Slashdot Mirror
EA Cites MS Bullying, Says No Xbox Online Games
beggs writes: "It appears that Electronic Arts will not have any games for the new Xbox online service Microsoft is rolling out this week. In this article over at the Times, people close to the negotiations for the service say that Microsoft was "trying to force software publishers to offer their online games on data-serving computers controlled by Microsoft, a move that could potentially give Microsoft access to information about customers." In the end EA said it will work with Sony and the PS2 online service."
And there we were wondering why Microsoft were so prepared to back down and close their Hailstorm division. Who wants to bet that a good deal of the technology they were researching there shows up in their future gaming plans?
A little planning goes a long way...
No big loss.
A winner is you!
Is there any online games that are going to be MS only? I know PSO is coming to all platforms, and I doubt EQ (owned by Sony) will be on MS at all. Is there any killer online app for Xbox? I don't expect MS to launch this service without something special backing it up, but I haven't heard what that would be yet.
Who moderates the meta-moderators?
Don't let anyone get between you and your customers. Microsoft and EA both know this.
The fact that Sega and EA couldn't be friends is, IMO, one of the reasons the Dreamcast got killed. Don't underestimate the power of EA Sports's games (which are re-released with minor improvements every year, so sales for their "series" are always huge) and the multitude of developers that EA publishes for. This *could* mean trouble for M$. Sure, they're only mentioning online play but what's Slashdot without a little extrapolation?
I think this is more about aplying pressure to MS to change their terms. MS can;t afford to lose out in this market.
set mode(Nelson(Simpsons)==true)
point finger at Micro$oft.
Hah-Hah!
I really hope this is the beginning a trend. I am getting tired of marketing people trying to sell me a product with a 300 page legal agreement attached and a barely veiled threat that they will not like me or my company if I don't "Buy, sign, and then shut up and do what they say... or else."
It sounds like that was what M$ tried to do (again) but this time it backfired in their face.
I can only hope this is the lightening horizon of the dawn of an age where Mob-style business practices are met with swift justice.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
Once MS gets Dungeon Siege, Mech Warrior, Asheron's Call, Age of Empires, and Combat Flight Simulator networked.....they'll get all the geeks to buy XBoxen
if (ThisArticle.about()==Gaming) {
Sony.opinion(like);
Microsoft.opinion(hate);
}
elseif (ThisArticle.about()==Music) {
Sony.opinion(hate);
Microsoft.opinion(neutral);
}
else {
Sony.opinion(like);
Microsoft.opinion(hate);
}
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
Come on, everyone knows Microsoft is the most ethical company out there, they would *NEVER* steal a customer from anyone. God knows they're an industry leader in fair trade and low cost software products. Geez this article almost makes them sound like some sort of monopoly, which we all know is impossible.....
It seems to me like everytime a major game company gets pissed off with their platform manufacturer they go to sony.
Just hope their latest round of games dont mysteriously develop problems once WinXP SP1 is out.
In all seriousness though, I'm glad to hear that at least some company is sticking up to MS....would be funny if more followed suit.
Regardless of EA's motives, i think this is a Good Thing(tm) for people who plan on console gaming online
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
I've been sort of wondering when we're going to see an online Sports game where all the players on the opposing teams are controlled by real people. This is sort of the holy grail of sports video games... Virtual pick-up games.
Then it would be cool "tune-in" to games in progress. This might be good content for that 24 video games channel that was just launched. People from all parts of the world (within decent ping times of course) could form virtual teams, etc. Play in virtual tournaments, etc.
This could surpass real sports as we know them!
-Russ
Me
of the console wars, would EA be so fast to dismiss Microsoft?
I'm glad somone finally realized that they actually can do something about Mircrosoft. And it's especially good that someone puts them in their place now, rather than waiting five years till they have monopolized the game industry as well.
Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
EA is just as guilty of strong arming companies. Starting wayyy back with the Sega Genesis when they refused to pay lisence fees. A few years later they pretty much came out and said that they were going to kill the Dreamcast because Sega wouldn't meet thier demands. Now EA thinks it can make MS back down by saying "We arent gonna give you Madden 2003 online". Big deal. As if EA's evil servers are any better than Microsofts evil servers. This time, I'm on Microsoft's side.
D
The first, last, and only tech news site on the net
The good folks in Redmond just don't see, that you can apply bullying tactics only where you have a monoploy. They definitely don't have one in the console market (yet) and they desperately need partners here to ever be successful.
The problem nowadays is probably that Microsoft id a wholly untrustworthy company to partner with. Just ask all the companies that received the kiss of death.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Why does Slashdot always link to NY Times, a subscription site? I don't subscribe, so can't read it. A quick search on Google News is all it takes to throw up other links about this story:
Reuters
Reuters
Does Slashdot have a deal with NY Times?
