Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EA vs. Xbox Live

Posted by Zonk on from the sharing-is-hard dept.

bigman2003 writes "In a big move earlier this year, EA started to offer games with Xbox Live support. One of the big concessions Microsoft made was to let outside companies run their own servers on Xbox Live. Today EA is having problems, partially brought on by their new title, Burnout 3." Tycho has commentary on the issue as well.

42 comments

  1. Hmm. by rincebrain · · Score: 2, Funny

    So, a company like EA offers to run XBox Live servers, and their games are having problems with the usage levels.

    How unexpected. Because, you know, EA has tons of experience with realtime online games.

    But seriously. EA's servers shouldn't be causing problems with their games; they should just be a small drop in the pond of XBox Live servers...I'm not saying that's how it's implemented, I'm saying that's how it should be implemented.

    --
    It's only an insult if it's not true.
    1. Re:Hmm. by Toxygen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Aren't all games played in real time? Unless it's something turn-based, which are pretty rare cases these days.

      EA has had online matchmaking services for years now on the pc with the majority, if not all, of their sports lines, so it looks to me like they've got as much experience with online games as any other developer. They certainly have enough experience to be able to ballpark a usage level that they expect.

      Their problem isn't that they're some ignorant startup who doesn't know any better, their problem is that they've made these mistakes before and haven't changed a thing.

    2. Re:Hmm. by rincebrain · · Score: 1

      My apologies; I have limited experience with EA's online gaming.

      But if I'm not mistaken, what you're saying is that they're an ignorant startup who never corrected their mistakes and was rich enough to keep going anyway?

      --
      It's only an insult if it's not true.
    3. Re:Hmm. by Osty · · Score: 5, Informative

      But seriously. EA's servers shouldn't be causing problems with their games; they should just be a small drop in the pond of XBox Live servers...I'm not saying that's how it's implemented, I'm saying that's how it should be implemented.

      The actual game portion of the game is not client/server, but peer-to-peer (all XBox Live! games are this way). The problem is with EA's matchmaking capabilities. Rather than using Microsoft's system that has been proven to work for nearly 2 years (more than 2 years, if you include the time XBox Live! spent in beta prior to the Nov. 2002 release), they wanted to use their own (ask PS2 owners, they'll tell you that EA's online play pretty much sucks). When playing an EA game on Live!, you're lulled into thinking you're on the Live! network by the login, but immediately after that you're shunted off to EA's crap. This means you run into things you'd never see on XBox Live!, like region-specific matchmaking (which could be a nice feature, but it shouldn't be the only way to make matches) and "technical" problems that never should have existed (for instance, you can't play an NTSC version of Burnout 3 against a PAL version of Burnout 3, which is just completely silly).


      Chalk this up to growing pains with 3rd-party matchmaking over XBox Live!, but it never would've come about had EA swallowed their pride and used the proven system already in place.

    4. Re:Hmm. by HAKdragon · · Score: 1

      Unless it's something turn-based, which are pretty rare cases these days.

      You must not play a lot of console RPGs. The majority of those games are turn based based. Major Final Fantasy games (excluding 11) are turn based as, as is the Tactic Orgre series and pretty much anything put out by Atlas. Not to mention the Advance Wars games out on the GBA.

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs. We have a protractor."
    5. Re:Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Chalk this up to growing pains with 3rd-party matchmaking over XBox Live!, but it never would've come about had EA swallowed their pride and used the proven system already in place."

      Yes, and turned over the care of their customers to one of their competitors. That's why EA was wary of Xbox Live; basically, any company that uses Xbox live is giving the competition some levage over them.

    6. Re:Hmm. by Osty · · Score: 1

      Yes, and turned over the care of their customers to one of their competitors. That's why EA was wary of Xbox Live; basically, any company that uses Xbox live is giving the competition some levage over them.

      If this is the way EA cares for their customers, they would've been better off handing them off to Microsoft. EA's not getting any money out of it anyway (at least, not directly from the customers, as they're paying the Live! subscription fee and not a separate fee to EA -- I have no idea whether or not EA gets any money from Microsoft). Besides, most of EA's XBox customers would rather have EA use Microsoft's Live! capabilities, rather than trying to roll their own. The only thing EA could really do that they couldn't if they didn't run their own 3rd party service is have online play across consoles (PS2 vs. XBox vs. PC), but since they have problems just making XBox vs. XBox work, I wouldn't hold my breath for this.

