4 ms·

If they are going to shut down a server for a game, why not release that 1 final patch that will either let people run their own server, or make it so it's no l

If they are going to shut down a server for a game, why not release that 1 final patch that will either let people run their own server, or make it so it's no longer dependent on a server?

Lockyy 14y ago
If that happened why would you buy the new games that the servers were shut down to make way for?
- ekianjo 14y ago
  Naive answer: because they make better, newer games ?
  - phaus 14y ago
    This is EA we are talking about. Each new release is just as likely to completely fuck up the core gameplay mechanics as it is to marginally improve them. Actually, now that Bobby Kotick has completely destroyed everything that Blizzard stood for, you can say it about pretty much every large game development company other than Valve Software.
- rcfox 14y ago
  If the only reason people are playing the new game is because the old one shut down, then you're not really releasing a new game; you're renewing their subscription. You should either realize that this is evil and innovate, or realize that this is inefficient and bake it in.
- malloreon 14y ago
  For the roster updates and game "improvements."
InclinedPlane 14y ago
Indeed. But look at from EA's perspective. They already have your money, why do they care?
- tsotha 14y ago
  Because you may be pissed off enough to shun their current offerings? I refuse to buy anything from Ubisoft after the debacle that was Silent Hunter V - partially because their always-on DRM didn't always work and left me unable to play my single-player game, and partly because the game itself was so bug-ridden there was no point anyway. Ubi's obsession with piracy (the CEO famously claims only 5-7% of games are paid for) and their lack of attention to the part I'm actually interested in, the game, has probably cost them a few hundred bucks by now.
  - InclinedPlane 14y ago
    Of course, but those are more diffuse and long-term issues, which EA finds it convenient to ignore right now. Just as all companies which burn their user base in service to short-term profits do.
devicenull 14y ago
Because it's not always the case of just one minor patch. You have to figure that a lot of these games have fairly complicated backend architectures. You could be talking multiple different services, all with different configuration requirements. There's a big difference between designing a server so the public can running it, and designing a server for internal use only.
- charonn0 14y ago
  If they can't fix their own software to work without their own servers then they are lazy at best and incompetent at worst. There are no valid excuses in claiming a fix is too difficult when you're the one who designed the problem to begin with.

If they are going to shut down a server for a game, why not release that 1 final patch that will either let people run their own server, or make it so it's no longer dependent on a server?

Lockyy 14y ago

If that happened why would you buy the new games that the servers were shut down to make way for?

ekianjo 14y ago
Naive answer: because they make better, newer games ?
- phaus 14y ago
  This is EA we are talking about. Each new release is just as likely to completely fuck up the core gameplay mechanics as it is to marginally improve them. Actually, now that Bobby Kotick has completely destroyed everything that Blizzard stood for, you can say it about pretty much every large game development company other than Valve Software.
rcfox 14y ago
If the only reason people are playing the new game is because the old one shut down, then you're not really releasing a new game; you're renewing their subscription. You should either realize that this is evil and innovate, or realize that this is inefficient and bake it in.
malloreon 14y ago
For the roster updates and game "improvements."

InclinedPlane 14y ago

Indeed. But look at from EA's perspective. They already have your money, why do they care?

tsotha 14y ago
Because you may be pissed off enough to shun their current offerings? I refuse to buy anything from Ubisoft after the debacle that was Silent Hunter V - partially because their always-on DRM didn't always work and left me unable to play my single-player game, and partly because the game itself was so bug-ridden there was no point anyway. Ubi's obsession with piracy (the CEO famously claims only 5-7% of games are paid for) and their lack of attention to the part I'm actually interested in, the game, has probably cost them a few hundred bucks by now.
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  Of course, but those are more diffuse and long-term issues, which EA finds it convenient to ignore right now. Just as all companies which burn their user base in service to short-term profits do.

devicenull 14y ago

Because it's not always the case of just one minor patch. You have to figure that a lot of these games have fairly complicated backend architectures. You could be talking multiple different services, all with different configuration requirements. There's a big difference between designing a server so the public can running it, and designing a server for internal use only.

charonn0 14y ago
If they can't fix their own software to work without their own servers then they are lazy at best and incompetent at worst. There are no valid excuses in claiming a fix is too difficult when you're the one who designed the problem to begin with.