..how paranoid companies / people dig their own grave. This just shows, that what they do themselves (stealing stuff), they fear others will do to them as well. What goes around, comes around.
:P
It's the true nature of things..I got a feeling Microsoft's demise is becoming more and more inevitable by the year. They'll fight to stop it, thus giving it more and more a place in their reality. Quite a spiritual truth, really
Where they planning on using passport for the XboX online? I would imagine so, it really pisses me off when I run in to a site that uses passport or even worse forces you to get a passport account. A good example is CNBC's website which now forces old accounts to "upgrade" to a passport account.
From the NYT Article:
"Microsoft executives said yesterday that they believed that they would be able to convince Electronic Arts that the Xbox online service would not constitute a threat to the customer base of Electronic Arts."
This sounds like the old "We'll make them an offer they can't refuse" from the 'Godfather' movies.
Watch the Teaser Trailer for "The Lightning Thief" Her
The stakes these companies are playing for are quite huge.
Whoever wins will be the FIFA/IOC (substitute world governing body of your choice) of the gaming industry.
win2k, linux... who cares. What will emerge is an online gaming platform (think direct x or OS of your choice) that games will eventually standardise on.
Whoever controls those servers, that platform will make the windoze licence to print money look like a game of monopoly. We are talking big bucks (tm) here.
My take, keep the OS/gaming platform open.
!!go bnetd go!!
Live today. Tomorrow will cost a lot more!
No big loss.
:)
eeh, EA is the worlds largest games publisher. Its actually the biggest fish you can lose as a gamehardware creator.
I agree that VisualConcepts are doing a GREAT job over at Sega Sports, ever since the Virtua Tennis on the dreamcast those guys have had nothing but my greatest respect. But, there are MUCH more to EA than EA Sports.
Im willing to bet gooood money that M$, is disliking the fact that they wont get no online sims.. just as an example
I can't see EA missing out on all the potential sales of their software from Xbox users. All twenty of them.
Ok, joking aside, MS have sold millions of these things so that's a fairly nice market for EA. Consider that it's reasonably easy to port a PC game to the XBox, EA will have a licence to print money. They know this, and they are trying to force MS to play their way. Fair enough really, this is business after all, and EA knows that MS needs big sports games, because these are huge sellers. MS can't afford to miss out on having such huge franchises as the NFL and FIFA games, not only for the licencing fees but the additional consoles these games sell.
Give it a few weeks, they'll kiss and make up...
"All your boxen are belong to us?"
:)
... I knew you could
And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour Isaiah 3:5
It seems like they won't be able to hold out from Microsoft forever, but I sure hope they do, becasue EA makes the greatest sports games, especially John Madden Football, and XBox will really be hurting without them.
~ now you know
The irony with Microsoft is that if they were less amenable to dirty tricks and actually showed some respect towards partners and customers they would be a much more popular company and possibly would not even be in court now.
On the other hand they would probably never have become the huge monopoly that they are if they didn't resort to dirty tricks.
This control freak syndrome exhibited by Microsoft in the EA story is so typical of Microsoft it seems not even worth mentioning or replying to. Although EA is no angel, it does give one a sort of evil satisfaction somewhere that Microsoft doesn't always win in their Everquest(;)) to win domination of the world.
Man I can feel the EA egos here and I no longer work in games development/live in Silicon Valley. But the EA producers and programmers I had met were very proud of the fact that they "Singlehandedly killed the Dreamcast." EA is in a lot of ways like the big record companies. Turning out the same old crap year after year then making threats and doing rash things when it doesn't get its way. The problem is there are so many console junkies that need to buy (Insert Franchise name here) (Insert next year's date here) who like lemmings drop their $50 for the latest not so great EA Sports title. I'm trying to think of the last EA produced game which did not have a number after the title... It's such a shame to see good concepts (notice I didn't say games :) like the Sims and Black and White be controlled by EA, and it makes one wonder if this announcement will also include third party developed games distributed by EA. It would be a shame to see devolpers like Will Wright or Peter Molyneux handcuffed because EA management doesn't like what Microsoft said, and so won't play fully in the XBox Sandbox.
Slashdot needs a new Mod options: Sarcasm.
No, really.
think $9.99 per month
Multiply this by number of users out there.
Add all the other services you can leverage off this. Its about interactive entertainment, which at the moment translates to online gaming, but in the future....
Think music downloads. Think movies. Think. Just Think.
This about more than gaming.
Live today. Tomorrow will cost a lot more!
Finally someone has started to look at the historical implications of cooperating with Microsoft. If any one console wins a monopoly, it is bad news for the game developers, since the monopolist will be able to charge lots of dough for development tools. That would probably mean more expensive games for us.
I wouldn't even be surprised to see Sony and Nintendo coordinating attacks on Microsoft if XBox starts to gain too much momentum.
The current chemistry works nicely. Why change it?
Stop the brainwash
and Nintendo was quite popular in the USA with the NES and SNES.
I understand EA not wanting to lessen the value of their own game servers. I also see MS desire to make as much $ as possible on their console business. Seems like a dead lock.
EA is taking the upperhand because they have it. MS can always throw the trump card and buy their a$$.
....... Thus ends my attempt at wit or whatever
Just a wild day dream before the morning coffee kicks in.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Did anyone expect that MicroSoft was going to all of a sudden become this nice company that plays fairly and looks out for the good of the consumer? MicroSoft is a monopolist, plain and simple. They will always try to control through predatory tactics any market they decide to enter. I hope that several more game developers begin to jump off of the X Box ship. Either way, price cut or no, I wouldn't buy an X Box.
Microsoft CAN survive without EA, but the problem will become more widespread than just "We don't have 'MLB 2008' on our console." A large part of the console consumer base consists of that group of people who buy a console solely for playing "NHL 2009" and "NBA 8003."
The problems for Microsoft increase when this consumer base goes into EB and says, "I want an X-Box and Madden 3007." The sales rep. will reply, "Sorry, no Madden for you." Now this entire group of consumers will buy a Gamecube or PS2. That causes Microsoft to lose sales on consoles and, more importantly, all the other non-EA games that this potential consumer would have bought.
Sony and Nintendo are big boys, Microsoft. Don't try to take their popsicle.
While EA does hold a lot of clout in the gaming world I truly believe that they want to develop online games for the Xbox and this is simply a flexing of muscles tactic. The Xbox is the only console out of the 3 main competitors that has broadband right out of the box. Sony's console will cost gamers an additional $150-200 USD to bring their machines up to online gaming spec, and Nintendo continues to be somewhat wishy-washy on their online plans( if they plan on offering anything at all ). The Xbox was built from the ground up with online gaming in mind. M$ knew this was where the real future money is going to be and so does EA. While the news release that EA's stance has changed that will no doubt show up in a few weeks will likely not get as much coverage as an anti M$ related release, it will happen. There's simply too much money to be made for EA to stonewall Microsoft as well as repeat and future EA customers. Of course I could be wrong. If I am, I'll just have to play Sega's NHL2k3 online instead. No more money for EA from me. Their loss. Jackson Ash
That Microsoft is still trying to bully people, when they're smack dab in the middle of an anti-trust case?
And beyond that, they're attempting to brow beat one of the biggest names in computer games. It's just assinine to do that. They're the last people on earth that they should be attempting to "strong arm." These are the people you PARTNER with to see your game platform thrive.
- Sighuh?
Well, I don't think MS are in the wrong with this. If you make a product, and produce a license scheme, you should be able to make it however you want.
If MS want licensee's and online gaming providers to use Microsoft platforms with their Microsoft product, I think that's fair enough.
It's about time people realized that if a company (or an individual) writes a piece of software, they're allowed to pretty much do what they want with it. I know for sure that if I made a particular product to use a particular O/S, if I had a license scheme I wouldn't want other O/S's getting involved.
My 2c.
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story..."
All of the games will use a common "Instant Messenger" (if you will) app that will allow you to find and talk to you friends no matter the game they are currently playing. This common app will also allow for voice morphing, ladders, chat rooms, etc.,. which will all be central to the online components of the games.
Frankly, I don't see this as a bad thing as MS will have to make sure that everything runs smoothly, there is enough bandwidth, low enough pings, etc.,. since everyone is running through their farm. I also believe they want to handle the monthly payments from the customers for all of the games personally, which is again a good idea as I sure don't want to pay $2.50 a month to Epic for Unreal Tournment, $2.50 a month to whomever for that MMORPG, $2.50 a month to another publisher for my online football game plus $2.50 a month to MS for hosting the whole mess.
'He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot.' - Douglas Adams
Sorry to post again just after my other post but I forgot to add what is perhaps the most striking thing about this story: The fact that EA publicly informed the press of Microsoft's attempt's to control the server side of the equation. While it obvious why Microsoft is doing this - a public posing platform for it's hailstorm and .Net strategy , which hasn't been so successful as of late - it is fairly rare that anyone who has business dealings with Microsoft has the courage to go public about it. A lot of companies have simply been too frightened of Microsoft retaliation. I know that EA is far less dependant on Microsoft than most software companies, which perhaps explains the move, but given the current wave of shedding light on Microsoft's practices, it seems that it is a good method to avoid Microsoft retaliating, since Microsoft has had an enormous amount of bad press lately, is publicity shy when it comes to having it's dealings exposed and knows full well that negative news events like this *do* affect both other game developers who feel strengthened in their dealings with MS and the general public who normally doesn't care much whether Microsoft is a monopoly or not but defintely does react when seeing negative news about a company in the mainstream media (i.e."I don't think I'll go for an XBox, no one makes games for it" sort of thing).
