EA Shutting Down Video Game Servers Prematurely

Spacezilla writes "EA is dropping the bomb on a number of their video game servers, shutting down the online fun for many of their Xbox 360, PC and PlayStation 3 games. Not only is the inclusion of PS3 and Xbox 360 titles odd, the date the games were released is even more surprising. Yes, Madden 07 and 08 are included in the shutdown... but Madden 09 on all consoles as well?"

Comments

I, for one

[PakProtector]

Find this maddening.

Re:I, for one

[dintech]

Madden 07 and 08 are included in the shutdown... but Madden 09 on all consoles as well?

How else can they make you buy their shovelware every year?

As an aside, yesterday I bought a used copy of FIFA 08 for 98 pence from a high street retailer. Not being a particular fan of football games, this is about as much as I was willing to pay and no different from spending fifty times that for this year's iteration.

Re:I, for one

[TheSpoom]

It's enforced obsolescence. If you can't play the game you bought last year, it means you need the one they released this year.

Simple marketing.

Re:I, for one

[InsaneProcessor]

It's no wonder that players don't want to buy the new titles. If it goes away in year, I don't want it. This makes me run from any EA game.

Re:I, for one

[TheSpoom]

EA makes me run from any EA game. ;^)

Re:I, for one

[Opportunist]

Strange game. The only way to win seems to be not to play.

Re:I, for one

[Anonymous Coward]

Translation for Americans:

As an aside, yesterday I bought a used copy of FIFA 08 for 2 bucks from a downtown retailer. Not being a particular fan of soccer games, this is about as much as I was willing to pay and no different from spending fifty times that for this year's iteration.

Re:I, for one

[Runaway1956]

"Simple marketing."

Marketing to the simple.

FTFY. I've always said that buying consoles and the games to fit them was a simple minded activity. Granted, I had an Atari, and a Commodore - ages ago. When the PC became the "Big Thing", I never bought another console, or console game. Aside from the two platforms mentioned, every single game that I've ever paid for are playable on my current machine.

Ahh well - if you're a Christian, Jesus said that the simple will always be with us.

Re:I, for one

[interkin3tic]

Based on what I've seen, the vast majority of people already wanted the newest one. The price for used madden whatever the current release was about 5 dollars less. Last year's used was I think about half price. Two years was somewhere around $5. Gamestop would buy back two year old maddens, for about a quarter. People lined up for hours yearly to get it.

I don't play sports games or watch them, so maybe it is a big deal to have current rosters, the latest players, but there was otherwise very little difference from what I could see. It's madden football. Buy the 3 year old copy for a smile, it's the same game being simulated, and there have been no major advancements in the simulation. Pretend that one football player's name is actually another current football players name. That doesn't seem to be going on at all, kids turned their noses up at the used copies. Madden fans would sooner sell one of their two current gen systems rather than play a year old madden.

This is basically RIAA level greedy on the part of EA, they're playing sleazy to get only slightly more sales.

I guess an argument could be made that they are saving money by not maintaining the servers. But I really don't think they're going to get many more sales.

Re:I, for one

[beckett]

Would you prefer a nice game of chess?

2009 was last year, move with the times

[hanabal]

well 2009 was so last year. and the games are always released a year early, madden 09 was actually released in 08. But yeah, this is pretty disgusting. one more reason to avoid EA games. forced obsolescence is the new hotness for the new decade

Re:2009 was last year, move with the times

[poetmatt]

I guess they need more profit, and putting to spite their existing customers is certainly not in the way of their attempts to make more profit.

Then again, when you hear about EA's policies towards developers, is it surprising?

The first time a company screws up, is not it's last. Companies don't change their spots, and EA is no exception.

Re:2009 was last year, move with the times

[Thansal]

This is really all kinds of awesome. Not only will they release a new (whatever sport) game every year, they will now shut down all but the latest for online play. It is GENIUS I tell you!

What ever happened to EA's "We will stop being evil, we swear" thing they said a while back? I remember the followed it for a few months. I guess they then realized that the vast majority of their customers are slack jawed idiots, not because they play sports games (as much as I find them uninteresting), but because will take whatever is dished out.

Admittedly, I guess I am a slack jawed idiot, because I still buy EA titles every so often...

Re:2009 was last year, move with the times

[mcgrew]

one more reason to avoid EA games.

One more reason to avoid any game that depends on its publisher's servers. If I want to play Quake online I still can, and that came out well over ten years ago.

Re:2009 was last year, move with the times

[MrNaz]

EA is to video games as Microsoft is to Software.

A big, bloated, borg-like entity swallowing up anything of value in its industry and shitting it out a devoured, broken lump of crap.

I don't know how to solve this problem, but EAs presence in the industry means that for the forseeable future, the vast majority of big games will be just rehashes of old games with $foo new graphics enhancement or perhaps a new multiplayer game rule variant. You don't see the term "Doom Clone" much any more, but the vast majority of even the most modern FPS games offer little real development over the seminal titles in the FPS genre; Wolfenstein, Doom and Quake.

Really groundbreaking titles just don't happen any more. Games that redefine gaming parameters the way titles like Syndicate, XCom and System Shock did are just not possible with the lumbering, knuckledragging EA dominating the scene.

Re:2009 was last year, move with the times

[Ishin]

If you think EA is bad you ought to take a look at what Activision has been doing to the still warm corpse of Blizzard.

EA isn't nearly as bad from a games offering standpoint as people make them out to be (working for them is another matter entirely, of course)

Re:2009 was last year, move with the times

[hairyfeet]

Bingo! Give that man a cigar! Publishers tried to claim that we wanted dedicated servers so we could run pirate games, but now we see what happens when you do not have that ability: totally broken games that are only as useful as the publishers allow. I can still whip out my copy of Freelancer or Mechwarrior 4 and find folks to play against. Hell Freelancer still has some pretty decently sized communities built around huge mods that give me dozens of new systems to explore and pillage, and all for $0.00!

So while I still buy the occasional EA game when it is in the bargain bin (last was the MoH 10th anniversary) I avoid anything new from EA and look at anything by them as most likely broken by design. Dedicated servers and mods is what got me into PC gaming in the first place, and the amount of extra value I have gotten from even budget titles thanks to mods and communities have made PC games much more of a "bang for my buck" than the consoles. EA has frankly always been a bunch of douchebags and this latest move just simply proves what we have known for years. The new slogan at EA ought to be "EA: We're the Symantec of gaming!"

But I did notice that all the games were sports titles, and sadly EA could put out "shitty sports game wrapped in used condoms 2010" and the sports nuts would buy it. I went to school with a guy that went so far as to have a deal with the local Gamestop to have EVERY EA sports game for every machine he owned (PSP, PS2, PS3) delivered to his house on release day and charged to his CC, just so he would have them waiting for him on release day when he got off work. As long as it has the latest rosters they will buy it whether it is actually any good or not. So sorry EA sports nuts, this is a case of reaping what you've sown. You should have bought Sega Sports and demanded competition instead of just buying Madden no matter if it was any good or not.

Re:2009 was last year, move with the times

[ifrag]

If you think EA is bad you ought to take a look at what Activision has been doing to the still warm corpse of Blizzard.

I guess this is somehow referring to WoW? I'm still looking forward to Starcraft II despite the lack of a LAN option it's still on my must buy on release list. And assuming that isn't screwed up too badly then Diablo III after it. I'll admit WoW has been a huge disappointment in their previously untarnished lineup, but I'm willing it overlook it if they still have what it takes.

Re:2009 was last year, move with the times

[houstonbofh]

one more reason to avoid EA games.

One more reason to avoid any game that depends on its publisher's servers. If I want to play Quake online I still can, and that came out well over ten years ago.

4x4 Evo2 came out 10 years ago and uses private servers. But they publisher let the community take them over and it still works. But EA doesn't understand that kind of loyalty, and would never do it. It is why they will never get my money.

Re:2009 was last year, move with the times

[mcgrew]

But I did notice that all the games were sports titles, and sadly EA could put out "shitty sports game wrapped in used condoms 2010" and the sports nuts would buy it.

Jocks aren't known for their massive intelligence.

Re:2009 was last year, move with the times

[SlothDead]

Oh, you mean that the year in the title isn't the release date, it's the expiry date?

Re:2009 was last year, move with the times

[Ishin]

Starcraft2... in installments.

Pay full price for the terran campaign, pay full price again for the zerg campaign, pay full price for the zerg, then pay full price again for the protoss.

Probably toss a lan extender campaign in there somewhere for full price (again) and you're paying $200+ for what originally was going to be a $50 game.

Re:2009 was last year, move with the times

[coinreturn]

The new slogan at EA ought to be "EA: We're the Symantec of gaming!"

No, I think it's, "EA: We're the Intuit of gaming!"

The "sunsetting" of Quicken versions makes me want to load my shotgun.

Re:2009 was last year, move with the times

[GasparGMSwordsman]

Oh EA understands this kind of loyalty, but they don't make money that way. They make money by you buying the NEXT version, which most people will. This just means that people who don't care quite as much about having the most recent version, have that much less incentive to purchase last years Madden at the used game store.

Re:2009 was last year, move with the times

[fast turtle]

Thankfully I am not one of their legion of Slack Jawed Idiots as I have never bought an EA Game. The Copies of SImCity 3000 and SimCity 4 Dlx came with hardware purchases, thus were freebies. My Only Paid for Copy of SimCity was SimCity 2000. I've hated EA since the beginning when a friend asked me to grab the latest patches/updates for Sims. Couldn't download fixes as I didn't have a valid registration code. WTF is up with that. These are supposed to fix problems and they wont provide them? Hell that was such a PITA that I simply gave up buying any games at all as it's likely that the EA jugernaught will eventually swallow what ever product I'm interested in.

Re:2009 was last year, move with the times

[Loadmaster]

Correct. EA understands loyalty only too well. They understand loyalty to a brand or series, but try to avoid loyalty to any specific iteration. The methods they use to foster this type of loyalty is ham-fisted, but most gamers don't care.

Re:2009 was last year, move with the times

[Totenglocke]

Bingo. I refuse to buy games that require online activation for this very reason. The idiots who don't get why online activation is bad say "Oh, well they're a big company, they'll never go out of business and even if they did, they'd release a patch to remove it beforehand". Always stay away from letting a company control your property.

Re:2009 was last year, move with the times

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to play the devil's advocate, but I think you're missing something here. Quake is played mainly by tech savvy computer geeks, or at the very least, people who might be able to set up their own server or have friends who play who can do that.

Madden '0x is played primarily by armchair quarterbacks, who likely have no idea how to set up any servers. It's not that nobody would set any up, it's about all the *support* calls they would get from those guys trying to do it themselves. Can you imagine that? Either the support lines would be clogged due to these calls or they'd have to hire a HUGE staff, which would cost a whole lot more than pissing off some customers who haven't upgraded yet.

Re:2009 was last year, move with the times

[bigstrat2003]

You're paying $50 per game when each has a full-length campaign (according to Blizzard). This is not nearly as bad as you're thinking. You're implying that it's as if a normal-length RTS was split into thirds and each sold at full price, but that's not the case at all.

Re:2009 was last year, move with the times

[bigstrat2003]

WoW is essentially the same as it's ever been, so it would be pretty hard to argue that it's Activision's fault in any case. And, like you reasonably note, one game you dislike doesn't mean you should give up on them. I really can't stand Starcraft, but I enjoyed Warcraft III a lot, so any fears I might have had (hypothetically) that Starcraft represented some kind of apocalypse of quality would have been ill-founded. No studio can please everyone with every game.

Re:2009 was last year, move with the times

[Anonymous Coward]

I can still find DeusEx, Unreal, UT and Postal2 servers.

Old Evil: Microsoft

New Evil: EA

Re:2009 was last year, move with the times

[AmiMoJo]

But they publisher let the community take them over and it still works.

It's probably impossible for games tied to XBOX Live. Even if they did release a patch and the necessary server software it's all tied in to your Live account.

Re:2009 was last year, move with the times

[Jesus_666]

Actually, most games nowadays are Halo clones. Regenerating health and the restriction to very few carried weapons came from there (CS had the player carry few weapons before and I'm certain someone else came up with the regenerating health first but Halo made them popular).

Re:2009 was last year, move with the times

[brkello]

You don't know what you are talking about. I really doubt Activision has any power over what Blizzard is doing. If they are worse than EA, why can I still play Starcraft on battle.net.

EA is worse, hands down. If you think otherwise, you have to be on drugs. Heck, even people on drugs should be able to figure out that EA is worse.

Re:2009 was last year, move with the times

[Sparr0]

You are implying that [you believe that [Blizzard means that]] each Campaign in SC2 will be 3x the length of the equivalent campaign in SC1. I find this prediction [or claim] laughable.

Re:2009 was last year, move with the times

[jp10558]

The other thing that annoys me with this is (and I don't know that EA is to blame for this) I got a PS3 for christmas. I bought Madden 10. My cousin has an Xbox 360, and has Madden 10. He lives ~ 200 miles away now, but I was excited thinking that this new console system would now let us play the game together online. But no, we can't. Now, if this was a PC game, and he had a Dell while I have a Lenovo - we could still play the same game together.

I'm just glad I generally have little interest in online gaming on any platform, but it makes the online features of the PS3 almost a liability. I foolishly thought I could take my new PS3, drop in the new Madden game, and play. But no, I had to first wait to download a 185MB patch... This was one of the things I was trying to get away from in PC gaming and a reason I was going to consoles...

Overall, I'm much less "happy" with the PS3 than I was with the Genesis I got years ago... The games are good enough so far, but the experience is far too PC like, with new artificial restrictions.

Re:2009 was last year, move with the times

[jp10558]

Replying to myself to explain my comment of PClike gaming - it's like they took the bad parts of PC gaming while not really getting any of the good parts: The patching, the taking forever to load, the HD space management... While not getting the Keyboard + Mouse better controls, the arbitrary save points, the cross company networks (why can't I play against gamers who have an XBox 360 version of a game, or if possible, who have the PC version?)...

Re:2009 was last year, move with the times

[mcgrew]

Quake is played mainly by tech savvy computer geeks

Yes, but when Quake first came out (what was it, 1995?) we were the only ones on the internet. Quake II's server was simple enough even for a football player to run.

Re:2009 was last year, move with the times

[Dutch Gun]

I really doubt Activision has any power over what Blizzard is doing.

I'd guess about as much power as anyone who signs the paychecks has.

Re:2009 was last year, move with the times

[poetmatt]

I consider EA/Activision on the same boat. Their policies seem almost identical too. If they both were gone, we'd be in a LOT better shape for pc gaming.

The only people who have anything to whine about..

[Anonymous Coward]

...are the idiots who bought the terrible EA games in the first place. I, for one, have no pity.

And this is why...

[Serilleous]

the option for customers to run dedicated servers are better. ... but seriously, who plays Madden anyway?

Re:And this is why...

[Bacon Bits]

Madden '07 sold 2 million copies the first week it was available. Microsoft claimed to have logged 228 years worth of game time played on their servers in the same time frame.

Re:And this is why...

[MistrBlank]

He means now...

Re:And this is why...

