Slashdot Mirror
EA, Eidos Have No Plans for Xbox Live
News for nerds writes "Eidos, maker of Tomb Raider, said it doesn't plan to make games for Xbox Live because Microsoft controls the system and manages subscriptions itself, leaving no incentive for a publisher to collaborate. Sony's approach is to sell just the equipment needed to connect to other's services, such as those run by game makers. Electronics Arts, which makes titles such as 2002 FIFA World Cup and NHL 2003 for the Xbox console, is also reluctant to join Microsoft's system, while supporting GameCube."
Until the evil Empire made it. Give it time, give it time...
It's more Xbox Living Dead than Xbox Live
Please remain calm, there is no reason to pani... wait, where are you all going?
Don't try and make a profit from it. Just get people to use it. The more people that use it, the more games people will play that use it. And the more people playing means more people buying the titles, and the game publishers and MS both like that.
This is so microsoft :-P Can't they for once get those bigbrother eyes of the ground. I hope more follows Eidos example here. Not that I have anything against microsoft *crosses fingers and whistles*, but I happen to like sony :)
Hey! That's my sig you're smoking there!
It seems finally the beast of burden has reared its ugly head on MS's 'damned' policies. Finally we can put a self- in front of it.
;)
That said, anything that overall gives customers less free choice is something we should all have concern over. Maybe MS might realise this someday...
Theyre the distributors of tomb raider - core design made it
Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
...for consumers, I mean.
...then again, I wouldn't exactly consider EA a _good_ developer.
The Xbox is the console in most need of some sort of killer-ap (if you'll be so kind as to excuse the dot-bomb era expression). Gamecube and Playstation both have great developers, good franchises, and a decent selection of games, and what's the Xbox have? Halo? Sure, it was a decent shooter by console standards. Phantasy Star Online? It's been delayed 5 consecutive times, beginning in November of last year, and is supposedly due out in April.
The problem is that if game developers are disuaded from producing games by Microsoft's control of Xbox, it's bad for the consumers; we won't get any decent games made for the system. But on the other hand, I actually like what Microsoft's done with Xbox Live; every game has voice, and they all seem to have a unified (if someone spartan) interface. From a gamer's prospective, Live is a good thing; certainly better than Sony and Nintendo's feeble online offerings.
Xbox Live has a ton of potential. It's a shame Microsoft can't strike a deal with some of these developers to bring their games to Live.
Unlimited funding (or nearly so) does have a way of keeping unsuccessful buisness ventures alive.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
they evidently haven't got enough EA staff on their payroll after they took all those senators on board.
The closed shop! ;)
To me this is the difference (the true difference) between pc and console - only approved developers can publish on the consoles while on the pc anybody can.
Does this keep the quality levels up? You decide
Sony know how to encourage developemnt of their online system - make it open!
An interesting parallel here for me is DRM coming soon to a pc near you! Imagine your windoz box having the same requirements as a console (hardware manufacturer mandated software certs), no coiencidence here that microsoft network=closed, sony=open.....
Buy up the companies with the games you want. Bungie. FASA. etc.
It kinda sucks being distrusted and loathed by every other company in the market, doesn't it? They ruthlessly crushed everyone in the PC world, and now they wonder why no one wants to help them do the same in the console world.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
It would be easy to write off Xbox Live, but I don't think that would be very wise. By all accounts the Xbox live service is very slick, feature packed and easy to use. If M$ are smart they will see which way the wind is blowing and find a way to offer game publishers incentives (financial or otherwise).
If they wanted, they could give Xbox-live subscriptions away for free. They have the funding to do it, and I seriously doubt anyone would pay for it without two of the biggest developers out there. So make it free (at least for a while) to encourage them to buy an X-box
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
"Microsoft should be concerned that a game maker of the size of Electronics Arts doesn't support its initiative"
(funny,5)
Siggy Say, Siggy Do
EA wouldn't know a valid online gameplan if it bit them in the ass. These are the people who killed "Ultima Online 2" because they were desperately afraid of hurting the original UO, their accidental cash-cow. These are the people that have driven countless quality game studios into the ground. They managed to bungle their license-to-print-money, "The Sims Online", which even Sierra probably couldn't have fucked up.
Paraphasing: "To calculate how much cock EA sucks, you'd need one of those hilarious web page counters that keeps spinning and flipping out of control with the numbers appearing to race upward to infinity but really only getting to 999999 before resetting to 000000."
Meanwhile, Microsoft is by all reports the most developer-friendly game publisher out there, and yet gets no loving from anyone because they're The Evil Empire. Bah.
should be the ability of playing online without any additional cost. IMO it should be left for the makers of the game to charge so they can keep making great games we all love to play. How much of the M$ XBOX tax do game makers receive? That's why I've never gotten an XBOX, because I can play Madden 2003, Tony Hawk 4 online on the PS2 for free.
you get 56k and ethernet in one attatchment....what is with the game cube, they don't even offer ethernet, how the hell are you gonna play a game over 56k? (i mean I know you can but eh..)
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
This was a known fact as soon as EA cancelled the Xbox version of Battlefield 1942. They didn't go on record saying it or anything, but EA had no other titles in the pipeline for Xbox live.
It's too bad too, as a developer I find that Xbox Live is by far and away the easiest online platform to develop for among any of the consoles.
As for Eidos... Tomb Raider Online never sounded very appealling anyways.
Well , sony selling out its equipment to connect to game services might make things more ideal for game makers but not consumers.Every time a new game come out we would end up paying a brand new subscription fee.
