• 90 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by StingingVelvet (569 posts) -

EA DLC and multiplayer goes through their own servers, not the console companies'. EA just announced that their standard online features closure this time included The Saboteur, a singleplayer game. It ends up what they are ending is "access" to the singleplayer DLC "The Midnight Club" which added gambling games and strip shows to the game.

Not a big deal but it's still scary to me to see singleplayer content go away. I don't know what ending "access" means but since the content is off EA servers there is a chance you won't be able to download it again even if you bought it.

This has happened before and will happen more as we head toward our digital future. Singleplayer DLC on the original Xbox for games like Splinter Cell and Knights of the Old Republic is now inaccessible unless you mod your console and "pirate" it.

With DLC being such a huge thing now and containing such works of art as Lair of the Shadowbroker and Point Lookout is anyone else freaked out by the idea this content could eventually cease to exist? MMOs and multiplayer are one thing, you go in knowing they are limited, but singleplayer content? Freaky. Not to mention how many games now-a-days need patches to function properly and those patches are dependent on servers as well.

Retro gaming in 20 years will be a LOT different than today's.

#2 Posted by Dagbiker (6967 posts) -

Keep the signal alive.

#3 Posted by iAmJohn (6117 posts) -

That's ridiculously fucked up.

#4 Posted by SSully (4158 posts) -

It would be disturbing if the DLC wasn't basically a bunch of shitty mini games. Let's have this conversation when a significant piece of DLC has its servers taken down.

#5 Posted by BleedingStarX (279 posts) -

@rebgav said:

Does the dlc still work if you already have it or does it rely on online authentication?

I would assume it just means itll no longer be downloadable

#6 Posted by Pocky4Th3Win (134 posts) -

Sup Velvet, Haven't seen ya in a long time. Didn't think EA shutting down useless servers would be the thing to drag you out of hiding.

#7 Edited by JamesJeux007 (472 posts) -

Well, I'm not really worried.

The reason is, I already had an experience with DLC that went offline with the Skies of Arcadia "DLC" on Dreamcast. And all I had to do to get it now that the Dreamcast online doesn't exist anymore was to burn the DLC on a CD, put it in my Dreamcast and save it in my VM. Hopefully, if some major DLC ever goes offline one day, it will still be available to download.

Just look at emulation, people ALWAYS find a way. There's nothing to be worried about.

#8 Posted by Hizang (8532 posts) -

I don't really think it's a big issue, if you would have wanted to play the DLC for a 4 year old game I'm sure you would have at this point.

#9 Posted by ExplodeMode (852 posts) -

Yeah, I always think about those games that come out and are nearly broken without a day one patch and what happens in 5 years when those patch servers are taken down.

#10 Posted by Korwin (2846 posts) -

@Hizang said:

I don't really think it's a big issue, if you would have wanted to play the DLC for a 4 year old game I'm sure you would have at this point.

That'd hardly the point though. The problem is that EA has the power to effectively take away the things you bought. The Mass Effect example is good one, am I going to be able to play Overlord in 2 years time once ME2 is 4 years old? It's entirely likely that I might want to.

#11 Posted by Brodehouse (9871 posts) -

I mean, look at PC games from the mid 90s. Most of those don't work without some serious fucking around either, but we don't get ornery.

What's more likely to happen with these games that have DLC that get old and unsupported is that any new copy of the game will just come with it anyway. Look at the BG1+2 remakes, look at the bonus content for Resident Evil 4 that they just threw into the HD remakes.

You might have a point if the game was super unpopular and no one liked it. In which case, yeah I guess you'll have to do something weird for your weirdo tastes.

#12 Posted by Little_Socrates (5675 posts) -

I wish they'd just removed it from the stores as opposed to "ending access." I get why they wouldn't want to host a server for new customers, but it should hopefully be available for all players who already purchased it. Anyone own The Saboteur and the DLC who can chime in?

#13 Posted by RenMcKormack (1074 posts) -

@SSully said:

It would be disturbing if the DLC wasn't basically a bunch of shitty mini games. Let's have this conversation when a significant piece of DLC has its servers taken down.

shitty dlc or not this raises an important conversation. I mean, i think they would start here right? You don't cook a frog by throwing it into a hot pan. it'll jump out, you put the frog in the pan and slowly increase the heat. (get it?)

