MGS3: Subsistence Servers To Shut Down In One Month.

kieran_ · Post by **kieran_** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:01 pm

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/02/27/mgs3- ... line-only/

I have never played this game. I know some of you have. I thought you might like to know this.

casualsax3 · Post by **casualsax3** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 4:45 am

Kind of sad that I never got to play it, as I heard it was really quite good.

snkcube · Post by **snkcube** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 4:50 am

I only played a couple of matches of it online. It was fun. Too bad I didn't get to try out the other modes.

Firon · Post by **Firon** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 4:58 am

After only a single year? That's pretty lame.

darkbenny · Post by **darkbenny** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:04 am

some of the comments are quite interesting reads in their own rights.

smkdan · Post by **smkdan** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:37 am

I think you can't really blame them with no subscription fees to keep the servers up. I got pissed when my main RTS game stopped putting out patches indefinitely but I think I can just be happy they don't take the servers offline.

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/08/06/no-mo ... u-says-ea/
Found this article on the site. EA is apparently taking XBL (among other) games offline so fans have to purchase the next installment. They don't even have to use their own servers with the Live fee.

Now that's pretty lame.

Panzer88 · Post by **Panzer88** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:51 am

well that's EA, money sucking sonsabitches

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:55 am

It is very related to popularity+consumer demand. Although, people finding out now is pretty disappointing.

"Awesome, free online gaming!" - when reading from the box

"WTF, this is going to go away soon, stupid false advertising..." - after reading this news.

Those of you that don't pay a dime for the online features of a game should not complain when that service goes away.

Panzer88 · Post by **Panzer88** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:58 am

well people can complain all they want regardless of whether it accomplishes anything. And anyways they provide the service free, so they should hold to that, they don't even provide an option to pay so it's not like there was anything any gamer could do about it. Not that it surprises me. Companies promise long console life or online service for a game, but they usually die short of what the company promised.

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:02 am

Panzer88 wrote:well people can complain all they want regardless of whether it accomplishes anything. And anyways they provide the service free, so they should hold to that, they don't even provide an option to pay so it's not like there was anything any gamer could do about it. Not that it surprises me. Companies promise long console life or online service for a game, but they usually die short of what the company promised.

My point was more for the appreciation of the service that is provided to you. Companies never really "guarentee" that they will have the servers up forever. It is all written in some EULA for signing up for the service.

sweener2001 · Post by **sweener2001** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:15 am

the ps2's approach to online was retarded, and this is a direct result

but you can't blame konami, as i'm sure that only a handful of people really care.

Panzer88 · Post by **Panzer88** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:26 am

sweener2001 wrote:the ps2's approach to online was retarded, and this is a direct result

but you can't blame konami, as i'm sure that only a handful of people really care.

no argument here-

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:39 am

sweener2001 wrote:the ps2's approach to online was retarded, and this is a direct result

Can you elaborate further?

smkdan · Post by **smkdan** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:50 am

PS2 online games rely on the developers to host their own servers. They're bound to go offline when there aren't enough sales going for their online game. It's entirely a free service like you said earlier.

XBL is more 'secure' because the games are hosted on MS servers and (a portion) of the Live fee goes towards maintaining them. There's really no reason for the devs to remove online support for their game on XBL... unless ofcourse its part of their devious scheme.

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:58 am

smkdan wrote:PS2 online games rely on the developers to host their own servers. They're bound to go offline when there aren't enough sales going for their online game. It's entirely a free service like you said earlier.

XBL is more 'secure' because the games are hosted on MS servers and (a portion) of the Live fee goes towards maintaining them. There's really no reason for the devs to remove online support for their game on XBL... unless ofcourse its part of their devious scheme.

Dev hosted.. that explains a lot.

Demios · Post by **Demios** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 10:01 am

The reason I bought the game again, was for online mode...

sweener2001 · Post by **sweener2001** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:20 am

dev hosted, and sony gave them zero standards to go by. there is no consistency between games and the online services.

so, no universal friends list.

messaging and clans are also up to the developer. it was stupid.

kieran_ · Post by **kieran_** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:08 pm

Demios wrote:The reason I bought the game again, was for online mode...

I remember you mentioning something like this before. It was the main reason that I made the thread.

casualsax3 · Post by **casualsax3** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 4:56 pm

Deathlike2 wrote:
smkdan wrote:PS2 online games rely on the developers to host their own servers. They're bound to go offline when there aren't enough sales going for their online game. It's entirely a free service like you said earlier.

XBL is more 'secure' because the games are hosted on MS servers and (a portion) of the Live fee goes towards maintaining them. There's really no reason for the devs to remove online support for their game on XBL... unless ofcourse its part of their devious scheme.
Dev hosted.. that explains a lot.

The PS2 took a PC approach to online gaming, which seems pretty fucking good to me. I pay for the internet access, why should I pay again to use your servers Xbox? In a number of cases it worked out fantastic - SOCOM, FF12.

sweener2001 · Post by **sweener2001** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:54 pm

they took a pc approach, and nearly all the companies that develop for the ps2 have no pc experience. while FFXI and socom did work, that was it.

ubisoft didn't even try to have online in their splinter cell games for ps2. i'm pretty sure there were a lot of other examples of that. like every shooter for the system, burnouts, and i think the list could go on.

who pays 15/month for WoW? if anyone plays an pay/month MMO and complains about xbox live gold, that would be ridiculous.

i'm not naming anyone, just saying