Going to assume this is satire

Perhaps a bit hyperbolic in this specific instance, where MCC is a thing etc. But no. And similar deal for certain types of DRM.

This is inevitable for every single multiplayer game. It has nothing to do with games as a service, but comparing server running and upkeep costs against profit. Eventually it will be too costly to run servers. This applies to every single multiplayer game out there.

[quote]This is inevitable for every single multiplayer game. [/quote] Hyperbole. [quote]Eventually it will be too costly to run servers.[/quote] Ok, so give us the tools we need to set up a peer to peer, or set up a host machine that can run a dedicated. Not as smooth as proper, dedicated, "in house" servers. But it's a solution that would help stretch the life span and completely invalidates the money argument. EDIT: How does this not relate to GAAS if online servers are literally part of the game (read:service)??? In my mind that just doesn't compute. The SERVICE of providing servers is no longer lucrative, so yea we don't do that anymore. No difference.

The original games are peer to peer already, they still cost money to keep running. When a game is 20 years old and such and they have like one hundred people on (I’ve been on Halo 3 and seen it around just the hundreds)it, it’s just not worth leaving up.

[quote]The original games are peer to peer already[/quote] Question then. How does it go offline when the dev/pub/whoever decides to pull the plug on servers?

Peer to peer tends to have a central network system, that’s how stats, game history, etc can be tracked by a developer even if a player is relying on the internet of another player IE peer to peer. What’s different about a dedicated server is a player doesn’t host the games, it’s a system the developers instead have installed in specific regions IE you’ll have multiple server hosts in the US, one in Europe, a few in Asia, etc etc. When it comes to shutting down a peer to peer server, it kills the online aspect of the game, and you can only play locally instead (this would be the only “tool” a player has after). Does that make sense? Like in a way yeah even peer to peer is still using a server of sorts that the devs have but it’s not a true dedicated server because Your internet isn’t is relying on another players internet but a more reliable connection that’s designed to be closer to you. It’s why I mentioned when a game only has a few hundred players left, they just don’t see a reason to keep it up because they’re just losing money at that point.

Not really hyperbole. Though I should have stipulated "Online" games. There might be instances of indefinitely running online games out there, but I doubt there is, and if so, not many. I'm no professional, but setting up peer to peer is possible regardless of a game's age and current in-house systems and support. But it wouldn't be multiplayer in the conventional sense. Matchmaking wouldn't be possible, no anti cheat, nothing like that. It can work for a community though, look up the game Gigantic. Basically local games only. It's not really online. Games as a service is purely a payment model. Think WoW or even D2, where the Devs continually release content over a game's life span. It has nothing to do with the actual services provided by the devs/publishers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_as_a_service

[quote]Not really hyperbole. Though I should have stipulated[/quote] The way you originally worded it, it sort of is though. [quote]There might be instances of indefinitely running online games out there, [/quote] Yeah. In the day, we used to have the ability sometimes to create our own dedicated servers. So this is correct. [quote]I'm no professional, but setting up peer to peer is possible regardless of a game's age and current in-house systems and support.[/quote] Sweet, so how would I go about setting up a server to run... RS Vegas2? Ubi said they "couldn't identify a workaround". [quote]But it wouldn't be multiplayer in the conventional sense. Matchmaking wouldn't be possible, no anti cheat, nothing like that. It can work for a community though, look up the game Gigantic. Basically local games only. It's not really online.[/quote] The matchmaking thing and anticheat don't really matter, because if the servers come down and it becomes a community thing, then it's on the community to moderate. If you're not a fan of x0.5 gravity instagib, stay off my server. Local, or LAN only totally isn't a solution. [quote]Games as a service is purely a payment model. Think WoW or even D2, where the Devs continually release[/quote] ....Naaaaah, we were just talking about the monetary implications of server maintenance. That totally includes it as part of the service, regardless of how wikipedia might feel about it.

[quote]The way you originally worded it, it sort of is though.[/quote] Sure, my bad, I meant Online multiplayer, in which case it isn't hyperbole. [quote]Yeah. In the day, we used to have the ability sometimes to create our own dedicated servers. So this is correct.[/quote] Can you still though? And if so, are they hosted in-house by the devs, or by your system? Interested, because if in-house it's not remotely cost efficient. If on your system, is it really online? [quote]Sweet, so how would I go about setting up a server to run... RS Vegas2? Ubi said they "couldn't identify a workaround"[/quote] You'd need to do a bit more than ask ubi to do it for you. Might even have to -blam!- with the software. People make multiplayer mods for single player games, worst case, you'd need to do something like that. [quote]The matchmaking thing and anticheat don't really matter, because if the servers come down and it becomes a community thing, then it's on the community to moderate. If you're not a fan of x0.5 gravity instagib, stay off my server. Local, or LAN only totally isn't a solution.[/quote] Yup No, it wouldn't be just local, but it would be similar, in that it's invite only with settings set by each host. It's what I meant by "basically local" sorry I'd that wasn't clear. [quote]....Naaaaah, we were just talking about the monetary implications of server maintenance. That totally includes it as part of the service, regardless of how wikipedia might feel about it.[/quote] Uh, no? You might be, but when I hear "Games as a service" I tend to go by what Games as a service actually means. As I do with most words/phrases. You can't just change the definition of a phrase and expect people to understand you.

[quote]Can you still though? And if so, are they hosted in-house by the devs, or by your system? Interested, because if in-house it's not remotely cost efficient. If on your system, is it really online?[/quote] 2 of these are still technically alive but have the ability to set custom servers without going through "in house" tech. Assetto Corsa, Arma, 1942. Just off the top examples of where a community can stay alive even after the dev/pub/whoever servers go dark. Because the companies gave us the tools to do so. The second part about online, if we're not in the same physical space (LAN), I would say yea. If some crazy Aussie wants to try and connect to my host halfway across the world, that's online. [quote]You'd need to do a bit more than ask ubi to do it for you. Might even have to -blam!- with the software. People make multiplayer mods for single player games, worst case, you'd need to do something like that.[/quote] Or, Ubi could have provided the tools when the servers went dark instead of going "🤔Sorry, get bent lol now go play Siege". [quote]Yup No, it wouldn't be just local, but it would be similar, in that it's invite only with settings set by each host. It's what I meant by "basically local" sorry I'd that wasn't clear.[/quote] This was in response to something different. But if it isn't local.... is that not online, referring to the previous question about "is it really online". [quote]Uh, no? You might be, but when I hear "Games as a service" I tend to go by what Games as a service actually means. As I do with most words/phrases. You can't just change the definition of a phrase and expect people to...[/quote] I might be misinterpreting that. However... Reminder this was a piece of your original debate.👇👇 [quote]Eventually it will be too costly to run servers.[/quote] Riddle me this right. Who decided on what the definition of "GAAS" is? Same people that say "Player hosted servers would be impossible". Or "We could not identify a solution". Because they want you to buy the sequel. I think that makes the definition real questionable. I pretty firmly believe that if it's advertised, it's part of "the service". Double, if calls are being made based on the bottom line.

Most of this comes down to how you define online in this context, which likely differs from person to person. I will say a lot of what you're saying confuses me though. You want the developers to supply you with the systems to set up custom servers in game. While simultaneously claiming that you dislike GAAS. Which according to you, Halo is. Except most Halo games are providing the systems that you want despite the primary multiplayer servers closing. So why comment at all? The online multiplayer servers closing is inevitable, this is the next best thing, why complain? As for the definition of GAAS. That's what it has always been, always used as. I don't see any correlation between that and the people you mentioned, or how those people saying what they are saying are doing so to drive sales. You're leaping to quite a few conclusions there. The definition of GAAS was a necessity to describe a payment model. Nothing more, nothing less. What else would it be called? Never heard it be called anything else.