The Failure of the SimCity Launch.

[rob_simple]

Snip

Or, you know, you could not buy it and then vocally express why you're not buying it. I don't see how you think buying the game will suddenly make news sources stand up and take notice when you start complaining, but loudly proclaiming that you are not buying the games for the following reasons will have absolutely no effect. If bad press is all it takes to make a change, then buying the game doesn't make a difference.

I refuse to believe that publishers will only look at a sales sheet and then divine all information from that, because that is not how business works. Companies don't pour millions into market research to then make decisions on a whim. If people e-mailed the publishers in high enough numbers, they would have to take notice.

What I think is much more likely is that publishers know exactly how a lot of people feel, but they don't give a shit because they know people will buy their stuff anyway, which has been proven time and time again. The best proof of that is Mass Effect 3 (See what I did there?): what did all the complaining actually change? We still don't know what actually happened with the original ending, and we probably never will; all we got as way of reparations was some token DLC and the company still made a god damn fortune.

You're right, though, boycotts don't work, but only because people are too weak-willed to back up the words with action. If they were more willing to actually fight against this stuff instead of let it steamroll over them while crying about how unfair it is we'd get a lot more changed.

Of course, even then you have the problem that the most vocal parts of the community often don't represent the general mood; they just think that what they want should be what happens and will take the chance to tell every single person they can, whether it's appropriate or not.

 

[xshadowscreamx]

ummm this might sound dumb, cuz im not a PC gamer.. but cant you buy it at the store. or would there still be problems?

 

[Rachmaninov]

Snip

Or, you know, you could not buy it and then vocally express why you're not buying it. I don't see how you think buying the game will suddenly make news sources stand up and take notice when you start complaining, but loudly proclaiming that you are not buying the games for the following reasons will have absolutely no effect. If bad press is all it takes to make a change, then buying the game doesn't make a difference.

The answer to this question lays in this thread alone.

Not having the product leaves you unqualified to speak on what it does wrong, for a lot of people. A lot of people won't take you seriously unless you have played the game, and experienced its woes for yourself.

Someone who has bought the game, and is outraged about specific parts of the game will be taken much more seriously because it's self-evident that they've actually experienced it, and that they're not just regurgitating something someone else said.

A:CM is the best example of that. I almost ended up saddled with a copy of it, but I didn't because lots of people bought it and were outraged. If they'd not have bought the game, and said "Puh, looks shit. Call of Duty rip off with xenomorphs in it" I'd have let their basically meaningless criticism slide right past me. But because people bought the game, and then expressed their rage, along with videos of terrible gameplay, I listened. I actually stopped two of my friends from buying it, as well. And I won't have been the only one.

I refuse to believe that publishers will only look at a sales sheet and then divine all information from that, because that is not how business works. Companies don't pour millions into market research to then make decisions on a whim. If people e-mailed the publishers in high enough numbers, they would have to take notice.

As for only looking at a sales sheet, just boycotting alone simply doesn't give them any more information. As for emailing the publishers, again you're asking for the boycotters to unite under a single banner and it just can't be done. Publishers do take notice if enough people complain, but if you've not bought the game, they don't owe you anything. If you do buy the game, they do owe you for that.

No one would've taken the class action lawsuit against Microsoft regarding the Red Ring of Death if none of the people involved had ever bought an Xbox. Microsoft owed them a working product, because they bought one.

The best proof of that is Mass Effect 3 (See what I did there?): what did all the complaining actually change? We still don't know what actually happened with the original ending, and we probably never will; all we got as way of reparations was some token DLC and the company still made a god damn fortune.

That was more than boycotting has ever changed, for a start.

They made a public apology, they gave us free DLC (which is saying a lot from EA) and they added to the ending. That is actually a surprisingly large amount of work, and they did it all for "free", because people who paid for the game were giving them bad press.

You're right, though, boycotts don't work, but only because people are too weak-willed to back up the words with action. If they were more willing to actually fight against this stuff instead of let it steamroll over them while crying about how unfair it is we'd get a lot more changed.

