EA Closing Mercs 2, LOTR Conquest Servers

By John Walker on February 17th, 2010 at 11:50 am.

No more co-op for you, matey.

EA is closing down its online support for late 2008′s Mercenaries 2: World In Flames. As of March 16th this year, you’ll no longer be able to play a multiplayer or co-op round of a game that’s been out for just seventeen months. This is part of another wave of EA gaming shutdowns that includes games barely a year old, as detailed on the rather optimistically named “Service Updates” section of EA’s site.

Clearly expecting some upset at the news that a long list of games will now not be available to play online, EA issue the following comment:

“As background information, the games scheduled for shutdown in March and April 2010 represent less than 0.3% of all peak online players across all EA titles. Despite some people’s perception, there is a lot of behind-the-scenes work involved with keeping these older games up and running. We would rather our hard-working engineering and IT staff focus on keeping a positive experience for the other 99.7% of customers playing our more popular games. These decisions to retire games is never easy. The EA development teams and operational staff pour their hearts into these games almost as much as the customers playing them and it is hard to see one retired. We hope you have gotten many hours of enjoyment out of the games and we appreciate your ongoing patronage.”

Also closing, amongst a number of PS3 and 360 games, is Lord Of The Rings: Conquest – barely over a year old. Obviously these titles must have proven extremely unsuccessful if maintaining their servers is no longer viable, but this is little consolation for those who paid £30 to £50 less than two years ago for games they had hoped to continue enjoying.

It asks the question: should games come with a warning on the box that their multiplayer features may be switched off at any time, with no compensation for customers? At the very least it has to inform future purchasing decisions. And as publishers increasingly push DRM models that require online activation (or even more berserk extremes if you’re Ubisoft), learning that games are being completely switched off around the time you’d expect their budget edition to be released doesn’t inspire confidence.

__________________

« | »

, , .

97 Comments »

  1. alseT says:

    And yet another example of punishing legitimate customers by not including LAN for fear of those “nasty pirates”

  2. terry says:

    I’d guess this is why they’re flirting with browser-based gaming – much easier to charge a monthly sub to people who want to play Madden/Fifa and slowly upgrade it rather than the yearly release fiasco and the subsequent surprise when no-one’s still playing Road to World Cup 98 (except me :-) and the servers get shut down.

    For SP games, I’m not surprised, it’s EA after all and the bottom line is huge wodges of cash, which old games aren’t giving them.

    • Rinox says:

      RTWC 98′ is the greatest FIFA installment ever. /slight hyperbole

      Seriously though, what a game. Seperate national leagues, World Cup Qualifiers and the World Cup in one game? These days, that’d be three separate games. ;-)

      My brothers still have nightmares of my Klinsmann-speared 6-3-1 teams.

    • Labbes says:

      That’s the only FIFA game I have, and I have made it a point to not change that. After all, the only thing I (and I have played newer FIFAs) like more in the newer games is the graphics – and 98 had Klinsmann! Go Klinsmann!

    • Bonedwarf says:

      Thing is EA, if you read the EULA, almost ALWAYS says they can shut the servers off at any time. Scant consolation I know, but EA DO have that in almost every EULA I’ve read. I think it just says they give at least 30 days notice.

      HAHA!: Captcha is “EA NA”. ROFL! (Can’t remember my password so having to post the old fashioned way.)

  3. gulag says:

    So, are we going to start a deadpool? I’m thinking MW2 servers will be down inside 2 years. Just in time for the release of Shiny New Man-Shooter 4!

    The big publishers seem to be hell bent on eating their own young. I guess that’s what happens when you hire from the same pool of executives that brought us the Music Copyright Industry.

    If I was a games developer today, I’d be very skittish about signing up with a publishing/funding party who were so cavalier in their attitude to my fans and my work.

  4. Heliocentric says:

    What about lan coop? Thats the reason i grabbed mercs 2. Oh hell.

