Killzone 2 Valor Cross, another possibility

[XAGMNINETY]

12 minutes ago, turpinator1986 said:

It makes me laugh that people expect a business to continue to provide something that costs money. If you had your own business and were spending your own time and money on something that only 1000ish people in the entire WORLD wanted to play would you seriously prioritise that over something new that could be played by hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people? Give me a break. The ps3 is coming to the end of its life cycle just as the ps1 and the ps2. It happens. The games 9 years old. If you expect the servers to be up forever you must be on drugs. 

It's not a priority. It's not even difficult. 

 

They don't have any plan to keep these games alive, even when it's financially feasible. They just kill them. All of a sudden, you have half a product. 

 

Notice how every game is on a server now?  Destiny? Anthem? Shit games built to extort your money, always online?  Soon you'll have nothing once they make the "business decision". It's pathetic. 

 

It's the principle that makes me nauseated, not the "prioritization" or whatever. They fully expect to kill these games when they develop them. 

 

Why I'm going to stick with single player games from now on. The idea that most of a game can be bricked like this, with almost no warning, is a despicable business practice. That's not really up for debate. 

 

 

[turpinator1986]

3 minutes ago, XAGMNINETY said:

It's not a priority. It's not even difficult. 

 

They don't have any plan to keep these games alive, even when it's financially feasible. They just kill them. All of a sudden, you have half a product. 

 

Notice how every game is on a server now?  Destiny? Anthem? Shit games built to extort your money, always online?  Soon you'll have nothing once they make the "business decision". It's pathetic. 

 

It's the principle that makes me nauseated, not the "prioritization" or whatever. They fully expect to kill these games when they develop them. 

 

Why I'm going to stick with single player games from now on. The idea that most of a game can be bricked like this, with almost no warning, is a despicable business practice. That's not really up for debate. 

 

 

I could be wrong but it seems like you have little to no knowledge of just how difficult it is for Games companies to run and actually make money. You seem to think it’s a five minute job that could be done for pennies and it honestly isn’t the case. You’ve obviously never had your own business either. Well, I have. And I can tell you that when it’s your own money on the line and you have to worry about keeping other people with families in a job, you take the most profitable course of action. That’s common sense. And why wouldn’t they expect to kill games after so many years? If you honestly think it’s expected to continue support for a game indefinitely then I have to say you need to re-evaluate your outlook on the gaming industry. It’s also not ‘most’ of a game. At best it’s half. There’s nothing despicable about it. What do you want, every single game ever made to have its online servers up until the end of time? 

[WeStMaN16]

They gave you the notice months in advance, that game has been around for 9 years almost 10, you had 9-10 FREAKING YEARS. 

 

Also, I don't know for how long EVERY USER AGREEMENT states basically in the first few paragraphs that online features can be shutdown at their discretion  or give a decent notice on when they plan to.

 

Either work for it cause you were too lazy in the last decade to get this trophy or move on.

Edited March 3, 2018 by WeStMaN16

[XAGMNINETY]

Games are dead, if people are a-ok with this industry trend.

 

Seems as if my worst fears have come to fruition.  MAG was the norm, not the exception.

 

Whatever.  I'm going to go play Morrowind and Quake 2, because they will function now, and until the end of time.  Just as I would expect something I spent 60+ dollars on to.  Guess I'm a lunatic and worthy of internet ridicule (oh no!) for thinking that way.

 

When you all grow up and games vanish before your eyes, hopefully you'll realize you're being played for fools by these companies.  It's all I can hope for.

 

 

Edited March 4, 2018 by XAGMNINETY

[XAGMNINETY]

9 hours ago, turpinator1986 said:

I could be wrong but it seems like you have little to no knowledge of just how difficult it is for Games companies to run and actually make money. You seem to think it’s a five minute job that could be done for pennies and it honestly isn’t the case. You’ve obviously never had your own business either. Well, I have. And I can tell you that when it’s your own money on the line and you have to worry about keeping other people with families in a job, you take the most profitable course of action. That’s common sense. And why wouldn’t they expect to kill games after so many years? If you honestly think it’s expected to continue support for a game indefinitely then I have to say you need to re-evaluate your outlook on the gaming industry. It’s also not ‘most’ of a game. At best it’s half. There’s nothing despicable about it. What do you want, every single game ever made to have its online servers up until the end of time? 

 

Mk, so Sony Interactive Entertainment made billions in profit last year.  They're the only profitable section of Sony Worldwide (actually, I think the TV's did well this year, I can check), and are absolutely murdering the game.  Profits are through the roof.  There are shittier companies, like EA and Activision, that made 10's of billions of dollars in profit last year.  Furthermore, each of these shitty companies are continuously engaging in predatory gambling practices designed to sucker children out of their lunch money.   And as of right now (until the Government hopefully fucks them square, Jesus I never thought I'd support government regulation of any kind), they're making billions of dollars of profit out of that.  Do you have any idea what the margins for microtransactions, after labor costs and technology are?  Holy fuck!  It's as close to free money as you can possibly get!  And they're making billions!

 

But they can't pay for the servers, or even a downscale that would save them thousands and their integrity, or even a P2P solution so the players themselves could use their consoles as hosts.  Too expensive.  So difficult.  Woe is them.  What a rough life they live, trying to keep the lights on.

 

They make that money in seconds. Go look at the annual fiscal reports if you want proof.  They're awash in cash.  Spare me the utter shite that is "oh, poor Sony, they're just trying to do their best to run a business!!"  What a load of crap.  The corporate shitheads who just want one less thing on the ledger to worry about, as insignificant as it may be, so they can feel good about themselves at the next board meeting and use that money to finagle themselves another 100K bonus for a third yacht in the Mediterranean.  Yawn.

 

They are not getting rid of them because it's expensive, they're getting rid of them because it's easier.

