Print 32 comment(s) - last by Integral9.. on Apr 1 at 12:06 PM

EA has had issues with server crashes during launch

Electronic Arts (EA) announced today that it will add more servers for its "SimCity" launch period in order to prevent further issues.

"What we are doing is deploying more servers over the coming two days which will alleviate many of the ongoing issues," said senior producer Kip Katsarellis on the EA forum. "We are also paying close attention to all the bug reports we are receiving from our fans. We've already pushed several updates in the last few days. Our live ops team is working 24/7 to resolve issues and ensure that bug fixes roll into the game as quickly as possible."

"SimCity" is an online-only game published by EA. It was released in North America on Tuesday, and was released in Europe today. It will make its way to the UK tomorrow.

While EA said there would be no server issues earlier this week, that didn't turn out to be the case as servers crashed at international launch. Many gamers on Facebook, forums, etc. have voiced their frustrations.

"Want to fix SimCity EA? Get rid of the stupid DRM and servers!" said one Facebook user. "We don't need them to play a single player game."

Source: Joystiq

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

How about this?
By Kurz on 3/7/2013 1:51:40 PM , Rating: 5
I will not give you any of my money EA. You ruined the last thing I charshed from my Childhood.

Have a Good Day Sir!

RE: How about this?
By Motoman on 3/7/2013 2:02:36 PM , Rating: 5
I concur. I was planning on buying this game...but after learning it requires internet? Nope. Forget it, EA.

Same goes for Ubisoft and their demonic Uplay thing. They utterly ruined the Heroes of Might & Magic franchise for me.

Both of those companies can go pound sand.

RE: How about this?
By Trisped on 3/7/2013 2:24:05 PM , Rating: 4
It is interesting, but not worth it.

Not only are there problems with the servers, but it is buggy.
I would probably have a better opinion of it if I could play the tutorial (to find out some of the new features and differences), but every time I tried the map would load, but nothing else would happen.

When I went to buy the game it struck me that I was buying from EA, a company I hated back in the late 90's because all the games I played from them were buggy and they seemed very anti-consumer. I figured I would give them another chance, but so far I do not want to buy anything from them ever again.

RE: How about this?
By Samus on 3/7/2013 11:51:40 PM , Rating: 3
I'm interested in this game, but will pass. BF3 is about as much as I can handle from EA regarding DRM, Origin, price tiering and obvious neglect to fix bugs and hacks viewable on YouTube for weeks.

EA is destroying developers.

RE: How about this?
By MrBlastman on 3/8/2013 1:46:46 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't the reboot supposed to have less depth than Sim City 4 with the expansions?

To me, that alone even before you look at the DRM is enough to stay away. Sim City has always been about adding more depth and complexity as the series went on. The fourth one had incredible depth and it was easy to get lost in it for hours at a time without even noticing. Only one other game designer has every achieved this and that is Sid Meier with his Civ games and even, believe it or not, Pirates (the reboot back in 2004 was engrossing).

The DRM though, even if the depth has not been sacrificed, is enough for me to stay away. Sim City 4 more than fulfills my city building fix, even if it isn't multiplayer.

RE: How about this?
By Motoman on 3/10/2013 11:34:36 AM , Rating: 2
...and now they're going to be giving out free games and stuff to "compensate" for the trouble people have been having.

A cute but meaningless gesture, as it does nothing to address the actual problem. Which, of course, is the fact that they make it require internet access.

Smart people will still refuse to buy the game because of that. EA, if you want to make amends and maximize your revenue and profits, knock it off with the internet requirement.

...and your f%cking DRM. Which is why I returned Spore unopened to the store when I received it as a gift. Smart people won't put up with your DRM even if the product is free to them.

There's a reason why you were voted the Worst Company in America.

RE: How about this?
By Motoman on 3/11/2013 11:16:23 AM , Rating: 2

We have no intention of offlining SimCity any time soon but we'll look into that as part of our earning back your trust efforts.

OK. Then we have no intention of buying SimCity any time soon. But we'll look into that as part of our waiting for you to become trustworthy efforts.

RE: How about this?
By SlyNine on 3/12/2013 3:07:52 AM , Rating: 2
I 2nd that!

RE: How about this?
By Kurz on 3/7/2013 2:05:50 PM , Rating: 2

RE: How about this?
By Manch on 3/7/2013 3:04:07 PM , Rating: 2
I had a speech impediment when I was a kid. I probably did charshed SimCity! LMFAO! I still play it. Don't know about this new one though. Online only? nah, I'll stick with the old ones

RE: How about this?
By drlumen on 3/7/2013 2:26:55 PM , Rating: 2
Same here. I don't believe anything that EA says or says they will do. No more money from me either.

I can't say I would buy this even if it were from another publisher though. I had my fill from playing the original to around SC3K.

RE: How about this?
By FITCamaro on 3/7/2013 6:00:58 PM , Rating: 3
You know I could live with internet required activation and regular "checking in". Constant connection is retarded. What happens if there's a hiccup?

