backtop


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

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
quote:
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.]


"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber

Related Articles
"SimCity" to Make a Comeback in 2013
March 7, 2012, 10:18 AM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki