http://gamingtrend.com
July 23, 2014, 01:14:02 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Want to play EA's 2K5 games online? Too damn bad.  (Read 1951 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Destructor
Special Project Group
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15899


▲▲▼▼◄►◄►B A Start


View Profile WWW
« on: August 06, 2006, 08:39:33 PM »

Or as I prefer to word it: EA just told you to fuck off and buy their new games.

Via Game Informer Online:

---
Today Electronic Arts released a list of online servers that have recently closed, or will be closing for some of the their older games. EA explains that servers for the games listed below will be shut down on the indicated dates. Gamers can continue to play the games online up until these dates, but certain community programs may begin to close down prior to the shutdown dates.

August 1, 2006 Online Service Shutdown

FIFA Soccer 2005 for PS2
FIFA Soccer 2005 for Xbox
FIFA Soccer 2005 Demo for Xbox
FIFA Soccer 2005 for PC
EA Sports Fight Night Round 2 for PS2
EA Sports Fight Night Round 2 for Xbox
NCAA March Madness 2005 for PS2
NCAA March Madness 2005 for Xbox
NBA Live 2005 for Xbox
NBA Live 2005 for PC
NBA Live 05 for PS2
NBA Street V3 for PS2
NBA Street V3 for Xbox
NCAA Football 2005 for PS2
Need for Speed Underground 2 Demo for PC
Need for Speed Underground 2 for PC
Need for Speed Underground 2 for Xbox
NHL 2005 for PS2
NHL 2005 for Xbox
NHL 2005 for PC
Total Club Manager 06 for PS2
Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2005 for PS2
Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2005 for PC
UEFA Champions League 2004-2005 for PS2
UEFA Champions League 2004-2005 for PC
UEFA Champions League 2004-2005 for Xbox

October 1, 2006 Online Service Shutdown

Madden NFL 2005 for PS2
Madden NFL 2005 for Xbox
Madden NFL 2005 for PC
NFL Street 2: Unleashed for PS2
NFL Street 2: Unleashed for Xbox
---

So...I have to ask this... WHY THE FUCK ARE THEY DOING THIS? Other than the bluntly obvious reason that they want you to buy and play their new games only. Does bandwith for these games seriously cost that much money?

And a random thought - you can still play the original MechAssault (released in 2002 on the Xbox) online right this minute if you choose to do so. And games like Starcraft and Diablo has been online accessable for how many years now?

One wonders why I will NEVER buy another EA title ever. This is as good as a reason as the rest of them.

And for those of you who ask if they can do this, they can, and they even say so on the back of every box: "EA may retire online features after 30 days notice posted on www.eagames.com"

Of course, they didn't give 30 days notice for the games canned in August (or nobody reported it until now for whatever reason), but that's just EA for you.
Logged

"All opinions posted are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled."
Turtle
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 9308



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 06, 2006, 08:56:18 PM »

Well what do you expect from a company that pins its a major portion of its profits on rehashes of the same material?  All those yearly sports games with very little changes.  It's like Disney before they got rid of Eisener.

The weird thing is, for the Xbox since MS handles matchmaking EA shouldn't be able to shut down the game.
Logged
TheMissingLink
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6235


TML, for short.


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2006, 08:56:30 PM »

Quote from: "Destructor"

NBA Street V3 for PS2
NBA Street V3 for Xbox


That confuses me, being that V3 is the most recent addition to that series...Maybe nobody played it online, I dunno.
Logged

TheMissingLink on PSN
Destructor
Special Project Group
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15899


▲▲▼▼◄►◄►B A Start


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 06, 2006, 09:11:45 PM »

Quote from: "Turtle"
Well what do you expect from a company that pins its a major portion of its profits on rehashes of the same material?  All those yearly sports games with very little changes.  It's like Disney before they got rid of Eisener.

The weird thing is, for the Xbox since MS handles matchmaking EA shouldn't be able to shut down the game.

No, EA made sure about this. Remember when EA wouldn't port their titles to the Xbox? As part of their agreement to port games for the Xbox/360, EA runs their own servers for all of their online games. Thus, they can also turn them off any damn time they please.

