Nothing simulated about SimCity's launch failure

This week produced not one but two major product launches with 2 huge failures.  Yes I'm talking about SimCity and Tomb Raider. 

Of course in the case of SimCity the memory of the nearly disastrous launch of last year's Diablo 3 came racing back to the gaming community's consciousness.  And why not? The failure was almost identical and the recovery even more clumsy.  As of today SimCity is still suffering the effects with EA disabling functionality such as achievements, leaderboards and region filters.  Developer Maxis is racing to add servers and patch issues but still seem to be in a state of denial. 

"This has been an exciting and challenging week for the team here at Maxis, the culmination of years of planning and development.  We have been overwhelmed by the outpouring of support and enthusiasm from our fans which has made it even more upsetting for us that technical issues have become more prominent in the last 24 hours..."

Outpouring of support? Most of the forum posts I've seen aren't exactly supportive...

"How many times in the last few years have games with online features or requirements been screwed up when the servers became overloaded? You’d think that someone in the games industry would have noticed this by now.." From a comment on Forbes

"I've been trying to play for the last 4 hours and still haven't even started my first city. I have been a die hard Simcity addict for going on 18 years. Not any longer. I am fed up with it and wish I hadn't wasted £65 on it."  From a comment on Techcrunch

When even Amazon has to suspend sales of your game I have to question what they mean by "years of planning and development."

What metrics did EA and Maxis use to plan for launch day?  Did anyone even look at those pre-order numbers?  Was nothing learned from two closed betas?  Beta players reported slow load times which resulted in Maxis adding a few more servers. Even in a tightly controlled sandbox the cracks were starting to show.  So I suppose  two closed betas were considered an adequate load test.  Apparently not  when thousands stared at an empty dialog box when the game went live.

So far the biggest news to come out of this debacle is Maxis' GM Lucy Bradshaw falling on the sword via a rumored internal memo that states...

"I'd like to say that it's not fair — that the game score (from polygon.com) shouldn't be punished for a server problem, But it is fair."

"SimCity is an online game and critics and consumers have every right to expect a smooth experience from beginning to end, I and the Maxis team take full responsibility to deliver on our promise."

Couple that with EA "suspending marketing" of the game due to the continuing server issues and no matter how great the game is, the failure of the launch will forever color it. 

Now, let's address the elephant in the room. 

All of this trouble, all of this pain comes from one source and that lands squarely in the lap of EA.  You can't even blame Maxis for this one because we all know EA's penchant for sticking always-on DRM where it doesn't belong.  That's what sunk SimCity's launch period.

There is absolutely no reason that any game from any publisher should require a persistent Internet connection.  At least not for a single player game.    

I've said it before, the Internet is not ubiquitous when it comes to access and having to be constantly connected offers the consumer nothing.  It does however offer publishers like EA the opportunity to intrude into a gaming experience they were never invited to.

Real time ads, dynamic updates and unwanted invitations to online promotions are the real focus.  EA wants to turn every product it sells into a perpetual money machine but they can't do that without absolute control of the experience. 

Want DLC? you're going to have to buy it from EA.  Forget about community contributed maps or character tweaks. 

Think about it, when's the last time you heard about a Battlefield 3 mod?  Remember Battlefield 1942?  That game got new life with a community supported mod called Desert Combat and spawned the fortunes of developer DICE. 

The only time an online connection was required was for multiplayer gameplay.  It wasn't to annoy you with popup ads for new DLC or track your every move.  It was just simple connectivity to other players.

That's as it should be but it isn't anymore.  It's disappointing to not be able to play a multiplayer game when servers go offline but the single player experience should NEVER be affected by it.
Take another popular franchise that EA has applied the same formula to. 

Need for Speed started out as a single player game with later versions allowing multiplayer gaming via LAN connections.  As time went on EA began requiring connections to their servers that forced players onto web servers even if they were playing in the same room.  It's culminated in the requirement for players to log into an interface called the "Autolog" that forces you to be online even if you're playing in single player mode. 
There are Need for speed titles just a few years old that are now unplayable in multiplayer because EA has shut down the servers.  How far behind can single player modes be? 

(By the way, if Autolog sounds familiar it's the predecessor of Battlefield 3's Battlelog.  The web based interface that disables any type of gameplay unless you're logged into EA servers. )

If we're going to be required to connect to a web server even to play a game in "offline" mode then we have to trust that EA will perpetually provide access which history shows they won't.  That puts your $60 to $120  (addl. DLC or Subscription cost) investment in jeopardy.  It's like selling you a car but giving you keys that will only start it for five years.  After that even though the car is perfectly fine it will never run again because of your now useless keys.  Leaving you with nothing to show for your money.

Is that a future you're willing to accept?