X-Boxers would get to play as long as they like with as many games they like for a fixed subscription fee. I think Microsoft has it right here.
Siggy Say, Siggy Do
If M$ are smart they will see which way the wind is blowing and find a way to offer game publishers incentives (financial or otherwise).
But if M$ are spiteful, they'll create an XBox Live-enabled clone of both EA's and Eidos' best-selling title. Microsoft will then give them away with the XBox.
Competitors that say "no" to Microsoft once have said "no" one time too many, and must be extinguished. So sayeth billg, so it shall be done.
That said. There's only one game on the Xbox I'd buy it for, and I'm not going to shed $200+ to play it. I'm also not going to say what it is, in the even some Microsoft researcher/marketeer is reading ( nyah! :p )
If anyone was unclear on the concept, before, Microsoft does not want to sell games, they want control over your entertainment console, as it's a portal. Once they 0wn it, you're just another entry in the journal of receivables.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I can see how Microsoft keeping control of subscriptions might make the Xbox Live service less appealing to publishers trying to set up an elaborate MMORPG, but as for 'normal' multiplayer games like Unreal Championship - why not? If it significantly enhances the game (and therefore, theoretically at least, makes the game more appealing to consumers) why not build in Xbox Live multiplayer support? Are the development and server maintenance costs higher than, say, building in multiplayer functionality in an average PC game?
Hee-hee. Dying tickles!
-- the more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
Take a look at the faithfull Dreamcast, buddy. I never had ANY lag problems with it unless it was a server-side error, NOT from a bandwidth limit.
It's just the problem of WHO has 56k anymore...
...I had heard the renderer's jiggle function was excellent.
shouldn't the fact that more people will buy games that have online capabilities be an incentive? I don't know, maybe I'm way off.....
With no Lara Croft on my eggbox, I shall have to go and find REAL women to look at. Woe is me.
Hmmm.
There were two flaws in this plan. The first is that the Xbox, even after having more money thrown at it than Mike Tyson, still hasn't reached a decent level of market penetration. (Why develop an online game that can only ever expect a much smaller users base than one on the PC or PS2?) It was DOA (and I'm not talking volleyball ;) in Japan, and struggling in Europe.
The second is that Sony and Nintendo are using open systems for online gaming, which are much more attractive to third party publishers (because they don't have to share a one-size-fits-all subscription system with the platform vendor, plus about a million other reasons, e.g. cross platform games are allowed).
So in short, Microsoft were caught with their pants down again, because they didn't take into account the fact that they'd have to compete.
Preferences > Homepage > Customize stories on homepage > Authors > Zonk > Uncheck
First off if either of these companies need incentives from Microsoft to make a game LIVE, then they have some serious problems !
As Publishers/Developers they have no upkeep costs on running any of the LIVE services, servers, or systems, how can they be complaining. Companies like Blizzard spend thousands if not millions to keep thier on-line services up and running, and all of these companies are getting the service for FREE while selling more copies becuse its LIVE enabled. For me thats an incentive enough, these companies are making a big mistake.
I saw an earlyer post that said something like "XBox LIVE = XBox Living Dead" don't really know what that means but i think XBox Live is one of the largest Gaming communities out there now, and the most advanced. Sony's way of dealing with their online play has been crappy and disapointing to say the least. So if that comment is stating that XBox live is a dead/dieing community i think your wrong, EA and Edios are going to see product sales plumit and companies like SEGA and Microsofts Sporting sales are going to sky rocket, just because of this one move.
my 2 cents but hey i think i have a damn good point !
- MOSKIE
Supporting voice across all games is great, but it's not the killer feature that will make everyone run out and buy an Xbox. What does make sense for Xbox Live and something like Butterfly.net (http://www.butterfly.net) is to provide infrastructure for smaller (more innovative) game publishers that do not have the expertise or the economies of scale to invest in the server infrastructure required to run a successful on-line game. Lowering the barrier of entry to smaller developers is where centralized, shared infrastructure approaches will work (IMO).
Reading the comments here its rather strange, people seem to think that companies moving into new markets are strong because of what they do in other markets. Comments like "MS will change" etc etc misses the point some what.
MS will have sat down and thought about this strategy, they are unlikely just to change in 6 months as they have models that indicate this will work. 6 months time then they may start changing. But the point here is that as the new player, even a new player with loads of cash, they have to adopt different business models as they have to differentiate themselves so they don't compete head to head with established players.
Sony did this when they entered the console market, their interaction with publishers was different to Sega and Nintendo and it worked, this is the way that MS thinks it will win.
And please folks lets remember that in 3 years of entering the Mobile Phone market place there is ONE major vendor who supports MS, Motorola, and they support Symbian and Linux as well. MS have failed to really break into this marketplace against established players, here they have decided to make the hardware as its simpler BUT...
Being the biggest software company doesn't make you the biggest entertainment company... especially when one of them is the biggest competitor in the market place.
ONE MARKET != ANOTHER MARKET folks. If GE entered the Console market would they do well ? What about AOL/Time Warner ? Think about why the console market is different before assuming its the same MS as the desktop MS.
MS Will, as in the mobile market place, lose money for the next 3-5 years... this is clearly a long term play.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
erm....everyone with a telephone?
Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
Sony have many more games, at which point the XBoxer is paying money to play nothing as much as they like.