 

And KZ3 was only up for 5 years.  That's a despicable amount of time of server life for a AAA title.  Indisputably so. 

 

You know who has struggled to make ends meet?  Jonathan Blow (well, not anymore, thankfully), and Simon Andersen, developers of Braid/The Witness, and OwlBoy, respectively.  And would you look at that, since they do hit the grind as small-time, low-profit developers, they actually feel the drive to create and sell an honest, innovative and entertaining product that has no lifespan.  They make money the honest way, by selling a complete product to their consumers.  What a novel concept. 

 

Edited March 4, 2018 by XAGMNINETY

[Sergen]

This isn't just some old game that people are bitching about, it is a flagship FPS game for the PS3... I don't think they're going to feel obligated to change anything about the leaderboards, they announced the server shutdown already and although people no-life the game a lot, the trophy is still obtainable and there could be a fluke week where a score like 12,000 makes it through, like 2 weeks ago when sub-19,000 did make it. I like to play some modern games, but I'd also like to play older games as well at times and I did finish the online trophies for Killzone 2 and 3 but I still think they shouldn't shut them down. Because Resistance 2 did shut down, I wouldn't be buying a new Resistance game if it came to PS4 unless they were to remaster the Resistance series. Sony increased the price of PS+ and people bought into it, now they're deciding to shut more games on their platforms. You're defending pure greed by defending Sony's choices to close games, because not only do they still have the money to run those games while making billions in profit, they would also have the money to run every single game that has online functionality on PSN as well as running PSN for 100,000 years while still making billions in profit.

 

Microsoft does run every game on their systems, as long as the developers of the game agree to it and many games that were shut on PSN due to neglect from developers and so on have been kept online by Microsoft years later on xbox. Gran Turismo 5 was not only the biggest selling racing game of all time, it was the game that sold the most among all of Sony's platforms, but they still shut the servers down for it and it surely wasn't dead... They just wanted to push Gran Turismo 6 on people because it didn't meet their astronomically high expectations after the success of Gran Turismo 5 and guess what? Gran Turismo 6 is shutting too . Gran Turismo Sport might be safe as we speak, but don't be surprised if in a few years from now, that game gets shut down too and even though it probably won't be dead when the time comes, they'll still shut it to try to push people on a newer GT game. Killzone 3 has some of the worst servers I have ever experienced and my friend who did the game very shortly after the server closure announcement didn't have any problems with the online. The online has only very recently started to get fucked up for Killzone 3, so they're not even giving it a good send-off and they're making it difficult even for people who would just want to enjoy the game in its final weeks to play it. You should actually be glad they announced Killzone 2 with over 3 months warning in advance, imagine if they simply said in December "next week we're terminating Killzone 2", everyone would make it a 100,000 minimum in that week alone. 

 

For Sony, running their old game's servers would be the equivalent to pennies for them and it is pathetic that the games will still be on PS Now after the server shutdown and that is a $20 per month service. At the end of the day, it's for the players! Make you stop playing their older games to push you to their newer games, because they don't want you doing both. Don't expect them to ever respond to anything regarding the leaderboards for Killzone 2 and I think if some people are willing to get over 100,000 points for the trophy then they'd probably be kind of ticked off that the demands were met for this and 100,000 people were randomly added to the leaderboard. Who knows? Maybe with a bit of programming knowledge you could manipulate the leaderboards yourself to do that and nobody would know. 

Edited March 4, 2018 by Sergen

[joskeabzu]

17 hours ago, XAGMNINETY said:

They don't have any plan to keep these games alive, even when it's financially feasible. They just kill them. All of a sudden, you have half a product. 

 

Notice how every game is on a server now?  Destiny? Anthem? Shit games built to extort your money, always online?  Soon you'll have nothing once they make the "business decision". It's pathetic. 

 

It's the principle that makes me nauseated, not the "prioritization" or whatever. They fully expect to kill these games when they develop them. 

 

Why I'm going to stick with single player games from now on. The idea that most of a game can be bricked like this, with almost no warning, is a despicable business practice. That's not really up for debate. 

 

 

 

Well we can't all have nice things in life, because life isn't always fair. First things first games with online functionality will eventually get shutdown at some moment in time. I've been playing online games since the very first Unreal tournament, Medal of Honor: Allied Assault(don't confuse this with the mediocre frontline on console), Return to Caste Wolfenstein, Battlefield 1942, etc. Eventually all these games will die out. They get older and people will loose interest in them. Everything comes to an end, so will online videogames. Of course there will be people that hate that, but since we nor you have any say in it. We have to live with it. There are plenty of videogames I've played online over the past decade I've been playing games, I won't miss them and when people stop playing them altogether then you likely won't play it any more either. Theses games you mention like Destiny, Anthem and there are many other like The Division(online only), Overwatch, Fortnite(?), Pubg etc they'll will die at some point in time. These games are at their best on release. I really loved to play some MP on some of the older games, but eventually you will move on to other games. Well most people any way. This is also the nature of console gaming, a console generation will die and there is no way to play them, legally anyway. All the older console generation have something like emulators, but sadly I don't think there will be any kind of emulator for PS3 which works. So what I do is try to enjoy them while I still can. And if you really want to replay some games, well there is another platform called PC which has a solid library of older games to play, PS3 exclusives aren't part of it sadly.

 

4 hours ago, Sergen said:

This isn't just some old game that people are bitching about, it is a flagship FPS game for the PS3... I don't think they're going to feel obligated to change anything about the leaderboards, they announced the server shutdown already and although people no-life the game a lot, the trophy is still obtainable and there could be a fluke week where a score like 12,000 makes it through, like 2 weeks ago when sub-19,000 did make it. I like to play some modern games, but I'd also like to play older games as well at times and I did finish the online trophies for Killzone 2 and 3 but I still think they shouldn't shut them down. Because Resistance 2 did shut down, I wouldn't be buying a new Resistance game if it came to PS4 unless they were to remaster the Resistance series. Sony increased the price of PS+ and people bought into it, now they're deciding to shut more games on their platforms. You're defending pure greed by defending Sony's choices to close games, because not only do they still have the money to run those games while making billions in profit, they would also have the money to run every single game that has online functionality on PSN as well as running PSN for 100,000 years while still making billions in profit.

