Elessar wrote on Jan 7, 2013, 14:55:TheEmissary wrote on Jan 1, 2013, 13:25:I've yet to see EA release a game that requires us to be online for SP and then yank the server so no one can ever play, online or offline. So forgive me if I don't throw a tantrum like half the people in this thread and grab a pitchfork. No one's willing to admit the possibility that they may patch the game to allow offline play before they take the server down. But that would be the opposite of flaming EA and isn't welcome in these parts.
If the game isn't multiplayer-only or a MMO game then it should have some form of offline play. Give us something to be able to play when the internet is having issues or when you retire the servers.
TheEmissary wrote on Jan 1, 2013, 13:25:I've yet to see EA release a game that requires us to be online for SP and then yank the server so no one can ever play, online or offline. So forgive me if I don't throw a tantrum like half the people in this thread and grab a pitchfork. No one's willing to admit the possibility that they may patch the game to allow offline play before they take the server down. But that would be the opposite of flaming EA and isn't welcome in these parts.
If the game isn't multiplayer-only or a MMO game then it should have some form of offline play. Give us something to be able to play when the internet is having issues or when you retire the servers.
Smellfinger wrote on Jan 1, 2013, 12:00:
The general principle is offensive because it's a contagion that has infected the industry as a whole. It's not a phenomenon that is localized to EA.
Shutting off multiplayer of a 2+ year old sports title that no one plays anymore is not this big end of the world deal some of you are crying about.
Dades wrote on Dec 31, 2012, 17:55:RollinThundr wrote on Dec 31, 2012, 17:38:
Listen, I've heaped my share of criticism EA's way over the years, especially with how they handled the Elevation Partners fiasco and what Bioware became because of it, but for shit like this, that ALL publishers do? C'mon, with all the reasons to hate EA or bash them, this isn't really that valid a reason.
I don't know what crack you're smoking but shutting down functionality of purchased content is about the most valid reason to bitch about companies as I can imagine short of them just taking your money and saying nyah nyah.
- DADES - This is a signature of my name, enjoy!
NKD wrote on Dec 31, 2012, 14:55:
Like I said, there's never any outcry from players when these things get shut down. Just people getting offended at the general principle.
Beamer wrote on Jan 1, 2013, 04:53:Oh, really? How about those people playing NHL 2009? Since EA no longer releases NHL games on the PC, when they shut down online servers for NHL 2009 a year ago, all PC players were pretty much shut out of the online component permanently. There are quite a few people who would love to play a "modern" NHL game (see the forums on breakaway.net), in fact there a a large number of people modding present rosters into a 4+ year old game, simply because they have no other choice! They WOULD be EA customers... but EA doesn't want them.
This is what I said in the last topic about this. Anyone playing a 3 year old Madden game isn't an EA customer, really. If they hold onto it that long they're less likely to pay $60 for current rosters and more likely to not care about rosters and either not really play online (because the community overwhelmingly moves to current rosters) or just buys the 2 year old version for $2.99, the going rate for a 2 year old sports game at GameStop.
NKD wrote on Dec 31, 2012, 14:55:Smellfinger wrote on Dec 31, 2012, 14:47:
Planned obsolescence is just a step on the path to games-as-a-service. It's one of the many early symptoms of a terminal disease.
Is it really planned though? I mean unless EA is carefully crafting their titles to get boring fast so people will have to buy new games, hmm...
Like I said, there's never any outcry from players when these things get shut down. Just people getting offended at the general principle. So what's more likely?
1) They don't care that their precious game got shut down, so they didn't speak up.
2) EA systematically had all those players disappeared into unmarked vans.
3) Those players quit playing months or years ago and give no fucks.
Ima go with 3.
Creston wrote on Dec 31, 2012, 22:26:Panickd wrote on Dec 31, 2012, 18:16:
And before you go off on a "it shouldn't have to be that way" rant, I totally agree. But the world isn't always as we would like it to be and so we deal with what is.
I never claimed otherwise. I deal with it by refusing to buy this kind of horseshit. If you deal with it by rolling over and telling EA this is perfectly acceptable behavior, then by all means, go ahead
Panickd wrote on Dec 31, 2012, 18:16:
And before you go off on a "it shouldn't have to be that way" rant, I totally agree. But the world isn't always as we would like it to be and so we deal with what is.
deqer wrote on Dec 31, 2012, 19:28:HorrorScope wrote on Dec 31, 2012, 13:32:You really are missing the point about why this bad, and why people don't like it--and why people shouldn't like it.
But I also think it's fair to say the majority of buyers rarely go back to something old and if they do it's a couple games.
Hopefully someone explained it to you somewhere on page 2 or 3 of this news thread.
Dades wrote on Dec 31, 2012, 18:45:Panickd wrote on Dec 31, 2012, 18:16:
That's a bit over dramatic. If Sim City (or any game for that matter) ends up insanely popular and EA pulls the plug someone will find a way to hack together some sort of server emulator that will allow people to keep playing until their eyeballs bleed.
People can't just throw together a server emulator lickity split, companies like EA are making it more and more difficult by putting things like AI on the server. Their whole reason for doing this sort of stuff is lack of alternatives, they want you behind their paywall for life, buying upgrades, DLC and whatever else they can dream up. Maybe it's the world we live in but people don't need to like it.
They are doing this intentionally, not a single person has offered an explanation of why they can't just run a glorified authentication server and use P2P if it's so cost ineffective for them to run multiplayer servers.
- DADES - This is a signature of my name, enjoy!
Dev wrote on Dec 31, 2012, 20:21:
Not sure which game you are referring to, but you should know by now that ALL ea games are subject to having online/multiplayer being shut down.
On another note, if a game has a smaller following, its unlikely to get enough interest for someone to make any sort of server emulation for it.
bhcompy wrote on Dec 31, 2012, 16:58:Had the game box said anything like this on it, then I wouldn't even purchased the game in the first place.
You're not paying for software, you're paying for a temporary license to access the software.
Dades wrote on Dec 31, 2012, 16:16:Perhaps EA shouldn't be making games like this if it relies on everyone to participate for it to be worthwhile.
A company like EA buys bandwidth in bulk and won't save any money there either.
D_K_night wrote on Dec 31, 2012, 15:42:Exactly.
my expectation is that 40 years from now, I dust off an EA game, and I expect to be able to play it.
I paid good money for that, and that expectation is neither whiny, entitled, nor misguided.
HorrorScope wrote on Dec 31, 2012, 13:32:You really are missing the point about why this bad, and why people don't like it--and why people shouldn't like it.
But I also think it's fair to say the majority of buyers rarely go back to something old and if they do it's a couple games.
HorrorScope wrote on Dec 31, 2012, 18:43:bhcompy wrote on Dec 31, 2012, 16:58:
Do you have any doubt that they will sunset the SC5 servers when the user threshold drops too low to effectively monetize the base through downloadable content?
None, it will shut down. To date I have personally not been effected one time by server shutdown, so I don't get worked up over something that hasn't hit me. But you might, so you have to do what you have to do. In a perfect world, they would run forever.