EA shuts down servers for old online games [Archive]

Food Nipple

08-06-2006, 08:48 AM

According to Joystiq (http://www.joystiq.com/), on August 1st EA shut down the servers for many of its 2005 edition games. EA also announced that additional games will lose support on October 1st. Among these games are the Madden 2005 edition.

Check the Joystiq story (http://www.joystiq.com/2006/08/06/no-more-online-gaming-for-you-says-ea/) for the full list of games.

One of the conditions EA had when they began to support XBL was that they wanted to use their own servers, giving them the power to force upgrades by shutting down old games' servers. Is anyone going to want to play 2 year old Madden anyways?

Knite

08-06-2006, 09:45 AM

Varsity

08-06-2006, 09:49 AM

Starcraft still makes Blizzard shedloads of money, remember.

It's not like the authentication and master servers are free, though I do expect this to be motivated by a desire on EA's part to force upgrades out of people.

bone_matrix

08-06-2006, 10:02 AM

When you said old games, I didn't think 2005 games. They aren't THAT old. Shutting down servers for NFL Street 2 already? Is there even a 3, or a 3 in the works? I think this is crap. Granted, I may not play those games, but for people who do, I feel for ya.

Sazime

08-06-2006, 10:13 AM

It's a crock of crap if you ask me. If I buy a game, and a friend buys a game, and we want to play against each other, we should be able to. 1 year, 2 years, 5 years from now. Hell, my friends STILL play StarCraft. what if Blizzard stopped all starcraft servers. Is anyone going to want to play a 8 year old starcraft anyways?
The cool thing about SC (and other PC games) is that there is always an option to directly connect. Things like Steam and Battle.net are merely there to help people connect to one another and give you options to play against people you don't know.
Starcraft still makes Blizzard shedloads of money, remember.
Do they advertise on Battle.net? Other than that, I can't see Blizzard making much money every year on SC. How many more new sales can there be?
It's not like the authentication and master servers are free, though I do expect this to be motivated by a desire on EA's part to force upgrades out of people.
Hell yes it is. That, and it saves them money not having to support a peer to peer connection option without using their servers. Well, there's always Hamatchi and good 'ol LAN.

Wonka

08-06-2006, 10:41 AM

A LOT of EA games are already inferior because of the inclusion of an extra server into the mix. I have had several times where I was not able to connect to friends (in EA games like Burnout Revenge and Battlefield:Modern Combat), because of these extra server shenanigans.

<sarcasm on>
Well at least it's nice to know there was something "worthwhile for consumers" coming out of the all the pain they already put their customers through with the specialized EA server business... Now they will "protect us" from these "older" games...
<sarcasm off>

Bastards.

In all honesty, this makes me want to boycott EA games. More than anything else they have done, this *REALLY* pisses me off. I will definitely think twice in the future about buying their online games. And hell I already do (because of the intermittent connection problems).

Varsity

08-06-2006, 10:42 AM

Do they advertise on Battle.net? Other than that, I can't see Blizzard making much money every year on SC. How many more new sales can there be?
Two words. South Korea.

TrackZero

08-06-2006, 10:42 AM

2k5 games, offline? I say EA are greedy fuckfaces.

TrackZero

08-06-2006, 10:43 AM

Two words. South Korea.

Not to mention that over the years, I lose my copy of SC from time to time and pick up other ones. I believe I've bought SC and Brood War 3 times each now.

ECM

08-06-2006, 10:43 AM

Do they advertise on Battle.net? Other than that, I can't see Blizzard making much money every year on SC. How many more new sales can there be?

They'll stop making money on Starcraft when Koreans stop reproducing.

Jack B

08-06-2006, 10:46 AM

This is primarily the reason I'm concerned about the PS3's decision to leave most of the decision making up to the individual software publishers. I belive many will decide not to incorporate online features or limit them or shut down servers to save money etc. I understand that at some point it doesn't make sense to keep a server up, but some publishers will make the decision sooner than others...

Microsoft makes it much easier to incorporate Live online functionality for all publishers and in many cases won't approve a title unless the Live feature set is available. Sony doesn't appear to be taking a similar stance.

