The Bargain Bin Forum

Forum for discussing where to pick up cheap deals

January 2018's Games with Gold Titles Announced

AuthorMessage
AciD237
601,045
AciD237
Posted on 29 December 17 at 21:25
Anyone knows if the Japanese version of Tomb Raider: Underworld will be available?
The Globalizer
1,003,517
The Globalizer
Posted on 30 December 17 at 20:45
Zorlac0666 said:
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).
I agree with almost all of what you said there. So why is AO2, a decommissioned game, one of our Games With Gold?

Because giving away a digital game has no incremental cost but running servers does. Good enough game to give us but not enough to keep the servers up for. Basically, fuck us, we're just customers.
spammerstriker
Posted on 02 January 18 at 01:03
LuckyConquerer2 said:
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.
What bad PR? Honestly no one cares about getting all achievements on games except for a less than 1% of gamers. The few people on this website are the only ones who don't bother playing a game just because 1 achievement is hard or because they shut off online for a game lol.
HolyHalfDead
465,436
HolyHalfDead
Posted on 02 January 18 at 01:47, Edited on 02 January 18 at 01:48 by HolyHalfDead
AciD237 said:
Anyone knows if the Japanese version of Tomb Raider: Underworld will be available?
Physical only so no, and AFAIK it isn't BC either. Japan get The Maw instead.
He's not a man. He's the holy Half-Dead who has seen the Underverse and returned with powers you can't imagine.
HolyHalfDead
465,436
HolyHalfDead
Posted on 02 January 18 at 01:54
spammerstriker said:
LuckyConquerer2 said:
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.
What bad PR? Honestly no one cares about getting all achievements on games except for a less than 1% of gamers. The few people on this website are the only ones who don't bother playing a game just because 1 achievement is hard or because they shut off online for a game lol.
This isn't just about achievements, nobody can play ranked matches.
He's not a man. He's the holy Half-Dead who has seen the Underverse and returned with powers you can't imagine.
Zorlac0666
157,999
Zorlac0666
Posted on 02 January 18 at 13:20
The Globalizer said:
Zorlac0666 said:
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).
I agree with almost all of what you said there. So why is AO2, a decommissioned game, one of our Games With Gold?

Because giving away a digital game has no incremental cost but running servers does. Good enough game to give us but not enough to keep the servers up for. Basically, fuck us, we're just customers.
That's the thing here. You're NOT a customer, you are NOT buying this game, and EA isn't gaining any additional revenue from it. People were already not playing it online. Do you really think they're going to turn the servers back on for a week for a few achievement hunters? No. We are by far still the minority in gaming.

HolyHalfDead said:
spammerstriker said:
LuckyConquerer2 said:
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.
What bad PR? Honestly no one cares about getting all achievements on games except for a less than 1% of gamers. The few people on this website are the only ones who don't bother playing a game just because 1 achievement is hard or because they shut off online for a game lol.
This isn't just about achievements, nobody can play ranked matches.
No one was playing them to begin with is the point. That's why they were shut down. Do you really think that if they were as busy as call of duty servers that they would have shut them down?
Elyoh
728,788
Elyoh
Posted on 03 January 18 at 00:08
By that logic chain, you'd be happy for everyone to dump their dead computers on your lawn for free. Nobody's using them, so why keep them? And if I'm giving them to you for free you can't complain.
No God, know fear. Know God, no fear.
Zorlac0666
157,999
Zorlac0666
Posted on 03 January 18 at 01:20
Elyoh said:
By that logic chain, you'd be happy for everyone to dump their dead computers on your lawn for free. Nobody's using them, so why keep them? And if I'm giving them to you for free you can't complain.
Not even close to a good comparison. The rest of AoT still works, and is perfectly playable. It's simply the multiplayer THAT NO ONE WAS PLAYING that's gone. This is very much a normal business practice that if you're going to continue being a gamer that you should get used to.

