The REAL Problem Nobody is Talking About: Service Cancellation

Beatnik59

It seems to me that 2013 is starting off to be an interesting year for online games.  Zynga announced that it is cancelling thirteen of its Facebook games.  We have the War Z and Steam debacle.  And the most popular news story right now involves a game that isn't even available anymore, City of Heroes, and it's about the details concerning its cancellation.

Service cancellation is the 800lb gorilla in the room that we refuse to acknowledge.  It hangs over every game like a sword of Damocles.  This is the only form of computer entertainment where the continued enjoyment of the things the consumer purchases is determined by factors wholly outside of the consumer's control.

A consumer can be responsible for paying his box price, paying his fees and paying the price for value-added items or services he wants (like item store goods,  downloadable content or expansions).  What he cannot be responsible for is the logistics of running the service itself: overall service profitability, management directives, development, etc.  And, yet, it is often those logistical responsibilities, and not the consumer's responsibilities, that determine when, if, and for how long a consumer may enjoy his entertainment.

We didn't have cause to think about that so much in the early days.  Ultima Online is still with us.  Everquest, Dark Age of Camelot, and Asheron's Call is with us too.  I think we owe a lot to those early games, because if they folded up their tents and went home early, we'd be less comfortable logging in serious hours and spending serious money in games like these.

As time went on, more games got cancelled.  Some games were in such rough shape, we could see why they had to close.  Other games, like CoH, weren't in rough shape.  I think the reason we're still talking about CoH, even now, is that it showed us how little control we have over our fun.  It showed us that the illusion of "persistence," that what we do today will exist in the future, has been shattered.  It made many lose faith in the business model, and can you blame them?  People ought to know if the game they are investing time and money in today is going to last a day or ten years.

When we hear all the pre-launch hype, how come we never ask "how long can you guarantee this service will be up for?  A year?  Ten years?  Twelve weeks?"  That would be good to know, wouldn't it?  You play a game that'll disappear in three months differently than a game that'll be around for ten years.  Your spending patterns also change...do you really need the extra character slot if your character will disappear in a month?

And yet, this most existential of questions, "when will you take the game away," is a question that the developers and publishers cannot answer.  One would assume it is "whenever our business requires us to," but even if they knew, they are loathe to say.  Knowing that the games are going to be taken away breaks Castronova's "magic circle," it makes the whole exercise of playing an MMO pointless.

Now it could very well be the case that there's nothing that can be done to make this form of computer entertainment more stable for the consumer.  But, assuming that we can do something to insulate the consumer from a game cancellation, what could we do?

 

stragen001

Any MMOs EULA and Terms of Service will have protection for the company empempting them from liability. Normally something along the lines of  "all in game items purchased remain the property of <company>, the end user has a license to use them as long as the service remains operational". These types of clauses in EULAs or TOS have never been proven in a court of law though...

 

Regarding whether the player should spend real cash or not on the game they are playing always has been and always will be down to their own sense of risk / reward. 

 

maplestone

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

Unknown

I remember seeing your avatar in my dreams.

Beatnik59

See, this is the reason why peer-to-peer matchmaking games like Diablo III and Torchlight II have an advantage over MMOs: the stand alone client doesn't go away if the live service gets taken away.  It's also why single player games like Assasin's Creed have an advantage over MMOs: the stand alone single player game doesn't go away if the live service goes away.

Perhaps if a cancelled MMO can be played as a stand alone client, the consumer would be a bit more comfortable.  Because if the live service folds, they still have their character, items, bases etc. available in a stand alone client; and the ability to make new characters as well to play in the stand alone client.  That certainly would have alleviated many concerns of CoH players, from what I've seen.

Yakkin

Originally posted by maplestone
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

http://www.thenoobcomic.com/index.php?pos=6

 

Etherignis

I see wat u mean, i sometimes wish that those good mmos offline modes if a game ever get SD.

eye_m

Originally posted by Beatnik59

See, this is the reason why peer-to-peer matchmaking games like Diablo III and Torchlight II have an advantage over MMOs: the stand alone client doesn't go away if the live service gets taken away.  It's also why single player games like Assasin's Creed have an advantage over MMOs: the stand alone single player game doesn't go away if the live service goes away.

Perhaps if a cancelled MMO can be played as a stand alone client, the consumer would be a bit more comfortable.  Because if the live service folds, they still have their character, items, bases etc. available in a stand alone client; and the ability to make new characters as well to play in the stand alone client.  That certainly would have alleviated many concerns of CoH players, from what I've seen.