 

Microsoft does run every game on their systems, as long as the developers of the game agree to it and many games that were shut on PSN due to neglect from developers and so on have been kept online by Microsoft years later on xbox. Gran Turismo 5 was not only the biggest selling racing game of all time, it was the game that sold the most among all of Sony's platforms, but they still shut the servers down for it and it surely wasn't dead... They just wanted to push Gran Turismo 6 on people because it didn't meet their astronomically high expectations after the success of Gran Turismo 5 and guess what? Gran Turismo 6 is shutting too . Gran Turismo Sport might be safe as we speak, but don't be surprised if in a few years from now, that game gets shut down too and even though it probably won't be dead when the time comes, they'll still shut it to try to push people on a newer GT game. Killzone 3 has some of the worst servers I have ever experienced and my friend who did the game very shortly after the server closure announcement didn't have any problems with the online. The online has only very recently started to get fucked up for Killzone 3, so they're not even giving it a good send-off and they're making it difficult even for people who would just want to enjoy the game in its final weeks to play it. You should actually be glad they announced Killzone 2 with over 3 months warning in advance, imagine if they simply said in December "next week we're terminating Killzone 2", everyone would make it a 100,000 minimum in that week alone. 

 

For Sony, running their old game's servers would be the equivalent to pennies for them and it is pathetic that the games will still be on PS Now after the server shutdown and that is a $20 per month service. At the end of the day, it's for the players! Make you stop playing their older games to push you to their newer games, because they don't want you doing both. Don't expect them to ever respond to anything regarding the leaderboards for Killzone 2 and I think if some people are willing to get over 100,000 points for the trophy then they'd probably be kind of ticked off that the demands were met for this and 100,000 people were randomly added to the leaderboard. Who knows? Maybe with a bit of programming knowledge you could manipulate the leaderboards yourself to do that and nobody would know. 

Kinda silly not to buy a new game because you can't play the older titles.. Seems to me that you're only playing older titels as modern titles, < 2 years aren't that high on your profile. But then again I don't see you buy many new AAA games I think, but that's just a little remark I wanted to point out.

About the PS+ price, well there are plenty of other websites and basically discounts. Almost a year ago I bought 20x PS+ 1 year subscription for almost half the price (€30). I've used like 4 years for myself and sold all the rest for €45 a piece. Even now there're discount on PS+ subscriptions. So be smart like me and don't pay full price, in fact I've never paid the full price for a PS+ subscription. Also shutting down game servers actually hasn't anything to do with greed. I'm pretty sure they can still run the servers for another 10 years or more. I still will buying new games, as in fact I have already preordered God of War. And will buy Spiderman, Detroit, Days gone and pretty much every new title that has my interest, if I count how many games I bought between now and a year ago I must say at least over 40 games with more the half of them all new titles and I intend to play every single one of them (most are SP games tho). So an increase in price or server shutdown will not change my buying habitats. But I don't support games which have aggressive micro transactions or lootboxes (recent Star Wars Battlefront 2, which I'll never get and have lost all interest, I didn't even bother with the poorly first one either). I'll skip F2P games, I have no intentions to spend over €100 or more money on it not even €10, not that I can, but it is a principle I stand by. As most F2P require lot's of money to progress..

I find it pretty funny that people suddenly have more interest in a game that gets a server shutdown, I wonder why? Is it trophies? Could that be the actual reason? Many people here complain, but prolly never did play the MP how it supposed to be. In fact I will show you an example of a recent game with new DLC. Example Battlefield 1 apocalypse just released and already people are begging(well the noobs anyway) to get the new weapons or get the new trophies, simply because they don't even play it for fun they just want the trophy and move on to another game which is a fact for most people. And yet they spend at least €30 or more on the premium pass, unless they got the revolution edition cheap but they still paid for it. I wonder how many people here actually spend over 100hrs - 150 hours of MP into these titles(killzone) when these games got released in the first 2-3 years? I believe people who actually play these games a lot are the ones that should complain and deserve better. Don't get me wrong I have no issues with people boosting trophies but stop whining like some entitled kid because this soon to be trophy will be impossible to get and that you only play these game for their trophies.. Because let's get serious, how many here would have bothered when there wasn't any trophy attached to it? Maybe 1 - 2 persons?

 

Killzone still does have a SP function so don't see the issue that it is still on PS Now simply because the MP is gone..

 

"Maybe with a bit of programming knowledge you could manipulate the leaderboards yourself to do that and nobody would know. " Well this of how games work, mate. I mean a game does have a certain code that will send the information that is required to the server. But I doubt anyone could decrypt the code. They could reverse engineer it however, which is quite a feat if you could pull it off, and is prolly a great asset to any IT company out there, no doubt. I do have a Bachelor in IT, but that only related for work to me not planning on working in my free time most of time anyway.. Unless you get paid to do something you're good in of course.

 

Also note I've done every SP trophy on Killzone 2, but never did bother with the MP. I could boost this myself but why should I waste 10hrs a day for a game I don't even like to play or want to play? If I wanted to play something this game wouldn't be it. Maybe I would had bothered if servers were public only but instead people just do it all on private servers Hell I haven't even bothered to get SP trophies in Battlefield 1 and I've been playing that game for over 200hrs since release and with a nice stat record I can be proud of as I simply want to play good if not better then most. Also if you force yourself to play a game only for a trophy then that isn't the way gaming should be. I like to game if the game is fun and I enjoy it. Sure there are titles I didn't enjoyed much as others, but can't predict how good a game really is. Still I won't play a crappy games for whatever reason. Yes I'm aware this a trophy site but it is still related to gaming. And trophies are more of a sidetrack to it for a minority of gamers. 

