Blizzaga

I think everyone saw this coming. In the US where internet can be extremely hit or miss depending on where you live and what ISP you can get (or are forced into), it seemed too early to push streaming games at any real quality. Of course data caps make it a lot harder to get it to work and Google's response to speed, bandwidth and data cap problems was "we think ISPs will fix it" which yeah that totally happened. The other big problem is it being a google product at all which means that its always destined to die off in a rather pathetic, embarrassing manner. Ross mentioned the idea of stadia existing as an alternative way to play a game and I think that if it was just that, I wouldn't care personally but when it gets exclusive games is when it becomes a completely separate issue. Its fine for someone to not want to have the hardware to run things locally especially with GPUs getting more expensive and needing more power which means spending even more on a desktop. The overall animosity towards streaming games is unwarranted so long as the option to play the game locally (IE exists on a different platform PC, PS4, switch) exists such as streaming versions of Kingdom Hearts on the switch versus playing them on literally anything else. Everything else does give a far better experience but if all you have is a switch and you don't want to buy another console or drop a grand or more on desktop then its fine. If it was a streaming exclusive on the switch then it would be a lot different and then its no longer fine.

This sort of thing did kind of happen. The PSN stores for the Vita and the PS3 were going to be removed but enough people complained and they are delaying the shutdown. Nintendo also did this with the 3DS except they didn't care and are shutting it down. Not perfectly analogous but similar. If this Ubisoft game death is anything to go by, future incidents may be more popular and companies making that claim that they will put the DLC or multiplayer functionality back in if there is enough demand might get shot down by users. However, it still is the best PR move no matter what to allow users to host their own servers if they want to. Not just PR, but it is the best for the people that bought the game and doesn't break the trust between the user and the publisher. Ross's third point was essentially what I was saying. If people choose to stop playing it, they are absolutely allowed to do that but they should always have the ability to come back to it if/when they want to. For some extra information, running servers is quite easy and the cost for an individual is not very much since a game server can be hosted remotely on a droplet for not very much per month or hosted locally. A more intensive server might make you more likely to either get a dedicated computer for it or get a droplet, but the cost is still not very much at all and another dedicated computer can also be used for other things. It seems really complicated but in a lot of instances, it really isn't. Which also makes the idea of shutting down servers odd since I know it isn't costly at all. I assume they do it to make users buy the next game to keep playing online since I can't think of any other reason why they would bother. With the PS3 store, it makes less sense since the server is doing even less because file hosting files that have been there for years takes next to nothing.

That is true, a lot of people will move on after enough time passes. This was addressed in the "GaaS is Fraud" video. This boils down to the company deciding what games we still get to play not the actual players. So in this case, the players have decided that they don't want to play that game right now, but maybe in a couple years when a new game in that series is announced people will go back to the older ones. It never went away and is always there waiting. If a game is terrible and nobody wants to preserve it, then it doesn't get preserved. That is not because nobody could preserve it but because nobody wanted to, there is a massive difference between those two. I think it isn't just about losing perks of free games and getting info sooner (although that is a part of it), since that company blacklist can hurt but I think the problem is also on some of the people that see those reviews. It also isn't just limited to that specific company but also other companies see that and add you to the blacklist. If a game gets any less than a 9 or 10, I always hear some people making claims about the review or essentially attacking them. You might remember Jeff Gerstmann getting fired over the Kane and Lynch review years ago. That's because the publisher had tons of money in that and any slight amount of negativity surrounding it was asking for death. I remember directly seeing calls for violence against a couple reviewers for Cyberpunk 2077 getting less than 9 or 10 alongside the pointless accusation that the reviewer is an "SJW" and that's why they gave the game a low score. Not to mention the people working on the game getting death threats when the game got delayed. I saw that stop once people actually PLAYED the game, but nonetheless people still did that over an arbitrary number. I think it boils down to some people being extremely petty and needing to use numbers to prove their game is better instead of why they think it really is a better game. You like the games you like, who cares what score the game got when you like it and have fun with it.

I saw a post I was going to reply to but I guess it got deleted or something. Not a big deal. Main point was on that Anno 2070 problem and the comparison to burning all copies of Dracula. I went back to check that over assuming I might have missed something, but I don't really think I did. The argument Ross responded to was "people had enough time to experience X piece of media" and the Dracula comparison was about the idea that you could justify burning every copy of the book after 100 years of it first being published because 100 years is enough time to read it. As long as a user can host their own server or the multiplayer component is only available through LAN, you can still use something to make it work. Even if the online is terrible and rushed, people should still be allowed to play that component of the game. People might've bought it with the intention of playing it online too since online modes tend to be in advertising for games. Sort of in the same vein as Sony advertising that the Playstation Vita could stream a large amount of the PS3's library too it and all it needed was PS3 on the same network. That feature pretty much was nonexistent for the Vita's life (except if you used CFW, but that's modding the system which is unintended) and Sony lost a lawsuit over that and owners of a Vita that bought it while they advertised that feature were awarded some monetary compensation. Even if the multiplayer is a small component of the game, I don't think it is very unfair to suggest that I should still have the ability to play all of the game I bought, not just part of it even if that is the main portion of the game. Taking away singleplayer DLC is nothing more than destroying that whole piece of content. The base game is still playable, but the extra stuff I bought is gone even in the mode that isn't effected by the online mode. That DLC could've been the reason I kept playing or got me interested in the game in the first place and same with the multiplayer. If I got it for either of those two reasons, that game is completely dead to me. Sure, I can play the base game, but if I didn't buy it for that and I have no intention of playing that then it lost its value.