[Kalriath]

Twitter, what the fuck? "Non-free" solutions don't necessarily tend to "lock the sheep into centralised servers and charge a monthly fee for services" (e.g. Dungeons and Dragons Online, the game subscription is free after buying the box. PlayStation Network costs nothing to use. Wolfenstein lets me create a dedicated server for everyone I know who has it. The examples just go on and on).

People don't "need to embrace free software solutions" at all. Companies need to realise the limits of just what they should be able to do once they've got your money for their product, and people like you need to shut the fuck up and realise that people can make their own decisions whether they want to use "free software" or not.

Madden 0x10

[Pikoro]

Perhaps they will release the next version as Madden 0x10 so it will be good until 2016?

Re:Madden 0x10

[Drethon]

I'd more expect Madden 1/10 through 12/10 over the next twelve months rather than less than once a year releases...

Direct multiplayer?

[pete-wilko]

There's one thing i've never been that clear on with multiplayer gaming on consoles (only just got one, still avid PC gamer) - if you've 'friended' someone, eg on PSN or Live, are you still able to initiate a direct multiplayer game with that person? Or is an EA server still required to act as some sort of broker?

From what I understand, I thought each of these games on consoles, that one of the players will be the 'server' - and that the role of the EA server is matchmaking etc, but clarification would be cool. That is, is it possible to initiate a multiplayer session directly with another user, without the broker (i.e. EA Server)?

Re:Direct multiplayer?

[asdf7890]

From what I understand, I thought each of these games on consoles, that one of the players will be the 'server' - and that the role of the EA server is matchmaking etc, but clarification would be cool.

I'm pretty certain that in all cases none of the consoles involved is acting as a server. If one was than that player could have a significant advantage due to relative latency issues. Also having a console act as a server means having to deal with NAT, firewalls and other routing/network issues - the only guaranteed way for all the consoles to see the server being if the server is public (i.e. not on a console on someone's home ISP connection) or for a public server to act as a relay for those that can't connect directly.

Re:Direct multiplayer?

[pete-wilko]

mmm - yeah, the NAT stuff does make sense - although the few broker multiplayer stuff i've played always had a 'host' player - who if they disconnected then the whole session terminated. But yeah what you're saying makes sense - probably depends on definition of 'server' - but yeah thinking about it, the EA server is probably routing the data, so in otherwords - totally screwed if your games on that list!

Re:Direct multiplayer?

[wel5hmn]

sorry but for most games you do have to deal with NAT thats why the xbox comes with these settings same goes for mw2 sadly and yes the host will have a advantage but it depends how good his/hers internet is can be significant to barley noticeable

Re: Direct multiplayer?

[Lonewolf666]

Good points, and I guess that is why other game vendors (Valve) offer dedicated servers for download. You can install those on some rented server at an ISP which has a much better internet connection than at your home. This way, the game vendor has to support only the matchmaking service which is presumably much cheaper to run - Valve still supports Half-Life 1 under Steam which is 10 years old. The obvious downside is that you pay for the game server. But I still like this model better than having my games killed after a year.

EA could do this too of course.

Re:Direct multiplayer?

[SilentChasm]

For most games on Xbox Live microsoft hosts the matchmaking servers and the friends thing as well. It means that you should be able to play the game online forever until microsoft shuts down the server.

I know of one non-EA exception which only shut down part of the online component to a mech game that needed a special controller (very niche), and it was for the original xbox.

EA forces online games to use their servers for matchmaking rather than the general ones. It means that at any time EA can stop providing them and you can no longer play those games online (such as all the ones with 20XX in the name) possibly forcing you to upgrade.

The players on consoles are the servers in that they host the actual gameplay related stuff like this person shoots here, this person jumps, etc. The status info (so and so is playing Game X) on the consoles is still handled by microsoft/sony/nintendo.

The whole part of EA being able to stop online play on old games is why I don't buy from them. I could understand taking off old games that were for the original xbox for example but nothing from the last couple years.

Re:Direct multiplayer?

[Verunks]

From what I understand, I thought each of these games on consoles, that one of the players will be the 'server' - and that the role of the EA server is matchmaking etc, but clarification would be cool.

I'm pretty certain that in all cases none of the consoles involved is acting as a server. If one was than that player could have a significant advantage due to relative latency issues. Also having a console act as a server means having to deal with NAT, firewalls and other routing/network issues - the only guaranteed way for all the consoles to see the server being if the server is public (i.e. not on a console on someone's home ISP connection) or for a public server to act as a relay for those that can't connect directly.

you are wrong, most console games don't have dedicated servers, and you can host even if you are behind a nat, they probably use something like udp hole punching
you probably missed the rage of pc call of duty players that now have to use the same matchmaking system(iwnet) as console players without dedicated servers

Re: Direct multiplayer?

[cayenne8]

"Good points, and I guess that is why other game vendors (Valve) offer dedicated servers for download. You can install those on some rented server at an ISP which has a much better internet connection than at your home. This way, the game vendor has to support only the matchmaking service which is presumably much cheaper to run - Valve still supports Half-Life 1 under Steam which is 10 years old. The obvious downside is that you pay for the game server. But I still like this model better than having my games killed after a year."

Can you set up your own server rather than at a rented server at an ISP?

I have a business connection at home, no caps, pretty good speed up and down...hell, maybe I could rent out server space on boxes I have cheaply to others. Hmm...

Re: Direct multiplayer?

[zorg50]

Can you set up your own server rather than at a rented server at an ISP?

Yup. Whether or not you have to buy the actual game first varies, but most games utilizing this model provide the dedicated server (usually on both Linux and Windows) for you to run wherever you'd like.

Re: Direct multiplayer?

[Lonewolf666]

Yes, I think so.

For most people it would not be an attractive solution, because business connections tend to be more expensive than renting a server (at least in Germany where I live). But if you have spare bandwidth, why not?

Re: Direct multiplayer?

[metamatic]

Valve dedicated servers don't work with the console versions of their games, of course.

Re:Direct multiplayer?

[AdamThor]

I'm pretty certain that in all cases none of the consoles involved is acting as a server. If one was ...

Those are all good reasons, but the real reason is so that you have less control over your experience. Folks connecting to each other w/o outside assistance aren't making anyone any money.

Re:Direct multiplayer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently you haven't heard of NAT tunneling...once both computers/consoles are connected to a server, and the server knows both addresses/ports, it sends a "direct connect" request so that both can communicate, then can drop out of the "conversation" (it basically tells both to connect to the public IP address and port of the other).

This is the *best* reason to allow private game servers. Are you listening, Infinity Ward? PRIVATE SERVERS FOR COD:MW2!

Re: Direct multiplayer?

[asdf7890]

The key problem for game servers is latency, not bulk bandwidth speed or the total bandwidth consumed. If your connection is ADSL based (or similar) then even on a good business plan your connection is going to have a higher round-trip latency (between your equipment and the ISP, before the latency of the player connections and the backbone in between are added to the mix) than "big time" gamers (the sort who would be wanting to run their own game server) would be interested in.

If you have a good fibre or ethernet link to your ISP then your idea is more feasible. Though I wouldn't bother myself as you will end up dealing with people who expect *everything*, expect it to be *perfect* and expect it to be so cheap it might as well be free. It just wouldn't really be practical unless large scale (which you'll not run practically on a home link) or just for friends and family (in which case remuneration isn't really an issue and you can screen out the complete idiots easily if there are any in your circle).

There are firms out there who specialise in renting out game server resources if that is what people want - just be sure that the company you go with has servers in your country/state in order to reduce latency issues.

Re: Direct multiplayer?

[Narpak]

Valve still supports Half-Life 1 under Steam which is 10 years old. The obvious downside is that you pay for the game server. But I still like this model better than having my games killed after a year.

While I have no direct knowledge of how http://www.catchgamer.no/ finance their servers, it is a Norwegian GamingPortal site that seem to be running a lot of CS, CS:S, Action Quake 2, QuakeWorld, Quake 3 CPMA VQ3, Rocket Arena 3, Quake 4 and TF2 servers. So even if you personally can't, or won't, pay for a server, if your chosen game remains popular enough chances are various sites, and clans, will continue to run their own servers for years.

Re:Direct multiplayer?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's one thing i've never been that clear on with multiplayer gaming on consoles (only just got one, still avid PC gamer) - if you've 'friended' someone, eg on PSN or Live, are you still able to initiate a direct multiplayer game with that person? Or is an EA server still required to act as some sort of broker?

From what I understand, I thought each of these games on consoles, that one of the players will be the 'server' - and that the role of the EA server is matchmaking etc, but clarification would be cool. That is, is it possible to initiate a multiplayer session directly with another user, without the broker (i.e. EA Server)?

The answer is, it depends on the specific game. From what I've seen, most of the games that need to to disable NAT are just for the team-speak type interface, since that opens direct audio connections between the clients. However, if you are unable to start a "match" or a "game session" until you disable NAT, chances are pretty good you're acting as the server.

If you REALLY want to know, then sniff your network traffic and look at the remote IP's your UDP packets are headed to. If they are going into the dynamic space of an ISP then the game is using console's as servers, if the packets are going into an IP space used by EA or an affiliate then they are probably running the "server".

As for initiating sessions without the "broker", again it depends on the specific game. In some cases it will be technically possible, but you'll have to emulate the EA matchmaking server which probably violates some type of something or another. (yes, that's technical legal speech I used).

"but please feel free to buy our '10 versions!"

[Rogerborg]

That's like a mugger leaving a card thanking you for your custom and asking you to use his services again.

Re:"but please feel free to buy our '10 versions!"

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally agree, i feel that if the game says multiplayer when you buy it, the company is responsable for keeping the servers running even if theres only 2 people on it, thats what was advertised w/ the purchase of it. Not that i really play madden anyhow same game every year with roster changes isnt really worth 60 bucks to me and obviouslly not to other people as well. but EA making decesions like this would deffinatly make me question future purchases of their other games.

Re:"but please feel free to buy our '10 versions!"

[MistrBlank]

Or... you know they could let players run their own.

This is the major complaint with Modern Warfare 2. Many people shrug that off too, maybe now they'll see why player run servers are a necessity.

Re:"but please feel free to buy our '10 versions!"

[YourExperiment]

That's like a mugger leaving a card thanking you for your custom and asking you to use his services again.

It's more like if he offered to sell you a new wallet, while politely reminding you that he'd probably be back to steal it again at the same time next year.

Re:"but please feel free to buy our '10 versions!"

[Anonymous Coward]

That's like a mugger leaving a card thanking you for your custom and asking you to use his services again.

is that you Uncle Sugar?!?! I thought you only came around during tax time.

I recognize this strategy

[DingerX]

So which EA executive is a recent hire from Apple?

Also, what kind of traffic are these titles currently generating on EA's servers?

Re:I recognize this strategy

[crossmr]

and here is the real issue.
If it is "a lot" then they risk upsetting a lot of customers, bad pr, etc.

if it is not "a lot" then you'd have to wonder what is the rush. If its a tiny amount, amalgamate, etc.

Re:I recognize this strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

Madden 09 is still for sale on Amazon, so presumably there will be “some” traffic!

Re:I recognize this strategy

[dstar]

Really....

Seems to me that as soon as the next copy of Madden 09 is sold, EA has committed fraud, then.

Re:I recognize this strategy

[f33dback]

Really....

Seems to me that as soon as the next copy of Madden 09 is sold, EA has committed fraud, then.

Hardly. On the backs of the games it states they may give 30 days notice before the termination of their online services.

Re:I recognize this strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

But it also means they need to recall all the stuff that effectively makes it fraudulent once you're inside the 30 day window. Anything new is on the heads of the retailer AND EA. The disclaimer doesn't give them that much out.

Re:I recognize this strategy

[MBGMorden]

If it's not a lot though then they waste resources on maintaining the servers.

My guess (even though I don't like the decision), is that there were very few customers using these services.

NASCAR 09

[Anonymous Coward]

# NASCAR 09 PS3 and x360 - Europe Only

This is one of the few where I can actually understand their decision. I mean, what kind of Europeans are driving in circles playing NASCAR 09? The only people I can think of who'd care are redneck military stationed overseas.

Re:NASCAR 09

[shutdown -p now]

Why does there even need to be a separate server for "Europe only"?

I know this is EA and not Blizzard,

[pecosdave]

but my buddy who is still semi-involved in the BNET-D legal debacle can use this type of thing in that court case.

I for one think the whole company run server idea is a good one, but I think they should release code for every game as well for this very reason. Custom servers were half the fun of old Unreal Tournament games, and I know a lot of people who are into custom Enemy Territory servers.

Remember, the reason BNET-D started to begin with is Bizzards servers sucked back in the day, as far as I'm concerned this sort of bull shit justifies that sort of thing.

Re:I know this is EA and not Blizzard,

[drinkypoo]

Pee on code, we don't want the code, we want the specs. Give us the specifications of how the client and server communicate and we'll do the rest... when it's worth it. Besides, the code is theirs, but it's reasonable for the specs to be ours (perhaps charging a reasonable cost for distribution.)

Re:I know this is EA and not Blizzard,

[pecosdave]

Considering I know insiders, and I remember the time period BNET-D came out I will say the battle.net servers absolutely sucked at that time. StarCraft lagged and crashed out all the time, and when Diablo 2 came out both became worse (I didn't do much Diablo 1 online, only LAN)

Back then, I was a Novell guy anyways, and we already had IPX running everywhere I went, so LAN wasn't bad, but that didn't take care of things when you didn't have your buddies over. BNET-D was a fix to a problem that existed.

Nobody had a problem playing pirated version anyways, there was a universal key that was all 1's and 0's that all of us had memorized back then, when we played on the LAN we used that key anyways that way we could multiple "severs" and if we wanted to swap which one we played on we didn't have to reinstall the spawn.

Spawns were a good idea BTW - you could argue the GBA, DS and PSP picked up on this idea when the PC world abandoned it.

Re:I know this is EA and not Blizzard,

[Yvan256]

Have you played Diablo II recently? There's so much in-game spam that you sometimes can't even see what you're doing.

The way those spambots act is even worst: they enter the game, spew about 5-10 lines of text then magically leave the game as a timeout instead of a regular "player X has left the game".

I know private games with passwords are an easy work-around, but it does show that Blizzard cares enough about its old games to keep battle.net running for them but not enough to get the spammers out (which would be easy to do, i.e. permanent black lists/muted lists for players, banning accounts since its always the same accounts spamming, muting people who enter games and write something and leave the game in under 30 seconds, etc).

If that's how Blizzard treats Diablo II players, I don't see why I should buy Diablo III. Same goes for StarCraft.

What Happened?

[mrpacmanjel]

I remember back in the early eighties EA used to release some great games.

Anyone remember Skyfox, Pinball Construction Set, The Bard's Tale series and Racing Destruction Set?

All they seem to do now is publish endless sports titles and I imagine the licensing fees must be huge.

Maybe it is a "Good Thing" they are shutting down the services for these titles - one less reason to buy them.

The decision seems to be mainly the Sports Division of EA hopefully this decision won't start affecting other games genres.

