With the news that EA is removing online support for Need for Speed Rivals, we have to again ask the question: should video games that were sold to buyers with online features be allowed to stop supporting the online functionality? https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/ea-shutting-down-aaa-game-permanently-in-48-hours/

It’s understandable why a game publisher doesn’t want to support an online game forever - but the online features in games like Rivals was a big selling point and part of what buyers paid for in the first place.

Even with a shrinking player base, it’s a bummer - and a practice that could, knowing game companies, become predatory - shorter support windows and microtransactions for access after X years, for example.

I think companies are fine to shut servers down for older games like this, but there needs to be more clarity during the sale process that such things could happen. If there were warnings or disclaimers on the digital storefronts or even on the back of physical games that made this more clear, then that'd be a good first step.

I can't expect games to live forever online because I am sure these servers have been mostly dead for a while. I agree with Logan that there should be clear warnings.

In the case of Rivals, I think you can actually even play the game offline which hasn't been the case for every game that loses online support. As long as you can still play the game in some capacity, I think that's all that matters.

I think publishers should be forced to inform customers of the earliest possible end of service date when selling the game. Nothing would stop a publisher from then extending that date if the game is successful, but they should be obligated to support a game up to a date they select at the time of release, or should be obligated refund customers for all purchases if they are unable/unwilling to meet the date they set for themselves.

In general for digital purchases, I think sellers should be legally obligated to prominently display the soonest end-date of their relevant license agreements for the content they are 'selling' rather than letting customers 'buy' a license to access content that has unpredictable/arbitrary availability.

I think shutting down the servers on a game that is a decade old is fine, but leaving it up for sale and not delisting it, I think, is a suspect move.

I think it's unfortunate, but pretty much impossible to avoid. Running servers comes with a cost attached, and there's going to come a point where it's not worth maintaining those servers. As others have said, clarity at the time of sale is helpful here, and I like the idea of informing customers of a specific earliest shutdown date that was suggested above. I think Ben's right that it could become predatory, so have a sort of agreement that the servers will be up for at least X amount of time before being shut down feels like a good way to ensure players can get what feels like their money's worth out of online features before they get pulled. Otherwise, what's to stop a game from shutting down shortly after launch if sales don't meet initial targets?

50 minutes ago, Amanda Kay Oaks said:

I think it's unfortunate, but pretty much impossible to avoid. Running servers comes with a cost attached, and there's going to come a point where it's not worth maintaining those servers.

I agree this is mostly true, but disagree it's impossible to avoid. Server costs and other associated licensing fees that a publisher/developer has to pay to maintain any service are an inherent business risk that publishers should be held responsible for managing, rather than a reason this shady business practice should be tolerated. Those costs/fees are a known risk that exists during the entire development cycle through to post-launch support, and privately these businesses know when those agreements will lapse, they just don't share that information (because no one forces them to). Right now, they're effectively being allowed to sidestep responsibility for that risk (with help from digital storefronts) by muddying the waters between a product and a service, as well as not being forced to adequately identify to consumers what is actually being paid for.

No one reasonably demands refunds from Netfilx when they stop carrying a show due to licensing issues, but Netflix isn't positioning their service as 'selling' any individual pieces of content. I think the storefronts should have a responsibility to clearly differentiate between a digital product (which inherently has unlimited availability) and a digital service (which inherently has limited availability). The publishers should have a responsibility to indicate if their service could end, and when.

Ultimately, I think this is a major perception issue that the gaming industry will need to reckon with. They built all this digital infrastructure to give themselves a zillion ways to collect money, but when it comes to responsibly informing consumers, they hide behind "It will cost us too much to commit to or share any details around server availability or end of life plans." The costs of properly informing customers are trivial compared to the upside of revenue generation and costs savings they've already realized from these digital storefronts and distribution systems.