Looking at buying that 1200 MS Point ($24.75*) Battlefield: 1943 today?
Check out this little note at the end of the “description” -
EA MAY RETIRE THIS GAME AFTER 30 DAYS NOTICE POSTED ON www.ea.com.
So – you buy the game, and EA can simply take it away from you at their discretion.
I think they were hoping no-one would notice.
What a fantastic development. Henceforth game studios won’t have to worry about you onselling your second-hand games – they’ll just delete them for you. It won’t be “does this year’s update offer a good enough reason to upgrade?” It’ll be “Um, where did last year’s version go?”
Let’s hope this catches on, eh?
*Technically, $24.75 will leave you with 300 MS points left over: it’s just that the smallest possible amount you can spend on this, given that the points come in multiples of 500, is 1500. MS wants you to ignore that you HAVE to buy an extra 300 points – I think they should be called on it. It is a cost you must pay before you can play the game.
July 9, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Why doesn’t anyone pull companies up on this? It’s exactly the same as me buying a desk from Harvey Norman, then being told down the track that I have 30 days to buy a new desk before they take it back. We aren’t leasing these games, or renting, or trialling, we’re purchasing. A purchase of something means that once I own it, it’s my property. The rules don’t change just because it’s software.
I imagine there’s no appropriate watchdog to monitor this, and I doubt the government and most people who aren’t gamers simply don’t care.
July 9, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Balls to this!!
Digital Distribution was heralded as this awesome new consumer-friendly way to get games, kinda like iTunes.
Increasingly it looks like a way for these companies to increase their control of your machine and try on all these uberharsh terms and coditions when selling the purchased product … to them, no physical product seems to mean no ownership rights.
July 9, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Get fucked ea you cunt licking fuck faces
July 9, 2009 at 4:56 pm
FUCK u ea suck my fucking wet tight pussy u tight asses
July 9, 2009 at 5:00 pm
So, you’re saying you’re opposed to unreasonable efforts by software companies to exert control over end users’ property?
July 10, 2009 at 10:43 am
Well they could just take the servers down without telling you if you like.
Pretty sure everyone does this for online games, and even if they have no intention of shutting it down such disclaimers must be placed as a safeguard in case things go wrong.
Tabula Rasa says hi.
July 10, 2009 at 10:44 am
IT’s not an MMO, it’s a multiplayer shooter, and as long as people are paying Xbox Live fees for Xbox Live matchmaking, it should be available.
July 10, 2009 at 1:18 pm
You’re not paying any kind of hosting fee for EA to host PlayStation 3 servers you fucking dropkick, but they can do the same thing. In fact, EA don’t get a cent of the money spent on Xbox Live Gold fees so XBL Gold accounts don’t even come into the equation.
Even a small amount of critical thought would have saved you from looking like a moron here. Naturally instead of admitting you’re wrong you’ll staunchly stand by your unreasonable and unrealistic expectations to try and save some face by being a stubborn jackass.
GRATS
July 10, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Good to see you’re still a total git, Joaby.
This is not a subscription game. It’s a buy-it-once game. And it’s frankly unacceptable for EA to tell us they can take it away at any time, at their discretion, whenever the hell they feel like it.
July 10, 2009 at 1:35 pm
“Naturally instead of admitting you’re wrong you’ll staunchly stand by your unreasonable and unrealistic expectations to try and save some face by being a stubborn jackass.”
Predictable as always.
They have zero obligation to you or anyone else to continue to indefinitely provide servers for this game. By your logic, you ignoramus, in 15 years when you’re still a drooling retard you should be able to crack out your dust covered Xbox 360 or PS3 and play a round of BF1943 on the couple hundred servers EA have left up just for you.
If you really want to whine about something, why not make mention of the sheer arrogance involved in not immediately providing Australia with servers for this Online only FPS and then having the gall to complain about relatively low pick up rates in the region.
July 10, 2009 at 1:40 pm
One of the things I write about here regularly. When I actually manage to CONNECT to a game of BF1943 that’s probably something I’ll have an issue with.
Meanwhile, can’t you read? I didn’t say they had an obligation to provide servers indefinitely. As I pointed out on the AG thread, online play should be covered via Xbox Live – what else are we paying them $100/year for? And given that, we shouldn’t need EA to keep servers running indefinitely.
I object to paying full price for a game (not a monthly subscription charge) not knowing when they’re just going to pull the plug. It’s a poor precedent.
July 10, 2009 at 1:44 pm
You paid $20 for the game. And for an MMO you’d pay full price and a monthly subscription fee.
Explain the PSN. Do XBL Gold costs cover it as well, or is that server costing magically absorbed elsewhere.
And you ARE talking about an obligation by EA to provide servers indefinitely – you’re saying they shouldn’t ever take them away from you… Or providing them indefinitely.
Do you think before you type or do you shit it all out onto the keyboard too fast for you to think?
July 10, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Your problem here is actually more with the XBL Gold account structure than it is with EA. EA haven’t done anything wrong here apart from telling you ahead of time that eventually this online only first person shooter solely hosted by them might actually shut down and they’ll give you 30 days notice before they let that happen.
If you have an issue with this, get the game on the fucking PC. There’ll always be servers on the PC.
July 10, 2009 at 1:49 pm
They aren’t just saying they’ll stop paying for servers – they’re saying they’ll “retire” the game in general.
July 10, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Well that’s what happens when you turn off all the fucking servers for a game that’s online only.
July 10, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Sorry, why couldn’t xbox live matchmaking work with users hosting matches, a la COD?
July 10, 2009 at 1:58 pm
To avoid L4D-esque hacking? To maintain an accurate stats reporting system? To make sure they provide a consistent and acceptable quality of service? To avoid the hassles involved with matchmaking? Because they’re already hosting the servers for the PS3 version?
How often do you play first person shooters on a PC, Jeremy? Have you ever?
Have you ever noticed the difference in quality between a user hosted and a dedicated server in a PC FPS?
July 10, 2009 at 2:02 pm
PS3 owners are a separate issue – they’re not paying $100 a year to MS for an online matchmaking service.
There’s L4D hacking on the 360? Really? Hacking is not a major problem on that platform.
The model the companies should be using is COD:WAW – matches are hosted on users’ computers, and you can set the filter to search only for local games. No need for the company to host anything. No need for servers.
July 10, 2009 at 2:08 pm
http://xbox.joystiq.com/2008/12/10/xbox-360-version-of-left-4-dead-hacked/
Still happens on player hosted servers (Valve provide dedicated 360 servers, shock horror).
And the fact remains that once you hit certain numbers on player hosted COD WAW servers (Think the number is 22, 24) the console hosting can’t handle it any more and the lag is unbearable.
Again, the smallest amount of critical thought would save you so much embarrassment.
July 10, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Jesus! Get over yourself!
The game should retain the option for player hosting even when EA eventually decides to pull out.
Not just prevent the game from being played, full stop.
July 10, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Players can’t host their own games because their consoles cannot handle the server load plus allow them to play.
Try to keep up.
July 10, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Poor Joaby. You’ve declared that players can’t effectively host games when it gets to a certain size – 22 or 24 you think. So what? It still works fine up to there. IT WORKS FINE UP TO THERE.
Get the point I’m making yet? Or is it still too complicated for you?
Why shouldn’t that be the standard model? Why should people pay full price for a game only to have it “retired” whenever EA feels like it?
July 10, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Heh, actually I did a little research (something you’re incapable of)
And the limit is actually 18. At 18 the game is unplayable.
Your move shortbus.
July 10, 2009 at 2:52 pm
What’s the limit according to you where it’s still playable?
I reckon BF1943 could still be fun with 18 hosted on a local player’s machine. I’d like to have that right – if they want me to buy their game, that is.
July 10, 2009 at 3:03 pm
CODWAW is barely playable for the host with 12 people in a server.
So half the numbers.
But anyway, you want choice and you want options and you want a magical fucking unicorn made out of marshmallows and used condoms it doesn’t matter what you fucking want, EA have a responsibility to the end user to provide a playable fucking game and if the only way they can make a 24 player server (already 8 players down from the normal size of a BF map) is by using dedicated servers only that’s exactly what they should fucking do.
Other wise you’d be sitting here whining your fucking arse off that EA has made a first person shooter which is laggy as hell when someone else hosts, or that it always matches you to someone from the US or – and this one is the most likely one – if they announced that you could only play 24 player games on their own dedicated software you’d shit your pants and jump online to deliver another worthless lump of whiney shit complaining about the fact that EA are restricting you from hosting a 24 player server without looking into the reasons why they’d do this.