The real question is does this mean that the DLC is no longer available for download? I cant imagine its no longer accessible IF you have already downloaded it to you x box hard drive. it is a weird new era though. Like could you see Jeff and Ryan doing a 360 throwback day in the far flung-future as old grey men and stuff just being missing from the games. Like i can still play Mario Brothers 2 and its exactly the same as when I played it as a kid.

#14 Posted by BrockNRolla (1702 posts) -

If you buy a disc full of DLC and lose it, you can't go back to the store and get a new one, much less years later when the game is no longer being carried by the retailer.

Why should online DLC be any different, especially this many years down the line? If you can still play it, then you still own it. It only goes away if something happens to your data. If you're using someone else's servers to back up your data, and it isn't a service you're paying for, and they say, "Hey, I'm not going to back up your data anymore," what exactly are you complaining about?

I don't understand the controversy.

#15 Posted by VisariLoyalist (2991 posts) -

it's weird that they wouldn't just unlock it so to speak given they aren't going to be selling the dlc anymore

#16 Posted by NekuSakuraba (7240 posts) -

@Hizang said:

I don't really think it's a big issue, if you would have wanted to play the DLC for a 4 year old game I'm sure you would have at this point.

A lot of us have backlogs we like to go through, there is nothing wrong with playing older games.

#17 Posted by crusader8463 (14419 posts) -

Welcome to the world of the future!

#18 Edited by MayorFeedback (674 posts) -

It makes sense to shut down servers if no one is using them, I suppose. I just wish EA would stop SELLING those games after the fact. Pull that stuff from store shelves. The Saboteur's DLC is different, but they're shutting servers on games that are less than a year old.

Not an EA game but a good example, I still see Def Jam Rapstar everywhere and those servers have been shut down for a while. The whole recording video, posting to their portal, watching and rating other people's videos, all the online stuff just doesn't work. Doesn't even give you an explanation in game when you play it, so anyone buying it new isn't getting the full game anymore and will just wonder why their copy is busted. Bummer.

#19 Posted by Dagbiker (6967 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

I mean, look at PC games from the mid 90s. Most of those don't work without some serious fucking around either, but we don't get ornery.

What's more likely to happen with these games that have DLC that get old and unsupported is that any new copy of the game will just come with it anyway. Look at the BG1+2 remakes, look at the bonus content for Resident Evil 4 that they just threw into the HD remakes.

You might have a point if the game was super unpopular and no one liked it. In which case, yeah I guess you'll have to do something weird for your weirdo tastes.

Yah, but i shouldn't have to buy a product twice to get dlc that i already paid for. I also disagree with your 20 year old pc game theory because no one is actively taking away that product from you. Windows isnt programming windows 7 so you cant play Fallout 2. They are programming windows to the best(?) of their ability.

Having said that, it might, having the numbers EA has, make since to stop supporting the game.

#20 Posted by Jaqen_HGhar (883 posts) -

Huh. That is kinda bad I guess. But not new. I bought Burnout Paradise: The Ultimate Box on Steam a few days ago. I got in, I saw that you had something called Legendary and Toy Cars, which you had to buy to get access to. They are in the game and everything it seems, as you can see them fine on the preview at the junkyard. But when you go to the store those packs are "unavailable". It seems they have taken those servers down, so you have no way to get that content unlocked. Which is fucking stupid, as I want to drive around in small toy cars.

#21 Posted by Brodehouse (9871 posts) -

@Dagbiker said:

@Brodehouse said:

I mean, look at PC games from the mid 90s. Most of those don't work without some serious fucking around either, but we don't get ornery.

What's more likely to happen with these games that have DLC that get old and unsupported is that any new copy of the game will just come with it anyway. Look at the BG1+2 remakes, look at the bonus content for Resident Evil 4 that they just threw into the HD remakes.

You might have a point if the game was super unpopular and no one liked it. In which case, yeah I guess you'll have to do something weird for your weirdo tastes.

