Dedicated Halo 2 Fans Keep Multiplayer Alive

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Dedicated Halo 2 Fans Keep Multiplayer Alive

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @10:42PM from the never-surrender dept.

On April 15th, Microsoft terminated Xbox Live support for the original Xbox console, marking the end of online multiplayer for many older games. However, a group of Halo 2 players have refused to give up online play by leaving their consoles on and connected since then. Overheating consoles and dropped connections have taken their toll, but at present, 13 players are still going strong.

239 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

MS should... by blahplusplus · 2010-04-27 22:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

really be required to legally release server side software for the PC to enable people to play their Xbox games. Quite frankly I really hate this bullshit service where companies have control over games people paid for in a "forced obsolescence" model of attempting to control the lifespan of a product and when to torch it to force people to upgrade.
It's unfortunate that the copyright and software licensing nazi's got control of the law due to the ignorance of the people.
1. Re:MS should... by JavaBear · 2010-04-27 23:03 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "We're talking about a *game*, not your oxygen supply"
  We are talking about money paid, and the principle of having companies take away our ability to use what we have legally paid for, just because they have us by the balls.
2. Re:MS should... by argStyopa · 2010-04-27 23:12 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No, what CONSUMERS "should" do is to QUIT buying software that's subject to such prone-obsolescence systems. If consumers are too stupid or unable to resist buying the latest and greatest despite such issues, then companies will continue to find it in their financial best interests to do so.
  At least with a PC, there are methods to hack around this (even WoW has private servers, illegal but they're there), but now you see part of the actual total-cost-of-ownership for that console.
  
  --
  -Styopa
3. Re:MS should... by Thanshin · 2010-04-27 23:12 · Score: 1
  
  We're talking about a *game*, not your oxygen supply.
  So if you pay to see a movie and after half an hour it simply stops you don't complain, as your life doesn't depend on watching the full movie, right?
4. Re:MS should... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-27 23:18 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Companies have to stop supporting old products at some point. It's not because they're trying to screw you over, but because it costs to keep those up. If there was a lot of people still playing the games, I'm sure they would keep the servers up. You don't get firmware updates, OS updates or the likes forever either.
  I agree that they should probably release something that allows users to run their own servers, but it's my understanding that such tools exist, no?
5. Re:MS should... by Hadlock · 2010-04-27 23:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  More than likely the Halo 2 servers are running on a PC, be it virtualized or other. Microsoft is completely rewriting the Halo codebase from the ground up for Halo 4 or whatever it is they're calling it. Considering most people bought the game for the multiplayer releasing the source code for the servers is a small concession to make. Usually I could care less, but unless MS offers Halo 2 on the 360 live arcade for free to existing owners, Microsoft is kind of screwing over their customer base.
  
  I bought counter strike back in 1998, but I still pull it out and play it from time to time. Hell, it's Valve's most popular game to date*, even today. To top that off, Valve upgraded me to the Valve Platinum Pack for using the HL CD key that came with the copy of HL I bought just for Counter-Strike. The only thing Microsoft supports beyond the scheduled lifespan of the product is old Windows and Office updates as near as I can tell, never games.
  
  Valve actively supports their games and player base, Microsoft turns their back on them. Which one do you want to support?
  
  -
  
  *Actually right now it's COD4, but that's because they just had a $15 steam sale on it.
  
  --
  moox. for a new generation.
6. Re:MS should... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-27 23:20 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Man, you guys are a bunch of dorks. If you don't want to be cheated don't buy into proprietary systems. DUH!
7. Re:MS should... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-27 23:21 · Score: 0
  
  Then you don't understand what you paid for, and you shouldn't have bought the game. Microsoft have always made it very clear that MP in games like this is only supported for a limited amount of time, if you buy the game expecting MP to last forever, that is *your* mistake. If you don't like the terms, you don't get to play. Again, it's that simple.
  And MS don't have you by the balls. ITS. A. FUCKING. COMPUTER. GAME.
8. Re:MS should... by blahplusplus · 2010-04-27 23:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "No, what CONSUMERS "should" do is to QUIT buying software that's subject to such prone-obsolescence systems"
  Reality is people are too stupid to do this because the do not understand their rights, the informed minority is outnumbered by the ignorant majority. In theory the free market is supposed to work this way, in practice it absolutely does not as we've seen again and again.
9. Re:MS should... by couchslug · 2010-04-27 23:29 · Score: 1
  
  Don't buy their products.
  Granted, those products are fun, but you pay the price for their proprietary nature when support goes away.
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
10. Re:MS should... by Peach+Rings · 2010-04-27 23:34 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You mean you couldn't care less. Sorry, grammar nazi mode from all those Xbox's.
11. Re:MS should... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-27 23:35 · Score: 0
  
  We're talking about a *game*, not your oxygen supply.
  We're talking about a fact that I can still pop up Doom II, Quake 1 (or any other old game) CD in my computer and play multiplayer with my friends _RIGHT_ _NOW_ if I so desire (which happens quiet often, mind you). I paid for Halo game and I should be able to play multiplayer 10 years from now if I feel like it.
  I got an Xbox myself after my friend told me that it was awesome, but I have realized that its just a locked down version of a computer I had back 4-5 years ago (hardware wise). My PC is 10 times as fast and with a wireless Xbox receiver (picked up one at Amazon for ~$30), I can even use my Xbox controller to play the _same_ games that I do on Xbox and I can do even multiplayer without paying the stupid Xbox live service fee. I am NOT ever again buying a gaming station! Its stupid. It makes me feel like I moved from US to Soviet Russia and gave up all my freedoms.
  The simple fact is, every single game eventually comes out to PC. Thats just how it works.
  Anyways, this kind of crap is what a lot of companies are trying to do these days. They are taking a lot of our freedoms and trying to control them: net neutrality is one big one. The fact that all the cellphone companies are charging arm and a leg for SMS service even though back in 1998 it was completely free and unlimited. Or that Apple is controlling what I can and cannot do with MY phone. The list goes on. The problem is, there is more and more of this going on and it is really bad.
  Instead of evil companies trying to control our freedoms and basically rob us of everything, they should be innovating and making money that way.
  And no, I am not RS. I'm just an annoyed citizen that is sick of greedy assholes.
12. Re:MS should... by tophermeyer · 2010-04-27 23:39 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Not trying to be a douche here, but the game is almost 6 years old and runs on an outdated service that was generally limited to an outdated console. The last original Xbox's were sold in 2006, and have not been supported by Microsoft for almost a year (seriously any original Xboxes that need service and are somehow still under warranty are simply replaced by an Xbox 360). People that buy multiplayer intensive video games have to enter into that knowing that the game will not be supported indefinitely. I can understand your criticism if it were directed at the mass of sports games that are re-released every year, but not this.
  Plus, the game still runs fine in single player and over system link. The only thing that is being discontinued is XBLive support, which Microsoft never promised would be maintained in perpetuity. Its not like MS is sending people out to repossess the disks.
13. Re:MS should... by aurispector · 2010-04-27 23:43 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone remember MS deleting everyone's email a few years ago? They long ago proved they regard customers merely as cash cows to be milked. Their heavy handed marketing tactics are so ingrained in their corporate culture it's no surprise they rolled out yet another "screw the customer" plan. This is all par for the course and yet another reminder why I'll never willingly buy a single MS product.
  
  --
  I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
14. Re:MS should... by Vahokif · 2010-04-27 23:49 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The solution is simply to not buy consoles.
15. Re:MS should... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-27 23:56 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, right, because you can play Modern Warfare 2 online til the end of the world :)
16. Re:MS should... by kyrio · 2010-04-28 00:01 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I don't remember that, actually.
17. Re:MS should... by YourExperiment · 2010-04-28 00:02 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The point is that if the server was freely available (like the vast majority of PC games until fairly recently) no-one would give a damn whether Microsoft was still supporting it, they'd just keep on playing anyway.
18. Re:MS should... by Lonewolf666 · 2010-04-28 00:04 · Score: 1
  
  True, and customers should treat the purchase of such a game as rental and adjust the sum they are willing to pay downwards to compensate.
  Personally, I think a 50% discount would be appropriate in this case. If all customers would refuse to pay more than, say, $30 for a new game unless it comes with dedicated server/matchmaking software you can run on your own server, the industry would learn fast.
  
  --
  C - the footgun of programming languages
19. Re:MS should... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-28 00:12 · Score: 0
  
  Neither does Google. I can only surmise it is an anti-MS fanboi running amok. You start with a truth... tell it enough times and it will mutate. Typically, it will change based on your beliefs/desires. Maybe an email bit him at some point and he wants revenge.
20. Re:MS should... by peragrin · 2010-04-28 00:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Every once in a while I pull out my diablo ii cd's and play
  certian movies put me in mood to play a turn based strategy game that came out in 1997 to the point I will install windows to play it.
  Good games hold their replay value. Companies that limit that value undermine future game sales.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
21. Re:MS should... by GundamFan · 2010-04-28 00:16 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair that's only like two years away according to most books, movies and video games.
  
  --
  I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
  Mark Twain
22. Re:MS should... by Chaos+Incarnate · 2010-04-28 00:17 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  You can still play multiplayer in Halo 2 on your Xbox over a local network, same as how you have to play Doom II or Quake 1. You just can't browse for & play online games, same as will happen when they yank the Quake III master server.
  (Yes, you can manually connect to servers over the Internet by IP once that happens, but you can do that with your Xbox too.)
  
  --
  Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
23. Re:MS should... by AnotherUsername · 2010-04-28 00:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It makes me feel like I moved from US to Soviet Russia and gave up all my freedoms.
  I completely agree. Not being able to play a game online is just like the massacres, disappearances, and political oppression visited upon people by the Soviet Russian government.
  
  --
  I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
24. Re:MS should... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-28 00:24 · Score: 0
  
  The point is that if the server was freely available (like the vast majority of PC games until fairly recently) no-one would give a damn whether Microsoft was still supporting it, they'd just keep on playing anyway.
  
  The GP mentions that SystemLink is still available. Doesn't that mean that people can play multiplayer games via a tunneling solution? Have somebody throw together a frontend/matchmaking service for that and you've got exactly what you're asking for.
25. Re:MS should... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-28 00:24 · Score: 0
  
  No they shouldn't be required to turn over the software. It's their software, their service. Don't like it? Don't use their products.
  HOWEVER, they also should not be able to forbid others from creating compatible software as a replacement.
26. Re:MS should... by Narcogen · 2010-04-28 00:28 · Score: 1
  
  really be required to legally release server side software for the PC to enable people to play their Xbox games. Quite frankly I really hate this bullshit service where companies have control over games people paid for in a "forced obsolescence" model of attempting to control the lifespan of a product and when to torch it to force people to upgrade.
  It's unfortunate that the copyright and software licensing nazi's got control of the law due to the ignorance of the people.
  This is bogus. Online multiplayer is NOT included in Halo 2. It is a separate subscription fee (Xbox Live Gold). There is absolutely no legal basis whatsoever to justify forcing MS to release this functionality, because it was never included in the price you paid for Halo 2; it was always separate.
  If you weren't an Xbox Live Gold subscriber, then you're not missing out on anything now that you had before, because online play was never available to you anyway. If you're paying the XBL Gold fee to play Halo 2 online and they don't support it anymore, cancel your subscription or buy a new game.
  I hear Halo 3 is pretty good.
  Uninformed comments like these are exactly why MS charges for online play instead of giving it away for free. It means that as a vendor they get to decide what to sell, instead of being forced to sell or support a product they no longer want to offer, or being railroaded into giving it away for free.
27. Re:MS should... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-28 00:30 · Score: 0
  
  Opening you argument and potentially Godwining yourself in a single post? :P
28. Re:MS should... by obarthelemy · 2010-04-28 00:32 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  He's probably alluding to the snafu at Danger (an MS subsidiary), were a botched disk upgrade + botched backups lost pretty much all of Sidekick's clients data.
  Danger was seen as a trailblazer in cloud-based stuff, BTW. We've been warned :-p
  
  --
  The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
29. Re:MS should... by Anpheus · 2010-04-28 00:32 · Score: 1
  
  The same tired argument comes up every time the government adds a new safety standard because X number of preventable deaths occurred. Free market advocates say, "Well the market should sort out whether a safety feature is added!" And sometimes they even rehash the tired, "But people will drive safer if they know they could die at any moment!" argument. The former never happens, it just never does. You can wait until the end of time, the only people who choose to pay for safety, even if ends up reducing costs for everyone, are a small informed minority. The rest of everyone will buy what happens to be on the lot, or whatever the salesman can make the best pitch for.
  IMO, this should be considered a form of market failure and be acted on. If you buy a game in which the feature could be disabled by a third party at any time, don't you have at least some right to use that feature regardless of what they do? What would it cost them to release the server component source code and let the internet figure out how to use it?
30. Re:MS should... by HaZardman27 · 2010-04-28 00:33 · Score: 1
  
  You legally paid for the game, not the servers it used for connecting players.
  
  --
  Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
31. Re:MS should... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-28 00:37 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Beware... Danger.
  
  Got it! Thanks!
32. Re:MS should... by EMR · 2010-04-28 00:38 · Score: 0
  
  I don't remember that one either.. Possibly it was some "screwup" with hotmail (one of the screwups). But I do remember M$ Shutting down their "Play for sure" DRM servers so users could access all the music they had purchased through it.
33. Re:MS should... by HaZardman27 · 2010-04-28 00:38 · Score: 1
  
  Not many people play the same game online for six years, so I doubt many people even care.
  