    • Blather Blob says:

      @Heliocentric: Me too, but it turns out it doesn’t have any LAN support, presumably to stop pirates from playing it over Hamachi with invalid serial keys. So the pirates added LAN/Hamachi support anyway (a server emulator), and the pirates’ tools are now the only option for anyone going forward. Nice work, EA.

  5. Batolemaeus says:

    Hey, look whose games i haven’t been buying for years. I’m glad they keep showing me what a great decision that was.

    • subversus says:

      hahaha

      you’ve been missing:
      dead space
      mirrors edge
      dragon age
      mass effect 1,2
      Battlefield Bad Company
      Crysis

      and that’s just from top of my head
      It’s great to see how principles can prevent people from enjoying life:)

    • Fatrat says:

      Not buying doesn’t mean not playing, it just means not ‘paying’.

      I personally only liked about 2-3 of those games anyway, i never really feel myself being pulled into these new style RPGs like Dragon Age or Mass Effect, even after a few hours play. Shame because i never stop hearing how great they are.

    • Gorgeras says:

      You appear to have listed games which do not have universal acclaim, most are not DRM-free and have divided opinion. How do you know which side he would have fallen on if he had purchased any of those? I own exactly half of them and my disappointment is palpable with all except Mass Effect.

      The ones I were most hopeful for were Dead Space and Mirror’s Edge; EA taking rare and praise-worthy risks and then destroying them with some creaky porting(they screamed ‘console’) and DRM. I waited until the big-ass Steam sale before even considering them. EA are evil and even when they’re trying to be good, they’re still evil. EA are Mr Burns only not as funny.

    • Horatius says:

      “Not buying doesn’t mean not playing, it just means not ‘paying’.”

      Brilliant :D

    • MWoody says:

      So you pirate games, and then use the increasingly draconian measures your lack of morals forces on them to justify being an asshole. “I stole all those diamonds ’cause those armed guards they’ve put up since my robbery are an eyesore.” Jackass.

      If you want to make a stand, don’t play the game. Piracy isn’t a boycott.

    • Lilliput King says:

      “Not buying doesn’t mean not playing, it just means not ‘paying’.”

      Brilliant :D

      Really?

      I was thinking more, ‘fucking pathetic,’ but fair enough.

    • Fatrat says:

      Wow, talk about touchy. I was merely pointing out the fact he only said he didn’t buy the games, which isn’t the same thing as not playing them, obviously. Nobody stole anything here, you kids are so jumpy. Post-Valentine’s blues?

      Also, gamers are incapable of boycotts, which is why we even have all this DRM and ”discontinuation of multiplayer” nonsense forced up our asses in the first place.

      THAT, is what’s ”fucking pathetic”. As is calling people names on the internet. =)

      Jackasses. ;p

    • Thants says:

      What was wrong with the ports of Dead Space and Mirror’s Edge? There was an issue with V-Sync in Dead Space, but other than that they were both great ports.

    • Lilliput King says:

      Wow, talk about touchy.

      I wasn’t calling you pathetic, in the same way the guy I quoted wasn’t calling you brilliant.

      I thought this wouldn’t be difficult to understand.

    • Horatius says:

      I was calling Fatrat’s quote brilliant, because it was witty and relevant.

  6. Colthor says:

    EA does put a disclaimer on its games – on the back of my copy of Dragon Age (which isn’t even multiplayer), just above the copyright notice, is “EA MAY RETIRE ONLINE FEATURES AFTER 30 DAYS NOTICE POSTED ON http://WWW.EA.COM“.

    DRM servers have been turned off for other media, with no compensation for the customer. I don’t imagine games will be any different.

  7. Muzman says:

    All this controlling proprietary nonsense about servers and so on didn’t make a lick of sense once. Now there are probably people who’ve grown up never hearing of the halcion days of yore.
    Id have been quiet for too long.

  8. Ffitz says:

    Is there any reason why a company such as EA can’t release the server code when they shut down their own boxes, so that the remaining playerbase can run their own servers at their own cost?

