Disintegration's Multiplayer Is Being Shut Down Just Three Months After Launch

It's always sad to see a game lose support like this. But honestly, I had to search my brain a bit to even remember this game when I heard this news.

Yikes. That's a shame. Would have been better if it was free to play imo.

From the moment this game was announced it sounded dumb. Not surprised by this at all.

Hmmm starting to get interested of it. Did somebody played that single player? Is it worth buying?

That's hilarious.

Damn that is a depressingly fast turnaround

The part in the parenthesis confused me a bit but I think I get it. Starting today (Sept 17th) the multiplayer will be shut down over phases, concluding on Nov 17th? That's a real shame. It's always hard to lose a portion of a game but so soon after release is just rough.

I thought this game wasn't even out yet.

Players should get a refund for that for whoever bought it. That's horrific.

@solocapers I'm with you there. Basically this is saying it would be perfectly acceptable to put a game up, take all the money from day 1 purchases, and turn it off the next day to cut your costs.
Don't tell EA.
There needs to be a minimum commitment and Sony need to involve themselves in situations like this.

Maybe I'm getting old (well I am old) but I have very little interest in online multilayer personally and professionaly. Unless your in the 10% for any developer or publisher it's a very significant time and financially risky road to take. I still belive single player is a far more sustainable business model.

That sucks, but it's no surprise. The game was soulless, from the very first trailer it was made fun of and ignored.

Does it have any multiplayer trophies?

@Robinsad yeah this is garbage. We are gonna end up with a situation where archiving legacy games will be impossible because of server shutdowns.

@darksoul77 Sony are pretty aware of this me thinks judging by their total domination last gen.

@Robinsad Mmm, no, that's not how it works at all. Let's say you bake a batch of cookies, and it costs let's say 10 dollars to make the batch of cookies. But then when you take the cookies to the weekly bake sale, only 2 cookies are bought for $2 each, to make a profit. That's $6 lost. So you're saying you should pile up the cookies, losing more and more money trying to sell the cookies, and whoops, your broke. The developers would have gone bankrupt, they're already bleeding money, closing down multiplayer was the best outcome.

@Arnna as much as I try to advocate for game preservation, this is the risk any developer has to take when they make online. Unless it's some immortal thing like WoW or league of legends, it won't be profitable to support the game for more than 10 or so years. It's easier to prolong an online game on PC, but that's only if it is wildly successful. Not many people played the game anyways, so what's the point of pouring money into it. GTA online is the only exception I can think of.

@GilbertXI your analogy does not work. In this case they are taking the cookies back from the customers who already bought them with no refund.

There should be a commitment required to release the game on PlayStation to support the game for 12 months minimum. Then that is just cost of developing the game. One of the ‘ingredients’ you have to pay for up front. If you can’t afford to make and release a multiplayer game then don’t. Just make a single player game.

@Robinsad the entire point of a free market is risk and reward, and in this case they took a risk and It failed. There'd be riots if they did any form of rule on it in any country with a democratic system. Actually I think it's illegal, although I'm not 100% sure on that. Its like buying and selling stock, a customer buys a game with multiplayer taking the risk that it might flop and lose its value reselling it if they wanted. That's the case with single player games as well, for example the dramatic price decrease on The Last of Us pt 2. Also I think giving refunds would drive them into bankruptcy even more than they already are. I'm just saying closing down multiplayer was the best case scenario possible for the company as a whole, regardless of whether it's scummy or not.

This is why development teams get funded or ask to be bought out, to make reward with less risk. I bet you dreams and last guardian would have been scrapped ages ago if they didn't get funding from Sony.

@GilbertXI riots for providing what you are selling? Riots for offering a guarantee? I actually think that is a basic expectation. If you want to release multiplayer then a year of hosting the game must be paid up front. That’s just a cost of business.
It’s far more likely to be illegal to sell something to someone and it not be as promised. Which is what this is.

@Robinsad Riots from the companies, not the people. You know the N64 floundered for these exact reasons? Harsh censorship and unfair rules Nintendo made that developers were forced to follow, and because everyone had a Nintendo system, they had no choice. Then the PlayStation came along with no rules like that and devs abandoned Nintendo immediately. These are peoples jobs were talking about, you think they wanted to close it down? You think they wanted to make no money? You think they wanted to flop? How could they know what was going to happen until it was on the market? And let's say they saw some sort of negative feedback when the trailer was shown, so they cancelled it, it still won't solve the problem you brought up, as there's the one person who pre-ordered it and felt cheated. V1 interactive is located on the Pacific Northwest, doesn't say whether it is Canada or the U.S. Doesn't matter, both of these countries have a mixed market system, meaning the government can intervene when there is a monopoly or some crap, but the rest of the marketplace is free. This means, again, a risk and reward system dictates the economy. Again, they took a risk, and failed. They literally could not support the project, and they probably wouldn't have made it to the 12 months anyways. They would have gone bankrupt, closed down after their first game, and a lot of people would have lost their jobs. They closed down multiplayer so they could focus whatever money they had left on a new project, starting the process over in the hopes of it going a different path towards profit this time. They had two options, what I just said or keep multiplayer going for the good of the few people that bought it. I doubt the player base would have stayed on after November anyways. They're both not viable options, but ceasing support of the multiplayer is the much lesser of two evils. This isn't about morals, this is capitalism. In a perfect world none of these issues would need to happen, whether at a small or large scale.