, Sven Groot wrote

*snip*

It's the principle of the matter. Is it okay for a game that you pay $60 for to stop working if EA's servers are down (which, if my experience with ME3 is anything to go by, is often)? Or if your ISP is having a bad day? Is it okay that it's impossible for the single player portion of the game to be played e.g. on a laptop on the go when you're not connected?

I think this is a very bad trend, and even though I think it would probably not affect me personally much right now for this particular game, I don't want to encourage it.

Additionally, from what I've heard you don't even own your save files with this game. They're on the cloud, and saving is automatic. So gone are the days where you can destroy your city with a slew of disasters to blow off steam and then just reload. You also can't share your cities with your friends, or download other people's cities online. And there's a limit on the number of cities you can actually have.

It's just ridiculous. There is no reason for the single player portion of the game to require a connection. And as a retro gamer, I have to wonder how this will work 20 years from now. Yeah, maybe someone will crack the game once EA inevitably shuts the servers down. I'm sure SimCity is popular enough that someone will do it for this game. But if this catches on, if every game in the future will require an always-on connection with the publisher's servers, then there will be tons of smaller games that will just disappear once their support ends. And that's not something I'm in favour of, at all.

So yeah, not buying this one.

Now substitute business systems with exactly what you've stated.  They too are trending to hosted services that rely on internet connectivity.  Its almost as if they should look at this SimCity example and think twice. Maybe SimCity isn't having problems. Maybe it was too real.