EA Once More Shuts Down Servers of Several Current Gen Games

[Ed Oscuro]

The joy of modern games with online play. This time, an entire game becomes unplayable:
[...]

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/05/02/rock- ... ed-may-31/

stuff

If it weren't for those meddling kids/Harmonix/the prospect of more bad press? Hard to believe that the message and mirrored stuff on their website (FAQ changes) were all "errors."

[Friendly]

Yeah, right, it was all an "error".

Original FAQ by EA:

-I've heard ROCK BAND will not be available after May 31. Is this true?
>Yes, we will be suspending support of ROCK BAND after May 31 and focusing resources on other EA titles. We thank everyone for playing ROCK BAND, and we encourage you to explore some of the other exciting titles in our mobile line-up.

-Can I still play ROCK BAND if I've already downloaded it?
>The ROCK BAND servers will be live through May 31, 2012. If you have already downloaded the game, you can continue to play until then.

Of course this has been deleted now. The claim that the message and the FAQ were an error is bullshit. The backtracking we are seeing now is pure damage control.

[MadScientist]

There was some amusing stuff about EA in this eurogamer article on Free Radical;

"In retrospect, what happened after TimeSplitters 2 was that EA saw the Metacritic and came to us," says Ellis. "I don't actually think they'd looked at the game very much." The publisher demanded Future Perfect have a strong lead character in order that it appeal to the US market. "EA turned up with this stuff that was supposed to help us," says Doak. "And it was just big boards with pictures of Vin Diesel on them. Wesley Snipes was on one in his Blade outfit."

[Ruldra]

this eurogamer article on Free Radical

Articles like that makes me convinced that pursuing a career in the game industry is one of the worst decisions you can make in your life.

[Elixir]

You guys take gaming way too seriously. For example, I've been reading some of the reviews Mass Effect 3 is getting and I am seriously disappointed. Not in the game, in the reviews. This game has some good points and the core game sounds fun as hell, but everyone bashes it - disregarding the entire fucking game - because of the ending. Final Fantasy XIII-2 is another case; the game is fun, the ending is poor. I don't play EA games because I'm not interested, but this stance is wrong. This stance obviously implies that other companies aren't looking to make a profit and EA making profit is some cruel disgraceful act. EA are just doing what works and it sells. As a consumer, that is the greatest power a company can have. I mean, these people complaining about EA's business practice are going to take it up the ass regardless, and buy their products regardless. It's like scratching a wound and wondering why it isn't healing.

If you know what to expect and roll with it anyway, it's your own fucking fault.

Also it's funny to hear people saying EA games "were good" at some point. Like James Pond (a generic 2D platformer) and Haunting (warping into inanimate objects to scare people). I rented both of those in the early 90's and they were shitty in comparison to the likes of Sonic 2, Streets of Rage 1/2, Toejam and Earl 1/2, Aladdin, Castle of Illusion, Landstalker, Shining Force II, Lemmings, Wiz n Liz, Fantastic Dizzy, Subterrenia, and many other of the Megadrive library at the time. I was something like 8 years old, so I didn't lean towards something based on brand name or loyalty, only by like/dislike. It's absolutely stupid to say that these games, which were average at best even in their own time, are better than something like Mass Effect 3.

[louisg]

Also it's funny to hear people saying EA games "were good" at some point. Like James Pond (a generic 2D platformer) and Haunting (warping into inanimate objects to scare people). I rented both of those in the early 90's and they were shitty in comparison to the likes of Sonic 2, Streets of Rage 1/2, Toejam and Earl 1/2, Aladdin, Castle of Illusion, Landstalker, Shining Force II, Lemmings, Wiz n Liz, Fantastic Dizzy, Subterrenia, and many other of the Megadrive library at the time. I was something like 8 years old, so I didn't lean towards something based on brand name or loyalty, only by like/dislike. It's absolutely stupid to say that these games, which were average at best even in their own time, are better than something like Mass Effect 3.

I think EA was good back before they got into consoles. Like a lot of western companies, they shined at strategy games and creative and unusual game designs. And, they sucked at action games. When they were trying to make games that'd appeal to console gamers like B.O.B., it was all over. But yeah, you also picked the two lamest EA games to rag on. At least criticize Road Rash and Desert Strike, the two non-sports games they made which seemed to get acclaim.

EA was part of the generation of companies like Activision which were instrumental in establishing the idea that the game designer was more than just an engineer working on a generic piece of functional software. That's where they fit into game history. Otherwise, it's like playing NES A Boy and His Blob and wondering what the big deal is with that David Crane guy.

If you liked TJ&E and were willing to look past that game's (typical early 90s american console offering) shortcomings, I'm sure there are EA games from that time period you'd like...

