I mean, EA started doing this as soon as they thought they could get away with it in the franchises that are the most obvious fit: sports games. Madden, NBA 2kX, PGA whatever…
At first, gamers would just feel left behind because there was a new title out to match the new season’s roster of teams and players. No one batted an eye because that echoes how live sports keep up annual appeal. But over time, the publisher started taking the servers offline for the older sports games, so if you wanted to compete then the only option was to play a newer title.
I’m not saying that’s inherently evil, and not to make a slippery slope argument, but it’s not really hard to see how the lure of steady recurring revenue would drive the industry to do the same for as many franchises as possible. And here we are today where IIRC you can’t play titles like Diablo IV offline even as a single player.
IMO as gamers, we need to collectively draw a line in the sand. But we’re such a diverse group with different tastes and expectations, so I don’t really see that happening.
Speaking from experience with open source, there’s literally no way in hell the average consumer is going to make even minimal effort in order to improve anything at all, even if you manage to make them understand the problem. Ask any idiot still on Twitter.
But over time, the publisher started taking the servers offline for the older sports games, so if you wanted to compete then the only option was to play a newer title.
I’m not saying that’s inherently evil
As someone who remembers when games used to ship with the server code so you could host your own multiplayer, I am saying it’s inherently evil!
Well damn, I remember that too and it’s a good point. You changed my mind, shutting down the only servers is shitty and evil and game companies should go back to allowing community servers.
I mean, EA started doing this as soon as they thought they could get away with it in the franchises that are the most obvious fit: sports games. Madden, NBA 2kX, PGA whatever…
At first, gamers would just feel left behind because there was a new title out to match the new season’s roster of teams and players. No one batted an eye because that echoes how live sports keep up annual appeal. But over time, the publisher started taking the servers offline for the older sports games, so if you wanted to compete then the only option was to play a newer title.
I’m not saying that’s inherently evil, and not to make a slippery slope argument, but it’s not really hard to see how the lure of steady recurring revenue would drive the industry to do the same for as many franchises as possible. And here we are today where IIRC you can’t play titles like Diablo IV offline even as a single player.
IMO as gamers, we need to collectively draw a line in the sand. But we’re such a diverse group with different tastes and expectations, so I don’t really see that happening.
Speaking from experience with open source, there’s literally no way in hell the average consumer is going to make even minimal effort in order to improve anything at all, even if you manage to make them understand the problem. Ask any idiot still on Twitter.
Lmao
Yeah, I was being way too polite about it.
As someone who remembers when games used to ship with the server code so you could host your own multiplayer, I am saying it’s inherently evil!
Well damn, I remember that too and it’s a good point. You changed my mind, shutting down the only servers is shitty and evil and game companies should go back to allowing community servers.