  --
  Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
34. Re:MS should... by HaZardman27 · 2010-04-28 00:41 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  This is a poor analogy. People can continue to play the game, and they can continue to play online through tunneling software. It's been out for six years now, MS doesn't need to continue to pay to keep the servers up for the small handful of people who haven't moved on since 2004.
  
  --
  Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
35. Re:MS should... by Krau+Ming · 2010-04-28 00:47 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  hold on, let me just check my old emails... nope can't find anything...
36. Re:MS should... by Syberz · 2010-04-28 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  You're right, but I'd like to point out that my 20 year old Nintendo console still works and I have not lost any of the functionality that I paid for in my games.
  These people can no longer play online multiplayer, a feature which they paid for. If the game or console isn't broken then it's reasonable for them to expect that they could continue playing.
  In the future an even worse situation will occur now that games need to be authenticated online in order to play even the single player campaign. What will happen then once those servers are taken offline in 5+ years? The business model shifted from buying to renting without us even noticing.
  Now most, and eventually all games will have expiration dates. As soon a support dies out then you're outta luck.
  
  --
  ~Syberz
37. Re:MS should... by hansamurai · 2010-04-28 01:03 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Not sure how this is a failure of the free market, there are plenty of other choices out there besides Xbox Live and lots of people select them. Heck, Halo 2 is available on Windows if you want to play multiplayer, or you can even use third-party online services to still play on the Xbox. There are solutions out there to those who still want to play.
  
  --
  Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
38. Re:MS should... by commodore64_love · 2010-04-28 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  ALSO we live in a disposable society.
  Most people don't care if their games stop working five years from now, because they'll be onto the next big thing. Those of us who buy things and expect them to still usable ten years after purchase ((cough)(like my Mac G3*)) are in the minority of the population. We're considered "weird" to want to continue using obsolete, old stuff. So I doubt few will care that Halo 2 no longer is supported by Microsoft Live.
  *
  * It doesn't run anything newer than OS 10.3, or Internet Explorer 5, or Safari 1 due to Apple's lock-out mechanisms.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
39. Re:MS should... by icebraining · 2010-04-28 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, sure. Destroy an argument by providing ONE example of a game where that doesn't work. The fact is, you still have plenty of online multiplayer games that don't requiring a connection to the publisher servers. How many console games provide that? I'm guessing none.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
40. Re:MS should... by commodore64_love · 2010-04-28 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  Those same books also claim Disc-based media is obsolete, but I don't see how I can download a 50 Mbit/s encoded Bluray movie over my 0.7 connection??? That's not even fast enough to stream an old-fashioned DVD.
  I think it will be a long, long, long time before networks replace physical media or hardware.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
41. Re:MS should... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-28 01:17 · Score: 0
  
  I'd like to point out that that is complete bullshit. Why should the consumer expect that the service will be terminated?
  There are are OLD PC multiplayers still up and running over non-MS owned servers including Unreal Tournament from 1999, and even Diablo II and StarCraft have their dedicated users STILL playing the games online. -I- still play those games, and I'm certain players will keep this up for a long while. And if not, I can still host the game on my own computer.
  It would be nice if Microsoft could provide an update for Xbox that would allow third party live services so that the games could be hosted on non-MS servers, privately-owned servers, or whatever else. That would seem like the sensible, polite thing to do. And not this obsolescence model where services are discontinued and the users has to keep buying the progressing line of games to experience the same or similar gameplay.
42. Re:MS should... by ShecoDu · 2010-04-28 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  I hate having to be the one going against slashdot's popular opinion, but not everybody is interested in playing the same game for several years.
  The common gamer just wants new games with better graphics every once in a while.
43. Re:MS should... by Narcogen · 2010-04-28 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  No, what CONSUMERS "should" do is to QUIT buying software that's subject to such prone-obsolescence systems. If consumers are too stupid or unable to resist buying the latest and greatest despite such issues, then companies will continue to find it in their financial best interests to do so.
  At least with a PC, there are methods to hack around this (even WoW has private servers, illegal but they're there), but now you see part of the actual total-cost-of-ownership for that console.
  The total cost was never hidden. Halo 2 cost $50, and if you wanted to play online, you needed XBL Gold, which cost $50/yr. They aren't just seeing the TCO now, it was always immediately obvious. If you were paying that just to get Halo 2 online, then now it is not worth it to you-- so stop paying it. You're no longer getting the service, but you're no longer paying for it. There is no loss there. If you own a 360 and you have other games you can play online (like Halo 3) you can decide if that is worth $50 to you or not. The second it is not, you can also cancel.
  This is a non-story and has been from the beginning.
44. Re:MS should... by Narcogen · 2010-04-28 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  "We're talking about a *game*, not your oxygen supply"
  We are talking about money paid, and the principle of having companies take away our ability to use what we have legally paid for, just because they have us by the balls.
  If all you bought is Halo 2, you have no legal right to online multiplayer-- you didn't buy it.
  If you bought XBL Gold, you could play Halo 2 and other Xbox and Xbox 360 games online for $50 a year. Now that system doesn't support the original Xbox games anymore (either on the Xbox console or on the 360 in emulation).
  If you don't want the service anymore because of the closure of that service, then you can cancel your subscription. No one has taken away any ability to use something for which they have paid. Your ability in the past to play online was covered by your subscription fee. Microsoft no longer offers that service. If you don't want the service Microsoft does offer, you can cancel it. That doesn't take away anything from what you paid for Halo 2 because Halo 2, without the XBL service, could not pay online anyway, and now you won't be paying for it anymore.
45. Re:MS should... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-28 01:26 · Score: 0
  
  No, it should be supported indefinitely. Release the server code or spend the maybe 200 bucks / year to run the server (which will become increasingly cheaper over time). With the sort of profit microsoft made, that would be an obvious customer service thing, were there not the CURRENT business interest to force people to upgrade to their new service.
46. Re:MS should... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-28 01:27 · Score: 0
  
  Its not free to access though you need a gold account on xbox live.
47. Re:MS should... by dskzero · 2010-04-28 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  Welcome to the world of consoles.
  
  You play as long as they want you to, the shove the next thing they want you to play down your throat. As much as people hate to admit it, consoles are for the ADD generation. Would they be able to set up private servers?
  
  --
  Oblivion Awaits
48. Re:MS should... by dskzero · 2010-04-28 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  Crack the fucking games and that's it. I'm not spending my hard earned money on games which go to draconic lenghts to prevent piracy, only to screw real customers because they know their games aren't really worth it in the long run.
  
  --
  Oblivion Awaits
49. Re:MS should... by tophermeyer · 2010-04-28 01:37 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  The GP mentions that SystemLink is still available. Doesn't that mean that people can play multiplayer games via a tunneling solution? Have somebody throw together a frontend/matchmaking service for that and you've got exactly what you're asking for.
  I don't know what the state of it is right now, but I remember using XBConnect to play the original Halo online. The downside of if was that it didn't have Matchmaking or in game voice communication like XBlive does. I remember having to use a computer to join a chat room to find someone to play with, and only being able to communicate through chat. I don't know anything about where this stands now, but it seems to me that it would be workable.
  Of course, the OP's point (which after reflection I agree with) is that the End User shouldn't have to jump through hoops to get it to work. MS ought to make this known and available to players before they end their support.
50. Re:MS should... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-28 01:39 · Score: 0
  
  Don't buy their products.
  I don't.
  But for every one person like me, there are 1000 dip-shits out there who will gladly line up for the surprise buttsecks.
51. Re:MS should... by VGPowerlord · 2010-04-28 01:40 · Score: 1
  
  To top that off, Valve upgraded me to the Valve Platinum Pack for using the HL CD key that came with the copy of HL I bought
  You too? I thought they did it for me because I was an early subscriber to Steam or something.
  
  --
  GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
52. Re:MS should... by b4dc0d3r · 2010-04-28 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  I agree, the market doesn't work. The games should have a clear "ends by" date on the label, with the publisher allowed to extend past but not prematurely terminate the server.
  It would cost lots of server-side intellectual property to release the source code, especially if it's a licensed server engine. I don't think the appropriate response is to release the code anyway. If not one programmer type is interested in the game it still dies in that case.
  If the consumers cannot inform themselves then we must make the publishers who benefit inform the users. "ONLINE PLAY WILL END NO EARLIER THAN APRIL 15TH 2010" might work in big red letters, or maybe "ONLINE PLAY IS SCHEDULED TO END APRIL 15TH 2010" with an asterisk that it might be extended per USC XX ss. X. That is the best answer I think.
53. Re:MS should... by nlawalker · 2010-04-28 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  The "money paid" was paid to enter into an expiring contract for provision of a service - a service that Microsoft is free to terminate. Now that the service is being terminated, people using Xbox Live solely to play OXbox games like Halo 2 no longer need to pay for it.
  Halo 2 still works just fine, and no one is taking away the ability to use it.
54. Re:MS should... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-28 01:56 · Score: 0
  
  So if someone does something you disagree with the answer is to force them to stop at gunpoint.
  If a safety standard is not valuable to people, then it will not get added, end of story. It's not up to us in the informed minority to demand government action, it's up to us in the informed minority to demand action FROM THE COMPANY THAT MAKES THE CAR. Run a boycott. Tell all your friends. Tell all your neighbors. Run ads in a newspaper or on a website. Start a committee.
  But don't ever ask for government action, even if it's easier. It's morally wrong, and outrageous, to force a company to do something using the threat of force provided by law.
55. Re:MS should... by Bakkster · 2010-04-28 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, the OP's point (which after reflection I agree with) is that the End User shouldn't have to jump through hoops to get it to work. MS ought to make this known and available to players before they end their support.
  It was pretty well known that the matchmaking service required XBox Live access. Look here, all the orange items on the list require XBox Live access to use. There's your fair warning.
  So, the question is if MS should continue to provide access to XBox Live in perpetuity. I see no reason why this is any different from an MMO shuttering its servers. Yes, it sucks for those who bought the game and can't play it any more, but that's part of the deal when what you buy depends on a service being available. When that service goes away (and all services go away eventually), so does your ability to use its features. Of course, you also aren't paying for it any more either.
  This isn't an issue with Halo specifically, just with Live for the original XBox in general. However, Halo 2 seems to be the only game people were playing, so it's difficult to make the economic argument in favor of MS maintaining this service for so few people.
  
  --
  Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
56. Re:MS should... by jdpars · 2010-04-28 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  You're a grammar Nazi who doesn't know not to use an apostrophe as a plural? It's "Xboxes". How hard is that? At worst, just use "xboxs". It's more correct than using an apostrophe, which is *never* to be used for pluralization.
57. Re:MS should... by Bakkster · 2010-04-28 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  These people can no longer play online multiplayer, a feature which they paid for. If the game or console isn't broken then it's reasonable for them to expect that they could continue playing.
  Online multiplayer was a feature of XBox Live, a sevice which they also needed to pay for. That service no longer exists as of the 15th. These features were marked as such on the box. None of the features of the game are missing (system link multiplayer is still available), only those of the service because it no longer exists.
  
  In the future an even worse situation will occur now that games need to be authenticated online in order to play even the single player campaign. What will happen then once those servers are taken offline in 5+ years? The business model shifted from buying to renting without us even noticing.
  In this case, we've got the same situation as an MMO going out of business. The Ubisoft (and similar) DRM is a whole different issue entirely.
  
  --
  Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
58. Re:MS should... by Bakkster · 2010-04-28 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  Halo 2 can still be played via system link. You can tunnel through the internet without connecting to the provided matchmaking servers. Add any other game that can be played via system link.
  Again, this is an issue where the game is linked to the XBox Live service. It is absolutely no different from the cases of Tabula Rasa, Hellgate London, or any other defunct MMO in that ability to play the game is dependent upon the service being running.
  
