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

[GonzoGamer]

I've only played Halo 2 a few times but I applaud the small group of players who stayed connected to the multiplayer server so I wouldn't be shut down around the middle of last month. And they've got me thinking: at least when their machine finally dies, they will be able to take the Halo2 disc out, put it in a new machine, and play the single player game again. It's not the same but at least the disc still has some value.

Now I'm worried about one of my favorite games that I keep going back to: Warhawk. Unlike Halo2, Warhawk has no single player component. It's a strictly multiplayer game. So if (several years from now) they eventually decide to close the servers for it, that game disc will be rendered completely useless. I'm not saying I'll definitely still be playing warhawk when it's 10 years old but I do keep going back to it when there's a lull in quality releases.

I just rented MAG and I had a lot of fun with it but I decided not to keep it. Besides the fact that there's no custom soundtrack option, my main reason for not buying it is that (as it's another strictly multiplayer game) I don't think it's worth as much as the single player games out there like God of War3 (which I still haven't picked up, but plan to). So if I'm going to be buying a new game, I'm going to be less likely to buy a strictly multiplayer game over a single player title.

You may think I'm overreacting a bit and that if after 10 years I haven't got my money's worth out of a game, that's my own fault (and you're right in one sense) but keep in mind that I'm a guy that still plays some of his old NES games; yes my nes still works.

So I know the general consensus is usually to the contrary but I'm starting to think that multiplayer games don't have as great a value as single player games.

 

[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)?

By the time they're pushing that old anyway, the community has all but abandoned the game anyway, with Halo 2 being the only real exception to that rule, and even then, how many people were really on before the game-ending announcement?

 

[Irridium]

It also worries me.

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

 

[SnootyEnglishman]

I'm not worried because i rarely play games with online multiplayer.

 

[Cherry Cola]

if after 10 years I haven't got my money's worth out of a game, that's my own fault

That is actually my answer.

Not only was Warhawk one of the earliest Playstation 3 titles, but PSN is a free service. Therefore, after buying the disc, you don't have to spend any more money on it. Enjoyment is basically limitless unless your internet goes down or if Sony decides to shut down the servers.

And by then, you've had the chance to play tons upon tons of hours.

It's like when showing a movie in the cinema. Sure, it's a great experience, but eventually the film has to be taken away. If you want the same kind of experience you'll have to seek out a new movie.

Granted, my allegory loses some of its sting since you can buy a film as a DVD, but that is not important. The important part is that nothing lasts forever, and it is better to move on.

 

[Zacharine]

"That's one of the reasons I don't buy games that require multiplayer to be enjoyed."

Seriously, multiplayer is all well and good, but I may not always have a net connection available or just find agreeable playing company. If the singleplayer is good enough, multiplayer and mods can be spice that bring out the greatness. But I rarely play games just for their multiplayer and only a few true gems get bought on the multiplayer alone.

This has less to do with the servers getting shut down sooner or later, but more with me liking singleplayer games above MP almost every time.

 

[spinFX]

What a silly poll. There are like 5 options one could choose. This is a great example of an unnecessary poll thread.

I guess if I had to choose 1 best option it would be that you cannot expect them to run the servers forever... and seriously by now you should have a new favorite game... and if you can't get your monies worth in 10 years etc etc etc etc etc.

 

[Yumi_and_Erea]

Imagine if 10 years from now, with the announcement of the Xbox 1080, Microsoft decides to end online support for the 360.

What would happen to games like Team Fortress 2?
They'd be rendered 95% useless.

Yahtzee was right all along, every game should be able to support the player's needs with single-player alone.

 

[DazZ.]

I don't buy games that don't have dedicated servers.

This doesn't bother me in the slightest, any game that forces you to host through their servers isn't going to run as well as dedicated and will have loads of issues anyway.

I also generally only play multiplayer games.

 

[Regiment]

I play few online games, so I'm not worried about closing servers. It's kind of a pity when they do, nevertheless.

(I just want more local multiplayer!)

 

[Evil the White]

The only game I would ever be worried about being shut don are the L4D series and TF2. And they have their own dedicated server tools so I don't care too much. We'll get this again in several years when Modern Warfare servers are shut down.

But then again, Microsoft did this because of the backwards compatability problems. Because of the Xbox orginals, people could only have 100 friends on their friends list. And maybe some other really small issues.

 

[Kelbear]

I've only played Halo 2 a few times but I applaud the small group of players who stayed connected to the multiplayer server so I wouldn't be shut down around the middle of last month. And they've got me thinking: at least when their machine finally dies, they will be able to take the Halo2 disc out, put it in a new machine, and play the single player game again. It's not the same but at least the disc still has some value.

Now I'm worried about one of my favorite games that I keep going back to: Warhawk. Unlike Halo2, Warhawk has no single player component. It's a strictly multiplayer game. So if (several years from now) they eventually decide to close the servers for it, that game disc will be rendered completely useless. I'm not saying I'll definitely still be playing warhawk when it's 10 years old but I do keep going back to it when there's a lull in quality releases.

