Alright, the title is a bit contradictory, but wasn't sure what else to title this. Anyway, I'm curious on everyone here's opinion on this, especially those that know a bit of programming, economics, etc.
Imagine your favorite MMO was shutting it's servers down. Would you prefer it just shuts down and you're never able to play again, or that you get some version of offline play to keep all your data on and able to explore the world? There would be extremely limited you could do, since most MMOs require some sort of group aspect, as well as it'd probably be pretty bland with no one else.
However, if companies were to do this when shutting down games, do you think it would be good for their reputation? Or bad for it? How hard do you think it would be to implement a feature such as this? Do you think there's any other way to shut down a game while still allowing for a good experience? (dedicated servers maybe?), and how much of a hassle/cost any alternative ways would be.
What about if they were to make it LAN? So you can only play it with your friends, or of the sort. Again, do you think that would be too much hassle and money to implement if the game is already going down?
Now, I understand if the company is going to completely collapse because their servers are going down, they probably will want nothing of the sort since it won't help them in any way. But what about companies that are large, such as Blizzard, NCsoft, or even Square? Do you think it would attract more players towards their MMOs if they knew when the servers eventually shut down they'd be able to continue their playing experience?