How long should a game's online functions be supported for?

How long should a game's online functions be supported for?

Other urls found in this thread:

amazon.com/Devils-Third-Wii-U-Standard/dp/B00KWIYS3K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1466986665&sr=8-1&keywords=devils third
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Multiplayer is cancer

Until the last player alive decided to take down his own server

Forever

Dedicated or non dedicated servers?
Company hosting the servers or no?
These things are important, gayass.

Like how Microsoft used to only host the matchmaking server but the OG xbox actually did the host for the gameserver.

At least a year if no one plays

It should be mandatory that every multiplayer game have offline multiplayer, LAN options or allow players to make their own servers.

Ideally developers should give the players server tools when they don't want to support it anymore

This. If the dev is going to abandon a game, give the players that remain the option to keep it going themselves.
But for some reason, devs don't want to do this. What is the rationalization for not doing this? It's not like they're going to reopen the servers once they're closed (let's just pretend Demon Souls doesn't count). I'm talking about games that are well and truly abandoned.

This.

Wasn't there going to be a PC version?

I don't even know how most games work. Say for a game like Call of Duty, does Activision provide the server's or does Microsoft and Sony? If the former then why do they want a yearly fee to play online? Regardless there should be a minimum if they're selling you a product advertising that feature, but the reason I'm asking is because I don't know and I want to know more about it, gayass.

Devs should just be forced to make dedicated server support in their games. Left4Dead 2 is practically dead and on life support. There's only a few thousand players a day. But all of them are in dedicated servers.
And what is Valve losing from these dedicated servers? Nothing. There is no excuse to not have dedicated server support.

Get them to move onto the next game in the franchise, if there is a sequel, or budget cuts resulting in the servers going offline.

Ideally? Forever.

Realistically? a 5 year plan minimum, ending with the company giving out free tool to allow user-made/maintained servers, that should be available for atleast 2 years after the server closes (by then the software should be available on third party download sites and torrents)

forces them to buy the sequel

It depends, some companies hosted their own servers and some didn't. Microsoft didn't host the "servers" for Halo 2 and Halo 3 as what most people typically think of as a 'server' which was an individual server that pinged a master matchmaking server that pinged a console to tell it to connect to an IP hosting the server, being on whoever was picked to be "host".
The case being though, when a company is hosting both, the master matchmaking server AND the game servers, when the servers are discontinued the games are basically dead when they pull the plug and take both the matchmaking and server hosting software with them. Since in those cases the host software is not bundled with the client software.

This.

If you put a component in your game it should last as long as every other part of your game.

Yes, it'll be F2P from what I know.

Yep. But for some fucking reason there's still North American release date, it's only out in Japan and Russia

I didn't even know this game was already out.

It's gonna be a fucking mess of pay2win garbage. It should already be considered DOA

You sound so fucking entitled right now someone might say unironically.

...

It was out since December. But they didn't bother advertising it anyways.

Not like it matters since it didn't even really have a community.

Is there a place where you can check if games still support online multiplayer? Say if I bought Anarchy Reigns for PS3 how would I know if I can still play online?


How much in general would a dedicated server cost for a regular/not GTA or Halo type game? Would Devil's Third have costed them a lot of money to do that and support it for at least two years after release?


Did that entail teling it which players to connect? Because didn't they advertise some type of smart matchmaking so people who suck will be more likely to get paired with people who suck and some type of "I like cussing" or "family friendly" options? I'm not sure if that was just certain games or how that worked (or even IF it actually worked)

That was with Halo Reach onwards.
But yes the client profile would be pinged to the server, which also allows it to matchmake players through their "Reputation" on xbox live, as being a dick or not, as well as other filters.

The Master Server is the most important part. Without it, no one is getting online. The only reason Tribes 2 is still running is because someone intercepted the packets on the final day of official support was able to make their own master server.
At least I think that's how it went. It's been a while.