EA is to games what MS is to operating systems. Most are crap, you have a new version every year (that looks just like last year's, with slightly differennt menus), but they control the market. Like MS, they buy out the competition just to kill them (ex., Origin, Bullfrog, etc.) and release their products based on commercial reasons, whether the software is finished or not.
In other words, they could be long lost brothers, or perhaps clones that grew up in different towns.
That said, this is a major blow for MS. EA controls a lot of games and a lot of different studios, and the X-Box's problem is precisely the lack of software. This may force MS to "speed up" the development of their games, possibly falling into the same traps as EA often does (buggy, unbalanced, unfinished games). And if PC gamers are fairly forgiving of that, console games expect the games to work right the first time.
This could be an opportunity for Infogrames, but I don't think they get along with MS very well, either (does anyone?).
RMN
~~~
If one were to follow your logic, one wold still come to the same conclusion. EA is the one writing the software (games and their own server infrastructure), not Microsoft.
... or does anyone else find it spooky that my Windows Critical Updates kicked in just as I started to read these threads?
:)
Dum da dum dum.
The more you tighten your grip, the more companies will slip through your fingers.
Looks like this is, finally, starting to happen to Microsoft.
I make a habit of reading Yahoo!'s Reuters provided news spools before hitting Slashdot each morning. I saw the same article there -- but there was no mention whatsoever of WHY Electronic Arts was turning down Microsoft.
Then here we have the NYT article and it's got not just one but multiple quotes slamming Microsoft's policy regarding online game servers. I wonder why one media source covered that angle and others didn't?
Of course, since I don't wanna scream conspiracy without screaming it from two directions, it could either be because Microsoft leaned on Rueters not to report that bit, or because NYT was digging for any dirt they could blow out of proportion in order to make it look like they were scooping their rivals. Who knows?
Either way, consolidating servers like Microsoft is proposing is the same My Way Or The Highway tactics that nearly crushed Nintendo in the last generation of the console wars. Guess they didn't learn.
Butterfly.net and IBM unvailed a gaming Grid build on Open Source software and IBM infrastructure. They claim the Grid can handle up to one million concurrent gamers. I don't see any mention of specifick games out there nor any mention of pricing. You can read the press releases from Butterfly.net, Infoworld and CNNalso vovered the story. And the toolkid can be obtained here if you want to get a headstart.
I wonder if Sega will use this to their advantage - releasing NFL 2k3 for all three consoles and having online support for all three.
Personally, I don't think XBox owners will be too upset by this - last I heard, NFL Fever 2002 and NFL 2k2 sold a lot better than Madden NFL 2002 (in the XBox world), and both of those will have online support in ther next releases (2k3 and Fever 2003).
I am Slad.
All I have to say is...
hahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha!
EA ia a powerhouse of a company and for them to stand up against M$ is great news for all of us.
The last console I had was an Atari 2600. Now, I have a 1.4 GHz Athlon, a cable modem, and a copy of RTCW. XBox? Nope.
The summary left out a few key reasons why EA disagreed with MS. The first reason is that EA already has already invested millions in developing its own data centre for online gaming and it doesn't want to both waste efforts it has already spent in this area, and have to support two online gaming infrastructures.
Additionally, the article doesn't mention that EA will not support MS' online gaming infrastructure, it will just not produce any games for it this year and will instead focus on PS2's which allows EA to use its own infrastructure.
-?-
...how does it feel to be told "Go F yourself, we don't need you" by a vendor who then promptly goes and works with a competitor that you can't crush with your boot heel?
I can feel the soon-to-be-damning-when-revealed-in-open-court e-mails flying already.... saying "XP SP1 isn't done, until EA games for Windows won't run."
~Philly
It's only a game.
So much for playing nice.
For them to say "We have a problem with Microsoft and have decided to stick with Sony" is like hearing Rob Malda say "We have a problem with Microsoft and have decided to stick with Linux or OS X"
Boooooriiiing.
Don't underestimate the power of EA Sports's games (which are re-released with minor improvements every year, so sales for their "series" are always huge) and the multitude of developers that EA publishes for. This *could* mean trouble for M$.
Which is ironic, because Microsoft's own OS development follows almost exactly the same strategy.
Re: your software licenses
Are you sure you guys are paid up? Even for the intern machine in the corner that you threw together real quick? I guess we'll find out...
Love,
Bill
and the subscriptions costs you.... nothing.
Nothing... except a small bit of your personal information which they will use depending on which way their "Privacy Policy" wind blows. Not that such a thing may bother you, but the service is most definately not free.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
You made some interesting points in your post.
...and more than 60 other games, if you don't like any of the above.
- Microsoft has no worthwile games for the Xbox.
Really? Lets see...
