Industry News

News about the Industry itself, as opposed to a specific game. Only TA Newshounds can start threads here.

Hasbro Family Game Night Server Closure

  • kirchroa rjckirchroa rjc578,817
    Posted on 02 April 12 at 07:43
    Hello,

    I still need that cheevo but i am from netherlands can some one tell me how i can play scrabble on my account so i can get the cheevo out off the way can send me a privat message thnx
  • Scoochi2Scoochi2291,312
    Posted on 02 April 12 at 09:28
    kirchroa rjc said:
    Hello,

    I still need that cheevo but i am from netherlands can some one tell me how i can play scrabble on my account so i can get the cheevo out off the way can send me a privat message thnx
    1) Get a NTSC (US/Canada) console
    2) EITHER:
    a) get a NTSC copy of the game
    b) get a US account, buy MSP, download game
    3) Play with your main
    Lif is too short.
  • matdanmatdan792,989
    Posted on 02 April 12 at 14:18
    Scoochi2 said:
    kirchroa rjc said:
    Hello,

    I still need that cheevo but i am from netherlands can some one tell me how i can play scrabble on my account so i can get the cheevo out off the way can send me a privat message thnx
    1) Get a NTSC (US/Canada) console
    2) EITHER:
    a) get a NTSC copy of the game
    b) get a US account, buy MSP, download game
    3) Play with your main
    Where can one acquire a decent NTSC console not so much for this game.
  • Scoochi2Scoochi2291,312
  • Gambit444Gambit444241,092
    Posted on 02 April 12 at 15:00
    Thanks TA.
    I read this report at the 11th hour & jumped on & got it.
    Fucking EA. [/Rant]no warnings from them. They should at the very least set it up so if you put in an EA game it should have a pop up message letting you know about servers closing. most of there games require e-mails so it's not like they can't shoot you an email either. [/EndRant]angry
  • Gob B1uthGob B1uth350,171
    Posted on 02 April 12 at 15:37
    I already have it, but I truly hate EA.
    You mean 119!
  • Dancsi27Dancsi27184,158
    Posted on 02 April 12 at 17:09
    i already have it too, since 2009 or 2010. I am from Canada, so Canada and USA are fine with Scrabble and NTSC/U console.
  • Brainiac427Brainiac427161,663
    Posted on 02 April 12 at 20:38
    This was always one of my favorite games to play online with friends, not every day, but certainly from time to time, with or without achievements. I thought these servers would remain up indefinitely because there are no follow-up games like "Jenga 2012" or "Yahtzee 2012," etc. It just goes to show that no EA game is safe from closure, and that's really sad. The only way to send a message is to boycott EA games, but that's not going to happen anytime soon to the extent that it would make a difference.
  • AhayzoAhayzo1,008,746
    Posted on 02 April 12 at 20:42
    Brainiac427 said:
    This was always one of my favorite games to play online with friends, not every day, but certainly from time to time, with or without achievements. I thought these servers would remain up indefinitely because there are no follow-up games like "Jenga 2012" or "Yahtzee 2012," etc. It just goes to show that no EA game is safe from closure, and that's really sad. The only way to send a message is to boycott EA games, but that's not going to happen anytime soon to the extent that it would make a difference.
    Their math for figuring out which servers to shut down, although it sucks, does make sense on occasion. I will agree that shutting down sports every 2 years, regardless of playerbase, is bad. But when they shut down games like Family Game Night, that have less than 1% of their total online playerbase? It's a waste of money. Yes it'd be better if they just let Microsoft host the servers like almost everyone else, but since they don't, it'd be stupid of them to keep up games like this that have a miniscule number of players.
  • matdanmatdan792,989
    Posted on 03 April 12 at 10:56
    alklein92201 said:
    Brainiac427 said:
    This was always one of my favorite games to play online with friends, not every day, but certainly from time to time, with or without achievements. I thought these servers would remain up indefinitely because there are no follow-up games like "Jenga 2012" or "Yahtzee 2012," etc. It just goes to show that no EA game is safe from closure, and that's really sad. The only way to send a message is to boycott EA games, but that's not going to happen anytime soon to the extent that it would make a difference.
