Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EA, Eidos Have No Plans for Xbox Live

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the getting-connected dept.

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."

31 of 323 comments (clear)

  1. Don't be so quick to say that by Raul654 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Don't be so quick to say that by Raul654 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which is ironic, really, considering the FUDee.

      Who would that be? The game buying public?

      --


      To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
      --E.C. Stanton
    2. Re:Don't be so quick to say that by RoLi · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      The PS2 architecture is optimized for gaming and much more efficient at it. - And it can also be put on one single chip. On the other side, XBox' architecture might win in terms of raw performance because it's 2 years newer, but a x86-architecture will never be able to put out a competitive console at the same price as a more optimized architecture.

      In a few years, Sony will bring out the PS3 and Microsoft will have no chance to put out anything comparable at the same time at a competitive price. Either they wait 2 years again and lose a little, or they put out a x86-monster at the same time and lose a lot.

    3. Re:Don't be so quick to say that by tshak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unlimited funding (or nearly so) does have a way of keeping unsuccessful buisness ventures alive.

      This is an intellectually dishonest statement for the following reasons:

      A) $2B allocated (not spent) over a period of at least 2 years is not a lot of funding to break into the console business (or in any saturated market). Heck, Sony invested over $1B in chip manufacturing alone for the PS2 - a cost that MS doesn't even incur because they buy chips from Intel.

      B) Nobody can determine if the XBOX is an unsuccessful business venture this early in the game. Wait until about a year after their next-gen console comes out and only then can we start to see if the long term investment in this sector paid off.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    4. Re:Don't be so quick to say that by RoLi · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You are comparing apples to oranges - or a 1-year old product sold at 100$ loss with a 3-year old, profitable product.

      While there is no doubt that because of brute force (read: mucho MHz - These clockcycles just weren't possible when the PS2 was put out.) XBox can beat the PS2 at the benchmarks, it has a lot of weaknesses: Skipping, overheating and above all a much higher production price.

      I repeat: Just like when the PS2 was released, a comparable x86-based console was unthinkable, when the PS3 will be released, MS will have no comparable console at hand.

    5. Re:Don't be so quick to say that by truenoir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Gamers happily playing MGS2, GT3, GTA3, GGXX, VF4, Tekken, Halo, FFX, XenoSaga, Dark Cloud, Splinter Cell, or any of the other hit games for PS2 and Xbox would probably be inclined to disagree with you. Having worked in the software retail field, I can say that PS2 and XBox tend to have at least one hit a month. Usually several. Sure, there's crap too, but so is most of the Gamecube library (that or ports from other systems). Most of what the GC gets that's good are remakes of older games, or solid ports from PS2/Xbox. That's not to say they're not good...but seriously, A+ original titles for that system have been somewhat few and far between. Nintendo has always chosen paths that give it ironclad control over software distribution. They hand you that "good for gamers" line so you don't suspect them. You know where the Playstation even came from? SNES CD. Sony worked with Nintendo on it, but when Nintendo realized that their business deal (which gave Sony profits from CD games) wasn't well though out, they cancelled it. Sony took the work they'd done and came up with the PSX. Even then, Nintendo knew gamers would buy CDs over carts. However that didn't stop them... N64...long lived, but really lost the battle. There's what, a PSX in 2 outta 3 homes in America? Why? Cost. Wanna play FFIX? $39.99. Wanna play Majora's Mask? $69.99 plus a $29.99 memory pack if you don't have it. Oh, and there's no movies or CD sound. Forget about $15-20 greatest hits games. Why use carts? Because nobody but Nintendo can (legally) make them. They're expensive and limited. But they could hand consumers the line that they're "faster access". Right. Don't get me wrong, there were some great games on the system. But Nintendo screwed up royally when they decided not to go with CDs. Gamecube? Sure, elegantly designed CPU (IBM Gekko PowerPC), efficient GPU (albiet with only 3MB of texture memory, less than the N64 wound up having), and...MiniDVDs? Um, why? Ports from other systems have to get things dropped (DVD extras from SSX tricky for example). Anything that fills a typical DVD-9 would take 6 GC discs to port (in theory). So it won't see things like FFX with video intact. Ever. While multi-disc games are somewhat rare on Xbox and PS2, there are already several for GC. The controller, while nice, is not very versatile. Why did Capcom Vs SNK 2 on that platform have "simplified" controls? Because Nintendo apparently didn't consider the 10 year old fighting game genre worth taking into account. True, they kept the controls on the Xbox version, but it was made for the GC. So yeah, the GC is nicely designed for standard OpenGL and PowerPC programming (after the royal programming pain that was the N64). However, it's still using a controlled, limited format to release primarily remakes of Nintendo franchises. But of course, it's the true gamers system, right?

