#1 Edited by MWright469 (151 posts) -

So it's kind of ironic actually, but get this: after years of not playing Resistance (at least online) I finally decided to hop back on a few days ago, thinking "boy, some 60 person battles would be fun!". Much to my disdain....I find out that a few days later, Resistance 1, 2 and even 3 are all to go offline, permanently.

Yes, for those of you who don't know, as of tomorrow, April 8th, all Resistance servers will be going offline.

Now honestly, I understand in the case of Resistance 1, maybe even Resistance 2, but Resistance 3? Honestly? That game came out barely 3 years ago and the online portion is already being nixed? Pretty disappointing in my opinion.

How do you feel about Resistance multiplayer being taken down? Do you have any good memories? Do you care, are you upset, or are you glad? Personally, it kind of annoyed me, just as I was getting back into the game, they decide to pull the rug from under me.

One day, Sony is going to realize that they are going to die by the death of 1000 cuts. They are penny wise and pound foolish. I'm not sure how much money they are actually going to save by cutting a few small servers, but whatever tiny amount they save, isn't worth the dozens of gamers they're going to piss off. I wish they would just leave their servers online for as long as the console was in production, that would be nice.

PS: If you want to relive your old memories and even see some Insomniac employees playing online, I'd go hop on Resistance 1 or 2 right now. Soon, it'll be the last chance you ever have.

#2 Edited by marcheegsr (2759 posts) -

It's a shame for the resistance fans. I had fun playing Resistance 3 online.

Im also pissed that they shut down the Mag servers.

#3 Edited by jasonredemption (305 posts) -

I enjoyed Resistance 2 online (far more than the campaign) and Resistance 3 is one my favorite FPS both single player and multiplayer.

#4 Posted by MWright469 (151 posts) -

I just left an online chat with Sony support. I told them I was truly displeased about all this. Like I said, I understand for Resistance 1/2, but for a game that came out not even 3 years ago, that is pretty ridiculous. They could make so many people happy by spending a few thousand dollars a year to keep hundreds of game servers running for a small amount of dedicated players, or even turn over the server source code to the public and let us run it. But they're greedy. Sad really.

#5 Posted by Lhomity (771 posts) -

They're "greedy" because they aren't running old and dead game servers on a charity basis for when somebody decides they want to start playing again years later...

I'm sorry. The level of self-entitlement here is suffocating.

#6 Posted by MWright469 (151 posts) -

@Lhomity: And here we have our first forum douche! I knew I'd run into you eventually.... So let me get this straight, if Sony says it's going to support its console for 10 years, and they shut down the servers for a game series, who's last installment came out less than 3 years ago, then I'm being self-entitled? WOW. Soooorrrrrry. I guess I'm asking too much to be able to, you know, play the game I paid $60 for. Or should I say, the three games, which I paid $180 for. None of which will have any online capabilities after today. Yes, the self-entitlement is suffocating indeed, seeing as it would cost pennies to keep a few old servers up to make a dedicated fan base happy, for one of the biggest franchises on the console. Go back to your cave little one, you're not needed here anymore.

#7 Posted by Lhomity (771 posts) -

@mwright469: I don't mean to be rude, but you really need to calm down, take a few deep breaths, and accept that Sony are not in debt to you, nor do they in any way owe online servers to you simply because you happen to want to play online now. You said yourself you hadn't played Resistance online in "years". You had plenty of time to play those games, but didn't - and now they're gone - bad luck.

These games became obsolete because there weren't enough people still playing to justify their existance, and there isn't a revenue basis to justify the cost. Sony, or anybody for that matter, are not obligated to continue providing those services because a small few might happen to one day want to play the game again long after it's dead.

Despite what you seem to think, running those servers does not cost "pennies". You paid $180 for three games, okay, and you got those games, did you not? Nobody on this planet, not Sony, not any publisher, not even a small indie dev, is obligated to continue paying for servers long after the game has become obsolete. They do not owe you this. Nobody owes you this.

This is what I was talking about when I referred to self-entitlement. You seem to have this idea that these publishers owe you these things. Because you bought a game? Nope, sorry. It doesn't work like that. I should go "back to my cave" because you don't want to be told that you're making unreasonable demands? Nope, sorry. Definitely doesn't work like that.

If you respond to criticism by calling people douches, you're going to have an unhappy time on the internet. Try to relax and approach situations calmly. Be rational.

