I don't see the problem here. If the DRM doesnt let you play the game, why should it deserve above a 0? Reviews are not only about gameplay. DRM is an integral part of games nowadays and should most definitely be included in reviews.
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem with what you stated is that you assumed they even own the game. If you read 1 out of 2 people giving it "0", they claim that the game should be avoided due to DRM strictly.
Besides, do you honestly believe that the game is unplayable and if so, will remain that way? Obviously, some people were actually able to play it so it isn't entirely unplayable.
There are even people on there who said the game is good, but gave it a 0 due to the DRM.
Comment has been collapsed.
I never mentioned mentioned people that don't own the game. Those would be illegitimate reviews in my opinion. On the other hand, reviews are given for the current build of the game, not the future. Even if you believe improvements are on the way, you can only review what you have in front of you.
Comment has been collapsed.
DRM problems should most likely on Metacritic get it either a -5 for the fact it just makes it more tedious to play the actual game or should be a major factor if it renders the game unplayable at all. (Basically if servers say fuck you and decide to not let you play :p)
Comment has been collapsed.
It either shows that a lot of reviewers have completely lost touch with the people who actually play the game, or there's bribery of some kind in play.
Likely both.
Comment has been collapsed.
Probably reviewers who played on private servers unafected by massive queues. Also, some sites like RPS (I believe it was on RPS) stated that the full game is very similar to last beta in terms of how EA didn't change anything nor listened to criticisms (cities are still not big enough). They mentioned that they had option for playing on private server but believed it won't be a proper show of whether the game's cloud-based structure functions properly.
Comment has been collapsed.
And that's ok because DRM is retarded. I'd never give 60€ for a game that I can't play on launch day or offline.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, that depends. It can be DRM, but its not always. Steam does have some drm-free games.
Comment has been collapsed.
Steam is digital distribution. Steamworks is DRM.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
I understand what a DRM is. Steam has drm-free games. Its simple as that. There is games you can download, copy, put in a pen, play in other computer without a problem and without loggin in in steam. So yes, it depends on the game.
Comment has been collapsed.
I honestly did not know that, always thought everything on steam only runs together with the software.. but you sound like you know what you´re talking about.. care to give some examples?
Comment has been collapsed.
can run fallout 3 without using the steam exe, i know this from experience, and because of spotty internet sometimes, this meant my fallout 3 steam playtime being underrated by 50+ hours.
then there are some games like doom, doom2, wolfenstein, heretic, etc you can just copy the wads from the steam folder and play with zdoom or another source port
Comment has been collapsed.
Fallout 3 uses GFWL though, so its not like you can play it offline.
Comment has been collapsed.
Didn't know you could do that, thanks for the info.
Comment has been collapsed.
dont even need an account for gfwl now though, they must have removed the requirement if it was needed earlier. the only game i needed gfwl for was bioshock 2, never touched it for fallout 3, maybe they removed it for fallout 3 goty, which I play. There's an option for live in the menu but it basically does nothing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Every GFWL-Game I´ve encountered (Bioshock 2 included btw) had the ability to be played offline, without a "real"-account (just have to enter a name for the offline-account) and even without even touching the serial-key, as long as you don´t want to play Multiplayer.
For that reason it is my favourite DRM, even though everybody else hates it so much xD
I think its strange that even professional journalists write things like "you need to register online and you cant save your game when you are not online while playing" about GFWL. Somehow nobody seems to understand how it works.
Comment has been collapsed.
Indie games brah, I play em all the time while waiting for my internet to come back. Also works well with RTS games like Medieval 2 and COH.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 to BernardoOne. Not all games on Steam require Steam to be played.
Comment has been collapsed.
There's huge difference between the kind of DRM steam does, and the always on DRM that Diablo 3 and SimCity has. The fact that most people don't even realize steam is DRM is a testament to this.
Comment has been collapsed.
Your post doesn't make sense as a response. liquidkameleon specified that s/he wouldn't support games that can't be played on launch day or offline due to the DRM scheme. I fully agree. I've also never had this problem with Steam.
Comment has been collapsed.
a little bit, yes. lol
milder than most but still takes away some rights like the ability to sell or give away your old games like you could in the past.
Its by far the lesser evil....but the lesser evil is still technically evil.
