Poll: Halo 2 shutting worries me for the future of favorite online games.

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

EBass:

SteelStallion:
It really depends. If a game is based purely on dedicated servers, then yes, no matter what, that game will eventually be shut down.

If a game, however, is based off of peer to peer game connections, then don't worry about it. As long as there are people still interested in playing, you'll be able to play.

Someone really doesent understand the issues here.

Dedicated servers allow anyone to host a game on their computer or off a dedi-box so you can play the game forever.

Games which are purely P2P based are almost (some exceptions) always reliant on a matchmaking service which the company can take down at any time.

I got confused between the two, my bad. So yeah, as long as it's dedication based, no probs.

There's not option for me, so I'll just post mine here:

No, because so far there hasn't been a single game that I haven't played in a while that I miss because of the multiplayer. I never buy games because of the multiplayer.

fix-the-spade:

But it's not.

It's sixty bucks + 40 bucks a year + whatever cost for extra content + cost of internet connection in the first place. So $300+ For five years and a few months.

For a little more than five years of play time, that isn't good value. Even if people sometimes bemoan the cost of running a dedicated server, at least your money lets you decide when and what it's playing.

i was generalizing, but lets take several things into account. chances are, these people do not have jobs, because if they did they would not be able to sink that much time into it. secondly, if they do not have jobs, they live with their parents and their parents pay for their xbox live. thirdly, the cost of having xbox live cannot be attributed to just one game, chances are, these people have halo 3 and modern warfare 2 or some other multiplayer game. plus, you can download demos and such from xbox live, so i like to look at it as paying $24 dollars a year for game demos and trailers, plus the chance to download extra content for my games.

Irridium:
It also worries me.

Especially after EA shut down a bunch of servers for its 2008-2009 games...

ninjad
why did they shut those servers anyway

D Y N A S T Y:

Irridium:
It also worries me.

Especially after EA shut down a bunch of servers for its 2008-2009 games...

ninjad
why did they shut those servers anyway

Not sure. Could be because they were too expensive to maintain.

I know some of them were for games that almost no one played, but others were pretty popular like Madden 09, which I'm sure many people still play.

Makes me glad to be a PC gamer as well as a console gamer.

PC games online last as long as the community, not as long as the developers let it. Counter Strike (a game from the 90's) is still heavily populated to this day, while Halo 2 a game that's only 6 years old is dead... though I wonder if they shut down the online on the PC version.

Pc gamers didn't use to have this problem, but with matchmaking being "hip" lately it worries me.

PC and consoles should adapt eachothers good points, not bad ones.

brodie21:

fix-the-spade:

But it's not.

It's sixty bucks + 40 bucks a year + whatever cost for extra content + cost of internet connection in the first place. So $300+ For five years and a few months.

For a little more than five years of play time, that isn't good value. Even if people sometimes bemoan the cost of running a dedicated server, at least your money lets you decide when and what it's playing.

i was generalizing, but lets take several things into account. chances are, these people do not have jobs, because if they did they would not be able to sink that much time into it. secondly, if they do not have jobs, they live with their parents and their parents pay for their xbox live. thirdly, the cost of having xbox live cannot be attributed to just one game, chances are, these people have halo 3 and modern warfare 2 or some other multiplayer game. plus, you can download demos and such from xbox live, so i like to look at it as paying $24 dollars a year for game demos and trailers, plus the chance to download extra content for my games.

At either rate, an on-line only game has less of a value and I think they should either reflect that in the price or make it so the game is still playable beyond their corporate support schedule.

AlphaOmega:
Pc gamers didn't use to have this problem, but with matchmaking being "hip" lately it worries me.

PC and consoles should adapt eachothers good points, not bad ones.

like UT3 on ps3 having mod support, and a few console games using servers.
well, I'm off to play some BF1942 DC

*shrug*

you got much more then the money value of it

dont worry so much

there will be other games.

If you wanted to play Halo 2 online couldn't you just play the PC version?

Now if servers shut down 2-4 years later to a game that was still high on players i would be shaking my fist. But considering it 10 years and they have the new version out plus reach coming aswell i think it fair to say you can still get the halo experience.

I'm not too bothered because I don't play online all that much.

tippy2k2:
I voted no because the only games that I play that are online only would be First Person Shooters, which do not age well at all. There are very few FPS that I would still play after, hell, let's call it five years. Have you popped in ten-year old FPS games lately? How many of them are good (take those rose tinted nostalgia glasses off before you pick it back up)?