  --
  Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
59. Re:MS should... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-28 02:15 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Not trying to be a douche here, but the game is almost 6 years old and runs on an outdated service that was generally limited to an outdated console. The last original Xbox's were sold in 2006, and have not been supported by Microsoft for almost a year (seriously any original Xboxes that need service and are somehow still under warranty are simply replaced by an Xbox 360). People that buy multiplayer intensive video games have to enter into that knowing that the game will not be supported indefinitely. I can understand your criticism if it were directed at the mass of sports games that are re-released every year, but not this.
  Plus, the game still runs fine in single player and over system link. The only thing that is being discontinued is XBLive support, which Microsoft never promised would be maintained in perpetuity. Its not like MS is sending people out to repossess the disks.
  Imagine if Blizzard turned off the Korean Battle.net or whatever for the original Star Craft. Many a white man's head would roll at the hands of many an angry yellow man.
60. Re:MS should... by drinkypoo · 2010-04-28 02:16 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Reality is people are too stupid to do this because the do not understand their rights, the informed minority is outnumbered by the ignorant majority. In theory the free market is supposed to work this way, in practice it absolutely does not as we've seen again and again.
  You call them too stupid. I call them people who do not care if they can play these games on Xbox Live six years later. The game still has LAN support. The fact that only a couple dozen people cared enough to try to do something about it is proof that nobody really cares. I just bought Halo 3 ODST because it finally had a major price drop at Costco ($25.) I don't care that one day, the only way I'll be able to do multiplayer is on a LAN. I'm sure I'll get $25 of enjoyment out of it, and I don't even have Live Gold. To some people it was worth $60 to get it when everyone else got it so they could play online, I'm not that guy.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
61. Re:MS should... by wisnoskij · 2010-04-28 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  But the only financial incentive to keep the server software private is to force these people to buy the Xbox 360 and Halo 3 if they want to keep playing online.
  The Xbox is dead, so stop supporting the servers, but give away the software for fans to continue using it.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
62. Re:MS should... by Steve+Hamlin · 2010-04-28 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  "people are too stupid to do [stop buying this type of software] because they do not understand their rights"
  What 'rights' are you talking about? The customer bought a license to a software game, that included online play as long as the vendor hosted servers, which they never contracted to do forever The vendor no longer hosts servers. They haven't repossessed the game. Have they breached the license, or any other legally implied duties?
  Then what 'rights' are you referring to with your aggrieved populist polemic about 'ignorant majority' and 'informed minority'? The Man keeping you down much?
63. Re:MS should... by HaZardman27 · 2010-04-28 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  Too bad this wasn't a surprise and they didn't take anything away from the customers. Who seriously avoids buying a game because in six years official multiplayer support might be cut (and I emphasize "official" because there are still ways to play this online).
  
  --
  Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
64. Re:MS should... by secretcurse · 2010-04-28 02:22 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  We are talking about money paid, and the principle of having companies take away our ability to use what we have legally paid for, just because they have us by the balls.
  
  Actually, when you buy a copy of Halo 2, you aren't automatically entitled to a lifetime of free XBox Live access. From the release of the game, you had to pay an extra montly subscription in order to access online multiplayer via XBox Live. Microsoft is no longer charging that monthly fee because the service is discontinued. Microsoft didn't take away the ability to play via system link, split screen, or single player. That's what a customer purchasing Halo 2 "legally paid for."
  
  --
  I'm using all of my mod points to mod ancient memes down. Please join me.
65. Re:MS should... by LordLimecat · 2010-04-28 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  How exactly are they supposed to know before-hand that the system will no longer be supported in the future?
66. Re:MS should... by danieltdp · 2010-04-28 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  And that is why we need LAN play. If I have 4 copies of the game, why shouldn't I be able to setup a local server and be happy with the product I bought?
  
  --
  -- dnl
67. Re:MS should... by LordLimecat · 2010-04-28 02:25 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Yes, you should buy and play WoW + Burning Crusade + Lich King + Cataclysm. Thats only like $100, and it will be supported forever! Right?
68. Re:MS should... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-28 02:25 · Score: 0
  
  Not many people play the same game online for six years, so I doubt many people even care.
  How old is world of warcraft?
69. Re:MS should... by HaZardman27 · 2010-04-28 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  At least with a PC, there are methods to hack around this (even WoW has private servers, illegal but they're there), but now you see part of the actual total-cost-of-ownership for that console.
  They have that for Xbox as well; it's called xbconnect.
  
  --
  Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
70. Re:MS should... by LordMyren · 2010-04-28 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  Not sure how consumers are supposed to understand the dangers. Halo 1 was released November 2001... gamers were supposed to avoid buying Halo 1 and every intervening xbox game for nine years because Microsoft may potentially be royal jerkoffs and decide for absolutely no good reason to shut down the old servers? That seems like a potentially large self sacrifice, considering how improbable it is Microsoft would be such absolute turd-sandwiches. The reality is, its incredible Microsoft pursued such a very small operational advantage for themselves over the interests of their customers-- the ground truth wasnt consumer ignorance, wasnt consumer protection, just Microsoft yanking peoples chain. Anyways, VPN is a solution to cirumvent MS deciding they didnt want to maintain XBox Live on Xbox1. Some mild thoughts on the issue here: http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1633946&cid=32014618
71. Re:MS should... by uncledrax · 2010-04-28 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  This is just a good reason to dislike the Match Making type concept instead of a proper mechanism that can permit you to 'Connect via Direct IP'.
  Forcing either Match Making or Server-Browser only it just abusive.
  That said, I wouldn't be surprised if someone comes out with a Xbox1 compatible server emu.
  
  --
  ----- The internet has given everyone the ability to have their voice heard equally as loud.. even if they shouldn't be
72. Re:MS should... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-28 02:52 · Score: 0
  
  This is MicroSoft we're talking about....."free" is a four-letter word.
73. Re:MS should... by StuartHankins · 2010-04-28 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  And the incremental cost to continue providing the service is what? I'd like to think it's very small, especially if no one is playing the game anymore. What, you just have to keep a VM running? Big deal.
  
  But, OK, let's pretend it is a big deal and look at this another way. Why not create and release (even sell) a server version that allows others to connect? The community will find a way to post these private servers in a list so that others can connect. Of course the nicest solution is to release the source code for it -- you could have an ecosystem like the private-server WOW does. If no one is playing it, how could that hurt?
  
  Maybe I'm naive enough to think that (some) people would notice that the game was kept alive, and use that as a motivation to purchase more product in the future, and that for a very small incremental cost you could reap ($) in benefits in the future.
  
  Of course, if everyone just assumes that all online games will stop working within a few years of purchasing the game, and that's perfectly normal, and widely accepted, then we're screwed.
74. Re:MS should... by Cryonix · 2010-04-28 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  EverQuest? Anyone?
75. Re:MS should... by YttriumOxide · 2010-04-28 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  You're a grammar Nazi who doesn't know not to use an apostrophe as a plural? It's "Xboxes". How hard is that? At worst, just use "xboxs". It's more correct than using an apostrophe, which is *never* to be used for pluralization.
  Not completely correct sorry... the apostrophe represents a missing letter in ALL cases... including the genitive (possessive). The possessive form in English has evolved from an es ending on words to simply 's. This however is still a skipped letter. Plurals that have an "e" such as "boxes" could therefore theoretically be shortened to "box's" also, just as we skip letters in don't, 'less, 'til and even twice in bo's'n. It's certainly not common or well known to skip the vowel in a plural "es", but it's not exactly "wrong"...
  I'm too lazy to provide links right now, but Google "English genitive history" or something like that and you should find things supporting this...
  
  --
  My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
  Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
76. Re:MS should... by SuiteSisterMary · 2010-04-28 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  I'll also point out that if MS isn't allowed to say 'we're no longer offering the service, so feel free to stop giving us $50/year,' you're not allowed to say 'I'm no longer offering you $50/year, so feel free to stop giving me the service.'
  
  --
  Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
77. Re:MS should... by Johann+Lau · 2010-04-28 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmm. Looking at the stunt Valve pulled off with Left 4 Dead, I'm not so sure Valve is as saintly as you make them out to be.
  Besides, it's really not hard to be less evil than Microsoft.
78. Re:MS should... by ottothecow · 2010-04-28 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  I like this idea...
  It is misguided to suggest that MS should be forced to release the server source or anything like that, but in exchange for not doing so, would it be so hard to put a label promising XX years of service? It would force them to carry a liability on their balance sheet though--could be bad if the game is a total flop--so I could see them offering relatively short guarantee periods with extension being the status quo on any popular game.
  
  --
  Bottles.
79. Re:MS should... by SuiteSisterMary · 2010-04-28 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  I also seem to recall that a few days later, after working with the SAN manufacturer, they got most of the data back. The real lesson that was taken away was 'Don't go saying 'all is lost' the same day you have the problem; say 'there's a problem, we're working on it.' Then go work on it.
  
  --
  Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
80. Re:MS should... by ukyoCE · 2010-04-28 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  WOW is 6 or more years old, Counter-strike is going on 10+ years old. Both are still hugely popular multiplayer games.
  WOW has continued being updated so thats a bit less of a fair comparison, but I think the point remains. Multiplayer games have a lot more longevity than single player games.
  The market started with PC online play where anyone can run a server. I don't think anyone really expected to have the primary gameplay of their console games to be turned off indefinitely.
  Look at Diablo, Diablo2, and Starcraft - you can't run a server for either, yet Blizzard continues to support online play for these Very Old games. I'd like to think they'll release a way to run internet servers (other than a Kali-like internet-LAN) before they ever shutdown battle.net access for these games. But then, only time will tell how (and if!) they'll go about shutting these games down.
81. Re:MS should... by cgenman · 2010-04-28 03:18 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Please investigate the situations of individual titles before suggesting blanket solutions.
  Halo 2 is being end-of-lifed in no small part because it relies on an outmoded Xbox 1 Live server ecosystem. This has limited the Xbox 360 to a specific number of friends on their friends list, older types of interactions with people online, etc. There are a lot of people asking for upgrades to the Xbox that have been blocked for this one particular game, which Microsoft has kept alive for 4 years after the original console (that didn't sell that well anyway) went away.
  All of this relies upon Xbox Live. The game expects friend requests, chat requests, server pings, score update connections, DLC purchases, etc. All of these things are signed and protected to prevent A: online cheating, B: griefers, C: penis spam. Further, they have legal commitments to their partners to keep Xbox Live a secure system. This doesn't apply to most individual PC titles, as they are essentially standalone.
  For Microsoft to release official software that allowed people to play Xbox 1 games like Halo 2 online, they'd have to release large chunks of Xbox Live. Then they'd need to do things like strip out any dedicated IP's, Oracle database calls, other copyrighted code, etc that might be floating around in there. What would people get? An impenetrable mess that, at best, would still require a fake NAT and a server farm to work.
  Halo 2 fans, currently by comparison, can use SSH tunneling to create a fake LAN, and enjoy the game that way. This is a much more sane solution.
  
  --
  The ______ Agenda
82. Re:MS should... by brkello · 2010-04-28 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  Yet Blizzard still supports Starcraft. So they don't have to stop supporting it so soon. Heck, all they need to do is give the power for users to run dedicated servers and let them shoulder the expense. It's the right thing to do.
  
  --
  Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
83. Re:MS should... by dhasenan · 2010-04-28 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  How old is Starcraft?
84. Re:MS should... by tlhIngan · 2010-04-28 03:32 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  This is bogus. Online multiplayer is NOT included in Halo 2. It is a separate subscription fee (Xbox Live Gold). There is absolutely no legal basis whatsoever to justify forcing MS to release this functionality, because it was never included in the price you paid for Halo 2; it was always separate.
  If you weren't an Xbox Live Gold subscriber, then you're not missing out on anything now that you had before, because online play was never available to you anyway. If you're paying the XBL Gold fee to play Halo 2 online and they don't support it anymore, cancel your subscription or buy a new game.
  I hear Halo 3 is pretty good.
  Uninformed comments like these are exactly why MS charges for online play instead of giving it away for free. It means that as a vendor they get to decide what to sell, instead of being forced to sell or support a product they no longer want to offer, or being railroaded into giving it away for free.
  Not to mention that Microsoft really wants to upgrade Xbox Live. The reason they can't is because ONE GAME is preventing them from doing it. Yes, that game is Halo 2, which on the rankings is basically the #1 original Xbox game that was played on live by a huge margin. Even so, I think there were only something like 10,000 odd players at most, though I've seen reports saying that at its peak, it's only between 1000-2000 players worldwide.
  Given how many millions use Xbox Live (Gold), and how few actually play the one game that's holding it back architecturally, it's a sound choice I think. Plus, there's been two other multiplayer Halo FPS games since then (Halo 3 and Halo ODST).
  The only real question is Halo 2 for Vista (which works fine on Win7), since its Live client is updated independently of the game itself and has the potential for continuation of service (hell, multiplayer on that has long been free once Microsoft dropped the Games for Windows Live subscription requirement). Halo 2 fanatics can have their hand at that if they really, really, really hate gaming with Halo 3.
  360s aren't too expensive these days - I've seen many retailers do half-price discounting of the Arcade models ($100 brand new!), and add in a hard disk, or with the latest firmware, any USB mass storage, and you've upgraded. Halo 3's pretty cheap these days used or new. Or go Halo ODST and get Halo 3 multiplayer with it.
85. Re:MS should... by archestraty · 2010-04-28 03:33 · Score: 0
  
  Everquest just had thier 10th year anniversary and there are 12 year rewards out there for people who have been playing since beta.
86. Re:MS should... by hairyfeet · 2010-04-28 03:47 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I love how everyone is "Oh poor MST", hey when did MSFT start getting the love? The issue here isn't about support dates, it is about screwing your customers. I have an old Win2K file server, when MSFT EOLs Win2K (IIRC at the end of the month) my file server won't just suddenly stop serving files. In other words while I can't just leave in on a wide open Internet it will do the intended job without MSFT's help.
  Now let's be honest folks: Halo ain't a great single player game. hell I would argue it ain't really a good single player game. The only reason the vast majority bought Halo is for fragging their buddies in multiplayer. So unlike my example, where they simply say "You are on your own, good luck" you have a corporation able to take away a product from you, because you can no longer use it for its intended purpose because they have cut the back end out.
  And where exactly does it end? I remember EA Sports cutting off multiplayer for Madden...I want to say 2009 but it may have been 2008, just a few months after retailers quit selling it! And of course those retailers should now be forced to place stickers on every Madden that is no longer supported saying "multiplayer is no longer functional" but instead are allowed to sell a product that can no longer be used as intended because EA has cut off the backend.
  Nobody is asking these corporations to provide support for eternity, just as I don't expect MSFT to keep patching my Win2K. But we all know it would be pretty easy for these corps to release a PC server app that would allow the users themselves to host games if they wanted. Otherwise every single used copy of a game with multiplayer removed by the corp should have to have a warning label affixed to its cover. Fair is fair folks, and right now MSFT and EA are taking a product you paid money for and crippling it after the fact, with no redress. I don't see how this is ANY different than Sony gutting other OS after the fact. Both moves are wrong and taking away something you paid for after the fact with no way to get it back.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
87. Re:MS should... by darkpixel2k · 2010-04-28 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  We are talking about money paid, and the principle of having companies take away our ability to use what we have legally paid for, just because they have us by the balls
  Yeah, so are you buying the new Halo Reach Ultimate pack too?
  
