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...
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$. Sure, they're only mentioning online play but what's Slashdot without a little extrapolation?
set mode(Nelson(Simpsons)==true)
point finger at Micro$oft.
Hah-Hah!
To each their own, I guess...
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
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.
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
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?
I can't understand exactly how - they've used the same code base for their sports titles for the last 8 years.
A winner is you!
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.
Uh, don't all the geeks who would play these already have PCs? Why would they need an Xbox? And if you think playing an FPS without a mouse is hard, try playing an RTS like AoE without one.
It's this kind of thinking on the part of MS management and Xbox advocates that will kill the system. Yes, Xbox is easy to port PC games from. However, those same PC games were not designed for a console. They were not designed for a console controller, and they were not designed for TV screen resolutions. Yet by most accounts, they will make up the bulk of the Xbox library. Yes, console gamers will love getting PC games they've always wanted to play but could not afford a PC to do so. But they will hate the poor gaming experience of playing them on a platform not suited for them.
I've built up so much character I have an alter-ego
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 agree, I've been a big fan of the NBA 2K series and it is by far the best basketball series ever made. I was so addicted to the original NBA 2K 2 years ago that I had to sell my dreamcast to a friend. Luckily, I bought back from him last fall with 10 games included for $40 bucks ;)
The issue isn't who server's better than who's. EA doesn't want their customer's data, and their server code running on a server that Microsoft has access to.
-Bucky
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
and Sega's sports games... absolutely KILL EA's sports series.
While you may believe this, I believe this is actually what killed the Dreamcast. People have grown up with EA's sports title. NHL Hockey and Madden Football are probably the two most notables. I know quite a few people that were getting Madden when they first got their PS2 and Game Cube. If the online versions start to take off (and they most likely will), coupled with the lack of triple-A titles for the XBox, these could be the key ingredients in the death of the Microsoft console business.
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.
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
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"
Uh, they're already networked, for the PC.
Why, pray tell, should I give MS $300 more to play these games on the Xbox, when I can play them networked NOW for the cost of the Win98 I bought for games oh so long ago.
I'll answer for you, there's not a single reason. With a few notable exceptions, all the games Microsoft has brought out for the Xbox are PC ports, hired sequels to Dreamcast games, or games that get released for all platforms (like sports games).
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?
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
~~~
A company shows some integrity by trying to protect it's customers and you ask "why should they care"? The appropriate response should be "thank you!". We complain every day about companies that don't respect their customers, and run said companies with apparent abandon, only eyeing the almighty dollar as the goal. That's contagious and habit forming. The next concession to the companies integrity is that much easier and the customer is the one that ultimately pays the price. It's decisions like this one by Sony that move to gain the respect of their customers. That's the best business move you can make, and will garner more of that dollar goal in the long term from those customers.
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.
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.
I generally eschew EA games. It take alot for me to plunk down my increasingly limited gaming budget down for one of their games, when they are such a strongarming company.
That said, I'm glad they are taking this stand, and I hope they follow suit and kill the Xbox as well. The Xbox deserves to die just as the Dreamcast did. Still won't buy any EA games, but I will applaud any effort that helps the Xbox down the shitter. Call it vengeance and you'd be correct. Microsoft thinks they can do whatever they want, wherever they want. I find it certainly amusing that they are being taught a lesson, and hopefully driven out of the console business. No, EA isn't a saint, but I have no problem with two devils locking horns, and the greater devil losing the fight. EA just does games. MS wants their fingers in everything. IN the end, it's more important that they be brought down. EA's time will come.
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.
...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
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.
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.
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
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
Yeah. Great idea, Einstein.
- Have a picture
not hah hah.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
One serious question is the fact that MS has competing sports products, NFL Fever and NBA Inside Drive. Now if you are creating servers for your online games, do you really want to give control to a competing company? I'd be willing to bet MS makes considerably more on their first party games than it does on third party licensees, so with the xbox online network, you have both the means, and the motive from microsoft to screw over EA. I'm not saying that it would occur, just that it is possible.
"My head hurts, My feet stink, and I dont love Jesus." -Jimmy Buffett
"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.
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.
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:
However, those same PC games were not designed for a console. They were not designed for a console controller, and they were not designed for TV screen resolutions. Yet by most accounts, they will make up the bulk of the Xbox library.
