But the fact that the only option for people to play the game would be an illegal course guarantees EA can't stop supporting the game. They are on thin ground as it is with the community.
To reiterate something already posted in this thread, EA no longer supports online play for its console sports franchises older than '05/'06 or so. If you want to play Madden '05 online against a buddy, too bad. You can't.
So with that in mind, I can't say I have much faith in EA's willingness to continue supporting older games, especially if those older games are part of franchises with new iterations out.
Supporting online play for a franchise with yearly iterations and supporting large single player only games are a bit different.
Sure, but at the very least it shows a willingness to pull the rug out from paying customers (likely in order to force a purchase of the latest version). There is no reason to assume that at some point the same attention to support, or lack thereof, will be given to non-sports titles, especially in the case of a franchise with regular new installments. If they're willing to leave customers in the lurch with A, there is no strong reason to assume they wouldn't do the same with B.
It's not a problem specific to EA. As I mentioned before, I have a general distaste for games that rely on a perpetual checking in system. I understand and respect the need for anti-piracy measures, I'm just not a fan of measures like this. (And of course, the issue with the EA sports games isn't one of anti-piracy measures.)
Pulling the rug out? Isn't that a bit too colourful?
If it is, only a little. I like to play some sports games, but I don't buy them annually. My friends and I try to coordinate which games we get so we can play together online. For minor sports -- tennis and what have you -- we're buying in order to play one another, and we're buying a game we know we won't replace for some years. (We're still playing Links on the Xbox, for instance.)
So yeah, to me, suddenly pulling support for online play, a feature that was 70% of our purchasing decision, is pulling the rug out from under us. After all, we bought the game to play against one another online. That would be a major feature of a product we paid for being removed due to lack of support. In some cases, playing against friends might be the only reason I bought the game. Forcing authentication and then nixing support for it would render the game all but useless to me.
It may be mercenary to say so, but they do that on their sports games to encourage the purchase of the new edition.
Yes, I've said that several times this thread. Doesn't make it any easier to swallow or something I'm any more inclined to agree with or support. In many ways, it makes it even more crass.
And when you consider the general fanatical devotion of theirs sports game's audience, it wouldn't be too far-fetched to suggest that the number of people still trying to play a four year old sports game online would be fairly small.
Frankly, the numbers are irrelevant. My point is simple: Save in the case of MMOs and the like, if you've bought a fully functioning game, you should expect that game to remain fully functioning as long as your hardware is good. When games require checking in each time in order to play (again, subscription games aside), you run the risk of a game becoming a coaster if a developer/publisher decided not to support it, goes under, or whatever. These EQ sports games display an (imperfect) example of something close to that taking place. I think that's unfortunate.
Except it really doesn't matter much. You can't set sub-games aside. There have been many, many MMO games that became coasters because either the company went out of business or shut the servers down due to lack of support (as in, subscribers). I understand your point, but your indignation is kind of misplaced. How much of a right to be outraged do I have if I bought a PS1 game all those years ago and now after years of loyalty, the PS1 itself breaks? And my PS2 won't read it? And I have a PS3 that doesn't support BWC? Should I expect EA to provide a solution then?
Okay, that was a bit much... I agree that it would be good PR for EA to allow the servers to run forever on the off chance that two people want to play a particular game. But that's hardly cost effective from their standpoint. Pressing the panic button now, to insinuate that EA will pull the plug on their authentication servers, because they turn off the gameplay servers is really just looking for a reason to dislike them.
I'd be willing to bet that if they did such a thing (long into the future...) that they will either provide a way to continue to play the game long after it's been profitable for them (or desireable for pirates). And if they don't, it probably won't matter much anyway. Who knows if PCs five years from now will be able to run it anyway.
You have a valid concern. But try not to insinuate smoke where there is no fire. At least, not yet.
Has anyone mentioned Bullfrog? I think more people should mention Bullfrog.
If we're doing this, can we also mention Riccitiello's very public apology for the way EA handled those takeovers and what became of the companies? You know, in the essence of fairness.
