You're right, it was equally as pathetic an attempt at marketing a perfectly acceptable model for a single player game as one with online mulitplyer DRM requirements that more often then not will end up ruining a players experience. There are no potential benefits to having SimCity or Diablo consistently online as far as I can tell.
'SimCity' & the rights of gamers as consumers
- Thread starter DrToffnar
- Start date
You're right, it was equally as pathetic an attempt at marketing a perfectly acceptable model for a single player game as one with online mulitplyer DRM requirements that more often then not will end up ruining a players experience. There are no potential benefits to having SimCity or Diablo consistently online as far as I can tell.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
There's always the kickstarter project Civitas if you want a proper simcity game, I personally refuse to pay £40 for simcity in its current state when better games with significantly better production costs are half the price and a million times better.
In fact the two most recent releases Aliens and Tomb Raider are a great example of corperate greed.
Aliens made by greedy corperate monkeys was a shoddy incomplete game with a £40 price tag, Tomb Raider made by gamers for gamers is a fantastic fun and engaging game that costs less and is of much higher quality.
In fact the two most recent releases Aliens and Tomb Raider are a great example of corperate greed.
Aliens made by greedy corperate monkeys was a shoddy incomplete game with a £40 price tag, Tomb Raider made by gamers for gamers is a fantastic fun and engaging game that costs less and is of much higher quality.
- Joined
- 14 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 17,537
- Location
- Newcastle U/T
Aye aliens, buy the name |= make the money lol
How is Tomb Raider an example of corporate greed?
IMHO was a fantastic game, and they didn't charge £40 for it
Civitas? I shall be checking this out later. Kickstarter... the most anti EA thing there is possible to create xD
Nope no massive benefits in both cases. That said I do like the prospect of Sim City being always on and interconnecting your cities with others but the game only feels half designed around that as you don't really need to rely on others for resources and sharing of city features is cumbersome as well as being hidden away. For example I'm in a region with 4 other players yet I can't trade with any because our highways aren't connected?! I would have thought every highway/railtrack would be connected in a region but I guess not! This is more to do with my own luck choosing a plot but this is what I mean with half baked design around the always online.
If it went more down the online route I would understand it better, if it advertised sharing and made it a key component to the online gameplay then it would be more understandable. The same with Diablo, yep the auction house does add something to the game but you don't need it to play the game so why can't it be something that is accessible only when you want it to be?
This stuff will pass over the net few years as developers get their head around online design as well as collect real-world data. It will also make a lot more sense as most single player titles will be going the always online route to maximise the experience and prolong the life of the product, stuff like autolog in NFS games for example.
I'm 100% not interested in SimCity. Or rather, I'm very interested in SimCity, but I refuse point blank to hand over £40 to be unable to play the game when I'm on a 6 hour flight, and for EA to try to scam 50p out of me every 5 minutes.
I have no issue with activation, or even a requirement to log on every x days to verify... but always online just isn't possible in my daily life. And I have a major issue with paying for something, then paying for "DLC" which costs them a tiny proportion of the cost to produce. If "DLC" were like the old expansion packs which added a reasonable amount of content, I'd be game - but 60p for a different train? **** off.
I'll get a free game with pay content in the knowledge that it's up to me to decide what I spend, and the spending becomes proportional to my time spent on that game - or paying up front for a full game. I detest this idea that I've got to pay for something, then pay to use it or to complete it.
I have no issue with activation, or even a requirement to log on every x days to verify... but always online just isn't possible in my daily life. And I have a major issue with paying for something, then paying for "DLC" which costs them a tiny proportion of the cost to produce. If "DLC" were like the old expansion packs which added a reasonable amount of content, I'd be game - but 60p for a different train? **** off.
I'll get a free game with pay content in the knowledge that it's up to me to decide what I spend, and the spending becomes proportional to my time spent on that game - or paying up front for a full game. I detest this idea that I've got to pay for something, then pay to use it or to complete it.
Ignore
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,633
- Location
- Surrey
fixed. Diablo 3 was always going to sell well, regardless of DRM.
How is Tomb Raider an example of corporate greed?
IMHO was a fantastic game, and they didn't charge £40 for it
It's not, I think you misread.
This. A thousand times this.
Sucha great quote in the OP, and so true. Depressingly true.
Ok, so what happens if your provider has a problem where the internet is down for a few days, and you want to play the game you paid for?
Ok, so what happens if your provider has a problem where the internet is down for a few days, and you want to play the game you paid for?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,633
- Location
- Surrey
What happens if your electricity provider has a problem where the electricity is down for a few days, and you want to play the game you paid for?
In the end if you don't want to play a game that requires an online connection...then don't buy a game that requires an online connection.
The publishers are perfectly entitled to put it in, if the game sells poorly because people don't want it then they'd review the situation. If the game still sells well then clearly the customer base doesn't mind and it's just a loud minority whining on the internet with hypthetical situations that will rarely ever happen.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
Aye aliens, buy the name |= make the money lol
How is Tomb Raider an example of corporate greed?
IMHO was a fantastic game, and they didn't charge £40 for it
Aliens was the example, Tomb Raider is far from it, Crystal Dynamics made a fantastic game.
- Joined
- 14 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 17,537
- Location
- Newcastle U/T
Aye think I just misread
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
More importantly how many of the those 9 million sales continued playing after a month, most likely less than half due to the game being a bit.. crap.
What a rubbish comparison based on a less likely scenario. Stop trying so hard to play devils advocate.
![[TFU] Thegoon84](/styles/overclockers/avatars/6.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 7,089
- Location
- Swansea
Sorry worng thread
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,633
- Location
- Surrey
Well I can say that I've had my electricity off far more often than I've had my Broadband Connection down (although obviously the former then stops the latter working
) Plus I'm with one of the worst broadband providers!