Games affected:

February 2, 2010 Online Service Shutdown

        * UEFA Champions League 07 PC and x360
        * Facebreaker x360 and PS3
        * Fantasy Football 09 x360 and PS3
        * FIFA 07 PSP, PS2, PC
        * Fight Night Round 3 PS2
        * Madden 08 Wii
        * Madden 08 PC
        * Madden 09 Xbox1
        * Madden 09 Wii and PSP
        * March Madness 07 x360
        * NBA 07 PSP, x360
        * NBA 08 PS2, PSP, Wii
        * NBA 09 Wii - Europe only
        * NBA Street (2007) PS3 and x360
        * NCAA Football 08 PS2
        * NCAA Football 09 PS2
        * NASCAR 08 PS2
        * NASCAR 09 PS2
        * NASCAR 09 PS3 and x360 - Europe Only
        * NFL Tour PS3 and x360
        * NHL 07 PSP and x360
        * NHL 08 PC
        * Tiger Woods 07 PC
        * Madden 09 x360 and PS3
        * Madden 07 Xbox 360

Re:What Happened?

[sw33tjimmy]

they were still going strong into the 90's too. i think it was need for speed 3 that came with my voodoo3... the first (and last imo) time police chases felt right in a racing game.

Re:What Happened?

[adam525]

Racing destruction set was great! Building your own tracks with lots of jumps and "Lunar" gravity.

Re:What Happened?

[Anonymous Coward]

I loved bards tale and pinball construction set. Two awesome games.

Re:What Happened?

[Monkeedude1212]

Maybe this is EAs plan to stop their endless sports cycle and get back to great games. Madden 10 will be the last Madden till it is deemed necessary for an update?

Heres hoping?

Re:What Happened?

[DarKnyht]

Even more important to those wanting to complete their achievements and trophies, some of the games have rewards that require you to play online. Once this happens they will effectively become unachievable.

Re:What Happened?

[rainmaestro]

Mirror's Edge was fun, even though no one bought it.

Of course, the PC version was riddled with freezes and core dumps. But for the half a level between everything going wonky, it was enjoyable.

Re:What Happened?

[lymond01]

On the PS3:

Medal of Honor
Crysis
Dead Space
Dragon Age (aaaaawesome)
Brutal Legend (not awesome)
Army of Two
Rock Band
Command and Conquer
Lord of the Rings (including the very awesome Battle for Middle Earth series for PC)

But those games you mentioned: Skyfox, Racing Destruction Set, Bard's Tale -- those were critical pieces of my childhood and I wouldn't be the gaming geek I am today without them. Making a new Racing Destruction Set allowing the same 3/4 perspective plus first person or behind-the-car views with today's technology would be awesome. Such a great game. Bard's Tale lost me at the end of Bard's Tale 2 where you had to walk around a 1x1 building 7 times or something like that to open the door -- I had to look up how to do it the clues were so obscure. Still a great series though.

Re:What Happened?

[colesw]

And that next necessary update will be Madden 11.

Re:What Happened?

[Sleepy]

EA was never great, even back then. What made EA huge is they were simply "good" games, and they could raise enough money to buy out all of their competition.

This gave EA yet more leverage with retail... and when all the indie retail shops and smaller chains folded leaving pretty much just GameSpot... well, that pretty much killed off everything else in the ecosystem. Trip Hawkins was a total douche, and set the stage for who EA is today.

EA is like a corporate amoeba, with all the powers of Microsoft and Monsanto rolled into one. I'm honestly curious why EA hasn't just put out their own hardware platform, but the answer is probably because they don't "need" to, and they're much more powerful controlling all of the platforms from behind the scenes.

EA is pretty much the reason I have AVOIDED consoles, and always stuck with PC games, where you have many more choices. I did get a PS3, mainly for Blu-Ray and as a media center.

Someone gave me a steering wheel and pedal set as a gift, so I bought NASCAR 09 for the PS3.

Here's what I expect of any game: that it will be frozen in time, and obviously not contain 2010 players cars, or information.
Putting the "year" in the title should simply designate what year or version I bought... just like say Microsoft Word or Gentoo versions.

What I did NOT expect is that EA had a remote doomsday switch for these games, so they can kill off the old version.
If that's the case (and it looks like NASCAR 09 is scheduled for termination in Europe) I'm seriously fucking pissed.

We all say "boycott XXX" and "I'll never buy from XXX", but when a cool game comes out memories get short.
But if you shell out a ton of money for a game, it's YOURS.

They can call it "taking down the servers", but I call it theft and when my game stops working, EA will have burned me in a way that I can't EVER forget.

Re:What Happened?

[Carnildo]

ECA was a great company. Whatever happened to them?

Re:What Happened?

[XMode]

What you need to do is firstly wait to see what impact this will have on your ability to play the game. Then you check the box, user agreement and any other documentation that came with the game that was readable before opening for any mention that the components that have now stopped working would actually stop working at some point in the future. Then after the 30 seconds of looking and finding nothing, you find a bunch of that have a similar issue with their game no longer working and start a class action.

And no im not american, and yes I usually hate the 'sue them' response, but every now and then you have to remind companies that they have a responsibility to their customers..

That'll teach you

[jayhawk88]

...to only buy versions of their games every few years, despite the fact that EA traditionally only makes cosmetic and superficial changes to yearly release games, yet of course charges full price for them. When you think about it, it's damn near like stealing.

At least we know the good people at EA are continuing to find innovative and new ways to be evil.

Re:That'll teach you

[Svartalf]

Yeah... But this shutdown is mild in comparison to some of the things they've done

Re:List of games

[lxs]

I'm not games, so I presume that I don't have to follow the following format? Good thing too, because I can't make sense from that directive.

Gamestop

[Culture20]

Suddenly, a lot of used games just lost some value.

Re:Gamestop

[TimeElf1]

Have you ever been to a local used game shop? All they ever have is the sports games they get so much of the sports games I'm rather surprised they don't hold monthly skeet shooting contests just to get rid of all the excess.

Re:Gamestop

[Anonymous Coward]

EA execs must be circle-jerking right now. They hindered used games sales and forced customers to buy the newest update, all in one fell swoop. I find it hilarious, though. EA customers have to be the dumbest of the dumb.

Re:Gamestop

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when did old sports games have any value at used game stores? Sports games depreciate faster than any other genre because of the yearly updates that inevitably come out.

Re:Gamestop

[snowgirl]

EA execs must be circle-jerking right now. They hindered used games sales and forced customers to buy the newest update, all in one fell swoop. I find it hilarious, though. EA customers have to be the dumbest of the dumb.

They play sports games... duh.

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, have a whole bunch of schadenfreude. EA is well known for shafting its customers. If you buy their games you deserve nothing less.

Box

[Anonymous Coward]

The back of the box clearly states(in small print) that the online service is only provided for 1 year from release date. The fact that they've lasted this long is just a bonus. I could understand if people were bitching and there was no warning, but there is.

Re:Box

[Bert64]

People very rarely read the small print, or a lot of products currently on the market would not sell at all.

Hopefully being screwed over a few times will teach people to actually read the small print!

I bought quake (the original) many years ago, i have always been able to play it online, the sourcecode to the game was released a few years ago so i am able to play modernised versions (so i'm not even restricted to dosbox as with many older games).

Re:Box

[IBBoard]

So true. If only people could get stung by DRM more as well, but alas they don't.

As for the dropping of Madden '09, well, EA do have Madden '10 out, so they've got to get people buying it somehow!

Re:Box

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, it may be clearly stated on the box. However, it's a matter of trusting a company or not.
Now, people who buy EA games will expect that their purchase will be useless after one or two years.

On the other hand,
Blizzard released its last patch for Diablo 2 eight years after release, and they have no sign of shutting multiplayer down.
Blizzard released its last patch for Starcraft eleven years after release, and they have no sign of shutting multiplayer down.
Blizzard released its last patch for Warcraft 3 six years after release (last month, actually), and they have no sign of shutting multiplayer down.

(AFAIK, the 1.24 patch for Warcraft 3, which was released last year, was a change of the API of its scripting engine to block security holes caused by malicious maps, not just small tweaks. Who else does that for six-year-old games?)

and, how long do you expect Blizzard will support Starcraft 2 or Diablo 3, and hence, will your purchase be useful?

Re:Box

[Blue Stone]

It sounds like EA is trying to reposition their brand. Perhaps they should go the whole way and rebrand entirely.

EA (Electronic Arts) becomes BO (Built-in Obsolescence).

From 'EA Sports, it's in the game' to 'BO Sports, the contents of this box stink'.

Re:Box

[geminidomino]

(AFAIK, the 1.24 patch for Warcraft 3, which was released last year, was a change of the API of its scripting engine to block security holes caused by malicious maps, not just small tweaks. Who else does that for six-year-old games?)

Not to rain on your Blizzard-worshiping parade, but I'm pretty sure that if they'd released any other games in that time besides WoW and were not still selling six-to-eleven year old games at 6-month-old game prices (WC3, SC, and Diablo 2 Battle Chests, still going for 39.99).

And people still buy them, so of course they have to keep them patched. There's no altruism or fan loyalty there. They've managed to keep sales channels for old games open to a degree that would make Nintendo blush.

Re:Box

[MobyDisk]

online service is only provided for 1 year from release date

I don't know the release date of Madden '09, but Madden '10 comes out in August, while the shutdown of Madden '09 is February 2nd. So... nobody can play the game online between Feburary and August? That doesn't make sense.

Re:Box

[j_rhoden]

Madden 09 came out in 2008. Madden 2010 came out prior to the start of the current NFL season. Madden 2011 will (presumably) come out later this year.

Re:Box

[j_rhoden]

Also, even though it says Europe only in the list, this does hold true for NASCAR 09, since there won't be a new version of that game. Polyphony Digital has the NASCAR license now, and it's supposed to show up in Gran Turismo 5, if that ever sees the light of day.

Re:Box

[Anonymous Coward]

Blizzard released its last patch for Starcraft eleven years after release, and they have no sign of shutting multiplayer down.

Well, I WILL rain on your Blizzard parade:

All 3 of those games can be played multiplayer on an isolated LAN. Why? Because the games have their own built-in server code and don't NEED to run through a central server. You will be able to play those games multiplayer until the stars burn out no matter what Blizzard does in the future. So your statements about Blizzard showing "no signs" of "shutting multiplayer down" are irrelevant.

Starcraft 2, however, will require a connection to the internet and the Blizzard Battlenet servers for any multiplayer mode. As far as I know they have not announced the timeline for keeping the server active but once they decide to shut them down, there will be no more multiplayer unless someone releases a 'black market' server replacement. From what I've heard Diablo 3 will follow this same model.

So to answer your question- they will pull the multiplayer support whenever they feel they are no longer making enough money off the game sales. It costs them to keep those servers up, so as long as they are keeping expansions coming they'll keep the servers active. I would personally expect at least 3 years, but at this point even Blizzard does not know how long they will keep them going.

Re:Box

[brkello]

That's just dumb. The only reason people are still buying those games is the fact that Blizzard still supports them and releases patches. You can criticize Blizzard for a bunch of things, but saying they aren't loyal to their fans isn't one of them. If they still are able to make some money based on that fan loyalty, that's great.

And if it was purely profit driven, why doesn't every company support their games like this? Why is Blizzard the exception and not the rule?

Re:Box

[geminidomino]

That's just dumb. The only reason people are still buying those games is the fact that Blizzard still supports them and releases patches. You can criticize Blizzard for a bunch of things, but saying they aren't loyal to their fans isn't one of them. If they still are able to make some money based on that fan loyalty, that's great.

What's dumb is the delusion that any corp is "loyal" to anyone but itself. They keep their customers happy, sure. But that's not "loyalty," it's marketing. Good marketing, and more companies should do it, and if they make money on it, great. But putting them on a pedestal like that is pure fanboying.

And if it was purely profit driven, why doesn't every company support their games like this? Why is Blizzard the exception and not the rule?

Because the other companies tend to put out games more often than every 5-10 years. Blizzard hasn't put anything out since WoW, and have pissed off quite a few of their fans with the as-yet-unreleased StarCraft 3.

They HAVE to keep people buying the old games until they get the new ones out. When SC2 has sufficient uptake, I guarantee you you'll see an EOL for SC.

You may wonder what I base that conclusion on? The simple fact that, despite the Blizzard "loyalty" fellatio that is so popular among its fanboys, they don't keep maintaining games that have been "replaced," as evidenced by the fact that there hasn't been a patch for the original Diablo in 8 years(late 2001). Not coincidentally, 2001 was also the year Diablo II was released.

Re:Box

[Anonymous Coward]

Starcraft Battle Chest has been $20 for a long time now. I bought my second copy at that price 5-6 years ago.

No surprise there

[thetoadwarrior]

If I may defend EA on one point, they do actually make it very clear they will shut down the service anytime they feel like it. In fact I think it's on the back of the game boxes as well. This isn't a surprise. They did this with their PC versions for some time.

This why people shouldn't buy their games. There is no need for EA to be the middle man in online gaming but they do it purely to have control. They don't need you playing Madden 08 year after year. They need you to buy every version. Quite frankly I'm surprised they don't shut the servers down for the previous version the day the new version is released. It probably will get to that point.

Re:No surprise there

[Dan541]

Consumers need to demand the ability to run private game servers. Then boycott. If your going to boycott something you should tell they company why you are doing so, I would encourage everyone who is pissed of about this to contact EA prior to the boycott.

They will listen when they see the market drop. Just because they ignore complaint emails now doesn't mean they will continue to do so when they notice their falling profit line..

Re:No surprise there

[Anonymous Coward]

the market drop ...falling profit line

This won't happen. Simply because their audience will have forgotten about it in a day or two. They'll just see the next marketing campaign, paid review, etc. and they will buy the next game.

Sure, even the most dimwitted gamer will think twice after he got ripped of the 7th time, but by then a new generation of retards is ready and waiting to get ripped off.

EA is preying on the mentally handicapped and inexperienced and it's working.

Re:No surprise there

[apoc.famine]

It's things like this that keep my 7-8 year boycott of anything stamped EA alive. I've pretty much forgotten which games started my boycott, but EA keeps giving me examples to work with.

Re:No surprise there

[CodeBuster]

This why people shouldn't buy their games.

It is a good reason, but its not the only one. EA also uses intrusive DRM in their games which damages users' computers and doesn't respect their property (namely the aforementioned computer) or their freedom. I have neither bought nor played an EA game for a long time now and with the way things are going it doesn't look like that will change any time soon. Message to EA: DRM KILLS THE FUN OF GAMING, DRM == LOST SALE, END THE MADNESS AND DUMP DRM.

Re:No surprise there

[CorporateSuit]

It is a good reason, but its not the only one. EA also uses intrusive DRM in their games which damages users' computers and doesn't respect their property (namely the aforementioned computer) or their freedom. I have neither bought nor played an EA game for a long time now and with the way things are going it doesn't look like that will change any time soon. Message to EA: DRM KILLS THE FUN OF GAMING, DRM == LOST SALE, END THE MADNESS AND DUMP DRM.

I just get the copy that doesn't include the DRM. If watching Disney's Robin Hood taught me anything, it's better to be a criminal in robbing from the rich, than to be a bad guy.

Re:No surprise there

[thetoadwarrior]

I agree the problem with sports games is that they cater to a group where a lot of people have to buy each season's new jersey, player cards, hat an so on. Buying the new season's game is just a badge to show how hardcore of a football,baseball, etc fan they are.

That's why EA paid for an NFL licence monopoly and are willing to stick by Tiger rather than let his name go in case his scandal blows over quickly and someone else picks up his name.

