Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EA On Tough Holiday Season, Xbox Live Rift

Posted by simoniker on from the gaming-behemoth-hulks-on dept.

Thanks to Reuters for their article discussing the Electronic Arts CFO's comments at a recent financial conference. He discussed gaming prospects for the holiday season, since "...last December, a number of publishers were forced to warn on their prospects... after games they expected would be major hits failed to meet their targets, and retailers tightened the shelf-space devoted to also-ran games", and he suggested game company bankruptcies could be on the way: "There's going to be some road kill. There are going to be people who aren't going to make it." He also made some pointed comments about Xbox Live, which EA still haven't signed up for, saying: "We're not about to support a model where the content provider does not get paid for the content provided."

30 comments

  1. Xbox live by anarxia · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If is no real benefit to support xbox live, why doesn't EA come up with their own xbox online gaming network? (not a troll, just asking)

    1. Re:Xbox live by DS-1107 · · Score: 1

      they probably see no economic reason to - as that cost money as well, and if they figure that it doesn't pay off in cash (in the end) they probably wont. their own battlenet would be nice, but at the same time they got burned by the sims online (and how many did not see that coming, and how they now state that none did).

    2. Re:Xbox live by shadowcabbit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because, short of tunneling, the Xbox has no online capability without Live. I know, there are ways around it, of course, but if EA tried a stunt like that-- if any Xbox developer tried to get around the Live monopoly-- they'd find their license revoked and the power of a fully armed and operational Legion of Lawyers breathing down their neck. Rather than lose out on a very lucrative moneymaker (i.e. sports games on the Xbox selling better than many other games), EA has wisely decided that they're going to simply not use Live in their Xbox games.

      Wise, but not smart. Does EA not realize how many kazillions of dollars they could gain from selling banner ads to be displayed in the game lobbies? You don't have to make them big, or have them obstruct the gameplay in any way, but if they're there someone will notice them. The fact that the Xbox has a hard drive to store and cache ads helps, too. Like I said, wise (to avoid losing more money than necessary), but not smart.

      --
      "Why Subscribe?" Good question...
    3. Re:Xbox live by DeadScreenSky · · Score: 1

      Most likely answer:
      Sony gives EA big bucks for online exclusivity.

      Also, most previous online creations by EA have done horrendously (EA.com and Sims Online, for example).

      --
      There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
    4. Re:Xbox live by Ty · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Wise, but not smart. Does EA not realize how many kazillions of dollars they could gain from selling banner ads to be displayed in the game lobbies?

      Ummmmmm. Since when have banner ads proved any source of significant income? Still living 1999 dotcom days?

    5. Re:Xbox live by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Ummmmmm. Since when have banner ads proved any source of significant income? Still living 1999 dotcom days? "

      Playing devil's advocate here, that would be a prime place to advertise new games coming out for the XBOX. I doubt there is billions to be made there, but I'm sure the game developers would like it.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    6. Re:Xbox live by unclethursday · · Score: 2, Interesting
      As another poster pointed out, Microsoft holds the monopoly on the Xbox Live servers. Any and all games that wish to use online play simply MUST go through the Xbox Live servers. Period.

      A good example is the Tony Hawk's Pro Skater games. They go through GameSpy for their match-making services. Neversoft and Activision probably have a decent deal with GameSpy for this.

      So THPS is online on the PS2. It's been online since a year before the official PS2 adaptor came out. But it isn't online on Xbox Live, even though the game easily could have netcode built in. The reason being that Neversoft and Activision want to use GameSpy's free service, rather than Microsoft's pay service.

      THPS isn't online on the GC either, but that probably has to do with the small installed base of the GC network adaptors over any technical hurdles (since GameSpy is also apparently making online middleware for the GC).

      To go online on the Xbox REQUIRES publishers to go through Xbox Live. If you try and allow online play without Live, then Microsoft will simply not allow the game to come out on the Xbox.

      As in all things, Microsoft wants a monopoly in how they do business. Xbox Live is how they will attempt to profit on online gaming, even if the publishers of the games see no additional money from online gaming.

      Thursdae

    7. Re:Xbox live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason being that Neversoft and Activision want to use GameSpy's free service, rather than Microsoft's pay service.
      Link? Your real name so we can check if you ever worked for Activision or Neversoft?

      You should provide proof for a statement like that. I'd bet someone just got paid not to put in on xbox live just like someone got paid not to put GTA on xbox and someone got paid not to put Madden on xbox. Sometimes the simplist answer is the correct one.

  2. Forgot the most important one... by DeadScreenSky · · Score: 2, Interesting

    (That's what I get for posting so late/early...)

    EA is also still trying to get MS to relent on what they want (mainly the ability to cancel online play for a game, like when its sequel has come out). That is what this is really about. Devs are perfectly able to charge monthly for their Live games (see Phantasy Star Online), which is why EA's stated claim about not being able to make profits is BS. They just want the freedom to screw over their customers more easily, which goes completely against MS' goal of making a profitable, popular online gaming network.

    --
    There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
    1. Re:Forgot the most important one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The biggest problem is EA doesn't want to expose their customer base to a third party entity which they have no control over (MS). EA has no control over how well the servers are run or how happy players of their games are with the Live service.

    2. Re:Forgot the most important one... by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 1
      Gee, let me do a little research. I do not own an XBox (for many reasons which I will not go into) BUT with XBox live, I pay a monthly subscription fee. If I don't use XBox live for a month or two, my money is still gone. On the other hand, I can play Madden 2004 online whenever I want and, because I'm not paying anything to have an account, not play it and not worry about losing money. I can also enter tournaments for a fee, in order to give back to EA, who will then improve the servers.

      And why shouldn't EA be allowed to terminate online services for a game? They are in the business of selling games. You may ALSO want to note that most people who buy EA games, want the sequels so it's not that much of an issue for us. I was fine when the Madden 2003 servers went down because I had just bought 2004.

      And I believe that EA's stance is that when you charge a user of XBox Live a monthly fee, the users who wish to play EA sports games are not the typical users who will pay an extra fee on top of that to play Madden; that's a more hardcore crowd (PSO, Everquest, people who are really into playing a lot of hours)

      Your post is nothing but pro-Microsoft FUD.

      --
      I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
    3. Re:Forgot the most important one... by bigman2003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem I have with EA's plan of dropping servers, is the forced upgrade model. You said you were fine with Madden 2003 servers went down, because you had just bought 2004.

      I don't want to buy a new copy of Madden each year, or any other game, just so I don't lose some of the on-line support it originally came with. If this is a major sticking point, I agree with Microsoft here.

      --
      No reason to lie.
    4. Re:Forgot the most important one... by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 1

      That's fine - there are alternatives out there to Madden. I like EA's plan because it focuses all the resources they've devoted to online play, on a single crop of games. Currently all the online department's money is being used on maintaining the quality of play on the 2004 servers, not 2004.

      --
      I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
    5. Re:Forgot the most important one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BUT with XBox live, I pay a monthly subscription fee.
      Um, no you don't. One still pays $50 for a year. Since you admittedly don't own an XBOX, maybe you should do some research before you make yourself look stupid. If you didn't play ANY online games for a whole year, well then you would just be pretty stupid for having bought an online service. But even then, you could still use the included headset for free phone calls to any other XBOX Live gamer.

      I can also enter tournaments for a fee, in order to give back to EA, who will then improve the servers.
      If you are the kind of guy who would do this, why wouldn't you play online for a couple of months? Oh and XBOX Live allows stat tracking and tournaments and all that too so thats a wash. Again, you should look this stuff up before you post.

      the users who wish to play EA sports games are not the typical users who will pay an extra fee on top of that to play Madden
      Actually, most of the users on XBOX Live ARE the sports gamers, they are just going with ESPN (Sega) Sports this year instead.

      Anecdotal: I just interviewed a guy today who took Madden back because it did not support Live for the 2004 season and got the new ESPN (Sega) football instead.

      And why shouldn't EA be allowed to terminate online services for a game?
      They are in every way allowed to. Trust me, this is more about Sony throwing a truckful of money at EA to be PS2 online exclusive and EA trying to deflect blame onto Microsoft. EA is the only company I trust less than MS.

      Your post is nothing but pro-Microsoft FUD.
      Your post is nothing but incorrect presumptions and other ramblings. Please be knowledgable before you reply to this post.