You can play Diablo III with no connection to the internet a.k.a. no access to the live service?

 

I think games need to die. I really don't care that I have the original Diablo in a disk in a drawer. Am I ever going to play it again? No. 

It would be nice to have a developer bound to provide a minimum measure of service however and there could be a rule (even just a good market practice) to provide X amount of time since the final sub payment to keep the servers up. Say for example that a sub game was closing down, the last couple months there is no sub fee.

 

What it really boils down to, is the game is provided as entertainment, not a commodity.  You don't invest in a game, you pay to have a entertainment service available.  If that service reaches the end of it's life, there is no debt owed to the clients (with the exception of a subscription period)

For an exaggerated example: If you're prosititute dies from some horrible disease, you don't get to keep the corpse.

bliss14

Originally posted by eyelolled

For an exaggerated example: If you're prosititute dies from some horrible disease, you don't get to keep the corpse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3JptKGpNSs

 

Omali

Originally posted by Beatnik59

See, this is the reason why peer-to-peer matchmaking games like Diablo III and Torchlight II have an advantage over MMOs: the stand alone client doesn't go away if the live service gets taken away.  It's also why single player games like Assasin's Creed have an advantage over MMOs: the stand alone single player game doesn't go away if the live service goes away.

Perhaps if a cancelled MMO can be played as a stand alone client, the consumer would be a bit more comfortable.  Because if the live service folds, they still have their character, items, bases etc. available in a stand alone client; and the ability to make new characters as well to play in the stand alone client.  That certainly would have alleviated many concerns of CoH players, from what I've seen.

You apparently have never played Diablo III, because when those servers are down you can't play at all.

Nitth

---

Originally posted by maplestone
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

---

You even have the unicorn avatar to go with that quote...lol

KenFisher

One thing about service cancellations as well as free to play conversions, they sure cut down on the value of lifetime subscriptions.

 

Beatnik59

That's what we have now, Eyelolled.

But here's the thing that's really confusing.  If these games are, as you said, "not a commodity," how is it that the industry has been, for the better part of a decade, "commoditizing" them in the form of offering items for sale and services?

They do it because they wish to create the illusion that the player has a sense of ownership of something.  But this sense of ownership is, in the end, highly dependent on the perception that the game will last.  As soon as the "magic circle" is broken, that the things people pay money for will disappear, people don't throw money into the thing as readily.  A $5.00 jacket for your characters looks like a good deal if you have it forever.  It looks like a really dumb thing to do if you only "own" it for two months on a lame duck service.

I don't think these games are marketed as "entertainment," or places you visit, like Disneyland.  They aren't developed to slam them in one night like a prostitute.  They are marketed as things you live with, like a steady girlfriend or a wife.  They are places you can live.  And the reason I say this is because they encourage behaviors that only make sense if players are confident they'll have access to the game in perpetuity.

These games offer choices in how a person should spend his or her time.  There are activities, like building and decorating a guild headquarters, that require the individual to forego content.  These activities take a considerable amount of time and expertise.  But you only take the time to learn these things and do these things on the presumption that you'll have the time to do all the other content.  And you could extend this to many activities, like receiving a matching set of some loot, or helping guild mates.  You only do these things under the presumption that the game will last a long time.  You don't do these activities if it all goes away in a few months.

Now the reason why I say the longevity issue is a problem is that it is starting to affect how players are looking at these games.  For example, I know of a lot of people who are rather skeptical about Wildstar right now because of what NCSoft did with City of Heroes.  And I can't say I blame them.  Why throw good money and good time into something that might go *poof* for reasons not under your control?

That's a big problem.  It's one thing if players are avoiding your game because they are afraid they'll like it too little.  It's another thing if players are avoiding your game because they are afraid they'll like it too much, and it'll be taken away. 

 

erictlewis

---

Originally posted by maplestone
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

---

Wow talk about a blade runner moment in time. Am I the only one who got that.

niceguy3978

Originally posted by Beatnik59

See, this is the reason why peer-to-peer matchmaking games like Diablo III and Torchlight II have an advantage over MMOs: the stand alone client doesn't go away if the live service gets taken away.  It's also why single player games like Assasin's Creed have an advantage over MMOs: the stand alone single player game doesn't go away if the live service goes away.