    Their math for figuring out which servers to shut down, although it sucks, does make sense on occasion. I will agree that shutting down sports every 2 years, regardless of playerbase, is bad. But when they shut down games like Family Game Night, that have less than 1% of their total online playerbase? It's a waste of money. Yes it'd be better if they just let Microsoft host the servers like almost everyone else, but since they don't, it'd be stupid of them to keep up games like this that have a miniscule number of players.
    Your logic fails hard if it is bellow 1% save money virtualize you can have one server running a lot of games multi-player as there are a few rarely played EA games.
  • AhayzoAhayzo1,008,746
    Posted on 03 April 12 at 14:55
    You still have to pay someone to manage a VM. You don't just build it and leave it. So their still spending money on something that has virtually no player base
  • Posted on 03 April 12 at 20:41, Edited on 03 April 12 at 20:42 by Chakaal Starr
    matdan12 said:
    alklein92201 said:
    Brainiac427 said:
    This was always one of my favorite games to play online with friends, not every day, but certainly from time to time, with or without achievements. I thought these servers would remain up indefinitely because there are no follow-up games like "Jenga 2012" or "Yahtzee 2012," etc. It just goes to show that no EA game is safe from closure, and that's really sad. The only way to send a message is to boycott EA games, but that's not going to happen anytime soon to the extent that it would make a difference.
    Their math for figuring out which servers to shut down, although it sucks, does make sense on occasion. I will agree that shutting down sports every 2 years, regardless of playerbase, is bad. But when they shut down games like Family Game Night, that have less than 1% of their total online playerbase? It's a waste of money. Yes it'd be better if they just let Microsoft host the servers like almost everyone else, but since they don't, it'd be stupid of them to keep up games like this that have a miniscule number of players.
    Your logic fails hard if it is bellow 1% save money virtualize you can have one server running a lot of games multi-player as there are a few rarely played EA games.
    I would think consolidating several less popular games onto a server would be a good approach, but it would really depend on how those games are set up behind the scenes as to how much work that would be to do. It many cases, it would probably be cheaper to leave it on a server vs moving it and setting up so the games don't interfere with each other. Also as alklein mentioned, they still gotta allocate staff to maintain it. (and keep adequate bandwidth and space allocated for those resources for any spikes is usage)
  • matdanmatdan792,989
    Posted on 04 April 12 at 10:19
    Ain't hard combining the sparsley populated servers, may cost a little but if EA cared about their customers they would do it. Its all about convienence, as in only giving us the mininum month of notice instead of 3 months which doomed skate. to unobtainable achievements i.e. skate celebrity.
  • StarshadeFPSStarshadeFPS564,123
    Posted on 04 April 12 at 11:15
    Finishing this game sunday, thanks EA.
    www.lamargames.nl
  • Posted on 04 April 12 at 17:35
    matdan12 said:
    Ain't hard combining the sparsley populated servers, may cost a little but if EA cared about their customers they would do it. Its all about convienence, as in only giving us the mininum month of notice instead of 3 months which doomed skate. to unobtainable achievements i.e. skate celebrity.
    You assume that it isn't hard. For all we know, they might have recode a fair sized portion of each game to be able to put multiple games on the same server. I think there could be a lot more background operations involved, these games likely have been designed with the fact that it would never have to share. If it were easy and relatively inexpensive to do so, it probably would have been done as EA knows it is a bit of a sore spot with customers. I know my workplace had a legacy system in place that cost a fortune to maintain that they were forced to retire.

    Now imagine you are Matdan the manager at EA who cares about customers. Would you 1) allocate several programming teams to regularly convert and maintain dead games to keep 1% of your customer base happy, or would you 2) allocate those programming teams to doing bug fixes and maintenance for a popular game that a lot of people are playing. In all honesty, would more customers be happy if they did fixes on Mass Effect 3, KoA, BF3 or if they put those teams on Family Game Night?
  • matdanmatdan792,989
    Posted on 04 April 12 at 23:22, Edited on 04 April 12 at 23:24 by matdan
    You actually sound like you care well if they don't like wasting their people's time hand the servers over to M$ or give people the ability to host the game themselves. I don't see why games like BF2:MC which still had its dedicated following should lose MP functionality just because EA were greedy enough to keep the servers to themselves.
    You talk like they're a poor company but they're getting tonnes of money and even more so with the latest slew of over priced DLC, day one DLC, online passes (Even games that get shutdown a couple of months later) and other marketplace items. I don't think that they couldn't keep up a bunch of quiet games as Dice and other companies are in charge of the patching, what DLC is like and other game related stuff for the newer games like BF3. EA just maintain servers, brand the product, decide how much DLC a games has and pricing.
  • Posted on 05 April 12 at 02:11
    matdan12 said:
    You actually sound like you care well if they don't like wasting their people's time hand the servers over to M$ or give people the ability to host the game themselves. I don't see why games like BF2:MC which still had its dedicated following should lose MP functionality just because EA were greedy enough to keep the servers to themselves.
    You talk like they're a poor company but they're getting tonnes of money and even more so with the latest slew of over priced DLC, day one DLC, online passes (Even games that get shutdown a couple of months later) and other marketplace items. I don't think that they couldn't keep up a bunch of quiet games as Dice and other companies are in charge of the patching, what DLC is like and other game related stuff for the newer games like BF3. EA just maintain servers, brand the product, decide how much DLC a games has and pricing.
    You didn't answer my question of which one you would choose to make more people happy..

    Using up resources is the point, it doesn't matter who manages the physical servers. You said it would be easy to consolidate, the point is that is likely takes more resources than you are assuming. There is likely more story to that as well as to why they want to manage their own servers. The obvious reason might be because it may cheaper. Another reason is likely for control. Maybe they don't want to have to keep revisiting these old titles that can get out of hand when unpoliced, ruining the experiences for the legitimate customer. They know the lifecycle of the games for 1st buyers, why maintain it if there is hardly any of their real customers playing it. You aren't their customer if you bought used, rented, or borrowed, unless you buy an online pass. Even then they know when the gamertag that registered the pass isn't playing anymore. Play WaW and say how fun it is to get repeatedly shot by someone who if out of bounds and flying because the server is unpoliced. Also, maybe they don't want their code getting into another companies hands that could possibly take advantage of that.

    Do you know why Test Drive 1 and 2 (way back in the late 80s) has a completely different look and feel than Test Drive 3? To the extent Test Drive 3 was a step back even. Why the original Need for Speed was more like the original Test Drive games? It is because it was EA code. Accolade turned around and even tried suing EA over that code, and EA won because they could prove it was theirs. Since Accolade lost in court, suddenly Test Drive 3 was different but EA NFS played and felt like TD 2.

    Obviously BF2:MC had a very small dedicated following to hit 1%., maybe a handful of those were original buyers.

    EA is doing very well for a reason. As a public traded company, they are obligated to make money. As to how much is available to put towards dead servers, who knows? Is it truly important to appease the customers who are buying the game from someone else used, or even the 5 people who refuse to buy into new products?

    You are assuming what roles and relationships the different companies take in regard to 'patching and other game related stuff'. The fact is you don't know who does what. Who do you talk for support? Mass Effect 3: https://help.ea.com/en/mass-effect/mass-effect Didn't you just say EA only does server maintenance, branding, and dlc price determination? BF3, SSX, KoA, all through https://help.ea.com/ So if EA is fielding the calls, who do you think patch decisions ultimately go to?(starts with an E) The decision of how much DLC is produced is likely more dev oriented vs EA, though EA likely has some input.

    As far as the day 1 dlc, this isn't a EA exclusive thing. DLC is planned, they have a pretty good idea what they are going to put in. It wouldn't be efficient at all to do so otherwise. Generally there will be some early inserts for compatibility, and usually it is worked on either by a separate team or while the game is going to press. If things go smooth and the team is efficient, then some DLC is ready on release day.

    I know you have stuck in your head how Greedy they are and there is probably no convincing you, but keep in mind that it is a business and ultimately while money is likely a factor in many of the things they do, there is going to be a list of considerations for every decision they make. Activision is angel either when it comes to business decisions. Isn't it nice having to buy a subscription or wait months for the maps are playing?
  • matdanmatdan792,989
    Posted on 05 April 12 at 12:06
    NFS is older than Test Drive not sure what your talking about there.
    Why are we bring up Activision in this? Despite their poor treatment of customers they've kept multiple CoD games servers up, all 8 of them and EA can't keep more than 1 sport sequel alive culling the rest.

    I don't really know why you support them as their logic is non-existant people still play Fifa 2010 as much as its newer sequel, why should one have to spend more money towards a sequel when they're happy with the one they've got. Besides most everyday customers aren't like people on here and don't read the fine print and end up buying a game with no MP support. I know loads of Ubisoft, Activision, Infinity Ward and other gaming companies that keep almost all their games online even if they're dead online.

    EA's goal is not about the consumer its about the money if people like you continue to be ignorant to it you're going to get yourself screwed. Bothered to see some of their latest pricing of DLC? I'd like you to argue their reasons for that.

    I notice you likened older EA games to CoD WaW unlike CoD they aren't infested with hinfected lobbies besides the obvious that M$ are always banning players for hosting infected lobbies. I noticed BF2:MC was stilled played fairly by the community and everyone was not being total jack-asses like CoD. Another one skate. what was left of its community after EA mauled the Reel servers were yes much more skilled than most new players that was not because of hacks you lots of legit play time. If EA had the logic to shutdown unfair games then BF3 would be shutdown.

    Online passes are a relatively new thing and Burnout Revenge, BF2MC, skate., Army of Two, Prostreet were all waaaaaaaaay before that and had nothing to do with the online passes they are just unfortunately victims of a more brutal management (i.e kill the classic games which made EA in the next gen.)
  • AhayzoAhayzo1,008,746
    Posted on 05 April 12 at 14:51
    matdan12 said:
    EA's goal is not about the consumer its about the money if people like you continue to be ignorant to it you're going to get yourself screwed.
    Who is being ignorant? I'm pretty sure everyone agrees with that statement. The difference, we actually realize that the reason for EA's existence is to maximize profits for the company and stockholders. Yes, the sports games they shut down after 2 years usually still have a good online following, and they do it to push their newer games. But if it isn't sports, they do only shut it down if it has less than 1% of EA's total online population. And that would be a waste of money, even bringing them into VMs, to support them. And considering their loyalty is not to the customers, but the stockholders (as it should be), it would be a bad idea to do so.
  • ShinUkyoShinUkyo170,828
    Posted on 05 April 12 at 22:35
    The problem with EA, with regards to achievements, isn't that they close servers. That makes financial sense for them, and we can't fault them for that. The problem is that they keep including online-only achievements in their games that they know will eventually have closed servers (sometimes within just a year.) That's just cruel, and they continue to do it even despite the outcry from the community.

    To alleviate this, all they would have to do is offer the ability to earn those MP achievements through either system link or local multiplayer. This wouldn't be a detriment to them, as people are going to play their major titles online, avidly, no matter what the achievement lists are. Having these "limited time only" achievements definitely forces some people to pick up their games sooner, but I can't imagine it's enough to make a noticeable impact.

    At this point, by changing the policy on their MP achievements, they could save a lot of face by eliminating the unobtainable streak they have going. The amount of buyers they would gain from that policy change, even if relatively small, would still outweigh the amount they gain by putting in time-sensitive achievements. That's why it still baffles me, to disgust, that they have done this already. Even from a greed standpoint, it would make more sense (and ultimately leave them looking better in PR terms.)
Want to join in the discussion? Please log in or Register For Free to comment.