It's so odd that people complain and say it costs next to nothing to host and how easy it is. I get that people want to express their fondness for a game and sadness that it's going, but if you're going to attack a business for cutting costs get pro-active about it and start your own server. You want a Battlefield server to stay up that's going down? Make your own. I get you can't for consoles, which is understandable but still lame, but if you want to save your favourite game, do it yourself or accept that this is how it has to be.
These Electronic Arts Games No Longer Online on August 11
@PandaBear: I do host my own dedicated server on my desktop at home, and I gotta say, I'm totally on the other side of this from you. It takes so little resources just out of my desktop for the people that play on it (10 or so at a given time), and the actual server is hosted on my machine. I can't imagine the small amount of resources it takes to just say "yeah, your serial key is still good," and hand the game back off to the client. People wouldn't have room to gripe if these games were given to us for free, but these are games we paid for, and they're taking them away because they're hosting the servers for them (something we never asked them to do). It's like a car dealership selling you a car for full price, saying that they're the only ones allowed to put gas in it (but you still have to pay for the gas), and then 2-5 years down the road refusing to put gas in it anymore just to make you buy a new one. Considering that games got more expensive in the last few years, it makes it a tough sell for people like me who still play older games like BattleField 2 at LAN parties.
I can understand doing this with older sports games since the die hard fans of those series just tend to buy the newest game anyways but something like Army of Two is kind of odd to shut down since well co op was the main point to that game. Then again it is like 3 years old and by now no one is really playing it so I guess it doesnt make sense to be running and paying for unused servers.
More and more, games are being considered services rather than products, and I absolutely hate it. How would you react if you bought a DVD and a few years later, you can't watch half the movie? That makes no sense. I know that online gaming takes resources, but it's not as EA don't have the funds to support their community.
As a self-professed Achievement whore, I can see that Army of Two is going to spend a little more time in my disc tray than expected over the next couple of weeks. It always disappoints me to see servers close down, seeing as I have a nasty habit of collecting too large a stash of yet-unplayed games, but such is the risk I suppose.
I could make arguments both for and against them shutting down servers on older titles, but I'm sure there's been plenty enough of that already, both on "teh internets" and in the EA board rooms. Note to self: make more concerted effort to unlock online Achievements as soon as I pick up a game, and worry about all the single-player later, when the existence of servers matters not.
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.