-Dead or Alive 3 [Exclusive]
-Max Payne
-Jet Set Radio Future [Exclusive]
-Project Gotham Racing [Exclusive]
-Halo [Exclusive]
-Tony Hawk 3
-Rallisport Challenge [Exclusive]
- Halo is ok.
It seems like you are contradicting your first point here...
- Microsoft reduced the price of the Xbox.
Yes, Microsoft reduced the price of the xbox. Sony reduced the price of the Playstation 2, and it ir rumored that the Gamecube is going to drop as well. What was your point again?
- Microsoft still has no games for the Xbox.
See my response to point one.
- A game company made an announcement that they will not develop games for the Xbox.
Thank you for restating what you thought the article was about. Unfortunately, you either didn't read it, or you didn't understand it. EA did not say they weren't going to make games for the Xbox. They said they were not going to support their online service. There is quite a big difference between the two.
I can feel the karma burn coming on, but I don't care. While I have dutifully read through all the posts, no one seems to have truly pointed out why MS and EA would be in disagreement on this issue. No, it's not "obvious" that MS is just doing this to plug Hailstorm and My Services - I think MS got a pretty clear message that companies are not interested in storing their private data on MS's servers given their track record on security.
However, for anyone that has followed MS's Xbox online vision, the reason why they want everyone on the same servers is clear. One of the biggest selling points of the service (since getting ahead in a highly competitive field like games is all about differentiation) is that users will be able to switch between games on the fly if they already own those games. So I'm playing Halo, someone on my buddy list signs on and wants to play Tony Hawk, and I can get notified of it while playing Halo.
While I can see that scheme happening with servers being hosted by different companies simply by using a common protocol of some sort, I would think that this would be very difficult to implement when you're talking about many vendors and many hosting facilities. I think MS wants to really control the positive user experience on the Xbox and they know that if EA's servers suck, people (including most of us on here) are going to blame MS, not the actual game vendor.
A secondary reason is combined billing. I'm not sure if I'm in the minority, but I've never paid for an online game, I think it's a waste of money. If I already paid $50 for a game, I don't want to pay $10 each month to keep playing it. Diablo, etc. which were playable online for free were always a much better choice for me. Yet I'm considering Xbox Live (online service) when it gets started. Why? B/c I think this sounds like a better deal, where I'm going to be able to pay a flat fee for multiple games that I can play online, instead of $10/month to this company, $15 to another, and so on. Now sure that means that my billing information belongs to one place, MS, and that will potentially worry me. But I think I'd rather have one company to worry about, once again, than 5 different ones all having my credit card number. But that's just me.
EA might not be happy with that idea, and wants to get its own monthly fee, but of course publicly they're going to say that they're just out to protect their customer's data. In reality, it's just business I think, let's not jus take sides automatically.
Please subscribe to see the more insightful version of th
No kidding ... some people can't think outside of their nerdbox.
And no decent games for the PS2 at the moment and not much on the Gamecube line-up neither(well, nothing to compell me to fork up for one).
I'll just have to make-do with Shenmue2 on my DC, GTA3 on my PS2 and Perfect Dark on my N64 for the time being.
These are lean times my friends, finish your boiled cabbage, hopefully there is trifle just around the corner...
From my Autobiography - "Lifestyles of the Sad and Desperate"...
What MS needs is a bigger piece of the pie over in Japan. As of right now, the X-Box is basically a N64 with even less Japanese support. Sports games aren't gonna win over Japan. It's like that Simpson's episode where all the signs and giant billboard things come to life. If you remember the way that got rid of them was not looking at them and ignoring them. This is what the Japanese are doing to MS over there.
Graphical update to DOA 2 on Dreamcast and PS2
-Jet Set Radio Future [Exclusive]
Sequel/update to Jet Set Radio on the Dreamcast.
Halo, Project Gotham Racing and Rallisport Challenge aren't much more than new incarnatiuons of old formulas.
At least the other consoles get original stuff like Rez (DC, PS2) and Super Monkey Ball(Gamecube).
Microsoft's history is what damns them. They have been doing things like this for decades.....all the way back to CP/M and DR-DOS. So when something comes up, even if it is questionable, Microsoft has given people no reason to not asssume the worst about them. -Tom
Heck, I might have to re-read it and review it for Slashdot b/c it seems oddly relevant to the Microsoft issues now.
Amazing magic tricks
not hah hah.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
My favorite games are RPG's and this basically what I play on the console. I won't buy an X-Box unless I see some must have ones on there. Morrowind isn't gonna do it, I already have it for my PC. Gamecube has pretty much assured itself it will have some by working with Square and Playstation2 already has a lot, though not all great. RPG's aren't the only games that come out of Japan, but they are still important. Also, Japanese gamers aren't gonna buy an X-Box to play American RPGs if they wanted to do that they would get a PC.
--is not to be confused with user #672982 - Bame Flait
No help from EA.
