Topic: Xbox Live Question

[NWR_insanolord]

Do games ever stop being able to be played multiplayer via Xbox Live. A friend of mine is getting a 360 and I was thinking about getting him a game (NCAA Football 09) for Christmas that we could play online and I was wondering if that would stop working on Live at some point as it gets older.

[Flames_of_chaos]

Do games ever stop being able to be played multiplayer via Xbox Live. A friend of mine is getting a 360 and I was thinking about getting him a game (NCAA Football 09) for Christmas that we could play online and I was wondering if that would stop working on Live at some point as it gets older.

Yes a online server for a game could be shut down eventually, each EA game on the back of the box in fine print says that EA has the right to shut down the online functionality of this title but they usually give a 30 day notice of when it will shut down except they word it differently. EA and other companies that makes sports titles usually do this for sports games that are usually 2 - 3 years old, other publishers shut down servers if they aren't worth it anymore like not a lot of people play online, it's not successful anymore or it's using too much resources for them. But this isn't just a Xbox live situation it could happen to PSN(PS3 and PSP),Xbox Live/Games for Windows Live,PC, Nintendo Wi-Fi connection(Wii and DS). Also EA uses EA nation for all of their games for all platforms (Rockband is an exception since MTV is the publisher and EA is the distributor).

[NWR_insanolord]

Thanks for the answer. I knew it happened on other platforms but I wondered if it was still the case on the 360 thinking that the subscription fees for Live might mean it didn't happen there. I was worried that they'd shut down the NCAA 09 servers right when the next one came out, if it will still be a couple years I think I may go ahead with it.

[Flames_of_chaos]

Thanks for the answer. I knew it happened on other platforms but I wondered if it was still the case on the 360 thinking that the subscription fees for Live might mean it didn't happen there. I was worried that they'd shut down the NCAA 09 servers right when the next one came out, if it will still be a couple years I think I may go ahead with it.

Haha Subscription fees on Xbox Live just gives you the privilege to play on the Xbox live servers, publishers still have say if they want to keep the online portion up or down. The irony is Games For Windows Live recently became free and those servers are essentially Xbox live servers except for PC games with the Games For Windows branding. So the common conclusion is the only reason why MS still charges for Xbox live is because they can get away with it and consumers are willing to pay for it since they want to play online( I wonder how this recession will impact that).

[Morari]

PC gamers aren't dumb enough to pay for what they've been getting for free since the dawn of the industry.

Having companies hosting the servers puts everyone in a bad position anyway, as stuff like that can be done. Much better to have people running private servers, or even hosting peer games.

[NWR_Lindy]

I wish more games would allow people to run private servers.  I know Warhawk does, but I can't think of anything else.

[Flames_of_chaos]

I wish more games would allow people to run private servers.  I know Warhawk does, but I can't think of anything else.

Lindy did you ever a picture of the warhawk server room?? Sony uses PS3s as official warhawk servers which is pretty neat.

[KDR_11k]

Thanks for the answer. I knew it happened on other platforms but I wondered if it was still the case on the 360 thinking that the subscription fees for Live might mean it didn't happen there. I was worried that they'd shut down the NCAA 09 servers right when the next one came out, if it will still be a couple years I think I may go ahead with it.

Haha Subscription fees on Xbox Live just gives you the privilege to play on the Xbox live servers, publishers still have say if they want to keep the online portion up or down. The irony is Games For Windows Live recently became free and those servers are essentially Xbox live servers except for PC games with the Games For Windows branding. So the common conclusion is the only reason why MS still charges for Xbox live is because they can get away with it and consumers are willing to pay for it since they want to play online( I wonder how this recession will impact that).

The Games for Windows branding was always stupid anyway and it's no wonder MS can't charge for online play on PC games that aren't MMO. I'm frankly surprised any devs actually took them up on that idiocy.

[NWR_Lindy]

Lindy did you ever a picture of the warhawk server room?? Sony uses PS3s as official warhawk servers which is pretty neat.

Yeah, I remember that.  It was really cool.  Sony is likely ahead of their time with that concept.

[Flames_of_chaos]

Lindy did you ever a picture of the warhawk server room?? Sony uses PS3s as official warhawk servers which is pretty neat.

Yeah, I remember that.  It was really cool.  Sony is likely ahead of their time with that concept.

Well atleast Sony isn't crazy enough to charge the end user for a setup like that unlike another company does. I wonder if developers will use that type of server set up in console online infrastructure in the future.

[KDR_11k]

Lindy did you ever a picture of the warhawk server room?? Sony uses PS3s as official warhawk servers which is pretty neat.

Yeah, I remember that.  It was really cool.  Sony is likely ahead of their time with that concept.

Yeah, because noone uses PCs to host PC games...

[Flames_of_chaos]

Yep but then again Microsoft charges for P2P play (xbox live) while sony and nintendo doesn't.

[NWR_Lindy]

Yeah, because noone uses PCs to host PC games...

I didn't think I had to, but let me spell it out: Sony was likely ahead of their time in the console space with that particular feature, in that particular game.

[Morari]

I remember using my Dreamcast as not only a console-to-console server, but also a router for my home network.

[NWR_Lindy]

I remember using my Dreamcast as not only a console-to-console server, but also a router for my home network.

Ok let's try it one more time:

Sony was likely ahead of their time in the console space with that particular feature, in that particular game, aside from Dreamcast which could apparently be used as a console-to-console server and router according to Morari thanks Morari

done

[NWR_insanolord]

The Dreamcast was the most ahead-of-its-time thing ever in gaming.

[Morari]

The Dreamcast was the most ahead-of-its-time thing ever in gaming.

Indeed it was.

[UltimatePartyBear]

What's so special about using racks of consoles as servers, anyway?  It may seem neat-o to a few gamers, but it's probably a lot less efficient and harder to maintain than a traditional server farm.

[NWR_Lindy]

Well, seeing as Sony makes the things anyways, I'm sure it works for them.  The PS3 is probably more stable than a lot of server-class machines out there anyways, to be honest.

[GoldenPhoenix]

I remember using my Dreamcast as not only a console-to-console server, but also a router for my home network.

Ok let's try it one more time:

Sony was likely ahead of their time in the console space with that particular feature, in that particular game, aside from Dreamcast which could apparently be used as a console-to-console server and router according to Morari thanks Morari

done

You should have known that anyway considering Sony never has original ideas.