Perhaps if a cancelled MMO can be played as a stand alone client, the consumer would be a bit more comfortable.  Because if the live service folds, they still have their character, items, bases etc. available in a stand alone client; and the ability to make new characters as well to play in the stand alone client.  That certainly would have alleviated many concerns of CoH players, from what I've seen.

Well that kind of depends.  If for whatever reason Steam closed tomorrow, i would be out a crapload of games that I would never be able to play again.

Icewhite

Originally posted by Beatnik59

Service cancellation is the 800lb gorilla in the room that we refuse to acknowledge.  It hangs over every game like a sword of Damocles.  This is the only form of computer entertainment where the continued enjoyment of the things the consumer purchases is determined by factors wholly outside of the consumer's control.

Er...you don't have a lot of recourse in most other service industries, either.

eye_m

Originally posted by Beatnik59

That's what we have now, Eyelolled.

But here's the thing that's really confusing.  If these games are, as you said, "not a commodity," how is it that the industry has, for the better part of a decade, "commoditizing" them in the form of offering items for sale and services?

They do it because they wish to create the illusion that the player has a sense of ownership of something.  But this sense of ownership is, in the end, highly dependent on the perception that the game will last.  As soon as the "magic circle" is broken, that the things people pay money for will disappear, people don't throw money into the thing as readily.  A $5.00 jacket for your characters looks like a good deal if you have it forever.  It looks like a really dumb thing to do if you only "own" it for two months on a lame duck service.

I don't think these games are marketed as "entertainment," or places you visit, like Disneyland.  They aren't developed to slam them in one night like a prostitute.  They are marketed as things you live with, like a steady girlfriend or a wife.  They are places you can live.  And the reason I say this is because they encourage behaviors that only make sense if players are confident they'll have access to the game in perpetuity.

These games offer choices in how a person should spend his or her time.  There are activities, like building and decorating a guild headquarters, that require the individual to forego content.  These activities take a considerable amount of time and expertise.  But you only take the time to learn these things and do these things on the presumption that you'll have the time to do all the other content.  And you could extend this to many activities, like receiving a matching set of some loot, or helping guild mates.  You only do these things under the presumption that the game will last a long time.  You don't do these activities if it all goes away in a few months.

Now the reason why I say the longevity issue is a problem is that it is starting to affect how players are looking at these games.  For example, I know of a lot of people who are rather skeptical about Wildstar right now because of what NCSoft did with City of Heroes.  And I can't say I blame them.  Why throw good money and good time into something that might go *poof* for reasons not under your control?

That's a big problem.  It's one thing if players are avoiding your game because they are afraid they'll like it too little.  It's another thing if players are avoiding your game because they are afraid they'll like it too much, and it'll be taken away. 

 

It is most definately sold as entertainment, and the industry does not want to turn it into a commodity. I agree that it might seem like some things are commodities, but that is only because the person chooses to lie to themselves about it. There is no way that a company can put a price on something that could go indefinately. 

I can agree with your position on wanting to know how long you will get to enjoy something, but the business itself would crash if that was the case. For example. Lets say they were going to make City of Heroes/Vilians 2. They said "The servers will remain open for 5 years" People would buy initially, but each year that went on there would be less people willing to play. It would definately push the game to an earlier demise than intended.

We know that a game cannot be maintained indefinately, and we know that things are going to change no matter what. So at some point in time, there is going to be the disappointment of a game closing down, and the service being terminated.

 

Think of it like a restaraunt. You go to the restaraunt every day for breakfast.  It becomes such a ritual to you that you don't know to even make breakfast anymore. Then one day the restaraunt closes. It sucks, and yeah it's a crappy deal because now you have to adjust, but do the owners need to provide you with anything before they close? Do they need to arrange for an alternate breakfast solution for you? They don't need to do anything, and it's the individuals fault if they forgot how to make breakfast, even if the owner said one day "you no need make breakfast, you eat here every day, we give you good food"

 

The luxury of wearing a fancy pretend outfit in a pretend world might seem fine when you're in the game, but if it's a hard pill to swallow after the fact that everything goes away, than a person should have used better judgement in the first place.

 

Elevenb4

Great write up. This is something that I started thinking about when Age of Conan wasn't doing so well. I wanted to play it but news of all the problems and lack of people playing made me not want to invest time into it. Well, AoC is still going and I wish I would've started, but like you said, I had my doubts about how long it would be around. I've gotten to the place where I do not try out new MMO's at launch due to this nagging feeling, "Will it Last?"

