arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010 … den-09.ars
Too soon if you ask me. Who would trust buying an online sports game from EA now if it’s going to become unplayable in a year?
Does this render the games unplayable online, or does it only stop extra features like updating rosters, DLC, etc? I wouldn’t know as I’m not interested in such games. The latter would be somewhat acceptable, the former, not. I don’t imagine a mere matchmaking setup is costly for a company to keep considering they can probably have many different games on the same backend, unless they did something very wrong with its design. After all, the games aren’t played on EA servers, bandwidth is only exchanged between clients in actual gameplay, they only need a server just to find each other.
Valve Software still supports their decade old games for example, while their service also provides server browsing for hundreds of user modifications. Blizzard also still supports Diablo 2 and older games, even though their backend is likely more complex and demanding and I doubt their sales are high now even though many people (likely more people than older EA games, which means they still need a powerful setup to serve all of them, unlike EA) are still using the servers. I don’t understand this move at all.
Its stops both , as you play on EA servers .
To make sure you buy Madden 2011 ECT. You see VALVE did spend billions on making its decade old software , let alone just for exclusive NFL rights , there lies the real reason sadly
Valve also makes new games they’d rather people buy instead of play the old titles. And I’m sure they invested hefty sums for the development of their Source engine from 98 to 2004 for example. I recall reading that Gabe Newell self funded the company to keep it running for a time. They just prefer to show good product and customer support to acquire more of them than try and force them into purchases in such shitty manner. If only more of the big boys had a similar attitude. And yeah, that was my point, shutting down the servers is for reasons very different to cutting operational costs as it doesn’t make sense with that in mind considering it appears to be a negligible cost for others.
That’s rather silly and the reason why EA make yearly updates to their sports brand . So that people buy the new games , rather than their old ones .
I’m no expert , but I would imagine EA R&D Budget dwafs that of VAVLE ,and that games like Madden and FIFA run on In-House engines
Not the same Gabe that singed a deal with EA, for EA to publish all their titles ?
The Madden NFL exclusive rights cost EA over a billion for only 4 years . That’s more money that most companies are worth (and that was only for the NFL rights) . Deals like that are the reason why EA wants and need consumer to buy each yearly update
What’s rather silly? I’m not sure you understood what I said.
EA puts out many more titles from which it profits as well, so while their operational costs are certainly higher (to support the creation of all those titles, since EA incorporates a ton of different studios and companies within itself), they also have potential for much more income in comparison.
The same one, I’m not sure what you’re trying to imply. EA or no EA, Valve support their products just as much as always. See the complete, free transformation of Team Fortress 2 from its initial release on PC to how it is now for example. I don’t go through EA to buy their products online in any case, EA has no say whatsoever in the development of their PC titles. It could have been any publisher in their place, they’re just a vessel to get titles in retail in this case (and in some cases port them to consoles), not to fund their development or anything else.
So? Botching the products people bought for a certain feature set isn’t justified, especially a year after the fact. If the games themselves don’t make enough profit to justify the expense of the exclusive rights, then they shouldn’t pay for them anymore instead of screw over customers like that. I’m sure the back of the box didn’t say the bullet points they paid $60 for only apply for a year.
You know, I’m still annoyed that Phantasy Star Online had its servers taken down.
On one hand, this would piss me off - I very rarely play “current” games, instead opting to play them years later when they’re cheap.
On the other hand, these are all sports games. It’s been my impression of people who play sports games that they generally always want the most recent version, rather than keeping an ‘outdated’ edition from the previous year.
EA probably sees that these servers aren’t being used much and are costing the company much more money than they are making. So it’s fair enough.
EA make new titles , they much rather people played .
I’m making the point , that EA dwarfs that of VAVLE and also makes its own In-House engines.
I’m making the point that VAVLE get money from EA, whether you like it , or buy the game direct or not
I’m not sticking up for EA here , I’m just listing the reasons why they’re doing what they’re going . They’ve spend over a Billion on the rights alone ,and need to make sure people buy the annual updates , its quite simple .
I’m pissed because I consider ESPN NFL2k to be on one of the Finest sports games ever made , that’s still ahead of the current Madden games in terms of Presentation , animation , commentary and gameplay .
The deal made me sick , A move that the NFL did not inthe interest of the sport , the fans , but the bank balance
This is like the third time this is said. Who disputed that? EVERY company makes new titles they’d rather people buy and play.
Um, okay? Bigger company, bigger expenss, bigger income. It’s all relative.
More like EA get money thanks to Valve by publishing their products in retail. Or do you think all the profit goes to Valve and EA do it out of kindness?
Here we go again
You said
EA like people to buy their new games, that’s why they do updates every year . EA also use and make thier own In-House engines for time to time, and allow investment in games in terms of R&D and development time .
FIFA sees massive amounts spent on in terms of R&D , and the likes of Spore was in development for years and uses it’s own Tech ECT, ECT.
Or Bigger losses , if you’re the like of EA, SEGA, Take Two , none of which have made a profit , only massive losses the last couple of years .
And with out retail , VAVLE wouldn’t be in business . The Bulk of HALF-Life II sales still come from retail I’m willing to bet .
Every company likes people to buy their new games. I don’t understand why you repeat it. Did I say that’s not true? But not every company shuts down servers to the old games. Instead they keep them running showing people a game purchase from them will provide its value for a long time to come, so they’re likely to buy their future products for the same reason, instead of being scammed into it. Counter-Strike wasn’t dropped when Counter-Strike: Source was made, same for all the other Source versions of past Valve titles, even though some weren’t as succesful as the past editions. This is good business. It has the same goal, sales, but it achieves it without fucking people over.
FIFA may see massive amounts spent once per 4-5 years, not with every iteration.
Then clearly something’s wrong with their business model, this doesn’t change it.
Valve would never be without retail. If it wasn’t EA, it would be someone else. EA made an offer that benefitted EA, Valve accepted because it benefitted Valve also. I still don’t know what you’re trying to imply by saying this. Yes, publishers are needed, I never disputed that. But Valve’s relation isn’t dependant on any one publisher. Their games are self funded, self supported, and a publisher, any publisher, just does that. Publish.
You were the one that brought it up , and not many companies pay over a billion or $250 million per year for rights. That why some companies can keep their servers going , and why EA shuts down its sport servers .
Simple.
Counter Strike that MOD game , that VAVLE in the end made us Pay for ?
You couldn’t be more wrong. Making a year sequel is incredible hard work and takes a massive team for a game like FIFA. The starts team alone is massive , that’s with out the main team that have to make everything work on all the systems in less than 9 months .
Let me tell you , that means a massive spend on EA behalf .
Yeah there is , but like I say, the bigger the company the bigger potential loss or profit.
Did I say any different ?. I’m making the factual point , that EA publish VAVLE games at this time.
Without a publisher those games wouldn’t get to retail. I’m sure most id games were self funded ECT , they need a Publisher. Like I say with out retail VAVLE wouldn’t be where they are today .
I’m sure any Publisher has a lot of say , to the game they’re going to promote at retail , its the Publisher that is taking the BIG risk at the end of the day.
And more to the point , I’m sure EA PC fans can still play the likes of MOH or the Battlefield series online ?
I seriously doubt EA has to keep paying the rights for already released games. If they don’t pay anymore, I don’t think anyone’s going to sue them for running the servers. The game’s already out, the servers hold no licenced content, all that is client side. Otherwise that is what they would have said here, that they’re forced to shut down the servers. They wouldn’t claim it’s to cut operational costs. The only case they’d have to pay again is if they wanted to re-publish a game, or release a new game, not to keep the already released game running as that serves no new licenced content and provides no extra income. But even if that was true (it’s not) they buy the rights anyway to release the yearly sequels, so supporting the old games is not adding to that cost in terms of rights.
Valve doesn’t only provide full support for their old games, they also let you re-download them at any time, as many times as you need, on any PC, any location. And EA tries to say it’s too costly to merely run matchmaking servers, and you support them? Hell no.
Uh, no, even when Counter-Strike went retail, it was still free to download for people who had Half-Life. Even with the advent of Steam, when people registered their Half-Life product key to it, they also got Counter-Strike, Day of Defeat, and all other mods-that-went-retail titles. So, they didn’t make anyone pay. Only new Steam customers can now choose to buy them separately for lower prices. And yes, shame on Valve Software for hiring talented individuals from the community, how evil they are.
When the engine is already working on all platforms, why is a sequel with the same engine and a minimal amount of changes so costly? That is the reason I said every 4-5 years, because they only introduce major changes roughly at that kind of period, then continue to milk the same game with different rosters for the most part. Proof, please.
And I didn’t say anything different.