What I really don't like is the required use of Origin.

RE: How about this?
By inperfectdarkness on 3/7/2013 9:33:36 PM , Rating: 3
I'll add Activision to that list.

RE: How about this?
By OCDtech on 3/11/2013 12:01:10 PM , Rating: 2
The only thing good about EA is how much their hatred of customers spurs opensource games. I love the Battlefield series of games, but haven't bought one since 2142 and never will again.

I will not buy another product from EA, period!

It's about costs
By DrApop on 3/7/2013 1:57:29 PM , Rating: 2
It costs them a whole lot less to fire up servers to host the game and then just sell a license to the user that is likely tied to his/her account.

Plus this prevents reselling the game when you get tired of it.

Not to mention that if you have to log onto their servers to play the games you will likely get advertisements in some way, shape or form for all their other products. This will help to cut down their marketing costs also.

RE: It's about costs
By Amiga500 on 3/7/2013 2:01:36 PM , Rating: 3
Of course - from their end it makes sense - otherwise they wouldn't do it.

But, for such a controversial move - you gotta make sure you don't exacerbate the situation. Rent added servers for a few days around launch - make sure you overkill the worst possible scenario. Then you can buy more servers as necessary to meet demand.

Stupid EA. Pure stupid. No doubt the number of servers was all in the "business plan" presented by some clown in a slick suit with a load of buzzwords but f**k all hard data to back it up.

RE: It's about costs
By Motoman on 3/7/2013 2:36:31 PM , Rating: 2
Or, you could just not senselessly make a single-player game require an internet connection at all.

RE: It's about costs
By artemicion on 3/7/2013 4:30:04 PM , Rating: 3
Or maybe he had hard data. For all the yelling and screaming that happened after the D3 release, there's still a huge amount of people who bought and played the game.

So, spend thousands of dollars on server load that will only be needed for a week or so at most before demand settles to a more constant level? Or buy less hardware aimed at meeting the normalized long run levels of demand, and just eat the criticism for a few weeks because 99% of gamers will forget about it within a month?

Option 1 might be the nice thing to do, but you don't always profit from nice. I certainly wouldn't describe it as stupid. What's stupid is consumers who are surprised when corporations do things like online DRM and invest in cheap infrastructure like this to turn a profit.

RE: It's about costs
By someguy123 on 3/7/2013 7:41:55 PM , Rating: 3
DFC surveyed the hours/player count for Diablo 3 in 2012 and saw it declining below COD 4. That game rode entirely on the brand name and many players were burnt not only by the server problems, but also by the loot/stat/skill tree overhaul. That's actually a pretty good example of a darling franchise that ended up dwindling thanks to bad business practices.

RE: It's about costs
By TSS on 3/7/2013 11:59:59 PM , Rating: 1
Says you. Everybody knew there'd be launch problems. Everybody knew EA wouldn't have enough server capacity. Because that's always been the case with EA games. Still people bought the game like drones.

Now EA managed to do launch while saving on the servers, then getting the right stats on use then add servers accordingly. They saved a lot on first month servers! And, just like the last umpeen times, people will have forgotten all about it next time they rape another IP or child-icons.

And it's only going to be worse with their course for micro-transactions. They are making bank with the simpons on mobile. You can already straight up buy resources in C&C tiberium alliance, straight up power selling.

EA can go burn. And ubisoft, AND activision. There are plenty of indie and small developers right now producing just as high a quality games. For example, hate diablo 3? check out path of exile, it's everything D3 should've been. Spend your money on that game, instead of blizzard. There's similar stories in every catagory.

Maybe they're not the franchises i remember, but screw it, i'd rather see my childhood dreams dead then turned into this.

RE: It's about costs
By Amiga500 on 3/8/2013 4:35:23 AM , Rating: 2
Now EA managed to do launch while saving on the servers, then getting the right stats on use then add servers accordingly.

Hence why I said rent added server capacity for a week or two.

Then tone it down when the bubble bursts and you get an idea of how many players there will be.

While you are right to point out how many have bought the game despite the issues - the real question is, how many have not bought the game because of the issues?

[Its reflective of the attitudes of many "slick" businessmen/women - they can quickly tell you the cost of doing something - but aren't so quick to appreciate the cost of not doing something.]

wha? no player2?
By Integral9 on 3/7/2013 2:45:23 PM , Rating: 2
I'm confused. I thought the new version of SC was going to incorporate some kind of multi-player scenarios. ie: competing cities for resources and citizens. Or just have a friend / alt playing the city next door that you can trade resources with.

What's the point of having SC online if it's not multi-player? I feel like this is either going backwards or the product isn't ready for launch and it got rushed out. Probably the later, knowing EA.

RE: wha? no player2?
By FITCamaro on 3/7/2013 5:59:47 PM , Rating: 3
You might try reading....anything about the new Sim City before posting this.