    • Nick says:

      Yes: they don’t give a shit.

    • user@example.com says:

      It would cost them time and money – it’s probably not in a state users can easily use, and it’s probably full of unpleasant hacks and bugs that can be worked around if you know what you’re doing, but aren’t documented outside of the minds of the developer and the poor sod keeping it running day-to-day.

  9. Scott Kevill says:

    The problem with EA’s argument is if you decide you want to play your friends online with one of these games, you don’t care how many other players are on there. EA cuts off that option completely.

    They tweak their excuse/explanation a little more with each round of games shut down. The “pour their hearts” bit wasn’t there last time.

    • Stromko says:

      It really says a lot about EA’s own view of itself that they can say their own designers and developers who worked on these games for 2 – 3 years as their job care a little less about them than their players. If they did give a damn, and there are customers who love these games even MORE, then why shut down the servers?

      Mercs 2 was a bit meh aside from that delicious fuel-air RPG (plus the PC port appeared to be broken from what I’ve seen), and LOTR: Conquest looked like another Dynasty War clone that no one asked for, but they may just be testing the waters. Now that they’ve put warnings on packaging, they can do this for any game. Want us to buy Man-Shooter 5? Shut down Man-Shooter 4 multiplayer. They’ll certainly do it with their yearly sport games at least.

      They’ve never been afraid to disregard their customers, they’re more eager to go after new customers who can’t recognize the taste of recycled tripe. I suppose I couldn’t blame them, EA has committed such a litany of crimes against gaming I find it very difficult to give them a break. Though half the games on my over-packed shelf still bear their logo, much as it irks me.

    • Scott Kevill says:

      @Stromko They’ve been doing it for at least a couple of years already. The service updates page used to show the dates that previous rounds of games had been shut down.

  10. Ginger Yellow says:

    “As background information, the games scheduled for shutdown in March and April 2010 represent less than 0.3% of all peak online players across all EA titles”

    What a completely meaningless statistic. EA is a vast company with hundreds of online games. 0.3% could still be a very large number. It probably isn’t in this case, but still.

    Anyway, this is yet more proof, if proof be need be, that PC gamers are right to kick up a fuss about support for dedicated servers.

  11. sassy says:

    because then all the old fans don’t have to buy potentially new EA games to play

    • sassy says:

      that was meant at fritz *fails at internet*

    • archonsod says:

      Not sure that would work. I mean, if you were buying solely for the multiplayer, why would you pick something like Mercenaries 2 rather than Battlefield or similarly multiplayer focused games?

      Although their statistic is wash. Across all EA titles? Not sure The Sims players will really benefit from a focus on the online component of the game …

  12. The Sombrero Kid says:

    incase you needed a reason not to play games multiplayer whose multiplayer component was tacked on, I’m talking of course to the people who bought bioshock 2 for the multiplayer which i dearly hope was no one, the single player is fantastic so not a total loss for them.

    p.s. please fix your captcha system it’s infuriating.

  13. cpy says:

    Indeed, closing LOTRO would hurt much more.

  14. wqjvdsciouuiwenhjv says:

    Although it sucks for the PS3/Xbox360 versions of Battle for ME: COnquest, it is a joy for the PC owners.
    Our communities will not be split up anymore- Gameranger will gladly take up those who wish to continue playing!
    Pirates and legitimate players, playing side-by-side. What a beautiful world, indeed! Can’t wait for the new blood influx.

    Perhaps some of our console friends will be outraged enough to legitimately “pirate” the PC version and play with us too. I mean, they HAVE purchased the rights of playing it anyways- might as well.

  15. Rei Onryou says:

    Do they at least patch it so that we can sort out our own games/hosting? I doubt it, but I don’t see why they shouldn’t.

    Fair enough if the cost of handling multiplayer is a burden (albeit, after 18 months and just 0.3% of their IT’s concern), but they should at least open it up to the players and modders rather than shutting it down completely.

