Slashdot Mirror
Halo 2 Online Preservation Effort Ends
A couple weeks ago, we discussed news that some dedicated Halo 2 fans were keeping the game's multiplayer alive after support for online play was dropped. Now, a few days shy of a month after support ended, the last users have been knocked off the server.
"[A user named] Apache N4SIR outlasted everyone. 'May 11th @ 0158hrs I was FORCEFULLY REMOVED!!' he wrote on the forums at Bungie.net. 'I thought I'd be the one turning off the lights but that was done for me. Good night everyone, my Elite needs a rest.' His last comrade in arms, Agent Windex, was still signed on, as spotted by Kotaku at 4 p.m. US Pacific Time on May 10, but their adventure, which began on April 15, ended after Windex announced 21 minutes later that he had been removed from play and Apache N4SIR suffered a similar fate hours later, as he described in his post."
People are still playing everything from Quake's Team Fortress to Tribes 2, with their own dedicated servers and authentication systems.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Really hoping that's sarcasm... I would MUCH rather see updates and innovations added to XBL than having to be backwards compatible. Microsoft is actually moving in the RIGHT direction this time.
BTW, you can still play Halo 2:
Using XLink or XBConnect. Both of which are basically just VPNs that trick your xbox into thinking your buddy across the pond (or down the road) is on your LAN.
On Windows Vista (Halo 2 PC)
Local Splitscreen.
Better yet, why not try something new?!
Actually, i know that EA's games carry such a warning on the back (altough in very small print). Especially on their sports games. It reads something along the lines of "EA may retire online features after 30 days notice posted on www.ea.com or 30 days after the last day of the 2008-2009 NFL season."
They don't need to provide legacy support for old games though - if their games are created in such a way that users can run their own game servers, someone else can do it as long as there's someone that still wants to play the game.
As others have pointed out in this discussion, PC games from as far back as Quake (1996) are still perfectly playable because it uses an 'open', dedicated server based framework for its multiplayer services.
Sadly, the PC world is catching up to the console world in this respect - because developers are less interested in having you play their game for more than ten years. They don't see the advantages in having a game that lives that long and instead want you to continue buying the next version every year or so. Unfortunately for people that care about having good games that will last for a really long time (like me), this model is proving super-successful.
Unfortunately the future of PC gaming through traditional (dedicated server) means is in jeopardy as far as mainstream titles are concerned.
PC games used to have an online edge because even if a game was created across many platforms the PC game would have Modding capabilities as well as dedicated servers. This edge would continue as games would become timeless and online play would only be limited by community support rather than some douche behind a desk crunching numbers.
Unfortunately this differentiation has been eroded by the idea that simplification sells.
SOURCE: http://modernwarfare2.infinityward.com/
And let us say, just for the sake of argument, that all the major game companies decided to be pricks and got together and quit making new PC games tomorrow. How many of you actually have ALL the good PC games, hmmm? Hell I'm still finding great new mods for Freelancer and that game came out 7 years ago!
If the game company acts like a prick, don't buy from them. Instead vote with your dollars and buy from somebody that treats you decent like good old games that don't fill your PC with DRM or make you phone home just to play. This is one of the reasons I refuse to give up PC gaming and mess with consoles. If MSFT, or Ubisoft, or any other game company acts like a total douche I can take my business elsewhere, and there is plenty of products to choose from, but if for example I'd have went with PS3 and wanted to keep my OtherOS and still game? Tough shit, buy another console.
With consoles ONE company owns the keys to the kingdom, and it is their way or nothing. With the PC I can buy big games or indy, new or classics, and have a wealth of places to shop at. EA killing online multiplayer on the consoles when the sequel comes out is just a glimpse of the console's future. It will be pay and pay and pay some more if you actually want to get the full on and off line gameplay. Finally with DLC I'm predicting the PHBs at the major game companies will pretty much destroy new games on both consoles and PC, by chopping them into pieces and nickel and diming the player to death to "maximize profit potential" so a new game will end up costing you $100+ just to get to play the whole thing.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
You forgot about the various online TCP/IP multiplayer Doom mods. A game from 1993 that has been updated through the years and still has good mods coming out for out. You can't say that for today's games.
So you can pay Microsoft again and again and again.
Also don't forget the new hardware you'll be needing that would run your new fangled os.
Hasselblad recently brought out a digital camera back for their old film cameras, which is compatible with all their V-system cameras, which they made from 1957. They include software which corrects for lens errors for every lens they've ever made.
If I buy a game for my console, I know it will play properly.
Unless it's a couple years old of course. Which is, you know, what the article is talking about.