Well this has been quite a long write-up and think this will do and point my view of it, hence why this is a forum right? It's Sunday and want to enjoy the rest of my day as well btw.

Edited March 4, 2018 by joskeabzu
Silly typos and some sentences ;)

[Balnazzardi]

17 hours ago, turpinator1986 said:

It makes me laugh that people expect a business to continue to provide something that costs money. If you had your own business and were spending your own time and money on something that only 1000ish people in the entire WORLD wanted to play would you seriously prioritise that over something new that could be played by hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people? Give me a break. The ps3 is coming to the end of its life cycle just as the ps1 and the ps2. It happens. The games 9 years old. If you expect the servers to be up forever you must be on drugs. 

Well ye you have point there, but again here is something for you and everyone else to consider...Like I (and also Sergen) mentioned before, Microsoft has pretty much for ALL OF THEIR GAMES, even +10 year old games, multiplayer servers running.....heck they have went into great lengths to not only give Xbox One backwards compatibility to Xbox 360 games, but also some of the ORIGINAL xbox games and on Xbox One X, like mentioned they have even given Halo 3 (which was already re-released as part of The Master Chief Collection on Xbox One) enchatment updates, increasing the resolution to 4k, improving textures, anti-aliasing and even framerate....

So even though Halo 3 was re-released as MCC collection Microsoft STILL didnt shut down the original Halo 3 servers, nor did it do so with Gears of War either when it got re-released as Ultimate Edition remake on Xbox One...Sony meanwhile has not any kind of backwards compatibility on ANY of their consoles to begin with, or was Playstation 2 the only exception?

So I just want to people see here how huge the difference is how Microsoft is showing big support to their old games, even if these games communities would be pretty much dead, while Sony couldnt give a flying fuck.....and how much you are willing to bet that sooner or later the first 3 Killzone games are going to be re-released on PS4 as "4K-remastered trilogy" and charge you atleast 20-30 bucks from it.....while Microsoft meanwhile gives the same things as free updates that dont even touch the games code, but only enable the old 360 games to use Xbox One X's emulating features...

So again while I understand for Sony it makes no sense to basicly run empty servers, and Sony definitely isnt the only company to shut down the servers for their old games, Microsoft has completely the opposite attitude towards this and I just have to give them big thumbs up for that

Edited March 4, 2018 by Balnazzardi

[Sergen]

3 hours ago, joskeabzu said:

 

Well we can't all have the nice things in life, because life isn't always fair. First things first games with online functionality will eventually get shutdown at some moment in time. I've been playing online games since the very first Unreal tournament, Medal of Honor: Allied Assault(don't confuse this with the mediocre frontline on console), Return to Caste Wolfenstein, Battlefield 1942, etc. Eventually all these games will die out. They get older and people will loose interest in them. Everything comes to an end, so will online videogames. Of course there will be people that hate that, but since we nor you have any say in it we have to live with it. There are plenty of videogames I've played online over the past years I've been playing games, I won't miss them and when people stop playing it altogether then you won't play it any more either. The games you name like Destiny, Anthem also The Division(online only), Overwatch, Fortnite(?), Pubg etc they all will die at some point in time. These games are at their best on release. I really loved to play some MP on some of the older games but eventually you will move on to other games, well most people any way. This is also the nature of console gaming, a console generation will die and no way to play them, legal anyway. All the older console generation have like emulators, but sadly I don't think there will be any emulator for PS3. So what I do is try to enjoy them while I still can. And if you really want to replay some games, well there is another platform called PC which will a solid library of older games to play, PS3 exclusives aren't part of it.

 

Kinda silly not to buy a new game because you can't play the older titles.. Seems to me that you're only playing older titels as modern titles, < 2 years aren't that high on your profile. But then again I don't see you buy many new AAA games I think, but that's just a little remark I wanted to point out.

About the PS+ price, well there are plenty of other websites and basically discounts. Almost a year ago I bought 20x PS+ 1 year subscription for almost half the price (€30). I've used like 4 years for myself and sold all the rest for €45 a piece. Even now there're discount on PS+ codes. So be smart like me and don't pay full price, in fact I've never paid the full price for a PS+ subscription. Also shutting down game servers actually hasn't anything to do with greed. I'm pretty sure they can still run the servers for another 10 years or more. I still will buying new games, as in fact I have already preorder God of War. And will buy Spiderman, Detroit, Days gone and pretty much every new title that has my interest, if I count how many games I bought between now and a year ago I must say at least over 40 games with more the half of them which are all new and I intend to play every single one of them (most are SP games tho). So an increase in price or server shutdown will not change my buying habitats. But I don't support games which have aggressive micro transactions or lootboxes (recent Star Wars Battlefront 2, which I'll never get and already lost all interest, I didn't even bother with the poorly first one either). I'll skip F2P games, I have no intentions to spend over €100 or more money on it not even €10, not that I can, but it is a principle I stand by. As most F2P require lot's of money to progress..

I find it pretty funny that people suddenly have more interest in a game that gets a server shutdown, I wonder why? Is it trophies? Could that be the actual reason? Many people here complain, but prolly never did play the MP how it supposed to be. In fact I will show you an example of a recent game with new DLC. Example Battlefield 1 apocalypse just released and already people are begging(well the noobs anyway) to get the new weapons or get the new trophies simply because they don't even play it for fun they just want the trophy and move on to another game which is a fact for most. And yet the spend at least €30 or more on the premium pass, unless they got the revolution edition cheap but still they paid for it. I wonder how many people here actually spend over 100hrs - 150 hours of MP into these titles when these games got released in the first 2-3 years? I believe people who actually play these games a lot are the ones that should complain a lot and deserve better. Don't get me wrong I have no issues with people boosting trophies but stop whining like some entitled kid because his soon to be trophy will be impossible to get and you've only play this for these Trophies.. Because let's get serious, how many here would have bother when there wasn't any trophy attached to it? Maybe 1 - 2 persons?

 

Killzone still does have a SP function so don't see the issue that it is still on PS Now simply because the MP is gone.

 

"Maybe with a bit of programming knowledge you could manipulate the leaderboards yourself to do that and nobody would know. " Well this of how games work, mate. I mean a game does have a certain code that will send the information that is required to the server. But I doubt anyone could decrypt the code. They could reverse engineer it however, which is quite a feat if you could pull it off, and is prolly a great asset to any IT company out there, no doubt. I do have a Bachelor in IT, but that only related for work to me not planning on working in my free time most of time anyway.. Unless you get paid to do something you're good in of course.

 

Also note I've done every SP trophy on Killzone 2, but never did bother with the MP. I could boost this myself but why should I waste 10hrs a day for a game I don't even like to play or want to play? If I wanted to play something this game wouldn't be it. Hell I haven't even bothered to get SP trophies in Battlefield 1 and I've been playing that game for over 200hrs since release and with a nice stat record I can be proud of as I simply want to play good if not better then most. Also if you force yourself to play a game only for a trophy then that isn't the way gaming should be. I like to game if the game is fun and I enjoy it. Sure there are titles I didn't enjoyed much as others, but can't predict how good a game really is. Still I won't play a crappy games for whatever reason. Yes I'm aware this a trophy site but it is still related to gaming. And trophies are more of a sidetrack to it for a minority of gamers. 

Well this has been quite a long write-up and think this will do and point my view of it, hence why this is a forum right? It's Sunday and want to enjoy the rest of my day as well btw.

 

I had plenty of games in my backlog and when it came to Killzone 2, I did want to play it for a while, I had the DLC purchased for it a month before the server shutdown was announced because I was worried that it might be delisted and the worst happened when they announced the server shutdown. In some cases, a server shutdown will make people go ahead and play the game and finish the online trophies because they bought the game.

 

I’m not struggling financially and I could buy any game but the gaming industry has become quite bad with games being shorter than you expect and micro transactions being common as well as the games getting DLC for the complete experience. In the past, games couldn’t get a patch to fix issues or add DLC, so companies worked harder to make the games because they couldn’t change it so easily back then. 

 

It is greed for them to throw away the games that basically sold the consoles for last generation, when I got a PS3 I had Resistance Fall of Man to go with it and now the servers for that game have been shut. Sony is on a mission to get rid of all their flagship titles for PS3 and they probably also want to shut PSN for PS3. Keeping the games up isn’t hurting them in any way because the costs of the servers are literally pennies to them. Sony has been more successful with game consoles than Microsoft but Microsoft runs the servers for 90% of games on Xbox live, whereas Sony routinely shuts their own games down. 

 

People bring up that it costs so much as an argument for Sony to close the games, but it’s not make or break for them to keep any game up, remember that they run the whole of PSN, so keeping a few games up won’t hurt them. 

Edited March 4, 2018 by Sergen

[joskeabzu]

4 minutes ago, Sergen said:

 

I had plenty of games in my backlog and when it came to Killzone 2, I did want to play it for a while, I had the DLC purchased for it a month before the server shutdown because I was worried that it might be delisted and the worst happened when they announced the server shutdown. In some cases, a server shutdown will make people go ahead and play the game and finish the online trophies because they bought the game.

 

I’m not struggling financially and I could buy any game but the gaming industry has become quite bad with games being shorter than you expect and micro transactions being common as well as the games getting DLC for the complete experience. In the past, games couldn’t get a patch to fix issues or add DLC, so companies worked harder to make the games because they couldn’t change it so easily back then. 

 

It is greed for them to throw away the games that basically sold the consoles for last generation, when I got a PS3 I had Resistance Fall of Man to go with it and now the servers for that game have been shut. Sony is on a mission to get rid of all their flagship titles for PS3 and they probably also want to shut PSN for PS3. Keeping the games up isn’t hurting them in any way because the costs of the servers are literally pennies to them. Sony has been more successful with game consoles than Microsoft but Microsoft runs the servers for 90% of games on Xbox live, whereas Sony routinely shuts their own games down. 

 

People bring up that it costs so much as an argument for Sony to close the games, but it’s not make or break for them to keep any game up, remember that they run the whole of PSN, so keeping a few games up won’t hurt them. 

 

Reality is different so we have to deal with it, it's a giving that PS3 will eventually die out. Still a great console nonetheless. Saying that they shutdown servers is one thing but PSN is another thing. I highly doubt that they will stop PSN support for PS3, hence why have PS Now then?

 

What MS is doing with BC is a nice thing to have, but not available on PS4. Sadly this a due to the core problem of the PS3, the CELL CPU. A complex CPU that requires a lot of time and effort to create a solid BC available on PS4, which might not even work. I'm just speculating btw. Still would have been nice to have. Hopefully PS5 will be different until it comes out.

 

You can say greed, but that is just speculation and not a real fact.

[StanPortrBridges]

Most game developers wouldn't even be able to tell you the cost because most of the bigger shooters out there don't run on their servers, they run off of Amazon and Microsofts servers. 

 

That link with the dude saying it costs millions to run servers is the funniest thing I've read in a while. The guy hosts some no name website that was probably coded and designed by himself cause he was too cheap to just buy some premade shit from godaddy or something and is applying some ripoff website rates that HE pays and blanket statements it as the entire gaming industry pays that. ROFL. Google "how much does it cost to run a game server" to get ACTUAL answers. You have people paying a few bucks to run multiple servers that can hold hundreds of people, yet Bad Company 1 can only hold like what, 50 people before it crashes a game to make room? 