[MadScientist]

It's absolutely stupid to say that these games, which were average at best even in their own time, are better than something like Mass Effect 3.

It's not exactly clever to cherry pick two average games which most people don't care about and never reference in order to construct an extremely thin straw man argument either. A few better games that might actually be used to support an 'EA used to better' argument would probably include some of the following;

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri
Dungeon Keeper 1+2
Syndicate
Sim City series
Lands of Lore series
Theme Park/Hospital
Populous series
Command & Conquer series
Wing Commander series
System Shock series
etc...

[Mortificator]

How can you give EA credit for Wing Commander, System Shock, Command & Conquer, Lands of Lore, and SimCity? Those series didn't start under EA's watch and EA didn't publish their best games.

[Elixir]

It's absolutely stupid to say that these games, which were average at best even in their own time, are better than something like Mass Effect 3.

It's not exactly clever to cherry pick two average games which most people don't care about and never reference in order to construct an extremely thin straw man argument either. A few better games that might actually be used to support an 'EA used to better' argument would probably include some of the following;

It's not exactly clever to post a list of games EA published and didn't actually create in order to construct an extremely frail counter-argument. A few better games that might actually be used to support an "EA used to be better" argument would include Desert Strike, Mutant League Football and Road Rash. Even those were weak compared to what I've already mentioned.

I don't know what you were thinking. I'm pretty sure Westwood and Bullfrog are disappointed in you. As for me, I'd only go back and play Theme Park and Dungeon Keeper.

[MadScientist]

How can you give EA credit for Wing Commander, System Shock, Command & Conquer, Lands of Lore, and SimCity? Those series didn't start under EA's watch and EA didn't publish their best games.

I didn't mean that they deserved credit for all of those series, but for some or most of the games within them, though perhaps I should have been clearer. Mass Effect didn't start under EA either, yet it's being used as an example of why EA is better now. Still, I should, uh... probably have vetted a few of them a bit more...

In any case, Elixir's argument was based on people supposedly claiming stuff like James Pond is better than Mass Effect 3, so I don't see how that is strengthened any by crossing some of those off that list. As for Bullfrog, all of their games were originally published by E.A., weren't they?

Actually, now that I think about it, James Pond wasn't even originally published by E.A. I think they only published the MegaDrive ports. Checks... Yep, the Amiga originals were published by Millennium (and developed by Vectordean);

http://amr.abime.net/amr_popup_picture. ... pg&c=47961

Anyway, the argument isn't (or shouldn't) really be about just the quality of games EA develops or publishes. People aren't just upset because they feel the quality of their games has declined. It's things like the 'FIFA hack' where thousands of 360 users have had their accounts hacked and the last game played on their profile was FIFA 12 - this was noticed months ago and it's still going on. EA has done very little about it and denies any culpability, probably because they're busy too counting the huge sums of money they're raking in through the FIFA Ultimate Team system;

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012- ... imate-team

[BryanM]

This thread used to be better when it was about book burning.

shmups.system11 has really sold out imo.

[Elixir]

It's things like the 'FIFA hack' where thousands of 360 users have had their accounts hacked and the last game played on their profile was FIFA 12 - this was noticed months ago and it's still going on.

Considering this loophole is specifically tied to FIFA 12 - and none of the other EA games - is there any evidence to suggest this is EA's fault, or Microsoft's?

[MadScientist]

Since it invariably seems to involve FIFA, it would suggest that EA have something to do with it. It appears to involve the FIFA Ultimate Team system - it just seems a little unseemly to see EA trumpeting how much profit they're making from this aspect of the game while at the same time brushing off peoples' concerns about security and passing it off as 'social engineering' (basically blaming the users for being lax with their account details). Perhaps they're not solely to blame, but hopefully we'll find out some day.

[ancestral-knowledge]

As far as i remember correctly elixir defended FF13 and FF13-2 in another thread as good games. After that i stopped reading his/her posts at all. I'm going to repeat it: FF13 is a terrible game even by JRPG standards. And yes, while FF13-2 is slightly better they are still both terrible.

[Despatche]

i'm not sure i can call those "standards" but ok

[Elixir]

Since it invariably seems to involve FIFA, it would suggest that EA have something to do with it.

This sentence is the kind of thing I'm talking about. "EA are involved, therefore they're to blame". What does any of this shit have to do with the quality of the game? Quality of service is meaningless unless the game revolves around it. There are, obviously, fucktons of Fifa 12 owners perfectly happy with their purchase in retrospect. All you've done is throw up a bunch of published EA games and create your own strawman argument out of this hack. This doesn't actually solve anything though. This will still be happening in 10 years. And 10 years ago, security breaches were also taking place, just not within online consoles. What about the PSN attack last year? Sony's fault? Oh but, throw a few shitty games as a consolation prize for actually bothering with the service again and everything's honky-dory again. Right?

