EA shut downs game servers, including 2009 games

Other Games
21

EA wanted this contract, they could simply not renew it. They want it, because it brings sales. You’re the one being silly arguing semantics that you didn’t clarify in the first place.

Counter-Strike was free, there’s no way around that simple, plain fact. If you had Half-Life, it was free. If you had Half-Life, it was free even after they published it in retail. If you had Half-Life, it was free even after Steam was introduced as it was unlocked when you registered your existing Half-Life key to it. Even though by that time it was no longer a mod, but an internally developed game with all its creators working for Valve Software. Yet it was still free in those ways. The same for DoD. The same for Team Fortress Classic (which was internally developed from the start actually, yet was also offered free to show what mods can do with Half-Life).

Or so they said to the gaming press who has no way to prove it and merely acts as their PR machine knowing only the things EA wants them to know, true or not. Though, like I said, they do offer the occasional new development, but not every single year.

Providing the expected support for BF2 doesn’t make it ok to screw others over. It only further proves that it’s not the operational cost of the servers that makes them shut them down as the report claimed. BF2 in particular is a very different case since it still provides revenue beyond game sales (though being available online and being the last “big” Battlefield game it also probably sells more than last year’s Madden games) from the user-created servers whose owners pay a fee if they want them to be ranked.

In any case, if you do agree that they’re screwing customers over, why do you constantly bring up reasons trying to justify this screwing over, telling me they have more costs to do this and that? Screwing the customer over is never justified, if the game can’t be profitable without doing that then it shouldn’t be made at all. This screwing over is not justified, especially not with the mere hypothetical guessing of this and that extra cost.

And I don’t know what beef you have with Valve. They’re still a company out to make money, and I didn’t ever imply they’re charity saints. I merely showed an example that proves server/bandwidth costs are negligible for companies considering how much support Valve offers in that aspect. You brought up equally valid EA based examples with the MoH and BF games that also prove that. Good for you. MoH, BF, other games, Valve games, and tons of other games, prove server costs are negligible and EA is screwing customers over and claims those costs are the reason when they clearly can’t be. End of.

22

So I made this the other night: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15E45Slj4mU)

23

c-c-c-combo breaker!

24

At end of the contract sure , not during the contract . Otherwise in come the lawyers and EA will end up paying more in costs .
Skysports has a massive contract for Football rights (because duh… it wants it) if it breaks it contract and doesn’t pay up , you don’t think SKY will get sued for the total amount owned for the ‘agreed’ contract , and then more costs on top , for breach of contract ?

I will say again for the last time , Counter Strike was not 100% free at all . Chu Chu Rocket to some like us was free, but in other parts of the world it wasn’t . So I’ll never count Chu Chu Rocket as a totally free game at all .

And of course you would known this because you worked with the teams ECT?
The EA team were pretty open and honest about it , even though it seemed a small and obvious improvement, because it totally changed the game was played it was hard worked and needed big changes to their physics system .

What is there , that’s so hard to understand ?. EA pays money for the sporting rights , in cases like Madden its a lot of money.
So its in EA interest to make sure the consumer buys the yearly update at full price, in retail, not in the sales bin or half price the year latter , it needs the consumer to buy the game at full price when the game ships .
Hence why we have moves like shutting down the servers , I don’t like it , and I’m sure no-one else does , but its painfully obvious why EA are doing this

The END

25

Counter-Strike was free everywhere, so long as you had Half-Life, since it was a Half-Life mod. Counter-Strike wasn’t published anywhere that Half-Life wasn’t already published giving people the opportunity to get it for free. It was a Half-Life mod, so it required Half-Life. Counter-Strike was free, even though it was developed further internally by Valve employees including the original creators so they could easily stop serving those updates for free, but didn’t. If you wanna get technical and argue semantics, by getting the retail version of Counter-Strike, which was an OPTION rather than the only way to get Counter-Strike, you didn’t pay for the game, you paid for the ability to play Half-Life mods without actually having Half-Life. All mods could be played like that, and Counter-Strike, being the most popular was included to entice people who didn’t care for Half-Life.

Did you? And lol @ the notion of being honest while promoting your game in the gaming press on behalf of, and with the permission of, your publisher.

It’s in every company’s interest that people buy their new games for full price instead of play the old ones. Even if not of the same franchise and even if not a yearly update (but often the same genre in Valve’s case), old games are still competition to new games so could just as easily justify the shuting down of servers. This however doesn’t justify screwing customers over no matter how many times you bring up additional cost. If the cost was so high it didn’t justify the product’s creation without screwing over the customers, it shouldn’t have been created in the first place. The end.

26

Look I don’t want to pee you off or the board anymore , but it wasn’t free to all . Not everyone who had Counterstrike had Half-life . It wasn’t free to all , and that went for the console versions of Counter Strike .

And how is saying EA is right to do what it is ?. People are just saying the reasons why EA are going what they’re doing , and its obvious why

Madden is still one of the best selling games around , and EA just need to make sure the series continues like that . So we have the closer of the servers , but the game still works you know , you can still play with mates in the house , and its not like EA are doing this with all their games now is it.
That’s not me saying EA are right to do what they’re doing , just the way of the world.
I’m pissed that SEGA closed down the Main Server to CH , but fully know and accept the reasons why it was done

27

If not everyone had Half-Life then Counter-Strike, a Half-Life mod, shouldn’t be free to them. They still had a choice. Buy Half-Life and get Counter-Strike free, or buy Counter-Strike itself. Their choice. If they somehow lost the opportunity to get it for free, it was their fault, and they SHOULD pay for it. Counter-Strike was still published. Congrats for paying for a box when you could have gotten it for free. But you just paid for the ability to play Half-Life mods without owning Half-Life. Which is something you should pay for, either in this way, or by buying Half-Life. I should remind you your original argument was, Valve made people pay for it. Then when I said they didn’t make anyone pay for it, since it was free so long as you had Half-Life, which is a no brainer since it was a Half-Life mod, you started saying, but it wasn’t free! As for the console version, is there any reason it should have been free? Porting work, enhancements, extra content publishing? Didn’t you spend a paragraph saying how hard it is to make a game run on different formats?

And yes, EA is screwing customers over for money, I don’t think anyone disputed that, why repeat it? Did I say they aren’t doing that, for you to keep repeating it if you aren’t trying to justify their moves? It’s still unjustified screwing over that isn’t justified no matter how many times you try to do that saying they have this or that cost. Every company wants to make sure their new games sell after all.

28

I got Half-Life Box set and a Voodoo III at the same time . I didn’t pay for CS at all , and I didn’t think it was that good either, Half- Life on the other hand was incredible. My brothers Kid on the other hand , bought Counter Strike for his PC and had to pay for it , the silly boy

So why all the big fuss , when my 1st post made it pretty obvious as why EA were acting, like they’re acting . You had to wade in with all this talk on VAVLE, game engines , old games … When we all know why EA are doing this move for their sports series .
I don’t like it, I don’t agree with it , but I know the reasons why its being done, and even with out Online play, the game still works and plays perfectly fine , and can be played in multi player with mates

29

You’re asking me why all this talk? Again, which part of “EA is screwing over custoemers” did I dispute for you to keep repeating their costs like some sort of justification?

I didn’t “wade in” it’s a public forum and thread, and my Valve talk, which you decided to base your nonexistent argument on, was before your posts and was a way to show that EA’s move has nothing to do with “operational costs” and everything to do with screwing customers over.

Then you waded in (hey, this is fun) and instead of simply post your opinion on the subject you had to make it a reply to my post, for no reason whatsoever, trying to justify EA’s move compared to Valve keeping their servers up because Valve didn’t “spend billions on making its decade old software , let alone just for exclusive NFL rights , there lies the real reason sadly” or whatever. You created the argument mister, I was simply making a point about servers having negligible operating cost, and that this is merely to screw customers over. The same point you now say you’ve been making. Then why argue against my first post?