#8 Posted by MWright469 (151 posts) -

@Lhomity:

LOL. You are a miserable little troll aren't you? Telling me to "calm down" and "be rational" while you get all pissed off and write me an essay. Lmfao. Okay, sure kid.

So I guess by your logic, if I purchase a game and they decide to take down the online functionality a week later, I have no reason to get pissed. I mean, I got the physical copy of the game, I got to play it, what reason do I have to bitch, right?

I don't exactly see what's wrong with thinking that if I support and a company and its games, that I should be able to access all features of those games for years to come. Gee, somehow Microsoft manages to do it and keep people happy, but if it comes to Sony, oh no! I'm just asking too much, right?

I guess giving the dedicated fan base access to the server source code would be "self-entitled" too, wouldn't it? After all, letting players control the game that they, you know, paid for, that's just too much. And paying a few hundred dollars a year to keep your fan base happy? Which, you know, creates more revenue? Yeah, that's a horrible idea.

Lol. You're a joke. You'd be great friends with the guys at EA. Like I said, go back to your cave child.

#9 Posted by Lhomity (771 posts) -

@mwright469: Why do you insist on getting all worked up and resorting to name-calling? I really don't get this.

You know, if they took the servers down after a week, then you can be pissed off. That's understandable. A week is not a reasonable time to provide such a service. But a week is not realistic at all. We're talking about years here. Years in which the servers were provided freely to you. They had a pretty good run in that time. Now everybody has moved on. Well, almost everybody.

Microsoft have been able to provide online servers for older games because they've been charging players for those servers for several years, and it has been and still is providing a lot of money for them to do these kinds of things. Sony are obviously late to the party, as they've only recently, since last November in fact, begun charging their customers for online multiplayer services, and that's only for PS4.

It's not hard to see why Sony's free PlayStation Network wasn't super amazing in the long-run. The shutdown of obsolete game servers is just a part of it. But it's a natural, acceptable part of it. They provided those game servers for free, but it's obviously something they cannot do forever.

I get it, you're not happy that the Resistance servers are down. You wanted to play a game online, but couldn't, and you're unhappy about that. That is totally fine. You have a right to be unhappy about a service and to express that. There's nothing wrong with doing that. But making these kinds of demands is really not the same thing.

The servers were provided to you for free, for multiple years. You had all that time to play those games online. Sony do not have to keep providing those servers beyond their means, just because it suits you. No amount of demands will change that.

If I can offer you a small piece of advice (and I seriously hope you take it in to consideration), it's this: get that chip off your shoulder. All the name-calling, the demands, and the emotional lashing out... Get rid of it. Please. There really is no point to getting all angry and ragey about all this.

#10 Posted by MWright469 (151 posts) -

LOL. You are seriously too funny bud. All I say is how I wish the Sony would keep the Resistance servers up, and then you swoop in, call me "Self-entitled", and then make it seem like I have an anger issue because I called you a douche. Just because I call you a name doesn't mean I'm upset. I just happen to think you're a douche. You are one, after all. Then, you're seriously going to come in here and tell me that I'm "emotionally lashing out" and being "angry and ragey". Coming from the guy who keeps writing me longer and longer essays about holding the moral high-ground and not getting upset while insulting me and pretending to be Dr. Phil. ROFL. In reality you're just a pathetic halfwit who has nothing better to do than to come on Gamespot and try to act intelligent and morally superior over a comment about Sony shutting down game servers. Yes, you sir, are a douche. Now, if the stroking of your throbbing ego is over and you've finished wiping up, you're welcome to move along back to the cave from whence you came. I have no more food for you, troll. Good day.

#11 Edited by roulettethedog (10974 posts) -

Even though I own a PS3 and PS2, I can never understand why people play them online rather then P.C. Heck Quake 2 still has servers. Maybe if Sony charged you, people could host older games Online?

#12 Posted by MWright469 (151 posts) -

@roulettethedog: Because not everyone likes to play on PC...

A gamepad is much more comfortable, and easier to use than a mouse and keyboard, at least in my opinion.

Also, none of this would be a problem if game companies just made their games peer-to-peer with dedicated servers, like Warhawk. That way, the online portion of game won't go until the last players do. Not to mention, as I've stated before, if the devs would just give people the server software for these "outdated" games, then the "outdated" players could run them and it would make everyone happy. Unfortunately, these companies purposely give games a short online lifespan because they want to usher as many people out of old games as possible so that they can get them to buy new ones. THAT is greed.

One day people will realize that there is much more money to be made when you take care of your customers and try to do right by them, than by treating them like a statistic and grasping at falling pennies.