Look, you can do whatever the fuck you want on your blog, you can talk about anything you like. I’m not the fucking internet police. But don’t go trawling it around like it’s cold hard fact when the truth of the matter is you’re a clueless fucking ignoramus who hasn’t tried google for a second in his life. Save yourself the embarrassment, and next time you find some amazing nugget of fucking dumb on the internet just sit back and think about why they’re doing it for a second instead of dumping out a hundred words on how it really grinds your gears.
Well, what little embarrassment there is to be had. Your supporters will still suck your dick no matter how dumb you look, and I’ll still come back here one ever six months to bang my head against a wall while you dribble semen and shit about topics you’re not really intellectually capable of commenting on.
July 10, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Whatever you reckon.
You still haven’t grasped that I’m not objecting to EA providing servers now, I’m suggesting that rather than “retiring” the game when they can’t be stuffed providing servers any more, the game should have a player-hosting option.
That way we don’t end up with a game that cannot be played at all.
Don’t let the door hit your arse on the way out.
July 10, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Ahahahahahaha
“Boo hoo hoo I’ve had enough get out”
And you still haven’t grasped that A: player hosting isn’t an option and B: without servers the game doesn’t exist.
I’ll stop coming around if you stop posting your brainfarts everywhere.
July 10, 2009 at 3:18 pm
My gripe is more with the prospect of a company deleting/altering stuff on your own console, rather than servers not being maintained.
As you were…
July 10, 2009 at 3:18 pm
That’s because you haven’t demonstrated either, moron.
Seriously Joaby, you can play your “angry little psychotic” game all you like, it doesn’t impress me at all.
July 10, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Pevva – I don’t think anyone has a problem with them not providing servers indefinitely.
July 10, 2009 at 3:23 pm
“My gripe is more with the prospect of a company deleting/altering stuff on your own console, rather than servers not being maintained.”
They don’t alter anything. They retire the game by killing the servers.
And Jeremy…
“Naturally instead of admitting you’re wrong you’ll staunchly stand by your unreasonable and unrealistic expectations to try and save some face by being a stubborn jackass.”
Called it in my first post. Good job proving me right all along champ. I’ve clearly demonstrated that without server hosting the game doesn’t exist (thereby demonstrating B: ) and I’ve clearly explained why player hosting isn’t an option. But you don’t want to admit it to yourself, so keep on keeping on. You’re a joke.
July 10, 2009 at 3:27 pm
“’ve clearly demonstrated that without server hosting the game doesn’t exist (thereby demonstrating B: ) and I’ve clearly explained why player hosting isn’t an option.”
In your own mind, perhaps.
“Naturally instead of admitting you’re wrong you’ll staunchly stand by your unreasonable and unrealistic expectations to try and save some face by being a stubborn jackass.”
Wow, I guess I’d just better declare that you’re right and I’m wrong then, eh?
Idiot.
July 10, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Maybe you should Jeremy, being that you are very obviously wrong and I am very obviously correct.
Idiot.
July 10, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Oooh! Snap.
July 10, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Jeremy, Joaby — fair enough to those replies. I thought from the post that they would delete the game from your console! Now I know better.
I don’t game online much, so I don’t know enough about it to have an opinion on servers etc. This conversation therefore is definitely outside my expertise.
Carry on!
July 10, 2009 at 9:54 pm
As Joaby has already delicately pointed out.
1) EA don’t owe you shit, it’s their game.
2) EA isn’t forcing you to buy it.
3) User hosted games would be utter crap, with too many people not having decent enough connections to sustain decent pings for everyone connected.
People will still buy the game if it’s decent enough, if they can get into a relatively lag free server and kill shit.
Would you prefer to either:
a) Play on a server with a 200+ ping and connection issues, or ridiculously low numbers of players
or
b) Play on a dedicated server with 24 or so people and have a decent ping
It’s more than likely you will get bored shitless of the game before the servers go down.
July 10, 2009 at 11:05 pm
1. They owe me shit if I buy the damned thing.
2. Good, and I may not. Doesn’t mean I can’t criticise the reason why not.
3. That’s clearly not the point, a la COD:WAW.
I’d prefer to have the option of (a) and (b) when EA withdraws its support – and if I knew (b) was going to be available, then I wouldn’t feel I was throwing money away on something that could become completely worthless at 30 days notice.
July 11, 2009 at 8:15 am
“1. They owe me shit if I buy the damned thing.”
Yeah, they owe a game. Which you get. They don’t have to leave servers up forever.
“2. Good, and I may not. Doesn’t mean I can’t criticise the reason why not.”
