That's less than 10% of the pre-order price on No Man's Sky. Don't chicken out on me now!
And my work here is done.
A bet proves what? That you're right? That I'm right? I don't bet regardless of the circumstance. 
Fact is, EA has the ability to shut down the server tomorrow or any day of the year. 
ME 3's MP servers will probably be running for 5-10 years from now.
Why would I guess that? The average matches up pretty well with EA's record. Very few games have had their servers shut down in under five years, and there is technically a revenue stream to ME 3 MP. That means that it is most likely to last longer than EA's average, not less, giving it a solid chance at more than 10 years.
The biggest impediment to lasting that long would be if the active player population is devastated by the release of ME:A. But, if that happens, no one will care, because everyone will have abandoned ME 3 to play ME:A.
A bet proves what? That you're right? That I'm right? I don't bet regardless of the circumstance.
Fact is, EA has the ability to shut down the server tomorrow or any day of the year.
I said that my work here is done because Lvca_gr posted a "Reported" response, nothing to do with the bet.
Ofc EA can shut down the servers any time. But why would they, when the ME3MP servers are part of keeping an active revenue stream going?
Jeremiah expressed a cogent argument in that regard, to which I'd add that a knock-on effect for many game publishers upon release of a new game is that it generates new interest in previous games in the series.
I said that my work here is done because Lvca_gr posted a "Reported" response, nothing to do with the bet.
Ofc EA can shut down the servers any time. But why would they, when the ME3MP servers are part of keeping an active revenue stream going?
Jeremiah expressed a cogent argument in that regard, to which I'd add that a knock-on effect for many game publishers upon release of a new game is that it generates new interest in previous games in the series.
I don't really buy into the knock-on effect. I do think that if a game is cheap, people will buy. The Trilogy has sometimes been sold for what, $15? $10? And *gasp* it sells at that value? It shouldn't be a wonder why.
I don't really buy into the knock-on effect. I do think that if a game is cheap, people will buy. The Trilogy has sometimes been sold for what, $15? $10? And *gasp* it sells at that value? It shouldn't be a wonder why.
Nonetheless, when a new iteration, let's say Saints Row IV, for example, comes out, people who haven't played the previous games do buy them, and play them. And so dropping support for them immediately, or even any time soon, after a new release is a bad idea, and the big publishers know that. Some are so canny that they make extra money out of it. The online price of Black Ops I actually went up after Black Ops II was released because Activision knew that many people would play Blops2, like it, and want to play Blops1. Ghosts was put back up to full price after Advanced Warfare released as well. To go back down the line, as far as I know, Activision has kept the MW2 servers going to the present.
And yes, EA could put ME3 on the house, it would keep interest alive for ME:A. Not long after BF4 was released, they put BF3 on the house for a couple weeks, so people would get hooked and buy BF4, and it worked. They kept the BF3 servers running though. And that costs a lot more than the ME3 servers.
It still comes down to this question: why are you so convinced that EA will think it's a good idea to shut down the ME3 servers when ME:A is released? They know everything that we've discussed on this subject, and they know that shooting a valuable franchise in the foot is not a good business idea. So why do you so strongly believe that they will do it?
ME 3's multiplayer servers will go down if and when the cost of maintaining the service exceeds the value, both tangible and intangible, of keeping the multiplayer service going.
It's a straightforward business decision, whatever else you might think.
ME 3's multiplayer servers will go down if and when the cost of maintaining the service exceeds the value, both tangible and intangible, of keeping the multiplayer service going.
It's a straightforward business decision, whatever else you might think.
WTF? This is exactly what I have been saying repeatedly, in this thread and others. What on earth makes you think I believe the opposite?
My response wasn't to you. Marksmad. Your latest post just happened to slide in before mine did.
Nonetheless, when a new iteration, let's say Saints Row IV, for example, comes out, people who haven't played the previous games do buy them, and play them. And so dropping support for them immediately, or even any time soon, after a new release is a bad idea, and the big publishers know that. Some are so canny that they make extra money out of it. The online price of Black Ops I actually went up after Black Ops II was released because It still comes down to this question: why are you so convinced that EA will think it's a good idea to shut down the ME3 servers when ME:A is released? They know everything that we've discussed on this subject, and they know that shooting a valuable franchise in the foot is not a good business idea. So why do you so strongly believe that they will do it?
Quite simply to push everyone towards the new game. The more games they have that they have to support MP for, the greater the resources that need to be used. If push comes to shove and one platform needs to be dropped, it will be the older game.
EA is gonna shut down ME3 MP the day ME:A comes out, because by that time everyone will be playing with people from the other side of the world, and the resulting lag would be unbereable.
Meh its not that bad. I get the black loading screen a lot, but I'm a sucker for accents.
EA is gonna shut down ME3 MP the day ME:A comes out, because by that time everyone will be playing with people from the other side of the world, and the resulting lag would be unbereable.
EA will have dedicated servers for ME:A.....
Hahahahahah.... 
No 
EA made nearly 4 billion last year..they are projected to make over 6 billion this year...I think ME3 MP is safe.
Seriously though wonder what it takes to keep me3 servers going, can't be much. If it comes to it I've got a couple old machines I can donate to ea if they ever have trouble keeping things going.
Relevant.
stop spamming my notifications with your disgusting Productive and valuable discussion
The more games they have that they have to support MP for, the greater the resources that need to be used. .
Meh its not that bad. I get the black loading screen a lot, but I'm a sucker for accents.
The first rule of peaesstree is that no one talks on the peaesstree.
but they don't support anything.
what does keeping the servers on cost anyway?
(serious question)
can anyone give an estimation?
how many servers are we talking about anyway?
maybe this should be discussed first before we write in threads like these (and there are quite a few)
I'm pretty sure they still do even if they are not as involved. Maybe they don't look at who is cheating or who is doing what. I used to maintain old web systems and they are a serious pain to keep up, especially when regression testing is concerned when you're only focusing on building new things for new systems. It's not always as simple as just keeping the server box on and letting it be.
ME 3's multiplayer servers will go down if and when the cost of maintaining the service exceeds the value, both tangible and intangible, of keeping the multiplayer service going.
It's a straightforward business decision, whatever else you might think.
That's well said. Maintaining the ME3 servers running has a cost, but as long as the revenue earned from the game exceeds it, we can be confident that EA will keep the multiplayer going. Of course, this is an oversimplification. It's possible that, at some point in the time, with a playerbase became very small, EA considers that the ressources used to run the ME3 servers could be better spent elsewhere, even if the game is still marginally profitable. The other similar case could be that they consider the split of the playerbase between ME3 and ME:A negative for their business, but this seems quite unlikely to me. As Marksmad already explained, usually it works in the opposite sense : the release of a new game generates sales for the previous games of the same franchise. Look how the video games stores react when a new COD, Uncharted, Assassin's Creed, etc., is realeased : copies of the former games from the same franchise suddenly pop up in the shelfs.
EA is gonna shut down ME3 MP the day ME:A comes out, because by that time everyone will be playing with people from the other side of the world, and the resulting lag would be unbereable.
Oh, c'mon...Marksmad! No opinion on this?
[X] Sorry, I'm retired.
EA made nearly 4 billion last year..they are projected to make over 6 billion this year...I think ME3 MP is safe.
That's revenue. They made a billion cash from operating activities - however, short term liabilities are 2.7 billion! Oh, noes, we're screwed! Good thing they got 2 billion cash on hand as well.
The first rule of peaesstree is that no one talks on the peaesstree.
I'm breaking that rule all day every day. Too boring otherwise.
Retour en haut