The Bargain Bin Forum

Forum for discussing where to pick up cheap deals

January 2018's Games with Gold Titles Announced

AuthorMessage
The Globalizer
1,003,507
The Globalizer
Posted on 28 December 17 at 21:24
Zorlac0666 said:
The Globalizer said:
I just love how gaming companies insist on adding MP to games as part of the full experience and then give away half of that experience as a Totally Awesome Complimentary Gift You Guys.
Maybe if more of us would BUY their games they could afford to keep the servers on. You guys seem to think that because you're getting the game free that it's free to run the services.
Are you joking? EA's most recent yearly profit was $566 million. How much do you think it costs to run a few gaming servers?
LuckyKant
443,992
LuckyKant
Posted on 28 December 17 at 21:56
The Globalizer said:
Zorlac0666 said:
The Globalizer said:
I just love how gaming companies insist on adding MP to games as part of the full experience and then give away half of that experience as a Totally Awesome Complimentary Gift You Guys.
Maybe if more of us would BUY their games they could afford to keep the servers on. You guys seem to think that because you're getting the game free that it's free to run the services.
Are you joking? EA's most recent yearly profit was $566 million. How much do you think it costs to run a few gaming servers?
$567 million per year?
This post may be sarcastic.
LV 1 Blue Slime
Posted on 28 December 17 at 22:42
LuckyConquerer2 said:
The Globalizer said:
Zorlac0666 said:
The Globalizer said:
I just love how gaming companies insist on adding MP to games as part of the full experience and then give away half of that experience as a Totally Awesome Complimentary Gift You Guys.
Maybe if more of us would BUY their games they could afford to keep the servers on. You guys seem to think that because you're getting the game free that it's free to run the services.
Are you joking? EA's most recent yearly profit was $566 million. How much do you think it costs to run a few gaming servers?
$567 million per year?
$566,000,000.01*

The least they could do is tell people the online is down. Instead, when you go the page on xbox.com, it just says "Some multi-player functionalities may no longer be supported" instead of "We took down the online servers so half the game doesn't work, deal with it" like it should.
"Slutty outfit? You're one to talk." "This isn't slutty, it's strategically placed."
Zorlac0666
157,995
Zorlac0666
Posted on 28 December 17 at 22:53
The Globalizer said:
Zorlac0666 said:
The Globalizer said:
I just love how gaming companies insist on adding MP to games as part of the full experience and then give away half of that experience as a Totally Awesome Complimentary Gift You Guys.
Maybe if more of us would BUY their games they could afford to keep the servers on. You guys seem to think that because you're getting the game free that it's free to run the services.
Are you joking? EA's most recent yearly profit was $566 million. How much do you think it costs to run a few gaming servers?
Would you keep a server up for a game that no one plays?
LuckyKant
443,992
LuckyKant
Posted on 28 December 17 at 23:05
Zorlac0666 said:
The Globalizer said:
Zorlac0666 said:
The Globalizer said:
I just love how gaming companies insist on adding MP to games as part of the full experience and then give away half of that experience as a Totally Awesome Complimentary Gift You Guys.
Maybe if more of us would BUY their games they could afford to keep the servers on. You guys seem to think that because you're getting the game free that it's free to run the services.
Are you joking? EA's most recent yearly profit was $566 million. How much do you think it costs to run a few gaming servers?
Would you keep a server up for a game that no one plays?
The bad PR when they take away these servers costs them more than it does to run the servers. They now have a GWG that millions of gamers will play for the first time next month and they don't have the online part. That will impact how people will view EA.
This post may be sarcastic.
Zorlac0666
157,995
Zorlac0666
Posted on 28 December 17 at 23:09, Edited on 28 December 17 at 23:10 by Zorlac0666
So a game that already wasn't selling anymore stops selling because they take away the multiplayer servers? Oh no, big loss for them right? You guys must be really young or just have no idea how business works if you think EA is the only company to ever know when ti's time to cut their losses and move on.
LuckyKant
443,992
LuckyKant
Posted on 28 December 17 at 23:16
Zorlac0666 said:
So a game that already wasn't selling anymore stops selling because they take away the multiplayer servers? Oh no, big loss for them right? You guys must be really young or just have no idea how business works if you think EA is the only company to ever know when ti's time to cut their losses and move on.
Turning the servers off one product can lead to other purchases not being made.

Think about if the servers were still online for AoT. They could use GWG to advertise the game and than announce a new sequel as people are having fun playing AoT online. The loss is minimal compared to the damage to brand reputation they cause by doing this. How many people have you heard saying they buy EA games used etc?

If they cannot commit to keeping servers open, then stop hosting them.
This post may be sarcastic.
Zorlac0666
157,995
Zorlac0666
Posted on 29 December 17 at 00:04, Edited on 29 December 17 at 00:50 by Zorlac0666
LuckyConquerer2 said:
Zorlac0666 said:
So a game that already wasn't selling anymore stops selling because they take away the multiplayer servers? Oh no, big loss for them right? You guys must be really young or just have no idea how business works if you think EA is the only company to ever know when ti's time to cut their losses and move on.
Turning the servers off one product can lead to other purchases not being made.

Think about if the servers were still online for AoT. They could use GWG to advertise the game and than announce a new sequel as people are having fun playing AoT online. The loss is minimal compared to the damage to brand reputation they cause by doing this. How many people have you heard saying they buy EA games used etc?

If they cannot commit to keeping servers open, then stop hosting them.
ANY company that has multiplayer games will shut down the servers when the game no longer has the players to justify hosting them. EA just happens to have a lot more multiplayer games than most companies so you happen to hear about it more from them. Of course most people don't buy used games that have the servers shut down. You aren't buying this one either are you?

For discussion's sake did you buy them digital or used, or at a gamestore as a greatest hit or something?
LuckyKant
443,992
LuckyKant
Posted on 29 December 17 at 00:38
Actually, if you look at my tag, you will see that I have recently started AoT. I bought it a reduced price, as I did Devil's Cartel and 40th Day.

LuckyConquerer2's achievements in Army of TWO (EU)

I purchased DC a few months after release, used, because of how EA have handled previous AoT games. Take a look at DIY PMC in 40th. Awful handling.
This post may be sarcastic.
SKOOT2006
483,309
SKOOT2006
Posted on 29 December 17 at 00:50
If anyone wants to get an early start, Tomb Raider: Underworld is already showing as free in the store
You don't know what you don't know
The Globalizer
1,003,507
The Globalizer
Posted on 29 December 17 at 01:15
Zorlac0666 said:
The Globalizer said:
Zorlac0666 said:
The Globalizer said:
I just love how gaming companies insist on adding MP to games as part of the full experience and then give away half of that experience as a Totally Awesome Complimentary Gift You Guys.
Maybe if more of us would BUY their games they could afford to keep the servers on. You guys seem to think that because you're getting the game free that it's free to run the services.
Are you joking? EA's most recent yearly profit was $566 million. How much do you think it costs to run a few gaming servers?
Would you keep a server up for a game that no one plays?
No, and I wouldn't shlock it off on unaware customers as a free Games With Gold game, either. Shame on EA and shame on Microsoft for this craven bullshit.
AKfoy0face
479,458
AKfoy0face
Posted on 29 December 17 at 03:52
why are people complaining? sad
DrunkLastKnight
Posted on 29 December 17 at 06:38, Edited on 29 December 17 at 06:41 by DrunkLastKnight
SKOOT2006 said:
If anyone wants to get an early start, Tomb Raider: Underworld is already showing as free in the store
Tomb Raider: Underworld Add-Ons

3 Free Costume Packs Available too

The Incredible Adventures of Van Helsing III Showing up free early too
HolyHalfDead
465,435
HolyHalfDead
Posted on 29 December 17 at 10:49
Zorlac0666 said:
So a game that already wasn't selling anymore stops selling because they take away the multiplayer servers? Oh no, big loss for them right? You guys must be really young or just have no idea how business works if you think EA is the only company to ever know when ti's time to cut their losses and move on.
Maybe some people think a business operates like a charity.

Perhaps if games came with an online services expiry date, say 3 years after release date, then people would be less upset when a game they paid a fraction of the release price for is no longer 100% functional. Blu-Ray UV does that, then you find the price of the Blu-Ray UV drops after that date, since the UV no longer works.

Better still, for the TA crowd, do not tie any achievements to online services.
He's not a man. He's the holy Half-Dead who has seen the Underverse and returned with powers you can't imagine.
HawkeyeBarry20
Posted on 29 December 17 at 13:39, Edited on 29 December 17 at 13:40 by HawkeyeBarry20
HolyHalfDead said:
Better still, for the TA crowd, do not tie any achievements to online services.
Please run for president, I’ll campaign for you. Just make this happen.
Zorlac0666
157,995
Zorlac0666
Posted on 29 December 17 at 14:12
HolyHalfDead said:
Zorlac0666 said:
So a game that already wasn't selling anymore stops selling because they take away the multiplayer servers? Oh no, big loss for them right? You guys must be really young or just have no idea how business works if you think EA is the only company to ever know when ti's time to cut their losses and move on.
Maybe some people think a business operates like a charity.

Perhaps if games came with an online services expiry date, say 3 years after release date, then people would be less upset when a game they paid a fraction of the release price for is no longer 100% functional. Blu-Ray UV does that, then you find the price of the Blu-Ray UV drops after that date, since the UV no longer works.

