MGS3 Subsistence soon to be offline-only
by James Ransom-Wiley 
{ Feb 27th 2007 at 7:56PM }
Metal Gear Solid 3 players have just over a month to get their 'Subsistence' online. Konami has passed along a brief notice that the game's servers will be permanently shut down on April 3:"The last day of online service for Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence in North America will be April 2nd. Konami sincerely thanks all of the Subsistence online community for their dedication to the game and support of the Metal Gear Solid series."
The notice concludes with a plug for Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops, which also features online multiplayer modes. The PSP installment may keep fans from starving, but this latest development must stir some hunger pangs. We needs our MGS4.
So what can you do for now? Start by signing the petition.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Sub @ Feb 27th 2007 8:08PM
The nice thing about PC Gaming? This can't happen
dada @ Feb 27th 2007 8:15PM
this is the nice thing about xbox live this can't happen
PK05 @ Feb 27th 2007 8:16PM
Good thing im a 360 fanboy
Lord Chako @ Feb 27th 2007 8:15PM
I think Return to Castle Wolfenstein got it right on the original xbox. For console multiplayer, that game was really ahead of its time. I don't understand why more developers don't allow user hosted servers. I think that is something that should be standard on every online multiplayer console game. Combined with player voting, and spectator modes, the game pretty much ran itself online. I, and many others, would host servers with the box even when I wasn't home or playing. With the player voting, players could change maps, swap teams, start the match over, and kick players. It really helped weed out the trouble makers.
If the original xbox could do it, I really don't see why developers couldn't implement these features in all online games, regardless of the console.
DefineReality @ Feb 27th 2007 8:18PM
Okay,
(Preface: I do not subscribe to Xbox LIVE and have, infact, never used its service for anything other than demos and downloads.)
Isn't this a clear indication of the flaw in PS3's online service? If I'm not mistaken, I can play any LIVE enabled XBox game today. Right now. This second. Just pop it into my console of choice and off I go.
The PS3 and Sony's online offering is reliant on developers to maintain the servers for their games. Which is a key reason why they've yet to have a friends list that's cross-game, etc.
As the server gets too costly to upkeep and maintain, the game disappears from online play. Granted, the server was made for thousands of players to play on. But what happens in two years to that dedicated couple hundred that're still enjoying Resistance: FoM online play when the developer decides to pull the plug because the server is no longer cost-effective?
Does anyone else have a problem with this model of business? I'd rather pay a couple bucks a month (Again, I don't. There's just not enough time these days, sadly) to have a consistent online experience than one that's here today, gone tomorrow.
LaughingTarget @ Feb 27th 2007 8:19PM
360 isn't immune. Doesn't EA drop Madden each year?
LaughingTarget @ Feb 27th 2007 8:20PM
DefineReality
Lord Chako @ Feb 27th 2007 8:22PM
Thats what I was going to say.
Not if it is an EA game. Wasn't it like 6-8 months ago they dropped a bunch of games online capability.
Pretty much everything that came out in 2005 and before got dropped.
Keif @ Feb 27th 2007 8:22PM
no games on live get droped, its just older gmaes tend to stop getting played when sequals come out. Morso with sports games
all Live games are played on MS's servers, thast why you have to pay a fee for live
LaughingTarget @ Feb 27th 2007 8:22PM
DefineReality -
It isn't a matter of cost effectiveness. It is more of a matter of "just how much are we willing to eat". Publishers draw in customers with online play and when the sales drop off enough, they can safely pull the feature. The idea is that temporary online play can attract enough to make up for the server cost. Few companies are willing to provide a free service, just not worth the effort.
karmaghost @ Feb 27th 2007 8:25PM
@1:
I came in here with the intention to say the exact same thing. I can't imagine what would happen to all the fans of Counter-Strike 1.6 if this were to happen to them. Oh the horror!
Lord Chako @ Feb 27th 2007 8:24PM
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/08/06/no-more-online-gaming-for-you-says-ea/
DefineReality @ Feb 27th 2007 8:25PM
LaughingTarget,
That could very well be the case. I'm not too sure. As I said, I've never personally played a game on XBox LIVE.
To be fair, though, I've never personally owned a Madden title, either (bring back Joe Montana's Football and Bases Loaded, baby! Oh yeah, Blades of Steel, too) so I can't speak for how EA handles things for their series of games.
Seeing as how football is a yearly progressive game and EA is the devil incarnate, I wouldn't so much blame the LIVE experience for the changes or lack of support after a single year as I would the developer themselves. Afterall, EA spelled backwards is Money.