Oh okay, that does seem cool if it works. I think Microsoft is doing some type of club/request system now, so maybe it didn't work that well? I suppose there is a lot of people think cussing is cool, but calling someone a retarded fag should be punishable by death though.

If a company is going to shut down their servers then they should update the game so people can run their own in it's place, it's like devs don't take time into account when they make games, maybe I'll want to play it again years down the line and when those servers are down half or god forbid all of the game will be inaccessible.

Creating and releasing a server application isn't hard. Running a server isn't hard. Modifying any network-enabled game to connect to a different server isn't hard. The only reason that publishers let games die is to force you to stop playing it, usually in favor of some other product they've shat out in the meantime.

money

Regardless
Here is a graph explaining it
Sometimes the food comes with the client.

He also changed the login to a kind of offline ticket granting system, so there's no need for a login server once your token is generated. It's really neat.

This doesn't make any sense.

The master server hosts the menu
Which you can pick the burger from
You being the client are not given the tools and materials to assemble the burger or assemble multiple and server more than one person.

I guess it would make more sense if the Cook, was the host. Since a Cook can be a client and a server.

Was it a good game? Who knows! Nobody played it.

Oh, I thought you were saying the Host was the burger

For a non mmorpg I guess until it's no longer profitable or zero players. Which is why I was never a fan of mmorpg, but that's just me. For everything else, pretty much nailed it. Treating vidya as if it's e-commerce or e-gambling usually turns it cancerous.

Umm
amazon.com/Devils-Third-Wii-U-Standard/dp/B00KWIYS3K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1466986665&sr=8-1&keywords=devils third

Can't you get it digitally for a more reasonable price? It's still ridiculous though, Nintendo clearly didn't want to release it.

It makes me wonder why they didn't just let XSEED publish it like what was rumored. They didn't want to be associated with Fatal Frame 5, and they sure as fuck didn't want to be associated with this.


Having played it I can say it was okay. There are some good ideas and it is fun in a low budget PS2 game published by THQ sort of way, but the execution is sadly lackluster.

I meant at release. Why buy it now? Nobody's playing it online anyway.

at least with anarchy reigns the people who wanted to play it online had a good 2 months before the english version came out dead on arrival.

In some cases, they reached their peak years ago and no matter what games they make today, it'll never be as good as their previous title. They know that if they just simply gave you the keys to make your own server and have people join in and play while their newer titles suck, why would you buy them?

Its another thing too. They want to force people to buy the sequels and keeping the servers active for the previous game or handing you over the keys to it would harm their profits.

All in all: Money.

Considering the shelf life of the average game:

Two years.

Let's face it: nobody cares after a few months anyway. How many games actually stay popular for a long time?

The good ones

Tons, there are people STILL playing Diablo online
Diablo fucking ONE

Not really.

Everyone is just looking for the next hype.

MMOs last the longest because of the community I suppose.

And suddenly I think of Destiny of Spirits for the Vita. That one didn't last long, was F2P + cash shop on a gacha drawing system, and held lots of Sony-themed characters. I'm not even sure it lasted a full year.

But it did give me this, which I really hope makes an appearance in Gravity Rush 2.

I think it was like a year and a half. I can't say I'll miss it though. I have no idea why players would waste their time and the devs would waste their art on that. They should've just put the extra work in to make it a real game. That Taro Friend Finder game for Vita was better.

Nice projection

Pretty much this
In fact shutting down servers in less than a decade should be lawsuit worthy.
That will make those kikes making yearly multiplayer only games reconsider

/thread

indefinitely

How to tell someone was on cuckchan vitagen circa early 2014; ask them about Destiny of Spirits.

Uhh or just owned a Vita?

Reminder that EA has already shut down servers for a game that required online authentication for single player. Didn't release a patch or anything. The game's disc is now useless and they don't give a shit.

That's why you never should buy video games. This shit happens.

As long as the developer feels like it is viable. BUT if they do decide to shut it down they should at least be decent and release the tools needed to make your own master server or whatever. So that the community can take over. Devs that just kill their games and don't give people an option to keep playing it are assholes.