That's not true.

The product of boycotts is low sales. Look at how publishers react to low sales, like the example I gave of Prototype 2.

Boycotts won't ever work, because;

1) Someone who hasn't played the game won't have their criticisms taken seriously.
2) Someone who doesn't own the game isn't owed anything by the publisher.
3) Even if you get people to agree to boycott AND email, in large numbers, the messages would have mixed reasons so any true message would be lost in the noise. And again, refer to (1)
4) The "gaming community" is only a small part of the people who buy games, and even if the whole "gaming community" boycott a product, the impact on sales would be small.
5) The end result of low sales is always the death of the developer. Nothing else. EA and Activision have both given us plenty of examples of that.

 

[Nurb]

Why are gamers putting up with this and still defend EA?

I don't know about others, but I have come to accept that launch day clusterfucks are just part of the steady march toward the everything being on "the cloud". Its not just EA I put up with this from, I went to unlock Deus Ex: HR on steam the second it came out, it took TWO HOURS to unlock. Not download, unlock. Even after I finished the unlock (which required me to restart steam several times for several different reasons) Steam instantly started to download something (which I can only assume was either a emergency day one patch or missing files that were left out to prevent you from cracking the game before the launch) at a speed that occasionally dipped in bytes per second. I don't hate EA or online DRM because I simply see them as the natural last step in the constant rush to make everything digital that I sometimes felt like I was the only one resisting.

Yea... and it is not acceptable.

It's like I said later on in my post; They are forcing these changes on customers that don't want them, they affect the customers negatively, but then tell the customers they are wrong for not wanting all digital cloud based games with microtransactions and forced multiplayer elements. They even insulted long time Maxis fans over wanting offline single-player.

They are forcing the change, they are causing these problems for themselves, but they aren't pulling it off and blame the customers when they are rightly criticized. They are trying hard to make gaming a monthly service you pay for as you go and pay extra for other content because if they control your entire gaming experience they can force you to give them money or not play video games. No one remembers dedicated private servers I guess.

Despite all the insults, rip-offs, and unreliable products people still defend them and give them money. I'm starting to think the people who do didn't start playing games until around 2003. They don't know a time when customers developed loyalty to the game creators and were rewarded for it instead of being seen as a sucker more willing to be nickle-and-dimed. There wasn't this much anger and bitterness until the big publishers bought up all those developers and created this monopoly on gaming.

 

[BeerTent]

I like how the people who quoted me, didn't catch a single thing I said... How's that for classy?

[...]

Hello there.

I heard you were wondering why people think EA is evil? I think maybe I could help you with that.

Just walk down this dark alley with me, and we'll talk.

[...]

I really don't need a history lesson on this. I've seen the articles, and I'll pass on the videos. I was wondering something completely different.

My point is, if you know you're not gonna like what your gonna get, why are you buying it? If your mind is dead set, "I'm going to fucking hate this." Why do you pay for it?[footnote]I will continue to pay money to eat mushrooms! And when my allergies kick in, boy you're going to get a mouthfull! (Possibly in projectile form!)[/footnote] If you're the sort of person who says "I fucking hate this company, and they don't deserve a cent!" Why do you continue to pay for the entire series 3 times?! I don't need an explanation on "why the company is evil." I need the explanation of "Why do you buy games you have a preconceived notion that it's going to suck ass? Why do you buy a game with always-online DRM if you're not okay with always online DRM? Are you that weak that you can't control your spending habits for six seconds?"

Figure that one out for me. And don't say "No demos" because there's tonnes of other ways to find out what a game is like.

 

[Rachmaninov]

My point is, if you know you're not gonna like what your gonna get, why are you buying it?

Because no one really knows they're not going to like it, is the simple answer.