And while I understand the reason why they did this (the same reason that you said) it doesn't mean that it's right. Yeah, I know the whole 'they're in this to make money' and all that crap, but it's just not right. EA wonders why people hate them so much...
Logged

"All opinions posted are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled."
WinoMcCougarstein
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2675



View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 06, 2006, 09:33:23 PM »

Honestly, I dont see this as even being an issue with most of those games.  Why should they pay to keep servers running for games that are 2 or 3 years old?  Now shutting down the NBA Street 3 servers before NBA Street 4 is out is kind of stupid.
Logged

jblank
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4215


Always Outnumbered, Never Outgunned


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 06, 2006, 09:43:36 PM »

Quote from: "GatorFavre"
Honestly, I dont see this as even being an issue with most of those games.  Why should they pay to keep servers running for games that are 2 or 3 years old?  Now shutting down the NBA Street 3 servers before NBA Street 4 is out is kind of stupid.


Exactly. Come on fellas, really, why devote resources to March Madness 2005, when nobody is playing it? The terms of service EA has, that we all agree to when we sign up to play something online, or buy a game of theres, states that EA reserves the right to cancel online service for those games, at a time they choose.

This just isn't a big deal.
Logged

XBOX 350 Gamertag = Phobos of Mars
PSN Gamertag = PhobosofMars
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8950


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: August 06, 2006, 10:28:15 PM »

Quote from: "jblank"
Quote from: "GatorFavre"
Honestly, I dont see this as even being an issue with most of those games.  Why should they pay to keep servers running for games that are 2 or 3 years old?  Now shutting down the NBA Street 3 servers before NBA Street 4 is out is kind of stupid.


Exactly. Come on fellas, really, why devote resources to March Madness 2005, when nobody is playing it? The terms of service EA has, that we all agree to when we sign up to play something online, or buy a game of theres, states that EA reserves the right to cancel online service for those games, at a time they choose.

This just isn't a big deal.


Cause EA is evil and should give all their stuff away for free, forever.  Duh.

gellar
Logged
Destructor
Special Project Group
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15899


▲▲▼▼◄►◄►B A Start


View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 06, 2006, 10:50:31 PM »

Because people might still be playing the older games? Because people are tired of paying $50 for basically the same exact game (but with updated stats and slightly different gameplay) each and every year?
Logged

"All opinions posted are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled."
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8950


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: August 06, 2006, 11:01:28 PM »

Quote from: "Destructor"
Because people might still be playing the older games? Because people are tired of paying $50 for basically the same exact game (but with updated stats and slightly different gameplay) each and every year?


And why should EA give a shit?

Does MS still support Windows 98?  Products get end of lifed.  I'm sure EA spent enough time and money determining whether or not the 50 or so people this adversely affected's loyalty was worth the thousands of dollars per year it was costing them to run the servers.  I'm relatively certain it was a sound financial decision.

Not to be a dick, but game company's jobs are to make money.

gellar
Logged
WinoMcCougarstein
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2675



View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 06, 2006, 11:04:53 PM »

Quote from: "Destructor"
Because people might still be playing the older games? Because people are tired of paying $50 for basically the same exact game (but with updated stats and slightly different gameplay) each and every year?


Yeah, because everyone knows EA is the only game company that does that with their sports games.
Logged

Turtle
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 9308



View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 07, 2006, 01:22:11 AM »

Um, you guys are forgetting that EA could have simply let MS run the normal matchmaking for their games and all the costs could have been handled by MS.

Besides, a matchmaking server isn't all that expensive, especially so if not so many people are playing it.  You can simply fold it into a larger server farm.
Logged
egrudzin
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 199


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: August 07, 2006, 02:36:50 AM »

The big issue for me is that these games aren't really that old.  2 years?  Heck, I'm just now getting to play Need for Speed Underground 2 right now.  I have plenty of 2 year old PC games that I haven't gotten to that I still need to play.

It's just way too soon to end support for this.  4 years?  5 years?  There I can see ending support.  By then you probably don't even have the console that the game came on.  And I don't agree with the example of MS ending support of Win98.  They just now ended support for it and that was 8 years+ after release.  After 8 years I certainly can't complain.

I think the reason for the shutdown is money.  But not in terms of upkeep of the system.  I've got to believe the cost to keep these up and running is insignificant compared to the newer stuff.  They're trying to force people to buy their new stuff by making the old stuff not work.  Not a very customer-friendly move.  But they obviously don't care.
Logged
jblank
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4215


Always Outnumbered, Never Outgunned


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: August 07, 2006, 11:37:37 AM »

Quote from: "Destructor"
Because people might still be playing the older games? Because people are tired of paying $50 for basically the same exact game (but with updated stats and slightly different gameplay) each and every year?


Well, I don't agree with that, but in any event, as I said before, they own the right to exercise their ability to shut the service for those games down and when you buy a game of theirs and play it online, you are notified that they can do this. Who really expects them to give 3 years to a game such as MM 2005, which I doubt has many players.
Logged

XBOX 350 Gamertag = Phobos of Mars
PSN Gamertag = PhobosofMars
jblank
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4215


Always Outnumbered, Never Outgunned


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: August 07, 2006, 11:40:19 AM »

Quote from: "egrudzin"
The big issue for me is that these games aren't really that old.  2 years?  Heck, I'm just now getting to play Need for Speed Underground 2 right now.  I have plenty of 2 year old PC games that I haven't gotten to that I still need to play.

It's just way too soon to end support for this.  4 years?  5 years?  There I can see ending support.  By then you probably don't even have the console that the game came on.  And I don't agree with the example of MS ending support of Win98.  They just now ended support for it and that was 8 years+ after release.  After 8 years I certainly can't complain.

I think the reason for the shutdown is money.  But not in terms of upkeep of the system.  I've got to believe the cost to keep these up and running is insignificant compared to the newer stuff.  They're trying to force people to buy their new stuff by making the old stuff not work.  Not a very customer-friendly move.  But they obviously don't care.


Again, for the most part, we are talking about games that probably have very few players still and have probably moved on to later titles. Of course it's about money, but it's their right to do this and there are much worse things out there to blast EA for than this.
Logged

XBOX 350 Gamertag = Phobos of Mars
PSN Gamertag = PhobosofMars
Turtle
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 9308



View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 07, 2006, 11:59:55 AM »

You're thinking about this the wrong way.  This another one of the things that you can blast EA for.

Therefore, think twice next time you buy one of their games.
Logged
jblank
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4215


Always Outnumbered, Never Outgunned


View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 07, 2006, 12:49:40 PM »

Quote from: "Turtle"
You're thinking about this the wrong way.  This another one of the things that you can blast EA for.

Therefore, think twice next time you buy one of their games.


No, I am thinking about this the rational way. Tongue  They tell you in the agreement that they can pull the plug with 30 days notice, it's their right to and you agree to that when you buy and play one of their games online. If it matters to someone that much, then I agree 100% with you, don't buy the game, but really, after 2+ years, who is still playing NBA Live 2005? or MM 2005? Very, very few people.

I understand EA does a bang up job at making people angry, but of all the things they do wrong, this is about as trivial as it gets. If after 2+ years you haven't gotten your 40-50 bucks worth of the games online play, then I hate that for ya, but people have had ample time to play the games.
Logged

XBOX 350 Gamertag = Phobos of Mars
PSN Gamertag = PhobosofMars
Destructor
Special Project Group
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15899


▲▲▼▼◄►◄►B A Start


View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 on: August 07, 2006, 01:22:22 PM »

Quote from: "jblank"
If it matters to someone that much, then I agree 100% with you, don't buy the game, but really, after 2+ years, who is still playing NBA Live 2005? or MM 2005? Very, very few people.

The problem I see is this - how much exactly does it cost EA to host those servers? With pretty much nobody playing, it should be pretty much nothing to host said servers. It's obvious because of this that they're just doing this move for the greed reason (of making people buy newer games) instead of it being a huge drain on the moneyhat that is EA.
Logged

"All opinions posted are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled."
jblank
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4215


Always Outnumbered, Never Outgunned


View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 on: August 07, 2006, 01:29:50 PM »

Quote from: "Destructor"
Quote from: "jblank"
If it matters to someone that much, then I agree 100% with you, don't buy the game, but really, after 2+ years, who is still playing NBA Live 2005? or MM 2005? Very, very few people.

The problem I see is this - how much exactly does it cost EA to host those servers? With pretty much nobody playing, it should be pretty much nothing to host said servers. It's obvious because of this that they're just doing this move for the greed reason (of making people buy newer games) instead of it being a huge drain on the moneyhat that is EA.


That is corporate America bro, not just EA. Think about it though, you make a new product called Destructor 2006, then next year, you have Destructor 2007, a new product that you want people to buy, to replace the previous years game. Now, wouldn't you want people to support your 07 product? Why give incentives to keep using 2006? This is no different than Symantec's NAV having a one year license, where they steer your towards resubscribing or purchasing the latest and greatest. Besides, most people end up buying the new Madden/NBA Live/etc game anyway, so it's very doubtful the impact of this decision of theirs will affect many people at all.
Logged

XBOX 350 Gamertag = Phobos of Mars
PSN Gamertag = PhobosofMars
coopasonic
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4121



View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: August 07, 2006, 01:31:54 PM »

Quote from: "Destructor"
Quote from: "jblank"
If it matters to someone that much, then I agree 100% with you, don't buy the game, but really, after 2+ years, who is still playing NBA Live 2005? or MM 2005? Very, very few people.

The problem I see is this - how much exactly does it cost EA to host those servers? With pretty much nobody playing, it should be pretty much nothing to host said servers. It's obvious because of this that they're just doing this move for the greed reason (of making people buy newer games) instead of it being a huge drain on the moneyhat that is EA.


Servers cost money just sitting in the server room powered on. Also they can't use these servers for other things when they are supposed to be dedicated to these old games. When the 2k7 games are released the 2k6 games become next to free... seems like a sensible move to me.
Logged

It was this moment that took the movie from being a little ho-hum to “holy shit, did that shark just eat a plane!?”
CrayolaSmoker
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3614

Sponge Bath Slut


View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: August 07, 2006, 02:13:17 PM »

Quote from: "jblank"
That is corporate America bro, not just EA. Think about it though, you make a new product called Destructor 2006, then next year, you have Destructor 2007, a new product that you want people to buy, to replace the previous years game. Now, wouldn't you want people to support your 07 product? Why give incentives to keep using 2006?

I think the main problem with this line of thinking, and it certainly bears out in the case of EA, is that forced migration kills innovation.  EA, who is notorious for releasing sequels that are little more than roster updates, is basically saying "Give us $50-60 a year to keep playing the game you bought last year."  There's a subset of gamers (how large I cannot say) who would much prefer EA earn those dollars each and every year by bringing new features, new engines, and/or better A.I. to the game each and every year.  Hell, a three-year cycle where EA chose to focus on one of these each year would be a good start.  Instead, we get more of the same with an ultimatum.  IMO, that's just bad business.
Logged

Wii: 1429 3414 0674 4114 | 360: CrayolaSmokerGT
smokingcrayolas.net | surrogacy blog
jblank
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4215


Always Outnumbered, Never Outgunned


View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: August 07, 2006, 02:47:18 PM »

Quote from: "CrayolaSmoker"
Quote from: "jblank"
That is corporate America bro, not just EA. Think about it though, you make a new product called Destructor 2006, then next year, you have Destructor 2007, a new product that you want people to buy, to replace the previous years game. Now, wouldn't you want people to support your 07 product? Why give incentives to keep using 2006?

I think the main problem with this line of thinking, and it certainly bears out in the case of EA, is that forced migration kills innovation.  EA, who is notorious for releasing sequels that are little more than roster updates, is basically saying "Give us $50-60 a year to keep playing the game you bought last year."  There's a subset of gamers (how large I cannot say) who would much prefer EA earn those dollars each and every year by bringing new features, new engines, and/or better A.I. to the game each and every year.  Hell, a three-year cycle where EA chose to focus on one of these each year would be a good start.  Instead, we get more of the same with an ultimatum.  IMO, that's just bad business.


