being put out). Still, even Blizzard could not avoid server problems at launch.