    6. Re:Don't be so quick to say that by truenoir · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Also remember that when the PS2 was released, developers everywhere raised an uproar about the pathetic libraries and documentation provided, hard to optimize architecture, etc. Contrasted to the Xbox using DirectX, and MS helping developers optimize games or the Gamecube using standard OpenGL stuff. Plus that the PS2 scratched games (especially when upright) and has had problems with either the CD or DVD laser burning out. If you don't think it's true, go talk to all the people I talked to when working at Software Etc about how their PS2 problems are just in their head. Or go make my PS2 play the second layer of DVD videos. PS2s also overheat if you let dust clog the vents. The system was redesigned several times in it's first year. The U.S. version differs from the original Japanese version (hard drive is external for that one). The original U.S. release was also tweaked. You can observe that the USB and firewire ports were rearranged (in the first few months). I've also seen things that theorize that Sony simply makes the PS2 profitable with fuzzy math or whatever. Not taking into account development costs like MS does (but this could be only true of the first couple years too). I'm not saying the Xbox is perfect or that the PS2 isn't any good. I own both. I just think that many people are looking at the PS2 in a skewed light becaus they want to put down Microsoft. Sony isn't some nice fluffy company either. They're big, mean, and most of their products are pretty low in quality for the price class. Why doesn't the PS2 have 4 controller ports? $30 multitap anyone? Who deliberately created shortages? Sony and Nintendo have...MS never did. It's all friggin' business and business is war. Including your perception of the other guy.

  2. Closed system, restricted development? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.....

  3. Yah, and you know what by Raul654 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Yah, and you know what by JudgeFurious · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How did that go in the movie "Excalibur" when Merlin was explaining the situation to Uther?

      "You killed the king, you stole his wife, you took his castle...now no one trusts you. You're not the one"

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
  4. It would be easy to write off Xbox Live by EpsCylonB · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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).

  5. A benefit of paying $50 for a game...... by scottp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Sony turns out to be more expensive by ramzak2k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  7. What you said... distilled to the nutshell by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The problem is Microsoft doesn't understand the model. They try to dictate it, same as they do everything else. It works because businesses are suckers, but consumers are actually more choosey. Sand in the Xbox hourglass is running out.

    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
    1. Re:What you said... distilled to the nutshell by melted · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >> The problem is Microsoft doesn't understand the model

      It looks like YOU understand the model. If you do, send them your resume, you'll get hired immediately if you pass their nightmarish 5-hour interview. Although I doubt you know you know anything better than folks at MS. You just fail to see a long term strategy here.

  8. Re:EA can go screw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Absolutely. As a game developer that works on all three consoles -- I don't what the hell EA is smoking. Actually, I do know. This has nothing to do with game developers -- it's about game _publishers_. Of course, this isn't the record industry, so /. can make an exception to detesting the assholes that steal all the money.

    EA is just pissed that they're not clever enough to make money off XBL. From a developer's perspective, Xbox blows PS2 and GCN (sic) out of the water. Not having to worry about reinventing the wheel (security, matchmaking, etc...) means more time to focus on making a good game, rather than dealing with Nintendo/Sony's laughable developer support. (Sony's is better than Nintendo, but neither one is even in the same league as MS).