Yeah, and the beauty of the internet is that you can “criticise” the reason, and I can criticise your idiocy.
“3. That’s clearly not the point, a la COD:WAW.”
You’ve stuck your fingers in your ears, and you’re now wailing “LALALALALALLALALALALLALALALA” aren’t you. COD:WAW can’t do player hosted games successfully with half the players BF1943 is doing. Can’t do it. It’s not possible.
July 11, 2009 at 8:20 am
God you’re thick. Let me spell it out for you again.
By all means, the game should have servers for now to cover large numbers of players. Okay? Get it? I agree that EA should provide servers so that larger groups are possible.
Right? Got that far? Let’s move on.
When it comes to the point at which EA doesn’t want to provide servers any more, rather than the game just being “retired”, it should still be possible to play it through player hosting, a la COD:WAW. It may not be able to feature as many players as the EA server hosted option, but it would enable people to play the game they paid for as long as they like.
As they bloody well should.
On your attitude, Blizzard should’ve long ago been able to stop StarCraft multiplayer – or it should be able to delete it when it’s economically advantageous to do so – say, when StarCraft 2 comes out. I think companies “retiring” games users have paid for is a very poor development.
July 11, 2009 at 8:36 am
HOLY SHIT YOU USED BLIZZARD AS YOUR EXAMPLE
YOU’RE NIGH ON THE DUMBEST MOTHERFUCKER ALIVE
If you want to play Starcraft online you need to connect to Battlenet. If Blizzard one day decided to turn those Battlenet servers off, Starcraft would be unplayable online (except through other unofficial means). Except Blizzard wouldn’t have to give you 30 days notice before this happened.
Diablo II is an even better example, as it’s a client-server situation similar in many aspects to BF1943. If Blizzard decided to one day shutdown Battlenet, guess what would fucking happen.
I’m honestly blown away at how clueless you are.
July 11, 2009 at 8:41 am
Mate, you can still play SC offline. On LANs. That’s how many matches are in fact still played. Blizzard could take down Battlenet – and the game would still exist and be playable.
Shit, you really are thick, aren’t you? Not just nasty, aggressive and unpleasant – but stupid. How wonderful for you.
Shutting down Battlenet would lessen the value of the games, sure, but it wouldn’t kill them entirely. They would still be playable.
Which is what should be the case with BF1943. Particularly on Live.
July 11, 2009 at 8:53 am
Wait, so LANs prove why BF1943 should work for you on Xbox Live in 15 years?
That’s a local area network. Do you have even a simple understanding of network infrastructure? Are you capable of conceptualising why games on the internet are different to games on a LAN?
Just stop. Really. You’re out of your depth. You haven’t any idea what you’re talking about and you’re reaching for anything you can. If you can’t separate an internet game from a LAN game you have no place commenting on any of this. They’re fundamentally different and being able to play a LAN game ON THE PC doesn’t even step into the realm of what you can or cannot do on Xbox Live.
Honestly, just stop. Like I said what seems like thousands of wasted words ago, your real issue appears to be with the Xbox Live Gold Account structure, not with EA’s covering its own ass in the event that some day they don’t want to provide servers for the game any more. They’re separate issues. Xbox Live Gold provides a matchmaking service as well as other friends based features for Xbox Live Gold members. EA provides servers for an online only first person shooter on both the Xbox and PS3, and they don’t get a dime for it.
July 11, 2009 at 9:09 am
“That’s a local area network. Do you have even a simple understanding of network infrastructure? Are you capable of conceptualising why games on the internet are different to games on a LAN?”
Ugh. The point is that a game can have both publisher-hosted and user-hosted multiplayer options. In the case of the PC, that might be a LAN. In the case of Xbox Live, it could be like COD:WAW.
You’re yet to grasp that the game could still have value for many people – maybe not you, but others – even with COD:WAW player-hosted match participant numbers.
Do you get my point yet? Or is it still too complicated for you?
July 11, 2009 at 9:14 am
I understand your point. I’ve understood it for a long time now. Your point is wrong. Do you understand that?
These are maps designed for 24 players. They’re designed for large numbers. They’re maps too big to traverse with just… 6 players a side or whatever. You need a car to get from capture point to capture point. 12 players on a map would mean time would go by without encountering another player. This would be a shitty gameplay experience.
You’ve clearly never played a BF game before and you’re running your mouth on shit you don’t understand. Let it go. You’re WRONG.