I just rented MAG and I had a lot of fun with it but I decided not to keep it. Besides the fact that there's no custom soundtrack option, my main reason for not buying it is that (as it's another strictly multiplayer game) I don't think it's worth as much as the single player games out there like God of War3 (which I still haven't picked up, but plan to). So if I'm going to be buying a new game, I'm going to be less likely to buy a strictly multiplayer game over a single player title.

You may think I'm overreacting a bit and that if after 10 years I haven't got my money's worth out of a game, that's my own fault (and you're right in one sense) but keep in mind that I'm a guy that still plays some of his old NES games; yes my nes still works.

So I know the general consensus is usually to the contrary but I'm starting to think that multiplayer games don't have as great a value as single player games.

I like to play new games and expand the breadth of my experiences in gaming.

I already have to pick and choose very selectively among the new games, since I don't have time for all of them. I definitely don't have time to spend going back to replay old favorites(with a few select exceptions).

Similarly, I churn through games pretty rapidly now. I don't spend much time in multiplayer, and I definitely don't waste time on achievements that aren't fun to achieve, especially the blatant time-sink achievements.

If a game is so old that support is dropped and it's no longer functional, it doesn't matter to me, it's already crossed off my list.

With that in mind, I prefer to rent my console games, or buy used and sell them off.

 

[Souplex]

You need an option for "I'm fine with it if the local multi-player is good."

 

[GonzoGamer]

if after 10 years I haven't got my money's worth out of a game, that's my own fault

That is actually my answer.

Not only was Warhawk one of the earliest Playstation 3 titles, but PSN is a free service. Therefore, after buying the disc, you don't have to spend any more money on it. Enjoyment is basically limitless unless your internet goes down or if Sony decides to shut down the servers.

And by then, you've had the chance to play tons upon tons of hours.

It's like when showing a movie in the cinema. Sure, it's a great experience, but eventually the film has to be taken away. If you want the same kind of experience you'll have to seek out a new movie.

Granted, my allegory loses some of its sting since you can buy a film as a DVD, but that is not important. The important part is that nothing lasts forever, and it is better to move on.

Actually, your allegory does more to prove my point.
I still have a VCR hooked up to my TV: yes an hdtv with a vcr. And while I tend to buy new movies on BRdisc, I still watch movies (like my Star Wars collection) on vhs. And even when they finally release Star Wars on BRdisc, I will still be able to watch those old video tapes and they are way older than 10 years.

After they close the servers for Warhwk, I will not be able to do anything with that disc any more. The reason this concerns me is because (as I noted above) I still play games that are 20 years old sometimes and Warhawk is one of those games that I will probably want to play a little in another 20 years except with Warhawk, I probably wont be able to.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

This is just another of the many reasons why private servers are a big deal. That way anyone can set up their own server, even when the game isn't officially supported anymore.

 

[Katana314]

Half-Life 1 and its mods still have plenty of servers up. There's no reason to take them down, either.

The problem here is that online-play is viewed as this "subscription-based" thing, even in a single-payment game. So under the EULA, the developers can disconnect it anytime they like. I'd actually like to see some "SEAL OF OWNERSHIP" system people can slap on a game, kinda like the Nintendo Seal of Quality or GFW certification, that says:
"You OWN this game. You do not just receive negatable permission to play the game, but you actually OWN the software, and have a full right to use it. The developer is held to this responsibility to let you use the software, in as many ways as they are capable of."

 

[fix-the-spade]

So I know the general consensus is usually to the contrary but I'm starting to think that multiplayer games don't have as great a value as single player games.

This is why you buy PC and not console games

I don't worry about this at all, it doesn't apply to me.

The problem is all console services (and mmo's, IWnet and Ubisoft games now) are no longer in the player's control. The publisher is deciding when and for how long you want to play the game.
If you ever wondered why no dedicated servers for MW2 caused such a stink, this is it.

Halo 2 was arguably the longest lived online console game ever, yet it still only lasted five and a bit years. Some games (MechAssault, MGS3: Subsistence) had their lifespan online measured in months not years. Yet you are still expected to pay for the privilege of being told you no longer want to play the game because the developer says so.

I fail to see how that can possibly represent good value*.

Counter Strike and Day of Defeat are ten years old now yet I still get new content for both on a monthly basis. Measured against that all console online games present value roughly on par with a pile of horse shit.

*Edit Assuming you've been playing it since release day, Halo 2 will have cost you £295 to play online (£45 game, £10 map pack, 6x £40 12 month subscriptions to Live), yet you still lose the service after chucking all that cash at it. That represents excellent value, for Microsoft.

 

[neilsaccount]

wheres the option that says "i don't necessarily care" because i dont really enjoy playing a game for 10 years, besides, my favorite games are still single player or splitscreen (bless you "the Warriors")