It may be a lot of things to some of you, but it's not bad business. If anything, this is GOOD business. I also don't buy into the roster update thing, they do more than that, but opinions about EA being all across the board, you aren't alone in thinking that.

Again, let me go back to what I have been saying. The percentage of gamers this impacts is a very small subset of their overall customer base. Most everyone is now playing later versions of those games so rather than keeping those going, when nobody is playing them, close them down, no big deal.
Logged

XBOX 350 Gamertag = Phobos of Mars
PSN Gamertag = PhobosofMars
Kevin Grey
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13976


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: August 07, 2006, 02:58:32 PM »

I don't play sports games, so take what I say with a grain of salt, however I've always been under the impression that the vast majority of the customers for these games move en masse each year to the new iteration and certainly the sales numbers (which are relatively constant or increase with each iteration) and absolute bottom basement used pricing (Gamestop is currently selling Madden 2005 for $2.99) would seem to bear this out.  

So, is anyone complaining here actually playing one of these "superceded" games online or is it just the general principal of the matter that bugs you?
Logged
Laner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4688


Badassfully


View Profile WWW
« Reply #22 on: August 07, 2006, 03:20:11 PM »

Quote from: "Kevin Grey"


So, is anyone complaining here actually playing one of these "superceded" games online or is it just the general principal of the matter that bugs you?

I don't play sports games either, but the principle of the matter does indeed bug me.  It may be "good business" as jblank says, but makes for poor customer relations - especially for a company that already seems to despise it's customers.  Thankfully there's not much under the EA umbrella that interests me.
Logged
Kevin Grey
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13976


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: August 07, 2006, 03:27:32 PM »

Quote from: "Laner"
I don't play sports games either, but the principle of the matter does indeed bug me.  It may be "good business" as jblank says, but makes for poor customer relations - especially for a company that already seems to despise it's customers.  Thankfully there's not much under the EA umbrella that interests me.


But would you complain if a game that was six years old and had an incredibly small current player base had it's servers shut down?  My point is that the nature of sports franchises makes that window dramatically smaller.  Is it really poor customer relations when there really aren't any customers using the service now anyway?  Where is the outcry from Madden 2005 players who still play it online?  It seems to me that most of the complaining is likely from people who aren't actually playing the games which makes the whole thing come off as stock EA is teh BAD boilerplate.
Logged
Canuck
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5445


I live in Japan


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: August 07, 2006, 03:29:41 PM »

Yeah comparing Windows 98 and Madden 2005 is a bit of a silly comparison.  I'm sure that if, one year after you bought it, EA made you pay another $50 "licensing fee" to keep playing BF2 or if Steam made you pay another $70 to play your copy of HL2 online then you'd be screaming bloody murder too.
Logged
JLu
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1310


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: August 07, 2006, 03:41:31 PM »

I own Madden 2005 still; but I can't recall the last time I played it; nevermind online...  It was probably January or February of 2005.  I'm personally not overly bothered by this as far as football is concerned.
But then again, I buy the annual roster update (I preferred having the choice, but thanks to the NFL, there isn't a choice now, so be it).  I'll play it for 4 months and sell it before the playoffs while it still has some value...
Logged

XBox Live Gamertag: JLu
jblank
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4215


Always Outnumbered, Never Outgunned


View Profile WWW
« Reply #26 on: August 07, 2006, 03:44:50 PM »

Quote from: "Laner"
Quote from: "Kevin Grey"


So, is anyone complaining here actually playing one of these "superceded" games online or is it just the general principal of the matter that bugs you?

I don't play sports games either, but the principle of the matter does indeed bug me.  It may be "good business" as jblank says, but makes for poor customer relations - especially for a company that already seems to despise it's customers.  Thankfully there's not much under the EA umbrella that interests me.


If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around it, does it make a sound?