Yah, but i shouldn't have to buy a product twice to get dlc that i already paid for. I also disagree with your 20 year old pc game theory because no one is actively taking away that product from you. Windows isnt programming windows 7 so you cant play Fallout 2. They are programming windows to the best(?) of their ability.

Having said that, it might, having the numbers EA has, make since to stop supporting the game.

But if you already paid for it, and already downloaded it, why the fuck don't you have it anymore? Flat what. If you're concerned about losing it in a harddrive failure, make a backup. We used to pay for a single download token, now we're losing it because we won't have eternal download access?

#22 Posted by SSully (4158 posts) -

@RenMcKormack said:

@SSully said:

It would be disturbing if the DLC wasn't basically a bunch of shitty mini games. Let's have this conversation when a significant piece of DLC has its servers taken down.

shitty dlc or not this raises an important conversation. I mean, i think they would start here right? You don't cook a frog by throwing it into a hot pan. it'll jump out, you put the frog in the pan and slowly increase the heat. (get it?)

The real question is does this mean that the DLC is no longer available for download? I cant imagine its no longer accessible IF you have already downloaded it to you x box hard drive. it is a weird new era though. Like could you see Jeff and Ryan doing a 360 throwback day in the far flung-future as old grey men and stuff just being missing from the games. Like i can still play Mario Brothers 2 and its exactly the same as when I played it as a kid.

Most companies treat DLC as something that is an extra to the main game. So 20 years from now you can still play Mass Effect as it was when it released, you just wont get the extra DLC.

#23 Edited by mordukai (7150 posts) -

@StingingVelvet said:

EA DLC and multiplayer goes through their own servers, not the console companies'. EA just announced that their standard online features closure this time included The Saboteur, a singleplayer game. It ends up what they are ending is "access" to the singleplayer DLC "The Midnight Club" which added gambling games and strip shows to the game.

Not a big deal but it's still scary to me to see singleplayer content go away. I don't know what ending "access" means but since the content is off EA servers there is a chance you won't be able to download it again even if you bought it.

This has happened before and will happen more as we head toward our digital future. Singleplayer DLC on the original Xbox for games like Splinter Cell and Knights of the Old Republic is now inaccessible unless you mod your console and "pirate" it.

With DLC being such a huge thing now and containing such works of art as Lair of the Shadowbroker and Point Lookout is anyone else freaked out by the idea this content could eventually cease to exist? MMOs and multiplayer are one thing, you go in knowing they are limited, but singleplayer content? Freaky. Not to mention how many games now-a-days need patches to function properly and those patches are dependent on servers as well.

Retro gaming in 20 years will be a LOT different than today's.

I guess you never take the time to read the fine print. Do it once and see just how much fucked this whole thing is. For Example: Do you know MS has the full right to ban your XBL access even if you're paying for it . Did you know that when EA blocks, not ban BLOCKS, you from your origins account for any reason, even if it was a system glitch, you are effectively cut off from any content you paid for.

Just wait until you try playing DIablo 3 offline because it's not going to happen. They say it's to prevent pirating but hackers will find a way around it and the only ones who are going to get the short end will be the people who legally bought it.

Welcome to the wonderful world corporate logic.

#24 Posted by Coreymw (203 posts) -

It seems as though I need to hurry up and buy the DLC before it goes away. Does anyone know when this is happening?

Thinking about it now, I really liked this game.

#25 Posted by andriv (256 posts) -

@JamesJeux007 said:

Well, I'm not really worried.

The reason is, I already had an experience with DLC that went offline with the Skies of Arcadia "DLC" on Dreamcast. And all I had to do to get it now that the Dreamcast online doesn't exist anymore was to burn the DLC on a CD, put it in my Dreamcast and save it in my VM. Hopefully, if some major DLC ever goes offline one day, it will still be available to download.

Just look at emulation, people ALWAYS find a way. There's nothing to be worried about.