I can point out right away that the original Half-life and Counter-strike, which are at least 10 years old, are still as much fun today as they were back then. I don't know if people still play Half-life's multiplayer anymore, but Counter-strike is still one of the most popular and most played online shooters for the PC. But for PC shooters like Counter-strike or even TF2, you won't ever need to worry about the plug suddenly being pulled from the game because there are player-run dedicated servers. These games will only die when absolutely no one wants to play them anymore.

The multiplayer only games that people should be concerned about shutting down one day are MMO's and console titles. That's one of the reasons why I don't buy any console games where the main feature is online gaming. I want games that I can come back to in 5 or 10 years and play them again if I feel like it.

dradiscontact:

tippy2k2:
I voted no because the only games that I play that are online only would be First Person Shooters, which do not age well at all. There are very few FPS that I would still play after, hell, let's call it five years. Have you popped in ten-year old FPS games lately? How many of them are good (take those rose tinted nostalgia glasses off before you pick it back up)?

I can point out right away that the original Half-life and Counter-strike, which are at least 10 years old, are still as much fun today as they were back then. I don't know if people still play Half-life's multiplayer anymore, but Counter-strike is still one of the most popular and most played online shooters for the PC. But for PC shooters like Counter-strike or even TF2, you won't ever need to worry about the plug suddenly being pulled from the game because there are player-run dedicated servers. These games will only die when absolutely no one wants to play them anymore.

The multiplayer only games that people should be concerned about shutting down one day are MMO's and console titles. That's one of the reasons why I don't buy any console games where the main feature is online gaming. I want games that I can come back to in 5 or 10 years and play them again if I feel like it.

I figured someone would eventually call me out on Counter Strike. I don't play any multiplayer FPS on the PC (I do love my single-player HL), and, not to open myself up to a flame war, but most console games don't age well. Yes, there are bound to be a few exceptions to this, but not really any multiplayer games (Halo being the most prominent example and only real example that more than a handful of people care about).

tippy2k2:

dradiscontact:

tippy2k2:
I voted no because the only games that I play that are online only would be First Person Shooters, which do not age well at all. There are very few FPS that I would still play after, hell, let's call it five years. Have you popped in ten-year old FPS games lately? How many of them are good (take those rose tinted nostalgia glasses off before you pick it back up)?

I can point out right away that the original Half-life and Counter-strike, which are at least 10 years old, are still as much fun today as they were back then. I don't know if people still play Half-life's multiplayer anymore, but Counter-strike is still one of the most popular and most played online shooters for the PC. But for PC shooters like Counter-strike or even TF2, you won't ever need to worry about the plug suddenly being pulled from the game because there are player-run dedicated servers. These games will only die when absolutely no one wants to play them anymore.

The multiplayer only games that people should be concerned about shutting down one day are MMO's and console titles. That's one of the reasons why I don't buy any console games where the main feature is online gaming. I want games that I can come back to in 5 or 10 years and play them again if I feel like it.

I figured someone would eventually call me out on Counter Strike. I don't play any multiplayer FPS on the PC (I do love my single-player HL), and, not to open myself up to a flame war, but most console games don't age well. Yes, there are bound to be a few exceptions to this, but not really any multiplayer games (Halo being the most prominent example and only real example that more than a handful of people care about).

I agree that console games overall don't age well, but this generation might be the one to change that. In the past, each new console generation brought with it an advancement in graphics that was leaps and bounds ahead of what came before it. Obviously there are improvements still to be made in the next generation, but I really don't think it's going to be as drastic as it has been in the past. We're getting to the point where re-visiting a PS3 or 360 game in 5 or 10 years might not feel like we're playing a relic of a game anymore.

brodie21:
i was generalizing, but lets take several things into account. chances are, these people do not have jobs, because if they did they would not be able to sink that much time into it. secondly, if they do not have jobs, they live with their parents and their parents pay for their xbox live. thirdly, the cost of having xbox live cannot be attributed to just one game, chances are, these people have halo 3 and modern warfare 2 or some other multiplayer game. plus, you can download demos and such from xbox live, so i like to look at it as paying $24 dollars a year for game demos and trailers, plus the chance to download extra content for my games.