(If I can buy off steam(realized that isn't clear...I mean away from steam) I will, but steam is preferred over other clients(because its bigger and I only one one if I can help it, not from loyalty or any special traits) but steam also ranks better than nearly all alternatives in drm which coupled with its sales makes it popular. steam skirts the problem of the limited install cd key by tying it to the client instead for instance (the sort that forced me to pirate spore when after replacing my laptops a few times the copy I owned ran out of installs and ea just ignored my emails to get the key reset) which is one of the milder drms, and its certainly better than alot of the crap ea uses, better than securom, better than starwhatever, better than always online...)
Some people even hate steam for that and see it as ruining computer gaming by spreading the way it did. not me(not really anyway) but I don't love it either.
Comment has been collapsed.
You are aware that many, many games sold on Steam use a secondary form of DRM besides what Valve offers, right? Starforce, Securom, etc., they're all there.
Buying exclusively from Steam doesn't necessarily guarantee that you'll be getting a game that's relatively DRM-free.
Comment has been collapsed.
thanks, I know, i check first, have a browser add on that makes the drm stand out even, some games I just don't buy if they have too much crap on them(hopefully they'll learn but I doubt voting with my $ really even get noticed at all lol). like simcity apparently. one of the last ones I'd have expected it on honestly.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well I personally dislike that kind of DRM, as I consider it punishes a lot the paid consumer.
Having said that it's one of the little ways of really stopping piracy, which is sad. Very sad.
Anyways, I won't support any publisher who enforces that kind of DRM. Moreover lots of people have had connection issues on launch day and a buch of guys who preordered the Deluxe edition had to buy it again as those were impossible to run.
For the reasons said avobe I'll stick to sim city 4.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's not the point. As a game such as SimCity does not have any need for always-online. DRM. And I understand why people who have preordered it would like to play it on launch day. I mean, that's the deal with preorders.
Comment has been collapsed.
unfortunately the new SimCity game NEEDs always-online gameplay, since it's very much multiplayer orientated. There is little for the single player person to do, unless they want to shaft themselves in the process, when it comes to developing a large collective and progress in the game. Since each city is rather small, the game requires you to trade with other cities, but since it's instanced on each city, they don't produce anything while you're not playing it.
this makes it really hard to run several cities to trade with yourself, so you're pushed into using the global market or having other gamers help out by building a city you can worth with (or not if that's your game plan...).
fortunately, there will come a time when someone emulates EA's city servers and we'll such things as concurrent running cities so we can play single player and offline. Until then, the new SimCity is designed and will be a game that needs the always online DRM (in the same way World of warcraft needs it, at least).
Comment has been collapsed.
But it needs it only because they have ridiculously capped the city size in order to make up this gimmick to kind of justify their DRM.
Comment has been collapsed.
Unless I'm mistaken, SimCity is a mostly single player game, which is the issue here.
Comment has been collapsed.
The SimCity series contains four games that were single player. This last one is more of a spin-off and should have been called SimCity Online. The way its marketed, without strong "THIS IS NOT SINGLEPLAYER ORIENTED!" warnings, has no doubt lead to numerous mistaken pre-orders based on the belief that its a sequel.
Comment has been collapsed.
My mistake then. I didn't realize this was essentially an online-only game. I've only played the older SimCities, which were most definitely single player.
Comment has been collapsed.
the game is basically still a single player game, they just shoved a few online connectivity features on top. I am getting kind of tired of these practices personally.
and yes inb4 someone else comments, i know steam is drm, but it isnt always online and it doesn't force users to queue up to play a single player game when servers are full.
Comment has been collapsed.
Reading through them most seem to be about the DRM. One made a really good point. Servers were overloaded so they were placed in a queue and were not allowed to play a single player game, which is really dumb.
Complaints about the actual game were mostly about the map size being smaller.
Comment has been collapsed.
DRM is an integral part of games nowadays and should most definitely be included in reviews. I don't see why people are complaining about this.
Comment has been collapsed.
It should be included, but a bad DRM does not make a game score a 0. Aside from the DRM, the only complaint is the small map size. How is it fair to the developer and all the hundreds of people who worked on that game to rate an other wise very good game a zero because of a poor choice of DRM? What's next? "This game is only on Desura - 0/10"
Comment has been collapsed.