Nature always finds a way

#26 Posted by fox01313 (5069 posts) -

@Little_Socrates: Agreed, most of the 360 games I have if I get rid of the game, I'll keep the DLC just on the off chance of things like this happening to those games (on the off chance I want to go back to the game). Unless the publishers are putting out a complete version on a platinum title (ie. game of the year, anniversary, ect.), and considering most DLC is rather small in size, I'd prefer they left the DLC alone or just stack it together to just have all of it in one file. Not that the Saboteur was that great but the game itself was fun & shame people will miss out on the DLC

#27 Posted by DystopiaX (5300 posts) -

EA has been pulling this shit for years, this isn't the first time they've pulled access to servers. They also pulled Fifa 10 support, which IMO is more alarming because it's a multiplayer game only 2-3 years old- some people have to still be playing that shit.

#28 Posted by Deusoma (3005 posts) -

This is one of several reasons I think the much-lauded "digital future" idea is a really, really bad one.

#29 Edited by 234r2we232 (3181 posts) -

@VisariLoyalist said:

it's weird that they wouldn't just unlock it so to speak given they aren't going to be selling the dlc anymore

Remember who you're talking about here:

Bro, you don't wanna play boring old games for n00bs when you can play new games like Battlefield 3 and Mass Effect 3 and pwn your friends!
#30 Posted by DeF (4859 posts) -

THEY TOOK OUR TITTIES AWAY!

goddamn titties ...

on a serious note: I would have serious issues with this unless you were still able to download it if you've bought it or redeemed a code for it. if they remove the opportunity to purchase stuff like this, it's ...acceptable but completely restricting access is a bad move.

With big games like Mass Effect, there should be no problem since those games are at least very popular and probably will produce revenue far past their initial release period.

Online
#31 Posted by jozzy (2042 posts) -

This is an extremely slippery slope, and it definately worries me. In the age of digital downloads I sort of expect to be able to access what I bought for a long, long time.

#32 Posted by deskp (448 posts) -

Im sure the expiration date for unlocking the content must have expired by now ?

#33 Posted by sopranosfan (1935 posts) -

And to think some people are constantly talking about how great an entirely digital console would be. Won't this be fun when it applies to more and more games?

#34 Posted by BlackLagoon (1408 posts) -

I'd assume the Saboteur DLC thing is for the PC version only - on the consoles it'd be handled by Sony and Microsoft, not EA. In any case it's not exactly a huge loss. Some boobs, and a few stupid games I fiddled with a few minutes before going back to the game.

#35 Posted by TheCreamFilling (1225 posts) -

This is why I usually wait for the game of the year or ultimate editions with all the DLC on the disc.

#36 Posted by Jack268 (3387 posts) -

I'm more freaked out by the fact that I'm still waiting for the patch that was supposed to be out 6 months after release and it's like... 2 years later? 3?

#37 Posted by goatmilk (181 posts) -

Wow, this is incredibly stupid. Whether its great DLC or if people will miss it is beside the point. They're taking away something you paid for in a single player game. I kind of understand them shutting down multiplayer servers for older games but this is just ridiculous. In 10 years when someone discovers this game existed and wants to play through they'll have to turn to piracy to get the full experience, as rebgav said.

Give it time - they'll do the same to Mass Effect and THEN people will probably notice/care.

#38 Posted by tourgen (4465 posts) -

@Korwin said:

@Hizang said:

I don't really think it's a big issue, if you would have wanted to play the DLC for a 4 year old game I'm sure you would have at this point.

That'd hardly the point though. The problem is that EA has the power to effectively take away the things you bought. The Mass Effect example is good one, am I going to be able to play Overlord in 2 years time once ME2 is 4 years old? It's entirely likely that I might want to.

well you didn't buy anything. you payed for a single-user license. which they can revoke at any time for any reason. yeah it's messed up but people seem alright with it so what are you going to do

#39 Posted by jakob187 (21663 posts) -

If you walk into a Gamestop right now, you are welcomed by a bargain bin that is half-filled with The Saboteur.

This tells us that The Saboteur, even at bargain bin pricing, doesn't sell for shit.

