Update on EA Games Hosted on GameSpy

[Sonic 296]

Just a couple of days ago, EA issued a status update about the closure of the GameSpy multiplayer servers for many of their games. These servers are closing at the end of June. Apparently EA are currently exploring all possible options to continue multiplayer services for many popular games, Command & Conquer included.

Update on EA Titles Hosted on GameSpy

GameSpy announced earlier this month that they would be ending all hosted services for games, which impacts the online capabilities of a number of older titles, including some from EA.

Since GameSpys announcement, our teams have been working to evaluate options to keep services up and running. Unfortunately, due to technical challenges and concerns about the player experience, we do not have a solution at this time. Online services for EA games on the GameSpy platform will be closed down at the end of June.

We know some of these games are still fan favorites, including Battlefield 2, Battlefield 1942, Medal of Honor: Allied Assault and Command & Conquer games. We are still investigating community-supported options to preserve online functionality for these titles, such as multiplayer. Significant technical hurdles remain, and at this time we dont have anything to announce.

The full list of games impacted by the change can be seen on the EA Online Services Updates page.

[Plok 327]

These servers are closing at the of May.

Actually, this post says it's the end of June, for EA games only.

[roland 0]

thx for the info. i've updated my site

 

hopefully EA will find a solution for generals, but to be honest, i truly doubt it. they've spat at the community so many times... why would they try for us now?

[neojames82 6]

I'm doubting EA is going to do anything themselves. It is pretty much going to be up to the community to figure out something.

[Nyerguds 102]

These servers are closing at the of May

...the what of may, exactly? Looks like you're missing a word there

[Plok 327]

30th June, Nyer.

E: Sonic, the data is wrong even after the edit. June, not May, read EA's own post if you refuse to believe me

Edited May 13, 2014 by Plokite_Wolf

[Plok 327]

A thorough instruction video on the closure and most notable alternatives by Spartacus:

--------------------------------
Video Index:
--------------------------------
GameSpy Shutdown Explanation:

EA's Response to Shutdown:

Alternative Hosting Overview:

GameRanger - Download & Install:

GameRanger - Client Overview:

GameRanger - Creating a Lobby:

GameRanger - Joining a Game:

Tunngle - Download & Install:

Tunngle - Client Overview:

Tunngle - Joining a Game:

Evolve - Download & Install:

Evolve - Client Overview:

Evolve - Creating a Party:

Evolve - Joining a Game:

--------------------------------

Statistics counting is currently being worked on, ladder wars are expected to continue.

Edited May 17, 2014 by Plokite_Wolf

[Sonic 296]

Sonic, the data is wrong even after the edit. June, not May, read EA's own post if you refuse to believe me

 

The post has been corrected. It was never case of no believing you. Just made an error when I originally posted it.

 

In fact, I've added to the calendar.

 

http://forums.cncnz.com/calendar/event/64-%7B%3F%7D/?module=events

[Johnnyxp64 20]

in other words, "if you want to play our games, make your own server and pay for them community". because the community is amazing blah blah blah, and they will find a way to make it work without paying from our side a single dollar!

 

meanwhile over the Blizzard shore, last September (2013) they just updated their FAQ documentation on Warcraft II system requirements.

[Plok 327]

in other words, "if you want to play our games, make your own server and pay for them community".

You don't need to do that if you use one of the third-party LAN emulators

 

Anyway, except for the fact that they chose to rely on GameSpy servers eleven years ago, EA is not to blame for the shutdown itself. EALA made next-to-zero percent of the server coding, making it impossible to rebuild everything without an enormous amount of work, which would take quite a lot of time (unless they grabbed GameSpy's source code somehow, but I don't think they're inclined to do that).

 

meanwhile over the Blizzard shore, last September (2013) they just updated their FAQ documentation on Warcraft II system requirements.

Blizzard is Blizzard. I don't know why nobody is as awesome as they are, but you mostly can't compare anybody to them

Edited May 20, 2014 by Plokite_Wolf

[neojames82 6]

Blizzard is Blizzard. I don't know why nobody is as awesome as they are, but you mostly can't compare anybody to them

That's because Blizzard is still making tons of profit, unlike EA that makes lots of money but loses it almost as fast.

[Guest Stevie_K]

Sometimes I wonder why EA doesn't emphasize more on persistence with their titles.

I hope that they turn more to developing games with long term support in mind.

