[quote]and it's not a crack because it's not defeating any protection scheme because the game still needs to be started while being online.[/quote]
A crack only needs to defeat a protection scheme to be a crack. The game has multiple protection schemes. A game is 'cracked' when its protection schemes are broken; this may necessitate multiple cracks to accomplish or a multi-crack. SC5 has (AFAIK) not yet been cracked but the always connected was cracked. He didn't crack the game, we agree on that, but he [b]did[/b] crack one of its systems; that we appear to disagree on for some reason.
[quote]If it would only take an hour, then why haven't they done it yet? [...] So how does that make their claim even relevant?[/quote]
Dunno. Ask them. I see your skepticism and its warranted but that doesn't dismiss that they believe it fully achievable, which is less easy to point skepticism at when the rest of their statements appear to mesh with reality. That they appear to mesh with reality makes the rest at the very least relevant until someone comes out and disproves that they don't mesh with reality. With such a bold series of claims that ought to be investigatable just as he investigated them, you'd think someone would've disproved it by now.
[quote]isn't taking himself up on the claim and cracking the game fully and making a local save program, then I can't take him seriously.[/quote]
Oh come on. It might not be the thing that he wants to do. Some people investigate for fun and receive no joy from 'grunt work'. That he's paved the way for grunt work that obviously there is a demand for should allow for it to be a serious claim since his claim rings that others could certainly do what he didn't if they wanted.
[QUOTE=LoLWaT?;39960413]And thus EA learns absolutely nothing, nor do they care.
And the same exact shit will keep on happening.
If you want things to change for the better how about not giving them your money.
It may not make a difference [B]at first[/B]; but we are talking about a company that puts profits ahead of quality. They would definitely notice.[/QUOTE]
People won't boycott EA until they stop making games people want to play.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;39960513]A crack only needs to defeat a protection scheme to be a crack. The game has multiple protection schemes. A game is 'cracked' when its protection schemes are broken; this may necessitate multiple cracks to accomplish or a multi-crack. SC5 has (AFAIK) not yet been cracked but the always connected was cracked. He didn't crack the game, we agree on that, but he [b]did[/b] crack one of its systems; that we appear to disagree on for some reason.[/QUOTE]
Is it a protection scheme when you're disconnected from a counter-strike server when you lose internet connection?
What about World of Warcraft? It's terrible that you have to be connected to the internet to play that right? Where's the singleplayer?
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;39960513]
Oh come on. It might not be the thing that he wants to do. Some people investigate for fun and receive no joy from 'grunt work'. That he's paved the way for grunt work that obviously there is a demand for should allow for it to be a serious claim since his claim rings that others could certainly do what he didn't if they wanted.[/QUOTE] He could be the savior of all the people who are upset about this game. And an "hour of work" doesn't seem like grunt work to me. It just sounds like he said those things to get the community all riled up.
Not to mention his "hacking" abilities aren't as amazing as everyone is making it seem. He used a hex editor and dinked around in a dll file.
[quote]Is it a protection scheme when you're disconnected from a counter-strike server when you lose internet connection?[/quote]
Yes, but there are different expectations there. The game literally can't continue in the same state it was before and sync you to where it is now once you go beyond a certain period of lag. SimCity definitely can; the grounds for the MP in both systems is entirely different. CS is a synchronous game; SC5 is a-sync. SC5 doesn't need it; thus it's a protection scheme. With CS it's actually unavoidable without inventing an drop-in-drop-out system which can accurately simulate the players until you sync back up to the server. One is a consequence of synchronous gameplay, the other is a design decision.
[quote]And an "hour of work" doesn't seem like grunt work to me. [/quote]
So roofing the tiles on top of your house is just as appealing as, say, doing an hour of a hobby you enjoy? It's grunt work; he seemed to be mostly tinkering and exploring -- not trying to figure out how to modify a large component to do something he wanted it to do. It's modifying existing code versus inventing new code -- there's a big difference.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;39960763]Yes, but there are different expectations there. The game literally can't continue in the same state it was before and sync you to where it is now once you go beyond a certain period of lag. SimCity definitely can; the grounds for the MP in both systems is entirely different. CS is a synchronous game; SC5 is a-sync. SC5 doesn't need it; thus it's a protection scheme. With CS it's actually unavoidable without inventing an drop-in-drop-out system which can accurately simulate the players until you sync back up to the server.[/QUOTE]
But why does that matter? It's a multiplayer game. It's built around that specific mechanic. Why does it HAVE to have an offline mode? Just because it can?
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;39959730]How did they lie???[/QUOTE]
Well for one they said it would work
[QUOTE=Derp Y. Mail;39960808]Well for one they said it would work[/QUOTE]
And it does. I can play it right now. Or does everything have to be completely flawless in order to satisfy that criteria?