Has anyone mentioned Bullfrog? I think more people should mention Bullfrog.
If we're doing this, can we also mention Riccitiello's very public apology for the way EA handled those takeovers and what became of the companies? You know, in the essence of fairness.
Except it really doesn't matter much. You can't set sub-games aside. There have been many, many MMO games that became coasters because either the company went out of business or shut the servers down due to lack of support (as in, subscribers). I understand your point, but your indignation is kind of misplaced. How much of a right to be outraged do I have if I bought a PS1 game all those years ago and now after years of loyalty, the PS1 itself breaks? And my PS2 won't read it? And I have a PS3 that doesn't support BWC? Should I expect EA to provide a solution then?
It's worth noting that several times in my posts on this topic, I've specifically indicated "if you have the hardware" and other variations on that theme. If your hardware breaks, it breaks and you can't play the game. That's life and has nothing to do with the developer/publisher decisions I'm discussing. Broken hardware isn't really relevant to my point.
I'd also argue that you can treat games like MMOs differently. These are subscription based games that exist on the backs of servers and staff kept, maintained, and updated by the developer. While rogue servers prove they can exist in some form without the official servers, the entire experience is predicated on the idea that you're paying a monthly fee for the developers to provide a world for you, and it will exist only so long as they keep it online. It's a different situation and, in my opinion, different standards apply.
(Incidentally, I'm not indignant about this, I'm simply expressing a viewpoint. I don't think I've offered any anger in my posts.)
I agree that it would be good PR for EA to allow the servers to run forever on the off chance that two people want to play a particular game. But that's hardly cost effective from their standpoint.
With all due respect, I think you misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting EA (or whoever) keep said servers running forever, I'm saying that the games should not have required the use of specific servers in the first place.
Pressing the panic button now, to insinuate that EA will pull the plug on their authentication servers, because they turn off the gameplay servers is really just looking for a reason to dislike them.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding me. As I've indicated (such as when discussing Steam in this thread), my concern is not specific to EA; this is all part of the splinter conversation re: DRM in general that has broken out in the last few pages of this thread. I'm not looking for reasons to dislike EA. In fact, I like EA. I'm indicating why I dislike a specific authentication tool some developers use and using examples to illustrate why I dislike it. That's all.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding me. As I've indicated (such as when discussing Steam in this thread), my concern is not specific to EA; this is all part of the splinter conversation re: DRM in general that has broken out in the last few pages of this thread. I'm not looking for reasons to dislike EA. In fact, I like EA. I'm indicating why I dislike a specific authentication tool some developers use and using examples to illustrate why I dislike it. That's all.
Fair enough. I can't really say anything else about it. Your concern is valid, but I feel it's only so valid. After a while, wanting to play a four year old game (online, mind you) and being disappointed that you can't is hardly worth fretting over. Games will be supported for as long as the company chooses to make resources available for them. Until such time as EA (or anybody) totally abandons a game, and it can be argued with their sports games that a yearly sequel is hardly abandonment, then concern about future viability of the title can be brought up.
Mass Effect is more unique than their typical sportsgasm. I suspect that whatever form of authentication they use is done separate from gameplay servers. A theoretical central hub where all games go to authenticate. Which is probably not the truth, but it's a situation that won't affect me since I have the 360 version.
page 1 and page 16 of this thread are almost identical.
Uhh, I only see 15 pages <_<
NEO|Phyte on
It was that somehow, from within the derelict-horror, they had learned a way to see inside an ugly, broken thing... And take away its pain.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
Reason Number #238 I hate EA: "Free" Unlockable Weapons for BF: Bad Company aka "5 for 5" doesn't work correctly.
1) Linking your gamertag to your EA account seems to not work for some people. I had problems with this myself but eventually I got it to work by just repeatedly linking my account till it just worked.
2) The Battlefield veterans program. Kinda Busted. Some people registering their BF42, BFV games can't because their CD keys don't work. I don't own either game so I can't verify this but the complaint seems widespread.