Could you please give us some data regarding your claim? Most XBox games are games designed for a Console, not a PC. Even "PC Ports" like Ghost Recon have been redesigned to meet more of the console library. Really, can you sit down with 2-4 friends and play a fighting game like DOA3 or Mortal Kombat on your PC? These are the types of games that make up the bulk of the XBox library - games designed for the XBox or multiplatform consoles. Sure, games like AOE are kinda silly for those who have PC's already, but games like Brute Force are extremely unique and are going to be great fun online.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
That one's already covered :)
...yoda was writing story headlines for /.
Why, pray tell, should I give MS $300
It's $200 nowWith a few notable exceptions, all the games Microsoft has brought out for the Xbox are PC ports
Anyone can believe what they want to believe, but if you actually looked at the game library, you couldn't honestly make this statement. Also, some of the DC games like JSRF are great games, so I don't see how this is a bad thing.
I agree that I can play AOE II or Warcraft III on my PC networked already, so why would I want this on my XBox? What I can't do on my PC is sit down with 3 or 4 friends in my living room and team up against a bunch of people across the street (or even the country).
If I had limited funds, a PC is the way to go. However, consoles (including networked consoles)add a social element that is really fun.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
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.
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 !
I am sorry but when a CORPORATION, in business to make money does something that doesn't overtly make them money I get suspicious. If you honestly believe that Sony is concerned about 'integrity' and 'respect' over 'bottom-line' and 'profit' then more power too you, but I don't. I think that behind this little PR war you will find a PROFIT motive for both companies, and BOTH will be at our, the consumers expense, in $$'s and privacy.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
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)
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
For those of us that aren't really into sports games, and thus have very little experience with Electronic Arts, how are EA's practices "about as bad as Microsoft's"? I've never heard many negative things about them, but then again, sports games are probably the only genre of video game that I really don't touch.
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
Not to mention NHL 2002, using there online matchup services is a nightmare.
EA's strategy looks more like software licenses. You'll have to pay a monthly fee for each game you play online. XBox's plan is to have you pay a fixed monthly fee of $10 for whatever amount of games you have.
So are you saying that when EA and Sony take a position which is in the interest of their customers and is diametrically opposed to Microsoft's position that they are only doing it out of profit motive?
That is probably at least partially right. After all why should they help to Xbox in its efforts to become a success? EA competes with Microsoft in the game software arena and Sony in the game hardware arena.
But why disparage what they are doing when they are on the right side? You should give them a pat on the back for doing the right thing regardless of how they came to their decision.
Oh, and Apple's creation of the first sexy server.
Silicon Graphics did that a decade or more ago. Short memories...
Yeah,right. Don't even think for one moment that Microsoft has *ANY* intention of letting EA use Microsoft's servers to host/create games that would include PS2/GameCube players. Microsoft's online scam is only for XBox games and don't you ever forget that.
:D
I never said a single thing about talking to PS2/GC players.
What makes you think PS2 players can play against GC players either?
I thought it was understood that consoles will only play with consoles of the same type...
1. EA completely sucks at online games.
Throw mud/fud at Microsoft's opponets all you like. The issue is Microsoft monopolistic tactics.
2. Microsoft wants to control the backend for selfish reasons, but not the ones that you think.
Even if we were to assume that Microsoft had the consumer's best intrests in mind (chuckle), they are still attempting to create a monopoly.
[bugs are unacceptable in game consoles]
Microsoft is attempting to work around that problem by providing the interfaces and services needed for the clients to connect.
Microsoft may offer interfaces and services. If Microsoft does a good job then maybe companies like EA will choose to use them.
Then, when a game passes testing
Microsoft is welcome to issue a "Certified by Microsoft" seal of approval.
If the user base can learn to trust
So bottom line: MS wants a clean way to make console online games so users can trust them
(Pardon me while I attempt to suppress howls of laughter. Trust Microsoft. The computer is your friend.)
Microsoft has a dismal track record on trustworthyness. They recognize this as a problem. Microsoft's solution?
"Give us a monopoly then everyone will trust us!"
Err, right.
If they do a good job on a "Seal of approval" program, maybe people will learn to trust that.
Microsoft is not allowed to lock competitors out.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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.
I fail to see how the interest of the customers enters into this at all. It MUST be in SONY/EA's interest or there would be no discussion. I am cynical but I've worked for large corporations for a long time. Maybe you are right and they deserve a pat on the back, but I doubt it, I am just waiting for the other shoe to fall. I am betting it will become an issue of who controls the info, not whether it is captured and sold.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?