Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Codemasters Shuts Down GRID Online Multiplayer

Posted by Soulskill on from the sorry-about-your-luck dept.

crookedvulture writes "This is why gamers make such a fuss about being able to host their own dedicated servers. Codemasters has shut down the online multiplayer component of three-year-old racing game GRID because a third party declined to renew its contract to host PC and PlayStation 3 servers for the game. Folks with the Xbox 360 version will still be able to play online, but Codemasters doesn't offer much in the way of an apology for everyone else. Perhaps it's time for game publishers unwilling to release dedicated servers to be required to maintain their own multiplayer servers for a set number of years after a title's launch."

17 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. Even if they aren't taking offline... by gubers33 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They are usually abandoned. I know in the case of Call of Duty, after a new release in the line comes out, exploits stop being patched in the predecessors. This happens in many other games as well the servers are left on, but are never patched or touched again.

    --
    Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
    1. Re:Even if they aren't taking offline... by haystor · · Score: 2

      I must have missed the part where Call of Duty was actually patching the exploits.

      --
      t
    2. Re:Even if they aren't taking offline... by poly_pusher · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Interestingly, this problem is reduced by allowing players to have their own servers. I've had a variety of servers for different games. Somebody comes in and appears to be hacking, they're gone. Racism; gone. Disrespectful; gone.

      Punkbuster-type services and exploit patches are useful and absolutely necessary but the easiest way to avoid those problems is to get familiar with a clan or group that has their own servers and admin's that are there frequently enough to do something about it. Even with a game that is frequently updated, the exploits will never cease. Like for instance, throwing c4 30 feet in bad company 2... That's an actively patched game and that exploit has been around for at least 6 months...

    3. Re:Even if they aren't taking offline... by sortius_nod · · Score: 2

      The only people who stop playing on servers with active (not "thin-skinned") administration are cheaters and lamers. Having run gaming servers for over 15 years, populations come from having a great environment to play in. Most hardcore players hate cheaters and don't want to be trolled by a 12 year old when playing their favourite game.

      Someone getting kick/banned with a reason is usually followed by "lol" or "idiot" on most actively admined servers. I can't say I've ever seen someone emo fit and/or rage quit because someone got kicked for cheating, being a racist or trolling everyone else.

  2. At least I know why I'm paying for on Live now by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, that $5 a month finally gets me SOMETHING over PSN and Steam.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  3. More regulation? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Perhaps it's time for game publishers unwilling to release dedicated servers to be required to maintain their own multiplayer servers for a set number of years after a title's launch.

    How about... no?

    1. Re:More regulation? by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      I'd say the bigger problem is what to do about the ever shortening time some of these games are up as you end up with dead games on shelves being sold to unsuspecting players. If you want to know how to stop this retail would be a good place to start, as letting customers know these games are worthless as the MP has been pulled would leave retailers with plenty of merchandise they can't give away, who in turn will pitch royal bloody shitfits at the publishers.

      Because with some of these games (EA) barely getting 2 years if even that you'd be surprised at how many times worthless games are sitting there on the shelves of big retail giants like BB and Walmart. These games should be treated no different than ruined milk or moldy bread, it is a product unsuitable for purpose since it was being sold for use with features X-Z and now Y and Z are DOA and with more and more games requiring online activation as well you might not even get X.

      So if these retailers were forced to take a bath on unsold product because the company has tossed it then I bet they will bring appropriate pressure to bear on the rest of the industry. I'm sure EA and Codemasters wouldn't like it if a few of the retail giants refused to stock their product just like many of them refused to carry Dreamcast after getting burnt by Sega. If you want to get these guys to listen hit them where it hurts, right in the wallet.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  4. False Advertising? by Zeek40 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Can someonen go after them for false advertising? It says it's a multiplayer game right there on the box. How long does that obligate them to back up that claim?