If nobody is playing these games online, why keep the service going?
Logged

XBOX 350 Gamertag = Phobos of Mars
PSN Gamertag = PhobosofMars
jblank
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4215


Always Outnumbered, Never Outgunned


View Profile WWW
« Reply #27 on: August 07, 2006, 03:45:41 PM »

Quote from: "Kevin Grey"
Quote from: "Laner"
I don't play sports games either, but the principle of the matter does indeed bug me.  It may be "good business" as jblank says, but makes for poor customer relations - especially for a company that already seems to despise it's customers.  Thankfully there's not much under the EA umbrella that interests me.


It seems to me that most of the complaining is likely from people who aren't actually playing the games which makes the whole thing come off as stock EA is teh BAD boilerplate.



There ya go, you hit the nail on the head there.
Logged

XBOX 350 Gamertag = Phobos of Mars
PSN Gamertag = PhobosofMars
Jumangi
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1790



View Profile
« Reply #28 on: August 07, 2006, 03:48:24 PM »

Quote from: "Destructor"
Quote from: "jblank"
If it matters to someone that much, then I agree 100% with you, don't buy the game, but really, after 2+ years, who is still playing NBA Live 2005? or MM 2005? Very, very few people.

The problem I see is this - how much exactly does it cost EA to host those servers? With pretty much nobody playing, it should be pretty much nothing to host said servers. It's obvious because of this that they're just doing this move for the greed reason (of making people buy newer games) instead of it being a huge drain on the moneyhat that is EA.


The fact is you don't know any of those facts nor does anybody else here. Your just slamming EA to well slam them.

But thats the standard fare for GT....F*CK EA!!!
Logged
jblank
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4215


Always Outnumbered, Never Outgunned


View Profile WWW
« Reply #29 on: August 07, 2006, 03:49:51 PM »

Quote from: "Canuck"
Yeah comparing Windows 98 and Madden 2005 is a bit of a silly comparison.  I'm sure that if, one year after you bought it, EA made you pay another $50 "licensing fee" to keep playing BF2 or if Steam made you pay another $70 to play your copy of HL2 online then you'd be screaming bloody murder too.


Windows 98 had tens of mllions of installs, maybe 100 million. Madden 2005 maybe sold 3, 4 million, AND gets replaced every year. Now, considering the user base of the two, and the fact that when you bought the game and accepted their EULA, you were signing off on the acknowledgment they would cancel the service after X amount of time, what exactly is the problem?

It's not as though they are doing this without warning, they told us in 2004 when the game came out that this would happen at a date of their choosing.
Logged

XBOX 350 Gamertag = Phobos of Mars
PSN Gamertag = PhobosofMars
Arkon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6073


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: August 07, 2006, 03:57:45 PM »

Quote from: "Jumangi"
Quote from: "Destructor"
Quote from: "jblank"
If it matters to someone that much, then I agree 100% with you, don't buy the game, but really, after 2+ years, who is still playing NBA Live 2005? or MM 2005? Very, very few people.

The problem I see is this - how much exactly does it cost EA to host those servers? With pretty much nobody playing, it should be pretty much nothing to host said servers. It's obvious because of this that they're just doing this move for the greed reason (of making people buy newer games) instead of it being a huge drain on the moneyhat that is EA.


The fact is you don't know any of those facts nor does anybody else here. Your just slamming EA to well slam them.

But thats the standard fare for GT....F*CK EA!!!


Nor do we know the facts as to how many players these games have.  I don't have any of these games as I tend to avoid EA like the plague, so I really don't have an opinion one way or the other, aside from this.  I played Earth and Beyond, there were a decent amount of players, but EA just pulled the plug on it and said F-U to thier customers who were paying to play it.  They didn't bother to consolidate servers or anything, did the same with Motor City Online.  Given what they did there, this news doesn't suprise me much, other than that they are giving decent notice about it.
Logged
jblank
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4215


Always Outnumbered, Never Outgunned


View Profile WWW
« Reply #31 on: August 07, 2006, 04:05:13 PM »

MCO sold about 234 copies, thats why it got shitcanned. I remember it, I was one of the few that bought it.