I could be wrong about that, and maybe the PS3 service will not be the PS2 service all over again with the addition of a friends list, entitlements and a marketplace, but I'm still skeptical until I see what publishers will do.

Johan

08-06-2006, 10:50 AM

This is a boatload of crap, and another reason for me to hate EA. Frankly, I'm not willing or interested in spending $60 on the latest and barely changed Madden ('06 in particular was a disappointment for many). I understand the servers=$$$ issue, but EA held out on XBL specifically (it certainly seems, now) so that they could do this to consumers.

Momentary rant: The whole da** industry is screwed up with the $50-60 price point for most games...dropping to a bargain-bin within a year (or sooner) for most games.

I passionately HATE EA; and I hate the pricing of games in our industry as well...I feel like I've been mugged when I buy a game for $50-60 that drops to $20 or $30 a few months later...and which then (for EA) loses server support entirely. BS

Hey...isn't this false advertising? If you buy a game that states it has online functionality, and it doesn't, isn't that false advertising?

Sazime

08-06-2006, 10:58 AM

You know what? Now that I think about it, the only EA game I've bought in years, YEARS, is BF2.

Deadend

08-06-2006, 10:59 AM

These are 2004 games, and yep... EA really sucks about these things. They make Xbox Live worse with their junk, although in theory you can go cross platoform because of it.

wyeast

08-06-2006, 11:29 AM

Wow. Longtime lurker, but I had to register just so I could chime in on this asshattery.

Bad enough we've had to put up with all the Madden-esque shenanigans, getting rooked into spending $50 just for a roster update and ooh pretty colors. But this whole debacle with EA insisting on use of their servers is just a tool to enforce the New Cruelty upon the masses.

1) This whole mess with the servers and their cripple ability to handle private games and/or friendslist invitations is ridiculous. You read EA's boards or XBox's boards and there are scattered reports of these issues cropping up. Yes, they like to retort with "ooh, it's your router" except they provide zero help with troubleshooting what the problem is. Nobody sells routers that are "EA-compatible", and you have to wade through a sea of posts to figure out what solutions people have come up with. And it's laughable. The "fix" for Burnout Revenge is to invite everyone one at a time, then have them leave, then invite them all *back*. The "fix" for Battle for Middle Earth II was to delete the person from your friendslist and then re-invite them into the friendslist. The worst part is These Fixes are not Guaranteed. What works one day won't work the next because EA's servers are being grumpy that evening.

2) With just about every game in the EA library, one universal topic crops up in the forums. EA's servers suck. They're frequently down, or boot you out, or anything but provide you with a decent gaming experience. If EA provided a quality online service, ok, maybe we could swallow a little appreciation for being given servers for free (nevermind the XBox'ers already pay for Live! and you jackmonkeys insisted that MS let you use your own servers! You made this bed, don't come crying to me with some story about how you can't afford these servers now) and be understanding when they go, "ooh, it's costing us to support the 5 guys left playing a 4 year old game, can we move on?"

But no. It's obvious that EA's in it for the bank, and they view the consumers as whiny annoying cash cows. Yes yes, welcome to capitalism. I'm all for companies making money on good things. But we get jilted on expensive games, crummy servers, and you can just taste the loathesome disregard for gamers when they try to foist on us the notion of PAYING TO WATCH A FREAKING MADDEN INFOMERCIAL. No thanks. I'd rather pay to see Robot Jox again. It's cheaper and higher quality entertainment. :D

This is why I vote with my wallet. We got fooled on Burnout Revenge, but that may be the last EA game I ever buy. We've played the BF2 in demo and rentals, I won't buy it. And much as it kills me, I refuse to even download the Middle Earth demo. It's just a waste of my time to demo a game that I know is just going to be more of the same old-and-busted EA service for me and my group of friends.

Royal Fool

08-06-2006, 11:29 AM

Hey...isn't this false advertising? If you buy a game that states it has online functionality, and it doesn't, isn't that false advertising?[/B]
Not really, games usually have fine print on the back for this (or in the manual).

"Game experience may change during online play" and "Use of blahblah's online servers requires acceptance of the terms of service" is typical lawyerspeak that allows them to discontinue the service at any time without telling you.

hotdrop

08-06-2006, 11:37 AM

well what other reason would you have to buy the new madden game? Its not like they add anything every single year they rerelease the game with slightly upped graphics. Another reason no to buy EA games. (Although an exception might have to be made for spore as much as it kills me to give money to EA)

Watership

08-06-2006, 11:55 AM

You can still play Mechassault on Xbox Live. There are people still playing it and it was Live's first game in 2002. Bloody EA. Remember the early days when EA refused to make online games with Xbox? They talked about control for quality reasons.

Right.

bapenguin

08-06-2006, 12:03 PM

Royal Fool

08-06-2006, 12:25 PM

It certainly isn't for financial reasons, EA are just being dicks.

wyeast

08-06-2006, 12:27 PM

They could... if they didn't want to encourage you to buy the latest games every year. Good thing they got their way with the new "leaner meaner" E3, too. Thank god they'll only have to talk to a few handpicked media folk and not have to answer to the thousands of indie bloggers and reviewers who'd question their vision for the future of gaming.

Chandler

08-06-2006, 12:27 PM

I believe EA games allows direct connect to IP.

so....isn't this all a moot point ;)

BrokenSymmetry

08-06-2006, 12:28 PM

For all those remarking on the fact that Blizzard still supports StarCraft on their servers after all those years, it should be noted that with the latest 1.14 patch for StarCraft, Blizzard does not support ladder games anymore. The WGT has taken over the European ladders, and all other ladder games are completely disabled.

http://www.blizzard.com/support/?id=asc02028p

Sazime

08-06-2006, 12:33 PM

Wow, lots of lurkers coming out of the woodwork for this thread. Good job on starting it up!

Sl1pstream

08-06-2006, 01:15 PM

What if they release Half-Life 2 and all the expansions on 360 and decide to shut down the TF2 servers a year after the release?

Looks like I won't be buying EA games ever again.

believe EA games allows direct connect to IP.

so....isn't this all a moot point

Heh, Modern Combat doesn't even support LAN games.

Which brings me to the conclusion that it's safer to trade in the few titles I still have (BFMC) than to wait for them to close down the servers, making it impossible to play the game.

Johan

08-06-2006, 01:17 PM

Freaking EA bas****s...I was curious, so I went to my 360 Burnout Revenge copy to check the fineprint on the back. Here's what it says, in teensy weensy print:

"EA may retire online features after 30 days notice posted on www.eagames.com"

Burnout Takedown (Xbox) has the same notice.

*grinding teeth*

Sazime

08-06-2006, 01:19 PM

Deadend

08-06-2006, 01:48 PM

Just wait until the BF2 server gets turned off. There will be VIOLENCE then I guess.

Magnanimous Gnome

08-06-2006, 01:56 PM

Not to mention that over the years, I lose my copy of SC from time to time and pick up other ones. I believe I've bought SC and Brood War 3 times each now.

I still haven't bought Starcraft. I keep meaning to someday, and someday never comes. :p

Johan

08-06-2006, 02:11 PM

I hate EA, but I must admit, they're no fools in cutting off servers for games; they know that anyone in their right mind wouldn't shell out $60 every year for the most recent crap-tastic upgrade to Madden or another sports title (yes, I know, they're fun to play...but the changes are minimal, unless it's important to you to have updated rosters/stadiums, which I don't care about anyway). To get people to buy the next version, you cut off servers to 'older' ones. It's a great idea for making money...and for pissing off consumers like myself.

I only own eight EA games out of a library of 100+, and only three are online (Burnout Revenge and Takedown, and Battle for Middle-Earth). I'll be avoiding them like the plague.

Dr Quincy

08-06-2006, 02:15 PM

Weren't the TimeSplitters: Future Perfect serves shut down after only like six months?

Royal Fool

08-06-2006, 02:16 PM

Imagine if companies like Epic, Valve, id, Blizzard and others would really push out yearly updates of their games and close down (Or effectively just lock the multiplayer features, including no more master servers) for the previous versions of their games, forcing you to upgrade.

