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."
...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.
EA's sports titles are highly visible and successful; I think Microsoft was counting on leveraging those brands to make Xbox Live a success and recoup some cash. Losing the multi-player angle is a big loss to Microsoft.
Eidos isn't such a big loss, but it all adds to the FUD surrounding Xbox Live.
Which is ironic, really, considering the FUDee.
Please remain calm, there is no reason to pani... wait, where are you all going?
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.
If GE entered the Console market would they do well ?
COMPLETELY OFFTOPIC, If GE entered the server market, what would happen?
You'd get, among other things, the GECOS (nee GCOS) field..
Just a touch of history for a saturday..
You're right (I'm the AC above). There are more good games on PS2. That's the best argument that Sony fanboys can make right now.
/. moan when someone claims that the Xbox is "better" than the PS2 because of processor speed, saying that Mhz don't tell the whole story. You're right. Clock for clock, the P3 in the Xbox puts the EE to shame.
As for why -- there are several reasons. First is that Sony had a significant head start with the PS2, so everybody jumped on the bandwagon and started making games. That much lead time meant lots of games, which meant more PS2 sales, which meant more games, etc...
Cut to today -- It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that most games are being released for at least two platforms, if not three. From a publishers point of view, asking a developer to do multiple versions generally means an incremental cost for a much larger return. So it's usually worth it. But honestly, when a publisher says "make this game for GCN/PS2/Xbox", you end up spending 90% of your time working on PS2, as it's such an underwpowered, poorly designed piece of crap. It's a hella fun system with the best games, but writing code for it just sucks. The thing spends more time waiting on instruction cache stalls than executing code. So hardly anyone ever gets around to tapping the full power of the Xbox, they have to spend too much time figuring out how to get the PS2 running at all.
I may sound bitter, but this really is how it works. People on
So, Xbox mostly gets ports and games which are also coming out for other platforms (there isn't enough install base to usually warrant an exclusive version) and people really don't get to spend time on Xbox "features" these days. I can only hope that changes in the future, because there really is a fountain of potential in that big black box.
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
Contrary to the average gamers belief, neither bandwidth nor running a server is not expensive. For example at serverbeach they sell 100$/month packages with 400GB bandwidth and hardware included. Now that will probably not be enough to handle an entire continent, but the upkeep costs are maybe a few thousand $/month - neglegtible compared to development, marketing and packaging/sales costs.
With all the optic cables dug in for years, the cost of bandwidth has come down to almost nothing for datacenters. (Of course the last mile is still expensive, but you don't run your gameservers via DSL)
Or to put it in another way: The expensive part about online gaming is making a server and supplying the clients with online capabilities (aka development) and marketing.
my 2 cents but hey i think i have a damn good point !
You have never had anything to do with running servers, that's for sure.
Microsoft is asking the game developers to do more work and don't let them control it. For example, it might be feasible to let gamers use online services for free (see above) to boost sales. Or the game might be so good, that you want to charge much more.On XBox, both is impossible - MS just won't let game-publishers make their business decisions.