Hint: How many other markets are _actually_ driven by consumers rather than business interests.... MS isn't thinking of you.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Until the console editors do not consider network as a way to make their console more sexy and not network as an other way to get more cash from gamer's pocket by bringing "services" then they will not rise any interrest in such options.
;)
.. it is time for MS to push a xbox2 !
Make clear, that in asia and europe xbox failed !
This is mainly due to the fact most people look at xbox as "small PC" (what they realy are in a way). But the fact you can not online play with those box make them irelevant from hardcore gamers.
Here again the PC rulez
Let's face to a reality, xbox is loosing shares
Or the blackbox will die and be pushed to the MS museum of dead revolutions...
Hope i am wrong !
-SLK
To me this is a load o' <bleeep!> coming from the gaming companies.
Grow up and keep making the $0 you were directly making off multiplayer in PC games! You'll still make more money because we'll buy more of your games because multiplayer is much more fun that single player!
Just look at return to castle wolfenstein, 1942, or any good MP game... They will not die, and only because of the multi-player! (And the MP gaming is free as well)
If anything, MS paying for the whole MP infrastructure would make it easier to product MP games.
"....leaving no incentive for a publisher to collaborate."
All this means is that microsoft is gonna pay them off. You know they will. Then everyone is happy...kinda.
When Xbox came out i almost bought one because it had the online ability built in ... but they never came out with X-box live till after PS2 already had there network adapter .. so it was a mute point by then.
...
I think with thte Xbox alll of it has been tooo little too late
I'm buying XBox Live! When I get it, if it comes down to the choice of whether to buy a title from one company or another, say an NHL game in EA's case, I'll buy the one with Xbox Live capability.
See, supporting Xbox Live is about making me, the consumer, happy by having an easy to use, secure system. You don't support it, well, F*CK YOU, I'll buy a competitors game. Cut yourself out of my choice list
If there aren't enough online game makers out there, Microsoft will just wait for them to hit tough times and gobble them up and turn them into exclusive X-Box developers.
Sorry, I don't have any good links to put inline and I don't have the time to look for them, but they've done it before.
More than 50 Xbox Live-enabled games are scheduled to launch in 2003 and beyond, including Star Wars: Galaxies, Counter-Strike, Midnight Club 2, MotoGP: Ultimate Racing Technology 2, Halo 2 and Project Gotham Racing 2. More than 60 game publishers are currently working on Xbox Live-enabled games.
http://www.teamxbox.com/news.php?id=4197
I'm happy to see this. Finally companies are getting tired of MS trying to shove them into doing things the MS way, and taking action.
Keep it up guys.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
Priceless. I bow to your economy of words and your comment that cuts straight to the point. (bows)
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
At least one ad agency marketing person I know who works directly on the microsoft account has slashdot as their homepage.
Far from being a 'dot-bomb' era expression, killer app has been used for at least 2 decades now. Google 'macintosh' and 'lotus', and you'll see what I mean.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
I think people should remember that EA is now bigger than Disney
/., it's becoming overwhelmed by people without a clue.
EA market cap 8.3B
Disney market cap 33.5B
Microsoft 266B
Please get your facts straight before posting to
Why? Because with Xbox Live you are charged a flat yearly rate of $50 to play any Xbox Live compatiable game for as long as you want and with a unified buddy list and matchmaking system.
What EA is trying to do is make a service out of their online games like Madden and charge people $10 to play Madden a month.
Now tell me... what is better? Paying a yearly fee of $50 that lets you play any game or a monthly fee of $10 per EA game you want to play.
The choice is clear.
Some of the best selling multiplayer games have them. Starcraft for example... Still played by a gazillion people for free on the net to this day.
Hmmm... Pie...
EA, and Eidos are money grubbing pussies, they want thier own servers and shit, its a deal with pride.
I say let them wallow by themselves.
The PS2 architecture ... can also be put on one single chip.
This is just based on what I THINK I remember reading somewhere. I thought the one of the main reasons ps2 would run psx games was because ps2 included the psx processor as it's sound chip. I hope I'm not terribly wrong here. If I am, just clarify what exactly you're talking about being on "a single chip".
Spread the RC luvin'
They already spent tons of money developing solutions for PS2, where there is no existing infrastructure, and the Xbox Live's setup is already in place (and MS will not compromise on certain features of the Xbox Live experience such as voice and being able to find and invite your friends no matter where they are or what game they are in). This was all from an interview with an MS Xbox honcho (i think on xbox.ign.com?). He stated that EA wasn't interested because they wanted to use the infrastructure they had already created.
If I had a gaming company with the resources of EA, and I have had the opportunity to play Mech Assault or Unreal Championship on Live, I would be losing sleep until I could cash out on it. Sure, Microsoft controls it, but they are doing a hell of a job doing that.
Live is more addictive than crack. A $50 game and a $50/yr subscription can keep a guy totally hooked for months. Dangle the carrot about posting extra content every X months and they will stick around even longer. I got my Xbox in October 2002 and got Live a few weeks after and I was so busy getting my ass kicked on Mech Assault that I did not even notice Microsoft had posted two new mechs and two new maps. Plus the promise for more. And today I just found out that Splinter Cell, a game that only has single-user mode, has a new module available thru Live.
EA needs to port the Command and Conquer franchise to Xbox and use Live to allow network games and to post extra maps. That will be a good enough experiment to see if it is worth it to them to spend more in the platform. Microsoft went thru the trouble of creating a solid networking arrangement and online community, so the only thing these people have to do is sell the damn games.