Vash the Stampede @ Feb 27th 2007 8:35PM
Actually everyone is right... Servers don't go down for any Xbox games except EA because EA still refuses to agree with the xbox server terms ( or something like that) so they elect to have live aware while running there own dedicated servers and have removed the ability to have user hosted servers.
DefineReality @ Feb 27th 2007 8:36PM
LaughingTarget,
Sorry for the dual posts so soon.
The point about the reason why developers do this sort of thing is 100% accurate. You're absolutely right and, truth to be told, they're allowed to and /should/ do it.
It saves money. It makes sense. But that's a model that's accepted in the PC world, for the most part.
Consoles are a different breed. Newer and better looking games come out but it's playing on the same rig. My library of games, therefore, is still compatable and still relevant. Especially to a new purchaser who may buy some of the older library games because they've yet to enjoy them.
With backwards compatability seemingly a huge motivator for most people (Especially with the PS2's formidable library), it seems rather anti-customer (You) to make a business model of online play that all of your customers, present and future, will be subject to.
That's why LIVE, so far, appears to be the only valid console online service. Aside from a few games where the developer shoe horns you into buying a sequel, LIVE can't be beat.
If I ever get around to buying PS3 (Admission: I never owned a PS2. Not for any real loyalties, mind you), I'd certainly want to have the option to play the various SOCOMS and other early PS3 online-enabled games.
If I buy a PS3 two years from now? I might not be able to.
Mr Spliff @ Feb 27th 2007 9:39PM
Just to clarify, the EA games do drop support on LIVE because they are on EA's servers, not Microsoft's. It was part of the deal they made to get the EA games online on Microsoft's console. i.e. All EA games are played on their own servers.
DefineReality @ Feb 27th 2007 8:40PM
Mind you that also in the PC world, a vast majority of games allow player hosted servers.
I was referring to the earlier online game experiences where you'd have to go through a central hub like Brentwood's C&C interface for random, casual gaming that didn't involve ISP/Direct links.
steve17 @ Feb 27th 2007 8:48PM
lol. i cant help but laugh at the senseless sony fanboy logic. this posy just reminded me of it. they always say. at least we can play for free.
xbox live cost $4 a month. to have consistent, reliable, almost never ending online play. so they try and tell us they can afford $600 but they cant afford $4 a month? LOL
one more thing MS got right and sony got wrong.
come on fanboys. dissect my post and try and tell us sony's features are all superior to MS's.
ZenGaijin @ Feb 27th 2007 8:54PM
*salutes the servers*
*Spins then runs away in the box*
Over 1000 hours logged in this game, a shame to see it go.
Aex @ Feb 27th 2007 8:58PM
@Steve17
Sony's features in the online realm are not superior to MS's, but they are free. Anyone, who says Sony has a superior online service is quite blind. Sure, it can't match something people pay $50 a year for. But until they allow user hosted servers, can we really expect a free service to be as good as a pay service?
Turkdaone @ Feb 28th 2007 12:32PM
hasnt even been a year and this game is getting pulled.360 for the win.
ackmondual @ Feb 27th 2007 9:44PM
@ #19
""Sony's features in the online realm are not superior to MS's, but they are free. Anyone, who says Sony has a superior online service is quite blind. Sure, it can't match something people pay $50 a year for. But until they allow user hosted servers, can we really expect a free service to be as good as a pay service?""
I think the issue is losing OL play forever, NOT what you're getting for free or for you money.
Lord Chako @ Feb 27th 2007 9:51PM
Aex,
I think the problem is, sony was advertising that their online service was going to match and excel XBlive in every way, at no cost.
Remember the "full-on assault" on Xbox live in PSM?
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/01/31/sony-declares-full-on-assault-on-xbox-live/
It wouldn't be a problem, if sony didn't advertise it as more than it was. When you claim your service is better than anothers in every way, and exceeds it, you better be able to back it up. I'm sorry, what they delivered, isn't better than live. So why can't we criticize them for over promising, and under delivering? So we should just accept the fact that the service is free, and this is the best we'll get, even though we were TOLD otherwise?
chenry @ Feb 27th 2007 9:55PM
god dammit, I still play that game online.
refinedsugar @ Feb 27th 2007 10:01PM
It might suck, but a surprise? Shouldn't be. Check the back of any recent game that features a MP component and I guarantee you'll find some blurb about 'how the company can cease online function at any time'. With Sony having no "central" online service it's up to individual companies to take time and money to continue supporting a product when they want you to buy a new one.