Did I say any different? They do currently publish Valve games. So? Random fact of the day? Thanks, but I knew already.
When did I dispute this?
For your last point, I dn’t know if they still run the MoH servers, but it’s not relevant. Providing the expected support for those doesn’t make it ok to screw others over.
If this topic has accomplished nothing else, it may have proven TA and Al3x love nothing better than battling each other… I can’t even tell for sure where the disagreement is here guys?
Was TA saying it’s OK for EA to do this? I didn’t think so, but is he now? Hell if I know… it honestly seems like you’ve both let the other back you into a position you don’t even believe in, just to keep arguing. shrug
The reasons for EA to do this are obvious, whether they’re acceptable or not is another matter, and only time will decide that. But personally I hope EA keeps it up, at a certain point even the most Joe-average casual gamer may start to get the message EA doesn’t care about them, and their motives are about everything but the ART.
[quote=“The Ancient”]If this topic has accomplished nothing else, it may have proven TA and Al3x love nothing better than battling each other… I can’t even tell for sure where the disagreement is here guys?
Was TA saying it’s OK for EA to do this? I didn’t think so, but is he now? Hell if I know… it honestly seems like you’ve both let the other back you into a position you don’t even believe in, just to keep arguing. shrug[/quote]
This.
[quote=“Solo Wing Dragon”]
is here guys?
Was TA saying it’s OK for EA to do this? I didn’t think so, but is he now? Hell if I know… it honestly seems like you’ve both let the other back you into a position you don’t even believe in, just to keep arguing. shrug
This.[/quote]
EA have to pay the NFL 250 Million dollars every year , and they’ve now extended that deal to 2012 or something .
That is why EA shuts down the servers to make sure people need to buy the next Madden .
It wasn’t free , end of .
Because you have hundreds of people working on the game, and even of you just make small changes to the gameplay, you’ve got to make sure that is able to work on all systems , then you add in the costs of the substantial Manager and Online modes , the tracking of players and leagues around the world , That’s a lot of Money
So we agree on something at last 
I would think its far more relevant, seeing as both games are FPS , and not yearly updates
Yes they are , and no I’m no sticking up for EA at all Like I said I was a big fan of the ESPN series, but its obvious the reasons why EA are doing this.
I also disagree with you a bit about EA too, they’re all as bad as each these days . I think its a disgrace that Actvivsion raised the priced of Call Of Duty MW II just because they could get away with it , I’ve seen SONY and Konami shut down their servers to games and there’s no outcry , hell SEGA just shut down ChromHounds servers and that’s pissed me off , bit time .
I think its a disgrace that people are charged full price for yearly updates anyway , because to me , forget the controller . The biggest barrier to gaming is the price of games themselves. I bet if all new games cost ?10 that would bring gaming to the masses , more than any new controller
EA don’t HAVE to pay, they WANT to pay, as it guarantees sales.
Sure, they’re screwing people over to get them to buy new games. Who said it’s not what they’re doing? It’s still a shitty move you seem to try and justify.
But, it was free, so long as you purchased Half-Life at that point. Or did you want to get Half-Life mods, for free, without owning Half-Life?
So, you’re just guessing. OK. As for the updates, clearly, I said that kind of support is somewhat justifiable to cut after a time, but the actual multiplayer gameplay is not.
Providing the expected support for those doesn’t make it ok to screw others over.
[quote=“Shadow”]
is here guys?
Was TA saying it’s OK for EA to do this? I didn’t think so, but is he now? Hell if I know… it honestly seems like you’ve both let the other back you into a position you don’t even believe in, just to keep arguing. shrug
This.[/quote]
You’re being so very silly. EA entered and singed a contract , and they have to pay , either that or not only lose the licence, but also face the lawyers and get sued , and in the end pay far more .
YES , as I said in my very 1st post
No I don’t like Counter Strike at all . I’m simply saying Counter Strike wasn’t free , and even on sale in retail .
And you aren’t ?. Has luck would have it , EDGE did a lovely feature on Fifa 10 a few months back, and met the Team . Yes its costs a lot of money and takes a massive Team to make sure people get their FIFA fix, each year , Oh btw the 360 degree play movement was a BIG deal and very hard to implement
Well I can still play my BattleField II online , even though EA owns DICE and publish the series . Maybe if EA turned BF into a yearly series , need to pay the Armed Forces $250 million for sole rights , that would change though 