I was reading through some other, less cool blogs, and stopped when I saw the headline “So and so game will be put out to pasture because of lack of interest.” It went on to say that the game would not be playable after a certain date. Which is such a strange idea for me to understand. Why would you make something to be played, and then do something to keep it from being played? This was a pretty big-time publisher, and they must have put at least $100k into the game (marketing notwithstanding), and now, they are calling it a wash and can’t be bothered to let folks play it at all.
I cannot fathom the dollars and sense that goes into a decision like that. If I made a game/app/title that was potentially bug-free and even 1 person liked it, why not keep it running? Now, I saw a few posts where folks were decommissioning a server upon which the game depends, and therefore the game must go. But wouldn’t it be possible to rip out the depended parts and keep it as a playable game?
Is it complete naivete to think that a game should be fun, playable and built from the ground up as non-networked. Is that crazy now? Am I a super-old man thinking that this should be possible? Is it defeating the pay structure of games-as-a-service to even build something like this in the wild, because then a general outcry will well up from the masses that are missing out on playing the game they paid good money for?
I doubt it. Just seems, for this unnamed game-publishing entity, it would be a waste of time to spend a week re-optimizing a game for offline play instead of just moving onto the next novel thing. I, personally, think that way, and we’ll see if I crumble from the weight of developing games for offline play first and foremost.