The person responsible for the DRM deserves the hate, but the videogame itself shouldn't be the target. If there was an anti-steam group that popped up and started bombing every steamworks game's metascore because they didn't like that they had to make a steam account, would that still be okay?
Comment has been collapsed.
The DRM is a part of the game. If McDonalds (or your favorite restaurant) imports lettuce infected with ecoli from a farm, you blame McDonalds for getting you sick.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's actually not true. The consumer might blame McDonald's, but the agencies that matter (FDA and such) blame the source of the contaminated food - meaning the farm it came from. And I guess this is why critic and user reviews are so different. The critics are smart enough to go deeper and find out who's really at fault for the DRM while the users just accept it as "Sim City has DRM, that makes it bad!"
Comment has been collapsed.
The DRM is the reason I don't want to get the game. Shouldn't it be included in the reviews?
Comment has been collapsed.
And if McDonald's always has infected lettuce, you would still no eat there, even though it is "technically" not their fault. By critics "going deeper" I think you may mean deeper into the pockets of the publishers.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bad DRM makes a game 0/10, especially if it's preventing you from even playing the game at all.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have to say that this game is awesome. Only thing I'd change is size of cities because there is no chance that you can fit everything in one city and that is really annoying for me. Also multi is awesome, influencing other cities is just best thing they created.
DRM part - just be patient, everything will be fine as it was with D3.
Comment has been collapsed.
So the cities and the servers are both too small ?
Comment has been collapsed.
Not surprised. People rating it poorly because of the always-on DRM.
They should be rating it low for the 2x2KM space you get for building a damn city!
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd like to think that giving a game a 0 due to DRM is a good idea, but it's not. That's the only reason people are giving it zeroes, due to DRM. I'd also like to think that Steam doesn't count as always online DRM... but it does, doesn't it? Despite all that, I see zero reviews on Steam/Steamworks games saying "Beware, uses Steam always online"
Note, the "Beware: Always Online" appears several times.
Also note, most of these are excerpts of paragraphs of why always online sucks.
Comment has been collapsed.
Steam isn't always online DRM. The game needs to be patched and then you can play any game in offline mode. What's more, if you lose internet connection, you are not booted from the game.
Always online DRM is DRM where you cannot play without being connected and are booted if you lose your connection. For someone like me who lives at college with unreliable internet and an overly aggressive port blocker, I literally cannot play this or many other always online DRM games with my thousand dollar gaming rig.
Edit: Also, I do agree, though, in that always on DRM doesn't instantly make a game a 0, especially if they're upfront about the DRM. User reviews tend to be even more biased than critic reviews. It's pretty much "This game is a ten unless there's a single thing wrong with it, in which case it's zero."
Comment has been collapsed.
What response do you have for those people who can't play the single-player portion of the game because the servers are full?
Comment has been collapsed.
That problem will be non-existent in about a week, this is simply because everyone is trying to play it on launch. The same problem came and went with Diablo 3.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, and like I said above, you review a game on what your current experience is, not what you think the game will be like in the future.
Comment has been collapsed.
The always-on DRM is the reason I'm not getting the game. Its part of the game, not something optional like DLC.
Comment has been collapsed.
So you're saying that this is the age of people who can't play single player games when they want...? I understand the general annoyance at the masses complaining about this but they're complaint actually has some merit this time. If EA wanted this always-online DRM to go smoothly they really could have just rented some servers for the first week or something. But they didn't. They just threw this DRM at their customers without any consideration about how it would affect them.
Comment has been collapsed.
The reason I'm not getting the game isn't because of the day one impressions of the userbase, its because I can't play a singleplayer game singleplayer. Also, the servers will eventually go down and nobody will be able to play.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not my fault they don't get along with me; they're jerks!
Comment has been collapsed.
D3 is a single player/small coop game with always online DRM AND cheating/duping/exploting. The only reason for that DRM was to limit piracy / force the masses to use the RMAH
Comment has been collapsed.
Have fun beating inferno difficulty by yourself.
Idk the status of D3 now, but there are no duping that happened in 4 months time.
And tbh i'm happy that they limit piracy on that game for months.
