Blogs When should game servers be retired?

I don't mind when a company like EA holds the right to host servers/make you use a host service. But was does piss me off is when those companies start to drop service, then I think the server files should be released to he public so that we can host our own servers when we want to have "lets play that old ass game for fun/memories" night


Better yet they could just release server files but not update stats if you play on a privately hosted server. (think BF3)

 

"Modern game production dictates that everything released must have multiplayer functionality" and there lies the problem.

If you're making a single player game for god's sake keep it single player. I HATE all this tacked on MP rubbish..

 

just allow users ro host their own servers when the official ones shutdown.

p2p multiplayer as suggested by someone should never be used as some isps throw all p2p usave in one hat and call you a filthy pirate complete with throttling and so on.

 

Earth and Beyond - EA has no issue with binning an MMO when revenue falls.

 

Make it awesome and moddable and it will survive - warcraft 3 still runs, trackmania nations still runs, and im sure there are many more.

Of course these arent constantly updated and so, like the article suggests are more likely to last longer, but the point stands- make a good game, get good longevity.

 

Fixed that for you

I accept that when a game becomes obsolete to the point it is no longer economical for the dev to keep servers running, they need to take the business decision to pull the plug, but agree with other commenters that they really should release the server code to the community so enthusiasts can take up hosting duties. Of course they then lose the ability to control the quality of the MP experience, since they can no longer choose the hardware or connection used by servers, but they could implement minimum specs with a line quality test in the server code to try to block it from being run on servers with unacceptable latency issues etc.

Anyway, I think people would accept the risk of a lower quality MP experience if it was a choice between that and no MP experience at all after the game falls below a 1% share.

 

Please Google: Motor City Online

It deserves at least a paragraph in this article in response to how EA treats their game servers, even pay to play like MCO.

 

I don't trust EA and it servers. Kill off server multiplayer, make another 2012, 2013, 2014... game so people will have to keep buying the latest game in order to play multiplayer.

 

That is if you are lucky enough for EA to release the game you want on your platform, mine being PC.... Madden.... PC Players are still waiting (since 2007) and I really thought the release of Origin would give them a good reason to give us Madden back.

 

I don't usually play games other then MMOs. The last games I played that wasn't a MMO was GT5 and Borderlands 1 and now I've bought Borderlands 2 aswell.
For those nonMMO-titles I play, I don't need any servers really, as I only play the singleplayer-mode of them. It's something to do in the winterdays, when my MMO-buddies aren't around to play a MMO.

It's a tricky one with gameservers. Most usually they're kept alive aslong as they're profitable and for MMOs with monthly subscriptions that's way easier to achieve over long periods of time. If you only rely on box-sales tho, there'll be a break-even point and after that the studios are actually loosing money, if they keep the servers running.

Some two years of guaranteed server-uptime starting with release would be pretty much acceptable for nonMMOs, as this would match the two year warranty given for products in the EU.

 

As long as there is still a sizable chunk of people playing then they should have an obligation to keep the servers running. Plenty come back to MW2 for their 'fix' and that's a good number of years after it was released (even though MW3 etc. are newer MW" feels better). I wonder if that's why they dont show the number of people playing online on the game selection board anymore??

 

The answer is never.

If it is too costly to host servers the code should be released to the community. Many people still play CS now and I'll still be playing in 50 years when I'm an old man, Valve set the gold standard which every other company should aspire to.

We paid for these games so surely should be able to play until death.

 

The better solution would be to have microtransactions to keep the servers running forever. If you want to play online: Insert Coin.

These costs could be ridiculously low like $1 or 2 per month and it would actually offer more then running a server yourself, which would cost you way more.

 

I know there's still a Tiberian Sun server (although I think it's a fan-based server).

 

I agree with this. It seems that publishers like EA are shooting themselves in the foot by releasing new versions of games every year. It is not certain that each new iteration of a game will be better than the last, so why not add a year between games? Then they can keep server numbers high because game users don't have a new version to upgrade to for another calendar year. Personally, I prefer great single player games that take the time to focus on story instead of a MP element, so I've never really gotten caught up in online servers being shut down.