30

And just what was wrong with

I think that summed up EA move perfectly

31

What was wrong was it was a reply to my post seemingly justifying EA’s move compared to others that keep their servers up due to extra costs. Ie, Valve, a tiny in comparison company, didn’t spend as much money, so they can keep their servers up, EA, an industry colossus, spent more money for franchises that have been and will be selling like hot cakes for decades, so they have to shut them down. No, it doesn’t justify it.

32

You two have really got to kiss and make up at some point. :slight_smile:

33

For the last time EA aren’t doing this for every game , mainly their sports games and mainly their Console line up . I can still play my BattleField II on-line. That’s point one .
It doesn’t matter how big a company is , you still need sales and you still need to show to the shareholders , that you have a business model and you can make a profits ECT. I’m sure Microsoft is more than rich enough to give us all Windows 7 for nothing , maybe it should after the Vista , cock up , it doesn’t . Why with all the billions in the bank does Microsoft need to lay off any staff , closed down studios ?.
Maybe Microsoft should carry on supporting Windows 95, 98 with On-Line updates too ehh?, you know this BIG company with billions in the bank , should remember the windows 95 user after all, or is it in MS interests to make sure we buy thier new OS systems ?
Doesn’t matter the size of the Corp, because all business must make a profit, or at least show they’re will be able too . Now I don’t like EA lock out NFL deal any more than anyone here , but can see why it was done, and why EA are making sure that users need to buy the yearly updates .

Of course they don’t have too , they have a choice , and their old games will still work , just not on-line

Yes its stinks , yes it sucks , but that’s the real world and BIG business.

34

“For the last time,” providing the expected support for some games doesn’t make it ok to screw customers of other franchises over. If a game can’t be profitable without doing that, which is what you imply, (even though I’m confident it’s flat out false as most people still buy the new iterations even if the old is yet playable) then it shouldn’t be made. Especially when the back of the box doesn’t explicitly state you’re not buying those features and your game will be gimped in just over a year from now.

35

[quote=“Al3xand3r”]

“For the last time,” providing the expected support for some games doesn’t make it ok to screw customers of other franchises over. If a game can’t be profitable without doing that, which is what you imply, (even though I’m confident it’s flat out false as most people still buy the new iterations even if the old is yet playable) then it shouldn’t be made. Especially when the back of the box doesn’t explicitly state you’re not buying those features and your game will be gimped in just over a year from now.[/quote]

EA are only screwing sporting customers , you don’t like it, then buy a rival product, or no one at all.
If people are buying the new updates anyway , then what’s you beef with it ? Has in your own words, they’ll buying the new versions ,so what the point in keeping the old servers open , when they have Madden 10 I’m sure EA would say
And where does it say on the back of any box, that On-Line modes will be supported for 5, 10 , 20 years plus , or for that matter 1 year ?.
It doesn’t happen `, not matter the size of the Corp .
Did it say on Windows 98 Box , MS will only be supporting updates until Windows XP ?. That’s MS with enough cash in the bank to buy most countries .

In the end , its obvious why EA went for a lock out deal , and why EA are shutting down servers . And please don’t make out that EA are the only one for lock out deals , or exclusive licence agreements, or that they are the only ones, shunting down serves to games.

36

Um, the back of the box lists certain features with no time limit. It doesn’t have to give a time limit of 10 years for it to be wrong to close them down in under 2. I didn’t say everyone buys the new games. I said most. Perhaps I should say many. It doesn’t matter. The server cost is negligible as proven by other companies and other EA titles.

And yes, EA is screwing over sporting customers and I don’t like it and I don’t buy their products. Or rival products. If you like it, then go buy them. You don’t seem to be into them either but that doesn’t stop you from defending their attitude, why should it stop me from attacking it? It didn’t stop you from attacking Valve’s position about the freely available Counter-Strike either even though you don’t like it. So, lol @ this “argument”.

Windows 98 works as well now as it did back in 98. It’s new products, hardware and software, that don’t work with Win 98, and these new products don’t claim to support it.

I also didn’t say or imply EA are the only ones who do such things. But this thread is about EA, so I mainly discuss that. Feel free not to, or to make threads about others. Of course you won’t because you seem to approve of this behaviour but whatever. I don’t.