 

I started SWTOR at launch because with such a Popular IP I was sure it would be around a few years even with all the naysayers.

Bottom line, I've become much more wary about trying new MMO's because of some of the shut downs. The Secret World is one I haven't touched because of this, although I want to try it.

Again great write up. Normally when I see a wall-of-text it's hard to read it. But your writing style caught my attention in the first few lines.

Po_gg

Originally posted by niceguy3978

Well that kind of depends.  If for whatever reason Steam closed tomorrow, i would be out a crapload of games that I would never be able to play again.

And that's exactly why I don't like Steam or gog etc. Boxes ftw

I somewhat agree with OP... I'm a hoarder and while I have less and less time to play, I like to re-play my favourite games (even kept a P200 full with my dos games, and when c64 emulators became useful I gathered my favourite .d64's again - sadly maintaining a c64 is a moneysink nowadays). I basically grew up in the sense that my bought games are mine and I play them whenever I want.

Probably that's why was it like a kick in the teeth, when NCsoft pulled the plug of AutoAssault (and later Tabula Rasa kicked one as well). I'm pretty sure that is the reason why I turned more into lore / content / levelling / rp. I was into that earlier too, but after AA closure I deliberately ditched any grind and so-called "endgame content". And while I still love my main games and support / advertise them, I play 3-5 simultaneously at a time, in case of one gets killed off...

It could be my motto, have fun in your games, don't do anything what's boring or a grind, enjoy them until they last

KenFisher

There's one game shut-down that's left a mark on me.

 

I was __somewhere__ and ran into a guy who was an ex Matrix Online player.  You could tell he was very fond of the game, and it was an important part of his life.  It was emotionally painful for me to even talk with him about it because the guy just oozed sentimentality for that which he had lost.

 

The human factor in all this is something easily ignored, but damned... I don't like to see people hurting.

 

jimdandy26

Op, do you not watch any new tv series? Read new book series? Eat out at restaurants? All of these things also come with "risks". How many new tv series get cancelled after the first season, never finishing thier story (or even part way through their first season, poor Firefly) it does not stop me from watching interesting tv. Look at what happened with The Wheel of Time, creators die part way through series (less often, but yeah) do you only read things that are completely finished? I get the shits nearly every time I eat at Taco Bell, does not stop me from getting cravings for it and paying the price. This debate has been touched on for a long time, coming and going, and the real answer is that each and every person has to make the choice for themselves. If you choose to forego what is potentially an awesome experience in Wildstar because of fear it may be taken away, then do it. Just do not think that you are some kind of special snowflake for doing so. Just like the cat lady who got dumped and never dated again you can do as you please, but it does not make it a healthy choice.

Beatnik59

Originally posted by Torvaldr

I'm pretty sure the game *are* marketed as entertainment services.  Trion marketed their rift game as an entertainment service where they touted the sub fee giving you a full meal deal.  They've moved away from that somewhat, but they never marketed the game as something you bought with forever access.

I'm projecting a bit, but I'm guessing you're a bitter CoH vet that is trying to paint a doom and gloom bait and switch scenario that isn't there.  You keep bringing up CoH and cast doubt on Wildstar, but ever single major publisher has closed games.  Are you actually suggesting that we all stop online gaming?

In your fear point you say why should people buy into Wildstar if it's just going to close?  Counterpoint, why should NCSoft keep CoH, or any game, open just to keep a small population of gamers happy when it doesn't measure up to their requirements to keep the service going?  Why throw good money to keep something marginal running?

You and others like you are projecting your assumptions and perceptions on others and the industry.  Games end.  Move on and find another game to enjoy while it lasts and if you can't do that, then find another hobby that isn't temporal.  Good luck with that.

If these entertainment services are "temporal," then why is it that no developer in the history of online gaming has ever come out and said, officially, how long their service will last?

As I said in my first post, they cannot answer that question, even though it is a question that every player and potential player has a right to ask.  And the reason they can't answer that question is because any answer they give only leads to more uncomfortable questions.

The most obvious answer is "as long as our business needs are served by it."  But then, how does a consumer know, and how can a consumer predict, whether or not a publisher's business needs are being met?  There is no way to know.  And there's no incentive for publishers to tell players.  The only time players know a service is temporal is when it becomes cancelled: after the decision to take away their game has already been made.