  --
  There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
88. Re:MS should... by icebraining · 2010-04-28 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  They would be required if nobody bought it if they didn't ensure they would turn it over. Hey, a man can dream!
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
89. Re:MS should... by boarder · 2010-04-28 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  Come on, this isn't as bad as the massacres in the Ukraine and other Soviet nations. This game is over 6 years old and played on a console that hasn't been sold in 4 years... at best this is as bad as disappearances and political oppression.
  Also: Halo sucks.
  
  --
  IANAL, but I play one on /.
90. Re:MS should... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-28 04:24 · Score: 0
  
  13 people left. Not 13 people care. And how many knew that this would actually work.
91. Re:MS should... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2010-04-28 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  No, what CONSUMERS "should" do is to QUIT buying software that's subject to such prone-obsolescence systems
  Because market failures are clearly superior to government interference?
  Maintaining the multiplayer servers is a good anti-piracy measure; good for the company. Also, it's good for the player to know the server is trustworthy. But that means the company can pull the plug... good for the company, but bad for the consumer. Since that can be mitigated by giving the server executables to people, maybe that's a realistic thing to have forced upon the companies by the government.
  And I doubt it was "planned obsolescence". The 360 has been out for over five years. How long would you expect the company to maintain the servers?
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
92. Re:MS should... by RoFLKOPTr · 2010-04-28 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  I bought counter strike back in 1998, but I still pull it out and play it from time to time. Hell, it's Valve's most popular game to date*, even today. To top that off, Valve upgraded me to the Valve Platinum Pack for using the HL CD key that came with the copy of HL I bought just for Counter-Strike. The only thing Microsoft supports beyond the scheduled lifespan of the product is old Windows and Office updates as near as I can tell, never games.
  Valve doesn't run game servers (okay, they run a few, but it's not many). Game servers are paid for by the players. All Valve needs to do to keep Counter-Strike running is keep the master browser servers in operation, which I believe are exactly the same system between ALL Valve and Source games... so as long as Valve decides to support the browser for one of their games, the browser will remain running for all of their games (as well as third-party Source mods). It is costing Microsoft, however, insane amounts of money to keep the XBOX Live servers going for the original Halo while they are making a pittance along the lines of income from it, and they just don't want to support it anymore. You specifically stated that Counter-Strike is still Valve's most popular game, which is basically lending support for Microsoft in this debate, because Halo is not popular anymore. Who still plays the original Halo? Nobody that I know.
  (Before you accuse me of being a Microsoft fanboy, know that I love Valve and I hate consoles in general. I'm writing this because your logic is flawed.)
93. Re:MS should... by boneclinkz · 2010-04-28 04:33 · Score: 0
  
  on games which go to draconic lenghts to prevent piracy
  From snout to tail?
94. Re:MS should... by blakedev · 2010-04-28 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  He was talking about video games, not Halo.
  
  --
  QamuIs Heg qaq law' lorvIs yInqaq puS
95. Re:MS should... by Bakkster · 2010-04-28 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  I have an old Win2K file server, when MSFT EOLs Win2K (IIRC at the end of the month) my file server won't just suddenly stop serving files. In other words while I can't just leave in on a wide open Internet it will do the intended job without MSFT's help.
  But that isn't the same thing. When MS EOLs a product, you lose the update service. Similarly, MS just EOL'd the original XBox Live, the service through which all Matchmaking was made. So while there is no longer a service to connect to for matchmaking, the stand-alone features for those who do not have XBL are still available (including system-link and split-screen multiplayer). Note that system-link can be played over the internet through a tunneling service as always, bypassing XBL.
  
  Nobody is asking these corporations to provide support for eternity, just as I don't expect MSFT to keep patching my Win2K. But we all know it would be pretty easy for these corps to release a PC server app that would allow the users themselves to host games if they wanted. Otherwise every single used copy of a game with multiplayer removed by the corp should have to have a warning label affixed to its cover. Fair is fair folks, and right now MSFT and EA are taking a product you paid money for and crippling it after the fact, with no redress. I don't see how this is ANY different than Sony gutting other OS after the fact. Both moves are wrong and taking away something you paid for after the fact with no way to get it back.
  Actually, you are asking them to continue providing their matchmaking service, which has only been accessible through a subscription service. Then you are asking them to provide an alternative to XBL, regardless of them never having done so previously. Sure they could, but it seems silly to expect them to do so. The features were linked to XBL, buyer beware if you lose access.
  As for crippling your product, they are only ending the service you can access with it. Everything you could do offline previously still exists. Car analogy time:
  You purchase a car with OnStar included for a year. If you don't buy the service afterward, your OnStar features are deactivated. If OnStar goes belly up, you also lose access to that service. This is not equivalent to them breaking your device. Similarly with Satellite Radio, just because you purchased the radio doesn't mean that you have a right to receive your favorite station on it. If you can't do what you expect with the service any more, unsubscribe. Customers should understand this.
  That said, I agree that products for whom the official (and exclusive) service has ended for should be labeled upon purchase. For example, an MMO whose servers are shut down.
  The difference with OtherOS is that the feature was never dependent upon PSN access, nor was it advertised as such.
  
  --
  Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
96. Re:MS should... by Bakkster · 2010-04-28 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  (Yes, you can manually connect to servers over the Internet by IP once that happens, but you can do that with your Xbox too.)
  And this is the big picture: using tunneling to side-step XBL is exactly the same as using an alternative matchmaking service on PC to sidestep the official servers. Just because console players don't want to do it changes nothing.
  The real issue is when games which have no system-link support start getting servers pulled. Of course, then it's just like an MMO, except you never paid a subscription fee to begin with.
  
  --
  Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
97. Re:MS should... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-28 05:01 · Score: 0
  
  Actually I'd say they should be forced to provide service until such time as their copyright expires, or is voluntarily rescinded.
  That would solve both problems, and while there may be 3rd party software that couldn't be released it'd at least allow somebody to 'leak' it once the copyright was no longer valid. (I only mention leaking because nobody wants to put forth the effort to release code unless they can make money off it, and doing so allows the original company to disclaim liability.)
98. Re:MS should... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2010-04-28 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  360s aren't too expensive these days - I've seen many retailers do half-price discounting of the Arcade models ($100 brand new!)
  Got a link or two? That's as cheap and maybe faster than out-of-warranty repairs, and I can move my HD, etc. over.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
99. Re:MS should... by radish · 2010-04-28 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  The reality is, its incredible Microsoft pursued such a very small operational advantage for themselves over the interests of their customers
  No, they decided that being able to offer better features to the vast majority of their customers was worth inconveniencing a minority of their customers. Supporting Live1 was preventing the implementation of a number of oft-requested features and upgrades - such as expanded friends lists.
  
  --
  ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
100. Re:MS should... by radish · 2010-04-28 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  And the incremental cost to continue providing the service is what? I'd like to think it's very small, especially if no one is playing the game anymore. What, you just have to keep a VM running? Big deal
  No, it's not about individual game servers. It's about the consoles connecting to Live itself. To oversimplify - original Xbox consoles expect the Live API to look a specific way, which is limiting the featureset that can be supported on the 360. What they're doing is breaking backwards compatibility so that new stuff can be added to Live. The problem isn't that they're soing anything to Halo 2 servers specifically, it's that the console (and netcode embedded in the game) won't be able to speak to Live at all anymore.
  Breaking backwards compatibility is always painful, but as I think many of us will agree is often the best option (look at Apple, Intel, Windows, etc).
  
  --
  ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
101. Re:MS should... by drinkypoo · 2010-04-28 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  I agree, the market doesn't work. The games should have a clear "ends by" date on the label, with the publisher allowed to extend past but not prematurely terminate the server.
  That would have a chilling effect on publisher-operated servers. Hmm, on second thought, I like the way you think.
  
  It would cost lots of server-side intellectual property to release the source code, especially if it's a licensed server engine. I don't think the appropriate response is to release the code anyway. If not one programmer type is interested in the game it still dies in that case.
  I still think this is a case where the market is deciding. The average user doesn't give two shits about this. The non-average user who cares about this can play a game which is FOSS. There are several examples available. Most of them are not as polished as their commercial cousins, but for many [though not all] game genres you at least have some credible choices available, notably 4X, racing simulation, flight simulation, puzzle, top-down shooter, and FPS games.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
102. Re:MS should... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-28 06:03 · Score: 0
  
  In Soviet Russia, you oppress government!
103. Re:MS should... by Crias · 2010-04-28 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't it? The "ignorant majority", as you call them, simply do not give a flying flip if 13 people are still playing Halo 2. They don't care that you can't play Halo 2 on XBL. Frankly, I don't care either. Eventually every game you buy and love multiplayer will have no one left to play with. It sucks a little bit that Microsoft has the power to move that date up, but it doesn't suck enough for me to not buy XBL games. Don't expect the "ignorant majority" to fight a battle for you when they simply do not care.
104. Re:MS should... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-28 06:14 · Score: 0
  
  XBox Live Service Release Date: "November 2002" (wiki)
  Halo 2 Release Date: "November 9, 2004" (wiki)
  Quake 3 Release Date: "December 2, 1999" (wiki)
  StarCraft 1 Release Date: "31 March 1998" (wiki)
  Guess which one of these requires a payment to play online? Guess which one of these doesn't have no-setup multiplayer (no VPNing, other software to run)? Guess which one of these has their multiplayer system connected to multiple different games (that have different number of players, party sizes, etc.)?
  Guess which companies care about their players?
105. Re:MS should... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-28 06:16 · Score: 0
  
  They can't release the server source code because then people would be able to cheat with ease.
106. Re:MS should... by Toonol · 2010-04-28 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  They only play the good ones that long; the ones that they would probably continue playing the rest of their life.
107. Re:MS should... by TimothyDavis · 2010-04-28 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  Reality is people are too stupid to do this because the do not understand their rights, the informed minority is outnumbered by the ignorant majority. In theory the free market is supposed to work this way, in practice it absolutely does not as we've seen again and again.
  Interesting that you consider those of us in the majority 'ignorant'. The Halo/xBox environment is similar to Apple, where by participating, users have joined into a more locked down environment. It is a mistake to assume that the "ignorant majority" don't understand the benefits of a regulated experience.
  Just because the model does not meet your needs, does not mean this is true for everyone.
108. Re:MS should... by jdpars · 2010-04-28 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  My languages had a genitive before your language's grandparents were born (Classical Greek and Latin). I certainly understand the use of the apostrophe for any form of possessive, but to use that in a plural is completely wrong! Even if there were some obscure reason it could potentially be right, it has not happened on the internet as a result of some mass grammatical Renaissance. It's people being lazy. If you're so educated, why in the world would you further the agenda of laziness and ignorance?
109. Re:MS should... by mattack2 · 2010-04-28 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  Because obviously it connects to a remote server and that server isn't going to be around forever?
  (Note, I agree with the previously mentioned idea of having the earliest end date clearly on the package.)
110. Re:MS should... by YttriumOxide · 2010-04-28 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  My languages had a genitive before your language's grandparents were born (Classical Greek and Latin).
  As my mother tongues are English and Dutch, I'll have to disagree with you. While there's less documentation of them than classical Greek and Latin, the Indo-Germanic languages most certainly DID exist at least at the same time as the Indo-Romance (precursor of Latin) and Indo-Grecian (precursor of Greek), if not slightly EARLIER. There is evidence of a late Indo-European language (precursor to all of the above) that had leanings in the Germanic direction BEFORE any evidence of the Romance languages. Mostly it seemed to lean towards the Eastern Germanic family (which is now extinct - consisting of Gothic, Vandalic, etc), but nevertheless certainly Germanic leanings rather than Romance or Grecian.
  I certainly understand the use of the apostrophe for any form of possessive, but to use that in a plural is completely wrong! Even if there were some obscure reason it could potentially be right, it has not happened on the internet as a result of some mass grammatical Renaissance. It's people being lazy.
  Correct, it is people being lazy and I do not subscribe to the belief that it is a linguistic renaissance. I was purely pointing out that the apostrophe ONLY symbolises a missing letter in the Germanic languages (English included) and so the usage of it for the missing "e" in "Xbox's" isn't entirely incorrect from a linguistic standpoint. Most probably it was performed in error by the poster, but we can't know that for certain. It's only in very recent history that the Germans have started writing "ich hab's" instead of "ich habe es", and the Dutch write "z'n" instead of "zijn", but both of these are perfectly accepted and for the same reasons.
  