Gates must find a new lackey
to fill database.
Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
I seem to remember buying a lot of EA titles when I had a C64 / Amiga 500 (sob, my C64 committed suicide tragically, and I had to sell the A500 to pay my way through college).
Can't give you any examples mind you.
Haven't bought an EA title in years, apart from the recent James Bond game which was a vast waste of money on unimaginitive crap (I felt as if the game was leading me round by the nose).
EA to EB (Electronics Boutique - trade in) in less than 24 hrs.
If they were to write a real James Bond game, most of the 'levels' would involve trying to look suave and sophisticated and the rest would be an online version of 'how to chat up women' (anybody got one, by the way?). It'd be 1% action.
It'd probably play a bit like 'Breakdance' on the C64...
From my Autobiography - "Lifestyles of the Sad and Desperate"...
Just as a curiousity
:-)
Making a checklist of the errors M$ has made over the last year, it seems like, finally, the consumer and other companies are fighting back.
for example:
MS threatens schoolboards - Schoolboards begin to seriously consider Linux
MS threatens XBox Online games - Companies refuse to produce games for XBox Online
MS threatens...
and you get the point....
It seems that MS is not able to threaten much anymore... or at least they don't have the push that they used to. (Which is a very good thing.
Just my 2c
.....Marvin Mouse.....
(Math, CS, Physics, Psychology Undergrad)
~ kjrose
"Nintendo continues to be somewhat wishy-washy on their online plans( if they plan on offering anything at all )"
.
Nintendo has pretty much announced their online plans already. IIRC, it is going to include release of the broadband adaptor and modem adaptor for $35 each. I'm not certain of this either, but the press release describing Nintendo's plan seems to imply that they will be letting the game developers use their (the developer's, that is) own server to run the games, royalty free. For more, check out sights like cube.ign.com and www.planetgamecube.com
BlackGriffen
its:
Microsoft.opinion(hate);
if (ThisArticle.about()==Gaming) {
Sony.opinion(like);
}
elseif (ThisArticle.about()==Music) {
Sony.opinion(hate);
}
else {
Sony.opinion(like);
}
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It's not like Microsoft using Windows to go after DrDos or using "secret" API to make MS-Office more integrated than WordPerfect, neither can Microsoft scare them by giving their concurent better deal like they can do with the OEM agreements to keep Dell, HP and Gateway in line...
Microsoft can't do a thing about EA, and EA as clearly stated they are going with PS2 (ie. they don't believe X-Box will win the console war) so I believe that by putting this statement out, they are only making the PS2 stronger which is good for them. EA would not make such a statement if it was not in their interrest to do so...
Black holes occur when God divides by zero.
I suppose it depends on what you call a "killer app". I think it is an application awfully desired by the user which leads him to adopt a system just to use that app. A killer app cant possibly be a game which offers nothing radically new to anyone not already interested in online gaming.
Anyway, in this case you must consider that online gaming caters to a much smaller audience than the whole of the computer users, so even if AoE2 has gotten a place in online gaming, its not going to boost Micro$oft's revenue beyond the expected for a game.
(Of course you get to kill a lot in the game, but Micro$oft already makes me feel like a killer everytime I use M$ Oriffice.)
Enoc
Dam it... I'm tired of over priced video games and the war that wages behind them. Why doesn't someone make an open source console??? Then MS can go F then selves
because unlike software, it takes lots of money to do such a thing, and there is no incentive when your main goal is to make money..
For playing against friends and co-workers it would be fine, possibly even excellent. Having tried a few times at zone.com, though, it blows. It appears that the definition of "relative newbie" is where they have about 1000 hours of online gameplay behind them. And in four games in a row, a single player scuttled the game.
No flame intended, but license schemes are contractual agreements. And as with any contract, all parties have equal rights to opt _not_ to agree with a set of terms they find unreasonable. If they don't like them, they don't have to accept them.
That's how business works. If one party is foolish, and agrees to unfavorable terms, they hurt themself.
It's bad business practice for someone to effectively give a competitor (and M$ competes _directly_ against EA in that they also write games) a gun to hold to his/her head. If EA accepts being forced onto M$ server platform they will, like everyone else who's allowed M$ a critical advantage, set themselves up to be assimilated or eliminated.
If EA moves to M$ servers they will have to adopt M$ own coding standards and APIs for both client (on Xbox) AND for server-side code. They would become dependent upon code they have no control over (for the server itself) and would then give M$ a very significant advantage.
M$ could then bring to bear the anti-competive tactics that have landed them repeatedly in court and establish yet another area in which they have monopoly power because they would hold most of the cards. EA would become 'just another' (albeit a very large and somewhat influential) M$ development shop.
Progressivly, M$ would leverage this arrangement and continue to stipulate new, more restrictive 'license terms' for each (annual) license renewal, making it progressively harder for EA to write games that perform as well for Sony or SEGA except by spending more and more money to do so.