The funny thing about the "doom and gloom" or "bait and switch" scenario is that it really isn't a scenario, and it really isn't "doom and gloom."  It's the reality we've been conditioned to accept as players, and something we just brush aside--conveniently--when we are mesmirised by our brand new game.  But we've seen games fold in 88 days.  For all we know, the writing may already be on the wall for many games on the margins.

Now, it's true that many publishers have cancelled many games.  All this means is that this is a problem inherent in the genre: one that the industry can either neglect or mitigate, if they so choose.  Now it's not up to me to suggest we all stop online gaming.  But I do know that many have stopped online gaming.  If it wasn't CoH that caused them to leave, it was SWG.  If it wasn't SWG, it was Tabula Rasa.  And I'm sure that when the next game gets cancelled, more people will stop online gaming.  And can you honestly say that the longevity issue isn't a good reason to stop?

You don't get this kind of thing in other genres.  You don't get this in FPS, flight sims, building games, RTS, single player roleplay, peer-to-peer, etc.  So the "fear point," as you call it, isn't an irrational fear.  It's based in reality that these games are far too tied to forces outside of the end-user's control to be fun for them.

See, I question your assertion that "games end."  Certainly Freespace 2 didn't end.  A full 99% of games haven't "ended."  Why is it only in this genre where games "end?"

Because I'd have to think that the only reason these games have to "end" is because the industry hasn't figured out how to make them exist in some form.  The really do have a lot to gain by doing so, if you think about it.  If you are a small game on the margins, or you are an underperforming game, you have a lot to gain by making your game more secure for the end-user.  For example, if your MMO was integrated into a stand alone client, people might be more inclined to spend money on add ons and content, because they know that if the live service folds, their purchases won't go *poof* as well.

niceguy3978

Originally posted by Beatnik59

Originally posted by Torvaldr

I'm pretty sure the game *are* marketed as entertainment services.  Trion marketed their rift game as an entertainment service where they touted the sub fee giving you a full meal deal.  They've moved away from that somewhat, but they never marketed the game as something you bought with forever access.

I'm projecting a bit, but I'm guessing you're a bitter CoH vet that is trying to paint a doom and gloom bait and switch scenario that isn't there.  You keep bringing up CoH and cast doubt on Wildstar, but ever single major publisher has closed games.  Are you actually suggesting that we all stop online gaming?

In your fear point you say why should people buy into Wildstar if it's just going to close?  Counterpoint, why should NCSoft keep CoH, or any game, open just to keep a small population of gamers happy when it doesn't measure up to their requirements to keep the service going?  Why throw good money to keep something marginal running?

You and others like you are projecting your assumptions and perceptions on others and the industry.  Games end.  Move on and find another game to enjoy while it lasts and if you can't do that, then find another hobby that isn't temporal.  Good luck with that.

If these entertainment services are "temporal," then why is it that no developer in the history of online gaming has ever come out and said, officially, how long their service will last?

As I said in my first post, they cannot answer that question, even though it is a question that every player and potential player has a right to ask.  And the reason they can't answer that question is because any answer they give only leads to more uncomfortable questions.

The most obvious answer is "as long as our business needs are served by it."  But then, how does a consumer know, and how can a consumer predict, whether or not a publisher's business needs are being met?  There is no way to know.  And there's no incentive for publishers to tell players.  The only time players know a service is temporal is when it becomes cancelled: after the decision to take away their game has already been made.

The funny thing about the "doom and gloom" or "bait and switch" scenario is that it really isn't a scenario, and it really isn't "doom and gloom."  It's the reality we've been conditioned to accept as players, and something we just brush aside--conveniently--when we are mesmirised by our brand new game.  But we've seen games fold in 88 days.  For all we know, the writing may already be on the wall for many games on the margins.

Now, it's true that many publishers have cancelled many games.  All this means is that this is a problem inherent in the genre: one that the industry can either neglect or mitigate, if they so choose.  Now it's not up to me to suggest we all stop online gaming.  But I do know that many have stopped online gaming.  If it wasn't CoH that caused them to leave, it was SWG.  If it wasn't SWG, it was Tabula Rasa.  And I'm sure that when the next game gets cancelled, more people will stop online gaming.  And can you honestly say that the longevity issue isn't a good reason to stop?

You don't get this kind of thing in other genres.  You don't get this in FPS, flight sims, building games, RTS, single player roleplay, peer-to-peer, etc.  So the "fear point," as you call it, isn't an irrational fear.  It's based in reality that these games are far too tied to forces outside of the end-user's control to be fun for them.