37

[quote=“Al3xand3r”]Um, the back of the box lists certain features with no time limit. It doesn’t have to give a time limit of 10 years for it to be wrong to close them down in under 2. I didn’t say everyone buys the new games. I said most. Perhaps I should say many. It doesn’t matter. The server cost is negligible as proven by other companies and other EA titles.

And yes, EA is screwing over sporting customers and I don’t like it and I don’t buy their products. Or rival products. If you like it, then go buy them. You don’t seem to be into them either but that doesn’t stop you from defending their attitude, why should it stop me from attacking it? It didn’t stop you from attacking Valve’s position about the freely available Counter-Strike either even though you don’t like it. So, lol @ this “argument”.

Windows 98 works as well now as it did back in 98. It’s new products, hardware and software, that don’t work with Win 98, and these new products don’t claim to support it.

I also didn’t say or imply EA are the only ones who do such things. But this thread is about EA, so I mainly discuss that. Feel free not to, or to make threads about others. Of course you won’t because you seem to approve of this behaviour but whatever. I don’t.[/quote]

I’m on about on-line support , Madden does have features like 4 player support offline which still strands . Madden 08 works as well as it ever does , just can’t play online , or no updates There again I can’t update my Windows 98 anymore, you know for features like the latests Media Player ECT
We’re all SEGA fans here right , I see on my PSO and Quake III boxes head To head ON-LINE Multi player , lets all Play Quake and PSO online now and see how far we get, there again the likes of SEGA have closed down ChromHounds , Konami MGS III servers and SONY closed down the like of This Is Football servers (and that was ace football series) , and we can on listing more corps that’s done exactly the same

I don’t like it anymore than you do and I’m pissed off at Chrome Hounds , and yes I’m not a fan or EA Madden series at all (ESPN was such a better product) But it’s what happens in big business .
And while I knock EA for the Madden move, they’ve made great efforts to improve their games and Line-ups (Fifa especially) , have made some AAA games this past couple of years (Dead Space is fantastic) and taken some big risks on new IP and IP that quite different to the norm (like Mirror Edge )

So I think EA aren’t much worse , or much better than a lot of gaming companies out there at all. In fact more of scandal and outrage to me …
is what all corps charge for download content (mere weeks after the game ships) these silly exclusive download content Pre-Order deals done with retail chains and Acitivsion adding ?5 to the RRP of MW II, just becase its a COD game

38

The latest media player doesn’t support Win 98. Nothing new does. As for actual downloads, I already said in the first post that stopping that kind of downloading support is somewhat more acceptable but stopping the multiplayer for such recent games isn’t. PSO was pay to play online, you don’t pay you don’t play. Can you pay them for it now? No. So, you can’t play either. It’s not as big of a screw over. In any case, you’re taking this argument to stupid places by mentioning dead systems and software that is far beyond just over a year old. And again I never said it’s only EA that does this.

39

Nothing new does ? , not much comfort for Windows 98 users then ,even though MS have billions in the bank.
No PSO was free very much free on the Dreamcast , so was Quake III , so if the Severs are so minimal in costs ,why did SEGA closed down the Dreamcast servers , you this corp that we all love , much bigger than VALVE, but not supporting it’s old games
Why did SEGA close down ChromHounds server with the minimal costs in running servers , you didn’t pay SEGA to play that online after all, and SEGA didn’t pay a billion quid for the NEROIMUS rights I can assure you

The END !!! :anjou_happy:

40

Windows 98 works as good as it did back in 98, it’s new products that don’t support it, and new products don’t claim to support it. Lol but chromehounds didn’t have licensing costs, lol, I wonder how its sales were compared to EA Sports’ yearly iterations and not just one-off shots. And since when do you love SEGA, all you do is whine about them doing this and not doing that. Now you’re taking the discussion to stupid places by mentioning dead systems and software that is far from just over a year old. I also didn’t say EA are the only to screw customers over, so I don’t see why you keep mentioning others that did so. Clearly you’re running out of bullshit to sprout. That’s quite an amazing achievement given your seemingly infinite supply of that. The end indeed.