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?
...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
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.....
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).
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.
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
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
With no Lara Croft on my eggbox, I shall have to go and find REAL women to look at. Woe is me.
Hmmm.
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
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
... 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 $60 for a copy of SOCOMM that comes with it.
You are correct that Microsoft's model isn't enticing to developers who want to make money off of their own subscription model, but the truth is the majority of games that could have online support aren't MMORPGs that can get away with charging monthly fees on their own on top of anything else you might have to pay.
The trouble for the PS2 is that in trying to develop online support for, say, your fighting game, you don't get anywhere near the pre-built support you do for the XBox, and have to reinvent the wheel in many places, which is why so few games are coming out that do support that feature, even when they should.
Sony needs to push online features far more than it is with their completely hands off approach.
Contrary to the average gamers belief, neither bandwidth nor running a server is not expensive. For example at serverbeach they sell 100$/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.
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
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.
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."