We Built This City on DRM: SimCity

It’s funny how history can repeat itself. Not quite a year ago Blizzard was weathering a storm of their own making for the launch of Diablo 3. Now EA is scrambling for the umbrella due to the abysmal launch of SimCity.

You’d think EA would have learned from the past. Both Ubisoft and Blizzard have received heavy criticism for their always online DRM, and EA have just joined the club. The launch week has seen long queue times to get onto a server after a faltering start filled with crashes and rollbacks.

Like Diablo 3, SimCity’s always online requirement has been heavily touted as a feature; with multiplayer elements making their first appearance in the series. Players can now choose to be neighbours on large over-world maps, allowing cities to interact with each other in new ways.

The option to play SimCity as a traditional solo experience is still there, however you now have to log into the game through Origin and remain online at all times. The game itself does do some calculations server side, taking some of the burden off your machine. But this can only really be seen as a feature for those running a PC from a decade ago. No doubt there will be a group of players in this bracket due to SimCity’s wide appeal. Realistically it’s an extra level off DRM protection to keep the pirates at bay.

And I would have no problem with that, if the game I bought on release day worked and was guaranteed to be playable after the servers are shut down. However EA clearly missed the former and completely refuse to commit to the latter. It’s worrying to see games moving in a direction where we are not only technically renting them from the publisher, but that the publisher reserves the right to shut down a game when it suits them.

Ubisoft has already backed down from this idea on a number of titles due to the bad publicity. So it will be interesting to see if EA and Blizzard try it again. There is scope for always online requirements to work in certain games (not in anything action heavy). But publishers need to realise that not all gamers have stable connections, and need to put consumers first with reliable servers and DRM removal at the end of the game’s shelf life.

Blood Bowl 2: Now Even Bloodier?

Well this is one game I never expected. And given the fact there are already three different Blood Bowl games on the market; it’s probably a game no one was asking for either, which just makes me even more curious to see what it is.

The only details leaked so far are a logo, six months of development time already completed and a release date scheduled for next year. Not even a hint of a reason to get excited by it. You can already buy a complete version of Blood Bowl right now. So there’s nothing to add to the game beyond new stadiums or improved AI, which could easily be added as DLC.

It’s left me wondering what the purpose of this sequel is. I can only guess that Games Workshop is involved in a ground up redesign, given that Blood Bowl is actually a fairly old game. The current version of Blood Bowl is completely bloated by special rules and mechanics that are heavily driven by die rolls. So there’s plenty to streamline. And they have previously redesigned several of their other games.

But it surprises me that Blood Bowl was selected for a sequel over making a game from another of Games Workshop’s intellectual properties. Currently both Space Hulk and Warhammer Fantasy are in development, which shows Games Workshop is willing to branch out. So it would surely make more sense to adapt a game like Battlefleet Gothic or Necromunda; neither has been adapted for a computer game yet and both could make excellent strategy titles.

It’s likely that the sequel will just be a highly polished version of the Chaos Edition, and have a multi-platform release. This will be a bit disappointing, but makes the most business sense as it will be very difficult to tempt Blood Bowl owners on the PC into anther purchase.