SIMCITY's always-online screams for urban renewal

I've been under the weather most of the past few days (not with flu but it felt like it) so this blog ground to a screeching halt. That didn't mean I was without entertainment though. For the most part that involved watching the FUBAR that Electronic Arts has made of SimCity since launching it last week...

We built this city on DRM!

This is a SimCity game.  The fifth major one since the series launched in the late Eighties.  HOW in the name of all that's good and holy does anybody... anybody... mess up a SimCity game??

EA did.  And the bustling metropoli promised to millions of players have in less than a week turned into virtual ghettos of riot and violence that even Amazon.com decided to steer clear of: the online retailer halted sales of SimCity for both physical and digital download versions.

Just like Diablo III, the heart of the problem is that SimCity requires an always-online Internet connection.  Allegedly as a Digital Rights Management (DRM) anti-piracy measure.  To be honest it's worse than Diablo III: that game's always-online obligation is a supposed "necessary component" of its Real Money Auction House (never mind that some of us don't care about spending real money for in-game gold and items).  No, SimCity has to be online because most of the game's processing takes place server-side.

Yeah you read that right.  What used to be localized to your PC or desktop, wherever you happened to be, is now something that EA's corporate computers handle for you.  EA says it's because SimCity is now an online multiplayer game and one of its innovations is inter-city commerce such as buying and selling resources and even hiring virtual people to move to your town.

'Course, that's if the game works at all.  As of this writing EA is still struggling to meet the demands of players: some of whom are reportedly waiting twenty hours or more before they can successfully log in.

I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't sound like a complete game that EA is selling with SimCity.  It's more like a licensed client application.  One that isn't living up to its advertised capabilities.  And EA is refusing to give out refunds (they are giving a free game to people affected however, whatever that will entail...)

This is by far the worst launch of a video/computer game in the history of anything.  The players are in an uproar, the game's ratings are plummeting (some established gaming news sites are refusing to even review SimCity) and some retailers are now refusing to stock it at all.  EA is acknowledging the problems and some in the company have suggested that an offline mode could be implemented.  Others however are saying that it's impossible: that the game was designed from the very beginning to require always-online in order to work.  That this was even considered at all makes one question EA's consideration toward their customers.  One alleged EA employee has gone public with what has gone on at EA that made SimCity an "embarrassment".

There is much more that could be said about this than is possible in one blog post.  However Erik Kain at Forbes.com has an excellent piece about the legal ramifications of always-online and how it is bad policy for both gamers and publishers.  Joystiq's Alexander Sliwinski also has some fantastic examination and analogy about what SimCity and Diablo III's always-online DRM means in terms of customer service and support.

In the meantime, I will not be purchasing or playing SimCity.  EA's negligence has even given me pause to wonder if their Dead Space 3 is worth plunking down my coin for.  Just as I won't be buying Diablo III until Blizzard gives us an offline mode... and I'm wondering if that company's Heart of the Swarm expansion for StarCraft II deserves an investment on my part as well.  I mean, why should I respect any company with my money if that company doesn't respect me as a consumer?

Read More

DIABLO III on consoles WON'T require online?! What the...

This past summer I wrote about being a newcomer to the Diablo computer games and how much now I wanted to play Diablo III.  The thing is, I'm not happy one bit about the latest entry in the series requiring a constant Internet connection to play, especially being the kind who favors the single-player experience over the multiplayer (true MMOs being the exception).  Ever since Diablo III rolled out last May the game has been plagued with hordes of problems involving the "always online" obligation.  It has made no sense whatsoever and it has been the one major obstacle toward my choosing to invest any money toward this game, and that's no doubt what's kept many others from buying it as well.

Now comes word that software studio Blizzard Games and its parent company Activision might - gasp! - have heard the complaints and taken them to heart!  Sorta.  The upcoming port of Diablo III to the PlayStation 3 and new PlayStation 4 consoles will NOT require a persistent Internet connection.  In the greater scheme of things it means that the PlayStation 4 itself won't need to be always-online to function (Microsoft, take note!) but for PC and Mac players of Diablo III it comes across as an insult.  The only real purpose of the constant Internet for this game was its Real Money Auction House, which players can buy and sell in-game loot and gold (and which Blizzard takes 15% of the profit).  Many have suggested that the Auction House was the true goal of Diablo III and that everything else about the game was just decoration... which might make Diablo III the most expensively beautiful Internet sweepstakes client in the history of anything.

Blizzard and Activision are taking a step in the right direction, but they need to go much further.  As I wrote back in July about how to fix Diablo III, the always-online requirement for Windows and Mac players needs to be halted (which would let the Linux users enjoy it without worry) and players should be given the choice to opt-out of the Real Money Auction House.  If it's fraud that Blizzard is concerned about, I can think of a dozen ways how that can be addressed without the cost of convenience (and good sense) to the players.

I don't own a PlayStation 3 and I doubt that I'll get a PlayStation 4 (no offense meant to Sony's faithful gamers).  But I will eagerly give Diablo III the benefit of the doubt and my money... and many others would certainly do likewise... if Blizzard could give PC gamers the same respect as our console-playing friends.

Read More

How to fix DIABLO III (from a new Diablo player)

Late last night I finished Diablo II. That was my first time playing it since the game came out just over a dozen years ago. I chose a Paladin and got him up to level 41 - outfitted with a nice bit o' kit - before vanquishing the demon Baal at the end of the Lord of Destruction expansion pack.

Now I understand why the Diablo series has captivated millions of players. I also sought out and played - also for the very first time - the original Diablo from 1996 before going headlong into the sequel. I had a Hell (horrible pun intended) of a great time with each!