    7. Re:Hmm. by DeadScreenSky · · Score: 1

      Uh, don't most Final Fantasy games use that "Active Time Battle" system they came out with in IV? Technically that works more on time than it does conventional (non-realtime) turns. The only major turn-based RPG Atlus puts out is Shin Megami Tensei (Tactics Ogre isn't an RPG) AFAIK, and the Advance Wars series definitely, definitely aren't RPGs.

      Very few console games are turn-based nowadays - the grandparent poster was completely correct in calling them rare. (They are slightly more popular in Japan and on PCs.)

      --
      There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
    8. Re:Hmm. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Uh, don't most Final Fantasy games use that "Active Time Battle" system they came out with in IV? Technically that works more on time than it does conventional (non-realtime) turns

      Actually, that started in IV, was turned into a configuration toggle by VII, and has been completely dropped as of FFX. FFX is back to bein turn-based.

    9. Re:Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is akin to the consumer long distance companies, in a way. For example, AT&T and MCI, in order to offer local service for consumer, must negotiate with Verizon (here in the east, at least) in order to lease lines to do so. Not a problem in itself, except that Verizon ALSO offers local service.

      If MS was simply a service provider, there would not be issues with using Xbox Live. However, MS is ALSO a games maker, like EA. There's an inherent conflict of interest. Yes, we can all pretend that MS will not abuse that ability, but we all know how that goes.

      Whether EA does a better or worse job is NOT up to MS to decide. And yes, it does cut both ways: EA game performance on Xbox live can impact MS as well (or, rather, the perception of the service).

    10. Re:Hmm. by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      However, Microsoft is selling primarily one product and that's the XBox itself. they know it'll sell nbetter with more and better games and they know that pissing of large publishers (or even small ones) isn't the way to go. They won't start abusing their power before they're in a position to do so, which means PS2-style market domination (which won't be this generation). Microsoft is still in the "make friends" phase, the "screw them over" phase comes much later.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    11. Re:Hmm. by Masami+Eiri · · Score: 1

      FFX-2 is back to ATB toggle though.

    12. Re:Hmm. by rincebrain · · Score: 1

      I apologize for being unclear.

      I was referring exclusively to EA's properties. I am well aware of the turn-based games, and, indeed, am a big fan of them.

      In addition, turn-based online games are still pretty rare. Yes, I am aware of the Worms series. Yes, I know of others. But they are still rare compared to the multitude of realtime or pseudorealtime games available.

      --
      It's only an insult if it's not true.
    13. Re:Hmm. by brain159 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if this holds for xbox owners (I didn't watch my friend loading it up when he brought his xbox round to my place for a massive launch-day dual-format playfest), but on PS2 PAL we get the option to start the game in 50Hz or 60Hz during the "boot process".

      A lot of tv sets can handle this devious "PAL 60" trick - which then lets you play all other 60Hz players (including those in the states and Japan, as well as other PAL players who chose 60Hz), at the expense of not being able to play in 50Hz games unless you reboot. The Lobby system makes it clear which games you can't join due to frequency mismatch, and doesn't show "wrong mode" games in the search facility.

      It's not optimal, but it is at least possible to join US NTSC games on a PAL machine (on ps2 at least). We can join your games, you can join ours - if we run in 60Hz. Most of the time, PAL players will switch into PAL60 and go looking round the US lobbies if the time of day means the UK one is quiet.

  2. Thanks... by christopherfinke · · Score: 2, Funny
    about fourteen earwigs had been born in the seed, and I had twisted open their dwelling. The fruit was black inside. Earwigs were writhing, falling out, clinging to it.
    Thanks Tycho, for ruining nectarines for me for the rest of my life.
  3. Yeah... by Proud+like+a+god · · Score: 4, Informative
    But today it's all good again...
    After playing a bit more Burnout online yesterday and not seeing any of the odd behaviors that enraged me so, I can now officially appreciate the fact that EA has put a game online for the Xbox. When their system was caddywompus, it made the fact that they persisted in using their own lobby system another offense in a long list. Now that it functions properly, I can see it as more of a doctrinal difference. We both agree that there is a God, for example, and we both believe that he embodies a certain suite of eternal characteristics - we're just trying agree on what he likes for breakfast
    1. Re:Yeah... by Alizarin+Erythrosin · · Score: 1

      Not really. After reading that (and note that he said he was playing at 3am on the west coast), I tried a few games online on Friday night (Around 9pm EST). NOt only was the game browser slow (took about a minute for 5 games to be listed as "open", but I got kicked off after every game. Would always say something about not being able to connect to Live, then I get dumped out.