    1. Re:False Advertising? by wjousts · · Score: 2

      Probably no. I would expect buried somewhere in the EULA or even on the box is some blurb about being able to discontinue service whenever they feel like it (usually with 30 days notice or something similar).

    2. Re:False Advertising? by VGPowerlord · · Score: 2

      They aren't legally responsible for updating out of date boxes at retail vendors now.

      This has a corollary: they are legally responsible for updating the description on digital game stores that they publish on.

      Anyone know if the Steam game page for this game is advertising multiplayer?

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
  5. Host own servers? by haeger · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sounds like a good thing if you don't do it like "Alien vs Predator" where it's bloody annoying to find anyone to connect to. You've got a lot of servers to choose from in friendly match, all with 1-3 players, and it takes forever for any game to start.
    Ranked matches are even more annoying where you're stuck in a queue for a very long time until someone starts a server, and if the guy running the server isn't winning near the end of the match he'll just leave, and everyone is forced out.

    Seems like making a good multiplayer is hard.

    I actually have GRID for PS3. Too bad I didn't get to play online.

    --
    You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
    1. Re:Host own servers? by mlts · · Score: 2

      What game companies need to do is do it in stages:

      Stage 1: This lasts from mid beta until about a month after the game is released. Have a bunch of servers spun up ready to handle the capacity.

      Stage 2: This lasts from a month to a year. Resize the servers to what load the players are doing.

      Stage 3: A year to two years: Publish the API the game uses for the servers, as well as skeleton source code for servers. Patch the game with the option to use third party servers.

      Stage 4: 2-3 years out from game release. Keep a few servers up, but try to get the main load phased to user run servers.

      Stage 5: 3 years out from game release and all expansions: "Throw the switch", publish source code, disable the original game maker servers, and only have the option for user machines. The user community is now essentially on its own, and the game can continue with an indefinite lifespan.

    2. Re:Host own servers? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      So long as the API is published, I don't see why games companies should have to publish source code - there can be some very nice stuff in that there source code that they don't want competitors to see (such as large realm balancing across physical nodes etc - don't want to give the competition a heads up on how you manage to maintain the loads that you do).

  6. Not to worry.... by wjousts · · Score: 2

    ...I'm sure a sequel is just around the corner. So you'll still be able to play online just as soon as you fork over another $50/$60 for Grid II!

  7. May have a solution... by Scott+Kevill · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I need to look into this further, but I may be able to provide a solution. GameRanger has "rescued" many other orphaned multiplayer PC games in the past.

    --
    GameRanger - multiplayer gaming service for PC and Mac games
  8. Re:And this is the problem... by obarthelemy · · Score: 2

    So your solution is committees of academics/philosophers ? You do realize those same academics have shown they'll take big corps' money (I'm sure philosophers would too, if anybody offered). Ever heard of Lyssenko ?

    Your solution lacks a big element: accountability. I'm assuming you're young, possibly still a student, with faith in god-like infallible father figures. There are nowhere near enough of those. The next best solution is elected politicians.

    --
    The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
  9. Re:Well, that sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let me ask a question then: What platform are their dedicated servers running on? Are you assuming it's the same platform as your client? That's not a valid assumption.

    No, but it's not necessarily an unreasonable one.

    What if the dedicated servers are running Linux

    That's no big deal; Linux software can be run on a lot of platforms, OSX and Cygwin included, provided the source is also released.

    or Mac OS or OS/2?

    Just how likely would you say that is? Mac isn't beyond the realms of possibility but OS/2? Who still uses that in production environments?

    What if they're designed for systems with no less than 24GB of RAM?

    Then it was badly written and the source code might well be necessary.

    Without facts you have no way to base your assertion that an end-user -can- run a dedicated server for this game. It might be impossible without significant change to the code.

    Discussions tend to be pretty dull when all parties have all the facts; assumptions are nearly always needed at some point. In the absence of a statement from CM on releasing a dedicated server or the source we're stuck with a certain number of assumptions, valid and not.