[quote]But why doesn't that matter? It's a multiplayer game. It's built around that specific mechanic. Why does it HAVE to have an offline mode? Just because it can?[/quote]
If it was fully MP, then players would share the same space in roughly real-time. It's a-sync. SP with MP components. ME3 isn't 'a multiplayer game' despite its SP being influenced by MP elements; SC5 isn't a multiplayer game despite its SP (such as it is) being influenced by MP elements. SC5 presents itself as MP only when in fact it's SP with MP; there's just no choice to disconnect, unlike ME3. Drop all the networked features in SC5 and you still have a functional game -- that's the difference between a MP game and a SP game.
It's not built around that specific mechanic. The core mechanic of SC5 is building your city. The ancillary mechanics are using the surrounding cities to introduce variety and so forth in your city; they are not necessary to the core mechanic and could be simulated. (Like every other SC)
CS can't possibly simulate the actions of players beyond perhaps the next 5 seconds of gameplay and expect that simulation to sync with the server smoothly. SC5 could plausibly simulate other cities for months on end and nobody'd be the wiser. Beyond that: It's obvious that they're having a lot of issues with the game right now -- what's going to happen when they make the game more complex (as they've stated they're going to)?
Why not put offline in should be the question; not why does it have to have it.
Because this is their vision!
[QUOTE=Derp Y. Mail;39960808]Well for one they said it would work[/QUOTE]
It's working for me. Some servers are still fucked but as far as I am concerned, my main server (EU East 3) is/was working fine last I played a couple days ago.
It's not in just launched nothing works phase anymore. You can actually get in and play now.
[quote]Because this is their vision![/quote]
And that that vision would compromise a healthy alternative says a lot about the MP: It's a protection scheme in the guise of MP inter-connectivity and little else. That they're unwilling to put offline in says it all.
I say this because the alternative is that the 'vision' really is ruling over sensible decision making and I'd rather not suggest that be the case for fear of being right. If it is the case: I fear for your SimCities as they push the title forward in the MMO-like nature they're proposing. ME3's ending was vision over legacy'd promise; I fear SC's mid and endgame will suffer in the same way.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;39960849]
Why not put offline in should be the question; not why does it have to have it.[/QUOTE]
Because this is how they wanted it to work. This is their game that they spent years on. It's their vision.
SC5 in MMO format would be awesome.
[quote]Because this is how they wanted it to work. This is their game that they spent years on. It's their vision.[/quote]
And if that's the sole reason with no real supporting foundation (we spent years coming up with this idea and then declared it sacred before we implemented it, implemented it, and now it is the way it is), every SC player should be concerned; in my opinion, of course.
Maybe they'll pull it off but they're still shooting themselves in the foot for no good reason other than stubbornness and failure to empathize with their userbase.
[quote]SC5 in MMO format would be awesome.[/quote]
I agree. It's a shame that it isn't; it's stuck halfway between what I think they wanted it to be and what EA wanted it to be.
Network Edition looks amazing -- an updated, better networked, and more tightly integrated and global game of that as an MMO would have enormous potential.
Edit: Though I'd still want them to label it 'not SimCity' in some fashion. 'SimCounty', 'SimCity: Global', etc.
[QUOTE=SweFox*;39961473]SC5 in MMO format would be awesome.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I see no problem with this.
[editline]18th March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;39961489]And if that's the sole reason with no real supporting foundation (we spent years coming up with this idea and then declared it sacred before we implemented it, implemented it, and now it is the way it is), every SC player should be concerned; in my opinion, of course.
Maybe they'll pull it off but they're still shooting themselves in the foot for no good reason other than stubbornness and failure to empathize with their userbase.[/QUOTE]
I don't know if you've noticed, but Maxis isn't shooting for the hardcore Sim City market here. This is meant for casual gamers who have either never played Sim City, or have in the past and want a different experience.
I loved Sim City 4, but there is a reason I'm not playing it: I'm bored of it.
I think everyone just wanted Sim City 4 with better graphics and Glassbox, and when they bought the game, they quickly realized they have been lying to themselves the entire time. Maxis said it was going to be a more accessible Sim City. The same words were used to explain why Spore was the way it was: [url]http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/09/07/will-wright-reacts-to-crtical-spore-reviews/[/url]
No one has been lied to. People psyched themselves up for a different Sim City game than was promised, despite the fact that it was clearly obvious that this one was going to have all the things they hate.
[quote]No one has been lied to.[/quote]
[url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1254684&p=39960237&viewfull=1#post39960237]I beg to differ.[/url]
[quote]I don't know if you've noticed, but Maxis isn't shooting for the hardcore Sim City market here. [/quote]
Then why call it 'Sim City'? It's fundamental marketing: things that share a name share their attributes immutably unless otherwise stated directly. They did not state it directly.
If we made a "Star Ruler 2", fans of SR won't expect a go-kart sim. They won't expect a card game. They'd expect a deep 4X/RTS hybrid with ship customization and all the other bits and bobs they remember, presented in a roughly similar format. They won't expect it to be an MMO when the game was offline-only. If the next C&C was announced, would you automatically assume 'oh, it must be an MMO'? No, you wouldn't. You implicitly expect a somewhat shared formula -- that's why sequels sell well. It's "Same great taste, new formula/box/slogan/gimmick".