  If you're so educated, why in the world would you further the agenda of laziness and ignorance?
  I'm not particularly well educated (at least, not formally), and I am NOT attempting to further any agenda - especially not that of laziness and ignorance. I was not excusing the failure of the poster, but merely pointing out that it MIGHT not have been an error, but instead a clever use of language (I don't believe it was, but my belief is irrelevant - what is relevant is whether it MIGHT have been or not).
  As a note, please excuse any grammatical or spelling errors in this post, as well as any courtesy errors, as I have consumed a fairly large quantity of beer tonight with my friends at the local pub.
  
  --
  My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
  Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
111. Re:MS should... by YttriumOxide · 2010-04-28 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  My languages had a genitive before your language's grandparents were born (Classical Greek and Latin).
  As my mother tongues are English and Dutch, I'll have to disagree with you. While there's less documentation of them than classical Greek and Latin, the Indo-Germanic languages most certainly DID exist at least at the same time as the Indo-Romance (precursor of Latin) and Indo-Grecian (precursor of Greek), if not slightly EARLIER. There is evidence of a late Indo-European language (precursor to all of the above) that had leanings in the Germanic direction BEFORE any evidence of the Romance languages. Mostly it seemed to lean towards the Eastern Germanic family (which is now extinct - consisting of Gothic, Vandalic, etc), but nevertheless certainly Germanic leanings rather than Romance or Grecian.
  
  I certainly understand the use of the apostrophe for any form of possessive, but to use that in a plural is completely wrong! Even if there were some obscure reason it could potentially be right, it has not happened on the internet as a result of some mass grammatical Renaissance. It's people being lazy.
  Correct, it is people being lazy and I do not subscribe to the belief that it is a linguistic renaissance. I was purely pointing out that the apostrophe ONLY symbolises a missing letter in the Germanic languages (English included) and so the usage of it for the missing "e" in "Xbox's" isn't entirely incorrect from a linguistic standpoint. Most probably it was performed in error by the poster, but we can't know that for certain. It's only in very recent history that the Germans have started writing "ich hab's" instead of "ich habe es", and the Dutch write "z'n" instead of "zijn", but both of these are perfectly accepted and for the same reasons.
  
  If you're so educated, why in the world would you further the agenda of laziness and ignorance?
  I'm not particularly well educated (at least, not formally), and I am NOT attempting to further any agenda - especially not that of laziness and ignorance. I was not excusing the failure of the poster, but merely pointing out that it MIGHT not have been an error, but instead a clever use of language (I don't believe it was, but my belief is irrelevant - what is relevant is whether it MIGHT have been or not).
  As a note, please excuse any grammatical or spelling errors in this post, as well as any courtesy errors, as I have consumed a fairly large quantity of beer tonight with my friends at the local pub.
  
  --
  My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
  Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
112. Re:MS should... by mattack2 · 2010-04-28 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  I personally haven't seen this *currently*, but last Christmas, Target was doing such a promo. Well, technically, you paid full price ($200) and got a $100 Target Gift Card.. I didn't end up taking advantage of it, but it was tempting.
113. Re:MS should... by Khyber · 2010-04-28 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  "My languages had a genitive before your language's grandparents were born (Classical Greek and Latin). I certainly understand the use of the apostrophe for any form of possessive, but to use that in a plural is completely wrong!"
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe
  Try again and next time stay awake in your foreign language classes.
  4-year Latin student.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
114. Re:MS should... by Khyber · 2010-04-28 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  "Not many people play the same game online for six years, so I doubt many people even care."
  Quake 3, Urban Terror, Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, WoW, Everquest, Hell I still see people paying DOOM I and II deathmatches still.
  What nonsense are you spewing?
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
115. Re:MS should... by Peach+Rings · 2010-04-28 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Glance at TFA and you'll get the joke.
116. Re:MS should... by Khyber · 2010-04-28 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  "No one has taken away any ability to use something for which they have paid"
  And here you're absolutely wrong. Now I have a half-working game that constantly advertises multiplayer that won't work.
  Hang on, let me take your fuel lines away from your car, you don't need those, and I haven't taken away your ability to use something that you've paid for, it still mostly operates!
  You're a moron if you think something wasn't taken away.
  *goes back to playing PS2 games online*
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
117. Re:MS should... by Khyber · 2010-04-28 08:15 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  "Microsoft didn't take away the ability to play via system link, split screen, or single player. That's what a customer purchasing Halo 2 "legally paid for.""
  No it's not, as multiplayer is specifically advertised on the game packaging.
  Oops, I don't have multiplayer access.
  And the game is still being sold in stores.
  False advertising.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
118. Re:MS should... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-28 08:16 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry, double post... please mod parent (me) down, but other identical post up! (if you consider it worth modding up!)
119. Re:MS should... by Khyber · 2010-04-28 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  You need to understand something here, because it's painfully obvious you don't get it.
  I paid for the game. The game advertises multiplayer directly on the box. It advertises *ONLINE* multiplayer on the box. This game is still being sold in game stores and rented out from renting places.
  Not getting that is false advertising, despite the XBL service having been turned off.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
120. Re:MS should... by Peach+Rings · 2010-04-28 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  But Valve doesn't make any money keeping the master servers running for Counter-Strike players. Microsoft was charging a hefty monthly fee just for access to the Halo 2 matchmaking servers, and they still shut it down!
121. Re:MS should... by jdpars · 2010-04-28 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  6 Years of Latin, finishing my first year of Greek. That wikipedia article doesn't directly cite a source for the rule that you can use the apostrophe for a plural when just an s "may leave things ambiguous or inelegant." The closest source cited is Purdue's OWL guide, but that one does not cite this rule. My other point still stands, however. Using it in this case is only going to further the rampant misuse of the apostrophe. Justifying it is justifying the blatantly wrong uses, such as adding it to words that have a regular plural.
122. Re:MS should... by Khyber · 2010-04-28 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  "That wikipedia article doesn't directly cite a source for the rule that you can use the apostrophe for a plural when just an s"
  Wikipedia shouldn't have to cite it when the rule is in almost every single McMillan or McGraw English school book ever written. I still have my 9th and 10th grade English books, and they both say the same thing about apostrophes.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
123. Re:MS should... by Anaerin · 2010-04-28 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  You're right, but I'd like to point out that my 20 year old Nintendo console still works and I have not lost any of the functionality that I paid for in my games.
  Really? You can play system-link games with your NES? All this time, and Nintendo were running services to keep games running? Who knew!
  Once you bought your NES and game, Nintendo had nothing more to do with you. They weren't providing a service to you, and you weren't paying them for that service. Here, let me fix your statement for you, from my own personal experience:
  
  I'd like to point out that my 8 year old XBox console still works, and I have not lost any of the functionality that I paid for in my games.
  Not once did I pay the extra subscription to XBox Live Gold, and so at this point I am noticing absolutely no difference in my XBox games.
  
  These people can no longer play online multiplayer, a feature which they paid for.
  The online multiplayer was (is?) part of the XBox Live Gold experience, as explicitly stated on the box, and had a separate subscription fee for use. As MS are no longer charging for XBL Gold, you can't pay for it, and so you won't get the online multiplayer experience.
  
  If the game or console isn't broken then it's reasonable for them to expect that they could continue playing.
  They can continue playing. The entire singleplayer campaign still works just fine, as does split-screen and system link co-op and versus gaming. The functionality that users paid for when they bought the game is still in place, and still works. The added functionality that they had to pay a subscription for is no longer available.
  And now we come to the auto analogy of this post. Think of buying a car, and renting a trailer to go with it. At the end of the rental period, you MAY have the option to pay the remaining cost of the trailer to buy it outright, but in some (most) cases the renter will decline to give you that option. You still have the car, and can still use it for driving all you like, but the trailer has to be returned so you can't use it anymore. They bought Halo 2, they rented the use of the XBL servers with their Gold subscription. Now the demand for the XBL servers is so low that MS has decided to close them, and has canceled all subscriptions. This means they can't play the in-built online matchmaking any longer, but it doesn't stop them playing the game exactly the same as they were able to do before. The same as someone who had never paid for the extra XBL Gold subscription was/is able to do. Singleplayer, Split-Screen and System Link are all available, and there are already third party solutions to handle matchmaking and the like.
  
  In the future an even worse situation will occur now that games need to be authenticated online in order to play even the single player campaign. What will happen then once those servers are taken offline in 5+ years?
  Unfortunately, we've already seen what will happen. Look at the "Settlers V" mess, or the Assassins Creed 2 nonsense.
  
  The business model shifted from buying to renting without us even noticing.
  True, but it wasn't like that with Halo 2. It was shown very explicitly there what was bought-and-paid-for, and what was rented.
  
  Now most, and eventually all games will have expiration dates. As soon a support dies out then you're outta luck.
  Unfortunately, yes. I would say "Unless we do something about it", but at this point stamping our feet and shouting is not going to do a damn bit of difference.
124. Re:MS should... by jdpars · 2010-04-28 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  Even common knowledge has to be cited on Wikipedia. Believe me, the many updates I've tried to make, mostly in Latin language/literature articles, have all been revoked despite being in every Latin textbook ever written. But I do believe you that the rule exists, I just wanted to see a source. Oddly enough, I think I never had a McMillan or McGraw textbook for my English classes.
125. Re:MS should... by MediaCastleX · 2010-04-28 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  ITS. A. FUCKING. COMPUTER. GAME.
  Well, it looks like I finally found a reply to one of the many problems posed, but land sakes, man! I know the kid's a little misguided, but *sheesh*...It's becoming a war-zone in here! So, yeah...it's available for PC!
126. Re:MS should... by RoFLKOPTr · 2010-04-28 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  But Valve doesn't make any money keeping the master servers running for Counter-Strike players. Microsoft was charging a hefty monthly fee just for access to the Halo 2 matchmaking servers, and they still shut it down!
  How many games support XBOX Live? Tons. A hundred, perhaps? Maybe not that many, but you get the point. You've been paying $15/mo (right?) for XBOX Live since you first bought your XBOX and started playing online. Back then, there weren't nearly as many games as there are today. Halo 2 is 6 years old. They no longer update it. Hardly anybody ever plays it. It's dead weight on the XBOX Live network.
  As the number of games grows, the number of servers needed grows. The amount of power and bandwidth needed grows. The amount of maintenance needed grows. The number of moderators and support staff needed grows. Has your monthly XBOX Live bill grown? No. You aren't paying a "hefty monthly fee just for access to the Halo 2 matchmaking servers," you're paying a hefty monthly fee for access to XBOX Live. Would you rather they charged money per game that you want to play online? $10 per month per game. Or maybe an hourly fee? Options like those are the only way to keep a rapidly-growing system like XBOX Live sustainable without dropping support for 6 year old games that nobody plays anymore.
  You could also say that more people play than before, but that's not enough. Let's say for the sake of simplicity that 100,000 people bought Halo 2 and started paying $15/mo for XBOX Live. What happens when Halo 3 comes out and 100,000 people buy it? A good 95,000 of those people probably already own Halo 2 and therefore already pay $15/mo for XBOX Live. So that's 5,000 new subscriptions for 100,000 new copies of the game.
  Yes, it sucks that they're dropping support for Halo 2 for the 500 of you that still play it. Get with the times, bro.
127. Re:MS should... by Bakkster · 2010-04-28 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  I paid for the game. The game advertises multiplayer directly on the box. It advertises *ONLINE* multiplayer on the box. This game is still being sold in game stores and rented out from renting places.
  Not getting that is false advertising, despite the XBL service having been turned off.
  The box does label online multiplayer as requiring XBox Live access. Go take a look sometime.
  I agree that it's disingenuous now to advertise the online multiplayer aspect, as it is no longer present. It would behoove any retailer to place a disclaimer that online multiplayer is no longer accessible for this game, any EA Sports game over a year old, etc.
  The real question is how to enforce that. It falls on the retailers, not Microsoft or Bungie at this point. Do you have any suggestions?
  
  --
  Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
128. Re:MS should... by MediaCastleX · 2010-04-28 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  ...AND wasn't this one of the *last* titles supported by XBL? Anyway, I'm sure the original box is *still* quite fun...*uses this device way too much*
129. Re:MS should... by MediaCastleX · 2010-04-28 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know, which one?
130. Re:MS should... by HeronBlademaster · 2010-04-28 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe you should compare Starcraft's sales with the Halo/Halo 2 sales. The results might enlighten you as to why Blizzard still supports Starcraft, but MS dropped Halo multiplayer.
  But Blizzard is moving away from that themselves - we're all aware that Starcraft II will lack LAN support. If/when Blizzard dies, or shuts down battle.net, or any number of other long-term possibilities, you won't be able to play Starcraft II even locally, but the original will still work fine...
131. Re:MS should... by HeronBlademaster · 2010-04-28 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  I wasn't an early Steam adopter, but they did it for me too, when I added my HL1 key to my account.
132. Re:MS should... by HeronBlademaster · 2010-04-28 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  But Valve doesn't make any money keeping the master servers running for Counter-Strike players.
  
