EA trying to make up with us consumers....but not in the way we want.

[Areloch]

Realistically, a question I would posit, is if they're so generous in a time of customer dissatisfaction, why would they drop a coupon for a game instead of just simply giving unhappy customers a refund as they request it?
I'd imagine that's actually more where the ire is coming from than 'EA actually does something nice, but I'm still angry! Grr!'

 

[Genocidicles]

I think most people would prefer an offline mode over some shitty $20 game tied to Origin.

 

[raankh]

The game still doesn't work, though. The most failed launch in video game history, according to the pundits. I doubt everything will be alright come Monday.

 

[Tom_green_day]

I think people in general mistakenly think that all consumers hate EA. I know I don't, and I'm pretty sure there are lots of other people in my boat. They've never done anything to me... Except give me free Mass Effect DLC.

 

[Nazulu]

I feel they still haven't told us they're not going to do this ridiculous DRM again.

 

[Areloch]

Realistically, a question I would posit, is if they're so generous in a time of customer dissatisfaction, why would they drop a coupon for a game instead of just simply giving unhappy customers a refund as they request it?
I'd imagine that's actually more where the ire is coming from than 'EA actually does something nice, but I'm still angry! Grr!'

To answer your question it is because this costs them absolutely nothing, where as refunds cost them money

Think about it, chances are high that the game they give away will be an older one that is already done making them money, anyone who wants it already has it. And two, the chances are even higher that the game is already made, meaning they are spending nothing on development for it. Unless they decide to do something like "Well here is the first SImcity DLC free!"

So giving away new game cost to EA: $0, Giving refunds to people cost to ea: $60 a refund.

Make sense?

Oh, no, I'm fully aware of that. It was a semi-rhetoric question directed to the people getting uppity that people are still mad at EA after having gotten a token throwaway free game, instead of getting a refund as many customers are asking for.

 

[funnydude6556]

EA actually tries some form of compensation, and people complain. Why am I not surprised? I mean, granted, their screw up is still a big deal. I'm not disagreeing there. It could have also been avoided by having an offline mode. The fact that there isn't an offline mode is a big deal for Simcity. But the title just screams "overly self-important" to me. "They are giving compensation, but not the compensation I want!"

Just out of curiosity, what would have been the compensation fans wanted? The game being made free?

No it would have been changing the game so you can play it offline. Finding a way to patch the game so it didn't need to be played online, yeah it sounds like it'd be hard to do but then EA Games shouldn't have introduced always online DRM. Nobody gives a fuck about some other free game, a lot of us want to play Sim City offline the way a single player game ought to be played. This isn't compensation it's a sad attempt to shut us up so they can keep their DRM in the game.

I mean they say it's like a friend screwing up and giving you a gift as an apology. No it's not, it's like a friend making a mistake and instead of fixing said mistake giving you something you don't even want and then acting as though it's all over now despite the fact that your TV they smashed in is still broken. The small gift doesn't fix the broken TV and this free game doesn't solve Sim City's DRM problem. Also I say small since come on nobody here actually believes the free game is going to be worth more then a tenner.

EDIT: I just thought. I can see this issue being the next episode of Jimquisition.

 

[Legion]

EA actually tries some form of compensation, and people complain. Why am I not surprised? I mean, granted, their screw up is still a big deal. I'm not disagreeing there. It could have also been avoided by having an offline mode. The fact that there isn't an offline mode is a big deal for Simcity. But the title just screams "overly self-important" to me. "They are giving compensation, but not the compensation I want!"

I agree. Sure EA screwed up, and sure they aren't giving compensation out of the goodness of their hearts, but it's still compensation. It's better than nothing, and they are not legally required to do it either.

 

[RJ 17]

EA actually tries some form of compensation, and people complain. Why am I not surprised? I mean, granted, their screw up is still a big deal. I'm not disagreeing there. It could have also been avoided by having an offline mode. The fact that there isn't an offline mode is a big deal for Simcity. But the title just screams "overly self-important" to me. "They are giving compensation, but not the compensation I want!"

Just out of curiosity, what would have been the compensation fans wanted? The game being made free?