And no, they didn't force you to use the rmah. Define your meaning of force and I might believe you
Comment has been collapsed.
D3 is still the same problem and no talk of "prevetion of cheating, duping etc" can change that.
Let me tell you a story: There once was a company that made a game. Everybody loved it! The players were able to play the game offline in singleplayer, take their characters into LAN-Games to play with their friends or even join online adventures. A lot of people used this to cheat and duplicate items and many players got frustrated by that. The Company wanted to change this and made a second game with a special solution. Players were STILL able to use their characters offline, in LAN and the internet just the way they wanted, but they also had an option to make characters in a closed online-enviroment. There no such cheating would take place, but the characters could only be played if the player was online all the time. It was the choice of every gamer if they wanted to play on their own PC, withs friends over LAN and Internet or use the cheat-free-onlineworld with the downside that the had to be online while playing. It was the players choice and everybody was happy.
The Company was Blizzard, the games were Diablo 1+2.
That said, I play and like Diablo 3 and I can live with the always-on-DRM, because I only would´ve played Closed BNet anyway.. but they still have absolutely NO good reason to force people to play it online and blizzards big sympathy is pretty much gone.. I don´t like the company anymore and the DRM was the sole reason I waited until it was below 20 bucks before I bought the game.
TL;DR: I personally can live with the D3-DRM, but the reasonin is non-existent.
Comment has been collapsed.
Diablo 2 closed battle.net (or whatever it was called exactly) was full of cheating! I dabbled in a spot of map hacking and botting in my time, was never caught or banned either. Duped items were also in mass circulation.
Comment has been collapsed.
yes mom, t'was a good story. Unfortunately I've played all Diablo and your story is not true. You can still bot, dupe, mod the game and map hack the shit out of diablo 2's online envronment.
You can't do any duping, cheats or exploit in diablo 3 because almost everything is handled in the server not locally.
If you are saying that you hate blizzard just for D3's DRM add the fact that you didn't get the game on release date. Then you haven't seen most of the frustrations on why D3 went downhill fast.
TL;DR: They made some bad hotfixes decision (some were good) but it was more destructive than constructive.
Comment has been collapsed.
Honestly, I left out the "still some problems"-part in the story deliberately, because it doesn´t matter one bit. The basic structure of the closed BNet was the same as the Always-Online-DRM now and the fact that some people managed to exploit bugs and hacks in the closed BNet had absolutely NOTHING to do with the ability to play offline, LAN etc. If Diablo 3 has no exploits of this kind, it only means that Blizzard got a lot better at this stuff, but it would not change if they´d still allow people to play offline, LAN or open BNET and even use mods as long as they dont join the closed BNET. Those two things have NOTHING to do with each other, so there is absolutely no reason for the Always-On-DRM.
And yeah, I know there where a lot of problems with the game and in retrospective, I agree that I would have joined the disappointed masses if I´d startet playing earlier. I joined after 1.05 and the game is now almost everything I´d expected after D2 (some downsides remain, but nothing too big IMHO), but I know what they added/changed and I know I wouldn´t have liked it in the beginning ;)
I´m not saying that Blizzards reputation was hurt solely by the DRM.. especially with the way the game was in the beginning, where you can just scratch your head and say "what the hell were they thinking!?".. they felt the need to dumb down one of the dullest gaming experiences in history xD
Comment has been collapsed.
I have to wonder what causes them to lose more money- Stopping pirates (who most likely wouldn't buy the game if the optionto pirate was unavailable) or losing loyal customers due to always online DRM. People argue that always online DRM is the "future' but I feel like the game publishers are going to lose more money by losing loyal paying customers rather than stopping piracy.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why don't people just pirate these games? Although I'm starting to nurture some strong feelings against D3 (I've been playing Diablo games since '97? 98? I'm getting more and more disappointed with this one) Diablo 3 had some compelling arguments regarding it's always on (DRM) policy. The strongest case one can make would be the real money AH it would be worthless if the game files weren't hosted on a secure server. The ability to pop into friends games and such is also appealing but can easily made optional (and therefor allow for an offline mode), butut in any case always on is the best way to prevent cheating and that was one of the worst things about D2/D1!