EA knows they can count on them and these tactics are probably more just to keep the less dedicated fans in line with EA's plans.

The best way to stop this would be to get more competition in sports games. Then I bet you will find someone will cater for this and EA will likely copy them.

Re:No surprise there

[rhizome]

If I may defend EA on one point, they do actually make it very clear they will shut down the service anytime they feel like it. In fact I think it's on the back of the game boxes as well. This isn't a surprise.

Just because they say they'll be a dick someday doesn't change the fact that when that day comes they will indeed be dicks.

Re:No surprise there

[thetoadwarrior]

It doesn't but it's hardly newsworthy and if people are upset then they should vote with their wallet and not buy it in the first place.

Yep, dedicated servers are a great solution

[trawg]

Our company has provided commercial game server management services for almost 10 years for a large ISP client in Australia. We have watched games rise and fall over this entire time. And the games with dedicated server software - games like Quake, which came out in 1996 - are still just as playable today as they were back then (often more so thanks to enhanced community-created features).

There are a few exceptions to that - AvP2 ran into problems recently when they shut down the master server/s. But a community project has worked around this.

We recently published a guide - the Mammoth Dedicated Server Guide - for game developers and publishers trying to explain to them why they should release dedicated server software (inspired in no small part by Modern Warfare 2's lack of dedicated server). We're hoping to make more people aware of it, and more importantly, more gamers aware of the issues surrounding games without dedicated servers (such as this story!!!!), so that when they're choosing what games to spend money on, they can show more discrimination.

So the rule is

[EdgeyEdgey]

Never by anything from EA that has a date in the title

Or called Facebreaker

Re:So the rule is

[b1t r0t]

The other rule is: that's the expiration date.

Why the need to shut down anything

[DrXym]

Surely it is not beyond the resources of EA to buy a server farm and run virtualized instances of game servers on demand. If a game becomes less popular, the VMs timeout and shutdown. If it's very popular more instances get spawned. I don't see any reason that they have to physically decommission or repurpose anything in this day & age.

Re:Why the need to shut down anything

[CFBMoo1]

"I don't see any reason that they have to physically decommission or repurpose anything in this day & age."

Money.

Re:Why the need to shut down anything

[DrXym]

Money.

From an administrative & hardware standpoint I'd say you save money by virtualizing. No need to have dedicated machines any more since you can run a fixed amount of hardware and spawn instances on demand.

From a marketing perspective they may make more money by shutting down servers but it could easily be counterproductive too. If people become aware that they get maybe 12-18 months tops and their their game is deliberately crippled they might avoid EA titles.

Re:Why the need to shut down anything

[natehoy]

"Money" as in "people shell out $60 for the 2010 version".

And they will. Make no mistake. Any backlash on this will be minimal. EA has been selling the annual series of these games for years now, and only guarantee server access for one year, after which you either multiplay locally, set up your own server somewhere, or shell out the bucks for the next version. They're just a couple of years behind in their server shutdown schedule. EA is also the only one licensed to do games with real names and logos in them, and people want their unreality to be real. So if EA players want to shove a bunch of pixels that vaguely resemble their favorite players and compete with total strangers doing so, they'll pony up $60.

There will be angst (shock) , and gnashing of teeth (anger), and the threat of a lawsuit or something (denial), followed by maybe some crying (acceptance), followed by the shuffling sound of millions of credit cards being pulled out of millions of wallets. This is the cycle of annual upgrade grief.

I never played football games, but I was into first person shooters for a while (Unreal, Call of Duty, etc). I rarely played online, we had LAN parties. But it got too expensive keeping up with the latest games, even just for 4 game lines ($60/year/game for 4 games was costing me $20 a month just to buy games), so I stopped.

EA would do well to charge a monthly fee for server access and guarantee access to 3-4 releases back. But they apparently do better just selling an annual version with one year (from release date) of access and baking the server costs into the retail price of the game.

Re:Why the need to shut down anything

[eth1]

Surely it is not beyond the resources of EA to buy a server farm and run virtualized instances of game servers on demand. If a game becomes less popular, the VMs timeout and shutdown. If it's very popular more instances get spawned. I don't see any reason that they have to physically decommission or repurpose anything in this day & age.

No, no... Some fancy automated system would be too expensive. A *REAL* bonus-hungry EA exec would just release, "SimServerFarm," where the object is to increase your SimGamer population as much as possible by optimizing your Madden/NBA/NCAA zoning and building an efficient cabling system between them. Of course, it would be online-only, and hooked into the VM management console...

Re:Why the need to shut down anything

[Anonymous Coward]

Old Republic the MMO is developed by Bioware/EA. That's probably going to need *a lot* of servers. They might be cleaning house and moving some of the servers from the less popular games over. The Madden 09 server going down is a bit shocking though.

Re:Why the need to shut down anything

[DrXym]

An MMO is a different kettle of fish. I'm talking about the glorified matchmaking systems that most games use these days.

Re:Why the need to shut down anything

[SeeManRun]

Spawning instances on demand would require a complete re-architecture of the servers that are used for these games. Given no one is buying them anymore, it would be hard pressed to convince management to take this on when they have work to do for games that people will actually buy.

Re:Why the need to shut down anything

[DrXym]

Not necessarily. Somebody hits the end point and something spawns the VM to handle the request, assuming its not up already. The server is completely oblivious to the situation and runs the same whether it was running on real hardware or virtual. It's a glorified equivalent of what inetd does right now.

Re:Why the need to shut down anything

[SeeManRun]

I was not guessing. I was stating a fact. But you are right, it would be possible, just not with this title on this server architecture.

Luckily for us

[santax]

We can set up dedicated servers for the games we love. Oh wait... Hard to believe that you pay for 60 euro's for a game and 1 or 2 years later you can't play it anymore. Now what should I do. Buy the new Madden, or buy a modchip...

And another reason why you don't buy EA...

[Hurricane78]

...in the first place.

They do not care at all if you have fun, or got anything from it.
They only care, if you give them the money. The only reason they are not selling empty boxes, is because they try to steer clear of getting a class action lawsuit for fraud. But they try to get as close as possible to that magic line, as long as it means more money.

And what do you expect from a company that basically works like a ancient galley, or a gulag... powered by mindless slaves, and controlled by someone who would sell his own grandmother for peanuts, or steal a lollipop from a child.

They work on the same basis, that makes the two party system work: Idiots, who don’t learn from being fucked over.
Hint: If you bought a couple of EA games, that includes you. But at least you got a chance. ^^

Re:And another reason why you don't buy EA...

[Anonymous Coward]

When will you learn, not to put commas all over the place? It makes reading your posts, very irritating. Which is, a pity because sometimes the points you make, are good.

Re:And another reason why you don't buy EA...

[Jaysyn]

Hint: If you bought a couple of multiplayer EA games, that includes you. But at least you got a chance. ^^

TFTFY

Re:And another reason why you don't buy EA...

[Svartalf]

Heh... He had it right to begin with. EA only wants your money and to screw you over to get it. Doesn't matter if it's multiplayer or not. While I can't gripe TOO hard (I've got Burnout Paradise as a gift and play it...) at least they don't do this crap too much with the non-sports titles- yet.

Re:And another reason why you don't buy EA...

[Jaysyn]

Yeah I usually avoid everything they publish too, but Dragon Age & American Magee's Alice are two big exceptions.

Re:And another reason why you don't buy EA...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. EA single player games come with limited-activation-DRM that allows them to disable single player games whenever they feel like it.

Re:And another reason why you don't buy EA...

[Anonymous Coward]

He's used to the German way of placing commas. Cut him some slack.

Re:And another reason why you don't buy EA...

[mcgrew]

The only reason they are not selling empty boxes

New from EA -- Air Guitar Hero!!

Money, Money, and Money.

[NoPantsJim]

"Yes, Madden 07 and 08 are included in the shutdown... but Madden 09 on all consoles as well"

The economy blows, so to the average guy, is it really worth $50 to upgrade to 10 or is 09 good enough as it is?

It just boils down to money. Plain and simple. Not even the cost of running the servers, but forcing everyone that thought Madden 09 was just fine for their needs to go out and pickup Madden 10.

Re:Money, Money, and Money.

[_PimpDaddy7_]

I was going to mod you and the previous poster higher but I HAD to respond.

This PISSES me off. I've owned every Madden since 06 on the Xbox360 and a few on the GameCube.

Year after year the manuals have been reduced to 4 page leaflets. My 04 Madden on the Gamecube came with a superb manual. It was excellent and showed they somewhat cared about making a polished game.

I can certainly understand the need to close say a 06 server, even an 07 and 08. But to close the 09? That's ridiculous.

You are correct it's all about money. I don't know the numbers but I guarentee Madden 10 sold less than 09. 09 was good, 10 less so. I despise EA and I will not buy another sports game from them. Sadly they have bought up other companies whose games I really enjoy. It just SICKENS me what they have done to this industry! The fact that there are no other football alternatives is pretty gross.

This is a direct message to EA I will never buy another sports game from you.

Re:Money, Money, and Money.

[Jason Levine]

I'm not a big sports game player, but if a company shut down a major feature of the previous year's version that I bought so they could push this year's new version on me, I'd seriously reconsider ever buying from them again. So you pay them $50 for Madden 10 and then what? You get 12 months or so of play before they shut that down to push Madden 11? I can't see this working to increase sales that much. Instead, I think it will tarnish EA's reputation which will lead to reduced sales in the long run.

Re:Money, Money, and Money.

[MistrBlank]

I remember getting a madden (I think 98) for Playstation and they crammed a THICK manual into a CD jewel case along with a poster with all of the plays. That used to be standard. Now it's a pathetic controller diagram (if that) and that's it.

However, I do have to disagree that the reason manuals (across the board on most games) have become thinner is that in game training is taking it's place. With it being easier to produce interactive training, why bother making print media. With the first madden that came out for Wii I remember being very thankful for the in game trainer because it would show you things that would be otherwise complicated to describe or show in print.

Re:Money, Money, and Money.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to defend them or anything but it is understandable. Is 10 out? I dont follow that series. But if it is I bet you can get 09 for like 3 bucks used. Almost no one is still playing it if 10 is out. I saw this with used games for years. The next version of a sports game would come out and everyone rushed to trade in the prev year. As all the leagues, teams, etc... moved onto the next game.

I wouldnt be surprised if the players on those games range in the hundreds instead of the thousands it was when it first came out. But I could be wrong. Now they could be cool and release specs/code so people could host their own servers. But I doubt they would even bother to do this.

Re:Money, Money, and Money.

[AndrewNeo]

Since you own the 09 version, can you tell us how many people are playing right now? I'm willing to bet with the 2010 version out, the number is so insignificant that it's not worth keeping the servers running anymore..

Re:Money, Money, and Money.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't fool yourself. You already said you've been buying EA sports games for years. They have a monopoly. In a week you'll either have forgotten about it or try not to think about it and shell out money for the next version.

EA has a decade long track record of this kind of behaviour. Don't fool yourself by claiming "this is the last straw". They prey on people like you because it works like a charm ... for them.

Re:Money, Money, and Money.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tarnish EA's what? reputation?

Could one daresay EA is less ethical than... M$??

Re:Money, Money, and Money.

[phorm]

I've owned every Madden since 06 on the Xbox360 and a few on the GameCube

One question, WHY? Are the new releases *that* different from the old? Shelling out money to EA like that is what has encouraged then to keep shovelling out essentially the same crap - often even worse because of the corners cut to do so for cheap - year after year.

I'm glad to hear you've broken the cycle, but I do have to wonder why you bought into it in the first place? Note that I'm not much of a "madden" fan so perhaps it's just something beyond my understanding, the various releases haven't seemed that different to me overall with the exception of better graphics over time.

Re:Money, Money, and Money.

[Svartalf]

Actually, it's my understanding that 10's junk compared to 09 and most people are, that play it, still pretty much playing 09.

But then, I don't do sports games normally. Closest thing to them I've done in recent times was Wii Sports. It's typically more fun doing these games in real life for me- when I do them.

Re:Money, Money, and Money.

[DavidTC]

I can certainly understand the need to close say a 06 server, even an 07 and 08. But to close the 09?

I can't understand the need to close any server. The servers are just matchmaking ones. It's a damn IRC server. People connect, talk a little, get sent each others IP address, and connect directly to each other to play. It uses minimal resources. At this point they probably only need one for 2006. Hell, it's entirely likely it's the same server as 2010, and they just removed 2006 areas.

Don't attempt to justify their behavior. The only reason to shut down any servers is to obsolete the games.

Oh, and it's worth pointing out that developers making an XBox 360 game have the ability to connect to Microsoft's matchmaking servers as part of the XBox's SDK, which you will notice that every XBox 360 game ever released is still supported on. (And don't give MS too much credit here...like I said, matchmaking servers are trivial on resources.) EA deliberately choose to use their own servers....which they could shut down.

Re:Money, Money, and Money.

[dangitman]

This PISSES me off. I've owned every Madden since 06 on the Xbox360 and a few on the GameCube.

Eeewww, that's disgusting.

Re:Money, Money, and Money.

[Anonymous Coward]

09 was the worst ever. then they fired their team and 10 is much improved. I can't take you seriously if you enjoyed 09

Re:Money, Money, and Money.

[harl]

How did Wii, PSP, and XBOX1 become all consoles?

Re:Money, Money, and Money.

[Anonymous Coward]

Its double - low-triple digits tops. Everyone has migrated to 2010, the same thing happens every year, and these announcements have come out like clock work. If no one is online and the server goes down, does it make a sound? (Aside from all the angst heard around here).

Posting anon for obvious reasons.

Re:Money, Money, and Money.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you are submitting it via SlashDot, yours is an indirect message to EA.

Re:Money, Money, and Money.

[bigstrat2003]

The list is horribly organized. It lists PS3 and 360, but they're towards the bottom of the list, not with the other Madden '09 entries.

Re:Money, Money, and Money.

[brkello]

I haven't bought a sport game in a long time, so I am not really EA's primary customer. But I am a gamer and do by games. Every now and then I will buy a football or hockey game. Based on this, I am with you. I am going to avoid buying EA games at all costs now. I am just going to support developers who actually show at least some loyalty to their fans.

Re:Money, Money, and Money.

[Nightspirit]

People say "$60 for a new roster", not realizing that accurate portrayal of the players and stats is probably the #2 reason people buy these games. I don't play sports games since NFL blitz, but if I was going to buy NCAA 10 I would want my school's players and stats to be represented, otherwise why even bother, just make a robot space football game.

I know sports is antithetical to most slashdotters but a lot of people into sports enjoy the stats, enough so that a lot of them are into fantasy football. While I'm sure they could put out a roster update for $20 they seem to get enough people who are perfectly willing to spend $60

Re:Money, Money, and Money.

[harl]

Got it. I see it now. My bad.

Re:Money, Money, and Money.

[phorm]

I'll admit I'm not a huge fan of most sports (unless it's a live game), but I used to be a fair fan of the NHL XX series.

I guess it's that $60 seems fairly steep to me because it's often just a "roster update" and a few other small changes. Being in IT I know how minimal the work likely involved was, so the price-tag seems like those that buy it are really getting hosed.

Madden vs 2010

[Anonymous Coward]

and Madden lost

Re:Madden vs 2010

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank god for dedicated servers and LAN play.