 

The golden era of 'support' and 'gaming' was 18 years ago. Games are meant to be released, supported for x amount of years, dropped(sometimes really hard) for the next game. Go ahead and enjoy GT Sport, you won't be able to play it in 5 years when they ditch it because it's an online only game that requires a patch to be able to be played offline. Play Rainbow Six Siege now, because they are gonna start deleting operators and maps because their running out of room and the technology that's running it wasn't built for that, but it's easier to take your money once your wallets already opened than it is to make a new game(ask bungie, Destiny 2's creation was mostly because Destiny 1 wasn't built for long term support thats why the ps3/360 didn't get the other expansions). Lost Planet 2's plat is unobtainable because someone hacked the leaderboards like 5 months ago. If your favourite game has a licensed song in it or content, play it now otherwise when that license expires it'll get delisted, littlebigplanets disney DLC is all gone. 

 

Online trophies have always sucked, just make a boost session or suck it up. You really think the people who bred the Goddess Aloy gives a shit what some digital pixel collector on the internet thinks of their 9 year old game? They gave you a 3 months notice, go do it or don't. 

Edited March 4, 2018 by BHK3

[XAGMNINETY]

9 hours ago, Sergen said:

This isn't just some old game that people are bitching about, it is a flagship FPS game for the PS3... I don't think they're going to feel obligated to change anything about the leaderboards, they announced the server shutdown already and although people no-life the game a lot, the trophy is still obtainable and there could be a fluke week where a score like 12,000 makes it through, like 2 weeks ago when sub-19,000 did make it. I like to play some modern games, but I'd also like to play older games as well at times and I did finish the online trophies for Killzone 2 and 3 but I still think they shouldn't shut them down. Because Resistance 2 did shut down, I wouldn't be buying a new Resistance game if it came to PS4 unless they were to remaster the Resistance series. Sony increased the price of PS+ and people bought into it, now they're deciding to shut more games on their platforms. You're defending pure greed by defending Sony's choices to close games, because not only do they still have the money to run those games while making billions in profit, they would also have the money to run every single game that has online functionality on PSN as well as running PSN for 100,000 years while still making billions in profit.

 

Microsoft does run every game on their systems, as long as the developers of the game agree to it and many games that were shut on PSN due to neglect from developers and so on have been kept online by Microsoft years later on xbox. Gran Turismo 5 was not only the biggest selling racing game of all time, it was the game that sold the most among all of Sony's platforms, but they still shut the servers down for it and it surely wasn't dead... They just wanted to push Gran Turismo 6 on people because it didn't meet their astronomically high expectations after the success of Gran Turismo 5 and guess what? Gran Turismo 6 is shutting too . Gran Turismo Sport might be safe as we speak, but don't be surprised if in a few years from now, that game gets shut down too and even though it probably won't be dead when the time comes, they'll still shut it to try to push people on a newer GT game. Killzone 3 has some of the worst servers I have ever experienced and my friend who did the game very shortly after the server closure announcement didn't have any problems with the online. The online has only very recently started to get fucked up for Killzone 3, so they're not even giving it a good send-off and they're making it difficult even for people who would just want to enjoy the game in its final weeks to play it. You should actually be glad they announced Killzone 2 with over 3 months warning in advance, imagine if they simply said in December "next week we're terminating Killzone 2", everyone would make it a 100,000 minimum in that week alone. 

 

For Sony, running their old game's servers would be the equivalent to pennies for them and it is pathetic that the games will still be on PS Now after the server shutdown and that is a $20 per month service. At the end of the day, it's for the players! Make you stop playing their older games to push you to their newer games, because they don't want you doing both. Don't expect them to ever respond to anything regarding the leaderboards for Killzone 2 and I think if some people are willing to get over 100,000 points for the trophy then they'd probably be kind of ticked off that the demands were met for this and 100,000 people were randomly added to the leaderboard. Who knows? Maybe with a bit of programming knowledge you could manipulate the leaderboards yourself to do that and nobody would know. 

 

Gran Turismo is another fantastic example.  GT6 came out 4 years ago.

 

The servers will be shut down at the same time in march as the others.  I'm just as upset about that.  GT5's servers were indeed shut down to push GT6, and eventually Sport, on people.  I forgot about this. 

 

If they're going to kill support so soon, why even buy the game?  That's my point. 

 

 

Wow, some support for my position!  Never thought I'd see that.

 

Microsoft is an excellent example too.  They probably have the fast track on super-cheap servers thanks to their inside standing in the industry, so yes, it probably costs them close to nothing to keep Halo 3's servers online.  There are about 2000 unique players a day (I still play twice a week or so), so not a small amount of people.  Good for them.

 

Gamespy went under because they simply didn't have a solid business plan, and were run by the turds at IGN since 2004.  They had every intention of keeping their games alive indefinitely, and eventually passing along support to private client servers and PC's when the time came.  They cared, they just went out of business because of a poor business plan.  Sony, however, as I've stated, made over 2 billion dollars in profit (not revenue, profit) last year.  And yet, they care little for long-term sustainability of the titles that helped them get here, to the top of the console pile.  K.

 

For the guy that says "life isn't always fair", I don't disagree with your sentiment.  I do disagree with the principle that we as consumers have to put up with it. 

Last night, I downloaded BF1942, inspired by the people on this forum who thought that GG had the "right" to pull the servers for a 5 year old game whenever they want, and they should "suck it up".  BF1942's servers were "shut down" in 2014, but after the Gamespy closure, the tools were necessary to build a dedicated server client for any PC (because of how powerful PC's are nowadays) and I was able to hop into a 64-player multiplayer match after the game and patch were installed, running perfectly.  I had a blast.

