EA's shuttered Facebook games a cautionary tale for online-only play

[wanderer27]

Really, this should be blatantly obvious too anyone with a clue . . . guess that leaves EA out :whiste:

. . . As TechCrunch noted at the time, the news was met with angry pleas by players who’d poured countless hours over many years into these social games. “Why do you want to kill my pet?” one PetVille player asked in response.


The reaction to EA’s impending closure has been similar. “For all the money I’ve spent and given you, this is the thanks that people like me, who’ve plowed money into your little franchise for endless years, get in return? It’s unacceptable,” one user wrote on EA’s Pet Society Facebook page.

Quite telling, this:

As Shacknews notes, players won’t get that money back. In fact, players who spent real-world money on virtual currency in EA’s games will have just two months to spend it all, or lose their credit forever. EA says it will have a “special offer” as a consolation for stranded players.

And more here (and it's not just FB games):

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2034...s-a-cautionary-tale-for-online-only-play.html




.

 

[darkewaffle]

You mean online services shut down whenever they stop being used? Man, who knew.

I also like how the first half of the first quote is actually directed at Zynga. I guess that context isn't really relevant though

 

[CPA]

Yep, they announce SimCity Societies was closing down for good in June. This is at the heart of the current SimCity 5 game (not withstanding all of the bugs) - because it's online only, EA at any time can pull the plug and you are out a game that you thought you bought, when in reality you only rented.

 

[wanderer27]

You mean online services shut down whenever they stop being used? Man, who knew.

I also like how the first half of the first quote is actually directed at Zynga. I guess that context isn't really relevant though

Actually it's totally relevant, doesn't matter who/what the Company is.

Anything that is dependent for Online to be functional is subject to this.

EA is notorious for this (EA Sports in particular), this just highlights it.


CPA has it right, you're just renting, and with Online dependency the terms of that rental can end at the whim of the Company providing that service.


.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Star Wars Galaxies and City of Heroes / Villains applies more than Facebook games to the people here, but it's the same story. Spend tens or even hundreds of dollars on characters, perks, stuff and it all goes away.

Still, if Star Trek Online or SWTOR shut down next month I wouldn't feel cheated because I do understand that I'm only renting the game, like Netflix streaming or seeing a movie in the theater.

 

[Kalmah]

It's worth noting that EA's crap is now affecting the casual gamer market. Now my grandmother has a reason to hate EA.

Anyhow, I'm done with the bullshit. Gaming isn't quite the hobby it use to be for me anymore. Instead, it's becoming a time-filler. I'm ok with only buying a couple titles a year now. There are and will be plenty of games without the bullshit attached. We have plenty of kickstarters in the works.

 

[wanderer27]

Well, I see this more as a coming impact to the recent calamity known as SimCity.

This is the type of game that is played long after it's original release . . . I still fire up SimCity 4, and that was released ages ago.

If SC4 had been subject to these requirements, it would have no where near the value it has, not to mention the Modability.


.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I think the key point many people miss is..it's not "on a whim", it's whenever a company decides that particular always online product is no longer making them enough money to keep it running. This completely negates whether or not anyone is actually still using the product even if they aren't spending money.

It puts everything entirely in the companies hands.

Now, when you consider single player games requiring servers to play them, it only further makes you want to kick said company square in the nuts. It doesn't matter to a company if 1000 people or 1,000,000 paid for their product, if they aren't making enough money off those people month to month, you can bet there won't be servers around for very long. This is where EA's microtransaction "go forward" plan will fail. It assumes that people playing WILL spend a certain amount of money month to month to cover server costs etc.

Then on top of that you have forced "shutdowns" due to the latest and not so greatest version of said game coming out the next year ;p

 

[mindcycle]

This is one of the main reasons we as gamers should only support MP games that can make use of dedicated servers not controlled by the publisher. Or play MP games that also offer an offline mode. Otherwise you're simply at the their mercy and all the time you invested in your game of choice could be gone with the flip of a switch.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I agree for single-player games, if it requires a server other than Steam for DRM I'm going to be very hesitant to buy it.

With an MMO you can just accept that it's a limited-time event and don't expect that you'll still be able to keep playing it in 5 years.

 

[JTsyo]

For the simple games they should offer a $10 stand alone game that you can transfer your pet/character/items to. That's how I would help ease customers. You don't want to leave them in the cold, they are the same ones you want spending on your next game.

 

[clok1966]

EA in title= company 1st, money 2nd, Top brass wages 3rd, annoying public with horrible PR comments 4th, assuming they know whats best for gamers as they BOUGHT (not created, bought) great properties and ran them into ground 5th, really think what the customers want.. oh sorry that is not on a list of what EA does.

kidding aside.. EA jumping on a bandwagon and jumping off just as quick leaving the loyal customers in the dirt. been doing it since the late 90's.. and people expected changes?

 

[Craig234]

I really don't understand why these games shut down. I understand why they don't continue development, but have to think it's not that expensive to keep a static server up.

These games require way too much investment by players to just throw it away, typically thousands of hours and more for many players.