If your mind is dead set, "I'm going to fucking hate this." Why do you pay for it?If you're the sort of person who says "I fucking hate this company, and they don't deserve a cent!" Why do you continue to pay for the entire series 3 times?! I don't need an explanation on "why the company is evil." I need the explanation of "Why do you buy games you have a preconceived notion that it's going to suck ass? Why do you buy a game with always-online DRM if you're not okay with always online DRM? Are you that weak that you can't control your spending habits for six seconds?"

People look into the game because it interests them. That little hook doesn't disappear just because you find out the game's got problems, like always-online DRM or being published by EA.

I'm interested in SimCity. That's why I'm here in this thread right now. I loved previous SimCity games and this one interests me, too.

I hate EA, and I hate punitive DRM, but I'm interested in the game.

And other people will be sharing this boat with me, they'll be in this same ambivalent state that I am. And until they buy the game, they only have word of mouth to tell them how bad everything is, and we all know that people over-exaggerate a lot of the time. So maybe they get the game just to see if its as bad as people say, or maybe they get the game because their excitement to play it outweighs their restraint, or maybe they get it because they realise the truth.

And the truth is, boycotting games is just never going to have the intended effect. If you're interested in a game, but you think the DRM might ruin it, your argument will be infinitely more compelling once you've bought it. If you're interested in a game, but hate the publisher, then the best choice is to buy the game (because it supports the developer) and then give the publisher bad press, if they did anything wrong in the game, by whining about it really loud.

Boycotts only reduce sales, that's all. If you know EA's history, you know what it does when a game doesn't sell. And you know that it isn't "become more customer-friendly.". And for those reading who don't know (and because I really can't say it enough times) what they do is blame it on the developer, and punish them... sometimes by firing the whole lot of them.

 

[BeerTent]

[...]People look into the game because it interests them. That little hook doesn't disappear just because you find out the game's got problems, like always-online DRM or being published by EA.

I'm interested in SimCity. That's why I'm here in this thread right now. I loved previous SimCity games and this one interests me, too.

"It's on origin." Pfft, Zero interest now. I'd like to see what the New Sim City has, sure. But, in my books, it's not worth going on a service I don't agree with. An iota of self control is required to get over that little hook.

It takes virtually zero effort to figure out what kind of experience your going to get. Don't preorder it, wait for the LPers to tell you about the problems they had on youtube. Check forums where people have said "Man, I'm kinda haven' a tough time getting on the servers." and "It's pretty laggy here in NA." Wait for reviews to tell you it's positives and negatives. I base my purchases off of metacritic. I can sift through the trolls no problem and figure out what the game boasts. My roomie wanted to buy War Z. He figured out it was all bullshit when he saw his first play of it on youtube. The "I had no clue!" people can only draw that excuse if they impulse bought a preorder. Again, Self control, and almost zero effort. Crisis averted.

I hate EA, and I hate punitive DRM, but I'm interested in the game.

And other people will be sharing this boat with me, they'll be in this same ambivalent state that I am. And until they buy the game, they only have word of mouth to tell them how bad everything is, and we all know that people over-exaggerate a lot of the time. So maybe they get the game just to see if its as bad as people say, or maybe they get the game because their excitement to play it outweighs their restraint, or maybe they get it because they realise the truth.

And the truth is, boycotting games is just never going to have the intended effect. If you're interested in a game, but you think the DRM might ruin it, your argument will be infinitely more compelling once you've bought it. If you're interested in a game, but hate the publisher, then the best choice is to buy the game (because it supports the developer) and then give the publisher bad press, if they did anything wrong in the game, by whining about it really loud.

Boycotts only reduce sales, that's all. If you know EA's history, you know what it does when a game doesn't sell. And you know that it isn't "become more customer-friendly.". And for those reading who don't know (and because I really can't say it enough times) what they do is blame it on the developer, and punish them... sometimes by firing the whole lot of them.

If someone gets the game, and doesn't mind the DRM, doesn't mind the multiplayer aspect, and enjoys the game. Power to them. That's awesome! I really hope they enjoy the game. That's not sarcasm, I feel the same way about COD, CS, and BF. CS ain't for me, but if you enjoy it. Keep on playin'.