I switched to mac OS X last year, which is why I got the Xbox. One of my requisites for buying Xbox games is that they have to be Live enabled. The only game that I currently own that does not have Live is Morrowind, and I am hoping that by the time Bethesda Softworks releases a followup it has some Live functionality.
Pedro
----
The Insomniac Coder
It seems kinda unfair to me how Microsoft is hated in the game industry just because of what they did in the computer industry. You can't argue with the fact that the Xbox is the most powerful machine on the market.
Incentives:
1) Longer time of game being at $49.99
2) Less chance game will end up as a
use game on EB's shevles due to the
replay factor.
I believe the a game with low replay can go to high with live and anything to keep the price up and keep people from buying used copies is the way to go.
Is the Xbox secure? I mean, how long till my xbox is full of virii - spewing DOS attacks? I thought I would have experienced this already (started using Xbox live last november). Maybe I am just too used to Microsoft's other products. IT staff is frantically trying to patch and repair their networks, recently being crippled by the latest super sneaky SQL Outlook VPN why go thru the window when there is no walls worm - but at least little Billy can rejoice - he just returned the flag!
EA pulled the same crap with it. Because it did not own enough market share they decided to skip any EA dreamcast ports. Funny thing is it came back and bit them in the ass by allowing sega to develop a sports line that kicks the crap out of EA. If they honestly think they can do a better job of providing netplay let them try, and watch as their slow ass networks are abandoned for the features of a sega sports game over Xbox Live. Their games suck anyways, and if I ever play another tomb raider, road rash, rehashed EA sports, or dakitana game it will be too soon. Down with EA and EDIOS! Don't smack MS around for finally doing something right.
I never thought I'd be defending Live, but here goes:
Smaller game development houses don't necessarily have the resources nor know-how to run internet game servers that don't suck. Look how long it took id Software to perfect the Quake network code. There is also a chance that the smaller houses won't be around very long after publishing their first title (60% of game houses make one or two games then go out of business).
Which could be a real problem for PS2 gamers. Online play may work for a couple of months, but if the server shuts down because they can't afford to pay the electric bill - you're screwed.
With Microsoft running the servers they benefit greatly from economies of scale. They should be able to keep it going indefinitely until the last two Live subscribers cancel their subscription.
Microsoft letting you play *any* online game for $5 a month is a pretty good deal all things considered. For funding bandwidth and a few support people and you're looking at a bargain.
Because of the "challenge everything!!" logo...
For the most part, Nintendo has been doing really well with its Cube console, a lot of the games are unique, and the ports it does get are usually filled with goodies and can connect to the GBA that everyone owns.
Also, SSX Trickey DID have the DVD extras on the Gamecube. There are NOT many multidisc games, in fact, I think there is only one. Leaving DVD out of the Cube was the best design ever, how many pirated Cube games do you see? Exactly.
You seem to like to smoke the crack, sir. Pass it over to me next.
I mean really, most of those games if people are losing in a sports game just disconnect halfway through. If they're losing a race, they drop out. A lot of the games being offered are all inferior ports from the PC with shoddy controls. No mouse, no keyboard.. Nothing. It's really quite cool for the first month you have it, but the gleam quickly wears off and it's back to enjoying a good single player RPG. Console online games were a flash in the pan and nothing more. Keep giving me good console games and ill buy them, if I want online action, ive got the PC that handles it just fine.
EA wanted to release their sports games to be able to be inter-console playable. Meaning, if I bought NFL on my Gamecube, and my friend bought it on his XBox, we could play them together. Microsoft will NOT allow any cross compatable gaming through Live! So EA has decided that they will take the PS2 / Gamecube share and cut Microsoft out of the picture. PS2 and Gamecube owners will be playing games with each other, while XBox people will be stuck with just XBox people. As for the infrastructure, SEGA SNAP has been available for some time now which allows PS2 and Gamecube games to go online in a very easy prebuilt environment. It's basically a Live! solution for the PS2 & Cube.. But for free. No first time $50 / year fee, and then $10 month after the first year like Live! offers.
I'm surprised that I haven't seen more anti-MS comments in this post than I have. I thought there'd be tons. Anyway, I don't really care what EA does.
I say this as player - Live is great for gamers, if not for developers and publishers. I'd say the latter would like the idea of being able to boost their sales for free and with minimal extra coding on their part - after all, Ghost Recon sold more than a million copies - I believe about 3.5 times what the PS2 version sold - because that little Live stamp on the box.
EA, however, doesn't seem to realize the benefits of Live. It's their loss, though - right now it seems like they won't be making console online games at all because they don't want to let Microsoft have complete 'control' over the servers, but the last thing I heard on the subject was that they wouldn't be making PS2 online games, and as for Gamecube, everybody knows there are none in progress right now.
I really don't care what EA does, though. I've never liked EA. They've been behind one game that I liked and about a thousand that I hated. After they bought the Bond license (or whatever happened, I don't remember) from Rare, Bond games just started to suck. Nightfire, the most recent game, is the only Bond game from EA that I'd even call on par, and that's only because of it's (offline) multiplayer - the single player mode is still horrible.
As for Eidos, I don't really care either way. They've published a few games I liked, but for the most part, I just don't play Eidos games so it doesn't effect me.
I'm sure these announcements dissapointed some people, but I think in the end, EA will realize they've been losing a lot of potential money on not going with Live.
Eidos, maker of Tomb Raider, said it doesn't plan to make games for... ...anything. What the hell happened to the new Tomb Raider release date? Can't the PS2 handle the number of polygons necessary to "realistically" depict Lara's rack?
GF.
Lots of petrified grits
The problem with the Sony solution is that the consumer is left in the position of having to set up several subscriptions to different publishers. So, if you have five premium games (some ps2 online games have no subscription model) from five seperate publishers , there are five sets of forms to fill out, five credit checks, and five bills (some monthly, some bimonthly, etc). What a friggin hassle.
And that's not even addressing the technical side of things. On XBL, you have one user account, one buddy list, and the voice communication works regardless of the game. On the PS2, things aren't as consistent. Some games support voice com, some dont. Some games require seperate buddy lists. The developer is forced with figuring out a middleware solution (no small task).
I can understand EA's motives, but let's not be under any impression that the Sony solution is more consumer-friendly. In fact, calling it a "solution" is being kind -- as they are basically telling the consumer "Here's your network card... you're on your own."
live has plenty of games in the pipeline, no need for ea ports.
all star base ball 2000 amped2 capcomvssnk2
citizen zero crimson skies crouching tiger hidden dragon
delta force:black hawk down dominion dragonball z
duality enter the matrix
fable fishing live online
flat out ghost recon ghost recon: island thunder
half life: counter strike
halo 2 kingdom underfire: crusaders
lambourgini lost continents
marvel vs capcom mechassualt
midnight club 2 midtown madness 3
moto gp moto gp2 muzzle flash
mx superfly nba2k3 nba2k4
ncaa collage basketball 2003
ncaa college basketball 2004
nfl2k3 nfl2k4 fever 2003 fever 2004
nhl2k3 nhl2k4
nine objective force: commander operation flashpoint outlaw golf2
outlaw volleyball spike or die
pso 1$2 pgr2
raiden fighters ravensheild
rallisport challenge2
raze the roof
rtcw revolt
shayde: monsters vs humans
shin megami tensei
shining lore
soldier of fortune 2
spike out extreme
starwars galaxies
star wars clone wars
starcadia steel battalion
thousand lands
top angler2 top spin
true fantasy live
unreal championship warhammer
warzone online: mutant chronicles
whacked wildrings XIII
"XBox' problem is that it can't support itself, that means because of the braindead x86-nVidia architecture, it will die a quick painless death the moment Microsoft stops spending a billion/year on it."
Guess what! Game consoles don't die because of what's inside them!
Most people buy them to play games, not discuss the architecture like stupid nerds!
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Phantasy Star Online is an extra 8.95$ USD/mont from Sega. This spoils their single-payment argument, effectively ruining the point of single-billing.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
MS has a never, better Lara.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Honestly, Microsoft assumed right, that Sony would make a mistake.
What I see here is Sony wanting to follow the model of online games on the PC. But all they are really thinking of is the huge successes like Ultima Online and Everquest. With the exception of those and the third person shooters like Quake and Counterstrike, most PC games with online play have failed dramatically. The reason being, they each charged $10/month and never got to a critical mass where they could afford their infrastructure.
But the Microsoft model shares the infrastructure costs between all games. So while this might mean more successful games don't rake in the subscription fees, it means less successful games don't completely die.
The console world is different from the PC world. People who are buying console games are not going to be happy if they buy a game that is now completely worthless because the online servers have been taken down. Also console game players generally have a number of different games they play, not just one. Trying to maintain subscriptions to 4-5 different games is not feasible... which is why most online games on the PC have failed.
Microsoft is going down the right direction here, which is evidenced by the success they are seeing with their online gaming offerings.
I couldn't disagree with you more on everything you said.
You say the Xbox's architechure is "braindead" yet it's based on the same tried and true game platform that is the PC. They were able to bring some of the best PC hardware at the time (High clocked P3, GeForce 3-type GPU, etc) into a game system that in my opinion does very well as a console game system.
Just because the PSX architecture is based on a different set of technologies, does not make it any more "good" of a game system then anything else.
I like the fact that the xbox has a hard disk, it allows games to release patches (via xbox live,) store cache so less reading from the slower DVD drive, near-unlimited save game space, etc. You can even use it to put your music CD's on - and many games support playing from your personal music library over the game's soundtrack.
I also like how the Xbox DVD drive is quite a bit more quiet then the PS2 counterpart. I also enjoy being able to plug in four controllers without an extension pack.
Last but not least, you can buy a $50 mod chip and put a 120GB drive in the Xbox. My xbox has over 60 games, MAME, tons of emulators, Linux. All on the hard disk.
I'm not saying the PS2 is a poor system. I like the controllers on the Playstations, and I think the game system is solid. I just don't buy into the fact that it's a better game system because it's built by proprietary parts.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Anyone else remember reading about this over 6 months ago? REPOST.
Listen to my experimental-industrial-techno!
I have not been impressed with anything EA has done in the past few years (except Madden). Madden is the only thing that EA does good.
What am I missing out on by not having EA games on live? Nothing except more lame "dumbed down for PS2" ports of sports games that are not that good to begin with. I can get a better (IMHO) sports game from Sega (2K series) that is Xbox live compatible.
EA is getting too big for their britches lately. They think they can run the industry. A few months back, they pulled their sports lineup form Nintendo. Last week, Nintendo announced a deal that would bring 20 titles to cube. I think they were just milking Nintendo for money (or a better deal). They are prolly trying the same with MS.
eaters. Notice how they all come out of the woodwork and crow for their master. Pathetic pieces of crap they are.