      I've never had those types of problems with, say, Crimson Skies (one of the few other Xbox games I have).

      --
      There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
  4. Awesome game!!! by alatesystems · · Score: 1

    This game is the best game ever!!! I haven't been able to stop playing it all weekend. I recently tried the Live! multiplayer mode and it does suck. I play xbox live a lot on Midtown Madness 3, but wow, EA screwed up the great integration common in all non-EA Live! enabled games.

    But, don't let this stop you from buying this game!!! The single player mode is enough to capture the attention of my ADD self for HOURS AND HOURS. This game is so fast paced that if you blink, you'll probably crash. I find myself leaning and stuff when drifting around corners. This is by FAR the best game I've ever played on the xbox.

    Chris

    1. Re:Awesome game!!! by Megaphoneman · · Score: 1

      I have to admit Burnout3 is good but I can't help thinking that I prefer Burnout2. I spent half my weekend playing 3 and part of the reason it took so much of my time was because of all the delays waiting for yet another new car/postcard/crash award/new track or just general posturing by that annoying DJ guy, none of which you can skip past with the usual 'a' button click. BO2 seemed to focus more on the sweat dripping from your brow, controller cracking in your tense grip, non-stop game play excitement instead of BO3's flashy - "isn't it amazing the cool features we've added?" On second thoughts BO3 IS probably the best driving game at the moment but you've gotta say that with BO2 inevitably heading for the platinum/bargain bins it's the best value driving game at the moment.

    2. Re:Awesome game!!! by NeMon'ess · · Score: 0

      What, are you playing some gimped PS2 version? On the xbox turning off the DJ is in the options menu.

    3. Re:Awesome game!!! by palndrumm · · Score: 1

      The DJ can be switched off in the PS2 version too. First thing I looked for in the Options menu...

    4. Re:Awesome game!!! by yellowcord · · Score: 1

      What pisses me off is the lame-ass EA Trax music. Yes you can switch it to the stuff on the XBox harddrive but when you shut off the XBox and restart the game, the EA crap is back again.

    5. Re:Awesome game!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find this funny because I vastly prefer burnout 1 to burnout 2 (haven't really played burnout3 yet), and for mostly the same reasons you list. Burnout1 was all about the driving... man I loved drifting through the turns with the muscle car in that. burnout2 however, even the muscle car had incredibly tight handling. there was no learning curve in driving it! and I hated the fact that there seemed to be invisible buffer zones on the side of your car--preventing you from sideswiping anybody! I would get in odd sitatuations where my buffer zone would impact another car; we'd both stop dead in our tracks (with nary a sound to indicate impact), slide a little the side, and then continue on our merry ways at our previous velocities. simply awful! hopefully burnout3 remedies this.

  5. Sounds to me, by ADRA · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the 1.0 syndrome. Is it really that surprising that is this not only EA's first XBox live title, but its also Microsoft's first third party vendor hosted service on XBox live. Typically if you haven't built proceedures and gotchas beforehand, things get forgotten, screwed up, etc...

    Mind you, it could be said that this was ultimately the result of bad QA.

    --
    Bye!
    1. Re:Sounds to me, by DeadScreenSky · · Score: 2, Informative

      Uh, EA has released at least two Xbox Live titles prior to this (their two football games). First one game out back in July. This is just standard EA ineptitude/laziness, and justification for exactly why MS originally required Xbox Live hosting to be done by them. A shame they surrendered to EA.

      (Oh yeah, and Burnout 3 has a nice little warning on the back. EA can cancel all Live play with 30 days notice. Wonderful...thanks, EA!)

      --
      There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
    2. Re:Sounds to me, by Babbster · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "Oh yeah, and Burnout 3 has a nice little warning on the back. EA can cancel all Live play with 30 days notice. Wonderful...thanks, EA!"

      Welcome to the whole reason EA wanted server control in the first place and why it took Microsoft so long to relent. EA wanted the ability to shut down online play for games that have been "replaced" by sequels. Otherwise, the theory goes, the online players will never upgrade. This way, even if they don't add any compelling new features to their sequel, they can still AT LEAST get all the online players to upgrade.