Unfortunately, unless producer Blizzard Games effects some drastic changes, it looks like it'll be around 2024, if at all, before I even consider purchasing Diablo III.

So if you're new to the scene, Diablo III came out two months ago amid insane hype and high expectations befitting a game series' latest chapter twelve years in the making. All well and good... except Blizzard decided for whatever reason to force Diablo III to always be connected to the Internet. Which makes no sense at all because Diablo and Diablo II, although they had multiplayer components, were by and large single-player games. Obviously the multiplayer aspect is going to require an Internet hookup but nobody's been obligated to be online with the first Diablo games at all to enjoy them. Diablo III however mandates this ludicrous requirement (and sucks to be those poor saps living in areas yet to be reached by broadband).

So what's happened from the very first moments of Diablo III getting released? Multitudes of players unable to play at all because the Diablo III servers are overloaded or down completely (the now-notorious "Error 37" message). Worse, many players are reporting that they have lost money... as in actual currency from their bank accounts... because of glitches, servers gone awry and just plain bad judgment on the part of Blizzard.

It all comes down to the Real Money Auction House (RMAH) that Diablo III incorporates. One of the bigger appeals of Diablo II was the looting: killing monsters for a wide variety of weaponry, armor and clothing, etc. You began Diablo II with one of several basic characters and during the course of the game you can "trick them out" and make it a persona all your own. And pretty early on, there began to be a for-profit trade going on through eBay and other venues for in-game items.

So Blizzard decided that it wanted a piece of the action when it set out to make Diablo III. And that seems to be the only reason why this game was produced at all, based on the complaints (many have been left on the game's page at Amazon.com). Blizzard set up the Real Money Auction House allegedly to counter in-game scamming and the like. It works like this: if you find a rare item, you can sell it on the RMAH. Other players can bid on it or buy it outright with a credit card or PayPal account or somesuch tied in to your Diablo III profile. The other player gets hard-to-find items, you get real-world profit... and Blizzard makes 15% profit from the item's sale. Different items drop at various frequencies, and the drop rate can be adjusted by Blizzard. I suppose it could be said that Diablo III is the most glorified Internet sweepstakes game around, but I digress...

The RMAH has caused unprecedented grief from a video game: One player lost $200 because of a snafu involving his traveling abroad. Several players using Linux systems were banned apparently because of their chosen operating system, leaving them high and dry and minus $60 they paid for the game at retail. There have been many players who have filed complaints on Blizzard's official message boards, only to find themselves banned and censored.

Blizzard had the opportunity to practically print money with Diablo III. And they wasted it all on what must be the worst case of corporate bungling of a video game in decades.

Look, I want to play Diablo III eventually. But I don't want to be online all the time nor do I see why a single-player game would require it. I don't want to have to worry about whether a remote server is up before I want to play. I don't want a video game to stop working entirely because it misconstrues some system quirk as "cheating". And I have far more important things to do with my time than to run around a nonexistent landscape trying to buy or sell objects which aren't real with my hard-earned money.

And it looks like I'm not the only one who feels that way either: Diablo III has seen a massive drop in the number of active players since its release just two months ago.

So let's sum up: Diablo III is a game that many would play except for the always-online requirement, or that many have already played and given up out of frustration and boredom. Blizzard is raking in serious coin from game sales and the Real Money Auction House right now... but having admitted that there is little to do after the game ends and without compelling new content, that will likely be considerably short-term profit. Meanwhile the word has already gotten out: Diablo III may not be worth the hassle for potential new players to invest time and money in... which will be needed by Blizzard to sustain the game over the long haul.

I think there are some very reasonable - and quite simple - measures that Blizzard should take to correct their mistakes with Diablo III and make it the game many have come to expect:

1. Remove the always-online requirement. That will draw in the more casual players who don't necessarily have time or desire to do multiplayer Diablo. But don't yank out always-online completely, because...

2. Give players the choice to "opt out" of the Real Money Auction House. I don't want to buy loot with real money. Neither do a lot of other people. Nobody should be forced to suffer technological penalties because of a feature they neither want or will ever use. If Blizzard wants to offer the Real Money Auction House, then fine. And they should keep the in-game infrastructure in place that allows for and regulates it. But don't let players who aren't interested in the RMAH be bogged-down to the point that they won't want to buy the game to begin with.

3. Charge a small monthly fee for the right to buy and trade on the RMAH instead of the 15% cut. Many players are wondering if Blizzard is "rigging" things behind the scenes to favor the dropping of sought-after items that command high prices on the RMAH. I can see how that would be something to consider. Enough so that many would be leery enough of the RMAH to avoid the game entirely. Instead, Blizzard should use microtransactions for the privilege of buying and selling through the RMAH. I can't see how Blizzard could lose out. If anything the company stands to profit far more than it can per the current Diablo III arrangement.

There are a few other things that I could suggest, such as tagging items looted in single-player Diablo III as unavailable for trade on the RMAH for those who've opted-out of it (but perfectly allowable between friends in multiplayer), using mandatory patching as opposed to always-online to fix exploits whenever they are discovered before engaging in multiplayer, etc. But those are relatively minor details.

I think that Diablo III could be a great game still. Some trusted associates have told me that when it works... emphasis on "when"... that Diablo III is a gorgeous thing to behold. I would like to experience that for myself someday. So would thousands, perhaps millions of other video game players.

It's not too late for Blizzard to do the right thing, assume some responsibility, look us straight in the eye and tell us "Hey, we screwed up. But we're listening to you and taking your complaints to heart and we're doing our best to make things right." 'Twould be a refreshing thing to see from a major company in this day and age... and it really would be to the benefit of everyone involved.

Read More