4 ms·

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 singl

by 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.
- cypress66 4y ago
  Optimal solution would be that valve demands for game approval that the single player component of the game runs even if servers are down. They already demand for example that bans for cheating only affect the multiplayer part of the game.
- Double_a_92 4y ago
  1. The single player part of the game should be able to run forever. 2. Service level agreement for n years explicitly stated at release? -> Actually Yes, If we are buying subscriptions I would like to see the terms of that subscription.

by 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.
cypress66 4y ago
Optimal solution would be that valve demands for game approval that the single player component of the game runs even if servers are down. They already demand for example that bans for cheating only affect the multiplayer part of the game.
Double_a_92 4y ago
1. The single player part of the game should be able to run forever. 2. Service level agreement for n years explicitly stated at release? -> Actually Yes, If we are buying subscriptions I would like to see the terms of that subscription.