  No? If they shut them down, how long do you think CS would keep its place near the top of Steam's "top sellers" list?
133. Re:MS should... by Peach+Rings · 2010-04-28 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  What are you even talking about? The access to xbox live is just the use of Microsoft's matchmaking servers. Microsoft never hosted games on their own servers. Halo 2 games are listen servers run by other players on their xboxes.
  Sure, they try to throw in features like achievements and friends text/voice chat and downloading demos and trailers to make the monthly fee more attractive, but Steam delivers all of those for free.
134. Re:MS should... by Anpheus · 2010-04-28 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't say they had to release it on day one. But if they say, "Alright, we're closing up. Here's the source code for the servers" the day service ends, that'd be fine by me.
135. Re:MS should... by Khyber · 2010-04-28 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  Yes - the retailers should charge Microsoft/Bungie for all current unsold copies on the shelves since they can't hold up to what they're advertising on the box.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
136. Re:MS should... by StuartHankins · 2010-04-28 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe I'm underestimating the complexity of this transition, but these are consoles which I think of (perhaps wrongly) as immutable boxes spread out all over the place. You can't really upgrade them or transition them and you try not to do something which renders them incapable of performing a basic function.
  
  I don't understand -- really, not trying to troll -- why not use the user-agent of the boxes (or whatever method is used to determine what's connecting to the Live service) to redirect these old boxen to a service that would work for them? Assuming these can accept an update, perhaps making a patch which changes the site they login to would make everyone happy.
  
  I guess if there were an income stream (or a larger income stream, not sure how this is setup financially) involved, this would be figured out quickly. I know if I thought about buying a product and heard that the previous model (or in this case the one before that) suddenly stopped doing an important function, I would think twice before buying it.
  
  And yes, your "backwards compatibility" comment certainly isn't lost on me -- not only did I have several PPC Macs before this Intel Mac, and I am a programmer which has gone through the gamut of languages from Commodore PET Basic, C64 Basic, all the spin-offs such as Apple ][c and e, then GWBASIC and QB45 onwards so I had to deal with language and API changes and all sorts of incompatibilities -- but of all things I think of consoles as something which should have more backwards compatibility and OS's less... maybe because I just think of a console as a "dumb box" that does its specified job without a lot of tinkering or special care.
137. Re:MS should... by hairyfeet · 2010-04-28 14:08 · Score: 1
  
  THANK YOU!!! It is nice to see somebody gets it!!! And nobody is asking MSFT, or EA, or any other gameco to support these things for eternity, hell just release a black box PC server if they are worried about their "precious IP" or whatever. Otherwise they should be FORCED to place a warning on the boxes of every new product that says "Warning: Online multiplayer for this product will no longer work after this date. Any and all purchases of this product after the date stamped on the package shall be for single player ONLY!"
  But instead they want to have their cake and eat it too, and that is just false advertising. There are plenty of big box retailers that carry older copies of big name games, hell I saw a Madden 08 not to long ago in the console bargain bin (it was the x360 version I believe) and yet...what? Now the customer is supposed to keep up with "sell by" dates for ALL games or get boned? Where is the fairness in that?
  Just one more reason I'm damned glad I was able to keep myself and my family on PCs and away from those damned consoles! If a game doesn't allow dedicated consoles, like MW2? Well I might pick it up for $10 for the single player but I am certainly not paying full price for a game rental. Folks here just seem to be missing the forest for the trees, look at how quick EA cut off support for their titles. Some were barely a year and a half old! This is just a back handed way of turning a purchase into a REALLY expensive rental, which then allows them to kill product X when product Y comes out. Is that really what we all want here? I don't know about the rest of you but I LIKE being able to fire up old favorites and play them online. I LIKE being able to buy old classics from places like GOG and find someone to play with online. Do we really want our games to be just another disposable product?
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
138. Re:MS should... by Atomic+Fro · 2010-04-28 17:15 · Score: 1
  
  Which turn based strategy to you speak of? We would like to play.
  
  --
  
  ==================
  Hippie Logger Jock
  ==================
139. Re:MS should... by HaZardman27 · 2010-04-29 00:22 · Score: 1
  
  I seriously doubt a large number of people play those games regularly.
  
  --
  Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
140. Re:MS should... by Bakkster · 2010-04-29 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  Otherwise they should be FORCED to place a warning on the boxes of every new product that says "Warning: Online multiplayer for this product will no longer work after this date. Any and all purchases of this product after the date stamped on the package shall be for single player ONLY!"
  On the new boxes? You think in 2004 Bungie should have included on their box art "online multiplayer will be discontinued April 2010"? How do they know? Or, should they plan to shut down their servers earlier, so they can give an accurate date?
  I saw, just buy the retailer stickers to place on each box that says: "Online service discontinued" They are the ones who use the shady practices to continue selling obsolete games (like WalMarts who were still selling Tabula Rasa boxes a few months ago).
  
  --
  Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
141. Re:MS should... by jimthehorsegod · 2010-04-29 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  But that's it, they don't have you by the balls. If it was your oxygen supply, they'd have you by the balls. As it is, it's a (highly priced) luxury consumer item you don't need.
  
  There's a difference between wanting something and the supplier having you by the balls - the latter requires that it's essential you have it, which isn't the case for this or any other game.
142. Re:MS should... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-29 07:34 · Score: 0
  
  Why do people continually confuse what they, themselves, care about and what public policy should be? Ok--so you don't care. Ok--PERHAPS most other people don't care either. Why does that mean, seemingly by default, that MS should be allowed to do this?
143. Re:MS should... by hairyfeet · 2010-04-29 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  Then they should have to promise to support X years, and if they want to extend past that then fine, but anybody buying the game would know its "sell by" date. As the world of gaming becomes increasingly online oriented (some would argue we are already there) and companies using online MP as a selling point, it is only fair that the customer knows its "sell by" date otherwise it is just ripe for abuse.
  After all do YOU know what the "sell by" date is for ALL EA products? MSFT Games? Activision? Ubisoft? Know of ANY place where a consumer can quickly AND easily find out this information on ALL the game companies? It is actually very simple: Game companies are using online MP as a selling point, and plastering their boxes with this fact. In the days of PC gaming this wasn't a problem as dedicated servers meant that if you couldn't find a host you had the ability to host yourself.
  But as the new consoles become ever more popular, and even the PC games being nothing but bad console ports, we are getting to a point where the consumer has NO way to tell if the game will work Just be fair, that is all I ask. Have a guaranteed "supported to" date so that we the consumer can look at the box and know whether or not it will work. Oh and any company like Walmart that tries to sell non functional products like Tabula Rasa should have some nice massive fines laid on their ass. I too have seen Tabula Rasa boxes recently at my local Walmart. Talk about ripping off your customers!
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
144. Re:MS should... by Bakkster · 2010-04-29 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  Then they should have to promise to support X years, and if they want to extend past that then fine, but anybody buying the game would know its "sell by" date.
  I feel like planning that from the start will lead to the opposite intention. No company will want to commit to more than 1 year, just in case nobody buys the game. Then, the bean counters will start discontinuing right on that date. Add that if the closing date gets pushed back, it's already on the box, which is equally misleading.
  And back to MMOs, it's somewhat difficult to force a company to funnel money into a service that isn't making money, especially if it's not making money because too few people are paying to use the service. And, especially with an MMO, it is almost impossible to estimate the date when the servers will go down. Asheron's Call is still running, but the sequel died relatively quickly.
  I agree on principle, just not implementation. Just put stickers on the boxes when the decision is made, I don't see an effective way to guarantee the dates the service will run before the disc is released.
  
  --
  Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
145. Re:MS should... by rsilvergun · 2010-04-29 13:10 · Score: 1
  
  The Free Market assumes people are educated enough to make informed decisions. The thread's grandparent is saying that most people don't understand enough about computer networking to say "Hey, I should buy a PC game instead so I can play it whenever I want". Admittedly this is a trivial example of this kind of free market failure . I'm sure you could find better examples in the recent economic meltdown over CDOs.
  
  --
  Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
146. Re:MS should... by SkunkPussy · 2010-05-12 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  choose one:
  1) hardly anybody ever plays halo
  2) halo servers are deadweight on the network
  
  --
  SURELY NOT!!!!!
147. Re:MS should... by SkunkPussy · 2010-05-12 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  you'd be surprised how many unreal tournament servers there still were when I fired that game up a year or two ago.
  
  --
  SURELY NOT!!!!!
148. Re:MS should... by billcopc · 2010-05-12 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  We're talking about a product that was purchased. They should, at the very least, allow peer-to-peer multiplayer (private games), so that the multiplayer content can be enjoyed by those who still play and love the game. In this case, shutting down the central lobby system effectively renders the game useless. Meanwhile, one can dig up an ancient copy of Quake, type a friend's IP in the box and get fragging in no time.
  So yeah, MS is shafting these people by not releasing a patch or separate tool to support 3rd party servers or at least some form of online play. We still have the internet, and Microsoft is still in business, so why would they need to shut it off ? And frankly, if there's only a few dozen players, even a few hundred, how much could it possibly be costing to keep one or two servers up for these very loyal gamers ? It probably took more time to issue the request to terminate, than it would have to maintain these systems for another few years.
  It also raises the question of how long is "long enough" to support a multiplayer lobby. What if they had killed it the day Halo 3 was released ? Or even a week after Halo 2 itself was launched ? They're selling a product that is partially marketed on its multiplayer aspect, so at what point does termination of that advertised service become acceptable ? I don't care what they write in the EULA, I mean as a consumer, what should we reasonably expect ? Is 10 years long enough ? 5 years ? six months ? I dunno, pick a number.
  
  --
  -Billco, Fnarg.com
Ridicule and shame. by AnonymousClown · 2010-04-27 22:47 · Score: 0, Troll

So guys, in order to avoid the ridicule and shame for playing Halo so much, do you just tell people that you're locked behind closed doors masturbating to internet porn?

--
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Unofficial route.. by Bert64 · 2010-04-27 22:57 · Score: 2, Informative

Or you could go the unofficial route and play these games online using xlink kai (http://www.teamxlink.co.uk/)...
Pity they clamped down on this with the 360, so once support for the 360 is turned off users will be screwed.

--
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
1. Re:Unofficial route.. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-27 23:29 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Question. Would Hamachi work too?
2. Re:Unofficial route.. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-28 00:29 · Score: 0
  
  Techincally, the limit will be removed soon enough, the 30 ping limit is just in the kernel pretty deep. I have seen it done though, but lost to RRoD'd jtag'd 360's.
  Hopefully, though, Xlink will pick back up.
  Long live the gaming legend that is Halo 2.
3. Re:Unofficial route.. by byersjus · 2010-04-28 00:45 · Score: 0
  
  Mod parent up...just tunnel it for "LAN" play. That was pretty common in the modding community since Xboxes would get banned from Live.
I rather expected something different by erroneus · 2010-04-27 23:01 · Score: 1

One commenter got close when they mentioned there should be a requirement by Microsoft to provide something that enables full play access to these older consoles and their games. I agree that they should. I doubt they ever will.
Instead what I would hope to see is a more industrious effort to implement some sort of gateway device with tunnel or some such thing where xboxes are tunnelled into VPN in the cloud where people can host their own games and the like. I know there are some "LAN game play over internet" things people can do with their home routers -- I recall some mention of that in DD-WRT forums.
I would like to see an alternative xbox live hosted by community volunteers and such. I'm pretty sure that any such community effort would devolve into political headaches annoyances and rampant cheating that would suck all the fun and fair play out of it.
1. Re:I rather expected something different by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-27 23:12 · Score: 0
  
  It already exists. I used to play on Gamespy Tunnel when I was in high school because I couldn't afford Xbox Live. Worked great at the time, but I can't attest to it's current status.
  http://www.gamespyarcade.com/tunnel/
2. Re:I rather expected something different by Bakkster · 2010-04-28 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  One commenter got close when they mentioned there should be a requirement by Microsoft to provide something that enables full play access to these older consoles and their games. I agree that they should.
  What is your opinion of MMOs who shutter their servers? What if they don't have money to continue running them? What if they are simply unprofitable?
  
  --
  Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
3. Re:I rather expected something different by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-28 02:31 · Score: 0
  
  you mean like xbox connect?
One of the ley reasons I don't like online games by commodore64_love · 2010-04-27 23:09 · Score: 1

Pac-Man, Elite, Populous, Zelda Ocarina of Time, Final Fantasy 12 - still playable; my money's not wasted
Phantasy Star Online? Not so much.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
The price of a couple dedicated servers by lena_10326 · 2010-04-27 23:12 · Score: 1

...and the bandwidth required to keep Xbox (1) Live going would have been what? $5-10k a year? That's not even the pocket change that falls out of Microsoft's free soda machines.

--
Camping on quad since 1996.
1. Re:The price of a couple dedicated servers by JackieBrown · 2010-04-27 23:21 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  They need that 5-10k for Bing :)
2. Re:The price of a couple dedicated servers by Barny · 2010-04-28 00:16 · Score: 0
  
  They need that 500k-1M for Bing :)
  
  Fixed that for ya :)
  
  --
  ...
  /me sighs
3. Re:The price of a couple dedicated servers by MistrBlank · 2010-04-28 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  Probably, maybe less. The reality of a virtualized world means that there's no need for excessive amounts of extra storage due to deduolication, servers only need to start on demand to fulfill user expectancy,
  Maintenance is a joke, once a system is up and running in a virtual environment it can run anywhere in your enterprise.
  The likely reason is that there were actually too many people still using the service and not generating new revenue for MS. Good luck getting them to admit it though.
4. Re:The price of a couple dedicated servers by LordMyren · 2010-04-28 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  The hard part was continuing backwards compatibility for the XBox Live service. It would've been maybe couple hundred man hours of devel/test costs a year just to make sure XBox1 was still working as they continue to roll out enhanced Xbox360 software.
  