3) Get to rank 4 on the demo server get a weapon. Good luck getting in a demo game even if you bought the damn thing, EA shut down most of the demo servers. Fair enough shutting down the demo servers a month after the game is released but at least give PAYING customers a way to get the gun. (yes I'm aware it's not all that great)
4) Sign up for the BF newsletter, get a code to unlock a gun. Doesn't work. Matter of fact I've never even seen anyone with the gun in game at all.
5) Pre-order the game get a bonus gun. This one seems to be working right. It's a nice bonus. I have no complaints here. Unverified claims that some per-order codes do not work.
Anyways, when i first heard about this I immediately wondered how badly they were gonna screw this up and it seems my concerns were well founded. Here's an idea, quit promising stuff you can't deliever and maybe people will not hate you so much.
Posts
Okay, that was a bit much... I agree that it would be good PR for EA to allow the servers to run forever on the off chance that two people want to play a particular game. But that's hardly cost effective from their standpoint. Pressing the panic button now, to insinuate that EA will pull the plug on their authentication servers, because they turn off the gameplay servers is really just looking for a reason to dislike them.
I'd be willing to bet that if they did such a thing (long into the future...) that they will either provide a way to continue to play the game long after it's been profitable for them (or desireable for pirates). And if they don't, it probably won't matter much anyway. Who knows if PCs five years from now will be able to run it anyway.
You have a valid concern. But try not to insinuate smoke where there is no fire. At least, not yet.
If we're doing this, can we also mention Riccitiello's very public apology for the way EA handled those takeovers and what became of the companies? You know, in the essence of fairness.
And, you know, kinda the point of the thread
I'd also argue that you can treat games like MMOs differently. These are subscription based games that exist on the backs of servers and staff kept, maintained, and updated by the developer. While rogue servers prove they can exist in some form without the official servers, the entire experience is predicated on the idea that you're paying a monthly fee for the developers to provide a world for you, and it will exist only so long as they keep it online. It's a different situation and, in my opinion, different standards apply.
(Incidentally, I'm not indignant about this, I'm simply expressing a viewpoint. I don't think I've offered any anger in my posts.) With all due respect, I think you misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting EA (or whoever) keep said servers running forever, I'm saying that the games should not have required the use of specific servers in the first place. Again, I think you are misunderstanding me. As I've indicated (such as when discussing Steam in this thread), my concern is not specific to EA; this is all part of the splinter conversation re: DRM in general that has broken out in the last few pages of this thread. I'm not looking for reasons to dislike EA. In fact, I like EA. I'm indicating why I dislike a specific authentication tool some developers use and using examples to illustrate why I dislike it. That's all.
Mass Effect is more unique than their typical sportsgasm. I suspect that whatever form of authentication they use is done separate from gameplay servers. A theoretical central hub where all games go to authenticate. Which is probably not the truth, but it's a situation that won't affect me since I have the 360 version.
Apologies for any misunderstandings.
Uhh, I only see 15 pages <_<
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
Well, I'm sure it'll be an accurate prediction.
1) Linking your gamertag to your EA account seems to not work for some people. I had problems with this myself but eventually I got it to work by just repeatedly linking my account till it just worked.
2) The Battlefield veterans program. Kinda Busted. Some people registering their BF42, BFV games can't because their CD keys don't work. I don't own either game so I can't verify this but the complaint seems widespread.
3) Get to rank 4 on the demo server get a weapon. Good luck getting in a demo game even if you bought the damn thing, EA shut down most of the demo servers. Fair enough shutting down the demo servers a month after the game is released but at least give PAYING customers a way to get the gun. (yes I'm aware it's not all that great)
4) Sign up for the BF newsletter, get a code to unlock a gun. Doesn't work. Matter of fact I've never even seen anyone with the gun in game at all.
5) Pre-order the game get a bonus gun. This one seems to be working right. It's a nice bonus. I have no complaints here. Unverified claims that some per-order codes do not work.
Anyways, when i first heard about this I immediately wondered how badly they were gonna screw this up and it seems my concerns were well founded. Here's an idea, quit promising stuff you can't deliever and maybe people will not hate you so much.