So if we wanted to build a MMO game which was a sci-fi game, we wouldn't call it Star Ruler. Why? Because then we'd be setting ourselves up for an uprising for no good reason as we don't subscribe to the tactic of 'we can aggravate our userbase to up our visibility'.
Now, EA did. So, either:
(a) They wanted their userbase aggravated to push their marketing along for free. (Failure to empathize)
(b) They genuinely expected the HC userbase to enjoy the new iteration as presented. (Failure to understand their userbase/draw)
(c) They don't really care about their former userbase. (Failure to support prior expectations)
So the question isn't who they're shooting for, it's who are they shooting?
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;39960818]And it does. I can play it right now. Or does everything have to be completely flawless in order to satisfy that criteria?[/QUOTE]
You may not of had problems but a [b]lot[/b] of people couldn't play the game when it released. (Don't know what the state of the game is now for the majority).
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;39961456]Because this is how they wanted it to work. This is their game that they spent years on. It's their vision.[/QUOTE][url=http://uk.pc.gamespy.com/pc/sim-city-5/1221798p1.html]Their "vision" was, officially, a game with only on-startup-connectivity needed and perfectly capable offline pretty far along into development.[/url] Either SimCity being conceptualized as always needing online was a straight-faced lie, or the correction that it [i]wasn't[/i] was much the same.
[QUOTE=luverofJ!93;39959729]And to them, the sales numbers will justify their fucking retarded DRM, even though it is the root of so many problems.
Fucking business[/QUOTE]
How many pirates are playing right now?
[QUOTE=nomad1;39960206]That's 1.1 million disappointed people. Good job EA.[/QUOTE]
I'm enjoying SimCity pretty thoroughly.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;39961710]-snip-[/QUOTE]
My expectations seeing SimCity was managing and running a city. You do that both in SC4 and the new SimCity, except in the latter you can work with other players/cities in a shared region. How is that not expanding upon SC4?
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;39963062][B]How many pirates are playing right now?[/B]
I'm enjoying SimCity pretty thoroughly.
My expectations seeing SimCity was managing and running a city. You do that both in SC4 and the new SimCity, except in the latter you can work with other players/cities in a shared region. How is that not expanding upon SC4?[/QUOTE]It's only been 2 weeks, it's not uncrackable, crackers will find a way.
[QUOTE=Killer900;39963284]It's only been 2 weeks, it's not uncrackable, crackers will find a way.[/QUOTE]
Will you be there when they do?
SimCity 5 has a lot of nice ideas put into it such as the trading and resources.
However...
The agent system is completely broken, instead of having a priority of the higher capacity roads, like in real life, the agents insist on traveling on what is the theoretically shortest route, regardless of whether the capacity of for this road can handle it. I'm not even a professional programmer and I could do better than that in a day. Because of this flawed design, you either have to put up with stupid amounts of traffic jams or you have to build your cities with that in mind.
It's like they didn't even test the game properly, the whole server disaster at release further cements that point since all of the stress test beta things that they did seemingly had no effect, or maybe they were just being cheap with the servers under the assumption of "That'll do!". Then there's the cities and how they're so spread apart from each other, it just looks like a caricature of what cities look like.
Oh and the Tilt-Shift thing that the developers kept going on about is stupid since the game is still ugly (even on high graphics like I have it), so the tilt shift effect looks even more ugly and you can't even fully turn it off, just set it to "less".
This game reeks of rushed development.
The funny thing is how this would have probably sold at least 2 million by now had it not been word of mouth.
[editline]18th March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;39961456]Because this is how they wanted it to work. This is their game that they spent years on. It's their vision.[/QUOTE]
The modern Star Wars rereleases are also George's Vision, they're also fucking terrible and completely shit on the original with unnecessary edits and additional cgi.
Hitler had a vision, guess we should respect his solution.
Why does Facepunch think I'm on Vista? I'm on 7 damnit!
[QUOTE=SweFox*;39963348]Will you be there when they do?[/QUOTE]What do you mean? How do I know? It's inevitable.
YAY! I can't wait for all my future games to require a constant internet connection for SINGLE PLAYER PLAY! Also that micro transaction shop for all those additional goodies. Good going EA, keep up the good work! /sarcasm
Jesus christ people....I can't believe this game is even REMOTELY successful.
While Sim City may be a great game (Can't say myself) this is only going to encourage EA to release more of their games with always-online connectivity, which is a bad thing. It's kind of frustrating to see actually.
[QUOTE=Killer900;39959788]Honestly I don't think I'm [B]ever[/B] going to buy another EA game after this bullshit and I mean it, I don't care how much I want it or how cool it looks, they aren't getting my money anymore. Fuck em to hell, I hope they go bankrupt within this decade.[/QUOTE]
Way ahead of you, buddy. I haven't bought a single EA game since BF3 since I foresaw shit like this.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