Think about that. From that one realization, it seems plausible that online gaming will never be the money maker that people have predicted. With limited appeal and nearly unlimited gameplay, only a handful of companies can make a killing.
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
I totally agree. Nintendo has such a quality product in the Gamecube, and this news [read EA] could _easily_ give Nintendo second place in the home console market. Online gaming is getting down to nuts and bolts when these big publishers are finally committing, and Microsoft's 'philosohpy' will probably cost them marketshare - EA is going to make a fucking heap of money in online NBA Street - Madden - NHL, not to mention all of their other non-sport franchises (Super Ghouls & Ghosts Online). In the long run this would put Nintendo in a very good position, a strong #2 in both Japan and America to the PS2, all the while selling more Gameboy's than you can shake a stick at.
And yes, Metroid is just a genre braking piece of electrical art that shouldnt be missed.
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
They have killed so many game companies and machines that it is not funny. EA killed the Dreamcast but will not kill the XBOX just because of their tactics and sorry as ports of Madden to it. Sony has sold 600,000 network adapters but have yet to show any real revenue or even be able show it on SEC records about it. Microsoft has 350,000 subscriptions to Live not just sold adapters.. What are those folks doing with those adapters on the PS2?? EA Sucks, they killed WESTWOOD and are worse for America than the Department of Homeland Security. Sega is not even producing for the cube... It is a 2 horse race and online on the XBOX will win.. EA will be forced to produce for it... Anyone remember how dominate PALM was in the market?? After MS got knee deep in it how did that work out for them?? Not too good!! 40 Billion dollars in cash goes a long way.. Proud Beta tester for XBOX live...
Somehow I doubt that, outside of MMOGs, Microsoft plans to make money on Xbox Live by itself. The goal is to parlay the appeal of that service into more games sold at $50 a pop.
I don't feel that your repsonse addresses the point that I was trying to make. That point is "If a $50 game with online play completely saturates my available gaming time for months, then I'm less likely to buy more games, and in particular more online games, during that time." So while 300k users might consider buying some online-enabled game (separate from an online-updated game like Splinter Cell, for this discussion) I doubt that anywhere close to most of them will buy it because their time will already be consumed by any prior online titles they own.
So, unless you grow the installed base of online-capable users at a rate that keeps the new online games flush with new buyers, then it just can't take off.
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
I would also note that console gamers tend to look even more for the "next big thing" than PC gamers because they don't have all the mods available to change significantly the games they already own.
In short, you're over-thinking the comment of ONE person and extending it to some sort of thesis that applies to every online console gamer.
No matter. Sega stuff just kicks EA's ass all over the place anyways...
Sony's consumers aren't 'left in the position...', they just don't get the Live benefit. The current Sony model is the same as the current PC model - a publisher/developer decides on a server & subscription method, and you have different logins for each game.
As for the consistency factor, yes there is currently a wide void for a consistant server base for PS2. But this is probably a semi-temporary condition. Smart developers are probably designing their servers such that future games can use them as well, possibly with features similar to XBLs. Also, some may decide to side-market their solution, helping recoup costs and helping other developers.
As others have pointed out, XBL's subscription could legally be changed at anytime. Personally, I like the idea of only paying for online games one at a time. Some are overpriced (EQonline comes to mind), but some are going to be free. And as time goes on more probably will be free, or publishers will offer group rates for their games. I think one could look at Blizzard (who've managed to make a free service profitable even with piracy) and see that the model can work.
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
It is a fact that no other first person shooter has ever reached the online audience that Half-Life and its mods have. So, while people may be buying those other first person shooters, the time they've already invested and continue to invest in Half-life is time lost by the newer entries. It wouldn't surprise me to find that other shooters have had such a hard time succeeding precisely because Half-life has already so monopolized gamer's available time. And, I don't think it's that large of a leap to say that some gamers, adequately satisfied with Half-life, will pass up at least a few $50 games that might otherwise be bought.
I don't think that this is just a comment from one person that I'm extending to a general statement; I think, in fact, that the effect I'm talking about has already manifested itself! And once someone owns an FPS, a strategy game, and an MMORPG, all online-capable, they may well need a huge incentive to give up the time and money investment they've already made.
You do have a good point that console gamers are a different brand of gamer from PC gamers, so it may be that that makes a difference.
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
Yeah, the PC is a general purpose system that can also play games which often needs also 20 years of backwards compatibility.
Just because the PSX architecture is based on a different set of technologies, does not make it any more "good" of a game system then anything else.
If it weren't better (and about 150$ cheaper/unit) why should have Sony developed it? You really think a 20 year old architecture that has been extended numerous times is the optimal gaming platform?
> Yeah, the PC is a general purpose system that can also play games which often needs also 20 years of backwards compatibility.
In case you haven't noticed, the PC has evolved quite nicely in the last 20 years. Components have been replaced with faster ones. There's some great 3D accelerators out there. Storage systems have been replaced by new ones. Memory is quite a bit quicker. The list goes on.
Backwards compatibility in the x86 archetecture doesn't loan itself to poor performance, in case you haven't noticed this as well. Sure, there's basic binary compatibility, but this doesn't mean my AthlonXP 2200+ runs like an XT.
> If it weren't better (and about 150$ cheaper/unit) why should have Sony developed it? You really think a 20 year old architecture that has been extended numerous times is the optimal gaming platform?