Therefore, no problem with losing shitty DLC for a shitty game. = /

#40 Posted by Raven10 (1765 posts) -

I don't think it is any different than a store not carrying a game after three or four years. It's not like I could go to the store and actually buy The Saboteur if I wanted. Maybe at some big Gamestop they might have a used copy, but I can't buy a copy of Halo at Gamestop. I can't buy a copy of Final Fantasy 7. I'm sure if you have the DLC you can still play it. They are shutting down the servers, not stealing the content. You have a legal right to back up any software you buy. If you are worried about losing DLC then you should back it up after you buy it. Just insert a USB stick into your 360 or PS3 and you can save your game data for any game you have. If you fail to do that and you delete your only copy of the DLC then it is not EA's job to store a backup copy for you.

#41 Posted by Guided_By_Tigers (8061 posts) -

Interesting.....I just bought The Saboteur a couple of days ago too.

#42 Posted by Demoskinos (14768 posts) -

I had it on Ps3. I'll have to see if it shows up in my DLC list.

#43 Posted by LordAndrew (14426 posts) -
This is why I don't like DLC. Want to play the game for the first time a few years from now? Tough luck. Already have and played the game but this time want to achieve 100% completion? Can't let you do that, Xbox.
#44 Posted by SomeDeliCook (2291 posts) -

@SSully said:

It would be disturbing if the DLC wasn't basically a bunch of shitty mini games. Let's have this conversation when a significant piece of DLC has its servers taken down.

Any DLC for original Xbox games.

I really REALLY wish I had all the DLC maps and characters for Unreal Championship 2, however I got a new 360 after original Xbox servers went offline.

#45 Posted by SSully (4158 posts) -

@SomeDeliCook said:

@SSully said:

It would be disturbing if the DLC wasn't basically a bunch of shitty mini games. Let's have this conversation when a significant piece of DLC has its servers taken down.

Any DLC for original Xbox games.

I really REALLY wish I had all the DLC maps and characters for Unreal Championship 2, however I got a new 360 after original Xbox servers went offline.

It is a shame that this will happen to a lot of games, but I guess that is just a product of our current generation. It sucks, but it hasn't shown its ugly side to me yet. I honestly cannot name any DLC to a console game that I found to be good enough to justify the purchase. It always comes off as cheap and rushed compared to the full game, and that is most likely why I usually stay away from most DLC. With that said it is no excuse for publishers. Just because some users like myself dont care doesn't mean they should cut off future buyers from content.

#46 Posted by AiurFlux (902 posts) -

I don't really care that much about the Saboteur having the titty DLC shut down. What I care about more is the fact that a game that uses the online pass, in this case EA MMA, is having the servers shut down after only 17 months of activity. In the olden days this wouldn't matter because online was essentially a freebie, it wasn't an extra cost that you had to pay for, but now it is. If you buy a used copy you have to pay 10-15 dollars to access the online. I just think the entire practice is bullshit.

I still say the reason they're doing it is because they don't want people to rent games and try before they buy, because games now are so full of bugs that they make a Thai hookers twat look clean. If I would have rented Modern Warfare 2 instead of buying into the hype train I would never have bought it. If I rented Skyrim (PS3) I never would have bought it until the issues were fixed. I can go on and on and on.

Say what you want about having sympathy for game companies because they're losing a little bit of money on game rentals. Boo-fucking-hoo. In my city there are a minimum of 8 rental stores that went out of business. If 10 people work at each one that's 80 people, mostly college students or kids in high school, out of work. For a billion dollar fucking corporation that lies through it's teeth and continues to fuck over the consumer repeatedly. Ask me which one I have more sympathy for and I think you can easily tell. They found a scapegoat and focused in on it like a fucking shark hunting a sick, bleeding, and dying seal.

#47 Posted by easthill (351 posts) -

@AiurFlux said:

I don't really care that much about the Saboteur having the titty DLC shut down. What I care about more is the fact that a game that uses the online pass, in this case EA MMA, is having the servers shut down after only 17 months of activity. In the olden days this wouldn't matter because online was essentially a freebie, it wasn't an extra cost that you had to pay for, but now it is. If you buy a used copy you have to pay 10-15 dollars to access the online. I just think the entire practice is bullshit.

I still say the reason they're doing it is because they don't want people to rent games and try before they buy, because games now are so full of bugs that they make a Thai hookers twat look clean. If I would have rented Modern Warfare 2 instead of buying into the hype train I would never have bought it. If I rented Skyrim (PS3) I never would have bought it until the issues were fixed. I can go on and on and on.