Asheron's Call 2, City of Heroes, Star Wars Galaxies and many more were filled with people who still wanted to play who had invested years.

A better commitment to players might also help them get more players if they don't have to worry their investment will be wasted.

 

[Kalmah]

Well, I see this more as a coming impact to the recent calamity known as SimCity.

This is the type of game that is played long after it's original release . . . I still fire up SimCity 4, and that was released ages ago.

If SC4 had been subject to these requirements, it would have no where near the value it has, not to mention the Modability.


.

If Simcity 4's "servers" were shut down like 7 years ago, people today would just be like, "remember that city building game we use to be able to play?". The game would be lost in history eventually. If you wanted to keep playing you'd have to wait out the time gap between releases and hope that the next installment doesn't suck. At this point you're forced to buy the new versions if you want to keep playing. And if the new version sucks, oh well.

Like I said before, I'm not going to be playing their dlc game. I simply will not be participating. I like playing last decade's games, I won't be getting attached to this decade's games and not be able to play them in the future.

 

[lupi]

And they wonder why so many hated the sim5 bs requirement.

And this is nothing new with EA, they've been doing this on the pc standalone side for quite some time.

As far as galaxies, that was a LA thing with TOR about to be released.

 

[M0oG0oGaiPan]

if there's no money to be made why continue running it? Not even talking about just games look at google reader.

 

[crownjules]

if there's no money to be made why continue running it? Not even talking about just games look at google reader.

From the business side, of course it makes sense. But from our (gamer/consumer side) it's a case of why did you design it this way in the first place? Single player games with online requirements like in SimCity. Or the MP functionality only being available through company provided servers with no options for dedicated servers. These things limit the lifespan of the game to how long the publisher makes money running them, rather than how long dedicated customers want to play those products.

In a way, it's planned obsolescence. EA has been doing this for years with their sports franchises. You probably can't play an online match of Madden that's older than 2011. Maybe 2010. So you're forced to spend the $60 to upgrade to play if you like that game.

 

[Soundmanred]

 

[M0oG0oGaiPan]

i don't play any of those games mentioned in the article but I do play simpsons tapped out and just started on candy crush. Personally I don't think I'd be as interested if they were only single player. I'm primarily a multiplayer gamer though. I usually skip single player and jump right in multiplayer for the hardcore games I play. it would be nice if they released a standalone version of the game or a listen/dedicated server software for the fans of the impacted games.

 

[dud]

We need to put down the mouse and spend time outside ... in the sunlight.

 

[ImpulsE69]

We need to put down the mouse and spend time outside ... in the sunlight.

I already do that...with my computer...now...to actually move around...

 

[Newbian]

We need to put down the mouse and spend time outside ... in the sunlight.

As soon as the sun decides to come back out as it's still winter for many of us.

 

[Nintendesert]

I really don't understand why these games shut down. I understand why they don't continue development, but have to think it's not that expensive to keep a static server up.

These games require way too much investment by players to just throw it away, typically thousands of hours and more for many players.

Asheron's Call 2, City of Heroes, Star Wars Galaxies and many more were filled with people who still wanted to play who had invested years.

A better commitment to players might also help them get more players if they don't have to worry their investment will be wasted.

I figure they don't just toss the server hardware but use it on a more profitable online service. Say as it's used it's making 1 dollar per person and if they used it on the next hotness it could be making them 6 dollars. EA views it as losing 5 bucks instead of making 1 dollar.

 

[BoberFett]

EA in title= company 1st, money 2nd, Top brass wages 3rd, annoying public with horrible PR comments 4th, assuming they know whats best for gamers as they BOUGHT (not created, bought) great properties and ran them into ground 5th, really think what the customers want.. oh sorry that is not on a list of what EA does.

kidding aside.. EA jumping on a bandwagon and jumping off just as quick leaving the loyal customers in the dirt. been doing it since the late 90's.. and people expected changes?

Don't forget employees. They're somewhere below priority # 18...

 

[CPA]

I really don't understand why these games shut down. I understand why they don't continue development, but have to think it's not that expensive to keep a static server up.

These games require way too much investment by players to just throw it away, typically thousands of hours and more for many players.

Asheron's Call 2, City of Heroes, Star Wars Galaxies and many more were filled with people who still wanted to play who had invested years.

A better commitment to players might also help them get more players if they don't have to worry their investment will be wasted.

My guess is part of the reason, other than continued labor costs to maintain the systems, is that most of the computer hardware has fully depreciated. Now, that may seem like a good thing, but from a tax perspective, it's not. That fully depreciated equipment no longer provides a tax benefit to the company and re-investing in equipment is capital intensive. Most companies don't capitalize replacement equipment (mine doesn't) unless there is utilization benefit. Well, with non-paying customers and probably a declining enrollment of new customers (decreasing ad base), that utilization (or Return on Investment) is just not there.

So, you're left with aging equipment, continued labor costs, a stagnant or declining user base and most likely reduced advertising revenues.

Companies are not going to shut down a profitable division. They just won't. But, they will easily shut down something that breaks even or is no longer profitable in a heartbeat.