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

[Dmitrik]

If you want to be nostalgic, play the single player or local multiplayer.

What you are saying is almost akin to saying "I still have my original Playstation, so why don't they keep making games for it. I still play my PS1 all the time, that just doesn't make sense." BAWWW!!! Deal with it, they might possibly be getting in the way of progress. I don't think that you have thought about what the cost to the companies involved is, and I doubt you care. If they are wasting time and resources on servers for outdated games then they may not be able to make another good game...ever. From a legal standpoint there may be contracts involved that didn't get renewed or something along those lines as well.

p.s. Big deal if you can do some things with another medium (VHS), the way you tried to use it as leverage in your argument was totally awesome. I'm pretty sure my comparative argument made more sense than that, although I could be wrong. Warhawk, in twenty years...by then they will have re-made it so, problem solved(alternatively it could appear on some sort of retro collection at that point as well, the same thing may possibly happen with Halo 2 as well).

 

[TPiddy]

Personally I feel that gaming companies should always support their products in a similar life cycle to their platforms. If you're going to run a 5-10 console cycle, then you should support the previous generation for at least 5 years after the release of the new platform. You can't expect everyone to just shell out more money the moment you release a new platform, so there has to be some overlap to allow for adoption of the new product.

 

[Flamezdudes]

I prefer playing Single Player games anyway, this is also why games should try more to incorporate Co-op.

 

[GonzoGamer]

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.

I actually started renting after I bought No More Heroes but this is one of the reasons I'm glad I rent now. There are plenty of games that I enjoy but didn't think were worth buying for one reason or another; it's just that now one of those reasons is "it's only a multiplayer game that will eventually be useless."

 

[brodie21]

sixty bucks for ten years of playtime is pretty good.

 

[PPB]

I was never much into multiplayer games, except for a handful of MMOs (and even there, I still prefer a good single player game). So I don't really care. There's quite a few old games that I like, but I can play them single player if I want a nostalgic trip.

As far as consoles go, I think modern games focus a bit too much on online multiplayer. What happened to good old split-screen? Perhaps I'm outdated, but I've always thought that the point of a console was to be able to play a game with a friend sitting next to you on the couch. Sure, some of them still have offline multiplayer but the focus isn't there anymore.

 

[GonzoGamer]

If you want to be nostalgic, play the single player or local multiplayer.

What you are saying is almost akin to saying "I still have my original Playstation, so why don't they keep making games for it. I still play my PS1 all the time, that just doesn't make sense." BAWWW!!! Deal with it, they might possibly be getting in the way of progress. I don't think that you have thought about what the cost to the companies involved is, and I doubt you care. If they are wasting time and resources on servers for outdated games then they may not be able to make another good game...ever. From a legal standpoint there may be contracts involved that didn't get renewed or something along those lines as well.

p.s. Big deal if you can do some things with another medium (VHS), the way you tried to use it as leverage in your argument was totally awesome. I'm pretty sure my comparative argument made more sense than that, although I could be wrong. Warhawk, in twenty years...by then they will have re-made it so, problem solved(alternatively it could appear on some sort of retro collection at that point as well, the same thing may possibly happen with Halo 2 as well).

Actually that's not what I'm saying at all.
I'm not saying that they have to continue to support Warhawk the software (patch it, update it, offer new items in it) : That Would be like saying I still have a ps1 and expect new ps1 game to keep coming out. I don't expect any new NES games to come out but I expect the cartridges I bought 20 years ago to still work. What I expect is that if I play $60 for a game today, that game should still be playable (in one way or another) 10-20 years from now. I'm not as worried about a game like Borderlands because even though I probably wont be able to play online in another 10 years, I'll still be able to enjoy it by myself or with one other friend in splitscreen. That's just like any other media I buy: dvds, music cds, books... and games are a lot more expensive than any of those.
As long as it functions, the ps1 should still be able to do all the same things with the game discs when they were new.
What I'm saying is that if the only way to play a game is online, that game will have no value when they shut down the servers,

 

[fix-the-spade]

sixty bucks for ten years of playtime is pretty good.

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.

 

[ryai458]

no of course you can't except them to keep the servers on forever, they are problably switching the servers from halo2 to Reach, I thought you elitist PC gamers would be more worried about always on singleplayer DRM servers shutting down.

 

[scnj]

Meh. I've usually moved on to a new multiplayer game after a few months anyway, let alone ten years.

 

[Flying-Emu]

There's a reason that dedicated servers are preferable.

 

[EBass]

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.

 

[IamQ]

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.

 

[brodie21]

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

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.