The people complaining about EA are also the people buying their games. It's a wound they scratch at, wondering why it isn't healing, when in reality it simply never will. That isn't EA's fault, it's the consumer's fault for being so easily taken advantage of. And even then, they'll blame EA for that too, as if to say and imply that other businesses don't. As a company, it makes perfect sense to add on-disc DLC, forms of extortion, day-1 DLC, timed content, and other immoral business practices because gamers are idiots and will buy them regardless. Their games consequentially improve in the process.

Like I said, I don't buy their games because they're shit but I don't bitch about what I do buy either. Return it. Sell it. Buy it used so it isn't indirect support. Crying foul on an Internet forum over how shitty timed licenses are or how much you begrudgingly purchased Dragon Age II and will begrudgingly purchase Dragon Age III is not going to help. Literally no one will care.

[Skykid]

As far as i remember correctly elixir defended FF13 and FF13-2 in another thread as good games.

FF13 is a game?

[Gus]

RPGs aren't games, they're (shitty) interactive movies.

[Ruldra]

RPGs aren't games, they're (shitty) interactive movies.

Broad generalization. Fallout isn't an interactive movie. Asura's Wrath is.

[Ruldra]

EA does it again: Official DICE servers disappear from Battlefield 3

Console gamers are reporting that the official DICE servers for Battlefield 3 multiplayer have been completely withdrawn, with the game now largely playable only on private rented servers.

Publisher Electronic Arts and developer DICE recently made the bold move of introducing a server-rental scheme to console versions of Battlefield 3. At $30 for 30 days, these servers don’t come cheap, but this hasn’t stopped the Battlefield community from signing up in droves.

Initially there were plenty of official DICE and EA servers running concurrently with the new private servers. Over the past week, however, console players have noticed the official servers disappearing, to the point where DICE-managed servers are no longer visible on either PlayStation 3 or Xbox 360.

That's a royal kick in the balls for the players. Now the consumers have to pay for the servers (for a game that has online pass).

[Friendly]

EA has pretty much turned into a comic book villain at this point.

[Jeneki]

Hmm, what was it that Online Pass was supposed to pay for again?

[Friendly]

Don't forget that unless you were playing this on PS3, you are also paying for Xbox Live on top of the online pass.

Why are people paying for Xbox Live again?

Btw, EA is actually getting a cut of the Xbox Live extortion, i mean, fee.

[Ruldra]

You can still play in private servers, but they never use "default" settings and you are prone to get abused by the admins.

Some Gaffer posted this about private servers, which is no different from my old days in Battlefied 2142:

Great. I'll get kicked from every other server, see intro messages like "NO SHOTGUNS" and then sit in matches with 1000 tickets that last 45 mins with 6 players. The game went WAY downhill when they started renting servers.

The game is not even 7 months old. EA is killing the entire userbase just to save meager server costs...this is crazy.

[neorichieb1971]

I have not bought a game that relied on online play. To do so would be stupid.

[Elixir]

The game is not even 7 months old. EA is killing the entire userbase just to save meager server costs...this is crazy.

Meager? There is nothing meager about killing off a server with no income to maintain. If the game is no longer generating notable sales and has no online subscription fee, it makes sense. The same has happened to MMORPGs. This is business.

[Ed Oscuro]

The game is not even 7 months old. EA is killing the entire userbase just to save meager server costs...this is crazy.

Meager? There is nothing meager about killing off a server with no income to maintain. If the game is no longer generating notable sales and has no online subscription fee, it makes sense. The same has happened to MMORPGs. This is business.

It makes sense if your business model includes making sure that nobody will get fooled twice into paying for one of your games.

I have to say I'm with Friendly on this one - I had been staying away from BF3 for multiple reasons (shit Razer mouse was one I could've fixed) but even I didn't see this coming. And I'm the guy who had massive problems with EA trying to squeeze more money outta me (and usually failing) with every fucking BF game I purchased (i.e., BF2, BF:2142, BF2BC). In the case of BF2BC, they advertised the hell out of BF2BC on Steam for some reason or other, even though they were in the process of starting a massive price drop just that weekend. Their tech support was basically like "pff you want us to play fair, good luck with that."

I think the last EA game I've bought (besides BF2BC) was their physical distribution of one of the HL2 Episodes. Just because of market penetration and scale they've got the potential to be helpful to firms with little capability in that area. And I can't really say that I'm totally against their decision to try to piss that away by fighting with Valve over Steam releases of some games; even though Valve's stance was rather gamer-friendly, you can't fault EA for trying to give pride of content to stuff hosted on their wannabe Steam alternative (which I will never use).