[neojames82 6]

Sometimes I wonder why EA doesn't emphasize more on persistence with their titles.

I hope that they turn more to developing games with long term support in mind.

Because they want us to keep buying a newer version of the same game, they don't want to give away free content, ever. Yes they "support" mods for C&C in a way but that is mostly because they can't really make much money on the older titles and it would be a PR nightmare for them to not support modding of said older titles.

 

But as you can see with the newer games like Battlefield 3 and beyond, C&C4 and Titanfall (which I'll admit I like that game) they simply do not want to have any sort of modding. Now with C&C 4 well....even the community couldn't save that turd. As with BF3 and beyond the whole excuse of the Frostbite engine being "too complex for the modding community" is a load of crap as well.

 

As for Titanfall, Respawn said said they will "look into it" for the PC version, but we all know who makes that final decision and what that answer will be:

 

SPOILER ALERT: It will be a no.

Edited May 21, 2014 by neojames82

[Guest Stevie_K]

Demonizing EA aside, I think the problem lies more in that EA is shuffling around developers and studios between many different projects. Keeping support on a development side might simply be impossible because the people who worked on said title are already shifted to a new project requiring full attention.

 

I understand it can be complicated and expensive to regroup developers and put together a patch to keep the old titles playable in all aspects.

Most of the people who know every inch of the systems of these old titles have moved on. It is likely they work for an entirely different company now. Reality is that they couldn't even help out if they wanted to without accept.

 

If persistence was a central part of the development process from the beginning, perhaps there would have been the necessary documentation and files backed up for any developer to dig into the system and work on patches.

It might have been too complicated for EA as a publisher to keep track of all of this with so many studios working on countless projects, and each new project more interesting than the last.

 

I simply think EA should consider becoming better at ensuring that their titles live longer. I believe it is an investment worthwhile. There can be many benefits to having a fully functional back catalog. Community, image, reputation, sales, perhaps a modding community, you name it.

[neojames82 6]

Demonizing EA aside, I think the problem lies more in that EA is shuffling around developers and studios between many different projects. Keeping support on a development side might simply be impossible because the people who worked on said title are already shifted to a new project requiring full attention.

 

I understand it can be complicated and expensive to regroup developers and put together a patch to keep the old titles playable in all aspects.

Most of the people who know every inch of the systems of these old titles have moved on. It is likely they work for an entirely different company now. Reality is that they couldn't even help out if they wanted to without accept.

 

If persistence was a central part of the development process from the beginning, perhaps there would have been the necessary documentation and files backed up for any developer to dig into the system and work on patches.

It might have been too complicated for EA as a publisher to keep track of all of this with so many studios working on countless projects, and each new project more interesting than the last.

 

I simply think EA should consider becoming better at ensuring that their titles live longer. I believe it is an investment worthwhile. There can be many benefits to having a fully functional back catalog. Community, image, reputation, sales, perhaps a modding community, you name it.

All very good and valid points Just wouldn't hold my breath with EA ever doing this because I feel deep down, they don't care much for supporting their titles in the now or in the future (unless they make X amount of profits of course).

[Nmenth 291]

What you say seems to make sense, Jehal, but I'd like to point out that even though most of the Diablo II team had moved on after patch 1.10 in 2003, Diablo II still received five more patches, with the latest one in October 2011, over ten years after Diablo II's expansion hit the shelves.

 

So it could be done, EA just doesn't want to.

[Guest Stevie_K]

That's true. It's still a question of making the system of the game accessible and do proper documentation. It is likely that many of the Command & Conquer games didn't receive a lot of care in the years after their release simply because the games weren't documented well enough for anyone to step in later and fix things without the risk of causing damage to it.

 

Oh yes Diablo II and the LoD expansion recieved a lot of patches for many years to come. There are however still issues that where never solved and that - if I where to make claims similar to yours; could be because Blizzard just doesn't want to "fix" these.

Among these were the horrible infestation of bots. Ad accounts and not to forget, they never added support for higher resolutions than 1024 x 800 which had been a request almost since its release, claiming that the GUI didn't allow support for higher resolutions.

 

It is most likely a mix of many things that lead to the C&C titles not receiving long term support in the fashion many of the Blizzard titles did and has. But I refuse to believe it is entirely a result of EA just not wanting to.

Edited May 23, 2014 by Stevie_K