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."

55 of 323 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah, and Alderan had no plans to blow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Until the evil Empire made it. Give it time, give it time...

  2. Without EA and Eidos by j-b0y · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's more Xbox Living Dead than Xbox Live

    --
    Please remain calm, there is no reason to pani... wait, where are you all going?
  3. Distributors by Loosewire · · Score: 2, Informative

    Theyre the distributors of tomb raider - core design made it

    --
    Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
  4. It's a catch-22... by Dragoon412 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...for consumers, I mean.

    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. ...then again, I wouldn't exactly consider EA a _good_ developer.

    1. 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.

    2. Re:It's a catch-22... by dabootsie · · Score: 2, Funny

      if you'll be so kind as to excuse the dot-bomb era expression

      I can excuse "killer-ap" (it's "killer app", by the way), but I can't excuse your use of the expression "dot-bomb era". Don't ever use it again.

    3. Re:It's a catch-22... by gid-goo · · Score: 2, Informative

      EA might not be a great company to work for (I've heard they don't give royalties to employees) or whatever. But they have the #1 sports titles. Madden is an unstoppable sports behemoth right now (and has been for years). Sony hasn't been able to make a decent competitive football title since the ps1. Without EA Microsoft isn't going anywhere.

    4. 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...
  5. 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 j-b0y · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?
    2. 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
    3. 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.

    4. 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
    5. 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.

    6. 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?

    7. 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.

    8. Re:Don't be so quick to say that by RoLi · · Score: 2, Informative
      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.

      Yes, that's the drawback of a truely new architecture.

      You have higher initial costs (hw-development and sw-development including possible redesigns), but you save a lot in the long run. The XBox is the contrary: You have barely any development costs, but you pay a lot in the long run (mostly in terms of too expensive hardware).

      But I tell you that: By now, Sony already paid all the architectural development already.

      XBox is an off-the-shelf design and that is normally used for quick and dirty solutions and low numbers. Just face it: If you want to sell millions of units for half a decade and off-the-shelf design is just wrong and a stupid business decision.

      And I've never said that Sony was a nice company.

    9. Re:Don't be so quick to say that by erdna · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Sure, EA's sports titles are big... but I actually think EA is losing the edge in their negotiations with MS on Live support.

      Think about it - EA has always liked being king-maker. They were able to help kill Dreamcast by not supporting it - partly because they didn't get the terms they felt they deserved from Sega. EA's problem here is that MS isn't Sega... $42B in the bank goes a long way to giving breathing room. Meanwhile Xbox Live has proven to be a huge success, racking up significant numbers.

      EA is now faced with multiple challenges:

      * Time isn't in EA's favor here. The more time that passes, the more titles MS can get to fill out weak areas in their portfolio that EA might have filled.
      * They have a $600M sinkhole called EA.com that they need to somehow leverage. This has been such a fiasco that they're pulling it back into the fold so they don't need to display the losses it's incurring. MS doesn't need those servers - never has, never will. EA needs to figure out a way to save face and "leverage" their investment.
      * Live has proven incredibly popular, and numbers keep climbing. They just announced 350k users, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them break half a million by E3, and well over a million by the end of the year. Don't believe me? Just plot their growth, and keep in mind that we're in the slowest part of the season now - Holiday is coming.
      With those numbers, EA cannot afford to ignore the audience - that's $s on the hoof that their stockholders want.
      * Two words: Sims Online. Remember that EA.com sinkhole?

      Yeah, I know I'll be flamed as a MS apologist or fanboy or something... but use your minds a little. There are very good reasons that EA is struggling to do Live - reasons the rest of the industry don't have. So what about Eidos, you ask... well, what about it? Ever think that Sony might not just be sleeping quietly, and may just perhaps be working (read: spending) to lock down partners?

      Enough... just wanted to throw out some things for you all to chew on. Somehow I can already tell the response is going to be yet another "MS/Xbox/Xbox Live" is dead flame.

      AV

  6. 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.....

  7. 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.
  8. 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).

  9. Guess what? by Raul654 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
    1. 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
    2. 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.

  10. EA can go screw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. 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).

    2. Re:EA can go screw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      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 /. 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.

      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.

    3. Re:EA can go screw by gid-goo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As a developer the PS2 blows the XBox out of the water because I have over 50 MILLION customers to sell to.
      That being said, I agree that EA and online gaming is like oil and water. They just don't seem to get it. THey have amazing franchises that sell like mad. But they can't seem to let a developer have enough freedom to build a good online game.

    4. Re:EA can go screw by Firehawke · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, I'm an old-timer for this sort of thing. I've been watching the console wars since the early 80s, and if there's anything I've learned, it's that the power of a console doesn't matter nearly as much as the software for it.

      Time after time, weaker systems have won because the games were better. The Atari 2600 beat out Coleco and Intellivision. The NES beat out the SMS. The Super NES beat the Genesis except in sports games. PSX managed to beat Dreamcast.

      As a gamer, I'm loath to trust a company with the track record of Microsoft. Sure, I like the idea of X-box Live-- a cheat-free online environment that the gaming companies are actually willing to support-- but there aren't THAT many killer games for it.

      Your argument that the developers spend more time "trying to figure out how to get the PS2 running at all" is false-- for that to be right would mean they'd have to develop the versions simultaneously and that's almost NEVER true. Take a look at Splinter Cell; there'd been a considerable wait for the PS2 version to even start development and in the end it's nearly as good as the X-box version.

    5. Re:EA can go screw by ryants · · Score: 2, Informative
      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.
      I code for the PS2, and I like it just fine. Linux toolchain, gdb, MIPS instructions that you can actually understand, ... what could be better?
      The thing spends more time waiting on instruction cache stalls than executing code.
      Then you have poorly written code. Try using the ICACHE performance counters sometime to find your bottlenecks and FIX THEM.
      --

      Ryan T. Sammartino
      "Ancora imparo"

  11. 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.

  12. Ramifications by NeoMoose · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  13. 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
    1. Re:Sony turns out to be more expensive by georgep77 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually if you read up on XBox-Live there may be a fee of $10/month once your first year is over. Also MS has never ruled out extra fees for future games. So basically there is no "designed in" cost savings over the PS2 online model.

      http://xbox.ign.com/articles/361/361526p1.html

      Extra fees are already being charged (will be charged upon release) of Phantasy Star Online for the XBox.

      http://www.rpgfan.com/news/2002/1655.html

      Cheers,
      _GP_

    2. Re:Sony turns out to be more expensive by tshak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You are correct. Certain games that require more resources (eg: MMORPG's) would cost more, but your typical FPS/Racer/etc. type games will probably never incur an extra cost. Furthermore, the XBox live system is still more convenient because you are still logging in to one system with a unified interface accross games, and a unified billing process to make it very easy to manage. I don't want seperate monthly bills from EA, Sony, Capcom, etc.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    3. Re:Sony turns out to be more expensive by DeionXxX · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Unless you count the expense of the Hard Drive and the Broadband adapter... both which are impossible to get for the PS2 (the hard drive is not even out in the US and probably never will be)... that means EA and all PS2 only developers are coding features that only a sliver of the market will use.

      On the Xbox, developers know the consumer has an ethernet card and a harddrive already, so they feel more comfortable coding features that will make use of those even though the consumer might not have XBox live.

      Besides, what do you think a kid is more likely to want to say ... "Hey Mom and Dad, can I have $150+ for an addition to my $200 PS2?" or "Hey Mom & Dad, can I get $10/month to play games online? ... the first year is free."

  14. 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.

  15. Disappointing by akpcep · · Score: 4, Funny

    With no Lara Croft on my eggbox, I shall have to go and find REAL women to look at. Woe is me.

    --
    Hmmm.
  16. 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.

  17. these companies need incentives ? by rhino_badlands · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:these companies need incentives ? by RoLi · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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

      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.

  18. 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
    1. Re:Strange attitude on Slashdot... by otis+wildflower · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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..

  19. Re:PS2 addapter good by mdbales · · Score: 2, Informative
    what is with the game cube, they don't even offer ethernet
    they don't, huh?
  20. Live� Gaming Hits Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. Obviously nobody at Eidos or EA has played on Live by pvera · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
  24. Re:EA/Eidos reluctance... by Babbster · · Score: 2, Interesting
    And Tecmo is Team Ninja's publisher, yet that development team still has no plans to do any PS2 or Gamecube games. Square's decision to stick with PS2 has zero to do with EA and everything to do with the PS2's superior market penetration.

    The reason EA isn't "content with the Live service" is that they know their own service wouldn't offer anything worthy of paying extra for over and above the cost of Xbox Live. How much extra functionality do PS2 Madden players get over Xbox NFL 2k3 players?

    If EA thinks that they're going to make truckloads of money by charging extra for their matchmaking services on the PS2 (which is the only logical reason not to do Xbox Live games besides the fact that dial-up is unavailable on XBL), more power to them. I think they're probably wrong, but they're welcome to try.

  25. Ignorant Gamecube bashing.. Lame. by Viewsonic · · Score: 3, Informative
    Out of all three systems, the one that consistantly has hits every month is the Gamecube. Nearly every magazines "Game of the Month" is a Gamecube title. Xbox has Halo, Splinter Cell, and Panzer Dragoon which are all good titles, but dont even come near the Zelda, Metroid, Mario, Animal Crossing, etc offerings on the Cube gameplay wise, and award wise. PS2 has Gran Turismo 3, Final Fantasy X, and a few other great games, but still, they all pale in comparison to a single Metroid game.

    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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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."