See, I question your assertion that "games end."  Certainly Freespace 2 didn't end.  A full 99% of games haven't "ended."  Why is it only in this genre where games "end?"

Because I'd have to think that the only reason these games have to "end" is because the industry hasn't figured out how to make them exist in some form.  The really do have a lot to gain by doing so, if you think about it.  If you are a small game on the margins, or you are an underperforming game, you have a lot to gain by making your game more secure for the end-user.  For example, if your MMO was integrated into a stand alone client, people might be more inclined to spend money on add ons and content, because they know that if the live service folds, their purchases won't go *poof* as well.

It isn't an issue with just the genre though.  It is inherent in lots of digital media.  What if Steam shut down tomorrow?  Vudu?  Amazon with all their streaming videos for purchase.  

waynejr2

Originally posted by Beatnik59

It seems to me that 2013 is starting off to be an interesting year for online games.  Zynga announced that it is cancelling thirteen of its Facebook games.  We have the War Z and Steam debacle.  And the most popular news story right now involves a game that isn't even available anymore, City of Heroes, and it's about the details concerning its cancellation.

Service cancellation is the 800lb gorilla in the room that we refuse to acknowledge.  It hangs over every game like a sword of Damocles.  This is the only form of computer entertainment where the continued enjoyment of the things the consumer purchases is determined by factors wholly outside of the consumer's control.

A consumer can be responsible for paying his box price, paying his fees and paying the price for value-added items or services he wants (like item store goods,  downloadable content or expansions).  What he cannot be responsible for is the logistics of running the service itself: overall service profitability, management directives, development, etc.  And, yet, it is often those logistical responsibilities, and not the consumer's responsibilities, that determine when, if, and for how long a consumer may enjoy his entertainment.

We didn't have cause to think about that so much in the early days.  Ultima Online is still with us.  Everquest, Dark Age of Camelot, and Asheron's Call is with us too.  I think we owe a lot to those early games, because if they folded up their tents and went home early, we'd be less comfortable logging in serious hours and spending serious money in games like these.

As time went on, more games got cancelled.  Some games were in such rough shape, we could see why they had to close.  Other games, like CoH, weren't in rough shape.  I think the reason we're still talking about CoH, even now, is that it showed us how little control we have over our fun.  It showed us that the illusion of "persistence," that what we do today will exist in the future, has been shattered.  It made many lose faith in the business model, and can you blame them?  People ought to know if the game they are investing time and money in today is going to last a day or ten years.

When we hear all the pre-launch hype, how come we never ask "how long can you guarantee this service will be up for?  A year?  Ten years?  Twelve weeks?"  That would be good to know, wouldn't it?  You play a game that'll disappear in three months differently than a game that'll be around for ten years.  Your spending patterns also change...do you really need the extra character slot if your character will disappear in a month?

And yet, this most existential of questions, "when will you take the game away," is a question that the developers and publishers cannot answer.  One would assume it is "whenever our business requires us to," but even if they knew, they are loathe to say.  Knowing that the games are going to be taken away breaks Castronova's "magic circle," it makes the whole exercise of playing an MMO pointless.

Now it could very well be the case that there's nothing that can be done to make this form of computer entertainment more stable for the consumer.  But, assuming that we can do something to insulate the consumer from a game cancellation, what could we do?

 

 Well it seems too obvious to question.  People can't see the future.  Companies are hoping to earn money from their service for as long as posible.    The question is loaded with game failure.

It also is a gamer problem:  The expectation that a game can last.  Some gamers see games as an investment.  This is wrong but that doesn't stop people from thinking they have lost something important when a game closes.  It's a very bad perspective to think of games as anything more than hobbies or pasttimes.

Sampparound

Originally posted by erictlewis

 

---

Originally posted by maplestone
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

---

 

Wow talk about a blade runner moment in time. Am I the only one who got that.

It was the first thing that popped into my mind too. Didn't even remember it from Thenoob that Enigmatus likned to.

 

But to talk about the issue here, there is always the risk of cancellation with MMORPGs. But I don't worry about it  really. There are plenty of games out there. If the one I'm playing goes down, sure I'd be upset, but I'd just move on to to the next one.

Psychow

Originally posted by erictlewis

 

---

Originally posted by maplestone
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

---

 

Wow talk about a blade runner moment in time. Am I the only one who got that.

 

Great scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTzA_xesrL8