#13 Posted by MondasM (1256 posts) -

you know there are many gamepads for computers, one can even use xbox 360 controllers... what a shocker... o_O

apart from that the sales of the various titles do impact their server availabilities directly, if the game is a huge success, with a steady online population, then most of the developers and parent publishers keep the server online, which should be indefinitely if we were talking about ideal situations, unfortunately for us we do not live in an ideal world, some games do well, some games do not... i am sure there are some people who want to play "street cleaning simulator" for many years to come online, however i strongly doubt that it had an online component and that it is still active...

yes, it is a shame that one of the iconic game series of ps3's online portion is going offline, however if the online community has been diminished over the years, it is quite understandable that they are going offline...

p2p connection could also be an option if the developers did not have to rewrite their netcode accordingly and people should be running servers on their own in order to create a lobby and matchmaking system, which again is quite unheard of, especially on the consoles...

#14 Posted by bezza2011 (2529 posts) -

What Sony should do and many other companies, after so long and numbers start to drop on older games, they should send notifications to the players of these games and offer them a small fee to keep playing. Yes I know it's stupid paying for it but facts are facts, Servers cost money to run, why should sony keep a server going for a minority of people, a small fee a month would prove better but I don't know how much servers cost to run, so that's down to them.

#15 Posted by MWright469 (151 posts) -

@bezza2011: Now that's actually a fantastic idea. That would benefit everyone, and honestly, if I knew I could pay a few extra bucks to keep playing all the games I loved for years, I would do it without a doubt. That's just another option too.

Honestly, I think people really overestimate how much it costs to run a server. I use to run a Ragnarok Online private server (which is about 10000x bigger and more complex than anything like Resistance) for hundreds of people off my old shitty 2001 Sony Vaio desktop. The electricity it cost me was practically nothing. If Sony spent a few thousand dollars on some hardware, they could keep dozens of servers for multiple games up and running, keeping the fan base happy, and promoting their business at the same time. It all boils down to them not wanting to spend a single cent to make anyone happy. In the long run, those kind of tactics will hurt them.

#16 Posted by MarcRecon (5775 posts) -

@mwright469:

But that's any business bro, they are in it for profit...not consumer happiness! Don't take this the wrong way guy but I don't think there's a corporation on this planet that will let a consumers happiness out weight profit or some type of benefit.

That's why I don't see how anyone(who doesn't work for them)can get into heated debates about Sony, MS, Nintendo or any business being the best or worst....why? They view us all as blind chattel.

Even then, I don't take it personal I'll still use the product but I'm just realistic about the company-consumer relationship.

#17 Posted by benleslie5 (7847 posts) -

I actually enjoyed the online multiplayer for Resistance Fall of Man since 2007 I was surprised that a few people still played it's multiplayer a few days ago

#18 Posted by cainetao11 (17612 posts) -

I never got around to 3. But I really liked the setting of 1&2, and I loved retribution PSP, and the vita one was fun to.

#19 Posted by MWright469 (151 posts) -

@MarcRecon:

I think you're missing the point of what I'm saying. I'm not saying, "hey, I'm your customer, I deserve to have you treat me to what I want", I'm simply saying, it would be in the best interest of everyone to keep these servers up. Not only is the cost very minimal, but think about it, even if a game hasn't been relevant for years, if someone decides to go to Gamestop and buy an older game, hop online, and really enjoy it, then they are much more likely to seek out newer games in the series, or even other games from the Publisher. It's like free advertising. If someone purchases an older game and sees that no one plays it, they'll probably make a biased judgment about it and be less likely to play those games in the future.

Either way, you're not going to make any friends by closing servers, whereas you could make fans happy, advertise yourself further, and actually care about your customers by spending a completely insignificant amount of money on keeping a few servers open for a small, dedicated group of players. One single shitty computer could run a perfectly acceptable server for a few people.

#20 Posted by MarcRecon (5775 posts) -

@mwright469:

I feel you man because I played the first 2 of the series and really enjoyed both the MP and SP!! And I get what your saying and I agree, but there's not much anybody can do about it. :)

#21 Posted by MWright469 (151 posts) -

@MarcRecon: True 'nuff, son.

#22 Posted by ristactionjakso (5730 posts) -

I felt the online was pretty meh anyway. They should at least patch in a 2 or 4 player splitscreen bot mode for offline MP play anyway, and add more survival maps the the love of pete.

The campaign was really good tho in R3.

#23 Posted by sukraj (22861 posts) -

I've only played the first game.