OBJECTION.
Point 1 and 2: http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=9342
Point 3: The gripe is there no matter how many games are supported by XBL.
Point 4: http://xbox.about.com/od/xbox360faqs/f/xblsilverfaq.htm

Katana314:

brodie21:
i was generalizing, but lets take several things into account. chances are, these people do not have jobs, because if they did they would not be able to sink that much time into it. secondly, if they do not have jobs, they live with their parents and their parents pay for their xbox live. thirdly, the cost of having xbox live cannot be attributed to just one game, chances are, these people have halo 3 and modern warfare 2 or some other multiplayer game. plus, you can download demos and such from xbox live, so i like to look at it as paying $24 dollars a year for game demos and trailers, plus the chance to download extra content for my games.

OBJECTION.
Point 1 and 2: http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=9342
Point 3: The gripe is there no matter how many games are supported by XBL.
Point 4: http://xbox.about.com/od/xbox360faqs/f/xblsilverfaq.htm

all of your points have no bearing on what i was saying. i was talking about the people who would sink that much time into halo 2 must not have anything better to do and thus must be kids, because you know that there are a ton of 12 year olds on XBL. second, the gripe is not there, they have halo 3 to play with, and halo reach. dont you think it is funny that they took the halo 2 servers off just as they launched a halo reach beta? and lastly, wtf is with this silver garbage? i have gold, and i do play online. do not use extraneous info to 'strengthen' your argument

Let me clarify.

There are 40-year-old still playing CounterStrike 1.6. As long as this argument is about support for older games, you can't say it's just kids playing them. Halo 2, perhaps, it was just kids. But from that article; I'd say I currently have more evidence of it than you. I don't play XBL and I don't need to: I know plenty of people 20 and over who play Halo. You can't generalize based on your experiences.
The gripe IS in fact invalid. What if I can't afford Halo 3? What if there's a Halo 2 feature I like, or a 3 feature I hate? What if we're referring to the ages-old, last iteration of a game series on XBL loved by a few people? I don't want to have to keep shelling out $50 if I don't WANT those new features.
The silver membership is meant to illustrate that Gold membership is NOT what gives you access to demos and trailers. That can be done for free. Gold is solely to play games with others.

I mostly play single player or multiplayer with my friends (N64 had the best multiplayer) and I never liked getting trash-talked by 12 year olds so this effects me in no way. but I do understand how some others feel.

TelHybrid:
PC games online last as long as the community, not as long as the developers let it. Counter Strike (a game from the 90's) is still heavily populated to this day, while Halo 2 a game that's only 6 years old is dead... though I wonder if they shut down the online on the PC version.

Bah, ninja'd. But I'll put up my post anyway just as point of agreement.

I'd like to point out that Counter-Strike (both iterations of it) still has a lively online community, despite having been released more than ten years ago. Why? Two words- dedicated servers. The community can keep this game alive as long as it chooses.

Maybe folks are starting to see why we PC gamers made so much noise over the "dedicated server" issue?

Multiplay games not so much its the singleplayer games that require an internet connection that i am worried about. When i buy a game i dont expect the online portion to be available in 10 years its just not economically feasable to do it. I do expect to be able to play my single player games in 10-15 years or longer.

You can't really expect them to keep the servers running forever... It takes money, and after X years it just becomes a bad financial decision.

It's life, really. The same reason why your grandma's gotta die.

Well, i've had a similar experience.
Fury, Age of the Chosen was an online mmorp-pvp game the was heavily focused on the pvp game-play and featured 10 different class trees and a bfbc-ish way of progressing.
As you ranked up you got point that you could spend to but new attacks. You wore still the same "level" as anyone else and it was just as "easy" for a new player to kill you as it was for a hardcore "I-play-15-hours-a-day" gamer.

That game was my ultimate favorite game of all time but, sad thing was. Their server got shut down a looooong time ago. 5-6 years i think and the game disappeared with it. Now all that is left of fury is a small number of videos on youtube and a post on a MMO community... sad isn't it?

I think that the servers should be up all the time. Or make it dedicated with updates so that everyone can play after it's death.

The Rogue Wolf:
Maybe folks are starting to see why we PC gamers made so much noise over the "dedicated server" issue?

Because we're elitist, self-entitled dicks, apparently. :D

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked