• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

User generated content games and always online, whats the point when the servers get killed?

Why in 2022 are servers still getting killed by companies? Is it that expensive to host when there aren't many users. Don't these scale with volume?

Whats the point in getting invested in an online game or make your own content for one? Why even bother?

I am referring to always online games , multiplayer games and of course "play, create and share", remember Sony's tag line from ps3 era Little Big Planet, LbP2, etc..
This eventually became the basis of Dreams. (the flop that it was, a long devtime flop, sorry it maybe innovative, but it was too long to release and a hard sell).

I noticed this the other day when i was looking through my library on PS5 and seen an indie game published by Sony called "Sound Shapes" from circa 2013 on vita and ps4 launch.
I only had 10 minutes to spare and this seemed like the perfect game for killing some time. So I thought.

Well all my created levels, gone. All the 1000s of community content gone as you can't login to the servers anymore.

So i was curious about LBP and here there servers were cut in 2021 so only the newest one has them. They said hackers were to blame so they had to kill the servers. I think it was just an easy way to kill servers without backlash as we all saw how
penny pinching these companies are; EA, Ubisoft, rockstar, Sony, Nintendo are with servers, MS not so much , but only because they own azure, but I could see them doing the same too.

This of course happens with always online games and even dlc (ubisoft -looking at you , assholes that you are!).


Anyone in the industry know how much it would be to put baseline servers up for a game that only has a few hundred players at most? It can't be that expensive can it? I know renting server space for a website is cheap. Are the bean counters such cheapskates or is it really that expensive?
If so why not give people the option for making their own community servers?


PC doesn't have this problem. Well mmos do, but even they last for decades , the good ones. Isn't Everquest 1 and Ultima Online are still being played?

I can download 100000s of mods and some total conversions for morrowind, oblivion, skyrim, total war games, civ4/5 etc...

Also Thief 1,2,3 and Neverwinter nights 1 and 2 have 1000s of fan made missions, levels, full games, sequels, and even persistent worlds with their own servers.

Consoles - not so much. Sure skyrim and fallout 4 have some mods, but no where near the scope and breadth of on PC.


So my question is, why even get invested in creating something on console that will not stand the test of time. It will be forgotten and lost as soon as the parent company gets their army of accountants to save $12/ month on a small volume server.

As someone who likes going back to old games, it really sucks. I am just glad on PC we have dedicated communities and sites for preserving the past, not just throwing it all away for the next flashy thing. Thoughts?
 

sn0man

Member
The best I can do is treat those as a ticket to an experience and not something I own. Like admission to a water park or a ticket to go out to the movies vs a board game or dvd.

Maybe worth something but not necessarily the same as actually something you can replay every time.
 

Lady Jane

Banned
The only GaaS I partake in is Hearthstone. I'm aware that I'm going to drop it at one point but I enjoy my time with it now so it's worth it to me. The servers will outlive my interest so I'm not worried about that aspect.
 

nocsi

Member
That's kinda the point of NFTs. But then again, your modern gamers is conditioned to pay for services and to ignore ownership.
 
You have to enjoy it while it’s around. That’s the sad truth. I feel bad for people who never got to have certain experiences after the fact but it’s business. And it sucks dick
 

MarkMe2525

Member
Isn't it obvious? To enjoy it in the moment. There are plenty of things in life we invest time into knowing full well it won't last. Why did I spend 5 hours smoking a chicken today when I won't have it tomorrow after we eat it for dinner?
 
You have to enjoy it while it’s around. That’s the sad truth. I feel bad for people who never got to have certain experiences after the fact but it’s business. And it sucks dick
Even for things that are still around this is the truth. Like they just brought back Enemy Territory servers, but if you play it now you aren't really playing it like everyone did back in the day. That is gone and it being accessible doesn't bring it back.
 

Robb

Gold Member
To enjoy the content you’ve made with friends. I don’t think I’ve ever created something in any multiplayer game unless I had expected to play it with other people I know.
 

A.Romero

Member
The hardware involved is not tha expensive but human resources around it are. It's simply not worth it.

The true bs is not letting the community to run It's own servers...
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Why in 2022 are servers still getting killed by companies? Is it that expensive to host when there aren't many users. Don't these scale with volume?

Whats the point in getting invested in an online game or make your own content for one? Why even bother?

I am referring to always online games , multiplayer games and of course "play, create and share", remember Sony's tag line from ps3 era Little Big Planet, LbP2, etc..
This eventually became the basis of Dreams. (the flop that it was, a long devtime flop, sorry it maybe innovative, but it was too long to release and a hard sell).

I noticed this the other day when i was looking through my library on PS5 and seen an indie game published by Sony called "Sound Shapes" from circa 2013 on vita and ps4 launch.
I only had 10 minutes to spare and this seemed like the perfect game for killing some time. So I thought.

Well all my created levels, gone. All the 1000s of community content gone as you can't login to the servers anymore.

So i was curious about LBP and here there servers were cut in 2021 so only the newest one has them. They said hackers were to blame so they had to kill the servers. I think it was just an easy way to kill servers without backlash as we all saw how
penny pinching these companies are; EA, Ubisoft, rockstar, Sony, Nintendo are with servers, MS not so much , but only because they own azure, but I could see them doing the same too.

This of course happens with always online games and even dlc (ubisoft -looking at you , assholes that you are!).


Anyone in the industry know how much it would be to put baseline servers up for a game that only has a few hundred players at most? It can't be that expensive can it? I know renting server space for a website is cheap. Are the bean counters such cheapskates or is it really that expensive?
If so why not give people the option for making their own community servers?


PC doesn't have this problem. Well mmos do, but even they last for decades , the good ones. Isn't Everquest 1 and Ultima Online are still being played?

I can download 100000s of mods and some total conversions for morrowind, oblivion, skyrim, total war games, civ4/5 etc...

Also Thief 1,2,3 and Neverwinter nights 1 and 2 have 1000s of fan made missions, levels, full games, sequels, and even persistent worlds with their own servers.

Consoles - not so much. Sure skyrim and fallout 4 have some mods, but no where near the scope and breadth of on PC.


So my question is, why even get invested in creating something on console that will not stand the test of time. It will be forgotten and lost as soon as the parent company gets their army of accountants to save $12/ month on a small volume server.

As someone who likes going back to old games, it really sucks. I am just glad on PC we have dedicated communities and sites for preserving the past, not just throwing it all away for the next flashy thing. Thoughts?
Youd think with the big game companies at record profits the past few years, they'd leave on servers for old games.

At least for PC, you might get some modders figuring out hosting games on their own servers.

But to be fair, cant knock Activision. Last time I googled it thy still got COD 2 MP accessible on 360 even if only a couple people try it per year. Earlier this year I also dabbled with World at War, which still works online and amazingly still had about 500 people playing on Xbox at any given time.
 

Tangerine

Member
I saw temtem physical for switch. I was going to buy it untill I found out it's an always online game and can't be played offline at all. Even though, my understanding is it wouldn't take a whole lot of work to make it work as a single player offline game. Correct me if I'm wrong.

So thinking long term... As I collect and don't open most physical games I buy... It's just a total waste to buy, for me. I'm looking for games that work offline, so will work in 10/20 years when the switch servers are offline.

So It's not a collectors game (for me) but it looks good enough that I may buy digitally and complete it while it's online servers are still active on switch. So now. But I would have loved to buy it physically as well. Oh well. Probs not long till physical games are gone for good anyways.

Edit: I have similar issues with games that aren't totally on the cartridge. So games that require additional downloads to work are obviously not contenders either for my physical collection. For switch: Doom 2016, Tony hawk 1 and 2 are just a couple off the top of my head.
 
Last edited:

Dr.Morris79

Member
Being an avid nerd collector of games I sadly have to treat most games as disposable nowdays. Theres zero point point in collecting, say, Cyberpunk on the Xbox one. The disc is useless without the patches that 'make' the game. The only thing I mainly collect now is Switch games and even then most of them need patches..

So what i'm saying is, just treat it all as disposable, it's sadly how the medium has become, it didnt have to be like this but the masses accepted

It was a bitter pill to swallow at first but lifes too short.

Viva la Retro!
 

Three

Member
Youd think with the big game companies at record profits the past few years, they'd leave on servers for old games.

At least for PC, you might get some modders figuring out hosting games on their own servers.

But to be fair, cant knock Activision. Last time I googled it thy still got COD 2 MP accessible on 360 even if only a couple people try it per year. Earlier this year I also dabbled with World at War, which still works online and amazingly still had about 500 people playing on Xbox at any given time.
You haven't read the OPs main gripe. The problem is not hosting games but storing user generated content indefinitely. No modder is paying to store user generated content indefinitely.
 
Last edited:
You are confused. This isn't a flaw, it is a feature. The ability to kill off an old game is a bad thing for players, but it is a good thing for developers. If only older Battlefield games could be turned off, the BF2042 might have more players if by force.

So your problem is thinking a feature exists to improve the game experience, when in reality it is about improving the developer's bottom line. Imagine if you will, your fridge stops working every 2 years and you are forced to buy a new one. That is the point of these online games. These games have a shelf life that is under the developer's control. It is shit for you the gamer, but they don't care about that.

And the NFT trolls can get lost. that shit can't work because no developer would give away control of their IP. You are not going to hot mod what you want into someone else's game, that is called moding at the best of times and something online games are designed to kill off. NFT is the other extreme of the spectrum, that of something that in theory benefit the rich players but at the detriment to the game developer and anyone who doesn't want to pay to win, so the game developer want nothing to do with it.
 
Last edited:

nkarafo

Member
 

nkarafo

Member
Youd think with the big game companies at record profits the past few years, they'd leave on servers for old games.

They could but why would they? Old games are a niche product. It's not profitable for them to keep the servers up for those.


You are confused. This isn't a flaw, it is a feature. The ability to kill off an old game is a bad thing for players, but it is a good thing for developers.

Bingo. And people have seen nothing yet. Wait for when streaming completely replaces local files, which is every publisher's wet dream. See how long new games live before they get wiped out of existence based on their popularity/profits. You will only be able to play whatever the publishers think it's worth keeping in their servers. That or whatever you still have in your backlog of old local games.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom