godslabrat Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 EA is telling owners of Rock Band for iPhone that as of May 31, the game will "no longer be playable on your device." Most users probably expect that a game they paid $4.99 for -- and that is still on sale, with no suggestion that the game will be useless in a month -- wouldn't suddenly stop working, especially when Rock Band offers a number of song packs as in-app purchases. Source: http://www.macrumors.com/2012/05/02/ea-killing-rock-band-for-iphone-game-will-be-unplayable-for-current-owners/ Seriously, it's getting to the point where torches and pitchforks are too good for this company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animan Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 And apparently, Harmonix doesn't know why: http://kotaku.com/5906971/harmonix-doesnt-know-why-mobile-rock-band-has-an-expiration-date Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+FujiSkunk Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 (edited) Don't just take some "rumors" web site's word for it, get it straight from the source, EA's own help site. And apparently, Harmonix doesn't know why: http://kotaku.com/59...expiration-date Harmonix didn't make the mobile app; it was pretty much EA's baby from the start. And now that Harmonix is no longer using EA to distribute their games, the two companies don't talk a lot. Those on the Rock Band forums can follow this thread to get more news. A Harmonix rep has already promised to look into it. Edited May 2, 2012 by FujiSkunk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyHW Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Someone explain to me why this game needs a server to run? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+FujiSkunk Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Because it was made by EA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyHW Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Seriously, any game that depends on a server to run should be labelled as such. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emehr Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 We need a Modern Gaming Deathwatch forum for threads like these. Expiration dates on games, the attack on the second-hand market, the DLC nickel/dime dilemma, people getting sued for tinkering with their hardware, patches, DRM...the list goes on. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doubleminor Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 We need a Modern Gaming Deathwatch forum for threads like these. Expiration dates on games, the attack on the second-hand market, the DLC nickel/dime dilemma, people getting sued for tinkering with their hardware, patches, DRM...the list goes on. Don't forget EA shutting down online functions for a game requiring an online pass (EA MMA). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Necron99 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 wait....EA has 5 customers? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagitekAngel Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Make that 4! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onlysublime Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 gawd... you guys keep reminding me of my hate for EA... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onlysublime Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Don't just take some "rumors" web site's word for it, get it straight from the source, EA's own help site. And apparently, Harmonix doesn't know why: http://kotaku.com/59...expiration-date Harmonix didn't make the mobile app; it was pretty much EA's baby from the start. And now that Harmonix is no longer using EA to distribute their games, the two companies don't talk a lot. Those on the Rock Band forums can follow this thread to get more news. A Harmonix rep has already promised to look into it. the app was co-developed by EA Montreal and Harmonix. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrazyKaiju Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 EA reversed itself after all the bad press. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57426660-93/ea-not-killing-rock-band-for-ios-after-all/ Apparently, the ITunes Store was also refunding anyone who complained. Since I can't imagine Apple eating the cost, they must have been sticking EA with the chargebacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtariLeaf Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 "Rock Band for iOS will remain live - the in-app message users received yesterday was sent in error," the company said in a statement. "We apologize for the confusion this caused. We're working to clarify the issue that caused the error and will share additional information as soon as possible." So it was an "error"? Yea, and I'm the Queen of England. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 (edited) "Rock Band for iOS will remain live - the in-app message users received yesterday was sent in error," the company said in a statement. "We apologize for the confusion this caused. We're working to clarify the issue that caused the error and will share additional information as soon as possible." So it was an "error"? Yea, and I'm the Queen of England. Of course it was an error. The error was likely "We didn't think anybody would care if we disconnected that game's server." "We are working to clarify the issue that caused the error" is corporate pr talk for "We're looking for a scapegoat. One second while we find one." Edited May 3, 2012 by Mord Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austin Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Wow, EA, that's #*$&@! up. It's one thing to disconnect the servers to a mode that's more or less a privilege, but having a game paid for require a server like this in order to operate, and then attempting to disconnect that? Do you really think people are that stupid? Did you not think people would get angry?? What. The. Hell. /rant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potatohead Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Seriously! I