''Online features are scheduled to be available until 31/12/26''

[MIATAKIAS [GR]]

For those did not notice it under system requirements on steam in dark small leteers says:
''Please note that TOPSPIN 2K25’s online features are scheduled to be available until December 31, 2026 though we reserve the right to modify or discontinue online features without notice.''
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1785650/TopSpin_2K25/?l=greek

Dont get me wrong , i dont want to sabotage the game or something , instead i am gonna buy it but i want to warn those that want to buy a game and play it for many years that is not the case , much more because that even career mode is always online..

[Zeokage]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von gbuglyo:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von DutchDefense:

Really, it's positive to let the customer know that they will be screwed in 2 years time that this overpriced game is no longer playable online? Are you ok mate?

Yeah, it's bad practice, but at least they let you know about it,

Just for clarification as there are multiple ways this could go... What exactly is the "bad practice"?

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Mu'Ammar of Carthus:

It's a gigantic deal if you're not a subservient drone like a lot of gamers these days who will leap to defend game companies against their own self interest.

The wording here is not helpful at all for a constructive discussion. Please discuss the issue, not throw labels and insults at others.

[Yoko]

LMAO nobody will still play this game in 2026 woke up ppl we will be on new TopSpin ....
Stop crying please

[gbuglyo]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Zeokage:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von gbuglyo:

Yeah, it's bad practice, but at least they let you know about it,

Just for clarification as there are multiple ways this could go... What exactly is the "bad practice"?

It's bad practice to have such a short support for online functionality in a full-priced game.

[Rabble]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Yoko:

LMAO nobody will still play this game in 2026 woke up ppl we will be on new TopSpin ....
Stop crying please

i don't care about online. i care about career (single player) being not playable anymore due to it being tied to online. why would i buy the new topspin in 2026 when i could still be playing this?

[Mortal_Kasi]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Rabble:

why would i buy the new topspin in 2026 when i could still be playing this?

You just answerd it for yourself, they don't want you to play a two year old game where they do not make any more money from, they want you to buy the new one for 100 Bucks and then sink even more money in it!

[Zeokage]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von gbuglyo:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Zeokage:

Just for clarification as there are multiple ways this could go... What exactly is the "bad practice"?

It's bad practice to have such a short support for online functionality in a full-priced game.

Two variables in your answer, please allow me to pick your brain... So you would have been okay with it if the game was a different price? Or if it was the length of support was different, how long would it have to be planned for in order for it to be "good" practice?

[Mortal_Kasi]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Zeokage:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von gbuglyo:

It's bad practice to have such a short support for online functionality in a full-priced game.

Two variables in your answer, please allow me to pick your brain... So you would have been okay with it if the game was a different price? Or if it was the length of support was different, how long would it have to be planned for in order for it to be "good" practice?

I think we have to differentiate a bit here, this is not like NBA 2K or Fifa Ultimte Team etc. Yes online features do not get supported for ever, no big deal. But here we have a game that has only only big Mode in the whole game, in Fifa you can still play the rest of the game when the servers are discontinued, you can still play Franchise on NBA.

In Top Spin the only thing you can do is litrealy play against your friends locally. And that is simply a bad decission, it is anti consumer friendly and just there to compel players to buy the new game.

[gbuglyo]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Zeokage:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von gbuglyo:

It's bad practice to have such a short support for online functionality in a full-priced game.

Two variables in your answer, please allow me to pick your brain... So you would have been okay with it if the game was a different price? Or if it was the length of support was different, how long would it have to be planned for in order for it to be "good" practice?

I've been considering EA's and 2K's approach (releasing a new game per sport each year with a short online support period) as bad practice for many years. Unfortunately, it has become something of an industry standard for sports games, so this is not really or not only about TopSpin. Indeed I feel that if they're releasing nearly identical games in a quick succession, they should be much cheaper. Or if they really wanted to adopt a "good" practice, it would be enough to release one full-priced new game per sport once in about three years. They should maintain support for the lastest title and two more that came before that at least, which would add up to about 9 years of online support. But like I said it's not the industry standard so that remains wishful thinking on my part.

[Zeokage]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Mortal_Kasi:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Zeokage:

Two variables in your answer, please allow me to pick your brain... So you would have been okay with it if the game was a different price? Or if it was the length of support was different, how long would it have to be planned for in order for it to be "good" practice?