    6. Re:Forgot the most important one... by Babbster · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think you're guilty of promoting ANTI-Microsoft FUD. Of course EA is in the business of selling games, but the way they're doing it is by FORCING people into it. I wonder how supportive PC folks would be if Valve decided to turn off online play with Half-Life/modded Half-Life once Half-Life 2 came out. After all, Valve is in the business of selling games, too...

    7. Re:Forgot the most important one... by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 1
      How are they forcing people to buy games? The games clearly state when the servers will go down. People are alerted before they buy the game when the servers will go down.

      Have you actually looked at the Madden boxes? Oh, I guess not - I guess you just decided to post without any actual information. Nice work.

      --
      I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
    8. Re:Forgot the most important one... by Babbster · · Score: 1
      I don't care if they put the date on the front of the box in six-inch bold type. The simple fact is that someone who enjoys playing PS2 Madden football online is SOL once the next version hits unless they buy the game, and for no "good" reason except that EA wants to hit the customer up for another $50 every year for games that change relatively little between versions.

      EA is doing its customers dirty on this issue and then uses Microsoft as their scapegoat when explaining their lack of Xbox Live support - and some people buy right into it. Critical thinking is on life support.

    9. Re:Forgot the most important one... by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 1
      Obviously you don't play the games in the Madden franchise based on statements like, "for games that change relatively little between versions." When was the last time you played a Madden title?

      And you still sidestepped my statement. You should EA was forcing the upgrade cycle upon people - there are other football games out there, no one is being forced to do anything. Of course, if you want to see force, take a look at how Microsoft has handled it's Office suite, then you can see users being forced to upgrade. EA is not doing that - there are alternatives out there.

      And is it not a good reason to focus all online resources on a single instance of the Madden franchise? I play Madden 2004, why should I have fewer servers available to me because EA has to keep the Madden 2003 servers active? Especially since most people who actually play the Madden series (again, which you are obviously not a part of) want to upgrade every year!

      --
      I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
  3. Sounds like a switching of roles... by tprime · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hmmm, Microsoft insisting that support continue for previous versions of software? EA trying to force you into upgrading by eliminating support for software that is ONLY 1 YEAR OLD. Doesn't it seem like, with XBOX Live!, Microsoft is straying from their normal business plans?

    --
    http://www.tomandemily.com
    1. Re:Sounds like a switching of roles... by Babbster · · Score: 1

      Exactly, exactly. A lot of people have blamed Microsoft for the fact that EA isn't supporting Xbox Live (because it's natural to blame Microsoft for anything), but the truth is that EA is the bad guy on this one. Their claim that they can't make money on Xbox Live is ridiculous considering that (according to Microsoft) there are half a million subscribers to the service. That's a hefty number even if you plan on selling TEN million copies of a game and it's probably not the best idea to alienate those people since more and more of them over time will eschew non-Live compatible games in favor of those that work with their service.

  4. Pity for an unpaid EA. (Not really) by superultra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Give me a break. The CFO's statements reveal two things. First of all, he plans on charging people to play on the PS2. They're not charging now, so if he is correct and content devs don't get paid on Xbox Live, how are they getting paid on the PS2? What would he be so worried about if he isn't making money now? Obviously, EA has yet to reveal some kind of pay-to-play plan later on down the road. And based on EA's on-line "track record," I think I'll stick with Xbox Live.

    Secondly, his comment reveals EA's specific bias against the Xbox. MS *does* pay developers for content. Who's getting the bucks on Phantasy Star Online? It's Sega, a completely non-MS company.

    The problem with this is that when EA starts charging, so will Activision. So will Midway. So will [insert game publisher here]. Being benignly generous and saying that each of these services will only charge a measley $5 a month to play their games online, what if a gamer wants to play Madden 2004, Tony Hawk Underground, and Resident Evil Online? That's a possible $15 a month for a slice of the games!

    No, what bothers EA about XBL is not that they don't get paid. It's that they don't get *enough*.

    I'll admit, they have a good eye for talent, that EA. But as far as corporate personalities go, he's the successful class ring type guy in high school that no one liked 5 years later. They pretty much ditched Sega when the Dreamcast came along even though it was very much Sega that enabled EA to establish their #1 franchise. They're building up a helluva lot of bad karma, and one day it's all going to come crashing in.