Oh wait.

Do without football

[tepples]

With EA holding the exclusive license for both NFL and FIFA, I guess you're just asking the world to do without football video games. Do I understand you correctly?

Re:Do without football

[Anonymous Coward]

Was that a zeugma?

Re:Do without football

[PIBM]

Totally! Just go out and play for real.

Didn't RTFA, but can't you keep playing the game alone, or with your friends in the confort of your home, just not on the internet?

What fun is it fighting random newbs on the internet anyway ?

Re:Do without football

[Moryath]

With EA holding the exclusive license for both NFL and FIFA, that means we just get one shitty "official roster" game per year rather than seven.

Imagine a world in which those shitty games then didn't make money. Why, maybe all the ridiculous amounts of money spent on giving Madden 11 more shoelace detail and graphical advertising textures on the knocked-out teeth could go instead into making some interesting and fun games.

You want to play football? Go outside. Grab a ball. Find some friends. They're probably just as out of shape as you are, couch potato, so it'll be an even match.

Re:Do without football

[doobie22]

How about playing with your friends on the internet?

Re:Do without football

[Nathrael]

I never understood why people play soccer games anyways. Why people watch soccer is already mysterious enough to me, but remotely understandable; but why the hell would you play a game which imitates something you could easily do with a bunch of friends (or even strangers) somewhere outside, for cheap? I'm not a big soccer player, but I sure know that regardless of how bad I am, I'm gonna have more fun playing *actual* soccer than some strange video game copy of it.

Re:Do without football

[mcvos]

With EA holding the exclusive license for both NFL and FIFA, I guess you're just asking the world to do without football video games. Do I understand you correctly?

Only without officially trademark-licensed football video games. You're still free to make games that don't use the names NFL and FIFA, and don't contain players whose names are owned by those organisations.

Re:Do without football

[Anonymous Coward]

shh dont make fun of the nerds they far outnumber you here

Re:Do without football

[tepples]

You're still free to make games that don't use the names NFL and FIFA

Which of those has been a commercial success in the past couple years? Or by "you" do you mean a free software project as opposed to a commercial/proprietary project?

Re:Do without football

[Stregano]

I agree with this. Whether we like it or not, since EA holds the rights to NFL, if you want to play a NFL game, you have to play by EA's rules.

When they shut down the servers for 09 and under, they want you to go and buy Madden 10 if you want to play online, which is going to be your only choice.

Or EA could stop being stubborn with m$ and let m$ handle those servers since m$ did offer to do that for them way back in the day.

Re:Do without football

[gandhi_2]

Because starting in February, if you want to play "football" with your friends, you must pay licensing fees to NFL. And anyone watching your game must pay royalties to NBC.

Re:Do without football

[gid]

Last time I went around the neighborhood asking 30+ year old Dads to come out and play they all looked at me funny.

Re:Do without football

[RobDude]

That same argument can be made about the vast majority of realistic video games.

FPS? Go join the military. Guitar Hero? Join a band. Fighting game? Go take MMA classes. Madden? Go play Football. Soccer game? Go outside and play soccer.

Naturally, if you give it more than the most superficial consideration - you'd be able to see that there is a world of difference between turning on a game and pressing 'play' and doing it in real life. You also make the incorrect assumption that everyone who enjoys video games is physically able to participate in the real-world physical version.

I can turn on FIFA 09 and play for 30 minutes after work. I'd be hard pressed to organize a game of soccer with 22 of my friends. I'd be even more hard pressed to play a full season of soccer with the World Cup as my goal.

First, the in-game players are designed to emulate the abilities of real world, *professional* players. 99.9999% of the population cannot play on that level. Second, there is dramatically different levels of risk associated with the two tasks. Playing soccer in real life is far more dangerous than on the video game. I broke my arm playing soccer, I've never done that playing a video game. Third, you've got logistic issues.....you need a place to play, you need goals, you need nets, you need gear, you should really have a ref. Those things aren't free. And if you want to have any sort of structure - with teams and scores - you'll need insurance.

I played on a local Rugby team around here for a season a few years after college. It was fun - but we were part of a league and the dues to cover the insurance, pay the ref, and hold a field were not cheap. And that's not addressing the costs of the uniform, the gear, nor the travel (nor the liquor afterwords, but that's a different story).

Bottom line is - you are talking about two things that are completely different. They aren't mutually exclusive. They are only superficially related. Not liking a type of video game is fine. Liking a real-world equivalent is fine. But advocating that the 'real world' version is a good replacement for the video game really misses the point of video games.

Re:Do without football

[orlanz]

Numbers don't matter for nerds, one ring is all it takes to rule them all.

Re:Do without football

[BobMcD]

Playing a game has numerous advantages over the real thing. Safety and comfort being chief among them. Am I supposed to go fetch a real sword and start soliciting quests from people, killing everything that gets in my way for the 'experience' of it? Why then wouldn't this apply to sport games, if only on a less extreme level?

Re:Do without football

[BobMcD]

Source?

Re:Do without football

[Steve Max]

The Pro Evolution Soccer series is pretty successful, at least enough for Konami to launch a new game every year.

Re:Do without football

[mrdoogee]

[citation needed]

Re:Do without football

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I can rip them off. And they deserve it, too.

Re:Do without football

[mrdoogee]

So, you have 22 (21 other players, 1 ref) friends, a regulation field, 2 goals, and a well lit facility to play it in?

I know I'm being pedantic, but there is something to be said for playing any "simulation" video game. I can go play football with my handfull of friends on a corner of a park with trash cans for goal posts, but sometimes I like to play a video game that lets me step into the shoes of a favorite team, or player.

There are a lot of people who really like to play sports in video games, and it sucks for them that in the case of NFL and FIFA there is only one publisher. Its like (but not exactly so) if SquareEnix were the only publisher of RPGs.

Re:Do without football

[markhb]

One young man I know, who requires a wheelchair to get around, finds the Wii version of Madden much more satisfying, not to mention possible, than your suggestion.

Plus, it's the NFLPA that licenses the players' names; the NFL licenses the team names and logos. Without both you either get Tom Brady playing for "Boston" or the Patriots have Joe Schlabotnik at QB.

Re:Do without football

[eharvill]

Past/recurrent injuries are the main reasons I no longer play real soccer. The ability manage a team, control my players, score amazing goals I could never pull off in real life are reasons that I play the video game version these days. Oh yeah, I can also win the World Cup, FA Cup, Champions League, etc. I'll never be able to play on the pitch at Wembley's either...

Re:Do without football

[ae1294]

Am I supposed to go fetch a real sword and start soliciting quests from people, killing everything that gets in my way for the 'experience' of it?

Wooh, Hell yeah! I got a few quests for you my good sir!

Re:Do without football

[ae1294]

FPS? Go join the military.

Paint ball man... Joining the military would be a tad obsessive...

Re:Do without football

[RobDude]

Fair enough :)

Re:Do without football

[Moryath]

But dude... Joe Schlabotnik was AWESOME!!!!

Intellectual property rights

[Anonymous Coward]

If it is -so- old and useless that they will deprive the users of the functionality they PURCHASED, how is it they can still retain IP rights which prevent people from standing up their own Madden 07 and 08 servers? This needs to go to court. They cannot have it both ways. "It's too valueable for us to allow the customers who purchased the game, the rights to the IP, but it is so worthless that we aren't going to provide the purchased functionality." Nice arguement.

Re:Intellectual property rights

[Tim C]

The argument will be that while 07 & 08 are no longer worth supporting, they contain code and other technologies used in 10, and so being forced to release that code will be detrimental to them.

I'm not saying I agree, in fact I agree with you in spirit at least - anything that is discontinued and no longer available, I think, really should pass into the public domain. I just don't think it's as clear-cut in this case as you'd like it to be.

Re:Intellectual property rights

[gorzek]

This is one of the "benefits" of having software licensed instead of owned. You didn't buy a game, you bought a license to play it, and EA can modify that license at any time. As others have noted, the box says they'll provide online play for a year, and guarantee nothing past that. I don't think the problem is with the concept of licensing, but that the publisher can insert pretty much any terms they want. There has to be some common sense here. The publisher wants to be protected from piracy, fine. But the customer should be protected from having the value of what they purchased diminished at the whims of the publisher, too. I'm not sure what a good legal framework would be, though. You could say any game designed to play exclusively online (such as WoW) would not have to provide the ability to run private servers, but any game that has both online and offline functionality (Madden, et al) would be required to offer the software to run a private server. The downside to this is that EA would just require an Internet connection for any game you could play online, whether you intend to do so or not. Then again, I guess you could go all the way and not have any exceptions at all. If you ever intend to shut down your online service, you have to provide the tools to set up private servers--period. I'm sure this would be fought tooth and nail, but if the online experience is a major selling point, who is the game publisher to forcibly obsolete your software?

Re:Intellectual property rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Alternatively, just use consumer law to force them to *prominently* advertise the time limits (and stick to them as a minimum). A big warning in red on the front of the game saying 'Online play will not be possible after 1 year' or whatvever is appropriate should do rather than some obscure small print. They might decide instead to set a more reasonable limit instead then.

Multiplayer != online multiplayer

[tepples]

if the game says multiplayer when you buy it, the company is responsable for keeping the servers running even if theres only 2 people on it

It's still multiplayer even if it's not online multiplayer. As I understand it, the Xbox 360 platform supports both the model of multiple controllers plugged into one console and the System Link model of multiple consoles on a local area network.

Re:Multiplayer != online multiplayer

[Anonymous Coward]

On the back of an Xbox game, you get seperate information regarding online and offline multiplayer. With an EA game there is a few lines of text basically stating they can remove any feature in the game, including online multiplayer. In the case of online multiplayer, they state they will give 30 days notice on their website.

Re:Multiplayer != online multiplayer

[Mhtsos]

Is this text printed on the outside of the box?

Re:Multiplayer != online multiplayer

[AdamThor]

As I understand it, the Xbox 360 platform supports both the model of multiple controllers plugged into one console ...

This appears to be less and less true as time continues. The roster of 4-player / console games seems to be getting thin. I guess they don't drive console sales enough...

Re:Multiplayer != online multiplayer

[tepples]

The roster of 4-player / console games seems to be getting thin. I guess they don't drive console sales enough...

The advantage of a console used to be that consoles are typically connected to a bigger monitor than PCs, so that you could invite friends over without having to dismantle multiple PCs. But without party games like Smash Bros., what is the big advantage of a console over a PC?

Re:Multiplayer != online multiplayer

[apoc.famine]

You can play games as long as you can insert a disk and push the power button.
 
PCs have all sorts of complicated stuff like installing and registering and downloading drivers and hardware requirements and resolutions and OS requirements and stuff. The big advantage of a console is that it's an entertainment appliance.
 
For a lot of us on slashdot, that's not an advantage. For the vast majority of joe lusers in the world, it is.

Re:Multiplayer != online multiplayer

[AdamThor]

You can play games as long as you can insert a disk and push the power button.

This also appears to be less true than it used to be. The Xbox user interface is full of retarded BS that routinely mystifies guests who don't actually possess an xbox of their own.

Tired of playing HALO w/ your buds? You can't just leave, you have to sign out. This requires you to monopolize the screen for 10 or 15 seconds (which is 10 or 15 s too long), and requires several button pushes that nobody is interested in memorizing b/c at that point they want away from the xbox as quickly as possible. Often people manage to drop the xbox + 3 remaining players from whatever session they were connected to at this point.

There are other issues with profiles that are confusing and / or stupid as well.

It's a bummer.

Re:Multiplayer != online multiplayer

[tepples]

PCs have all sorts of complicated stuff like installing and registering

And WiiWare/XBLA/PSN does not?

and downloading drivers

Plenty of Wii, Xbox 360, and PS3 games require the player to update the firmware before playing. Granted, console games tend to have fuller test coverage of the common hardware combinations simply because there are fewer combinations.

and hardware requirements

Multiple editions of Xbox 360 and PLAYSTATION 3. But again, I will grant that every model of a given console has the same video card, and you don't have bulldung like new PCs still being sold with nothing more than a Voodoo3-class Intel GMA.

and resolutions

I've only had a problem with that on my 9" ASUS netbook, where the windows of games in Ubuntu universe get cut off at the bottom. Anything bigger has at least 1024x768, and every PC game can drop down that low if not lower. And even console games have resolution problems: witness text in Capcom's Dead Rising becoming unreadable when displayed on an SDTV.

and OS requirements and stuff

Firmware updates again. If you're referring to the fact that Windows games won't run on Linux, neither will Wii games run on a 360 even though they both have a PowerPC CPU and they both have ATI GPUs.

The big advantage of a console is that it's an entertainment appliance.

Another popular entertainment appliance is a DVD player. Any team who knows cinematography can make a video and burn it to a DVD-R, just like any team who knows video game development can make a PC game. The only current console that has anything close to that is Xbox 360 with its $99 per year XNA Creators Club.

Re:Multiplayer != online multiplayer

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, very clearly.

Re:Multiplayer != online multiplayer

[Com2Kid]

And WiiWare/XBLA/PSN does not?

XBLA and PSN require a Username and PW, and then a credit card # for purchases. WiiWare makes it even easier, just a CC# is needed.

Compare this to a PC which requires everything from driver installations to security updates to anti-virus and anti-spyware updates to, worst case, managing conflicting library dependencies.

Plenty of Wii, Xbox 360, and PS3 games require the player to update the firmware before playing. Granted, console games tend to have fuller test coverage of the common hardware combinations simply because there are fewer combinations.

It is fully automated for all 3 consoles. You start up the game, the game connects to the Internet and downloads needed updates. Compare this to a PC where you may have to hunt around online to find the right magic driver version that works for you.

Or Linux where you may get the joy of recompiling your kernel to get some piece of hardware working. Admittedly I was impressed with how simple the process was, but NOT something I want my grandmother doing!

Multiple editions of Xbox 360 and PLAYSTATION 3. But again, I will grant that every model of a given console has the same video card, and you don't have bulldung like new PCs still being sold with nothing more than a Voodoo3-class Intel GMA.

The only variable in terms of compatibility is the Xbox 360 and if the user has a HD or not. IIRC MS requires games to work W/O a HD anyway, but the user will be limited in what they can download from the online store (obviously!) to whatever fits on the rather dinky memory card that comes with the base Xbox 360 model.

But again, IIRC, all commercial games work A-OK. No worrying about RAM, VRAM, CPU speed, # of cores, background apps hogging CPU, or any of that other crud.

I've only had a problem with that on my 9" ASUS netbook, where the windows of games in Ubuntu universe get cut off at the bottom. Anything bigger has at least 1024x768, and every PC game can drop down that low if not lower. And even console games have resolution problems: witness text in Capcom's Dead Rising becoming unreadable when displayed on an SDTV

This was a more serious problem when wide screen monitors first came out. Lots of games would die a horrible death (or at least look all funky) if run on a wide screen monitor or sometimes even if the desktop was just set to a wide screen resolution.

My parents Wii actually still has issues with Wide Screen, namely it refuses to run in wide screen mode and all games have black bars on the sides. It may be due to the connector used to plugged into the TV, but I am too lazy to rehook up their entire AV system just to appease Nintendo's cost cutting measures.

Another large difference is that with consoles you have a known lifecycle for each console in which you know you can buy the console and all games for the next 5+ years are going to work with that console. Compare to PCs where to play the latest and greatest games you will need to be dropping at least $200 in upgrades in that same 5 year span, and quite likely a lot more than that.

That said, a gaming PC is a thing of beauty, I truly do love PC gaming, but I would never try to claim that console's are not a good deal simplier to use. Playing a game on a console consists of inserting the game disc and sitting back on one's couch. Once a PC is properly setup, sure, it is almost that easy, but getting it to that point is an art form, albeit an art form that many of us enjoy indulging in. :)

Re:Multiplayer != online multiplayer

[MoriaOrc]

I agree with your main point that the sign-out menu takes the full screen, and that is somewhere between annoyingly inconvenient to match critical if you want to sign out in the middle of a splitscreen game.

But how hard is it really to "memorize" Guide->X->Up->A. Presumably you already know you have to press the guide button, since you're complaining about it interrupting the gameplay. After that, pressing 'X' is the only "memorization" required, since the "Up->A" part of the sequence is just responding to the "Yes I actually want to sign out" pop up that shows up.

Re:Multiplayer != online multiplayer

[tepples]

XBLA and PSN require a Username and PW

That's "registering".

My parents Wii actually still has issues with Wide Screen, namely it refuses to run in wide screen mode and all games have black bars on the sides. It may be due to the connector used to plugged into the TV

I've never seen that happen. Standard vs. Wide in the Wii menu: it just controls what pixel aspect ratio a game assumes. Sure, not being able to select progressive can be a problem with the connector, but I see no reason that the Wii would disable 16:9 mode. But then I'm in the North American region, which has no SCART. What error message do you get, or is it just grayed out? Can you switch inside Brawl? Or do you mean narrow black bars on the sides? I see that on Tetris Party and Dr. Mario, and it just means that the game isn't drawing anything outside the safe area.

Semi-related: Have you bought any Xbox Live Indie Games as an alternative to what EA makes?

Re:Multiplayer != online multiplayer

[Com2Kid]

Sure, not being able to select progressive can be a problem with the connector, but I see no reason that the Wii would disable 16:9 mode. But then I'm in the North American region, which has no SCART. What error message do you get, or is it just grayed out? Can you switch inside Brawl? Or do you mean narrow black bars on the sides? I see that on Tetris Party and Dr. Mario, and it just means that the game isn't drawing anything outside the safe area

In US, can't remember what sort of connector is being used. I do remember being pissed that it wasn't HDMI though, :P. Pretty sure it is component though.

Anyway, I set it to Widescreen, but everything is still in 4:3.

Maybe next time I am over there I will play with the TV settings, but everything else (DVD, Cable) is in 16:9.

Reading up online about it, it seems like some TVs you do have to press a button, and just switching the reciever over to the Wii is complicated enough for my parents, and neither of them have mentioned the letter boxing yet.

Damn the Wii is a cut rate piece of hardware...

Blizzard didn't cooperate

[tepples]

BNET-D started because several individuals had banned CD-Keys or wished to play with pirated versions of Blizzards games.

As I understand it, the bnetd developers contacted Blizzard to ask how to verify CD keys, and when Blizzard refused to cooperate, the bnetd developers continued without the feature.

Re:Blizzard didn't cooperate

[Anonymous Coward]

No crap they didn't give them the ability to check to see if a CD key was valid. Talk about a great way to find out if a the CD Key you just generated would work on normal battle net. Sometimes I can't believe what people want from companies.

Re:Blizzard didn't cooperate

[lena_10326]

As I understand it, the bnetd developers contacted Blizzard to ask how to verify CD keys, and when Blizzard refused to cooperate, the bnetd developers continued without the feature.

If that were true, then the bnetd devs were essentially asking for details on the CD key creation algorithm. In order to validate a CD key derived from a 1-way hash, you need the creation algorithm. In order to validate a CD key derived from 2-way encryption, you would need only the decryption algorithm but providing that is a big help for brute force cracking of the encryption algorithm. With either type of CD key, you'd be defeating your own anti-piracy scheme. I side with Blizzard on that decision.

Re:Blizzard didn't cooperate

[Monkeedude1212]

As I understand it, the bnetd developers contacted Blizzard to ask how to verify CD keys, and when Blizzard refused to cooperate

If I asked you for the algorithm to crack your product you probably wouldn't hand it out either, but yes - bnetd wanted to be legit, but Blizzard couldn't allow it for obvious reasons, so bnetd had to go illegit.

Re:Blizzard didn't cooperate

[metamatic]

If that were true, then the bnetd devs were essentially asking for details on the CD key creation algorithm.

Blizzard could have provided a simple TCP/IP-based API for them to call to verify a key. Then Blizzard could keep all the details secret, and the bnetd folks could still build in key verification.

Re:Blizzard didn't cooperate

[sweatyboatman]

you say

With either type of CD key, you'd be defeating your own anti-piracy scheme.

but the GP says

BNET-D started because several individuals had banned CD-Keys or wished to play with pirated versions of Blizzards games.

which sounds to me like an admission that Blizzard's anti-piracy scheme had already failed.

of course, the other plank of Blizzard's anti-piracy scheme was online play exclusively through their controlled servers. That this was a bonehead, anti-consumer stance that did little or nothing to prevent piracy is irrelevant.

Re:Blizzard didn't cooperate

[lena_10326]

Blizzard could have provided a simple TCP/IP-based API for them to call to verify a key. Then Blizzard could keep all the details secret, and the bnetd folks could still build in key verification.

And.. what would Blizzard have gotten out that equation? Other than willingly bending over to the next random Joe off the street and giving up piece of control to a software base they spent millions on development.

Asking for something with nothing in exchange gets you no where. It's indicative of a whiny, self-centered mindset that expects (more accurately demands) items, access to other items, attention, and respect for nothing.

Re:Blizzard didn't cooperate

[lena_10326]

which sounds to me like an admission that Blizzard's anti-piracy scheme had already failed.

Cracking a key algorithm is binary; it's either cracked or not cracked, but the application of the crack is not binary. There are levels between success and failure. You could post the key generator on half the web yet the majority of users would not still not use it. Is the anti-piracy scheme success? No. Is it failure? No. It's somewhere in between.

Re:Blizzard didn't cooperate

[mrwolf007]

Bullshit.
There is only 1 way to verify the key. Check it against the database of released keys (and only Blizzard has that database, obviously).
The key checking algorhythm can easily be reversed via a debugger and a couple of well placed break points.

Re:Blizzard didn't cooperate

[Rich0]

And.. what would Blizzard have gotten out that equation?

People with cracked keys wouldn't be playing online?

It isn't like their decision to allow for authentication hurt anybody else. Everybody else just doesn't authenticate the keys. It actually makes their software more functional.

Re:Blizzard didn't cooperate

[jittles]

SHame on Blizzard then. The key algorithm was so weak I was able to create my own keys as a teenager. I just needed one valid key to start and could figure out all possible keys from it. It was one of the worst keys I've ever seen.

Re:Blizzard didn't cooperate

[tepples]

If I asked you for the algorithm to crack your product you probably wouldn't hand it out either

Is it really "cracking" to use a web service that states whether there is a valid subscription associated with this CD key and PIN?

Re:Blizzard didn't cooperate

[lena_10326]

People with cracked keys wouldn't be playing online?

Uhh.. do you realize what you just asked? bnetd is what enabled those banned users to play online and yet you expected Blizzard to block those users in a round-about way to lending out its key authentication to bnetd? Are you people insane? Seriously. Come on.

Re:Blizzard didn't cooperate

[sweatyboatman]

So in your hypothetical, a method has been posted online to allow anyone to generate legitimate-looking software key.

Meaning, anyone can use the software and there's no way to tell whether they have a legitimate license or not.

I think for Blizzard that would qualify as a catastrophic failure of their anti-piracy scheme.

Would such a failure have a negative affect on sales? It's hard to prove either way. Personally, I think it would be a wash, but it's apparently hard for software vendors to wrap their brain around the idea that software piracy = free viral advertising.

Re:Blizzard didn't cooperate

[Rich0]

There is no reason that in order to allow bnet to authenticate keys that Blizzard would need to give them the ability to create keys.

If bnet just wanted to collect valid keys - they can do that already. After all, they'll have tons of legit clients connecting to them all the time and they could just ask those clients for their keys unless Blizard thought to make the clients authenticate those requests.

The issue is that Blizard wants to cry "they're allowing piracy" and then when bnet says "ok, show us how not to" their only response amounts to "just shut down." Blizard does not have any legal right to control what 3rd-party servers their customers connect to, and they're using piracy as an excuse to eliminate competition.

Re:Blizzard didn't cooperate

[TheSpoom]

If you're using an algorithm, rather than discrete, non-sequential random numbers stored in a database, for your CD keys, you deserve to have them cracked.

Re:Blizzard didn't cooperate

[brkello]

Yes, please ask any company for their algorithm to generate and verify cd keys and see what kind of reaction you get. Why this excuse is used to defend bnetd all the time is beyond me.

Re:Blizzard didn't cooperate

[BlueTrin]

Great, now wrapping this DLL, I can test for the validity of a key. Embed this within a worm so that the IPs are different and you just completed the perfect tool to find out the valid cd keys.

Re:Blizzard didn't cooperate

[Rich0]

If the DLL works by sending the key to some webservice hosted by Blizard, good luck with that. I'm sure after the 1000th consecutive invalid key you'll be blacklisted (or maybe just given bogus authentication output). A real server validating keys would be expected to have at least a decent number of valid keys submitted.

They can also throttle the rate at which they validate keys - so if their keyspace is large you're not going to be able to brute-force it. They could also authenticate the webservice and require those using it to register with them to keep out the riff-raff.

These attacks are like getting a credit card merchant account and saying that you can now brute-force credit card numbers to see if you get approved transactions. Good luck finding a single valid number before the FBI shows up.

They don't necessarily need to publish the algorithm. However, if their algorithm is RSA-based or something like that then if being able to validate keys in any way helps you to generate them then you're going to make a WHOLE lot more money selling that info to the NSA than going into the software piracy business.

Re:Some thoughts

[drinkypoo]

(soapbox alert) So why even play these games at all? What do you get after an hour of playing video games, besides a headache and high blood pressure?

Troll.

Why not go play an instrument, or play sports for real, or do something to improve yourself or the rest of the human race?

I have a game console and a mountain bike. My friend the football coach plays Madden. Grow up already.

Re:List of games

[johny42]

If you spend some time parsing that sentence, it actually makes a good point. Games with a year in their name usually don't last much longer than until the new year's version is out.

Odd?

[CodingHero]

"Not only is the inclusion of PS3 and Xbox 360 titles odd . . ." Why is it odd to include PS3 and Xbox 360 and not-so-odd to shut down servers for PC gamers?

Re:Odd?

[wolrahnaes]

I'm not sure why they find the PS3 shutdown odd, but the general understanding of the 360's online capability was that the multiplayer servers were part of the Xbox Live network and would last as long as Live does.

Re:Some thoughts

[DarkOx]

Its a short sited probably ultimately self defeating goal. I was listening to PBS business report just last night and they were interviewing some economics professors who were discussing how the move to always maximize share holder value has not actually lead to better share holder returns over the longer time period of the past two decades.

They also pointed out one company P&G pretty well stayed on the build new business and protect the customers perception of value, noting that it outperformed the market over those two decades. Now obviously you'd need to go through alot more data to reach sound conclusions.

I do think there is enough evidence out there that a longer term view eventually yeilds better returns. We should try and break the 18mo CEO cycle.

Watch out, MW2 lovers...

[PopeRatzo]

Some weeks ago, there were some heated discussions here and elsewhere about COD4 Modern Warfare 2 and the decision NOT to include the capability to create dedicated servers for online play. There was a great deal of anger from some COD4 fans who had found that the LAN play was the most exciting part of the COD4 experience.

The reaction from the MW2 fanboy community was "What could possibly go wrong?".

Well, here's your answer.

Re:Watch out, MW2 lovers...

[east coast]

Absolutely. It use to be great that I could load up games that were over 5 years old, like Medal of Honor, and still find people playing servers. I hate the thought of not being able to do that in the future. Sure, it might cost a few bucks to put together a dedicated server but I'd still be willing to play Half Life 1 deathmatch. Good times, good times.

Re:Watch out, MW2 lovers...

[jfinke]

Not to defend IW or anything, because I think that they killed a lot of aspects of the game. But, I believe that in this case, the individuals are hosting the game vs. IW hosting it. Now, to what degree Steam / IW are involved in matchmaking I don't know.

Now, I have been surprised that the setup works at all. But, it does work, for now. But man, if something goes wrong, everyone in your party has to leave, you have to send invites out, etc.... It would have been much simpler to just included dedicated servers. I will be surprised if the next version from IW comes out for the PC at all. The consolization of the game reminds me of the shenanigans that EPIC pulled with UT3.

Re:Watch out, MW2 lovers...

[MrMickS]

This would be the case if the publishers of COD4 had the same attitude as EA. EA ruthlessly release yearly versions of games and drop the previous years. In the store at the weekend I noticed that I could still buy a new COD4 for the Xbox 360. There is no incentive to drop support for COD4 as they can still make money from downloadable maps on Xbox live. Likewise the same will be true for MW2.

EA's entire sports business model is based on the fact that people will spend money to buy essentially the same game with roster changes year after year. They've probably found that, with the recession, people have held off doing this for a couple of years and its hit their bottom line. Hence shutting down the servers. If you want to play online, buy the new version.

Re:Watch out, MW2 lovers...

[Monkeedude1212]

Now, to what degree Steam / IW are involved in matchmaking I don't know.

Alot. Essentially the game will put the request in to a Steam / IW Router, which will then direct that request to a sort of DNS/Router which will find incoming join requests and incoming host broadcasts and link the two together. Steam rather sends you back a list, based on your criteria.

And this is essentially how its always worked, even in games that never used Steam or an XboxLive Matchmaking system. And for the most part a company could let -these- servers run for years and not even notice.

But then games got bigger and the teams get larger, and before you know it people want 16/32/64 player matches. Well the average user doesn't have the hardware to handle all the network traffic and thus the dedicated servers were born. Now they stick another server in between the matchmaking process so that it goes "You all can join and play on THIS server". This is what happens during Halo 3, as well. But you'll notice they also include the host-your-own-game functionality - and so long as you have the person on you friends or recent played list, then you don't need that linking server.

Essentially, what its boiling down to, is that when a game doesn't allow you to host a server (dedicated or not), you are fully dependant on the company's whims. Which is to make profits, which is not in your best interest.

Re:Watch out, MW2 lovers...

[kalirion]

Well MW2 servers won't be shut down until MW3 is out, so what's the problem, right?

Re:Watch out, MW2 lovers...

[jfinke]

Interesting... Thanks!

Re:Watch out, MW2 lovers...

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny that.
The reaction from the MW2 alarmist community was "What could possibly go wrong if the servers go down? U DONT GET TO LAN ANYMORE LOLOLOLZZZZZ".

Well, here's my rebuttal:

You still get LAN play on Modern Warfare 2, you just host it on one of the participating PC's, instead of having the option of a dedicated server on the LAN. So even if the MW2 matchmaking infrastructure goes down (which I seriously doubt it will, at least nowhere near the timeframe under which EA have been decommissioning their servers), you still have the option of local games.