  That said, they're definitely a bunch of penny pinching scrooges. I've been businesses make similar heavyhanded "profit saving" measures w/r/t what they will and will not support, and lets just say the customers ended up not being very understanding or pleased finding their "working fine" setup kicked to the curb and them being saddled with a compromised "upgraded" hardware unit of dubious parity.
5. Re:The price of a couple dedicated servers by cgenman · 2010-04-28 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  According to MS, the reason why certain upgrades to Xbox Live have not been possible was the continued support for Xbox 1 online titles, as they all live within the same server system. They learned a lot about flexible implementations after the original xbox, and put most of the live features within the console's system HUD. But Xbox 1 titles all have the code within the game itself, that limits their options.
  Walling off a separate Xbox 1 doesn't seem like a viable solution if everything is hardwired (and probably cobbled together with string).
  6 years and two sequels after it launched... that doesn't sound too short.
  
  --
  The ______ Agenda
6. Re:The price of a couple dedicated servers by lena_10326 · 2010-04-28 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  If that's true.. then that's a colossal design flaw. However, it still smells like a BS excuse. If the xbox 360 client was so thin or programmable, then xbox 360 clients could be updated--with xbox 1 stuff cut out. On the other hand, version detection could be done by simple analysis of the protocol at the router or at the 360 service end point and then [forwarded|proxied] to a live 1 cluster hosting a forked frozen version. Version detection and forwarding configuration would be a minuscule amount of specialized code.
  
  I think the more likely answer is.. in the mind of bill gates xbox users are slacker freeloaders who must pay the upgrade tax in order to assimilate with the rest of the 360 hive.
  
  --
  Camping on quad since 1996.
7. Re:The price of a couple dedicated servers by radish · 2010-04-28 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  WTF has Bill Gates go to do with it? He doesn't even work there anymore.
  
  --
  ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
8. Re:The price of a couple dedicated servers by cgenman · 2010-04-28 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  Implemented right, it should be possible to detach the Xbox 360 users from the original Xbox 1 group, with a few problems about the Xbox 1 users that connect through Xbox 360s. There might be issues around maintaining user accounts, banning accounts for bad behavior, etc.
  I suspect the Live servers were not built with that in mind, which increases the technological complications significantly. One of the reasons why you do major upgrade versions that remove backwards compatibility is because the old version was lacking in things that would support compatibility.
  Xbox Live is huge. There are game rankings databases, gamer score databases, matchmaking servers. Players have friends lists, gamer cards, dynamic updates of status based upon what they're doing in game. Voice chat. An e-mail system. Downloadable content, and DLC signing. Player avatars, gamerpictures, and other persistent online identifications. Game invites. Downloadable and streaming videos. Sign-on persistence. There is tracking for how people rate other people, and whether to pair them up or not. Game patch management. There are chat and voice parties. And that's before you get to whatever they hacked in to support Neflix, the Zune store, their advertising, 100 vs 1, last.fm, EA's proprietary sports system, etc. It's a giant system, and with enough parts that branching it might be a huge PITA. It would probably be cheaper to just rewrite Halo 2 to work on the 360. And it would be much less risky to the security of the system and stability of the rest of the library of the titles.
  Considering Microsoft has talked about this change for over 2 years now, and specifically talked about holding off on it for the Halo 2 players out there, I can't imagine this is to push people to buy more games. In all of their communications and actions, Microsoft has held the Halo community as one of their golden, shining successes. And remember, this is Microsoft Games, which for all intents and purposes is a completely separate entity from the monopolistic software giant. If they were specifically trying to force people to buy newer versions of the game, they would have shut off the PC multiplayer servers too (which use a different system). This seems very targeted.
  I don't know. Games I've worked on have had their online servers cut off because nobody was playing them. Servers go dark for a variety of reasons. Removing the Xbox 1 servers for upgrades that users have been screaming for (More than 50 friends!) after years of talking about it seems completely reasonable. There are other ways that people can get their Halo 2 online fix.
  
  --
  The ______ Agenda
Isn't this what the fanboys said was impossible? by mikael_j · 2010-04-27 23:13 · Score: 5, Interesting

I seem to recall that in pretty much every discussion about "rented" software, software that doesn't work without the developer's servers or online authentication there have been cadres of fanboys who have claimed that obviously the developers (including MS) would nevar!!1 just shut down their servers without first "opening" the game so that full functionality can be retained.
So how's that trust in corporations working out for you?

--
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Re:One of the ley reasons I don't like online game by TheRaven64 · 2010-04-27 23:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's not online games, it's online games where a company with a vested interest in obsolescence has control over the server. I can still play Quake 1 / QuakeWorld in multiplayer, for example. Both were released 14 years ago and the company that created them has released several sequels since then and has no incentive to keep operating servers. Because the online gaming happened over the Internet (rather than a walled garden like XBox Live) and the server software was made available, other people can continue to run servers for as long as there is a demand. When I was doing my PhD, I ran a QuakeWorld server in the lab for people to play on, both in the lab and from home. It sounds like Halo 2 players don't have that kind of option.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Get out of your mom's basement by Macrat · 2010-04-27 23:30 · Score: 0, Troll

Go play in the sun for a while... Maybe take a bath and find a girlfriend.
1. Re:Get out of your mom's basement by cntThnkofAname · 2010-04-27 23:44 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  that would require a very long controller extension, possibly binoculars, and a social life.
2. Re:Get out of your mom's basement by L4t3r4lu5 · 2010-04-27 23:47 · Score: 1
  
  You're new here, aren't you...
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
3. Re:Get out of your mom's basement by INoScopedJFK · 2010-04-28 00:06 · Score: 1
  
  These two replies are hilarious. I wish I had thought of them. I actually took a screenshot and saved it as my desktop. Dead serious.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong by wernox1987 · 2010-04-27 23:35 · Score: 1

But does this shutdown affect Halo2 on the 360 as well? I was under the assumption that the shutdown only affected orignal xboxes.
1. Re:Someone please correct me if I'm wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-28 00:08 · Score: 0
  
  only affects orginal Xbox on Xbox Live. You can still play Halo 2, can still multi player by system link, just Xbox Live support for old console has died, really this is no big deal (and I say that as someone that plays halo 2 and still has an orginal Xbox). I got my notice in email a few months ago and even received a refund for the remainder of my Xbox Live original subscription. I guess this must be a slow news day for slashdot.
2. Re:Someone please correct me if I'm wrong by benjymous · 2010-04-28 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  It's support for connecting to XBL using XB1 games that's been disabled, so it's the same on a 360 as an original machine
  
  --
  Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
3. Re:Someone please correct me if I'm wrong by Chaos+Incarnate · 2010-04-28 00:26 · Score: 1
  
  "Halo2 on the 360" is just Halo 2 for the original Xbox, running in emulation mode; it's still affected.
  Not affected is Halo 2 for PC, which is running the "modern" Live used by 360 games.
  
  --
  Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
4. Re:Someone please correct me if I'm wrong by twmcneil · 2010-04-28 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. My daughter is still playing Halo2 PC. Well, at least I haven't heard her bitching that the servers are down and trust me she would scream and yell. She's quite the Halo player that one.
  
  --
  "The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
In other news... by alex-tokar · 2010-04-27 23:44 · Score: 1

... global warming caused by crazy gamers.
This is why I love PC by Stenchwarrior · 2010-04-27 23:47 · Score: 1

Go ahead and drop support. I'll build a server, host the game and anyone can play...FOREVER!

--
Loading...
1. Re:This is why I love PC by HopefulIntern · 2010-04-27 23:57 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Not with Modern Warfare 2 you can't.
2. Re:This is why I love PC by wed128 · 2010-04-28 00:07 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  So buy a different game.
3. Re:This is why I love PC by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-28 00:18 · Score: 0
  
  *cof* Modern Warfare 2 *cof*
  I read somewhere that there are now dedicated servers for it, but it makes me think...
4. Re:This is why I love PC by Stenchwarrior · 2010-04-28 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  That's because Modern Warfare 2 is a shitty console port.
  
  --
  Loading...
Re:One of the ley reasons I don't like online game by Stenchwarrior · 2010-04-27 23:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

Exactly. ANY old ID game (not sure if you can say this about Duke Nukem or some older Blizzard games) still has many servers up and running AND people actually playing in them. I guess their Celeron 300 (Oc'd to 400, ofc) and their dual VOODOO2 running in SLI has to be used for something. But game-play can, in theory, go on indefinitely or until they stop supporting IPv4. Even then someone will build a patch. Because they can.

--
Loading...
Forget the politics - these guys are awesome by Liambp · 2010-04-28 00:03 · Score: 3, Funny

Forget about the politics for a moment. What these guys are doing is an awesome tale of human perseverance in the face of adversity. As a fellow gamer I salute them
1. Re:Forget the politics - these guys are awesome by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-28 01:48 · Score: 0
  
  Nah..
  What people should really do is reverse-engineer Halo's communication with MS server and create a server replacement (similar to bnetd), that way anyone would be able to play. Of course that would require leet skillz.
2. Re:Forget the politics - these guys are awesome by Spacezilla · 2010-04-28 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  I agree. I salute them for their courage and I applaud their perseverance and I embrace them for their faith in the face of adversarial forces.
I suspect... by vikingpower · 2010-04-28 00:03 · Score: 0, Troll

...that each of those 13 people are game addicts. I also suspect this to be true for a significant percentage of the posters here.

--
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Re:One of the ley reasons I don't like online game by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-28 00:04 · Score: 0

Or just 4-to-6 bridge it
Re:One of the ley reasons I don't like online game by benjymous · 2010-04-28 00:11 · Score: 1

Phantasy Star Online? Not so much.
http://www.schtserv.com/ - I've used that to play Both the GC Ep1&2 and the PC BlueBurst online successfully
It seems to contain players who actually want to play PSO, too, unlike the real servers, that just ended up with idiots using exploits to make other people crash

--
Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
Shutting them down by YourExperiment · 2010-04-28 00:14 · Score: 1

I think what these guys are doing is cool. But is there something in the ToS which says they can continue to play as long as they don't disconnect? I would imagine that Microsoft could shut this down at any time. Quite how long they'll leave it before they do, with the bad press that would come with it, I don't know.
1. Re:Shutting them down by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-28 00:22 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah they can just lag them out one by one at random times over the next day or so. I doubt there's anything in the TOS that says they can continue to play as long as they don't disconnect.
  I'd wager it says in the TOS Microsoft can get away with bloody murder too.
2. Re:Shutting them down by flink · 2010-04-28 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  I believe the game itself is not hosted on the XBox Live servers. Live acts as a matchmaking service, but the person who starts the game is hosting it on their box. As long as all the players stay connected, the game will continue indefinitely.
Was on there as well by fyrewulff · 2010-04-28 00:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

I was on Halo 2 aswell until a couple of days ago. Actually got recorded in the last ranked game of Halo 2.
It's kind of neat how fast the community got friendly with each other. I actually saw teabagging completely stop once it dropped down to about 30-40 people left.

--
"We need to get over this notion, that, for Apple to win... Microsoft must lose." - Steve Jobs, 1997
Re:Isn't this what the fanboys said was impossible by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-28 00:26 · Score: 1, Informative

Microsoft never said they would do anything like that. Anyone who trusted MS to open up their games before shutting down never had any basis to stand on to begin with.
However, Valve (who runs Steam) is on record saying they've got a method set up (and tested to work) to deactivate their (already rather lenient) DRM should they ever go under. And Valve has consistently proven themselves to be a hell of a lot more trustworthy than Microsoft - CEO Gabe Newell gave a speech at GDC about how intrusive/customer-harming DRM is a terrible failure of a business model, and Valve's development teams (especially the team behind Team Fortress 2) have always been very benevolent with free additional content and reaching out to their community.
LAN Play? by TheNinjaroach · 2010-04-28 00:33 · Score: 1

I could be confusing it with the original Halo, but doesn't Halo 2 support LAN play? I recall a piece of software titled GameSpy Arcade that allows XBox LAN play to be tunneled over the internet. They even provide matchmaking servers where you can meet people online, chat with them and then fire up a game. Is there any reason why this doesn't work with Halo 2?

--
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
1. Re:LAN Play? by LordMyren · 2010-04-28 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  I too am rather surprised VPN isnt the main story here. Interesting to hear of a matchmaking service up to aid and assist, but I would've assumed the forums and anyone who gave a shit would have rallied together and carved out a niche in whatever VPN system needed. Honestly I was really hoping it'd prompt that kind of hacker spirit in gamers, that the closure would be a net good thing by getting people involved with their infrastructure and technology again. Who knows, maybe they are doing cool things, it just doesnt make as good a story. Albiet, yes, VPN is not a cure-all; matchmaking in particular seems like a very very difficult thing to deal with. I have no idea what happens when you throw 1000 XBox's on a LAN and start up System Link, but I dont think its very pretty / usable (iirc system link tended to assume there would only be one lan session per game going on). Would love to know!
  
