@dalua360 Yeah, it is a bit utopic bit here's hoping. But when publishers can focus on simply providing the best customer service and content instead of trying to defend themselves against the customer we all win. How much money is wasted with them trying to find ways around being cheated, whether it is piracy or not profitting off games due to the used game market? But there is no putting that toothpaste back in the tube now until they really do go completely digital and then God help us all, because who knows what can of worms that will open up? Will we then see what bignick217 is talking about on PC, where we have to go through signing into EA or Ubisoft everytime we try to access our content... So I see it from all sides. There just has to be common ground somewhere in the middle.

@bignick217 I hear you nick. PC is a totally different animal to be honest. Its like comparing cars to planes, the standards and the status quo is completely different. You have guys on PC still playing the original DOOM. Whereas if you find a guy that was playing Mario 25 years ago still breaking out the old Nintendo you found a rare breed of console consumer. Really the industry needs to find a middle ground with PC gamers because piracy and hacking has changed the landscape and it seems that there is a combative relationship there with companies trying to find the right mix between servicing a consumer and protecting their property.

@groundzero91 I agree with you on that. They need to start to set a hard fast rule that they will support the game x amount of time after release and after that time they have the right to shut down servers at any time. That would be a more fair way of doing business.

@ThoseSaints I see you simply lack integrity and won't even stand behind your own words. At least go back and delete the post if you don't want to take responsibility for it but don't say you didn't say something and leave it up so others can see you said it. I guess that proves who is slow... ThoseSaints Posted Mar 22, 2012 9:15 am PT People need to stop referring to video games just as a piece of art and because of that there is nothing wrong with a game. If there is a bad game should it remain the same or would you rather receive more from it. Most of all yes there is art that goes into a game but it is not art it is a product that people buy and should in return be satisfied by the developers description of what their game is going to be.

@Apathetic_Prick It is good to see there are people on here (you and dalua, and ground, along with a few others) that can actually have an detailed discussion about issues. This is the kind of gaming community we need so we can actually go back and forth intelligently and not necessarily agree on everything but get to understand the other person's point of view without resorting to simple name calling or blasting a company. Good talking with you guys.

@ThoseSaints "Most of all yes there is art that goes into a game but it is not art it is a product that people buy..." My comment to you was in reference to you saying the quote above. Now you are saying you do think games are art. It can't not be art in one post and be art in another, it either is or it isn't. You can not like a form of art. I'm not a fan of abstract art, doesn't matter. You vote with your money, you don't like it don't pay for it. Comment, let them know what you like so that those things could possibly be incorporated in the future and you can pay for what you do like. But to try and demand something be changed simply because you or a group of people don't like it isn't right.

@Apathetic_Prick I went back and read the post you referred to, and I agree 100%. It isn't like the consoles are agreeing to keep these games going for free. These companies are out to make a profit from all ends. They sell us their games, make money off the games of anyone who sells one on their system, then they charge the companies to have online functionality on their system (at least in Microsoft's case). They should be the ones to regulate this sort of thing, but they won't because in the end Microsoft won't be blamed. EA will get the backlash.

@groundzero91 and @dalua360 I get what you are saying about your mattress, but I wonder how long they would give you that warranty for if it cost them $.05 a day to make sure you had that mattress warranty... That is the difference here. If you went out and bought a 5 year old game tomorrow and the disc didn't work they'd replace that disc for you with no issue, it cost them nothing really to do that, but to have a cost, no matter how insignificant it may seem, attached to something then companies are going to start deciding what things should money be spent on. cont. below

I've worked in sizable companies that people would think have an unlimited amount of funds, and they are talking about the most insignificant amounts of money on the grand scale because all those cost people look at as being nothing end up in a column on a spreadsheet and it is huge when all totaled out. There is a bottom to the account. We have to decide which things we prefer companies spend money on. As a gamer I'd prefer money be spent on developing the best new games with AAA budgets that I can get 2 years of use or so out of or even somewhere between 40-100 hours. If that budget is being wasted to support servers for games that no one is playing then who is really benefiting from that. There isn't unlimited server space or assets or resources. What do we lose in one place to gain in another. There are a ton of companies that would still be in business today if they had learned to trim the fat. If you buy a game five years late then you get what you pay for and understand that you lose something by being late to the party. Even if the server was running they can't promise you that people will be online to play with you, which is part of the problem with the games targeted to shut down, they don't have a high demand for online function.

@ Double Wide I'm sure your 100 or so hours playing through 3 games was all some big chore that you only did so you could see those final 10 minutes at the end of the 3rd game. It wasn't in vain. You got x amount of hours of entertainment. You enjoyed it or you wouldn't have played and dedicated all the time it took to get to the end of the third game. People acting as if the game sucked and the series is broken because of 10 minutes or so is ridiculous. You enjoyed the ride and didn't like how it ended, simple. It isn't the end of the world. Maybe, just maybe, they have an idea of how they plan to continue the series that ties all this together. Who knows, but by trying to force them to make something that wasn't part of their original vision changes that. They have to reinvent the wheel and try and create something that works with this as well as something that fits into what is planned.