Re:Watch out, MW2 lovers...

[PaganRitual]

MW2 will be different again because no doubt there will be DLC that will be a required purchase lest the servers refuse you access based on an unmatched version.

Killing the second hand market

[AmiMoJo]

This is probably just a ploy to kill off the second hand and discounted games market. Only people who pay full price for the latest update get to play online.

Re:Killing the second hand market

[FreakyGreenLeaky]

/ takes off hacker hat, and puts on Managing Director hat

Makes good business sense.

Re:Killing the second hand market

[DragonWriter]

This is probably just a ploy to kill off the second hand and discounted games market.

The ability to resell games on the secondhand market supports the price of new games. Killing the secondhand market only helps a publisher if they plan on cutting prices to make up for that, otherwise, they are reducing the market for new games, not expanding it. I would expect that this is more directed at people buying games, finding one that is satisfying, and keeping it for years rather than the resale market.

Re:Killing the second hand market

[TheSpoom]

...if your company's leadership has the collective personality of an asshole.

Re:Killing the second hand market

[AmiMoJo]

The ability to resell games on the secondhand market supports the price of new games.

I don't really buy that argument (no pun intended). If you go into a shop and exchange your old games you get very little for them. You can get more by selling them privately but even then the flood of them on eBay drives prices right down. The people who really do well out of the second hand market are the shops and the people taking advantage of them.

It's a lot worse for EA because they churn out endless incremental updates. Madden 2010 is pretty much the same as Madden 2009 with updated player names and a few tweaks. If you can live without the updated team database there is absolutely no incentive to get the new one. At least, there wasn't until EA hit upon this idea.

Re:Killing the second hand market

[FreakyGreenLeaky]

Well, before launching personal attacks, you should really pull your head out of your crusty anus.

I was simply offering a different perspective. Since you're so upset about some silly online games going offline, I take it you're, what, an 18 y/o?

Re:Killing the second hand market

[FreakyGreenLeaky]

...and since your "project" website (iboard.uberm00.net/) is offline with "Couldn't connect to MySQL server.", I'm now convinced you're an 18 y/o living with his mommy.

This is why...

[argStyopa]

...the whole concept of 'renting' software (as the Forces of Evil would describe it) that needs validation from a company server, is bullshit.

You sell me a game at $50-$60 price point, I want to own it forever, and have the media to install it when I want without requiring some crappy check-in procedure. You claim I'm only 'renting' it? Then 'rent' it to me at a rental price-point, like $10.

Re:This is why...

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, then. We'll rent it to you for $10...

...per week.

-- EA Sports

Re:This is why...

[nedlohs]

You don't get to tell them what the price points are, other than by not buying/renting it if they want too much.

It says on the box they can do this, if that makes it not worth $50 then don't buy it for $50.

Re:This is why...

[Lisandro]

I have never played the Madden series (thank you God), but does it require a server only for online gaming, or single player as well? In that case, you can still use the software you paid for.

I know it's nitpicking, and most likely the main appeal of the game was the online part, but stil.

Don't lost sight of what this is really about

[Anonymous Coward]

Game publishers have a deep seated hatred of the reseller market for games. By Cancelling service, not only does EA stand to cut some costs, but they also get to cripple the aftermarket sales of older games, forcing people to but new versions from EA instead.

Re:Don't lost sight of what this is really about

[geminidomino]

Game publishers have a deep seated hatred of the reseller market for games. By Cancelling service, not only does EA stand to cut some costs, but they also get to cripple the aftermarket sales of older games, forcing people to but new versions from EA instead.

While that's true, I do have to wonder... why do companies like Gamestop, for whom the reseller market is their bread and butter, play along with this bullshit? It seems more and more common that, when the big games come out, Gamestop has the "get this DLC, exclusively available with purchase of a new game (or more likely, preorder)". Is the free $5 they get to float for the preorder more than the 50-90% profit they get for used games?

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[mcvos]

If you buy their games you deserve nothing less.

No, you still deserve better. However, you should also have known better.

Where do you live?

[Mathinker]

I never understood why people play soccer games anyways. Why people watch soccer is already mysterious enough to me, but remotely understandable; but why the hell would you play a game which imitates something you could easily do with a bunch of friends (or even strangers) somewhere outside, for cheap? I'm not a big soccer player, but I sure know that regardless of how bad I am, I'm gonna have more fun playing *actual* soccer than some strange video game copy of it.

Wow, where do you live? Terrific weather year-round, eh? And the days are always long enough that after you get home from work there's still plenty of daylight left for your soccer game! And all those strangers you pick up for your soccer games are really friendly and never care when you dork out and let the other team win.

Even forgetting the fact that it sometimes isn't (for most people) more fun to play soccer in the real than to play a computer game, I'd just guess that the answer to your question is "A lot of people are quite different than you, and by the time you become an adult this shouldn't surprise you in the least".

Re:Where do you live?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not only the place where you live.

To watch a TV football game I only need 1 person (me).

To play a computer football game I only need 1, or maybe 2 persons (If playing vs computer sucks).

To play a real football game I need at least 10 people (for a 5 vs 5 match).

Oh, and In my case, because I use glasses, I find it difficult to play these kind of sports. I have tried contacts but do not like them.
xtracto

Re:List of games

[WCguru42]

Yes, but if "You are" games then the shutting down of servers should be a little more frightening.

some needs to make there own PC NFL and NHL game a

[Joe The Dragon]

some needs to make there own PC NFL and NHL game and let the courts take up the lock in to ea games.

There are not makeing a pc game so there may be a way under the law to have a pc NFL game.

Now

[AlpineR]

Money. Now.

Organizations commonly become short-sighted. They become so worried about increasing profits this quarter that they really stop caring about the distant future.

The Daily Show interviewed a legislator in some state with budget shortfalls. Her plan was to sell the government buildings to a private company and then lease them back for twenty years. That would let them fill a $20 million gap in the year that the buildings were sold. When asked how the state would ever pay the rent in following years without a $20 million windfall, her response was: "We have to get through this year first. I'm just trying to balance the budget this year."

Killing all those servers will immediately lower administration and bandwidth costs. And it may very well give a kick to sales of the current versions. When the boss sees lower costs and higher sales he'll be happy. When sales slump again in six months they can blame piracy.

Re:Now

[barzok]

Organizations commonly become short-sighted. They become so worried about increasing profits this quarter that they really stop caring about the distant future.

You can thank Wall Street for that - analysts, fund managers, and frequent traders only care about the numbers this quarter's 10Q filing, so the company only focuses on meeting or exceeding the projections.

Re:Some thoughts

[rwv]

We should try and break the 18mo CEO cycle.

A good way to start would be to NOT give $100 Million to every failed CEO as you're kicking his ass out the door.

Some of those games are still onsale???

[Anonymous Coward]

Closing servers 12-24 months after the end of sale of a product seems about reasonable. The problem is that those games are still on sale! While they are discounted, there no way for the customer to know that it is purchasing less than advertised.
  EA should have:
- Put them end-of-sales and remove them from primary sale market.
- Force the retailer that mark them as being sold without/with limited online gaming capability.

This certainly misleading from EA part and I smell a class action suit...

Timing

[rook166]

I think the timing of this announcement is really the icing on the cake - just long enough after the holidays for everyone to have opened their gifts and can't return them anymore. I wonder how many people would have returned Madden 10 back to stores knowing that the online play was likely only to last until 04/2011. And how many people who were feeling the economic crunch got used copies of Madden 09?

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[mwvdlee]

Do you know the publishers of the CD's you listen to? Do you know the publishers of the movies you watch?
Why should you know the publisher of a game you play?

p.s. I thought Microsoft ran all the game servers on their X360 platform? Don't they have some kind of requirements for support of those servers?

Where to even start with that idea

[SlappyBastard]

1. The NFL licensing regime is 100% legal.

2. EA paid a king's ransom several years ago to gain full control of the NFL games license.

So, in order to do what you're suggesting, a company would have to be prepared to go to war with the NFL over established law. Not to mention, if the NFL backed down, they would then be sued by EA for breach of contract.

And yeah, the consumer loses. God knows Madden is one of the most stale NFL franchises out there. And the NFL 2K games were just starting to peak when EA bought the entire license.

But, no one in their right mind would end up in a knock down, drag out fight with EA and the NFL.

Re:Where to even start with that idea

[canajin56]

I'm not sure it's 100% legal. Though the teams own their own trademarks, and the NFL owns its own trademark, that's not to say that you can't represent them. You can't call if NFL Football 2010 or anything. But to not be able to have the teams? Murky. The NFL seems to think you can't, but they also think you can't tape a game, and you can't blog about the game, and you can't talk about the game at the watercooler the next day, because they OWN the game, and they OWN the score. So I wouldn't trust them. Players have already sued game makers for using them in an unlicensed game, and lost. A judge has said that basically, if you can't make a game featuring real teams, then you can't paint a picture of a real team, either. Imagine, if you felt like making a watercolor painting about baseball (for whatever reason), if you had to make up a fictional team. Of course, absolutely nothing stops you from making UFL, the Unofficial Football League, with the Carolina Jaguars, Atlanta Eagles/Philadelphia Falcons, Dallas Cowpokes, etc. Then you have the power of parody on your side ;) But you're right, however legal it was, you'd still get 100,000 lawyers after you and end up paying 1 trillion in damages, plus 30 trillion in legal fees.

Re:Where to even start with that idea

[SlappyBastard]

Truth be told, if companies wanted to get into a knockdown fight over this, the place to go with it would be Congress. This is much more an anti-trust issue.

As for the power of parody, look no further the the Blitz: the League games.

In general, the NFL conforms to established case law. Where the NFL enters bad guy land is that they do constitute a monopoly, and they do leverage the hell out of it. It just happens to be that no one with standing really cares enough to bring the fight to the NFL.

Truth be told, the Madden games were already butchering the competition before the exclusive license. Except for the NFL 2K games, none of the others were even worth playing, let alone comparing to Madden.

Re:Some thoughts

[rwv]

a longer term view eventually yeilds better returns

It's possible that this move is a long-term view and that it's actually an awesome business model. What I think EA is saying is that they have the best sports games and other retailers are so far behind that there is no clear competitive threat.

To that effect, they're right because the audio clip slogan that plays at the beginning "EA Sports. It's in the game." is so ingrained in my head that I can't remember the last time I played a non-EA sports game.

By bringing in a massive cash injection from 2010 sales they are poised to spend lots of money to make the 2012 titles that much better. The only part that I'd wish they changed was charging $60 for a new game. If they tacked on a "turn in your old game and get 50% off" model (as a gamer, I own Tiger Wood 2009 for Wii, but can't justify getting TW 2010 even though it's significantly improved by Motion Plus technology) they'd simultaneously damage aftermarket sales and prop up new sales - but there's no evidence they're willing to pursue this strategy.

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[IBBoard]

I think the main difference between CDs and games is the focus on the publisher. I don't have a clue who publishes my CDs, but my games stuff it in my face every time I start up. Ditto for films, actually, that have a slew of intro credits about who made it with who and who published it and who produced it and directed it and on and on and...yawn.

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[LOLLinux]

Why should you know the publisher of a game you play?

Because their logo is on the front of the game?

Just look at Novalogic

[Anonymous Coward]

Novalogic still has servers running for "Delta Force 2" which is from 1999 (yes more than 10 years old), now that's what a I call an engagement in the community.

I'm glad I don't play EA games.

Re:some needs to make there own PC NFL and NHL gam

[guruevi]

I believe that EA purchased the exclusive rights to use the NFL/NHL logo's in video games. You can make a football/hockey/baseball/basketball game but I don't believe you will ever be able to use the official logo's, players and outfits.

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[Demonspawn]

Why would you deserve better?

The company has a history, you ignored that history and purchased their game anyways.

Or you didn't properly research the history and you purchased their game.

You got what you deserved.

Doesn't mean that what you got doesn't suck, however. But as long as people keep supporting this behavior by supporting EA through purchasing their games, this behavior will continue.

Re:Some thoughts

[DavidTC]

We should try and break the 18mo CEO cycle.

What we should do is pay the CEO in stock. Not stock options that he can choose to cash in or not, actual stock. Actual stock he cannot sell for five years.

Pay them $100,000 a year and $2 million in current stock value, five years form now, and watch that stock price stay level and slowly go up. (Well, there needs to be some sort tax deferred structure there, as people can't actually pay taxes on $2 million on a $100,000 salary, but whatever.)

Right now, they've got an incentive to make the stock randomly go up and down. Which is just what 'the stockholders' want, also, which is why I think this will never happen until we also do something else:

Only let people buy and sell stock every six months. That's it. You buy part of a company, you cannot sell it for six months.

It would instantly kill all the idiotic stuff going on in the stock market, and make people actually purchase stock that pays dividends, for said dividends, and only purchase companies they think will make them money by making money, instead of buying companies that will make them money because their stock value will go up next week and they can sell to someone else.

The stock market is operating entirely incorrectly at this point. It should be a place that say 'You can come here and buy a tiny fraction of a company, and share in the profits, and, of course, the risk it might not make any' That is what it was designed to be.

What it has turned into is a place that say 'Come here and purchases these abstract currencies and then try to sell them when their price is higher'. Hell, a good fraction of the stocks normally don't pay any dividends, making them literally valueless...you derive no benefit or value from owning them.

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[mwvdlee]

Do you actually watch that or care enough to remember it?

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[Christoffer777]

So let me see if I get this. Because they are known to shaft their customers, you side with EA? Would it not be better to say, told you so, but EA is still in the wrong and siding with the customers? Some of their games are quite good and many may want to buy and play them. Just because they have shafted people before, does that mean that any new customers deserve it as well? It boggles the mind.

check the eula!

[trum4n]

EA reserves the right...to screw you out of your money at any time. Ever notice on one of their PC games you can click through the opening logos, except theirs? They have always been evil in my book.

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[LOLLinux]

No, it's just that it's sort of hard to miss their name on the box when it's right smack in the middle of the front cover.

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[Hatta]

If you should have known something, you deserve what you get for not knowing it.

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[ngworekara]

I love how your sig implies this really nuanced worldview, but you're basically implying that you can't be bothered to give a shit. Yeah I know who publishes my music and movies and yeah I know when they do shitty things, cause I read slashdot...
Some people on here are crazier than that and only use linux/play games that run on linux. Some people go out of their way to buy things that aren't produced using sweatshop labor.
There are lots of terms for this, "ideology", "principles"...
I like to call it paying attention and not giving my money to dicks.

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[houstonbofh]

There is a difference between deserving something and expecting something. While it was forseeable, it was not right.

Re:Some thoughts

[zippthorne]

I do think there is enough evidence out there that a longer term view eventually yeilds better returns. We should try and break the 18mo CEO cycle.

We need to get over the "corporate savior" model of CEO selection and realize that the locus of people capable of performing those functions is larger than the pool of "lords" it currently is perceived to be: CEOs are overpaid because they have successfully convinced the market they are rare. Much like DeBeers did with diamonds.

Management is a cost center: Just like physical plant, you can't do business without it, but it's not the business you do.

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[houstonbofh]

If you should have known something, you deserve what you get for not knowing it.