July 11, 2009 at 9:17 am
Mate, I’ve played BF games before (as it happens I finally got onto BF1943 a few moments ago and came first), and I think they can work with, say, 12-18 players.
You might prefer that the game be “retired” before being reduced to that ignominy: I suspect many players would disagree with you.
July 11, 2009 at 9:21 am
Too bad the player hosting would have to sit out once you hit 12.
I mean, the player projections are based on Call of Duty. That game is a closed, small map situation as well. No planes, no bombing runs, no cars, nothign of that sort. BF1943 would probably run even worse because there’d be a lot more to process (large maps, more vehicles, dynamic and destructible environments).
July 11, 2009 at 9:36 am
I’ve only seen the Wake Island map, but it’s not that huge. There are more vehicles, but there are fewer weapon options. I’m sure they could make it work.
Nice to see you post a comment that addresses the topic at hand without resorting to childish abuse, though. Little Joaby’s growing up!
July 11, 2009 at 9:46 am
I notice you still can’t help but attempt to condescend.
But yeah, I’m sure they could have. I mean, they already had to reduce the player limit from 32 to 24 to get it working but I’m sure that because there aren’t as many weapon choices the game could definitely handle player hosted servers. Imagine I’m facepalming really, really hard.
July 11, 2009 at 9:51 am
BF1943 is a heavily-streamlined version of the old shooter. I don’t agree that it could not work with player hosting. There would be a number at which it wouldn’t work, sure – but there’d still be enough players for it to be worthwhile. For some of us, anyway.
EA should simply note that they may take the servers away with 30 days notice – not that they’ll “retire” the game in general.
July 11, 2009 at 9:56 am
I’m just going to reply to your retarded post after mine:
“1. They owe me shit if I buy the damned thing.”
No. Noooooooooo they don’t. You got the game, that is what they said they would provide. They also mention that it’s ONLINE ONLY and that they will remove the servers whenever they want. That is the agreement YOU are signing into when you download the game, then go have a cry to your parents about needing more MS points.
“3. That’s clearly not the point, a la COD:WAW.”
No it really IS the point. They don’t want to put the coding in to allow shitty, unplayable player hosted servers because then people might connect to them instead of dedicated servers and have a massive whinge to no one about EA not giving decent servers.
“I’d prefer to have the option of (a) and (b) when EA withdraws its support – and if I knew (b) was going to be available, then I wouldn’t feel I was throwing money away on something that could become completely worthless at 30 days notice.”
You may want it, but it’s not in EA’s best interest.
If you’re so worried about ‘throwing money away’ over a game, and a measly $25, then you’re in for a big fucking shock when you finally pull your head out your ass.
Have you ever been to the movies? Ever gone out to dinner? Ever filled your car up with fuel at ridiculous prices?
Wasting money. Yes, you get something temporarily from spending that money, but after a little while it’s gone, and sure as shit paying $25 for a game would last you longer than a tank of fuel.
As Joaby has said many many times BF42 was originally designed for 32 players, hence why the maps are so big and there are so many vehicles. 43 has been scaled down a bit to suit xbox/ps, but not to the point where 6 on 6 will be a good game.
Go go gadget immersion?
July 11, 2009 at 9:58 am
Uggghhhh if player hosting could have been an option don’t you think they’d have done that?
Like, why would they spend money hosting servers when they didn’t have to.
Look, here’s an thought exercise for you.
Next time you go to reply, think to yourself “I wonder what Joaby will have to say to this”. And then spend 5 seconds thinking of that. If you don’t come up with something, go ahead and post it. And then I’ll spend 5 seconds thinking up the obvious retort anyway and I’ll reply with it.
But at least you’ll have tried.
July 11, 2009 at 9:59 am
…this is never going to end, is it? You have way too much time on your hands.
Pretty much responded to both of your points several times. Bored now. Have better things to do with my Saturday morning.
July 11, 2009 at 10:03 am
I’ve got better things to do on my Saturday morning than lose an arguement with you losers. I’ve got good ideas to steal. I’m off to go and fuck some models and drive around in my Lamborarri, everything’s awesome in fantasy land where I live where all my blog posts are well constructed, thought out ideas not full of any holes.
July 11, 2009 at 10:05 am
Lol nice work Jeremy, going with the “I have better things to do” angle.
Solid!
If that isn’t acceptance of defeat I don’t know what is!
July 27, 2009 at 11:14 am
[...] [...]
September 24, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Actual acceptance of defeat?