    • Stromko says:

      I remember when stuff like that was just a given. It doesn’t seem like the big publishers (such as EA and Ubisoft) are valuing their loyal customers like they used to. “Hey thanks for the fifty bucks, low let’s devalue your purchase by locking out modders, telling you when you can and cannot legally play our game, and forcing you to play through our proprietary multiplayer system that we can shut down at any time.”

      If some bean counter or committee decides that erasing all progress every time the game makes your system crash is profitable, then that’s just what they’re going to do.

      I could almost play devil’s advocate and say that shutting down old games makes the player base less splintered between different titles and thus improves the odds of new titles having a full community … But if you want to play an unpopular game with your friends, who are they to say otherwise?

  16. Monchberter says:

    Another victory by default for the more independent minded developer, and yes i’m thinking of Valve. Still supporting its titles even a decade down the line.

    What was that, Gunman Chronicles? Erm, nothing to see here…

    • qrter says:

      I had never even heard of that game before. Was it a bad game, that Valve made it disappear?

    • Monchberter says:

      If you Wikipedia it, you’ll find it. Basically it was a showcase for the potential for modding the first Half-Life engine that got a commercial release with huge – ‘IN THE HALF-LIFE ENGINE’ stickers all over it. It was rather rubbish in reality, but looked nice for the time, but has been totally swept under the rug since Counter-Strike went and eclipsed it by a factor of a few million.

      You can’t even find it on Steam.

    • user@example.com says:

      It wasn’t too horrible. You could customise guns, IIRC, and I think there were dinosaurs?

  17. JonFitt says:

    Oh no you didn’t!

  18. Adam says:

    It’s insane that multiplayer gaming is actually going backwards rather than forwards since the late 90′s early 00′s.

    Remember back to CounterStrike, or Quake 3 – last time I visited a LAN tournament, alongside our competition game, all the teams there were playing these old classics; as it was still possible to get 10 people for a fun quick blast.

    I remember when the RA2 online servers were dropped – and the only way to play the game was through LAN+Hamachi. Now, they’ve even removed the LAN options so it’s physically impossible to play these titles?

    Apparently that’s the way forward against piracy – well, judging by those sales figures, obviously not. People will pirate whatever software you make – the point is to make it fun for those who bought the title.

    It wouldn’t actually surprise me if there was a cracked workaround for a game like Mercs2 – thus EA completely shooting themselves through the foot as the only way to play those titles is to pirate them.

    Insanity.

  19. Iain says:

    I still play Mercs 2 co-op. It’s one of the finest co-op games there is.

    It honestly looked like EA were getting better, but now they pull shit like this and punish customers for no reason. If they keep it up they’ll end up worse than Activision.

  20. SPindaden says:

    That’s exactly what I was thinking

  21. Tei says:

    EA is evil, but people buying games withouth dedicated servers (like MW2) are just renting the game for whats seems a really short period. 2 years is a nanosecond in the life of a good game.

    I don’t blame EA here, but the people that don’t support the fight for dedicated servers and buy these games.

    Now all EA games with forced publisher servers are a ticking bomb. Will you buy one of these games if it was relased 1.9 years ago? maybe you are buying a game that will only last 30 days and then will self-destruct.

    Is like, these games are 2 years long services, with not extension options.
    You buy these games for full price, but you own *nothing*, is EA landlord that own the game and provide it back to you has a service, as long as wish.

  22. oceanclub says:

    Mercenaries 2 is still on sale, presumably with in a box advertising its multiplayer:

    http://www.play.com/Search.aspx?searchtype=allproducts&searchstring=mercenaries+2&page=search&pa=search

    Surely this now breaks some kind of trading standards act?

    P.

    • Stromko says:

      Probably, but they won’t do anything until there’s a nice big class action lawsuit. It’s the only thing that knocked the least bit of sense into the music industry– at least they aren’t price-fixing so much anymore, you can actually buy a CD for less than 20$.