Better still, for the TA crowd, do not tie any achievements to online services.
Then what about people who strictly play online, but still love achievements?
matdan
677,299
matdan
Posted on 29 December 17 at 15:27
HolyHalfDead said:
Zorlac0666 said:
So a game that already wasn't selling anymore stops selling because they take away the multiplayer servers? Oh no, big loss for them right? You guys must be really young or just have no idea how business works if you think EA is the only company to ever know when ti's time to cut their losses and move on.
Maybe some people think a business operates like a charity.

Perhaps if games came with an online services expiry date, say 3 years after release date, then people would be less upset when a game they paid a fraction of the release price for is no longer 100% functional. Blu-Ray UV does that, then you find the price of the Blu-Ray UV drops after that date, since the UV no longer works.

Better still, for the TA crowd, do not tie any achievements to online services.
This false logic would work if it wasn't for the fact that the majority old games are still 100% functional yet most of the AAA companies are the ones guilty of sunsetting servers. So of course I have no sympathy if they lose customers and purchases for being prudes, shutting old games to force people to move on.

Or do you forget how many games have been shuttered months or a mere year after launch? Fairly sure LoTR Conquest wasn't out long before it was culled. Or how about Marvel Squad Omega, that barely lasted a year before getting thrown away. Or Warface not surviving a year. Or FIFA 13,14,15 etc all losing server features months after released.

I could go on for quite some time on games meeting an untimely end before they ever reach the point of being a "fraction of the price", sure some are F2P but that isn't the point. You say games would be fine if they shut-down 3 years after release yet most shutdowns happen within the year of release.

People are rightly "upset" because a game they paid for often doesn't last a year before being cut-off while they move on to the next iteration or idea or simply die off. Where do you get the idea that people think that companies run like charities? They are a business and if they do not provide services that are advertised people will abandon ship, as they should. What faith would I have in a company that kills games on a yearly basis often with no notice? Why should I support them or care if they sink harder then THQ did?

When a company puts profits above it's consumers, the consumer has to remind them that they are there to cater to the consumer not the shareholders. I do not see why that should change, EA would have continued going overboard with shutdowns, microtransactions and other shitty things if they weren't constantly getting publicly slammed for it.

At the end of the day if I can still play Xbox 360 launch titles online, I will continue to state that companies like EA and 2K are wrong to shutdown servers regardless of population online. It's about holding them to the same standard as every other company.
Out of the abyss peer the eyes of a demon, Behold the Razgriz, its wings of black sheath!
SneezeSomeMilk
Posted on 29 December 17 at 15:54
Zorlac0666 said:
So a game that already wasn't selling anymore stops selling because they take away the multiplayer servers? Oh no, big loss for them right? You guys must be really young or just have no idea how business works if you think EA is the only company to ever know when ti's time to cut their losses and move on.
Of course it is their fair right to shut down servers when hardly anyone is playing a game anymore.
But at the same time it is also fair to moan about it and criticise this beahviour.

I understand their reasons. But I don't like it.
Zorlac0666
157,995
Zorlac0666
Posted on 29 December 17 at 17:39, Edited on 29 December 17 at 17:40 by Zorlac0666
SneezeSomeMilk said:
Zorlac0666 said:
So a game that already wasn't selling anymore stops selling because they take away the multiplayer servers? Oh no, big loss for them right? You guys must be really young or just have no idea how business works if you think EA is the only company to ever know when ti's time to cut their losses and move on.
Of course it is their fair right to shut down servers when hardly anyone is playing a game anymore.
But at the same time it is also fair to moan about it and criticise this beahviour.

I understand their reasons. But I don't like it.
That's what I don't get. If you understand it, then how do you see it as bad behavior? It's very literally doing what's best for their business and that isn't always the most appealing thing to fans of whatever it is that's being discontinued.

Some people love McDonald's McRib for example (this is why it comes back every year or so), but after the initial bust of sales from it "returning" the sales on it drop to one of the worst selling items on the menu so they remove it until hype builds again. Does this suck for the person that completely loves it and would buy it almost every day? Yes it does. Would that $4 a day make it worth them keeping it on the menu? No it would not. It would take up space in their building, and cost them way more money than it was making.

This is how businesses are successful. They move out what's not selling or making money and bring in new product that is selling and making money. In the gaming world this unfortunately means we will lose some multiplayer servers and online only games on occasion. Yes you have some amazing exceptions like Blizzard that support their games for 20+ years, but not every company can afford to do that. Blizzard can only afford it because most of their games sell 20 million+ copies (almost 35 million in Diablo 3's case).
The Noto
339,139
The Noto
Posted on 29 December 17 at 18:03
Zorlac0666 said:
That's what I don't get. If you understand it, then how do you see it as bad behavior? It's very literally doing what's best for their business and that isn't always the most appealing thing to fans of whatever it is that's being discontinued.
It would be better for their business if they didn't control the servers themselves. If they let MS handle them, we would still be able to play this online.
Want to join in the discussion? Please log in or Register For Free to comment.