4 ms·

EA has been routinely shutting down game servers for almost 20 years now. Legal or not, I cannot say. In any cause, the usual targets seem to be games with ann

• pseudalopex 4y ago
  Shutting down servers is 1 thing. Breaking the single player game is another.
  • oblak 4y ago
    Your biases may be showing here. I think shutting down servers is just as bad as removing single player games from people's libraries. The end result is quite the same for the customers: they can no longer use the products they paid for. In my case, the last Ubi game I purches, and played, was released back in 2003. Hopefully that clears my stance on this particular company
    • zamalek 4y ago
      As someone who does not enjoy single player games, I don't think this is bias. There is no functional reason for a server for a single player game. There is no reason for Ubisoft to have to make these cost-cutting moves in the first place. It's bringing an inherent disadvantage of closed multi-player games to single player games.
• the_af 4y ago
  Game servers require a cost to operate (in money and people) and I don't expect them to stay up forever. What's the excuse for forcibly shutting down the single player experience though?
  • oblak 4y ago
    I can't speak for them, though I would imagine the reason, not an excuse, is to make more money? Maybe having these games available is costing them some money. As I said above, I stopped dealing with this company a long, long time ago.
    • the_af 4y ago
      > Maybe having these games available is costing them some money Do you mean in the sense of "people are still playing this game instead of buying my new game?". Probably. I would guess this is probably false though -- that people keep buying games for companies they perceive as consumer-friendly. Or do you mean they lose money by providing customer support? They could just add a warning notice the game is no longer supported, and that you buy it (or play it) at your own risk. It wouldn't be the first time companies make short-sighted decisions, though.
  • soderfoo 4y ago
    What do you think an optimal solution would be? 1. Service level agreement for n years explicitly stated at release? 2. Release a binary containing the bare necessites of the title's backend services (stripped of any analytics or proprietary stuff)? 3. Something else? Whats frustrating is that studios and publishers (should) have an idea of what the lifetime cost for each player is, so they can price the game appropriately. I wish it were industry best practice for large studios to be transparent at release and state "we can support this game for a minimum of 10 years, if it's a hit, longer".
    • the_af 4y ago
      I would like the answer to be "release the server for free", but I understand the reality is more nuanced. Server-side code might have proprietary components or code reused for other games, or a whole lot of complications which are difficult to extricate from a "free" release, and the company might just not want the bother. Releasing something always comes with expectations, just look at how much grief authors of free and open source code sometimes get from entitled users! But yeah, I would love for game companies to release their servers once the commercial shelf life of a game has ended. I think it's unrealistic to always expect this, though.