Comments (13)
setaimx  +   560d ago
It's unfortunate that EA had to go and make the single player online-always. They really should have an option to log in online (just to authenticate if they're really worried about it) and then play offline so you don't have to worry about servers going down. That's essentially what they did with StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty, and while it isn't as good as being able to play totally offline, it's better than always-online DRM.
clearelite  +   560d ago
I'm glad they did it, because some people needed to know how awful it can be.

Paying for a (single player) game, then needing an internet connection to play is absurd imo.

There may be a few exceptions though.
#1.1 (Edited 560d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
2pacalypsenow  +   560d ago
Starcraft 2 is playable without internet , you just dont get achievements for it
#1.2 (Edited 560d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
KaptainJ  +   560d ago
The concept of having all cities connected with one another in an online world is cool and all, but it's a shame it had to go so terribly wrong once the game was released. According to Will Wright, he's had more fun with this installment than he's had in a very long time, so it's not a bad game in itself. Hopefully things work out soon, because I really would like to try it out for myself.
CaulkSlap  +   560d ago
It sounded good theory. As an extension to the classic single player epic management game.

But even if they sort out all the bugs and the servers work perfectly, the basic game is still completely broken imo. Basing everything around the multiplayer mode with small cities is just a joke.
TheLiztress  +   560d ago
While I love the general idea they were going for, I just don't think it should mean that you have to always be online to play. Offline play for this game seems to be a must. Though EA doesn't think so.
Reborn  +   560d ago
Should have been an optional thing. For example, if you were online, you could get certain benefits, or do as they originally intended.

If they were going to do such a thing, they needed an open beta, or something to stress test. But figures. As usual, game publishers fail to comprehend the basics.
masteroftheclaw  +   559d ago
Funnily enough, they had at least two betas but they were by invitation and capped at a certain amount. Why oh why have a beta if you're not even going to give it a shot with everyone to see if your game servers can withstand it?
spartanlemur  +   560d ago
If we refuse to buy these games then the market will be small and publishers will not produce for them. Unless governments act to regulate the industry sales models, the onus is on us to make wiser spending decisions. Supporting DRM-free games like The Witcher 2, which also had free dlc will teach publishers to return to the traditional games-as-art model of development. If governments continue to sleep, we'll have to take responsibility ourselves, unfortunately.
Bakkies  +   560d ago
That is one of the reasons why you shouldn't buy PC games on launch day.

Before I get a barrage of disagrees, here are some reasons:

-It could be a half assed port.
-DRM fiascoes.
-Wait a couple of months, hello steam sale(or similar).
-Launch day server woes.
-Overhyped trash.

Therefore let other people be the Guinea pigs and you'll save money.
ninjahunter  +   560d ago
Day 1: the new Beta.
kingPoS  +   560d ago
Hopefully publishers will use this as a cautionary tale of what not to do. In other words... don't bone over your paying customers
ACEMANWISE  +   560d ago
Service is never going to work for poor people like us.

It always ends up where the poor serve the rich. They are making you think you're rich.

In reality the service companies are the rich and we are serving them. We follow their rules, pay them money upfront, and always listen to their promises. We give them money to subsribe to an extra year of service...

so that we can serve them more.

We serve them by taking away the right to own a video game. In return we expect a little less lip and a little more service. Yet it doesn't happen and we wonder why.

Okay, who's serving who here. I bought this huge hard drive so that I may store my games. Wait...your games? I'm paying you for service so I can store games that belong to the online store? I could swear the button said "Buy". Oh, page 36 of the terms state you can do whatever you want. I buy the tv, stereo, internet, and console to see, hear, deliver, and access your games. I give you my name, address, credit card, face shot, and voice print in order for you to serve me? Sounds like we pay them to serve them.

The digital money, of course, stays real. No need for antipiracy measures, download limits, or behavior restrictions there. It's just secure and always accounted for, digital or not.

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
Remember