 

This is how it should be.  Those games are the ones I support.  I will never support joke games like GT sport and Destiny that will have a 4 year lifespan and have the whole game wiped.  Period.

Edited March 4, 2018 by XAGMNINETY

[HavocChaos__]

 

 

On 2/26/2018 at 2:40 PM, Xanomead said:

There are many people desperately trying to earn this trophy, I luckily did it sometime ago, but I think that scrambling over each other is going to result in a lot of disappointment.

 

I think this may be a better solution, contact Guerilla games and ask if they could simply use a script to add more names onto the leaderboards. It might not be possible for them, but I think it's worth a try.

 

Contact them here.

https://www.guerrilla-games.com/contact

 

Here is an email I have sent them as an example.

 

Hi Guerilla guys and girls,

 

With the Killzone 2 & 3 server shutdowns happening very soon many people are desperately trying to earn all the online trophies for these games. The difficult one though is for scoring within the top 1% for the week, the Valor Cross trophy.

 

I and many others only buy games and their DLC if it's possible to earn all trophies for the entire series.

 

So if I was unable to earn this 1% trophy I would be unlikely to purchase Killzone Shadowfall and the Season Pass.

 

I am wondering if it would be possible for a script to add maybe 10,000 - 1000,000 names and scores to the leaderboards before the shutdown, thus making enough positions available in the top 1% for everyone trying to earn this trophy to get it.

 

It'd make a lot of people very thankful, and in many cases result in people purchasing Killzone Shadowfall and the Season pass.

 

Thank you.

 

Ok so there are several problems with this post.

1.  The fact that you won't buy a game because you can't get a trophy in a previous title is really stupid  and makes you look like a trophy whore. It's sad that you let trophies control what you buy. That alone would make me not want to help you if I was a developer.

 

2.The game has been out forever. People have had plenty of time to get this. Seeing as how the game is old and the leaderboards have problems, people should have prioritized this game.

 

3. This is the biggest problem.Why would the developers add names to the leaderboards so everyone can get a trophy they didn't meet the requirements for. That defeats the whole purpose of trophies and is unfair to the people who earned the trophy legit or boosted for it when the server shut down wasn't an issue.

 

I felt I had to say this because reading your post annoyed me. It is unfortunate for the people that won't be able to get it though. 

Edited March 4, 2018 by HavocChaos__

[XAGMNINETY]

1 hour ago, HavocChaos__ said:

 

 

Ok so there are several problems with this post.

1.  The fact that you won't buy a game because you can't get a trophy in a previous title is really stupid  and makes you look like a trophy whore. It's sad that you let trophies control what you buy. That alone would make me not want to help you if I was a developer.

 

2.The game has been out forever. People have had plenty of time to get this. Seeing as how the game is old and the leaderboards have problems, people should have prioritized this game.

 

3. This is the biggest problem.Why would the developers add names to the leaderboards so everyone can get a trophy they didn't meet the requirements for. That defeats the whole purpose of trophies and is unfair to the people who earned the trophy legit or boosted for it when the server shut down wasn't an issue.

 

I felt I had to say this because reading your post annoyed me. It is unfortunate for the people that won't be able to get it though. 

Yeah, I agree with the point that you shouldn't be asking the developer to manipulate their game to let the trophy be unlockable. That's silly. 

 

Your ire should be pointed towards the lack of a P2P option for a low-data stream game to play whenever you want, and the fact that they knowingly put such a shitbrain trophy in the game in the first place. I know it's not particularly rare thanks to how easy it was to boost it (lol, how lame is that) before the announcement, but it's one of the worst premeditated  trophies in hindsight that I've ever seen. 

 

If the servers are "too expensive" (almost assuredly false), then they should have spent a week or two with a small development team to create a P2P server option. The interface is even there for the game. It's set up like a P2P game with selectable servers already. All they would need is one box on a server somewhere to handle the browser and the leader boards. Megabytes of data at the most. Literal pennies per year. 

 

Yet they don't. Please buy our new games. 

 

 

[XAGMNINETY]

22 hours ago, turpinator1986 said:

If this is true I can honestly say it’s the most pathetic thing I’ve ever heard. And no, he didn’t have every right to sue. 

OK, so i didn't even see this post until now, so you must be not understanding the situation properly if you think that suing for a brand new copy of his game bricking his account and console is "pathetic".

 

This is somewhere on the Guerrilla games forums, and I'll try to provide a more detailed account, since I'm too lazy to find the exact page of a forum post written in 2011.

 

So, everyone that played the game at launch (yes, you shits, I played both games quite a bit at launch, just not enough to get all the trophies) knows exactly what a disaster KZ3 was, from the beta all the way up to the end of its 5-and-change year life cycle.  Constant disconnections, server drops, leaderboard glitches, errors galore.  The worst of it, though, came for people who were in ownership of the original Fat Boy PS3's thanks to their 1.0 cell architecture, of which this particular user owned.  His model was a back-compat, as well, so unlike other PS3's his investment would appreciate over time, as these were rare and valuable even in 2011. 

 

This guy, a level 25 trophy account, installed the game, booted up the main menu, and hit the "Multiplayer" button.  Bam.  PS3 crash, constant restore system loop, unable to access his account.  Apparently, signing in to Multiplayer corrupted his trophy profile, which in turn corrupted how the system interacted with his only account on the PS3, permanently locking his console.  So that console was worth 600 dollars at launch, and remained valuable even through the day of his death.  So that's hundreds of dollars, gone.