Erwos @ Feb 27th 2007 10:13PM
"The nice thing about PC Gaming? This can't happen"
This is grade-A bullshit. I have a _STACK_ of PC games that can't be played online because WON and the like got closed down. Imagine what would happen if Battle.net shut down, for instance?
With the exception of idiot publishers who refuse to allow Xbox Live to host their servers (I'm looking at you, EA!), XBL doesn't have this issue.
hiroken @ Feb 27th 2007 10:17PM
@ #5
Sorry, but your post is irrelevant. The PS3 online system is completely different than the PS2's, which MGS3:S was apart of. While the games are still free, that's the only similarity. To everyone else, XBL vs PSN has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ARTICLE. This is KONAMI's decision, not Sony's.
~
Pawsie @ Feb 27th 2007 10:26PM
I'm actually one of the people that play the. I enjoy it for the most part, but the game was flawed and badly done. When playing, people took adventage of the glitches and stuff to win. And while playing, people made up their own rules that had nothing to do with the basic game..
I'm not surprise they're doing this... and considering it's not profitable, it's expected. I've been telling my friends there that they're goint to cut it sooner or later..But considering they did this with Metal Gear Online.. I see no point in bothering with the PSP version..
I do think it's pretty odd that I can still play Mario Kart and it's been around just as long..
And again... MGO wasn't the best.. only an average of 500 people play a day.. if not less.. they were expecting over a thousand.. considering how many servers they had..
MrB @ Feb 27th 2007 10:29PM
er you CAN host a game in Ridge Racer 7 on PS3 so no probs with the PS3.
Isnt this just a case of the developer being a lazy fu ckwit.
Oh and PERLEAZE stop hating on the ps3.
It really makes you look pathetic.
LaughingTarget @ Feb 27th 2007 10:27PM
hiroken -
It may be Konami's decision and not Sony's, but it is Sony's method of publisher or developer run servers that will open this kind of thing up more frequently as time goes on.
Xbox Live is essentially a matching system. Microsoft has a small server footprint as most games are run off a local machine. Unless an individual server is demanded (Phantasy Star Universe), the title will likely keep going. Sony doesn't have the alternative, requiring individual publishers keep track of their own matching services, which frequently involve matching individual games and not an across-the-board one like Live.
So, why don't publishers just create their own internal universal system? Just too much expense for it to be worth it. They may not have a lot of online games in the pipes and is cheaper to just recycle the current server capacity for the new titles. Just clear out current servers of older games to make room for new ones.
The difference between the Live system, Playstation Online system and even the Wii friend-code system is ultimately immaterial. The number of people still playing old titles online when newer ones arrive or when the title reaches a year old is typically minute. Konami enjoyed a huge cash influx by basically selling you the same game, people got their online fix, and the bulk of them went on their way to other titles. Konami doesn't care about the small few who still show up. Sell the servers and move on, angering an incredibly small population.
Live is the only one that has a slight edge. Slight as it only matters to those who still want to play a 5 year old game online. To everyone else, they just don't care. There is something bigger and shinier to stick in the disk drive.
Pawsie @ Feb 27th 2007 10:29PM
# 26 Sorry, but your post is irrelevant. The PS3 online system is completely different than the PS2's, which MGS3:S was apart of. While the games are still free, that's the only similarity. To everyone else, XBL vs PSN has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ARTICLE. This is KONAMI's decision, not Sony's.
That's correct. This isn't a Xbox Sony thing, just the people that made Metal Gear.. they did it with DDR, they're doing it with this... and once the MG Portable go.. the exact same thing will happen. It's a perk service to help sell the game. When the game isn't sold anymore, the service goes down.
Kris @ Feb 28th 2007 12:54AM
what the hell, it just came out last year. how retarded
supersonic.com.mx @ Feb 28th 2007 12:51PM
This is a Joke
Take Blizzard
How many years of FREE SERVICE on Starcraft?
eight?, nine?
and its still running
Spartan 1308 @ Feb 28th 2007 1:04AM
Thousands of people play a 3 year old multiplayer title on Live every day. Halo 2 of course. In addition to that, the rise of online co-op gaming is going to make this a much larger issue. Without having a central server to allow people to match up, some games will lose a big part of their functionality. If for instance Gears of War were on PS3 and Epic decided to shut down their servers in a few years, people would no longer be able to have co-op games. This would be shutting down a major component that made this game worth its purchase price.