I don't know where you live, perhaps Zimbabwe or somehting, but around here the PS2 and the XBOX are the same price.
Your only arguement is that since the x86 architecture has been around for a long time that it's not good for "games." Sorry to inform you of this, but one of the strongest influences in PC design is games.
And to shake you up a little more, you do realize that Sony has a version of Linux for the PS2 right? What does that mean? Does that mean that the PS2 (gasp) is basically a PC with a different type of CPU? Indeed it does. It has a CPU, RAM, Video chip, sound chip, etc.
Based on your same arguement, you could say that the PS2 isn't an "optimal" gaming system either, because of it's compatibility with the old Playstation one?
Curious though, what makes a computer better for "games" anyways? In my opinion, it's whatever can push out the best graphics and sound. The Xbox does both very well.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Only because MS pours over 100$/unit into it. MS loses 1 billion/year on it. Who is going to pay all that money when Microsoft finally wants to get something out of XBox? You, the XBox gamer?
So you really think that Sony has completely wasted 2 billion $ into designing a new architecture? You think they did that just for kicks? You know that the PS2 has some DSP (Digital Signal Processing) features like VLIW? No, of course not, you don't know what a DSP is. Anyway, the 128 Bit architecture, the PS2 is using does make sense in what it does and is a lot more efficient than the x86-nVidia design. The PS2 was designed from the ground up to play games, the x86 was extended again and again to make up for it's deficiencies.
For the same performance, the PS2 is over 100$ cheaper/unit and does not suffer from some architectural deficiencies.
Yes, the PS1 compatibility adds some cruft, but at least it makes sense because I can play PS1 games. (You cannot play PC-games on your XBox in case you didn't notice) And it's just one level of backwards-compatibility which is not comparable to the 20 years of x86 compatibility.
Here's my 2 cents on Xbox Live. I'm 60 years old. I never played those darn-fangled video games that my kids wasted their youth on. Never was able to get my fingers to move fast enough or remember which button did what. Anyway, bout 6 months ago, I was visiting my son and his wife and noticed him playing Ghost Recon and talking to people on a headset. I watched, fascinated, and asked him later if he could hook me up with a Xbox Live gizmo in my home. Anyway, to make a long story short, I now spend three hours a day playing Ghost Recon...I'm hooked. I love it.
On a plane a fews days ago, I found myself talking to a 12 year old sitting across the aisle from me about Xbox Live. Later, at the baggage claim, as he was leaving with his parents, he gave me the thumbs up. Made my day.
Look, I don't give a shit about most of the issues you're talking about here...PS2, royalty streams, Microsoft the Monster, etc. etc. All I know is that I have a cool new pastime that totally engrosses me for a few hours an evening. And if I have to pay for this entertainment...big fuckin' deal.
Just my 2 cents. (Gamer tag..."Wizened One")
Actually, it is not so bad. What you want is to be the one that sells the addict the game that keeps him hooked. There are all sorts of marketing hooks to this. Notice that Bethesda Softworks are not crying bloody murder because we, their fans, spend months playing their $50 title. They know it in their hearts that when they issue the next one we will go over hell and highwater to buy it. No CFO in his right mind is going to bitch about a lower revenue stream that is more predictable.
The $50 subscription fee is even less when you take into account the kit came with a headset (which they could have sold by itself for $10-$20).
Also, EA should be completely familiar with the razor margins of this industry. They did not start selling games yesterday.
Pedro
----
The Insomniac Coder
To all those naysayers... and all those who aren't quite sure what's going on inside MS right now, plans for Xbox 2 and plans for making Live much better than it is are currently being implemented. The next revs are going to blow doors on anything Sony or Nintendo are doing (although Sony does usually pull things out at the last minute in order to save face). The point is that this is a very real effort at MS, making very real money, and there's only more to come. It's historical with this company.
Now, back to the issue at hand... Eidos and EA are absolutely right in their refusal to use Xbox live. It's analagous to the age old supreme court issue of "having to use windows on OEMs" If someone is going to build a comm platform for a console, then it should at the very least be an open API where makers of games have options as to what data they're able to control, and what they do with it once they have it. This is just another example of MS trying to shove tech that noone wants down the throats of everyone, including their publishers. It's nice to see that for a change, some folks with buttweight like EA and Eidos have just said "uh, no..."
BTW - word on the street is that there's an open API system to address all the issues presented by Xbox Live's proprietary nature. I think I smell a followup article.
-- http://www.criticalassets.com
Why do you have to be such a prick about this? We can't discuss this without saying crap like "No, of course not, you don't know what a DSP is."?
It doesn't matter what MS wasted on money releasing the xbox. It doesn't matter if the PS2 uses a DSP. And it certainly doesn't matter that the x86 archetecture was extended.
I've seen the PS2 close up. And I've seen the Xbox close up. Everything I've seen, all the games I've played, prove to me that the XBox performs at least as well as the PS2 in all disciplines. It not, better. It doesn't matter that the PS2 can do things "more effeciently." The xbox makes up for it with the brute force of a 733Mhz CPU and a 250Mhz GPU.
People think it's fun and popular to bash anything made by Microsoft. Hey, I'm no fan of their Monopoly either; but the Xbox isn't a bad product.
Nowhere have I said that the PS2 is a bad game system.
And again, the PS2 isn't cheaper then the Xbox.
In the end, with my modded Xbox, I have a lot of fun playing all 1600+ MAME games (not including clones), hundreds of Super Nintento games, Genesis games, NES games, TB16 games, and soon PS1 games. Not to mention any type of Media, MP3, Videos, DivX, whatever, that you have with the Xbox Media Player.