This is pretty much exactly where I'm cooming from as well. My distaste for EA is about as strong as anyone else's...they've taken a number of series that I've genuinely enjoyed (the latest being Dead Space) and absolutely bastardized them to the point of being unrecognizable (which is why I have absolutely no intention of picking up Dead Space 3, ever, and I blame EA's "We want to broaden the game's audience" approach for ruining a series I enjoyed).

And I'm certainly not saying that a pay-off is going to change anyone's mind about EA or DRM or any of that crap, but come on...a free game's a free game. Granted, I'd have to see the list you could choose from before I could give my opinion on whether or not it was actually worth it (getting DS3 for free, to stay with my example, is the only way I'd play it ). You don't have to forgive them when they give you a free game, but I don't think it's nice to just spit in their face when they're trying to give you a free game. Cause, well, it's a free frickin' game. You know that it isn't going to change your mind about EA or the fuck-ups with SimCity, but that doesn't mean you can't take the free game they offer and be glad they didn't just say "Yeah, SimCity's fucked up, we're working on it. We'll get back to you in a month or so. Until then, deal with it." Because they could have just as easily done that.

 

[Auron]

If they give me the sims, I'll be madder than if they didn't bother.

 

[Colt47]

It probably comes down to not being able to scale back the DRM easily due to how they designed the game and the fact the company doesn't want to scale it back. In the view of a company like EA, launch problems are short term problems that go away after a certain amount of time and some quick fixes (much like how people now grumble about the always online DRM in Diablo 3, but it isn't generating a blazing consumer retribution). It's stupid, but unfortunately true. The only way around it long term would be to not purchase any game from the publisher and give reasons why, as well as keep up the issue for a year or more.

 

[Loonyyy]

EA is actually giving REWARDS to loyal customers. Call Lucifer and tell him to turn off his AC. There may be hope for the universe yet.

It's more of a "here's some free crap, now stop complaining" thing more than anything.

And you would suggest what other way of dealing with the problem?

There is no rational way in which giving you something free as recompense for a fuck up can be construed as a negative.

Of the potential courses of action:

-Do nothing (As did Blizzard with D3, and numerous other entities at various times).

-Offer a reward for "patience" (Company policy in loads of places is to give free shit to disadvantaged customers)

-Offer refund.

Clearly they haven't chosen the best option, but then again, that hasn't been a real option with video games for a long time anyway, so people should be used to that by now. At least here they do something positive.

And that title's just annoying as hell. "Us consumers" "not in the way we want". Oh good, we've got the spokesman for all consumers on the line. You might want to add to your little rant what exactly you do want (And why that's what everyone wants, and why it's reasonable), so we're all on an even footing here.

 

[Maeshone]

No it would have been changing the game so you can play it offline. Finding a way to patch the game so it didn't need to be played online, yeah it sounds like it'd be hard to do but then EA Games shouldn't have introduced always online DRM. Nobody gives a fuck about some other free game, a lot of us want to play Sim City offline the way a single player game ought to be played. This isn't compensation it's a sad attempt to shut us up so they can keep their DRM in the game.

I mean they say it's like a friend screwing up and giving you a gift as an apology. No it's not, it's like a friend making a mistake and instead of fixing said mistake giving you something you don't even want and then acting as though it's all over now despite the fact that your TV they smashed in is still broken. The small gift doesn't fix the broken TV and this free game doesn't solve Sim City's DRM problem. Also I say small since come on nobody here actually believes the free game is going to be worth more then a tenner.

EDIT: I just thought. I can see this issue being the next episode of Jimquisition.

If a game was designed from the start with the idea of always being online and playing on a server with other players, then it's not a fucking single player game. Sorry, but you are completely off base with this. Not to mention that the online part is hardcoded into the games architecture, you can't just freaking remove it with a patch. I don't understand how this can be so hard to understand? Besides, this game was billed from the start as a multiplayer only game, so if you still bought it expecting to be able to play single player then you are at fault again.

 

[Arina Love]

Sweet a free game! and i wasn't even mad XD thanks EA!