  9. Re:If I were MS, I'd sell Live at cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    With any technology that relies on the number of users (IM, multiplayer gaming), you have to build up a critical mass somehow.

  10. I've been saying this for some time now... by fondue · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Xbox Live was intended to be the unique selling point of the Xbox. Microsoft assumed that their competitors would be to slow (and lacking in experience) to get behind online gaming, and therefore that they could dictate terms to third party publishers and consumers. (In short, that they could own online console gaming -in market terms- in the way Sony own traditional console gaming.)

    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

    1. Re:I've been saying this for some time now... by SimplyCosmic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... and yet neither the GC nor the PS2 are really stomping them when it comes to online games.

      I own a Playstation 2, and in many ways am jealous of the support the XBox owners get in terms of their online package.

      Sure, it cost them $50, but they get the ability to log onto Live through one account, see where their buddies are online and what games they're playing and join them in that game. They even get a cheap little headset.

      Of course, as a PS2 owner, I can get a headset too, provided I pay $60 for a copy of SOCOMM that comes with it.

      You are correct that Microsoft's model isn't enticing to developers who want to make money off of their own subscription model, but the truth is the majority of games that could have online support aren't MMORPGs that can get away with charging monthly fees on their own on top of anything else you might have to pay.

      The trouble for the PS2 is that in trying to develop online support for, say, your fighting game, you don't get anywhere near the pre-built support you do for the XBox, and have to reinvent the wheel in many places, which is why so few games are coming out that do support that feature, even when they should.

      Sony needs to push online features far more than it is with their completely hands off approach.

  11. Re:It's a catch-22... by quandrum · · Score: 2, Insightful
    then again, I wouldn't exactly consider EA a _good_ developer.

    Say what you will about the quality of EA's games... They publish 1 out of every 4 made!!!! I doubt microsoft can make it in the long run without them.

  12. Strange attitude on Slashdot... by MosesJones · · Score: 4, Insightful


    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
  13. Good to see by fire-eyes · · Score: 0, Insightful

    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.
  14. Re:M$ more spiteful than smart by Threni · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "M$ are spiteful, they'll create an XBox Live-enabled clone of both EA's and Eidos' best-selling title."

    Er...yesss. Microsoft are famous for their amazingly popular, well selling games division.

  15. Re:It's a catch-22... by Surlyboi · · Score: 2, Insightful


    Quantity doesn't always mean quality.

    Funny, I've been saying that about Microsoft
    products for years every time one of you turfers
    brings up the 95% marketshare thing...

    I guess that rule doesn't apply to MS, huh?

    --
    Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
  16. Re:Guess what? by tshak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So make it free...

    Why? The XBox Live is doing incredibly well. XBox Live has a higher subscription rate then any other console's online system. The only reason the volume isn't there (I think they've surpassed 300K users) is because there just aren't that many XBox's to begin with.

    --

    There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
  17. EA is 1/4 the size of Disney by glrotate · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think people should remember that EA is now bigger than Disney

    EA market cap 8.3B
    Disney market cap 33.5B

    Microsoft 266B

    Please get your facts straight before posting to /., it's becoming overwhelmed by people without a clue.

  18. remember the dreamcast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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.

  19. Re:Guess what? by joshsisk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hahahaha Two Biggest Developers

    Are you seriously trying to argue that EA isn't one of the biggest developers in video games? In fact, I believe the are THE biggest development house...

    Hahahaha Two Biggest Developers!!.. Hahaha... Sega 2K serious is far superior to EA sports games

    This may be true. However, EA Sports games outsell Sega Sports games by huge margins.

  20. Not quite. by Viewsonic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  21. Microsoft is actually in the right on this one. by nobodyman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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."

  22. Hello, this is reality calling. We'd like to talk by Inoshiro · · Score: 0, Insightful

    "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.