Yer I bought it, and have played it a bit though I have had a heap of issues with servers. I wish I didn't buy it now, its a lovely game but the process of playing it is simply stupid.
Online gaming is nothing like your example. EA blew it by not ensuring there was enough hardware in place to handle the demand for game play. By your reasoning, MMOs should be able to be played locally on your machine, therefore negating the MMO aspect of the game. Doesn't work that way.
SimCity isn't a true MMO, but that's beside the point.
The problem isn't enough hardware, they've been throwing up new AWS instances since launch. If EA has 100 machines at this point, then there's nothing AWS can do. It could be that their AWS infrastructure is on point and the problem lies elsewhere.
Many problems are not magically solved by throwing more machines at them. Instead, it seems more to do with their DevOps practices, and singling out EA for bad tech is like beating a dinosaur...it's been dead for millions of years. They need to switch their thinking from how to prevent downtime to expecting it and recovering as quickly as possible. One way of doing that is by avoiding single point of failures.
The entire SimCity network stack is one, right now: when it goes down, nobody can access the service. That encapsulates another set of problems that are intrinsically singular. You could use friends lists, as an example of such a problem. No matter how much horizontal and vertical scaling you do, it will eventually be possible for a player to create a friends list that has so many friends on it that operations on it end up becoming prohibitively expensive. Friends list operations end up effectively being JOINs.
Another problem they have is storage. For instance, many US players got placed on a European server due to high-load, and when they moved back to US West all their data was lost. Saving data should be a separate, independent service to the game servers itself. By doing that, it'll make it easier to transfer data globally and later cache locally for the game servers. Besides, there's really no need to make players pick a server -- choose the fastest one for them!
DRM. If they're requiring playing on a server as a form of DRM, then they should consider following the MineCraft model. Every time a player starts playing on a SimCity server, it could phone home to check if they've actually purchased the game. If for some reason it can't communicate with the DRM server, it falls back to offline mode which allows players to still play the game.
It would have been one thing if they marketed this as a service-based game, but they didn't. They marketed it as a box game and did a bait-n-switch.
And you can shut up tooThis story with what you did to Lisa, could never ever get old..
Why the servers are not able to sync up when you get thrown onto another server without losing your city is unbelievable, and somewhat unforgivable. This is mainly why i have not thoroughly played it yet because that absolutely ruins the gaming experience. The fact is EA were unprepared, they knew this and I think they thought they could get away with it and ride this one out like blizzard did. That being said, I hope they release or fix the servers so they sync up and players are able to join any server without losing their cities., I mean that alone spending countless of hours and then losing everything would result me in abandoning the game. Maybe.
I have to say the bait and switch is something EA is notorious for...I mean, I don't know any other game maker for xbl that requires you to pay for a separate subscription to their services besides your xbox live services. The titles are the same average price as your premium game titles yet they don't make it super obvious that you need a secondary online account with their system to play. And speaking of bait and switch, it is not very nice that they shut down the online services less than 2 years after a game's release.SimCity isn't a true MMO, but that's beside the point.
The problem isn't enough hardware, they've been throwing up new AWS instances since launch. If EA has 100 machines at this point, then there's nothing AWS can do. It could be that their AWS infrastructure is on point and the problem lies elsewhere.
Many problems are not magically solved by throwing more machines at them. Instead, it seems more to do with their DevOps practices, and singling out EA for bad tech is like beating a dinosaur...it's been dead for millions of years. They need to switch their thinking from how to prevent downtime to expecting it and recovering as quickly as possible. One way of doing that is by avoiding single point of failures.
The entire SimCity network stack is one, right now: when it goes down, nobody can access the service. That encapsulates another set of problems that are intrinsically singular. You could use friends lists, as an example of such a problem. No matter how much horizontal and vertical scaling you do, it will eventually be possible for a player to create a friends list that has so many friends on it that operations on it end up becoming prohibitively expensive. Friends list operations end up effectively being JOINs.
Another problem they have is storage. For instance, many US players got placed on a European server due to high-load, and when they moved back to a US server all their data was lost. Saving data should be a separate, independent service to the game servers itself. By doing that, it'll make it easier to transfer data globally and later cache locally for individual game servers. Besides, there's really no need to make players pick a server -- choose the fastest one for them!
DRM. If they're requiring playing on a server as a form of DRM, then they should consider following other, more successful, models. Every time a player starts playing on a SimCity server, it could phone home to check if they've actually purchased the game. If for some reason it can't communicate with the DRM server, it falls back to offline mode which allows players to still play the game.
It would have been one thing if they marketed this as a service-based game, but they didn't. They marketed it as a boxed game and did a bait-n-switch.
Online gaming is nothing like your example. EA blew it by not ensuring there was enough hardware in place to handle the demand for game play. By your reasoning, MMOs should be able to be played locally on your machine, therefore negating the MMO aspect of the game. Doesn't work that way.
Not exactly, they did crap out quiet a bit on the BF3 franchise which we were so excited about and built http://battlefieldo.com for. Although I do not play it much anymore and have left anything related to EA, it's just a waste of time, they aren't respectful, their support is awful, they are milking the hell out of any game they are releasing, etc. My only hope on keeping the gaming industry semi-stable is Valve at the moment. Time to support the little guys again.Pretty much everything made by EA nowdays is junk. Their best games come from independent studios they finance, but leave to do their own thing.
Someone is already working on making it available offline.I hate it! I was so excited when I purchased it but the game has turned out to be total crap. Well, not the gameplay itself, more like the servers and the fact you cannot play offline. Also, if you switch servers, your cities do not move with you, so you have to start a new.
Worst Sim City ever made.
Really? Tell us moreSomeone is already working on making it available offline.
Friend only told me he's making it so it'll connect once initially to check to see if its not a pirated copy, and then it'll allow for people to play offline.Really? Tell us more
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.