Come on man, this isn't hard to understand. Zero people cared about this issue a month ago. Even people that paid cash for the game. They aren't going to turn the servers on for people to continue not caring.
Elyoh
728,788
Elyoh
Posted on 03 January 18 at 04:34
...The problem isn't that the servers are off. Read that a few times, let it sink in. The problem is that they're giving away something that has been made incomplete. Two very different things. You are continually arguing the former, whereas the majority here are talking about the latter.
No God, know fear. Know God, no fear.
LuckyKant
443,968
LuckyKant
Posted on 03 January 18 at 10:32
Half the game is no longer available. MS have to do better. A working game is not too much to ask.
This post may be sarcastic.
The Globalizer
1,003,517
The Globalizer
Posted on 03 January 18 at 15:47
Elyoh said:
...The problem isn't that the servers are off. Read that a few times, let it sink in. The problem is that they're giving away something that has been made incomplete. Two very different things. You are continually arguing the former, whereas the majority here are talking about the latter.
Exactly. And the simple point is this: MS uses Games With Gold to market its Gold subscription. It does it to compete with the benefits of PSPlus. It is part of the bargain between us as customers and MS as a seller. As part of that program, MS gives us a game where a major part of it doesn't work, because the publisher has closed down its own hosted servers. MS and EA sat down and said, "Let's give them AO2" when both have control to a) not provide a broken game, and b) not close down the servers. I don't know why EA, with its library of functioning games, decided on a broken one, but OK.

As I said before, this is isn't your buddy giving his old games to an orphanage. This is two highly profitable companies giving a broken game to purchasers of a subscription that includes free games, where the "broken" part is entirely due to one or both's decisions. It's cynical as a shit.

(FWIW, I think AO2 would have been a fine game to be single player only - and that would have been my preference - but that's not the game that was published, and everyone knows it.)
KenH2k4
485,859
KenH2k4
Posted on 03 January 18 at 15:58
The Globalizer said:
I don't know why EA, with its library of functioning games, decided on a broken one, but OK.
Because the fully functional ones go on Access
TheTimeHasCome6
Posted on 07 January 18 at 01:30
Dubs187 said:
its so funny reading the OCD comments about unobtainables,laugh
Agreed. It's sad that people refuse to play a game because of Achievements. Who cares if you can't complete it just play the damn game completion percentage means nothing.
A Dreadful Shot
Posted on 07 January 18 at 02:16
Achievements mean nothing! What am I doing on an achievement site? facepalm
Zorlac0666
157,999
Zorlac0666
Posted on 09 January 18 at 12:46
A Dreadful Shot said:
Achievements mean nothing! What am I doing on an achievement site? facepalm
It's very possible to enjoy a game without having to earn every achievement. Even if you enjoy achievements this is still possible.
Skinny Kim Jung
Posted on 09 January 18 at 20:19, Edited on 09 January 18 at 20:19 by Skinny Kim Jung
What would be cool is if companies that kill off MP achievements just give it to people upon booting up an old game like Army of Two.

Otherwise they just sit there forever locked.
-Eder St Cool
LuckyKant
443,968
LuckyKant
Posted on 09 January 18 at 21:12
No.
This post may be sarcastic.
Zorlac0666
157,999
Zorlac0666
Posted on 09 January 18 at 23:10
Eder St Cool said:
What would be cool is if companies that kill off MP achievements just give it to people upon booting up an old game like Army of Two.

Otherwise they just sit there forever locked.
How would that be fair to the people that worked for them?
Zorlac0666
157,999
Zorlac0666
Posted on 10 January 18 at 15:00
J4CKA1 said:
Zorlac0666 said:
Eder St Cool said:
What would be cool is if companies that kill off MP achievements just give it to people upon booting up an old game like Army of Two.

Otherwise they just sit there forever locked.
How would that be fair to the people that worked for them?
How is it fair for people who just bought their first xbox console and Gold this month?
The same as it's been through the history of gaming. You adopt late you miss out on some things. I mean that's just the facts of how this industry works.
Shinnizle
759,969
Shinnizle
Posted on 10 January 18 at 15:01, Edited on 10 January 18 at 15:02 by Shinnizle
Well, I'd call that fair. I think it's not unreasonable that people who just bought an Xbox right now have less achievement opportunities than early adopters.

EDIT: Ninja'd.
Broke is a state of wallet. Poverty is a state of mind.
Want to join in the discussion? Please log in or Register For Free to comment.