EA On Tough Holiday Season, Xbox Live Rift

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."

Comments

Xbox live

[anarxia]

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)

Re:Xbox live

[shadowcabbit]

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.

Re:Forgot the most important one...

[bigman2003]

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.

Pity for an unpaid EA. (Not really)

[superultra]

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.