have no problem with "tethered" games, but they absolutely do need to be labeled as such so people can educate themselves before buying. Now, at $5 it's not a big deal. Low value offering, low price. The buyers got what they paid for. They are angry because they didn't know what they paid for and that's the rub for me. $5 seems like a steal right! Sweet deal! Yeah, that was shitty, because the understanding that it was tethered to a service and a temporary thing would have made that $5 less attractive wouldn't it? I think so. If we are going to go down this road, and it appears we are, then labeling requirements need to be set so we see realistic competition. If people understand the dynamics, they will properly value things, and I suspect we will find that tethered things won't bring in the $$$ thought. Or maybe they will? Could happen. We won't really know that sans labels, and worse, that not knowing means they can argue all sorts of things too, because the data to counter that won't be there either. Gaming the gamers! (I don't buy much that's modern right now, so that doesn't really sting like it would have years prior) On the other hand, if we do step up and insure that use rights are properly characterized, there will be some realistic discussion, and that will lead to realistic business models and laws too. Never did like dishonest branding, framing, etc... Know this: When ever you see that going on, you can link it right back to somebody wanting to have their cake and eat it too. Games sold as services and or experiences simply aren't worth as much as games sold as programs, or maybe more simply, sold with enduring use right licenses are. Same for physical media vs download, or any console vs just the console it was purchased on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potatohead Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Re: Servers. The idea that they need to disconnect them is shit. Seriously kids. Back in the day of requiring real hardware to serve stuff up, I could understand that, though I see ID went the distance on theirs, and gave people outs too. These days a virtual server isn't anything but some disk space. Build up the DRM code on Linux, keep it in house so it doesn't have to be open, and just run batches of them on hosts. As interest wanes, so will demand and people can get good value, though it's still less than if their use right license is stand alone. Mere authentication servers don't take much at all. Those that serve up content take more, but that depends. In either case, a company capable of publishing games is also capable of doing the IT planning to insure they've got infrastructure to avoid this crap. If they don't? Maybe this crap isn't worth it. Somebody has got to start talking realistically about that. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godslabrat Posted May 3, 2012 Author Share Posted May 3, 2012 In either case, a company capable of publishing games is also capable of doing the IT planning to insure they've got infrastructure to avoid this crap. If they don't? Maybe this crap isn't worth it. Somebody has got to start talking realistically about that. Hell of a good point. The "cost to run the server" argument isn't as strong as it's made out to be. It's an issue because the devs are MAKING it an issue. They make these games super complex, and then when the complexity costs them extra money, they whine about it and blame the gamers, used game sales, yo mamma, etc. True, gamers are demanding more sophisticated games, but I would suggest that tethering a game to a server is NOT a feature that's specifically in demad. That's done more to please the devs, and now that's it's proving to be a hassle, they need to justify the decision to us, not the other way around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cimerians Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 (edited) EA: "We are releasing an indie bundle!" Only EA can attempt such an exploit: http://www.destructo...ng-226889.phtml They have to be the biggest piles of turd on the planet. I pray to god Bioware detaches themselves from these pathetic leeches. Edited May 3, 2012 by cimerians 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hex65000 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 You also have to pay attention to the DRM on those games too. Gatling Gears has a 5 machine activation limit. I'm also surprised that they didn't include "The Baconing" with the other two DeathSpank titles. I try to avoid EA stuff because of their wackiness. Only the sheer stupidity of Ubisoft exceeds EA IMO. Full Disclosure: I own The DeathSpank series and Dead Space 1&2 (Dead Space has a crapload of DRM with it too; I regret that purchase. ) Hex. [ Last seen having a blast playing Torchlight... ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 I pray to god Bioware detaches themselves from these pathetic leeches. I don't think Bioware has the option to "detach" themselves from EA. EA bought them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaperman Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 I don't think Bioware has the option to "detach" themselves from EA. EA bought them. I'm setting up an underground railroad stop at my house in case they ever decide to try it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cimerians Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 I pray to god Bioware detaches themselves from these pathetic leeches. I don't think Bioware has the option to "detach" themselves from EA. EA bought them. Oh man........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax2069 Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 I pray to god Bioware detaches themselves from these pathetic leeches. I don't think Bioware has the option to "detach" themselves from EA. EA bought them. Oh man........... yeah bioware is another company out of the long list that EA has destroyed. Its only a matter of time before they become just a name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.