RE: wha? no player2?
By Integral9 on 4/1/2013 12:06:15 PM , Rating: 2
I could do that. But if I spend all day looking at my cell phone my boss would know I'm not working. And all gaming related sites (news included) are black listed on the company network. Sadly, this review is all I have.

Poor Maxis
By TakinYourPoints on 3/8/2013 7:22:17 AM , Rating: 2
I feel bad for the developers. By all accounts it is actually an excellent game, lord knows how much crunching and polishing and sweat and tears and caffeine the developers went through, and then this nonsense because of incompetence in deployment and policy (constant server connection required for a single player game?) by EA.

RE: Poor Maxis
By mcnabney on 3/8/2013 10:13:46 AM , Rating: 2
It is actually just eye-candy now.

Remember running water, power, subways? Gone.

And most importantly it eliminated the true sandbox and loading an old save.

In short, that means you can't construct a fantastic city and try a variety of devious ways to destroy it and then reload and try something different.

The replay-ability of this game is going to be pretty small.

RE: Poor Maxis
By TakinYourPoints on 3/8/2013 4:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
From what I understand they have applied more simulation and depth to the systems that are actually in the game. I can't say this from personal experience because I'm staying far away until this all gets sorted out. :)

Also, the people at Maxis must be miserable right now:


I was a huge simcity fan
By Spacy on 3/7/2013 2:46:15 PM , Rating: 3
I spent months looking forward to the release. Watching every video release with happiness hopping to continue what I considered the best city builder program ever. I own a cabin were I have no internet. A place were I go to getaway from the world, were I like to relax and have fun without being disturbed. I wont payee 60$ for a game I can't play.. End of Story...

RE: I was a huge simcity fan
By cyberguyz on 3/8/2013 1:36:37 PM , Rating: 2
I only spotted this new Simcity about a few weeks before it came out. I thought to myself "Woot! They are updating the SC4!". Pre-ordered a copy immediately.

In general it is a pretty decent game - in some ways a little less niggly than the older versions. But turning it into an MMORTS (mistake 1), then releasing it without enough servers backing it up (mistake 2)? stupid, Stupid, STUPID!

Want to design your own regions? No. Want to get right down into your city (CitiesXL has been doing that since day 1)? sorry - closest you are going to get to seeing your sims is itty-bitty stick figures yelling in simoneze at you. Want to draw your own highways? Inter-city trains? Fuggeddaboudit! I would have been down with all these shortcomings though, but they (EA and Maxis) have dione the unfogivable. They have made this game useless for me to play on the plane between Toronto and Vancouver -- one of SimCity's greatest and most pleasurable strengths.

This new Simcity would have been a really nice game only if only they left the required server connection out of it.

I am disappointed and dissatisfied to put it very mildly.

By lexluthermiester on 3/9/2013 1:35:32 PM , Rating: 2
EA, do you think your "persistent internet connection" requirements are having ANY effect on the hackers, crackers and pirates? There is a crack out RIGHT NOW that allows offline play. And that's, what, less than a week after release?

So do you think your "DRM" is working? News flash; IT'S NOT! But here's what it IS doing; 1, It's alienating people who have already purchased the game, 2, It's causing people who want to buy to think otherwise, 3, It's causing those of us who really want it to wait for a crack so we can play it whenever WE want too[not when you tell us we may].

Yuppers EA, you keep at it. Keep making games a pain in the backside to play. Keep trampling citizen/user rights under foot. Keep using a business model that is both pointless and ineffective. Keep making yourself look like a monkey *ucking a football. You'll end up just like THQ... And like THQ, no one will morn your passing...

By alpha754293 on 3/10/2013 3:27:20 AM , Rating: 2
I WAS excited about the new SimCity, but since it's online only - [buzzer]. Screw EA. I can agree to having a start-up check with a signed license server or something like that. But to require a permanent connection just to play single player - that's just dumb. Dumb DRM and the servers suck. I might as well be VPN'd in to play if that's the case.

What a shame
By flubaluba on 3/7/2013 9:49:53 PM , Rating: 1

I don't understand why coders are working for them, surely they feel embarrassed that there name is in any way linked to this game or any others that EA botches, i know i would be looking for a job where people are not left with the opinion that i am a bad coder. If i was not in on the profit of the game in any way i would be out of there, let the clever ceo that promoted drm find someone who can fix it all when bugs start coming out of the seams.

This is all bullshit about the servers by the way, they are just hoping that the stampeded to download and update the game will fall and the few servers they have will be enough, imagine that, a few thousand dollars and the problems could go away, but no they give themselves the threat of a lawsuit from all the angry gamers that were looking so forward to this game.Keep your eyes open i suspect there is going to be a huge claim made by gamers because of this, I would not be surprised if people bought into the game knowing they will be getting compensation as this is not something that they did not know was going to happen they knew it and refuse to do anything about it other than wait for the excited fans to stop trying to play it. And that is fraud.

"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs
Related Articles
"SimCity" to Make a Comeback in 2013
March 7, 2012, 10:18 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki