EA Shuts Down ‘SimCity’ and ‘The Sims’ Developer Maxis

Post by rancur » Thu, Mar 05, 2015, 4:46 AM UTC

jwalton wrote: post #68

saganus wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Icon is the correct term. SimCity had one of the earliest form of DRM I remember. The almost-impossible to Xerox manual (highly reflective paper so photocopies would come black) was used to answer a question the game asked you, about the population of a specific city on a certain page of the manual. Loosing the manual was not an option. Farewell Maxis.

This is not DRM, it's copy protection. DRM is about stopping you from using a product you paid money for - as Wikipedia puts it "[controling] the use of digital content and devices after sale." No matter how many years in the future you travel, no matter what happens to Maxis, the original Sim City will still work (assuming you still have the manual, and hardware capable of playing it.)

Post by m_mueller » Thu, Mar 05, 2015, 4:56 AM UTC

pkinsky wrote: post #80

m_mueller wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is pretty much how a deadly virus works, right? Infect a particular game brand (cell) by buying (infecting) it, generate enough new copies of the virus (selling the game), then destroy it and release the virus onto the next cells. If the analogy is correct, the game market will either die, find a cure and eject EA or EA adapts and finds a way to coexist such as not to kill the host cells anymore.

Not really: in this case the games sold by an infected game studio aren't copies of the original entity that go on to infect other game studios. They're more of a waste product. EA consumes game studios for sustenance and excretes a steady stream of sub-par sequels as it slowly digests its prey.

Post by dkbrk » Thu, Mar 05, 2015, 5:02 AM UTC

eropple wrote: post #81

sb057 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's widely agreed that Battlefield has been on the decline since 3 (3 being the first game released under EA). Bioware has been putting out exceedingly mediocre games since their purchase, not to mention are the laughing stock of many gamers.

Calling Mass Effect 2 and 3 "exceedingly mediocre" puts you in a camp that is, by pretty much any metric, very fair from the mainstream. And I wonder who these "many gamers" are who think BioWare is a laughingstock. Do elaborate, please.

Post by frik » Thu, Mar 05, 2015, 5:11 AM UTC

spiritplumber wrote: post #6

Westwood, Origin, Bullfrog, Maxis.... EA's strategy seems to be "Buy studio, make them shovel a couple incomplete games out of the door, close studio, repeat." Okay, they're asshats. What I don't get is, how does this make them any money? They're basically strip-mining the games industry, is this really more profitable than actually making good games?

Post by serf » Thu, Mar 05, 2015, 5:31 AM UTC

neolefty wrote: post #74

m_mueller wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is pretty much how a deadly virus works, right? Infect a particular game brand (cell) by buying (infecting) it, generate enough new copies of the virus (selling the game), then destroy it and release the virus onto the next cells. If the analogy is correct, the game market will either die, find a cure and eject EA or EA adapts and finds a way to coexist such as not to kill the host cells anymore.

Except when a company dies, no people actually die. They can go on and create new games and new companies.