Say what you want about having sympathy for game companies because they're losing a little bit of money on game rentals. Boo-fucking-hoo. In my city there are a minimum of 8 rental stores that went out of business. If 10 people work at each one that's 80 people, mostly college students or kids in high school, out of work. For a billion dollar fucking corporation that lies through it's teeth and continues to fuck over the consumer repeatedly. Ask me which one I have more sympathy for and I think you can easily tell. They found a scapegoat and focused in on it like a fucking shark hunting a sick, bleeding, and dying seal.

Yeah... I don't think this is about game rentals.

And what's the difference between buying a new or used copy of EA MMA and loosing access to the online? You still loose the multiplayer whether you bought the online pass or not. And the online pass was never meant to last forever.

#48 Posted by AiurFlux (902 posts) -

@easthill said:

Yeah... I don't think this is about game rentals.

And what's the difference between buying a new or used copy of EA MMA and loosing access to the online? You still loose the multiplayer whether you bought the online pass or not. And the online pass was never meant to last forever.

It's about both rentals and used game sales. They're both scapegoats. Don't expect me to have sympathy for Larry Probst or John Riccitello. Don't expect me to have sympathy for a company that has zero respect for their customer, and has shown that fact multiple times. Banning people from playing your games on Origin because they're banned on the forums? How in the fuck is that acceptable behavior? It isn't. Also I can accept that an online access would go away as games become obsolete and servers get shut down and cycled out, but it should be in the next generation of consoles or at least 5 years, not 17 months down the line. When you buy the game new, or the Online Pass, you are now buying access to the multiplayer of that game now because of the Online Pass. And that comes with an aspect of trust that they will provide, maintain, and monitor that service. Trust that EA does not, and should not, have apparently.

Now this entire argument that you and I could have is pointless because there isn't a precedence or just basic guidelines for these assholes to follow. Instead it's the wild west and they can do whatever the hell they want, and we basically have to get fucked up the ass or abstain from a hobby that I assume most of us love.

Want the honest truth? It's practices like this that turn people to piracy, and I can't blame them. Actually, for once, I can agree with them.

#49 Posted by Vorbis (2750 posts) -

Pretty unrelated but I weirdly enjoyed The Saboteur way more than I should have, just have these weird memories of driving around listening to GOTY podcasts with "Feeling Good" on the car radio.

The "DLC" was hardly even that, so in this case it's nothing to worry about. But eventually this will be Syndicate, Mass Effect, Dead Space and other major franchises. So yeah, one day being unable to download old DLC will be a larger problem when it comes to EA.

#50 Posted by yoshisaur (2701 posts) -

@StingingVelvet said:

EA DLC and multiplayer goes through their own servers, not the console companies'. EA just announced that their standard online features closure this time included The Saboteur, a singleplayer game. It ends up what they are ending is "access" to the singleplayer DLC "The Midnight Club" which added gambling games and strip shows to the game.

Not a big deal but it's still scary to me to see singleplayer content go away. I don't know what ending "access" means but since the content is off EA servers there is a chance you won't be able to download it again even if you bought it.

This has happened before and will happen more as we head toward our digital future. Singleplayer DLC on the original Xbox for games like Splinter Cell and Knights of the Old Republic is now inaccessible unless you mod your console and "pirate" it.

With DLC being such a huge thing now and containing such works of art as Lair of the Shadowbroker and Point Lookout is anyone else freaked out by the idea this content could eventually cease to exist? MMOs and multiplayer are one thing, you go in knowing they are limited, but singleplayer content? Freaky. Not to mention how many games now-a-days need patches to function properly and those patches are dependent on servers as well.

Retro gaming in 20 years will be a LOT different than today's.

No, because I think the idea of returning to games of the past is pointless. I love myself Super Mario World, but I would choose a modern game over it simply because mechanics have become tighter, stories have become standard, and pretty much everything that SMW lacked exists today in mass. Servers closing or OS incompatibilities have never "scared" me simply because I see no point in revisiting the past games other than for a nostalgic kick; And that's not that important to merit a change in today's system, at least not yet.