Not sure what Half Life 2 is doing on there, pretty sure Valve is fully in control of that one on PC at least. Didn't EA publish the PS3 version of the Orange Box? I'm guessing that's for a console port.
Also, Biomutant? That only just came out like two years ago. Not sure what the online features are for that game though, I thought it was singleplayer.
This is all just another reason why I don't buy games where online multiplayer is the main selling point of the game. I might not even get around to playing it much before that feature is removed.
Old PC games with dedicated servers are still (and always will be) playable online, while games from a couple years ago have their centrally-managed servers taken offline. People are still playing Doom, Quake, and Unreal Tournament while games from this console generation are already unplayable.
While change can be challenging, it also paves the way for new horizons. As EA retires these online services, they are undoubtedly working on exciting new games and experiences that will captivate players for years to come. As the gaming world continues to evolve, it’s our shared passion for virtual adventures that keeps us moving forward. So, let’s celebrate the memories and look forward to the next chapter in gaming.
“Running servers costs money and it resources to patch, secure, monitor, etc. and we don’t want to spend those costs on these games after so long”
Why not just be honest and let users know. And have a planned server maintenance expiration date upfront when you release the game. And, if it’s doing well, or if you release a DLC, shift that date.
We get operational costs. Don’t treat consumers like we’re idiotic children.
Well, that would mean declining sales when the date of disconnect nears. EA does not want that, thus not telling the games go offline the next day provides more money in their eyes. EA does not care about the customer experience, they care about the money they can sqeeze out of the customer.
I think there should be law that forces online games to have a „switch“ to change from public servers to private ones when they shut the public ones down.
There also needs to be a law that makes all inventions that are no longer sold public domain immediately, including machines and everything else. As in „this car is no longer sold so it’s building plans go public and people can rebuild it and build parts without copyright infringement.“
This will force companies to either give up their IP or maintain it while making money with it instead of artificially shortening the lifespan of a product while raking in billions.
We absolutely need to understand that companies didn’t make more profit every year in the past. Profits were to bolster bad years. Today, if a company doesn’t have a great year, it gets sold and then closed. (Obviously gross oversimplification but the pattern is clear).
The problem with changing from company-owned servers to private servers is the question who will maintain the server software.
Making it open source is not always an option because I can imagine there is a lot of shared code with other projects which the company want to keep propriety. This means the company would have to maintain the code for others to be able to host the servers, which I doubt makes financial sense.
I‘m pretty sure the assets such as textures need to be installed in the client anyway and the server code does not necessarily need to be open source to make it available for use.
But you‘re correct. Neither the game nor the server software would be maintainable (same as, for example nvidia drivers btw) but it would take away the „kill switch“ for bought software. As long as no major changes come to the system, they would be runnable. Even indefinitely if you dockerize it or otherwise use virtualization.
That would be my minimal goal. But actually, I think there is no reason to keep the majority of the code under wraps. Certain game mechanics and assets are patented anyway. There is no use in having them and breaking the law when using them.
Add comment