  "LAN play" is referred to in system, btw, as "System Link", and is just a crossover cable or LAN connection. Support is fairly comprehensive -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Xbox_System_Link_games -- but sometimes limited to two player.
2. Re:LAN Play? by MeanMF · 2010-04-28 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  You're correct - you can use Xlink Kai to play with other people over the Internet for free. It works fine and there are typically hundreds of Halo 2 players online at any given moment. It's also popular in countries where Xbox Live isn't available.
"For ones, is freedom" by Tei · 2010-04-28 00:55 · Score: 1

"For ones, is Freedom.
Others want One Item of Luxury.
Others want hugs. Others want sex.
One man Oxygen is other man luxury item. "

--
-Woof woof woof!
Uh? by wzzzzrd · 2010-04-28 01:08 · Score: 1

I somewhat understand when poor or bankrupt shut down servers or stop supporting them, but MS? I mean, Halo 2 is a somewhat recent game.

--
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
1. Re:Uh? by VGPowerlord · 2010-04-28 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  I somewhat understand when poor or bankrupt shut down servers or stop supporting them, but MS? I mean, Halo 2 is a somewhat recent game.
  How recent is recent? The game came out in November 2004.
  
  --
  GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
2. Re:Uh? by flink · 2010-04-28 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  The story I've heard is that the server software that runs XBox 1 and 360 Live services is the same software. So they are not shutting down anything, just dropping support for XBox 1. Supposedly XBox 1 legacy support was holding back new features for the 360, like upping the friend limit past 100.
3. Re:Uh? by Draek · 2010-04-28 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  It's the same age as Half-Life 2 and World of Warcraft, and half a year more recent than The Sims 2. It may not be "cutting-edge", but it's certainly not "old" either.
  Hell, it's even younger than Facebook, go figure.
  
  --
  No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
4. Re:Uh? by VGPowerlord · 2010-04-28 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  It's the same age as Half-Life 2 and World of Warcraft, and half a year more recent than The Sims 2. It may not be "cutting-edge", but it's certainly not "old" either.
  The only one of these that is still easily found in retail stores is World of Warcraft. That's no surprise, as updates are still pushed for it every few months. Not just that, but the next expansion involves updating all of the original game's contents... even for users who don't buy the expansion (hey, they're actually using all that money they earned to improve the game. Go figure.)
  The Sims 2 is old; The Sims 3 is new.
  Half-Life 2 is old; Left 4 Dead 2 is new.
  
  --
  GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Re:One of the ley reasons I don't like online game by TJamieson · 2010-04-28 01:38 · Score: 1

I guess their Celeron 300 (Oc'd to 400, ofc)
Nitpick... back in the day, we oc'd those bad boys to 450. The 300's were 66MHz bus * 4.5 multiplier; they mostly all moved nicely to the 100MHz bus to get a 450MHz chip with tiny cache. Still, cheaper than a P2-450 or P3-450 at the time.

--
For the last time, PIN Number and ATM Machine are redundancies!
Re:One of the ley reasons I don't like online game by Cutting_Crew · 2010-04-28 01:52 · Score: 1

you can still play starcraft on the old blizzard servers. in the evening it is still pretty active too.

i wonder whats going to happen when Blizzard finally stops updating WOW? lol
Re:One of the ley reasons I don't like online game by VGPowerlord · 2010-04-28 01:55 · Score: 1

ANY old ID game (not sure if you can say this about Duke Nukem or some older Blizzard games) still has many servers up and running AND people actually playing in them.
iD and Raven's earlier networked shooters (Doom*, Doom 2, Heretic, Hexen) didn't have Internet play built-in. Nor did Duke Nukem 3D**.
Quake was the first FPS game to introduce a client-server system, as opposed to the peer-to-peer system earlier games used. This means it was also the first game that used dedicated servers. (Side note: Its Internet play sucked at first, until the network support was rewritten and released as QuakeWorld.)
Blizzard still runs Battle.Net for the games that came with support for it. Unfortunately, the first game with that was StarCraft, after which is was backported to Warcraft 2 (to make Warcraft 2: Battle.Net Edition). Blizzard did support Kali for the original release of Warcraft 2, though.
*The official Windows port of Doom supports DirectPlay, part of DirectX.
**Actually, DN3D may also have come with the Kali client... I don't remember.

--
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
See also: Tea Parties by twoallbeefpatties · 2010-04-28 01:57 · Score: 1

In Soviet Russia, minor tragedies exaggerate YOU!

--
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
There are other options... by ChinggisK · 2010-04-28 02:09 · Score: 1

There are other options than Xbox Live for Halo 2 multiplayer, like XBConnect. I haven't tried using it for Halo 2, but back in the day I used it a good bit for playing some online Halo 1 multiplayer (there was no Xbox Live for Halo 1) and it was pretty sweet. Maybe not as good as Live, but still, it's something.
Re:One of the ley reasons I don't like online game by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-28 02:21 · Score: 0

there will be mass suicides by nerds all across the nation/world.
Re:One of the ley reasons I don't like online game by LordMyren · 2010-04-28 02:30 · Score: 1

I had a BP6 with dual 450's running 575. Not nearly the same % increase, but the 450's were barely more expensive than the 300's by the time I mustered up the cash for the mobo and first cpu.
XLink Kai by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-28 02:41 · Score: 0

If you really need your Halo2 multiplayer fix, LAN tunneling should still work.
Look up XLink Kai and play some system link.
Re:One of the ley reasons I don't like online game by Stenchwarrior · 2010-04-28 02:51 · Score: 1

Ah, sorry...that's right 450mhz. Damn it's been forever since I even thought about those bad boys.

--
Loading...
Heartwarming by stillnotelf · 2010-04-28 03:01 · Score: 1

Should I be concerned that I find a story like this heartwarming?
Re:Isn't this what the fanboys said was impossible by brkello · 2010-04-28 03:31 · Score: 1

Uh, no. That's a load of crap. The only time people say anything like that is in regards to Steam. I have never seen the opinion that when MS took down its live service on the original xbox that they were going to open things up.

So stop making stuff up so that you could feel smug.

--
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
Re:One of the ley reasons I don't like online game by TJamieson · 2010-04-28 03:58 · Score: 1

HA! Excellent! I also had a BP6, but with 533's. Then I learned how nice having a bigger L2 cache is, got burned by terrible Creative drivers that couldn't deal with SMP, and switched off to a P3-800EB. Ahh memories.

--
For the last time, PIN Number and ATM Machine are redundancies!
Re:One of the ley reasons I don't like online game by TJamieson · 2010-04-28 03:59 · Score: 1

Yeah, me too. Your post brought back some nice memories for me, of the days when squeezing 150MHz actually mattered. 'Holy crap, Carmageddon runs GREAT now!'

--
For the last time, PIN Number and ATM Machine are redundancies!
They bought the wrong version by Swifti · 2010-04-28 05:01 · Score: 1

The PC version of Halo 2 is still going on strong and fine since it has a corresponding dedicated server client. I hope this illustrates to console players why dedicated servers are so important when it comes to multiplayer and why PC gamers became so indignant when Modern Warfare 2 was announced to not have dedicated servers.
Wait until Apple does this with the iPad/pod/phone by Animats · 2010-04-28 05:28 · Score: 1

"Apple Computer today announced that support for the obsolete iPod has been discontinued. Users with existing units will be able to play content already on the device, but will be unable to access new content or sync with a computer running iTunes. The new JobsPod Player will, of course, continue to work, although it will not be possible to transfer content from obsolete iPod units to the JobsPod."
This is why I won't buy the Kindle/Nook/Sony e-Reader/iP*d. Maybe two of those will survive, and you'll lose content locked to the others.
Re:One of the ley reasons I don't like online game by Stenchwarrior · 2010-04-28 05:45 · Score: 1

I upgraded my 5x86 133 to a full Pentium 133, doubled my RAM from 8 to 16 MB and bought a 2Mb video card instead of a 1Mb. I distinctly remember playing Quake right after the upgrade, looking up and saying to myself "holy shit, those floaty blobs were clouds this whole time!"
And remember the HUGE difference 3DFX and Open GL made for GL Quake? Damn I'm old...

--
Loading...
Re:One of the ley reasons I don't like online game by TJamieson · 2010-04-28 06:35 · Score: 1

Phew... now you've taken me back. I remember upping my 486/33 from 4M RAM to 8M so I could properly play Lands of Lore : The Throne of Chaos. It's funny to look back now; games truly drove all the upgrades back then. And as you said, when 3DFX and OpenGL hit? It was a whole new level. Now our machines are more capable, but are often less fun to use.

--
For the last time, PIN Number and ATM Machine are redundancies!
Re:One of the ley reasons I don't like online game by Stenchwarrior · 2010-04-28 07:04 · Score: 1

You said it. Those games were seemingly way more fun to play than some of today's games. To (loosely) quote a fellow /.'er: I can imagine a fun, ok-looking game to look pretty, but I can't imagine a boring, pretty game to be more fun.
Maybe today's games are just as fun as they once were, but the excitement of going to friends' houses and spending as much time trying to figure out how to network 15+ computers together as we did actually playing, just isn't there anymore. I mean, being able to move my guy around on the screen and watch it on the guys screen next to me was completely mind-blowing! We felt like we were kings of technology when we made it all work. Granted, we didn't actually invent the protocols or network hardware, but being to actually put on a successful LAN party instilled a certain amount of pride.
I'm sure 20 years from now our kids will be sitting around talking about what a pain it was to lug around their console and play games picture-in-picture. Not like the lazy kids of the future that will just carry their entire gaming, music, video, telecommunications system in their pocket and plug them into their 2" LCD eye-wear and play any person from any location. Bastards.

--
Loading...
Re:One of the ley reasons I don't like online game by Sowelu · 2010-04-28 07:20 · Score: 1

And if someone writes a GameSpy for Halo 2 (hell, I'm sure there's something like that out there already), people can use it to play Halo 2 online, just like they used it to play Quake online. Quake never had a centralized server, and now Halo 2 is just like Quake in that regard. It's not like they removed the ability to connect by IP.
Re:One of the ley reasons I don't like online game by SuiteSisterMary · 2010-04-28 08:13 · Score: 1

Oh, you crazy kids today. Come back and talk to me when you fondly remember creating customized config.sys and autoexec.bat files to squeeze that last few kb of RAM so that Wing Commander 2's voice files would play. Or trying to decide if, when playing X-Wing, you'd rather have slightly slower frame rates, or laser blasts that had a different shade of orange in the center. Or running a TSR that emulates EGA on your Hercules monochrome. (to this day, I remember playing Life or Death on a Hercules Monochrome rig and calling it the Vulcan Edition.) Or plugging a loadfast cart into your C64 and pointing a fan at the floppy drive for those times when you're 18 hours into Pool of Radiance and you're going to be pissed if the damn thing overheats and wigs out. Or trying to figure out why your Atari 2600 adaptor suddenly decided not to talk to your Coleco Vision. And I'm not even *that* old. Am I?

--
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
ummm.... not to be a wrench by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-28 08:59 · Score: 0

but hasn't anyone ever heard of http://www.xbconnect.com/
wouldn't this work just as well?
Re:Isn't this what the fanboys said was impossible by Kalriath · 2010-04-28 12:02 · Score: 1

Valve, huh? The company that revoked tons of L4D2 CD keys legitimately purchased because people found a way to purchase them from a cheaper market's store?
Yeah, fuck Valve.

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Re:Isn't this what the fanboys said was impossible by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-28 12:04 · Score: 0

If by "cheaper market's store" you mean illegitimate foreign retailer selling stolen keys, then yes, you're quite correct.
Re:Isn't this what the fanboys said was impossible by Kalriath · 2010-04-28 13:43 · Score: 1

If by "illegitimate foreign retailer selling stolen keys" you mean Valve, then yes, you're quite correct.

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Re:Isn't this what the fanboys said was impossible by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-28 14:13 · Score: 0

Do tell, when did this happen? Because several Google searches reveal absolutely nothing. The closest story I can remember is Steam revoking Modern Warfare 2 keys purchased from online "CD key" stores.
Still sold at best buy btw by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-28 14:53 · Score: 0

Halo 2 can be purchased at Best Buy for the old Xbox
Diablo2 is cripple-crapware. I sadly played... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-28 15:22 · Score: 0

Just get away from it, dude. Break the CD's. Blizzard makes their entertainment have a certain hypnotic feel to it that you aren't satisfied with the results but still are urged to play it. They intentionally did this, and they've payed people for studies in visual effects.
Just go over and play Tremulous, SkullTag, XEvil, Wesnoth, and a couple others because you always have a feeling of release when you're playing and you stop playing at any time because you are that more pleased to stop whenever you want. There's also 4Chan over in /new/adv/u/g/k if you want a good RPG styled after StormFront/60Minutes/AnimalPlanet.
Re:Isn't this what the fanboys said was impossible by Kalriath · 2010-04-28 16:42 · Score: 1

Oh, it's Orange Box, not L4D2. Same principle applies:
http://games.slashdot.org/story/07/10/25/1845228/Valve-Locking-Out-Gamers-Who-Buy-Orange-Box-Internationally

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Show me the money by garglebutt · 2010-04-28 19:06 · Score: 1

The obvious explanation is that you don't make any money maintaining infrastructure for a 7.5 year old game.

--
Do anything, anywhere, anytime.