      In the case of Mercs 2 it would be false advertising– they never made users aware that multiplayer would be locked out completely, and furthermore it is unnecessary to make a touted feature so reliant on continued publisher support. I’m sure their EULA has a clause to opt out of any responsibilities whatsoever, but from what I gather EULA’s don’t really stand up in court.

    • Chaz says:

      Thats what I was thinking, that surely they’re still selling these games with the multiplayer being advertised on the box, and I very much doubt that they’re going to hand out stickers to all the shops to put on the boxes correcting this.

    • Blather Blob says:

      @oceanclub: My copy says “EA MAY RETIRE ONLINE FEATURES AFTER 30 DAYS NOTICE POSTED ON http://WWW.EA.COM” on the back of the “box”. But it came in just a dvd case that doesn’t even mention there are any multiplayer/online features (it’s all just uncaptioned screenshots and requirements and legalese), so other packagings might be different.

    • Ginger Yellow says:

      In the UK at least, a lawyer might be able to argue that the lack of multiplayer means the product is not of merchandisable quality, which would entitle any purchaser (post switch-off, at least) to return the product for a refund. The thing is, in the UK, it’s the retailer who’s liable in these cases, not the manufacturer. So if anyone were to put stickers on the boxes it would be GAME.

  23. Lobotomist says:

    At least those games had offline single player feature.

    What about Tabula Rasa for example.

    A MMO that was closed barely year after launch. What about all the people that payed 50$ and now have just a pretty useless box?

    Sad fact is that the game was actually pretty good…

    Regardless. NC soft did nothing to compensate the people who bought the game. (some even a month before closing).

    Should there not be a law against that ?

    • Stromko says:

      It’s possible the people behind TR had no money at that point. Though NCSoft as an organization is probably loaded …

      I think the same charge could be leveled against most MMOs though. You can only play them if you keep paying, once you’re not subscribed it is just a pretty box, or a big setup file on the hard drive depending. I’d sooner have subscriptions than shops, but .. I digress.

      I think the operating costs of an MMO utterly dwarf the operating costs of a matchmaking server. Why in hell would they make it so expensive to allow for Mercs 2 multiplayer that they can no longer support it? Why so complicated that they couldn’t open it up or release a server client? It was a poorly planned project, a waste of some very talented developers. Pandemic, right? They got canned. :sad:

    • ascagnel says:

      Supposedly Pandemic ended because of Mercs 2. The game came out several years late and was busted, buggy, and broken to varying degrees on all three of its launch platforms. Promised DLC packs never came out (particularly the Obama & Palin DLC pack).

      Generally the problem was the complete mismanagement of the studio when it got to the point of working on multiple titles at the same time. Management wasn’t doing things like setting milestones and doing proper code reviews like they should have been.

      I picked all that up from podcasts from around the time Pandemic’s closure was announced.

  24. Arthur Barnhouse says:

    I wonder how Dave Tosser feels about this.

    • Chaz says:

      “Oi! EA! No!”

    • Fitzmogwai says:

      Dave Tosser says “It’s a brilliant move by EA, allowing them to focus their efforts on the customers that really need the support, and freeing up badly-needed resources that can be more effectively deployed on their upcoming titles to provide an even better experience, bringing new customers to Franchised Branded Products (previously referred to as “games”).”

  25. Fatrat says:

    A lot of people didn’t seem to like Mercs 2 so i’m suprised there’s that many comments about it. I personally loved it because it was just so over the top and didn’t take itself seriously at all. Plus the open world destruction was great, as it always is (See: Red Faction Guerrilla).

    I was actually waiting for this to come out on some sale (maybe instore or on Steam) before getting my buddy to buy for some MP fun. I guess that can’t happen now, which is stupid, because if they simply released a hefty patch to include LAN play or some play by IP deal, they would still be getting sales like that in the future.

    It just seems to me like they only want the first couple of years of sales and then don’t want the ”chump change” gained from sales later down the line. I know there’s probably a point where they stop getting the money from sales in retail, but say on Steam… i’m sure they still get their cut from there even if a game is bought way later down the line.

  26. Lucas says:

    It’s well past time for virtualizing and consolidating servers to continue support for unpopular games. Ending multiplayer altogether is a big deterrent for players who would otherwise pick up older games to play together, and probably hurts game pricing as a result. The best long term option is still player-run dedicated servers, or at least patching in LAN support (for VPN play) in an end-of-life update.

    Games that are great with lots of players often manage low-player count setups very poorly, which tends to lead to an early demise. It’s a harder design and management problem to solve with much lower payoffs.

  27. y3k-bug says:

    Well gee, this isn’t making me all that confident in my recent pre-order for BF:BC2 for PS3…

    Oh EA.

  28. Carra says:

    “Older games”…

    Just give us dedicated servers so that when we want to play the game in ten years we can just set up a damn server ourselves.

  29. Evernight says:

    Honestly I don’t have a huge problem with this situation. I would only make sure that they leave DRM activation (or a patch to remove it) available at all times. If you can’t even play the single player after the servers go down it might as well have been a rental.

    Honestly – how many ppl were playing the m-player for these games? 300? More? Probably less.

    Its sucks knowing that you could never do it… but the fact is that no one was anyway.

    As long as it doesn’t become an industry standard to chop off all games 12 months after release I think we will be ok….. but this is EA we are talking about – they would kill puppies for cash.

  30. Thunderkor says:

    I’m rather miffed at the way publishers have been treating their PC titles the last few years, and it’s just getting worse and worse.

    I personally love Mercs 2, even though the PC version is a bit dodgy. I’d be more upset about the multiplayer loss if I’d had any good multiplayer experiences, but the only multiplayer action I could seem to find was random matchups with random strangers, who I couldn’t even communicate with. I always felt it was a shame it wasn’t more robust.

    A LAN version would be welcome – I’d buy a second license so I could play co-op with my son once I build a new PC in a few weeks.

  31. Gutter says:

    And this is why I *never* buy any game that do not have a single player mode.

  32. Jad says:

    Reminds me awhile back when RPS did a retrospective on Kingpin: Life of Crime (link here) and people talked about its still-alive multiplayer community.

    Here is a game that was fun but, frankly, not the best game ever, not extraordinarily popular even in its prime, over ten years old, with a developer that has had multiple name and personnel changes (Xatrix -> Grey Matter -> Treyarch) and a publisher that is on its last legs (Interplay). Yet, people still play it. People can still play it. That there is still a Kingpin community, however small, shows how stupid and unfortunate this move by EA is.

  33. MJS says:

    Oh well guess I’ll have to rush to get my co-op game of Mercs 2 completed, pity one of the most fun run around n shoot things randomly kaboom! games, plus you can actually do the missions proper as well.

    As for the EA server shutting down warning they’ve had that on the back of at least some of their boxes for years now. BF Road to Rome (though not BF1942) has the warning on the back of the box that online features are only guaranteed support until Sept 2004.

  34. MJS says:

    Oh well guess I’ll have to rush to get my co-op game of Mercs 2 completed, pity one of the most fun run around n shoot things randomly kaboom! games, plus you can actually do the missions proper as well.

    As for the EA server shutting down warning they’ve had that on the back of at least some of their boxes for years now. BF Road to Rome (though not BF1942) has the warning on the back of the box that online features are only guaranteed support until Sept 2004.

    I also seem to be getting picked up as SPAM :(

  35. Alez says:

    Man if that gameranger thing does what i think it does, then you are my hero, wqjvdsciouuiwenhjv.

  36. Davie says:

    See, this is why they released the first three Command and Conquer games for free. Trying to get good guy points before announcing this. Well, it didn’t work.