I think we have to differentiate a bit here,

That's what my questioning was intended to do. Your response adds a third variable to cover. How much content would have to be in TopSpin for it to not be "anti-consumer friendly and just there to compel players to buy the new game"?

Ursprünglich geschrieben von gbuglyo:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Zeokage:

Two variables in your answer, please allow me to pick your brain... So you would have been okay with it if the game was a different price? Or if it was the length of support was different, how long would it have to be planned for in order for it to be "good" practice?

I've been considering EA's and 2K's approach (releasing a new game per sport each year with a short online support period) as bad practice for many years. Unfortunately, it has become something of an industry standard for sports games, so this is not really or not only about TopSpin.

I know, my questions weren't meant to be game-specific. Although if it were to be, it would probably start with the question to Mortal_Kasi above.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von gbuglyo:

Indeed I feel that if they're releasing nearly identical games in a quick succession, they should be much cheaper. Or if they really wanted to adopt a "good" practice, it would be enough to release one full-priced new game per sport once in about three years. They should maintain support for the lastest title and two more that came before that at least, which would add up to about 9 years of online support. But like I said it's not the industry standard so that remains wishful thinking on my part.

So, to expand on the two variables...

1. What price would you say the yearly games should be?
2. By "support" you only mean maintaining the online servers? Should there also be updates to the game as the IRL sport is progressing and is probably already "out of date" by the time the game comes out? How much should the updates cost, if anything?

Yes, it's wishful thinking, but that's what I was looking for in a way.

[jesp8500]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Mu'Ammar of Carthus:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von jesp8500:

This issue is not a big deal. Its a possibility that a new version of Top Spin had been released months before that time comes. 2K is a big company and surely they have plans for their games.

It's a gigantic deal if you're not a subservient drone like a lot of gamers these days who will leap to defend game companies against their own self interest.

Man, why should I whin and complain like you, I am already satisfied with how this game was made or developed without being biased. Acceptance is one of the keys to hsppiness and constructive critism is always in my vocabulary.

[Mu'Ammar of Carthus]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von jesp8500:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Mu'Ammar of Carthus:

It's a gigantic deal if you're not a subservient drone like a lot of gamers these days who will leap to defend game companies against their own self interest.

Man, why should I whin and complain like you, I am already satisfied with how this game was made or developed without being biased. Acceptance is one of the keys to hsppiness and constructive critism is always in my vocabulary.

What you're saying is, you're basically on drugs right now but without having to actually take any substance.
That's not a good thing, however desperately you want to frame it that way.
I know they say ignorance is bliss, but you might be taking the adage a bit too far.

Also constructive criticism implies, you know, being even able to criticize, and not passively accept everything like companies are doing you a favor when they take your money and don't even give you the bare minimum in return.

[Mu'Ammar of Carthus]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Zeokage:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von gbuglyo:

It's bad practice to have such a short support for online functionality in a full-priced game.

Two variables in your answer, please allow me to pick your brain... So you would have been okay with it if the game was a different price?

Free is the only way it'd be okay.
Not even being able to play with a friend two years from now, without having to AGAIN talk them into paying for it again is a definite "never gonna buy this".

[jesp8500]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Mu'Ammar of Carthus:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von jesp8500:

Man, why should I whin and complain like you, I am already satisfied with how this game was made or developed without being biased. Acceptance is one of the keys to hsppiness and constructive critism is always in my vocabulary.

What you're saying is, you're basically on drugs right now but without having to actually take any substance.
That's not a good thing, however desperately you want to frame it that way.
I know they say ignorance is bliss, but you might be taking the adage a bit too far.

Also constructive criticism implies, you know, being even able to criticize, and not passively accept everything like companies are doing you a favor when they take your money and don't even give you the bare minimum in return.

We will never agreed with each other because we have different preferences. You may stay with what you beleive that will make you happy and I will stay with mine. What I can say is I have a lot of fun playing this game and you are free to choose what game will make you happy.

[MangorushZ]

This is why I stopped buying sports game. Hate this bad practice they pull.

[coates_0]

Honest question. Why does the single player mode for this game require a constant internet connection? That seem really short sighted and anti-consumer.

I'm currently playing a game that I bought on GOG back in 2019. The nice thing about that game is that it's single player mode (admittedly its a single player game) doesn't require an internet connection to work at all, so I can play now or 10 years from now.