Top
All Channels
Approvals 10/3 ▼
Dits (1) - 1236d ago Cancel
stickskills (2) - 1236d ago Cancel
Pandamobile (3) - 1236d ago Cancel
randomlyrossy (2) - 1236d ago Cancel
makta112 (1) - 1236d ago Cancel
chris_hague (1) - 1236d ago Cancel
270°

‘SimCity’ the latest victim of Metacritic user review bombing

StickSkills: "Everyone knew that the launch of SimCity would likely be rocky due to the huge demands placed on the servers of EA and Maxis."

Read Full Story >>
stickskills.com
Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community1236d ago
The story is too old to be commented.
Linsolv1236d ago

Maybe, if they didn't opt for always-online DRM, then we wouldn't have to worry about stress on the EA servers in a single-player game.

Just sayin.

Cirran1236d ago

Yay for cracks...*AHEM* I mean always online DRM.

zeal0us1236d ago

Funny how the DRM is doing the opposite of its actual purpose. Its hurting legitimate customers why the pirates are having a field day with no rain clouds in sight.

thesummerofgeorge1236d ago

zeal0us - True. It's also likely to turn otherwise honest paying customers to opt for a pirated copy instead. I just can't imagine this kind of DRM doing anything other than damaging a company's reputation, and making pirated games seem more attractive .

Blackdeath_6631236d ago (Edited 1236d ago )

i agree with @zeal0us DRM only hurts the legit users.some pirates go out of their way to purposefully crack always-online DRM games they see it as some kind of challenge. besides if they are able to crack the game and provide a version which can be played offline pirates will end up with a better version of the game than legit users it also provide further incentive to pirate the game for those who have and haven't already bought it. DRM is a lose,lose situation for everyone. the legit user gets screwed over and because of it people are more likely to crack and pirate the game.

HammadTheBeast1236d ago

It's so stupid, single players can't even build large cities because of the stupid focus on multiplayer. Sure, you can make a whole regions worth, but the only city "alive" will be the one you're working on, the rest are frozen in time.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1236d ago
TenkoTAiLS1236d ago

I don't even know why they bother trying to "protect" their games anymore. If you can make the DRM you can break the DRM. Most stuff is cracked or has a work around within hours of a release. They may as well give up and use the extra cash on something more useful that isn't just gunna get broken regardless of what they try.

As has been said, all the current DRM ends up hurting the paying customers. Kinda like those annoying anti-piracy ads on DVD and in the cinema. Why do I need to see that? I paid for my ticket/copy!!

Cirran1236d ago

Its to tell that one guy, in that one cinema, in that one country whom doesn't even care about piracy anyway... that he's a bad person.

Linsolv1236d ago

You wouldn't rip out a beating human heart!

Robotronfiend1236d ago

It is also for the people trying to bootleg the movie by recording it in the theater.

Thatlalala1236d ago

Games with Hardcore DRM have been proven to be some of the most pirated. Some will do it just to prove the fact, that it can be done.

Kran1236d ago (Edited 1236d ago )

I agree with you, BUT

It just annoys me that people give this game a low score just cause they can't play it. Why the hell do people go to metacritic to rage about it? How about actually going to EA about it instead of a place which hardly matters?

If the DRM wasn't so bad and people could actually play the game, it probably wouldn't be getting the hate it's getting.

3-4-51235d ago

Common sense...should have been discussed day 1 first meeting.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1235d ago
chrispseuphoria1236d ago (Edited 1236d ago )

SimCity probably isn't that bad of a game...

SnakeCQC1236d ago

aliens was a insanely crap game despite being in development for like 6 years(red dead redemption took 4 years and that was wow) people deserved to know and it got rightfully bombed on metacritic so does this game for its internet always on drm

Linsolv1236d ago (Edited 1236d ago )

IS it petty to spend $60 on a game and then not be able to play the single player mode because the servers are down? I'm not sure that's the definition of pettiness.

Metacritic user scores are rarely very far off of general opinion in the long-term, because as it turns out buffoonish sycophants are generally there to cancel out buffoonish haters, in approximate proportion to how much most people feel good or bad about the game.

In this case, and in many cases where the score stays low, it's because there's a quality about the game that is indefensible.

If we're to look at an article from Metacritic 2 years ago, listing biggest differences between critic scores and user scores, we see that they can only really point to two massive differences (there are a lot of differences that are notable, but mostly where the critics found the game great and users found it mediocre):

Modern Warfare 2 -- In which the critics got it wrong

and

Dragon Age 2 -- In which the game is such a massive shift in tone and story from the first game that it's comical to call them the same series

Generally, there's a reason user scores are low, and you can find out what that reason is and decide for yourself.

EDIT: Oh look, the OP of this thread deleted his comments and made them look totally innocent.

For the record, the statement I was responding to was something like:

"Metacritic needs to get rid of user-scores because people are always bombing games for petty reasons."

KrisButtar1236d ago

bubble up

buy a game for 60 bucks and cant play single player!! that reason alone should make the game flop

and what happens if the game does flop and the servers are shut down..you can never play that game again, even single player...

Robotronfiend1236d ago

I think it is acceptable to vote a game down since the game and DRM are inseparable. Part of playing the game is being able to log in to the EA servers. If they made a game that froze on the start up screen it would be roasted exactly the same with low score.

I remember something similar happening with Diablo 3... :-)

kevnb1236d ago

im pretty sure if they shut the servers down they would patch it first... Not taking sides, but i think thats pretty obvious.

TenkoTAiLS1236d ago

What I can never understand is how these multi million (billion?) dollar companies can't afford a truck load of servers to cope with the influx of users for new online games they release. These issues seem to arise every time a big brand online connected game goes on sale, yet the excuses are always the same. "We didn't expect...blah blah blah", how about learning from the past, and perhaps, god forbid, spending some petty cash on some extra servers >.<

FantasticBoss1236d ago

Multiple reasons.

The cost of increasing the server capacity becomes exponential the higher up you go. Once you hit a certain point it stops making economical sense. You combine that idea with the fact that the server load will NEVER be anywhere this high again after a week or so and it just becomes not worth the time, effort, and money.

It really does suck but in the end they have to weigh the ups and downs and make a decisions. Combine this with a company which is generally going to be more concerned with it's bottom line than anything else and you get this bottlenecks on launch day.

kevnb1236d ago

usually companies rent servers for these purposes.

ThreshStar1235d ago (Edited 1235d ago )

^ What Kevnb said.

I understand the cost issue, however you cannot, as a company that seeks out to make money, justify that by making your game a mess on Day 1 that this is a positive thing.

Most organizations perform a "Risk Assessment" - an analysis as to what has the most risk for being a costly risk as well as what can be deemed "acceptable losses".

If EA thinks that bad PR, angry consumers, and Game review companies actually giving the game low score BECAUSE of this very issue is an "acceptable loss" then they've offically lost their minds.

aGameDeveloper1235d ago

The developer can rent servers from Amazon or Google to balance the load if they have unexpected demand. They can gradually replace the rented servers with their own, if continued demand warrants it. After the heavy demand, they just stop using/renting the external servers. After a big patch, they can always spin them back up if demand spikes again.

WarThunder1236d ago

5 words: Only losers care about metacritic.

Kran1236d ago

Just to clarify those who don't actually know what they're hating about.

Like Diablo III, they're hating on the fact you have to always be online to play; this can cause problems, as you may d/c and lose progress, or you may not even be able to log in, or there's a giant amount of server lag, or there's a giant server queue

these amongst many things.

They're not really complaining at how bad the gameplay is. Just how bad EA are at publishing a game the correct way

Show all comments (35)
The story is too old to be commented.