All this off of a nice menu with everything running off the Hard Disk. When your PS2 can do this, I'll buy one.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Exactly that's my point. XBox only has a chance because it's 2 years newer.
If the PS2 would have come out at the same time as the XBox, it would also run at about 600-800Mhz and completely wipe the floor with XBox.
Similarily, if the XBox would have come out at the same time as the PS2, it would get it's ass kicked because at that time only 200-300MHz P2s and early nVidia cards (TNT?) were available.
That's my whole point. Without 2 years of technological advantage, the x86 architecture doesn't stand a remote chance against the PS2 architecture.
And again, the PS2 isn't cheaper then the Xbox.
It is a lot cheaper to make, the royalties are also cheaper.
I'll asked once, I'll ask again: Who will pay the billion/year that Microsoft loses now on XBox? Does MS plan to never break even or even make a profit? So who will pay it? You, the gamers?
Of course you won't. XBox is a product that is unable to support itself and will die the second MS stops pouring money in it.
When the xbox came out, there was already much faster Intel chips out there. And, the PS2 architecture is not designed for high clock speeds. They are both computers, but they are different in architecture. The Xbox is a 32-bit CPU with a 128-bit GPU, but clocked much higher. The PS2 is a 64-bit CPU with a 128-bit GPU, but is clocked much slower. It all evens out in the end.
When the Xbox hit the market, the Geforce 4 was already just being released, the Pentium 4 was in full swing, and 512MB of ram was commonplace. If you think that the xbox represented the best of technology at the time, you're wrong.
As the end-user, it doesn't matter how much the Xbox costs to make. It doesn't matter how much the PS2 costs to make. What matters is how much we pay for it.
So what if MS decides to not make an Xbox2? They have already said they will, and they have no plans to abandon the Xbox1, but who cares? What matters is that there's a lot of Xbox's out there, and there's a lot of games for it too. There's a lot of fun games!
Your whole arguement is that the Xbox: 1) Is based on x86, and this is "bad", 2) The xbox isn't profitable right now.
I ask again, what does this have to do with the end-user like you or I? The bottom line is that these are both very ncie game systems, and the PS2 isn't any better at games then the Xbox.
You have no basis for your arguement. You are an anti-MS zealot that can't debate this with a clear head. All I said was "PS2 isn't a better game system" and I never said that the Xbox WAS better.
If you want to keep going on and on about "Profits" and whether the xbox is newer technologies, be my guest.
The question was: WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THE PS2 IS A BETTER GAME SYSTEM. You have given me nothing that proves this besides vague numbers and stories about profitability. As an end-user, these things mean nothing to me.
What matters to me is graphics quality, sound quality, functionality, and games. All of which the xbox meets the PS2 head-on. Sometimes the PS2 has a better title, sometimes the Xbox does.
The xbox has a hard disk, and with a mod chip you can put a 137GB drive in the thing, and run all your games off the hard disk. You can also play tons of great homebrew stuff off the hard disk. Or CD-RW, or DVD-R. Built-in 100Mbit Ethernet makes things easy too.
Xbox Live is pretty cool too, with the headset thingy and in-game messages from other players that might not be in your game.
Why do I play games on a game console? Because I want to have fun playing games, not because I want to use a "profitable" product or because it "Would have been better if it came out 2 years later."
You know what? I don't care to argue with you anymore.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
You were screwed by a moderator. You're exactly right. I know six people (plus myself) who are waiting for Project Gotham 2 and Halo 2, either of which will be enough incentive for us to buy XBOX Live. EA games have really sucked lately (mainly because they're lowest-common-denominator PS2 ports), and they'll suck even more without XBOX Live support.
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
That means EA's position amounts to pointless pissing and moaning. This will cut them out of some potentially lucrative profits, which I'll get to momentarily. Granted EA could have milked consumers for even larger profits, but again, it's the console market, that's just how things work.
About those profits... Consider that Microsoft's long term goal is to have ten million XBOX Live subscriptions by 2007. (See FAQ.) While you may scoff now, their 2002 figures were on target, and they have already surpassed their 2003 target. Say that Microsoft is WAY off base and misses by 50%... that's still a very comfortable five million users -- probably HAPPY users, as I've yet to see any serious complaints about the quality of the XBOX Live service. Users, particularly console gamers, just don't care about that kind of thing. Plug-and-play is more important there than anywhere else. EA is cutting off their nose to spite their face.
As for Eidos, well... who cares?
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
Nintendo fans starts more and more to look like Amiga and Apple fans: die-hard, holier-than-thou religious extremists claiming their weird, niche stuff is the only good stuff.
... for a company that needs 5 hours to decide if somebody is suitable for a position there.
Control freakery shows in all levels...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
True, and just to make sure you have no escape the terms and conditions of NTL for using broadband forbid you to connect to *your* internet connection any gaming equipment but the Xbox.
UK guys should not tolerate these predatory practices, they are converting Internet access in just an embellished interactive TV...
All of them in only one? No thanks.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Hmm. Leave it to techie slashdot dorks to mod such a fundamentally true statement as yours down to zero.
"Cheshire-Puss," she began, "would you tell me, please, which way I
ought to go from here?"
"That depends a good deal on where you want to get to," said the Cat.
"I don't care much where--" said Alice.
"Then it doesn't matter which way you go," said the Cat.
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...