| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (7)

Posted: Jan 23rd 2009 8:19AM DaBruuzer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Definitely on life support. Better to have some of what you love than to have only memories.

I still miss Earth & Beyond, and there was no reason for EA to have shuttered it. Many E&B fans would still be playing to this day, even though no new content would have been added since EA ate Westwood and then shut it down.

Posted: Jan 23rd 2009 11:51AM BaronJuJu said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm with you Dab, I miss EnB and enjoyed the game play. I think EA made a mistake by dumping it and just keeping the CnC line going. It was definitely a different take than the constant fantasy setting.

Mostly, I just want my Jenquai Explorer back :P
Reply

Posted: Jan 23rd 2009 8:26AM Platypus Man said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If we're talking about Tabula Rasa, the answer is definitely life support. Especially since the game had been worked on since release and had become far more enjoyable - although for me personally, it had been fun from the start.

Posted: Jan 23rd 2009 8:55AM Angelworks said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
From what I understand the big problem with TR was that it had 25k subscribers and a massive server infrastructure. When I was working on a client/server application (made by Adobe no less - I'll let you guess what it is - its still available) - the profit margin was just starting at 25k per month - and we had a very very small server footprint compared to these MMO's.

I don't think what they did was right, but what if the costs of even life support are more than what it brings in? Should a developer keep running a game if it costs them more money than it makes?
Reply

Posted: Jan 23rd 2009 12:04PM jlong64 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I would much rather see the title on "Life-Support". At least there is teh chance of the occasional patch/update but the world and friends we have would still be there.

Posted: Jan 23rd 2009 10:09AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Should a developer keep running a game if it costs them more money than it makes?

In a word no. You want them to survive so they can go on to make something hopefully even better.

Posted: Jan 23rd 2009 5:07PM cray said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't think this fair question to ask because it depends on a lot factors that players have no control over. Secondly you can't expect a company to continue to lose money.

Also I can't fathom a player willing to subscribe to a game that is not providing updates, especially when we continually see newer MMOs released every year.

The only way I see older MMOs surviving is for them to have very small subscription price (under $2 a month) or some other type of payment plan. Possibly free and supported by in-game ads.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW