Sections

NBA 2K11 multiplayer servers to be closed

Thursday, 3rd November 2011 01:21 GMT By Brenna Hillier

2K Sports has announced it will close down multiplayer support for NBA 2K11, just 13 months after release.

PastaPadre reports the servers will be closed this month, just over a year after the game’s release.

The previous iteration, 2K10, lasted for 15 months, while 2K9 maintained support for almost two years post-release.

2K11′s successor, 2K12, released in early October, on PC, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. It features the same online rosters as 2K11, but dropped the popular 10v10 My Crew and Online League modes.

Thanks, Kotaku.

Breaking news

34 Comments

Sign in to post a comment.

  1. burrsalem

    That really irks me. I paid $60 for 2K11. If sports franchises continue to feel the need to release yearly iterations fine, but don’t penalize users who don’t feel like shelling out $60 year after year just to play online with their friends. It’s really shameful, and especially so in a year where the actual league hasn’t even begun play yet, preventing any kind of roster updates. Imagine the outcry if Halo or Call of Duty shut down servers from the previous year’s offering to force users over to the newest release…

    #1 3 years ago
  2. Sturmhardt

    This is just sad. If they at least gave the community possibilities to host their own servers it wouldnt be a problem, but with their restrictive nazi-server politics this just sucks.

    #2 3 years ago
  3. DSB

    Way to treat your players.

    It’s outrageous, but I guess it’s the only way that EA can justify putting out another one year on year.

    It’s like a mobster walking into your store and breaking your shit, only to offer you a “good deal” on some new shit.

    #3 3 years ago
  4. viralshag

    @3, Nothing to do with EA, it’s 2K ;)

    Although I do think EA also shut down.

    #4 3 years ago
  5. Phoenixblight

    @3

    So blinded by your hatred towards EA you are now thinking 2K series is EA owned?

    #5 3 years ago
  6. DSB

    @4,5 Fair nuff. Gotta learn from the worst I guess. No doubt about where they got this little “business model”.

    Blinded by hatred sounds pretty epic though. I just think they’re executive scum.

    #6 3 years ago
  7. viralshag

    @5, To be fair, EA do the exact same thing. I’m not even sure what’s news about this. It’s only 2 months less than their last game and having a look around, EA shut down about the same amount of time.

    I think keeping games available for at least two years should be the norm.

    #7 3 years ago
  8. Phoenixblight

    People don’t pay for the maintenance of the servers or the server cost so if a new game of the franchise is coming out it should be pretty obvious it won’t be supported. ANd its not just the game industry that does this but most software developers.

    “I think keeping games available for at least two years should be the norm.”

    Agreed.

    #8 3 years ago
  9. viralshag

    But still, we have to admit that the sports games are not drastically different and improved to the point that it’s something completely new. For the sake of £40 everywhere the least they could do is allow people to skip a year’s iteration and still be able to play online.
    Like #1 said, you can still jump on halo or COD, I don’t see why it should be different for sports games.

    #9 3 years ago
  10. DSB

    So I guess all the 2+ year old games that are still being actively supported by publishers and developers are what’s causing all the financial woes these days, huh?

    The only person that’s blind here is you, apparently. They’re not trying to save money as some kind of “neccesary” move, they’re trying to earn it by continuing to force a percieved market for yearly iterated games.

    This is peanuts for EA. It’s nothing. As opposed to the money they lose from people staying with older, fully functional iterations, instead of buying their latest yearly patch-value iteration to the series.

    Everybody knows they’re not worth the money of a full new release, but with EA and apparently 2K shutting down servers for recent titles, we no longer have that choice.

    #10 3 years ago
  11. Phoenixblight

    @9

    Because those games are first party and MS owns their own servers where publishers typically pay MS or PSN to have a server for that particular system. No one wants to pay double or triple the server cost because a new game for the franchise is coming out. How about this Players after 2 years of free server access have to pay for the server cost to continue playing their game? I am sure that will fly well.

    @10
    Yes I am blind because I actually understand what goes behind not just the game because I have worked for Cisco and actually made the servers and routers that these big companies buy and they aren’t cheap. The least costing of these pieces of hardware were a million dollars and that was just getting the bare bones model.

    People have gotten there two years of game play and people that play Sport games have no issue with buying a new game. THats why EA pumps them out like they do because people are willing to buy them.

    #11 3 years ago
  12. DSB

    Well, I guess if making and supporting games for the console audience is so painful to EA financially, they should get out of the market. If they so clearly aren’t able to properly support their titles for more than a year without threatening their profits, then certainly that would be the only way to teach Microsoft and Sony a lesson, and create an environment where supporting a title for more than a year suddenly becomes viable.

    So which is it? Is EA financially unviable in their business strategy, or just callous and greedy?

    I don’t think most people have a problem choosing between the two.

    #12 3 years ago
  13. viralshag

    @10, Playing devil’s advocate here, on the flip side I imagine the numbers that play online drop dramatically for older games and even though I do think it would be a very minor drain on resources to keep them running, they are probably seen as unnecessary.

    I just think they should be left on longer than they are and also have the ability to host your own games.

    Edit: @12, I don’t think you can say a company is being greedy because they produce a product that people are willing to pay for. If it was a case where the majority wanted the older product then there’s an argument there. But most people are happy to upgrade.

    Business is about making money and keeping as many of your fans/consumers happy. Which they do, which is why a new FIFA sells well every year.

    #13 3 years ago
  14. DSB

    Let’s cut the bullshit here:

    EA built their entire company on yearly iterated sportsgames. That’s the primordial DNA of their entire existence as a publisher. It made them richer than God.

    They’ve gotten so addicted to the money, that even when they lose the ability to provide a decent product within a year, they still aren’t willing to give up their yearly releases.

    Why? Because, in spite of declining sales on most franchises throughout the 00′s, they’re still making bucketloads of money on them. Whether you’re moving 15 million copies of Madden, or 7 million copies of Madden, as long as you’re able to put one out every year, you’re still fucking rich! However, EAs greed isn’t going to suddenly convince their fanbase (myself included) that they’re getting a full games worth every year, so some of them keep playing the older iterations, and are perfectly happy in doing so.

    Hence the hammer comes down, and profit shows itself to be king over product. That’s why this is happening, in the case of EA, as well as 2K.

    So now, when their pants are down on this, the narrative from fanboys and executives suddenly becomes “Blame the consoles!”. “It costs a fortune to maintain our games on consoles – We’re just a poor little multinational corporation” – Yeah, right.

    Aside from accounting for something like a majority of the players on the consoles themselves (with only Call of Duty as a possible contender) there’s simply no way that a company with the size and scope of EA is going to bend over to a couple of hardware manufacturers. They recently told the biggest digital distributor on the PC to go fuck themselves, and they’d do the same to Microsoft and Sony in a heartbeat. The Dreamcast died because it didn’t have EAs sportsgames, and the Xbox and PS3 would certainly be crippled without them.

    It’s just propaganda, and it’s not very clever propaganda at that.

    Business is simple, unless both sides benefit, there is no deal. In this case it’s a question of EA serving themselves before their customers.

    #14 3 years ago
  15. Phoenixblight

    “It made them richer than God.”

    No they don’t they are only worth 4 billion dollars. Look at the worth of MS or even Steam which is worth the same as EA only they don’t have a shit ton of overhead.

    “So now, when their pants are down on this, the narrative from fanboys and executives suddenly becomes “Blame the consoles!”. “It costs a fortune to maintain our games on consoles – We’re just a poor little multinational corporation” – Yeah, right.”

    Like Viral had said Companies are built on the fact that they sell what their customers want if this wasn’t true EA would change their business model. Just like Konami adding the original voice actors to the SIlent Hill HD collection because most of their potential customers were complaining about not having the original VA. You are a miniority that is bitching about the YoY releases. Deal with it.

    Its all a business and their goal is to Make MONEY and not a fan service just because they like you. You have some wild delusions about what a company should be. EA, Take 2, and all publishers are pure profit. And that is what seems to piss you off.

    #15 3 years ago
  16. viralshag

    Well both sides seem to be benefitting quite well. One’s getting a lot of money and the other’s getting a great game.

    I really think calling a company greedy for making money is bordering on ridiculous. I would rather EA make more money than god because god doesn’t publish any decent video games.

    #16 3 years ago
  17. Ireland Michael

    @14 The Dreamcast died because Sega got scared of Sony.

    The machine was selling like freaking hot-cakes when Sega pulled the plugs. It was an utterly retarded move for them to make. They pulled out way too early.

    #17 3 years ago
  18. DSB

    Nobody’s argueing against a market economy viral. There’s a difference between making money and honoring your obligation to your customers, and making money on ignoring that obligation.

    Business isn’t a neutral thing. You can choose to fuck people over, or serve their needs. One is good business, the other is bad business.

    @15 Actually I’ve been playing their games for the better part of 20 years, and so have quite a few of my friends. The disdain for what EA is doing is quite prevalent, which is also why they’re losing their grip on that fanbase.

    The only reason why they’re still on top is because they were so huge in the 90′s, and are now hoarding the licences that anyone would need to compete with them.

    #18 3 years ago
  19. Phoenixblight

    @18
    “Actually I’ve been playing their games for 15 years, and so have quite a few of my friends.”

    You’re point? I have also played their games for damn near 20 years. I am not sure why that is relevant other than to do some form of penis waving. You can say what you want but the fact still remains they are still earning money off these franchises if they weren’t they would close down shop instead of buying more studios for their franchise(EA just bought two new studios for EA SPorts and been hiring by the boat loads). Again you think you and your group of friends is somehow the majority when it clearly is not.

    #19 3 years ago
  20. DSB

    @19 I’m just wondering how you managed to overlook most other peoples views on what EA have been doing the last decade.

    So now they’re earning money eh? Sounds like they should be able to support their games for a bit longer then.

    If me and my group of friends isn’t good enough for you, you still wouldn’t have to look further than the EA Sports forums.

    Even though I dislike what they’re doing, I’ve still kept buying the NHL iterations. It’s not like we have a choice if we want to play them, now do we?

    #20 3 years ago
  21. Phoenixblight

    “you still wouldn’t have to look further than the EA Sports forums.”

    Really thats what you will use for your evidence? THose that are mad or angry will be the most vocal those that are enjoying the game are doing exactly that. Your point is moot.

    “Even though I dislike what they’re doing, I’ve still kept buying the NHL iterations. It’s not like we have a choice if we want to play them, now do we?”

    So we come full circle, you are just mad because EA and NHL and other sport corps had sold license rights to EA. This is how business is ran. Fox owns the movie rights to majority of the marvel series, you know what I do? I just don’t watch them.

    #21 3 years ago
  22. DSB

    @21 “Really thats what you will use for your evidence? THose that ar emade or angry will be the most vocal those that are enjoying the game are doing exactly that. Your point is moot.”

    Well, that’s convenient.

    “You may have something concrete there, but I have blind faith in the opposite!” – Okay then, you win!

    “So we come full circle, you are just mad because EA and NHL and other sport corps had sold license rights to EA. This is how business is ran. Fox owns the movie rights to majority of the marvel series, you know what I do? I just don’t watch them.”

    “You’re just mad because…” – Wow, really? So we’ve arrived at kindergarden level here.

    Well you’re just mad because you suck EAs cock. Feel better with where we’re at now? Nah, me neither.

    How business is run is entirely up to the businesses themselves, and like I stated before, it is in no way neutral. Decisions are made, values are applied, and most companies run theirs differently.

    There’s a humongous difference between a speculator buying a supercomputer that’s able to make him 5 cents per millisecond by mindlessly buying stock the millisecond it starts climbing and selling it the millisecond after – And then an honest investor who sees a company he believes in, and puts his money in to support it.

    Business is not neutral, that’s a bullshit standpoint for people who want to justify something that isn’t justifiable. Are some bad practices legal? Sure they are. So is fucking your best friends girlfriend. That doesn’t make it a good or intelligent thing to do.

    But for the record I genuinely dislike the American sports federations as well. Although in their case I think it’s more in the way of hopeless incompetence than simply greed.

    #22 3 years ago
  23. Phoenixblight

    “Well you’re just mad because you suck EAs cock. Feel better with where we’re at now? Nah, me neither.”

    Really you want to go to that level. Well know you have just proven to be even more of a cry baby. Ad hominem

    #23 3 years ago
  24. DSB

    Ah yes, taking things out of context and completely disregarding the intent. I guess I must’ve made my point :)

    You have nothing beyond a blind bias for EA. Are they paying for your scholarship or something?

    #24 3 years ago
  25. Phoenixblight

    @24

    And if they did so what? That doesn’t obligate me to sing their praises. I received a scholarship from Activision do you see me talking about Activision and their practices and how they are super awesomesauce? I enjoy EA games and I don’t see anything wrong with their practices, they are a business and they do have to make decisions based on the fact on if they will make money. And they will also base those decisions on if their customers will support said decision if this was not the case they would change their plans. Look at the MOH fiasco did they not remove that whole Taliban thing?

    http://kotaku.com/5653024/electronic-arts-buckles-under-pressure-removes-taliban-from-medal-of-honor

    You complain about EA doing YoY releases with their Sportgames but have no qualms with COD using the same engine with the same rules with some slight variations (much like EA Sports does slight changes with their games) WHats good for Activision is not so for EA? Riiiight

    #25 3 years ago
  26. DSB

    I’m glad we cleared that up.

    Last time I checked, CoD was being made on two-year development cycles (Twice the ammount of time it takes to make an EA Sports game) which seems to be on par with most other popular franchises. I’ve also quite clearly stated time and time again that I think Treyarch is a second rate developer that in no way warrants tandem releases.

    And that’s because I don’t believe in blind fealty to a game or indeed a company. There are developers I love for what they do, but the moment they let me down, I’m gonna critisize them just as much as anybody else. I’ve done so with DICE for succumbing to mediocrity with the Bad Company series, Red Storm Entertainment for pretty much abandoning everything they were about, Bioware for doing the same, and Splash Damage for not delivering on Brink, and doing worse with it than they did with Quake Wars. Brands mean nothing to me, I care about games, and how they’re handled.

    It’s getting a little boring to flog a dead horse like this, but as I’ve stated two or three times now, I have no problem with businesses making money. I think the market economy can be as positive an influence, as it can be a negative one, depending on how a business is run. As such, it’s when they screw over their customers to make that money, that a certain ethical line is crossed.

    But since we are on the personal level, I think the times you’ve said anything even approaching negative about EA are few and far between. I don’t think I’m the first to see a certain connection or bias there.

    #26 3 years ago
  27. viralshag

    @DSB, I understand your point that there are clearly a lot of people that do not agree with EA’s business practices but I think in perspective that a game like FIFA, that sells millions of copies, has what, maybe a few thousand (if that) on forums complaining or unhappy, I don’t think it can be considered as a majority.

    As PB said, people that are happy will not even bother coming to forums. I have never once visited a forum for EA sports because I am happy with the product.

    Of course, that’s no reason for you to have to like them. At the same time though, happy customers of theirs shouldn’t be called fanboys. But there would be no point to the internet or comments or forums. ;)

    #27 3 years ago
  28. DSB

    I’d say the fanboy label in this case is based on a bit more than simply disagreeing with my views. It’s based on disagreeing with anyone who dares to critisize the almighty Electronic Arts.

    Mind you I’m far from the only who’s deduced that on this site.

    And I’m sure there’s a considerable portion of people who are unhappy, who don’t bother to vent it online as well. I don’t think any of my friends have, and I haven’t either outside this forum. What good would it do?

    Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. The notion that forums are only for unhappy people is pretty ridiculous. Google Phoenixblight and you’ll find quite a few forum posts on Bioware, and last time I checked, they weren’t on his bad side. Ultimately nobody can give you a number, you’re gonna have to go on conjecture, and deduce for yourself how people feel about it.

    In terms of FIFA, there are quite a lot of the more skilled players who are pretty upset with the new controls. It leads to a lot of lucky (or circumstancial) goals.

    I think it speaks for itself when a company starts breaking previous iterations of their games in time for a new release.

    #28 3 years ago
  29. viralshag

    Well in that case, if no one says anything to complain, then they can’t really complain about not being listened to. ;)

    #29 3 years ago
  30. Phoenixblight

    “Last time I checked, CoD was being made on two-year development cycles (Twice the ammount of time it takes to make an EA Sports game) ”

    You are shitting me right? They are released every year Activision has 7 studios working on the same franchise. EA uses the same model, they have 6 studios staggering the development. They are both similar that way. SO like I said one Publisher its ok with but not the other?

    #30 3 years ago
  31. DSB

    @29 You do realize that’s a non-argument right? The only way a company the size of EA is going to respond to anything is through a massive media campaign. Nobody’s going to waste their time on that.

    @30 Yeah, so Infinity Ward has released two games in 4 years, and Treyarch has released two games in 4 years. EA Tiburon has put out more than eight games in four years.

    #31 3 years ago
  32. Phoenixblight

    “Yeah, so Infinity Ward has released two games in 4 years, and Treyarch has released two games in 4 years. ”

    3 games MW3, MW2 and MW. Treyarch is the same. They go one and into the other. EA has 5 studios listed the 6th one is not fully furnished.

    http://www.easports.com/careers

    “EA Tiburon has put out more than eight games in four years.”

    Really thats weird than because their site and wikipedia seems to stop at 2007

    http://www.tiburon.com/history.html

    #32 3 years ago
  33. viralshag

    Well I just think we’re trying to argue with opinions here now anyway. Which will always be a never ending tale.

    #33 3 years ago
  34. DSB

    @32 Well it’s getting a little pathetic now.

    Infinity Ward:
    2009 – Modern Warfare 2
    2011 – Modern Warfare 3

    Small projects:

    2009: CoD Classic

    Treyarch:
    2008 – World at War
    2010 – Black Ops

    Small projects:

    2009: Modern Warfare Reflex
    2011: Modern Warfare 3 Wii

    EA Tiburon:
    2008 – Madden NFL 09, NFL Head Coach 09, NCAA Football 09, NASCAR Thunder 09, Tiger Woods PGA Tour 09, NFL Tour
    2009 – Madden NFL 10, NCAA Football 10, Tiger Woods PGA Tour 10
    2010 – EA Sports MMA, Madden NFL 10, NCAA Football 10, Tiger Woods PGA Tour 10
    etc. etc. etc.

    So in just two years, EA Tiburon has already put their name on more titles than Treyarch and Infinity Ward has in four years. That’s two studios, put together, outproduced by EA Tiburon in half the time.

    I’ve counted the minor titles for Treyarch and Infinity Ward as a minor courtesy, so you won’t get your panties in a twist. I’ve left them out for EA Tiburon, to prove my point.

    Although I’m sure there’s a perfectly good explanation for all of this. If you’re a raging fanboy.

    And keep in mind, this is just one of EAs assembly lines spitting out iterations worthy of little more than a patch each year.

    #34 3 years ago