Ironhide @ Feb 28th 2007 1:20AM
Sony has still placed the onus on the developer to include online capability where as Xbox Live is essentially code that MS provides and can be shoehorned in to just about any game.
It's one thing to have a pay for play service like Xbox, but considering that online play is so easy to impliment with Microsoft's middleware software, you'd think Sony would have realized that a structured online service can only help the online capabilites of the PS3 in the long run.
With sony boasting as usual that Sony Online will be better than Xbox Live, it's no wonder they still haven't got any real credibility when it comes to online playstation games. A free for all online service simply can't be implementated like Live is. I suspect this is why you'll never see a mutual friend's list on a PS3, despite it being a sought after feature. Too many issues will prevent this from working smoothly.
Mike @ Feb 28th 2007 1:52AM
Dude, this sucks. MGS3 was the underdog online game of that year. I thought it would suck but it's pretty damn deep.
Strike Man @ Feb 28th 2007 2:59AM
"Actually everyone is right... Servers don't go down for any Xbox games except EA"
I take it you haven't booted up Steel Battalion: Line of Contact recently, eh?
Autocrawler @ Feb 28th 2007 3:52AM
Heh, this only serves again to demonstrate the advantages of the non-proprietary nature of the PC compared to all other platforms.
Jas @ Feb 28th 2007 3:54AM
Playstation Online - It's FANtastic!!!
Jas @ Feb 28th 2007 3:54AM
Playstation Online - Come Play With Us!!!
Jas @ Feb 28th 2007 3:55AM
Playstation Online - Feel The Power.. Online!!!
Jas @ Feb 28th 2007 3:55AM
Playstation Online - Connecting Fun Around The Globe!!!
Jas @ Feb 28th 2007 3:56AM
Playstation Online - It's Free, Can't You Tell!!!
Jas @ Feb 28th 2007 3:56AM
Playstation Online - Who are we kidding, we suck. XBOX LIVE rules.
vadermaggot @ Feb 28th 2007 4:24AM
hhmmm maybe you should play Halo 2
vadermaggot @ Feb 28th 2007 4:25AM
haha ps sux teh xbox rulz!!
vadermaggot @ Feb 28th 2007 4:26AM
And who plays Steel Battalion?
smik @ Feb 28th 2007 5:10AM
And yet our loyal xbox fans find no fault with the fact that all support for XBOX1 ended in just 4-5 years while the PS2 support continues to be strong after 7 years (GoW2 / FF12 anyone?)
Prior to Gears, how many good MP games on XBOX other than Halo2? you paid 200 dollars over 2003-06 for a server for ONE game?
If a MP is moderately popular it WILL be supported. If its not WHY should ALL of us pay 50USD so that a few nuts want to play that?
XBOX Live is great value...which is why there are just 5-7mn Gold subscribers and 75% of users are deprived of MP. While EVERY PS3 owner has MP available on the go - and its excellent, if R:FOM is anything to go by
Nick @ Feb 28th 2007 6:54AM
"And yet our loyal xbox fans find no fault with the fact that all support for XBOX1 ended in just 4-5 years while the PS2 support continues to be strong after 7 years (GoW2 / FF12 anyone?)"
I didn't get an Xbox but I wouldn't have any problem with it's lifespan if I had. The PS1 sold over 100 million units and it was in production until 2006 and I expect the same for the PS2, a life span of 10 years since it sold so much. The Xbox on the other hand only sold around 24 million so a shorter lifespan seems rather obvious.
And remember, you get what you pay for. I'd rather pay less then 20 cents a day for quality online instead of a free medicore service. ;)
smik @ Feb 28th 2007 8:15AM
"The Xbox on the other hand only sold around 24 million so a shorter lifespan seems rather obvious."
What were you drinking? Whatever sales be, if I buy a console I expect quality games over a long period. And the same with 360. Cost per year 360: 399/4 year; PS3 (bigger HDD, BR, far lower defects):599/8 years. You work out the math.
"You get what you pay for. I'd rather pay less then 20 cents a day for quality online instead of a free medicore service. "
Interesting xbot-grade comments. using the same calculation, the 100USD Blu-Ray on PS3, which future-proofs the console for 10 years, would cost THREE CENTS PER DAY over this period!!!
Quality online? You get support for ONE decent game - Halo 2 - and you need to pay for THAT? Whereas you get lag-free MP on R:FOM and most PC games for free!!