 

Not only that, but he was unable to access any of his digital content, thanks to his account being unusable.  I'm not a particularly heavy digital user, but I'm a similar trophy level to him and I'd say I have around 1500-2000 dollars worth of purchases since 2006, when I opened my account.  All of those games, DLC and extras purchased, not to mention the PS Plus subscription that he was almost assuredly subscribed to and the games associated, gone.  We're talking thousands of dollars, and thousands of hours of time (including his cloud saves!) that he cannot access, that are now broken and lost, because he hit the "Multiplayer" button on a brand new game.

 

He contacted Sony support, and they said that because his PS3 was bought at launch was out of warranty, that they couldn't help him.  He sent it in for repairs for 80 dollars or something plus shipping, and they determined after weeks that they could not repair the console.  The game had completely bricked it.  After not receiving a refund for the services for 5 days following this email, he saved his chat logs with Sony support, got a lawyer and rightfully sued them, and apparently easily won around 10 grand.  People were following the events fairly fervently on the GG forums, as the KZ3 launch was apparently legendary for its disastrous online functionality (I didn't read the internet or post on forums back then, so I could only go by my experience, which was shit as well).

 

How you could possibly believe that the corporation is in the right in this situation makes me think you need a serious reconsideration of your morals.  But that's just my opinion.  You are entitled to yours, but I'm also entitled to calling it unsympathetic, elitist, overly capitalist and frankly stupid.

 

 

[olliebear66t]

Poor guy was only trying to help. Why is everyone getting so offended? It's ridiculous.

[giggedy]

46 minutes ago, olliebear66t said:

Poor guy was only trying to help. Why is everyone getting so offended? It's ridiculous.

Was meant to be an image of Ron Burgundy, you know the one, can't get it to show.

Edited March 4, 2018 by giggedy
missed image

[DARKB1KE]

On 3/4/2018 at 3:24 PM, olliebear66t said:

Poor guy was only trying to help. Why is everyone getting so offended? It's ridiculous.

Blackmailing devs is not the right way to do something..... I think anyone with common sense can tell the difference.

Maybe if you're a child. 

 

Edited March 8, 2018 by DARKB1KE

[olliebear66t]

13 hours ago, DARKB1KE said:

Blackmailing devs is not the right way to do something..... I think anyone with common sense can tell the difference.

Maybe if you're a child. 

 

He didn't blackmail anyone lol. He just wrote a simple letter asking if they could help. If you look he put 'Thank you' at the end too. It's hardly malicious or aggressive and I saw no threats so I don't know what you're on about.

[BlackJudas]

On 01/03/2018 at 1:48 AM, DARKB1KE said:

Wrong.

https://www.quora.com/What-does-it-cost-a-publisher-to-maintain-a-console-video-game-server

 

I have to say I giggled reading that link... pretty pathetic that a company like Activision wouldn't know how to reduce costs for running some packet manglers.

[DARKB1KE]

12 hours ago, olliebear66t said:

He didn't blackmail anyone lol. He just wrote a simple letter asking if they could help. If you look he put 'Thank you' at the end too. It's hardly malicious or aggressive and I saw no threats so I don't know what you're on about.

Let's break this down for you.

"So if I was unable to earn this 1% trophy I would be unlikely to purchase Killzone Shadowfall and the Season Pass."

This is an ultimatum.  It's a blackmail technique....  "if you don't do this then I won't do ________" 

Threatening lack of a purchase if that company doesn't follow with demands of customer.

 

Edited March 9, 2018 by DARKB1KE

[olliebear66t]

1 hour ago, DARKB1KE said:

Let's break this down for you.

"So if I was unable to earn this 1% trophy I would be unlikely to purchase Killzone Shadowfall and the Season Pass."

This is an ultimatum.  It's a blackmail technique....  "if you don't do this then I won't do ________" 

Threatening lack of a purchase if that company doesn't follow with demands of customer.

 

Here is the definition of blackmail: 

'the action, treated as a criminal offence, of demanding money from someone in return for not revealing compromising information which one has about them.

synonyms:extortion, demanding money with menaces, exaction, intimidation'

 

Simply stating they would be less inclined to buy another of a company's product isn't blackmail it's just being persuasive; he was trying to give them incentive to make the trophy more obtainable which isn't a threat. Blackmail is more on the lines of "if you don't do this then I WILL..." and not abstaining in something.

[ClockWorkPhantom]

10 minutes ago, olliebear66t said:

Here is the definition of blackmail: 

'the action, treated as a criminal offence, of demanding money from someone in return for not revealing compromising information which one has about them.

synonyms:extortion, demanding money with menaces, exaction, intimidation'

 

Simply stating they would be less inclined to buy another of a company's product isn't blackmail it's just being persuasive; he was trying to give them incentive to make the trophy more obtainable which isn't a threat. Blackmail is more on the lines of "if you don't do this then I WILL..." and not abstaining in something.

The term you're all looking for is boycott. if company x doenst do y then ill stop buying z until consumer pressure forces change at said company is a boycott. 

[turpinator1986]

8 minutes ago, ClockWorkPhantom said:

The term you're all looking for is boycott. if company x doenst do y then ill stop buying z until consumer pressure forces change at said company is a boycott. 

Damn you beat me to it haha. As a former prison officer i can confirm that blackmail can include a threat of abstination and not just a threat of action but it would be the presence of some kind of extortion that turns a boycott into a blackmail. FOr example, I know you’re CEO visits prostitutes. Give me the vgc trophy or I’ll tell the media. 

[DARKB1KE]

6 hours ago, olliebear66t said:

Here is the definition of blackmail: 

'the action, treated as a criminal offence, of demanding money from someone in return for not revealing compromising information which one has about them.

synonyms:extortion, demanding money with menaces, exaction, intimidation'

 

Simply stating they would be less inclined to buy another of a company's product isn't blackmail it's just being persuasive; he was trying to give them incentive to make the trophy more obtainable which isn't a threat. Blackmail is more on the lines of "if you don't do this then I WILL..." and not abstaining in something.

Either way you know what I mean.