A, I stress, successful boycott, something the gaming audience couldn't pull off if their lives depended on it, can actually get a publisher to take note of something. Just like everyone else, EA is a company, and it must earn money, and keep the assets that earn them money. They might not take the right course of action, but that's their problem. When you support the developer, keep in mind that you're only supporting them by 20% or less. The remaining 80% or more, goes to the publisher. Giving the publisher bad press is going to do jack shit. Don't like intrusive DRM? "Oh, the pirates are complaining. Our DRM works."

While it's terrible that if a game doesn't sell, it's the developer's fault, again, this is EA doing what any company would do. They'd retire that IP and call it quits. The developer may go down, but that's talent that's relocated and placed elsewhere. It's fucking awful, but if people hate EA as much as they say they do, this is what should happen. EA needs to lose it's money and assets. What has happened to THQ would happen to EA. The good IP's would be sold off to other companies, and the developers would shuffle along with them.

But EA's not that bad. Because they're still making money. You're telling them "Your evil" with your mouths, with your hands, but you're also saying "You're pretty kickass!" with your wallet. As a result, you've given them more resources to purchase more IP's, more studios, and now you have yourselves a giant ass metaphorical hole going "What the fuck, fuck this hole, it sucks!" and then turning around and getting pretty comfortable down there like you're having the time of your life.

Again; If you like the game, buy it, play it, enjoy it! But you really don't have much of a right to say "Fuck EA! They need to die!" when you're the one funding them. People on this bandwagon need to grow the fuck up, shut up, and just have a good time playing the games they enjoy. Published by EA or not.

That's all I got. That's the sole reason why this thread drives me nuts. Never mind the guys who haven't bought it saying "ooh, that's typical." It's the people that bought it saying, "I HAD NO IDEA! THERE'S ALWAYS ONLINE MULTIPLAYER! I DEMAND REFUND! WHY WONT THEY GIVE REFUND?! FUCK EA!" those guys are the ones that drive me nuts.

 

[RicoADF]

ummm this might sound dumb, cuz im not a PC gamer.. but cant you buy it at the store. or would there still be problems?

A retail copy still requires origin and always online to run......




....... there are reasons my PS3 still has its use.

 

[Rachmaninov]

"It's on origin." Pfft, Zero interest now. I'd like to see what the New Sim City has, sure. But, in my books, it's not worth going on a service I don't agree with. An iota of self control is required to get over that little hook.

You try to make it sound black and white, but it isn't. People may hate EA, Origin or DRM, but they may love SimCity more.

Emotions are not binary affairs, they're not "on" or "off".

It takes virtually zero effort to figure out what kind of experience your going to get. Don't preorder it, wait for the LPers to tell you about the problems they had on youtube. Check forums where people have said "Man, I'm kinda haven' a tough time getting on the servers." and "It's pretty laggy here in NA." Wait for reviews to tell you it's positives and negatives. I base my purchases off of metacritic. I can sift through the trolls no problem and figure out what the game boasts. My roomie wanted to buy War Z. He figured out it was all bullshit when he saw his first play of it on youtube. The "I had no clue!" people can only draw that excuse if they impulse bought a preorder. Again, Self control, and almost zero effort. Crisis averted.

Despite my anti-boycott rhetoric, I actually do think encouraging people not to preorder something is a very good idea.

Preordering is a very bad idea. I would like to persuade as many people as possible to stop preordering.

But even Metacritic and Let's Plays aren't a true test of whether or not you will like a game. I liked a game called "Too Human" a lot, and that bombed on Metacritic, and would be boring as all hell to watch in a Let's Play.

The one and only true test, is to play the game yourself. For some people, the true test is too much of a risk based on what they've heard, and that's okay. But for some others, the risk is worth finding out. And at the risk of sounding confrontational; it's not really your place to say that other's motivations aren't valid.

A, I stress, successful boycott, something the gaming audience couldn't pull off if their lives depended on it, can actually get a publisher to take note of something. Just like everyone else, EA is a company, and it must earn money, and keep the assets that earn them money. They might not take the right course of action, but that's their problem.

Firstly; since you know you're talking about something that will never happen, why are you bringing it up as the solution? Shouldn't you be looking for something that can happen?

Secondly; it's not the publisher's problem when they close a studio. It's ours. Let me give you another example;

Activision gets incredible sales for Prototype 2, but less than they wanted. So what do they do? Well, they sack the majority of the developing studio, absorb the rest to work on their other projects, and then they cite Prototype 2's "failure to find a broad commercial audience" as the reason.

And how exactly is that "Activision's problem"? They've still got plenty of other titles. They're not going to go broke. In fact, they might even be a little richer for sacking Prototype 2's devs.

No. It's our problem, because then we end up with even less variation, as the smaller studios are crushed and their remaining staff are repurposed to work on the "less risky" franchises.

When you support the developer, keep in mind that you're only supporting them by 20% or less. The remaining 80% or more, goes to the publisher. Giving the publisher bad press is going to do jack shit. Don't like intrusive DRM? "Oh, the pirates are complaining. Our DRM works."

You're supporting the developer a lot more than that. You're supporting them at least 100% of the value of your purchase, if not more. And do you know why?

Because the publishers will let them work on more projects, and give them more funding, if the games they make are popular.

And as for your comment about giving them bad press doing jack shit? That's simply not true.

EA keep having press releases [http://www.nowgamer.com/news/1837701/microtransactions_not_evil_people_are_buying_it_studio_head.html] at the moment, because people are whining about microtransactions and it's giving them bad press . In fact, CliffyB felt the need to weigh in against the bad press [http://www.vg247.com/2013/03/01/bleszinski-defends-microtransactions-ea/], on EA's side. And those press releases will be read by a lot more than the noisy minority who are complaining about it. It'll be read by people who had no idea microtransactions even had a name, and it'll make them sound like a big problem, because mighty EA have had to backpedal on their statements [http://uk.gamespot.com/news/ea-clarifies-position-on-having-microtransactions-in-all-games-6404901]. All because people are complaining. That alone is more than boycotting has literally ever done for gaming.

But on top of that, whining got Valve to give out free DLC for L4D, it got Capcom to say it was done with Day One DLC [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.375215-Capcom-Says-Its-Done-With-On-Disc-DLC], it got Mass Effect 3 a new ending and most importantly of all, especially given your mention of complaining about DRM, it got EA to stop using SecuROM. Boycotting didn't do any of that, buying the games and obnoxiously moaning about it did.

But EA's not that bad. Because they're still making money. You're telling them "Your evil" with your mouths, with your hands, but you're also saying "You're pretty kickass!" with your wallet. As a result, you've given them more resources to purchase more IP's, more studios, and now you have yourselves a giant ass metaphorical hole going "What the fuck, fuck this hole, it sucks!" and then turning around and getting pretty comfortable down there like you're having the time of your life.

You're right, except for the fact that the people you're talking to are simply too few to make a difference by boycotting.

You're talking to the "gaming community" the people who play games, and want to talk to other people about them, especially on the internet. And that is the minority of people who buy games.

The fact is, if we rallied behind you and boycott publishers and DRMs we didn't like, the only games we could crush are the ones we want to crush the least; the niche, "risky", unusual titles. But then, EA would still have FIFA, they'd just go back to making FIFA, and the majority who buy into it would still fill their coffers with enough money to start buying studios again. So we'd end up in a never-ending cycle of crushing every attempt EA has of ever moving away from EA Sports, while not depriving it of the ability to buy more studios that we'd crush in turn.

But when we buy the game, the studio doesn't die, and when we whine loud enough the majority hear us. That is why EA feels the need to respond to us publicly. Because when gamers get headlines on Forbes [http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/03/21/did-the-real-mass-effect-3-ending-go-over-everyones-heads/] EA starts to worry about their PR, and particularly about that majority who fill their pockets without being part of the "gaming community".