Let's be conservative a moment and pretend that all the used, dust collecting copies of these games, that are on ebay or in your local EB or Gamestop's used shelves, are not there, and are still owned by people. Now remove the amount of them that don't have XBL (a pretty sizeable portion still), then remove the ones that simply don't play the games online (another portion), then remove the ones that don't play the games anymore period (probably a big portion). Finally, remove the people that have gone to the next version of the game (probably, again, a big portion).

After those slices of the pie are removed you have left the number of people still actively playing, lets say, NBA Live 2005. Now, after those other factors are removed, do you guys really believe there are many people that are gonna even notice that these games aren't available anymore? Will it affect some folks, sure it will, but the service is free and they agreed to EA's EULA, and can still play the game in any way possible, just not online.

I see what you guys are saying, but I just don't see the controversy here.
Logged

XBOX 350 Gamertag = Phobos of Mars
PSN Gamertag = PhobosofMars
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8950


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: August 07, 2006, 04:19:39 PM »

Quote from: "jblank"
I see what you guys are saying, but I just don't see the controversy here.


Bottom line bro:  The Internet hates EA and everything they do is evil.

Good thing they're still rich, or else they'd maybe cry about it.

gellar
Logged
CrayolaSmoker
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3614

Sponge Bath Slut


View Profile WWW
« Reply #33 on: August 07, 2006, 04:36:45 PM »

Quote from: "jblank"
Quote from: "CrayolaSmoker"
I think the main problem with this line of thinking, and it certainly bears out in the case of EA, is that forced migration kills innovation.  EA, who is notorious for releasing sequels that are little more than roster updates, is basically saying "Give us $50-60 a year to keep playing the game you bought last year."  There's a subset of gamers (how large I cannot say) who would much prefer EA earn those dollars each and every year by bringing new features, new engines, and/or better A.I. to the game each and every year.  Hell, a three-year cycle where EA chose to focus on one of these each year would be a good start.  Instead, we get more of the same with an ultimatum.  IMO, that's just bad business.

It may be a lot of things to some of you, but it's not bad business. If anything, this is GOOD business.

Perhaps I should rephrase that to, "IMO, that's bad customer service."  But then, I'm the kind that thinks that building customer loyalty through quality products and innovation is far preferential to financial bullying and option withdrawal.
Quote
Again, let me go back to what I have been saying. The percentage of gamers this impacts is a very small subset of their overall customer base.

And again, let me reiterate that I don't think there'd be as much bad blood and/or bellyaching if EA tried to innovate more with each itteration of the franchise.
Logged

Wii: 1429 3414 0674 4114 | 360: CrayolaSmokerGT
smokingcrayolas.net | surrogacy blog
jblank
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4215


Always Outnumbered, Never Outgunned


View Profile WWW
« Reply #34 on: August 07, 2006, 05:00:29 PM »

Quote from: "CrayolaSmoker"
Quote from: "jblank"
Quote from: "CrayolaSmoker"
I think the main problem with this line of thinking, and it certainly bears out in the case of EA, is that forced migration kills innovation.  EA, who is notorious for releasing sequels that are little more than roster updates, is basically saying "Give us $50-60 a year to keep playing the game you bought last year."  There's a subset of gamers (how large I cannot say) who would much prefer EA earn those dollars each and every year by bringing new features, new engines, and/or better A.I. to the game each and every year.  Hell, a three-year cycle where EA chose to focus on one of these each year would be a good start.  Instead, we get more of the same with an ultimatum.  IMO, that's just bad business.

It may be a lot of things to some of you, but it's not bad business. If anything, this is GOOD business.

Perhaps I should rephrase that to, "IMO, that's bad customer service."  But then, I'm the kind that thinks that building customer loyalty through quality products and innovation is far preferential to financial bullying and option withdrawal.
Quote
Again, let me go back to what I have been saying. The percentage of gamers this impacts is a very small subset of their overall customer base.

And again, let me reiterate that I don't think there'd be as much bad blood and/or bellyaching if EA tried to innovate more with each itteration of the franchise.