Over time, decreased ROI due to rising development costs (on both Xbox and non-Xbox platforms) would become significant enough to force EA to either reduce the number of platforms for which they develop (after having entered into an agreement to use M$ server-side), or to accept losses in order to continue parallel development for other systems. Cost to change to a non-M$ platform would be sufficiently expensive that it would become financially imfeasible to move away from M$, leaving EA at M$ mercy, and making it overwhelmingly likely that SEGA or Sony would be the platform dropped.
Alternatively, performance on non-Xbox systems would be sufficiently poorer (due to 'undocumented coding features' or 'non-optimization' for non-Xbox hardware) that consumer choice would shift to Xbox, allowing an alternate path for M$ to establish their domination of yet another market.
If you examine M$ business model, these tactics have been repeatedly demonstrated. Look at the progression to OS dominance, Office Suite dominance, or Client/Server dominance, and M$ tactics to subvert open standards to their own ends (HTML, JAVA, CHIRP, to name only a few). Or look at their current attacks on MPEG standards, trying to force everyone away from them to WMA and AVI formats and to M$ media streaming servers.
It's not superior products that give M$ dominance. (Even in areas where they may produce quality products.) It is aggresive and anti-competitive tactics.
Those are my observations (from the last 18 years or 20 years) anyway. You may interpret it differently...
(JMHO)
I'll take NFL Fever or 2K2 over Madden any day of the week.
To be completely honest, I'm glad this happened (to a point). Now Microsoft will really have to work on Sega to get their sports games online.
Microsoft is Evil, but not stupid... they don't have the market share to start bullying developers and, in fact, they've been exceedingly friendly (in that crack-dealer-to-first-time-user sense) to anyone even remotely interested in developing for the XBox. If you're an Indy developer, just try getting a dev kit for a PS2 or a Gamecube. It will not happen. It makes no sense to then turn around and alienate developers with a hard-ass stance for the online network.
Pretend you're an EA marketing droid, what sounds better:
That one's already covered :)
This is exactly right.
Microsoft has the right idea when it comes to the online play... ONE bill, ALL online games.
**ducks as anti-microsoft zealots swoop in to take off his head**
Just buy one, you douchebags. xbox is better. Just play.
...yoda was writing story headlines for /.
I mean, I know they've done some particularly ugly things, but the allegation that Microsoft is trying to shave dollars by screwing "partners" is really
" a move that could potentially give Microsoft access to information about customers"
isn't supported by the article. Have we gotten to the point that anything Microsoft does is immediately viewed with Fear And Loathing?
I think I've got bigger things to worry about these days. Besides, not like anybody really cares, right?
To call what Nintendo is doing a "plan" is getting a little loose with the language. Essentially they are saying "We'll make the modem, but you third parties will need to create your own network and subscription model. Oh, and we don't think this online gaming thing is going to be very popular.". When you consider that there is hardly *any* third party support, how is Nintendo going to make this a success by pushing the responsibility onto the third-parities! Of course, perhaps Nintendo the wisest of the three companies -- how many failed peripherals did Nintendo introduce before finally getting the hint?
As far as EA, I'd say that it does indeed sound like negotiation. Microsoft will probably be more willing to cave-in simply to shut them up.
since day one M$ has said they want authentication from their servers first with developers going crazy over that decision.
Another nail in the XBox coffin, is that they did not want their online games being compatible with PC's for fear that the PCside may infect the Xbox with a virus.
As if we don't know what kind of game plan Microsoft has in mind.
Way back in the OLD DAYS, yeah, that old-'n-rusty days of BBS, the BoardWatch magazine came up with the now famous "Bill - The Droid" poster.
Care to guess what's the slogan was / is ?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Is Nintendo getting cold feet due to the cost of add-ons? They are saying "Fuck you" to SEGA and Sonic Team due to draggin' their feet on the network. What a bunch of crap!
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Maybe, maybe, the SIMS might have a chance...but I hear that EA.com refugees have taken over Maxis.
EA sucks at online because online is about content and technology, things that EA executives do not understand. Normal EA SOP is all about politics, and the rise and fall of EA.com is a story of how reality trumps politics. Notice how all those EA.com stock options were quietly converted BACK to EA stock? Someone should write a book.
2. Microsoft wants to control the backend for selfish reasons, but not the ones that you think. Most console users are not very bright, not very technologically gifted, and very impatient with things that don't "work". That is why the console industry does not tolerate bugs, and spends so much effort on user interface and accessability. Console games are not simpler than PC games, but their interfaces ARE. Sony is going the "have at it, boys" route for online, and with some exceptions, most of them will have a hard time shoe-horning online connection issues and interfaces into the expectations of the consumers. All it takes for a online console title to fail is one EGM reviewer being unable to connect.