  5. You sir just hit the nail on the head by AlexMax2742 · · Score: 1
    Bravo!

    That's what irked me about EA too. Seems like they were taking a page from Microsoft's book in an area that even Microsoft isn't doing.

    Somewhere in Redmond WA...

    *BRING BRING BRING*

    Bill: *picks up phone* Hello?

    Satan: Hell just froze over

    Bill: WHAT? This is NOT my fault!

    Satan: Yeah, well come down here and tell these flying pigs that.

    (Bit stolen from Scott Adams, me so sorry)

    --
    I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion
  6. The meat ain't ready yet by WildBeast · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They keep talking about wanting to charge people money to play EA titles. Shouldn't they be concentrating on making the online lobbies stable and useable to begin with? I mean seriously, they talk and whine on and on yet there online support still sucks. People can barely even get an online game running and EA is already talking about money :)

  7. Re:in game game ads by Psykechan · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't work.

    Situation 1: EA would either be advertising it's own games, which is not a big deal as many companies do it. They could easily plug games that are in the pipeline thus not needing online support to get the ads. Why go with Live?

    Situation 2: EA advertises for other company's games. Since EA has practically every genre covered, they would be promoting competitor's products! This sounds like a bad idea.

    EA's gripe is that for them to make money with Live enabled Madden, they would have to charge a fee above the standard Live fee. Players could then choose to play NFL Fever for $10 or Madden for $10+$x. Which do you think most gamers would choose? If they charge $5 for online PS2 Madden, they not only make $5 per user but they also undercut MS' price.

    I'm with EA on this decision.

  8. Re:in game game ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    EA's gripe is that for them to make money with Live enabled Madden, they would have to charge a fee above the standard Live fee.
    That is the part I don't understand, why would EA need to charge an extra fee above and beyond the cost of the actual game DVD? How does EA lose money? They port the game to the XBox and get money for it when it's sold by the retailer. Then it's Microsoft's responsibility to host the game because they get the money from the XBox Live subscribers. Where does EA lose money? Wouldn't the proceeds from retail cover the cost of developing the game for the XBox?
  9. Re:Pity for an unpaid EA. (Not really) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who's getting the bucks on Phantasy Star Online? It's Sega, a completely non-MS company.

    Sega has to charge their own monthly fee, over and above the Live cost that goes to Microsoft, in order to get money for their game.

  10. Re:in game game ads by Psykechan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The people who are going to buy Madden buy it with Live support or not. Many reviewers have already said that Sega's ESPN (2k4) is better than it plus it has Live and people aren't biting.

    EA is upset that they would have to spend development costs to make MS money from a Live enabled Madden. They would rather develop a solution that makes them money on the PS2 and possibly make the definitive console leader Sony happy.

    EA is also the video game 500lb gorrila which does not give in easily. Remember that EA and Sega have had an interesting past with them giving no support for the Dreamcast because a DC Madden couldn't compete with Sega's NFL2k. This eventually added to the DC's death.

    When MS ponies up a portion of Live profits to EA, we'll see Live enabled Madden.

  11. Super Mario Bros 3 Superplay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.emptylogic.com/suprnova/torrents/299/sm b3.torrent Bittorrent file for an amazing video of Super Mario Bros 3. It's pretty sweet, I'm spreading the .torrent link everywhere that I can.

  12. Re:in game game ads by Fizzlewhiff · · Score: 1

    Madden is just a status symbol IMHO. I purposly avoided Madden this year because of lack of XBox live. I still play EA's NCAA Football which in my opinion is a baby Madden. My NFL choice was between Sega and Microsoft. While Microsoft's NFL Fever had some excellent, maybe superior passing options I think ESPN has beat them with the overall awe factor. I didn't bother trying out Madden 2004 so I can't make a valid comparison but in some of the reviews I have read it has not fared that well. In fairness I have only read the XBox reviews and many reviewers have dinged it for the live support. I don't see the point of buying the same sports package year after year. What do you get out of it but an updated roster and maybe a few gimicks in a dynasty mode. While that is good for the single player game, these games are best played head to head with a friend or now, via some kind of online service. In time Madden will have to support Live or risk losing ground to ESPN or NFL Fever, both of which are very good games.

    --

    'Same speed C but faster'