Why is it bad customer service? It was common knowledge, from what I understood, that they could do this, and thats what they are doing. If your bank discontinues a service that you signed up for, but notifies you in the beginning of the relationship that they can and probably will terminate the service at a specific time, would you be pissed at them?

What do you feel they need to do to the games? I believe they are quality games, so you and I will just have to agree to disagree on the state of EA's titles. I have bought every yearly version of Madden thats been available on the console I have owned, from the SNES, to the Genesis, all through to the 360, and never had I had the feeling that the game is simply a roster update.

I realize some of you feel differently, but for me, I am pleased with the changes they make, the additions they insert, and all the while doing it without mucking up the game.....except for Madden 06 360.
Logged

XBOX 350 Gamertag = Phobos of Mars
PSN Gamertag = PhobosofMars
Jumangi
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1790



View Profile
« Reply #35 on: August 07, 2006, 11:16:36 PM »

Quote from: "Arkon"

 I played Earth and Beyond, there were a decent amount of players, but EA just pulled the plug on it and said F-U to thier customers who were paying to play it.  They didn't bother to consolidate servers or anything, did the same with Motor City Online.  Given what they did there, this news doesn't suprise me much, other than that they are giving decent notice about it.


Earth & Beyond was viable? Please saying something like that just shows that your an EA hater. That game was dead(And yes I had tried to it).

The logic of people that rag on a company for making business decisions is just frankly dumb. Thats what the world is, and plenty of others do it too, but they seem to get a pass around here for some reason. Its not some fantasy world of peaches and cream where everything is done to appease the online/forum going crowd.
Logged
Jumangi
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1790



View Profile
« Reply #36 on: August 07, 2006, 11:20:24 PM »

Quote from: "CrayolaSmoker"

And again, let me reiterate that I don't think there'd be as much bad blood and/or bellyaching if EA tried to innovate more with each itteration of the franchise.


Exactly how much innovation(which is the most overused and overrated term ever) are they supposed to do? I was a fan of Segas 2K series(mostly football) but I can admit the games hardly changed from year to year.
Logged
WinoMcCougarstein
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2675



View Profile WWW
« Reply #37 on: August 07, 2006, 11:31:35 PM »

Quote from: "Jumangi"
Quote from: "CrayolaSmoker"

And again, let me reiterate that I don't think there'd be as much bad blood and/or bellyaching if EA tried to innovate more with each itteration of the franchise.


Exactly how much innovation(which is the most overused and overrated term ever) are they supposed to do? I was a fan of Segas 2K series(mostly football) but I can admit the games hardly changed from year to year.


That is how it is for every sports game franchise!  I hate how people are acting like EA is the only company that doesnt build their sports games from the ground up year after year after year.   In fact I would argue that some 2k franchises have managed to get worse as they "progressed" to the next year.  Look at their MLB games for crying out loud!  This is just a case of a lot of crying and whining coming from people that dont even own these games, because they like to take cheap shots at EA.  Hell, I'm not even close to 100% pro-EA, more like 70% at the moment and these kinds of threads just make me annoyed.  There are far worse game publishers out there than EA that sell their product for the same price and they rarely receive as much negativity.
Logged

Arkon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6073


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: August 08, 2006, 01:22:55 AM »

Quote from: "Jumangi"
Quote from: "Arkon"

 I played Earth and Beyond, there were a decent amount of players, but EA just pulled the plug on it and said F-U to thier customers who were paying to play it.  They didn't bother to consolidate servers or anything, did the same with Motor City Online.  Given what they did there, this news doesn't suprise me much, other than that they are giving decent notice about it.


Earth & Beyond was viable? Please saying something like that just shows that your an EA hater. That game was dead(And yes I had tried to it).

The logic of people that rag on a company for making business decisions is just frankly dumb. Thats what the world is, and plenty of others do it too, but they seem to get a pass around here for some reason. Its not some fantasy world of peaches and cream where everything is done to appease the online/forum going crowd.


Yes Earth and Beyond was viable.  It wasn't raking in money like the big MMO's but it was making money.  They had a very good community that was abandoned by EA.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.182 seconds with 103 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.056s, 4q)