Add to that the fact that each publisher will have it's own billing, the fact that users are using modems, and that Sony will have little or no control of the problems after ship (how are they going to enforce publisher server quality?), there are a lot of problems with this approach. They only good thing that can be said about this is that the publisher can make more money, and that is probably what is motivating EA.
Microsoft is attempting to work around that problem by providing the interfaces and services needed for the clients to connect. Then, when a game passes testing, and the user has got the broadband working on the client side, they have a much higher chance of having a seemless, usable, EASY interface to online gaming. And if they have a problem, they CAN hold Microsoft accountable, and Microsoft has the means (and maybe even the will) to fix the problems.
If the user base can learn to trust this, then in the end, Microsoft might have a better chance of winning.
So bottom line: MS wants a clean way to make console online games so users can trust them, but their method makes less money for the publishers. EA is in it for the money, and they have serveral ex-EA.com people looking for places to land, and creating back end for Madden 2004 is a nice spot from which to watch the otions vest. And again, they have probably convinced the EA execs (again) that they know what they are doing. Poor Larry.
Donut
ps. I am agnostic. If the clients want Xbox, PS2, Gamecube, PC, GBA, or C64, I don't care, as long as the check clears.
Because as we all know, 2nd place is the 1st loser.
I've been saying since E3 and TGS last year that the X-Box was going to end up finishing 3rd this year, maybe even 4th if the GBA was categorized as a console. Why? It's got no game(s)!
I looked at the lineup at the XBox booths at both venues and noticed no originality at all. All the games they had were either sequels lifted from other consoles, racing games, really pathetic fighting games, or Halo.
While GameCube had a pathetic start out of the gate, its lower price, and titles which actually had a following (I know several people who picked up a GC to play Resident Evil...how many people picked up an XBox to get Munch's?) Microsoft is hurting in a big way this round.
The gaming industry has never been able to support 3 consoles. Look at all the times in history when there was any console besides Sony and Nintendo. They died off. Then when Sony entered, they beat Sony and Nintendo at their own game, Nintendo not stepping up to CD fast enough, Sega not getting the premier titles.
Then the DC died off. It was inenvitable. The majority of the gaming populace is either high school or college students. No college student is going to be happy about forking out $1,000 in just consoles and controllers in the span of a year. No parent's going to plunk down that same amount of money at Christmastime.
With the initial deployment of 250,000 units still not being sold out in stores in Japan (you can still buy the "limited edition" units in stores.) and still no good games looming on the horizon, Microsoft may as well pack it in this round, and start preparing to launch its next-generation Home PC...oh I mean coffee table...sorry, game console. Microsoft HAS to finish at least 2nd with XBox 2, or it's over.
Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
I recall reading a while ago how Sony being easy to work with while Nintendo was being difficult was the main reason behind so many developers backing the Playstation. We all know how Nintendo has lost most of the main console market. This looks like more of the same, except that MS makes Nintendo look nice.
The Xbox is a totally closed system. Nothing goes on there unless MS knows it won't mess up the system. Same thing with being online - they don't want some non-MS company's servers to put data on the Xbox that they can't certify. Imagine how tick'd I would be if EA caused my excellently scored runs on Project Gotham to be erased?
I also agree that the single, unified service for online play has a LOT of benefits that other folks have listed here.
The real story is that MS wants to charge a fixed fee to customers, $10/month for access to all the online games. EA on the other hand wants to charge a monthly fee per game and they also want to have the users use there own online services. So no thanks, I've been boycotting EA since March. I bought the NHL 2002 last october, and guess what? There online service hardly ever works. It's slow, it crashes and when you do get in, you won't find many people to play with because they have already given up on it. I've been able to play like 4 matches online since october. You get the idea.
And there support, oh boy don't get me started on that one.
Seriously, this just may be the end of the xbox, and is a major blow to M$ as a whole. Why? Because it removes what another poster has mentioned, the "invulnerability myth". No more bullying people around without the risk of backfire, billy.
And since M$ can't compete on a level playing field, the xbox just got shafted. Not that I'd shed a tear.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
They have also confirmed another game is in the works with no timeframe and platform announced. Be assured Microsoft development houses will be focused on making exclusive Xbox games to push the console, like Bungie.
Oh, and Apple's creation of the first sexy server.
Silicon Graphics did that a decade or more ago. Short memories...
Comic Book Guy to Prof Frink: "Ooh a sarcasm detector, that'sa real useful invention!"
Detector overloads & explodes
Burma?
Ah yes! Good call!
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
I'm afraid that I don't share your optimism. During the last year I recall Microsoft getting mention in the national news (on or publicly (non-commercially) funded TV-station) on 3 different occasions.
So I'm afraid that all this bad PR never reach the mainstream.
Some of my (technical) friends and fellow students (of computer science) are even pro Microsoft, and probably find me rather fanatic.