Will you still feel this way when your car gets broken into? Remember that the bad guy is the criminal (EA) not the victim. (Customer)

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[houstonbofh]

Do you know the publishers of the CD's you listen to?

After the Sony rootkit game, I think a lot more people are aware of this. But since people still click on the "change you face book profile" e-mail link, I would guess Sony and EA can still get by.

Model years

[AlpineR]

Madden '10 came out in August 2009. Just like cars, they start selling a new model year months before that calendar year arrives. Madden '09 will have been out for 18 months and out of production for six months.

But the thing that still doesn't make sense: If the box says that online play will be available for one year from release date, then anyone who bought the latest version available in July 2009 will have had only six months of online access. And theoretically EA could shut down the server the day after the last player bought Madden '09. Evil.

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[Demonspawn]

Never said it was right. What I did say is that they deserve that which resulted from their lack of foresight/planning.

Just because it isn't right doesn't mean that they didn't deserve it. You get what you deserve and you deserve what you get. Why? Because you made the choices that put you in that situation.

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[Demonspawn]

If you should have known something, you deserve what you get for not knowing it.

Will you still feel this way when your car gets broken into? Remember that the bad guy is the criminal (EA) not the victim. (Customer)

When I park my car in a crime ridden area with a stack of bills on the dash... yep, I deserved it.
When I take the risk of not installing a security system on my car... yep, I deserved it.

My life, my choices, my responsibility. Doesn't mean that the criminal doesn't deserve punishment, but does mean I should change my behaviors if I don't want it to happen again

Plastic discs

[AlpineR]

Why are they still pressing a new plastic disc for each player list refresh? It would seem they could publish a baseline Madden 2010 and then offer downloads to update the teams and players for '11, '12, etc. When they really have a new game engine ready, then they could release a new baseline Madden 2015.

I bet they could make even more money that way. Charge $3 per team so that if you update the whole league you'll end up spending more than for another game disc. Or offer mid-season and post-season updates so players can simulate the playoffs with each team's regular season performance factored in.

Or maybe I shouldn't give them ideas.

I will never purchase an EA game again

[TrogL]

I had troubles with one of their games (clearly marked on the packaging) and emailed tech support. Two weeks later I got an snarky email back saying they did not support games from other manufacturers.

Re:Some thoughts

[mcgrew]

DNFTT!!

Is anyone...

[Anonymous Coward]

really surprised? We're talking about EA here. The destroyer of purchased IP and studios to their own and shareholder detriment.

What's really strange is that so many of the titles are the old EA standby sports games which they seem to have been able to rely upon year after year while they destroy studios and their IP that they've purchased, e.g. Origin Systems, etc.

I guess that EA must be tired of being in business, as this looks like prime opportunity for some new developers to come in and muscle in on their core sports franchise space... Hell all they'd have to do was to produce a halfway decent game and allow indefinite online play.

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[BobMcD]

It does have limits, though, doesn't it?

What if you park your car in a secure area without bills on the dash? Some might argue that if you walked everywhere you went you could have avoided this crime, and therefore you reap what you sew.

The fact you can make choices does not obviate the ability of others to do so, ergo nor does it the responsibility.

Boiled all the way down, this mentality opens the door to arguments such as, "You should have known he was a rapist, and you deserved it because you dress like a slut."

Thus, the limits.

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[BobMcD]

The implicit statement is that if people would stop giving EA money, EA would die and could do no more evil. So a portion the rage that EA deserves is directed at those funding their evils, which just so happens to be their customers whom are the direct recipients of that evil. Many resolve that conflict with a rule that prohibits rage towards victims. Many, but not all.

Tarnished and rotten to the core

[swordgeek]

A few days ago there was a link to an article about the most 'tarnished' tech companies. I suggested EA, because they used to be the very best of the best, and now they're...this.

Re:Tarnished and rotten to the core

[Viper2026]

But...think of the shareholders!

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[Demonspawn]

If she dresses in a manner to incite sexual arousal (like a slut), gets drunk around random untrustworthy men, flirts heavily, and then gets raped...

Did she deserve it? Yes. Her poor choices lead to the result.

Was the event still a crime? Yes. The rapists did violate her rights.

Just because someone deserves the result does not remove the fact that it was a crime worthy of punishment.

"Blaming the victim" is a valid thing. Until they change their behavior, their results are unlikely to change.

Life is a series of calculated risks. Just because you take precautions does not ensure that bad things will not happen to you. It is up to you to decide what level of personal cost you are willing to pay in order to reduce your risks to a level you find acceptable.

And yes, you reap what you sew, good or bad. Start taking responsibility for your own life rather than laying the responsibility for your experiences at the feet of others. You care about yourself and your results much more than they do.

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[Demonspawn]

What if you park your car in a secure area without bills on the dash?

Oh, and to answer the direct question. Then I deserve the result that my vehicle is much much less likely to be broken into than the person who leave their vehicle in a bad location with bills on the dash.

If you wanted a situation with zero risk, you won't find it in life.

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[BobMcD]

I get what you're saying, but you seem to be twisting the generally accepted usages of the words to support an extreme anti-compassion point of view.

"Deserving it" means you are not entitled to any recourse under any normal sense of justice. You don't hold this view, which is fine, but you might label your position as such, rather than stating it as a matter of fact.

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[Anonymous Coward]

That's like saying a kid who falls into a well deserves to be left there because he should have known better. I'm sure SOME of EA's customers deserve this treatment, but not all of them.

You reap what you sow.

[sabt-pestnu]

We're talking farmers, not tailors, folks.

Sow: plant seeds.
Reap: harvest crops.

Sew: stitching cloth together.
Reap: Huh?

Good grief, kids these days. GET OFF MY VOCABULARY!

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[Chosen Reject]

I don't see any reason to be mad at anyone here. If EA started forcing people to buy their games then I can see a reason, but I don't get mad at either the sub or the dominatrix so long as both roles are played willingly. It looks to me like that is the case here.

EA 4TW...

[Viper2026]

Despite being treated more or less like shit, time after time after time, it it beyond me why people continue to dish over their money to EA

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[Demonspawn]

"Deserving it" means you are not entitled to any recourse under any normal sense of justice.

Then that is where our semantics differ, because I don't use that definition of "Deserving it," and I don't feel the common usage does either.

"I don't deserve this" roughly equates to "this should not have happened to me." Should is a probability prediction. If you engage in behavior that makes the result more likely, than you do deserve the outcome.

Well, there is the other use of the word "should" which is a desire to control the uncontrollable, but that usage is invalid by definition and therefore has no meaning.

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[ae1294]

"Blaming the victim" is a valid thing. Until they change their behavior, their results are unlikely to change.

LoL, posting idiotic shit on the internet... You deserve to be shot... No one deserves to be raped or murdered dumbass...

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[ae1294]

So let me see if I get this. Because they are known to shaft their customers, you side with EA?

It's the very old logical "you must be evil for god to have smited you with leprosy" way of thinking.

It's coming back into fashion again, and you can see other examples of it here in the US. The "if you buy illegal drugs you fund terrorist" propaganda, the "you should have known you would get cancer and had better insurance" meme and my favorite "if you are in court up on charges you must to be guilty" Lulz...

Life is o so much simpler when you don't have to think or for that matter feel any compassion for anyone else.

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[MoriaOrc]

p.s. I thought Microsoft ran all the game servers on their X360 platform? Don't they have some kind of requirements for support of those servers?

Although I think that's usually the case, EA seems to think they know better. The handful of EA games I've played (Army of Two and BF1943 are the two that spring to mind) on the 360 use separate EA servers and some sort of separate "EA Account" that must be created, then promptly forgotten, before you can play. From a gamers perspective, it's basically just an extra headache for no benefit. Clearly EA sees some benefit from it though.

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[BobMcD]

Consumer anger is pretty well established, though. Think of blood being thrown on mink coats, for example.

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[Opportunist]

Oh why are you so irate about the rootkits?

"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it."

--quote Thomas Hesse, President Sony Global Digital Business, concerning the Sony Rootkit fuckup.

Sadly, he's right. Most don't know, don't care and only see what they want to see. Sure, they'll cry afterwards when the whole thing blows up in their face and blame Sony, the world and of course those evil pirates for it, but they don't care, don't listen and most of all, don't want to know.

Re:Some thoughts

[SBFCOblivion]

The way I always understood it is the CEO is essentially being paid off. Being in that position you'd know lots of sensitive information about a place. Giving them fat cash even when they sucked ensures their best interests are still kept in mind.

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[Demonspawn]

"Blaming the victim" is a valid thing. Until they change their behavior, their results are unlikely to change.

LoL, posting idiotic shit on the internet... You deserve to be shot... No one deserves to be raped or murdered dumbass...

Speaking of posting idiotic shit, you just contradicted yourself, no?

And this is why...

[Anonymous Coward]

People need to embrace free software solutions for gaming rather than non-free solutions from EA, M$, $ony-Bony, Pretendo, $ega, etc. An open standards type console would be a far better solution than non-free consoles such as the M$ Idiot-Box, Pretendo Pi$$, and the $ony-Bony Pixelation $tation. Free, libre solutions solutions allow for decentralized servers while non-free solutions tend to favor to lock the sheep into centralized servers and charge a monthly fee for services, after charging for the non-free software.

--
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Friends do assist M$ addicted friends in committing suicide.

Battlefield 2142 is in trouble also...

[mergatoriod]

The battlefield 2142 community has been experiencing global lag issues over the past weeks with no response from EA/Dice. Their customer support is virtually non existent, and they are expecting everyone to pony up for Bad Company 2. This has all the hallmarks of a business ready to implode. I just hope that this recent announcement is to free up server space for a growing battlefield community and not just to boost shareholder profits.

Re:List of games

[Darinbob]

Why is that? I don't play sports games, but why would Madden 2008 be any less fun than Madden 2009? The only difference would be new features, right? Maybe news names for the players, but that seems minor.

After all, if they had made a game called Half-Life 2000, people would still be playing it in 2010. And everyone knows if you want a usable version of Microsoft Office that you don't take the one with the latest year in it...

Just go back to the old model that worked - single player games that don't rely on connecting to a server. If I'm not playing with other players, why should I have to check in with the publisher every time I play the game? Why do all these games feel the need for a pointless "achievements" feature that requires being online? The Windows Live and XBox Live idea just seems absurd to me, I seriously don't understand the point of being networked in single player games.

Not that it matters with EA. They haven't had a good game in years.

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[Kalriath]

I liked (by which I mean feared) Burnout 3. The first thing you saw when you started it was "you need an EA account". You hit "Create Account" and were greeted by the message "Transferring your account information from Microsoft to EA". It didn't even ask first. Afterwards, they had your name, address, phone number, email, and everything else short of billing info. Yeah.

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[Kalriath]

EA dying would be a very bad thing. Not because they are a good company, but because there would no longer be any viable competition for Activision/Blizzard. The very thought of Activision with a monopoly scares me.

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[BobMcD]

Well, I'm not certain they compete now...

What's the counterpart to the Sims? WoW? Madden11?

Hm

[Anonymous Coward]

This is odd. A couple days ago my 360 was acting funny. It'd sign me out of Xbox live and clear my achievements anytime I played a game. One of these games was Madden '10.

Why is this surprising?

[frank_adrian314159]

... but Madden 09 on all consoles as well?

They need to sell Madden '10 somehow.

Re:Some thoughts

[slimjim8094]

Of course, we all know that. Firing half your employees will let you coast through the quarter on inertia, with half the expense - so double the profit. Obviously, a few quarters later that doesn't work.

The problem is, a CEO looking out for their best interest will fire half the employees, see it through to the next quarter, and leave with a huge parachute because they "did the company so well".

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[mwvdlee]

I guess the benefit to EA is obvious now; prematurely shut down servers to force people into buying the latest %sport associaton% %year% game.

I can just imagine the slogan already; "Keep on playing? Keep on paying!".

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[adona1]

Well, let me rebut by saying: fuck you. A woman deserves to get raped because of how she dresses and/or acts? Her poor choices may lead to the result. That =/= deserving it. That is the kind of crap I'd expect to read on 4chan. What next, you'll blame the Holocaust on the Jews for their not leaving Europe when the Nazis came to power? (yes, I'll Godwin if I have to).

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[nametaken]

Not everyone follows these things. I don't know a damned thing about video games, I could well have bought madden for my nephew. And he's too young to know about things like this.

This is bullshit, every way you work it, and EA should get bitch-slapped for it.

It could have been a black box

[tepples]

please ask any company for their algorithm to generate and verify cd keys

Web service to verify CD keys != algorithm to generate and verify CD keys. It could easily have been a black box.

Xlink kai?

[capebretonsux]

Haven't read through all the posts, so not sure if it's been addressed yet, but would something like xlink kai be able to come up with a solution to the problem?

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[Kalriath]

Point taken.

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[quadrox]

It is correct that it still isn't right for EA to do what they do - nobody is denying that (I think).

But it is also correct that you are a fucking moron and deserve nothing better if you willfully ignore history and throw your money at EA regardless.

Another example is my brother, who used to ignore my warnings about the evils of DRM - he just wanted to play his games - right until he got screwed by EA who claimed that his completely legitimate copy of crysis was bad and blocked him from playing it.

If people continue to support evil companies in spite of everything and to the detriment of EVERYONE ELSE, then every time those idiots get screwed brings a smile to my lips.

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[quadrox]

When you are aware of a certain risk and it is easily possible to avoid that risk, but you decide to ignore it instead, you get what you deserve.

This is like jumping from a high cliff and complaining about getting hurt. You knew what was going to happen, so you should not have jumped off the cliff. It may be "unfair" that you can't jump off a cliff without getting hurt, and maybe the laws of nature suck. But if you KNOW you should act according to that knowledge - otherwise you deserve the outcome.

The jews probably didn't have much choice and thus cannot be blamed for what happened.

A woman who knows that certain men will behave as they do, but completely ignores that knowledge and does as she pleases and thus increases her risk - well she fucking deserves it.

This does not mean it is wrong for the rapist to rape her, but if that woman knew the risk beforehand she should have acted according to it.

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[quadrox]

this does not mean it ISN'T wrong for the rapist to rape her - sorry for the mistake :(

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[quadrox]

Yes, and who the fuck do you think is going to do the bitchslapping if you don't do it with your wallet?

If you haven't already realized that governments are controlled by large corporations, this is going to prove my view to you (at least partially).

Re:The only people who have anything to whine abou

[quadrox]

"I like to call it paying attention and not giving my money to dicks."

Precisely. This is what ideally every citizen would do. If they did, there wouldn't be any more evil companies. Evil companies are supported by average joes who don't give a fuck.

Re:Some thoughts

[True Grit]

I do think there is enough evidence out there that a longer term view eventually yeilds better returns.

With a publicly traded company, the only thing that matters is what the stockholders think.

We should try and break the 18mo CEO cycle.

If its the shareholders demanding 'progress' on an annual, or even quarterly, basis, then who the CEO happens to be, won't make a damn bit of difference. A company's officers answer to the stockholders, and *only* the stockholders. This is the root problem: shareholders only interested in the short-term.

P&G is merely an exception to the rule; they aren't the only one, but its difficult to buck the normal stockholder's expectation of regular, near-term profits.