Here's my problem, and it doesn't stem from EA.
The developer made a handful of extremely bad decisions. They
1) forced players to be always online
2) designed their game to be run on hardware that Simcity 3000 would have found reasonable
3) didn't provide enough resources to get their game to function on day one
4) when faced with the unreality of their statements they balked
Maxis takes full responsibility for 1-3. They determined what they wanted to do, and alienated a lot of their consumer base. Always online is a sticking point, but breaking online connection and forcing it is a sin against your users. Aiming for very low spec hardware is a joke. My old core 2 duo can surf the internet, it can't hang with a 2500k for gaming on the best of days.
Point 4 is where my ire is raised, and even the game at its best cannot silence. Maxis and EA said that Simcity cannot be played offline, because so much of the calculations were done on the server. An intrepid user proved that the game will run without an internet connection. EA responded by taking down the post. They eventually dredged up an "explanation" that the "vision" of Maxis would not be realized if there were an offline component. They did this while disabling features in their game, to make it playable.
Ok, fine. I'll admit that a token free game from EA is nice. They provide the people who wanted a working game with a different working game...I can see shreds of logic there. EA is finally admitting the game was broken, and showing good will. Viewing this logically:
-100 Delivering a broken game
-30 Claiming that online features were necessary, and being proven wrong
-60 Never asking consumers what they wanted in the game before release
+20 Fast response to issues
+50 Willingness to provide reparations for a broken game
+1 Finally owning up to lies after being proven a liar
Running score, Maxis has -119 points. Given that this is subjective, here's where I'm coming from. A free game makes up for half the negative influence of paying for a broken game. Claiming a requirement is not a requirement is not acceptable, but being willing to make those requirements function quickly makes up for nearly all of that negativity. Owning up to BS is commendable, but waiting until you're proven a liar first removes nearly all the good will it might garner. Finally, basing your vision of a game on something that players don't generally desire means you don't care about your customers. That willful disdain is a miserable smear on a company's public image.
So, yeah. Simcity (2013) is a decent game. Once it gets going, it's fun and has a lot of depth. What it doesn't have, and what its developers have stated, are why I cannot get behind the game. They don't believe Simcity should be single player. They don't believe a city can be anything more than specialized structures to perform one or two tasks. They want to monitor players, and crank out DLC so that a $60 game can be $120 within a year. I'm pretty sure that if Crysis and Bioshock were chained down with these limitations they would never have sold. What makes Simcity better? I cannot see it, whatever it is.
jk don't mean to be cynical, but EA deserves to eat some crap for all they've done. imo.