Surprisingly I bought D3 at launch and never had a lot of problems logging in... Maybe I'm just lucky. In either case there are a couple of strong reasons for Diablo to have this kind of DRM. Sadly I can't imagine any of these reasons to apply to SimCity. That's why I'll probably just pirate this game which is strange as I can't remember the last time I pirated a game (I have over 70 xbox360 games and I've bought them all, although second-hand games are worst then piracy, no?).
Comment has been collapsed.
Not the article I was looking for but it'll do.
Some people just can't afford to pay full retail for games. Many of which would't buy the games if there were no used games.
Comment has been collapsed.
I actually made that remark because of that article! The 2nd hand approach is horrible and sad.. Most of my games were bought 2nd hand cause I wouldn't bother spending so much on those games if they were full price (some good surprises there too like Prey or Wet). Sometimes I buy secondhand copies of games I want to boycott but really want to play (like black ops).
I don't understand why you can buy a second hand, book, cd, dvd, car, house, etc. But not a game! Oh, no! Not a game! :x I dearly love Lionhead but that was a sad moment for them... -_-
Comment has been collapsed.
Off topic I know, but since you brought it up, I'm with you on used games being worse than piracy. Not only are devs not getting the money from the sale, but someone else is. I can't believe developers are getting so much flak for trying to come up with ways to kill the used game market.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually I disagree... First of all you usually can't ask for a refund of a videogame! So while you can return most other items for a refund if they suck you're stuck with the games you bought (I don't know how it works in other countries but in Portugal you usually have at least two weeks to return a product (some exceptions apply, ofc)).
Second thing is: You can sell used books, cars, houses, wines, TVs, computers, phones, etc. But not games? Why not games? IMHO videogames should be treated as any other product and a consumer should be free to do whatever he wants with it after he purchases it! If you buy a game it's your copy and you can (or at least should) do whatever you want with it!
That's how I see it, at least...
Comment has been collapsed.
In America, at Gamestop at least, you have a week to return a videogame for any reason whatsoever. I think this excludes PC games, though. The way I see it is that the makers of the product decide how they want the product to be sold and used. You can't sell a game you make with RPG maker unless you buy the commercial version, for example. The developer of many video games clearly don't want you reselling their game since they get no profit for their hard work. Why does paying 5 bucks to play the game for an hour entitle you to decide that he's wrong? You're not allowed to sell accounts to online games/stores (can't sell your Steam or WoW account without risking a ban) so why should it be okay to sell the individual games?
I just finished reading Pirate Cinema and I have essentially the same feelings toward resale as piracy. Why do you get to decide that the developer is okay with you reselling the game? If the developer doesn't want you to resell the game, why do you get to say "Nope, I actually can." Now if the developers are fine with it, that's one thing. If EA says "Of course you can resell our games" or if they stay silent, then by all means, go ahead. But clearly many video game companies don't want you to sell and buy used games, so what makes it okay to? Just because you bought a license to play the game? Hundreds of people worked on it and they all said "Please don't sell our game!" but you do anyway because you want a couple extra bucks?
The maker of the game says that they think the game is worth 5 bucks. If they're wrong, the price goes down and you just have to wait a bit. If you go to a movie theater and there's someone at the backdoor saying that he'll let you in for five bucks instead of paying the ten dollar ticket price, would you do it? It's the same thing here.
Comment has been collapsed.
I respect your opinion but I just don't agree with it. This is one of those topics that can be debated for ever and ever and ever... Basically my opinion is that after I purchase a copy it is mine and the developer has no business with whatever I chose to do with. Like every other product on earth if I feel I want to sell it I have the right to. The keyword is "right" as I am entitled by law (which rules over the desire of a particular company) to resell products I buy.
This perception might be influenced culture or something like that but it's just how I fell about this. I buy a bike, I want a new one.. I sell my old one and buy the new one. Honda can't tell me that is equal to stealing. I mean, they can but they just look silly by doing so. This is nothing akin to pirating game as with piracy you spawn multiple copies for multiple users none of which will (possibly) buy the original product (this is also very debatable but let's bare with it). Reselling a copy is a simple transfer of property (even if just digital property) from a user to another in exchange (usually) for money.
You apparently feel digital products are different from physical products. Or to be more precise, you think that if Honda told me I shouldn't sell my bike then I shouldn't do it. Is this correct? If so I just disagree with you... I respect your opinion but simply can't agree with it. =)
Comment has been collapsed.