I'm thankful it's only EA, and I hope other companies don't start doing this shit. When I buy a game I expect service, not a limited time of use.

MoJoBehaumat

08-06-2006, 02:17 PM

Weren't the TimeSplitters: Future Perfect serves shut down after only like six months?

LOL...
Just to be safe EA should burn the Server in order to please the FPS gods. :rolleyes:

GrinR

08-06-2006, 02:39 PM

Who cares? You buy EA, you deserve whatever you get. It's like complaining about getting an STD from a streetwalker.

thecrazyd

08-06-2006, 02:56 PM

bas****s
If you are going to fucking swear, just do it. It is not like we don't know what you are saying.

GrinR

08-06-2006, 03:03 PM

If you are going to fucking swear, just do it. It is not like we don't know what you are saying.

Dude, totally. As if we can't figure out "Basrites." But I was more offended by the racial overtones of making people from Basra into a slur.

Johan

08-06-2006, 03:04 PM

If you are going to fucking swear, just do it. It is not like we don't know what you are saying.

:D Okay...for all of you bastards out there who don't like it when people cuss (or choose to edit their cuss words)...fuck you ;)

Is that better :eek:

I do it to keep things at least partially civil, but since that's not working, the hell with that shit.

Edit: So, someone please tell me how it makes it better when I cuss directly (rather than using *&%^*) in my post?

thecrazyd

08-06-2006, 03:04 PM

Much. And that was very funny GrinR. Thanks.

Sazime

08-06-2006, 03:06 PM

I used to keep myself from swearing here, but I gave up when I started reading Kelegacy's posts. He may not cuss, but the colorful imagery is usually enough to make people wish he had instead.

Metal Jesus

08-06-2006, 03:09 PM

I have a buddy that still loves to play Starcraft on his old Pentium 800mhz...

It's amazing how great that game is. Still holds up today.

wyeast

08-06-2006, 03:22 PM

So EA doesn't want you to BUY games. You're only leasing them.

Fuck that.

(For all you cuss-hungry types) :D

Montgomery_Python

08-06-2006, 03:45 PM

EA has some good games but they sure try hard to make me ignore that fact.

vivafletcher

08-06-2006, 04:04 PM

I buy EA games and will continue to buy them...used after a couple of years so they don't make money on it.

I choose to use their constant push forward to my advantage. Madden 2005 is now super cheap, as is NCAA 2005. True, I don't get to play online...but I get $10 (or less)games that are pretty similar to what Joe Blow is putting down a deposit for right now.

Demize99

08-06-2006, 04:06 PM

Mudvayne_Nothin

08-06-2006, 04:18 PM

1-2 years is not enough time. There should be like a 5 year leeway for older games. But then again, it's only for EA Sports games it seems.

Johan

08-06-2006, 04:20 PM

Fuck that.(For all you cuss-hungry types) :D

fucking (ooh, your free cussword)...asses...Fuck...and fuck...dumbass...(2 more free cusswords)

Well, isn't it so much nicer when we're civil and edit our cuss words? ;)

Oh, and some math lessons might be in order, Demize99 ;) You make a good point, however!

I still say, 'fuck EA,' but I never said I would boycott them (I'll be avoiding them as much as possible for all but a very few titles)...I'm just glad I buy precious few of their server-challenged titles.

Deathbane27

08-06-2006, 04:27 PM

Censoring "fuck" or "shit" is one thing, but bastard? Come on! :p

Yeah, EA's a bunch of fucktards. Hopefully the angry customers will complain to Microsoft's Live division out of ignorance and that will cause Microsoft to get mad at EA. :)

Heretic Machine

08-06-2006, 04:35 PM

Just another reason to not buy EA games. Kind of makes me fear for Spore...

dena miscreant

08-06-2006, 04:48 PM

Kind of makes me fear for Spore...

My thoughts exactly.

Gpig

08-06-2006, 06:13 PM

I hope they don't shut down the Burnout 3 servers. Man EA is shit.

Wonka

08-06-2006, 06:56 PM

I'm curious to see how long the boycot bandwagon holds up when Spore comes out, considering how much the people around here have been lapping up its content.

Yes, thats right ladies and gents, EA owns Maxis. Get over yourselves, do any of you actually fucking (ooh, your free cussword) own any of the games on the list and still play them?

Honestly, pull your head out of your asses, they're still running tons of servers for games people are actually still playing. Like BF1942, it shipped Q4 of 2002, 4 years ago, and they're still running the master servers.

But god forbid someone talk good about EA. I'm obviously just a paid shill. Fuck you guys, and fuck your dumbass boycot bandwagon (2 more free cusswords). You'll all jump off it when a title you want comes out.

Kid, you are going to have to start making some sense...

Until you start making sense, you leave us little choice but to think that you might indeed BE a paid shill. Furthermore, I am afraid that the alternate theory we have is even less flattering for you...

Please let me spell it out for you (its really very simple):

When a company creates an inferior product because they have inserted their servers into the mix, and THEN has the audacity to punish me for buying it (by closing their servers a year later), then basic inductive reasoning warns me NOT to buy products from that company in the future. In other words, since this has happened many many times now with EA products, many of us are inclined to avoid being burned in the future...

This has nothing to do with blind EA hate (although there is plenty of reason for anger here too), it's just about being a smart consumer.

It looks like GRINR might be right with the whole streetwalker analogy.

jeffool

08-06-2006, 07:25 PM

Yes, thats right ladies and gents, EA owns Maxis.Gasp! Say it ain't so?! (That's sarcasm.)Honestly, pull your head out of your asses, they're still running tons of servers for games people are actually still playing. Like BF1942, it shipped Q4 of 2002, 4 years ago, and they're still running the master servers.

But god forbid someone talk good about EA.You mean saying that "they support some of their games" is talking good about them? We think that a negative thing, as in, "they only support some of their games." But maybe you know something good about EA we do not.

And dude, last EA game I bought was The Sims back in 2000. Sure EA helped by not releasing many games I wanted, but I've never even played a Burnout game after 2 until I tried a demo someone had on their Xbox360 this morning. I've never played Battlefield 2, either. Sure it's a shame, but a boycott is a boycott. And yes, I'll be tempted with Spore, but I'll wait for reviews. If Spore changes the gaming 'game' as we know it, I'll probably bend and buy it. Other than that? Sorry Will, I love ya, but fuck ya.

noname989

08-06-2006, 07:26 PM

This is something that has always scared me about online gaming. Games that depend on Internet connectivity, and ONLY work through official servers, are essentially unplayable after 50 years or so. I find it sad that my children or my children's children will be unable to play old games that I once enjoyed.

I often wonder if we aren’t headed toward a "digital dark age" of sorts where information is lost forever due to DRM, proprietary formats, and greed.

MosBen

08-06-2006, 07:59 PM

This is actually pretty low on my list of things about EA that piss me off. True, this does seem like an awfully blatant move to force people to upgrade, but at the same time there is at least a legitimate business argument in their favor. Still, it certainly doesn't help their image and I'm going to continue boycotting all of their products. Honestly, used copies of their games show up in Gamestop, or similar stores, within a week or two of the game's release. It's hardly inconveniencing at all to avoid buying their stuff new.

ElectricMonk

08-06-2006, 08:25 PM

it's pretty lame to stop supporting a game from just 2005

i could see it happening if it was 5 generations old or whatnot but a lot of people have stopped upgrading to the latest ea sports title just because not enough changes, this is just one more way for ea to fuck over the consumer

Nintendo Revolution

08-06-2006, 09:08 PM

"Is anyone going to want to play 2 year old Madden anyways?"

Yeah, the ones who don't have 49.99 to buy the same game with updated rosters and a new feature or two.

vivafletcher

08-07-2006, 12:33 AM

"Is anyone going to want to play 2 year old Madden anyways?"

Yeah, the ones who don't have 49.99 to buy the same game with updated rosters and a new feature or two.

Or the ones who have the $50 but are smart enough not to spend it for the same game with updated rosters and a new feature or two (that might suck anyway). Better spend that money on a completely new game instead of an expansion pack's worth of new gameplay.

And if anyone is new to sports games, pick up Madden 2004. Good game for probably $2.99 right now. You won't miss the "extra" features but you'd certainly miss the $47 you'd waste on the latest version.

Oh, I'd also like to add that Madden online isn't that fun anyway. So many people find and exploit every little glitch (and it's Madden, so there are always a few) that getting an honest game isn't terribly easy. It works best when you play with your friends online...but then why not save a few (or several) bucks and just play when you can get together in person? If that's not possible, ask yourself if those games you'll play with your friends are worth the extra $45 you'll spend on a new version.

$50 for the latest tweaks, or an older model that's similar for the pocket change in your couch? You make the call.

Borys

08-07-2006, 02:01 AM

Pretty shitty but oh well some things are allowed when you are almost a monopoly.

soco

08-07-2006, 02:40 AM

i wish EA would just shut down all of their servers, and go back to using microsofts. seriously, i've got like 2 EA 360 games and have never been able to connect with either of them and play a game. i've contacted support several times, and as someone said earlier, they always suggest it's a router problem. except that i can host and join in all of the other games i have that aren't from EA. there were lots of people who whose gamertags were originally banned because of a mistake they made, so they weren't even able to play the games.

their support is seriously some of the worst i've ever seen, but i guess that's a comment for another news item :D

i still think Microsoft shouldn't have allowed EA to do that, and just let EA screw themselves, as customer demand would've likely forced them to bow down anyway, after their competitors, like Ubisoft and 2k, began using the servers. i can see how it was important to sign on big supporters back at the beginning of XBL, but now it's more of a pain than anything.

mikeohara

08-07-2006, 03:21 AM

being that I own a couple of the games on the list ... (NBA Live 05 and NFSU2 for PC). I didn't play these games online anyway, and like someone said earlier ... in EA hosted games, cheats prevail. If they ever stopped the servers for BF1942 or another popular PC game, you would see people revolting and calling for boycotts of EA products across all platforms.

51|RandoM

08-07-2006, 03:44 AM

Well shit. The least they could do is keep ONE server up. Hell it doesn't even have to be a physical box. They could VM servers on a single box for all their old games. I'm sure the player load isn't that great.

LAME.

It isn't a hardware/software cost issue. It is called, "buy the new version", a new form of extortion.

If they were to try to make a support cost justification, it'd be people cost, not hardware/software cost.

Tempest261

08-07-2006, 06:25 AM

Well, that rules out me ever buying EA sports games (or anything that's a yearly update) again.

2K games, if you don't pull this shit, you've earned a lifelong customer.

GunnyMo

08-07-2006, 06:31 AM

I really think MS should not renegotiate with EA unless MS has control of the servers. EA servers are garbage, imho. I can see the reasoning behind some of the server shutdowns but Madden and NBA franchises? Those continue to sell very well. Just another dumb move by EA.

Librum

08-07-2006, 08:39 AM

Just reminds me how much I miss Netstorm: Islands At War after they shut down those servers. Sigh.

Phanto

08-07-2006, 12:10 PM

It's a crock of crap if you ask me. If I buy a game, and a friend buys a game, and we want to play against each other, we should be able to. 1 year, 2 years, 5 years from now. Hell, my friends STILL play StarCraft. what if Blizzard stopped all starcraft servers. Is anyone going to want to play a 8 year old starcraft anyways?

Just to let you know Stracraft is still very popular in fact there is a tournament coming soon.

We're pleased to present the first look at Blizzard Entertainment's upcoming StarCraft Sandlot Tournament!

Eight years after its release, StarCraft continues to rank among the most popular mediums for computer gaming competitions. Over the years, StarCraft has been supported by a large player base; community websites; and enthusiasts who continue to put much time, effort, and energy into the game. We felt there could be no better way to honor this passion than to organize a massive tournament on Battle.net and support the StarCraft community. Gamers across the globe will be able to get directly involved with the Sandlot Tournament, and this gives the world's best players a chance to battle it out for some serious cash.

You can read and check info about that tournament here (http://battle.net/tournaments/sandlot/)

I bet that EA don't do great shits like this one ;)