this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2023
692 points (94.4% liked)
Memes
45660 readers
1026 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Funny, on release day, I got downvoted for pointing out they pulled a Blizzard/Overwatch 2.
Half-baked release with missing content and no new content? Check.
Release removes previous release, a game that was at one time a paid game? Check.
I feel like Valve gets way too much of a pass here on this for just being Valve.
Because it's nowhere near the same. Is it a bad release? Yes. Is it overwatch2 bad? No, not even close.
For the example: even tho it's true that CSGO used to be a paid game, it had been free for 5 years and before that it was 15$, not 40 or however much was ow.
Cs2 comes with a whole new engine which changes a bunch of things, unlike ow2 which is just an upgraded version of the same stuff; same errors, same stuff, basically.
OW2 also made everything in the game more expensive to buy. Etc.
I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter what the price point was. People paid for these games. The game going "free" isn't a valid justification for being like "its okay this product you paid for is being taken from you."
Would you feel the same about any other product in your life? Why is it justified when that something you paid for being taken from you is "a game."
Yeah, a lot less content than CS:GO and no new content. Seems like they could have let it bake longer before release.
So at what point (in your opinion) does it become okay to discontinue a paid game? Are they supposed to still be running servers for games from 1997, so the 2 people who still remember it can occasionally log into the dead matchmaking service for nostalgia? Obviously this is a ridiculous example, but if your answer isn't "Yes, they should", then that means there's a point somewhere between that and now when it's okay to shut down the service, so where is that line?
They could have just left it in people's libraries with the option of people using community servers, something that a lot of gaming companies have traditionally done. They give the server software to the players, who then spin up community servers and keep the game going. There was literally nothing stopping them from just leaving a game that no longer functions in the Steam library.
You can still buy Titanfall on Steam and have it in your library and last I checked, multiplayer for that game hasn't worked in years. EA isn't pulling it from people's libraries because of that.
That is literally what they've done. The default is CS2, but you can select a beta version in steam which enables CS:GO again. Matchmaking servers are all migrated to CS2, ofcourse, but community servers still work.
The reason they replaced CS:GO with CS2 instead of creating a seperate game is to not split the playerbase. Back when CS:Source released, the playerbase was essentially split in half, with many choosing to remain on CS 1.6, and it took a lot of effort to make CS:GO the standard.
Gamers: everybody expect steam is terrible
Steam: does the same shitty practices as the other companies gamers were complaining about
Gamers: no this is actually a good thing
You now somone got hurt by a coment wen they resot to correcting someone's speling
They’re not going to maintain two separate codebases just so people can have community servers. That’s ridiculous.
Companies don't need to run servers for old games nobody plays but it is a crime against art and the people who worked on and enjoyed any of that material. All of the wonderful content made specifically for these games is just dead now while the company could've just released a way to self host the game. There is NO reason any game ever should die and any excuse otherwise is just feeding into the pockets of companies that want to kill history.