And I certainly see where you're coming from, too, but disagree. The way I see it is piracy is bad. Why is piracy bad? Because the developer, who wants money for it, is not getting any money. The same thing can be said about used games.
It is definitely harder with physical items, but with many of those, you are buying a product, completely and entirely, and that product wears out over its life. A video game bought on release day and kept for thirty years is the same exact product as it was when it was released, so there is no difference. With a used tangible item, it's a different product than when it was bought, so it's a little different when talking about digital products. You can't get a coffee stain on that digital copy of Anno 2070, after all, and you can't add aftermarket tires to Serious Sam.
You selling a game isn't as bad as releasing a crack for it by a stretch, but the buyer might as well just pirate it.
Comment has been collapsed.
The reason we have this crap is because of pirates. Heavy always-on DRM wouldn't be needed if people didn't pirate.
Comment has been collapsed.
Overall piracy rates in the long run don't fall, but DRM does help delay cracks for the first couple of weeks in some cases. That also happens to be when games earn the most money.
Comment has been collapsed.
Depends, sometimes they get cracked even before the game is released, I have seen this, most times its a day or two or on the day of release many times, rarely it takes weeks. Super rare is cases like Diablo 3(Did that even ever get cracked? Unsure).
Comment has been collapsed.
I edited my comment. I didn't mean DRM ALWAYS helps delay pirates, but in some cases, it does.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not, and the death penalty doesn't lower the murder rate in areas where it's used, but that doesn't stop people from getting executed. Pirates always like to act like the big bad companies with their DRM are the evil ones when really, if they all stopped, there wouldn't be any DRM to be angry about.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's still not needed.If I pirate a game I'll never have to worry about my internet connection and I'll be able to play it whenever I want, you know...like we used to do for decades.
Also, there's a whole store set up around that idea (gog) and they don't seem to be doing that bad.So in the end drm helps no one.Especially GFWL...
Comment has been collapsed.
Not at all.Worst case scenario it just takes a few extra days for a "no-cd patch".And if it's that heavy chances are it will have ruined the experience for actual customers.Take gta iv and ubisoft games as examples
Comment has been collapsed.
A lot of Simcity is run serverside, making it highly difficult to create a pirate version.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well according to metacritic EA is the #1 dev out there, so it makes sense!
Comment has been collapsed.
You mean like Age of Empires? Yeah that was such a terrible franchise.....
Comment has been collapsed.
Are you reading the same reviews I'm reading? People can't play single player because of servers at capacity? The maps are so small that it might as well be SimVillage instead of SimCity?
Comment has been collapsed.
Hmmm, I seem to remember predicting this after my experience with the beta - the game simply failed to impress and made me want to play the original just to compare what the, "Newer and better," so-called version cut out; I think someone hit the nail right on the head - DLC that will nickel and dime you for stuff that should have been included. Oh, and can someone explain to me why European ratings are always higher than anywhere else - I've noticed this for years and while I understand they enjoy RTS/Simulation games more than attention deficit U.S. citizens, they are always at the top (higher rated) of the ratings list in comparison to PC Gamer, IGN, etc.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
1,027 Comments - Last post 4 minutes ago by sensualshakti
1 Comments - Last post 4 minutes ago by Ricky2468
29 Comments - Last post 11 minutes ago by Andrewski
209 Comments - Last post 27 minutes ago by forseeker
622 Comments - Last post 36 minutes ago by lordbata
1 Comments - Last post 56 minutes ago by FluffyKittenChan
1,909 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by MeguminShiro
420 Comments - Last post 26 seconds ago by ChaosCVZ
9,261 Comments - Last post 33 seconds ago by insideAfireball
1,488 Comments - Last post 6 minutes ago by LightningCount
0 Comments - Created 6 minutes ago by BHTrellis188
926 Comments - Last post 9 minutes ago by ProphetFinagle
129 Comments - Last post 15 minutes ago by wizcreations
69 Comments - Last post 19 minutes ago by Momo1991
Another disaster from EA??
See the metacritic user scores:
SimCity PC Reviews - Metacritic
Seems another Diablo 3 happening on metacritic.
Comment has been collapsed.