  37. ChaK_ says:

    Not to have bad words for you EA, but merc 2 was an absolute abysmal trash.

    Oh wait, those are bad words.

    Bha never mind, Just cause 2′s coming

  38. drewski says:

    Is it so bad to just not buy EA games? If you have a problem with the possibility of a multiplayer server being turned off at some point in the future, don’t reward that game with your money.

  39. destroy.all.monsters says:

    I don’t see how this behavior is going to help EA’s bottom line. Once they get known for this and fail to provide dedicated servers their games will never be worth more than $5. Ubi’s by comparison have now zero value.

  40. Jim says:

    I have no problem with them making this as a business decision, but isn’t this why I pay for Xbox Gold? So I can play Xbox games, online??

    • Chaz says:

      Yeah, I just assumed that Xbox games were all peer to peer using Microsofts service and so therefore would not require EA’s servers. Like you say, isn’t that the whole point of the Gold service?

  41. x25killa says:

    I loved mercs 2. Fuck you EA.

  42. notHappy says:

    When I got Lord of the Rings Conquest , I failed to notice that EA was the publisher. After being burned once on a multiplayer sports game, I would not have purchased it had I seen that.

    Having said that, Pandemic is a great developer and that game had a great online mode.

  43. The Wacko Man says:

    Totally agree with you, notHappy.
    Although the game wasn’t really perfect, the online mode of LOTR Conquest was great.
    Without this online mode, this game is quite a lot worse.

    So you’ll probably understand that I feel quite disappointed. And that is putting it mildly.

    Man, I feel just fed up! C’mon EA, stop having your own servers!

  44. Winston says:

    Lotor Conquest is like battlefront no multi player no fun and the same goes for Mercs 2 that I would play with a different friend on xfire Id play it with every now and then but aside from that I never played offline with either because it just got boring. So now I might as well uninstall both games and free up some room for non EA games because Im tired of EAs bullcrap.

  45. ashish says:

    hi…………………..dear sir dis is the tragedy of EA- GAMES so dat i can fulfill this needs………….

  46. TBJ559 says:

    ea r sum bitch made motherfuckers doing dat bullshit. shit fucking ps2 games still fucking go online and da bitch ass ea cant even keep fucking games online dat trophies r 4 online and they r trying 2 get u 2 spend ur money cuz those [ussy ass motherfuckers are going 2 shut down every fucking game after a year itz been out and i m pretty dam sure by da fucking time they shut da game down da game will most likey still cost a pretty fucking penny even if its new and u cant even play da peice of shit online

  47. zane says:

    i need help! whenever i try to play mercs 2 it says at the top of the screen connecting to ea servers when i just want to play it solo. but it just keeps freezing. can someone please help?

  48. MrLogic says:

    I would just like to explain something, so that everyone may come to realize the ‘logic’.

    So, I DO NOT believe in intellectual copyright laws for one simple reason:

    imagine that you are playing a game of chess, then you suddenly decide to make up your very own opening, then you decide that you like this opening so much you go along a put a copyright law on it, now in the world of chess, (2nd most popular game on the planet, after football) that would bring outcry’s, and even if someelse used that very same opening, you lot say that they should be fined???

    That is really pathetic in my opinion.

    Thus in one paragraph i have made copyright look greedy/ridiculous :/

  49. l DeMoN l says:

    I just want to share my experience and add some more salt to the wound. I just purchased LOTRC and the idea of going against other players armies with my army sounded magical. Unfortunately didn’t research enough and purchased the game from Xbox Live, only to find out the online interaction is gone. I feel so disappointed. I purchased this game in less of an hour of playing it I’m already depressed about it… I didn’t know servers could get shut down so quickly. I just had to learn the hard way of course…

  50. Apnea says:

    Ahhhrrrg. Just bought Mercs2 for teh online. Should have read about it before.

    I’ll have to find that server emulator thing, it seems. To anybody else in the same predicament : google TeknoGods.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>