      One of many reasons why EA is evil. For me, the worst thing is that they come out with some must-play games and I don't have the stones to maintain a boycott.

    3. Re:Sounds to me, by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      One of many reasons why EA is evil. For me, the worst thing is that they come out with some must-play games and I don't have the stones to maintain a boycott.

      Makes me glad I'm an RPG-gamer (I loathe sports games and racers). I haven't had to touch an EA game since FF VIII PC.

    4. Re:Sounds to me, by Babbster · · Score: 1

      Lucky you. I'm an RPG gamer, a race-car gamer, a hack-and-slash gamer, a stealth-action gamer, a sports gamer, etc., etc. Which all equals being a very poor gamer. :)

    5. Re:Sounds to me, by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Indeed it does!

      Though with that much variety, I suppose you can live with "missing" a game instead of paying $90 for Suikoden II ;)

    6. Re:Sounds to me, by Quarters · · Score: 1
      That disclaimer is a direct result of EA's attempt to shut down their NFS:Hot Pursuit servers in a vain attempt to get more people to subscribe to Motor City Online (before they axed it). The problem came from the fact that EA was still selling NFS:HP boxes, all of those boxes touted online play, and there was no text saying EA could shut their servers down. EA legal went "eh...whoops, gotta keep em up". So people are still playing NFS:HP online for free and MCO has gone the way of the dodo.

      All EA game boxes now feature a line stating that EA can shut the servers down with about a month's notice. If I remember correctly one of the BF games has a specific date listed. After that date EA can just shut the servers down with no notice.

    7. Re:Sounds to me, by Cutriss · · Score: 1

      I can understand why this would piss you off (as it pisses me off too), but since Live connects players in a peering fashion, you're only going to be able to play a game against other people as long as they're willing to play it. You can't even play some of the lesser-known titles at launch day because 95% of Live is dominated by the Clancy-shooter-du-jour.

      --
      "Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
  6. fastest driving evar by DrSkwid · · Score: 2, Insightful


    no surprise re: network play, NFS:Underground wasn't exactly the pinnacle of network gaming. The PS2 networking was plagued with cheating.

    It's a shame because Project Gotham 2 really set the standard for how online driving should be approached; with games suitable for both the HPB and the LPB, the world ladder system is fabulous.

    Burnout 3 does kick every other driving title in the nuts when it comes to adrenaline fuelled racing. We were determined to finish it before it was released like we did the other two titles but the deadline beat us. BO2 was too easy imho but EA hve really done the business with 3. NFS:U2 will be another stormer as it uses the same engine. Can't wait.

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  7. By EA's standards... by MMaestro · · Score: 1

    Its more like version 0.1 and say its stable. EA has ALWAYS been hostile to Microsoft's Xbox Live so I'd say its more like EA refusing to cooperate at all. Given how long and how many games EA has developed online capability on the PS2, you'd think they'd be able to make the change fairly easily especially with the much more powerful hardware.

  8. WHO IS ZONK??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who is our new /. Games editor? C'mon Zonk, post us an introduction!

  9. Parent +1, Informative. by rincebrain · · Score: 1

    Ah. That explains it. I'd heard about the shunting crap from the infamous PA rant linked in the post, but I didn't know it was that bad.

    --
    It's only an insult if it's not true.
  10. Follow up by rmarll · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Tycho also posted a follow up yesterday.

    http://www.penny-arcade.com/news.php3?date=2004- 09 -18

    After playing a bit more Burnout online yesterday and not seeing any of the odd behaviors that enraged me so, I can now officially appreciate the fact that EA has put a game online for the Xbox. When their system was caddywompus, it made the fact that they persisted in using their own lobby system another offense in a long list. Now that it functions properly, I can see it as more of a doctrinal difference. We both agree that there is a God, for example, and we both believe that he embodies a certain suite of eternal characteristics - we're just trying agree on what he likes for breakfast.

    (it still sucks, but it works)

  11. Thank God. by LordNimon · · Score: 1

    I'm really glad that EA is doing something about this. I was afraid that EA would make some kind of stupid claim about "we don't really support NAT" or something stupid like that. What I don't understand is why EA insisted on running their own servers. How much money are they saving? And is it worth the bad rap they got because of Burnout 3?

    --
    And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
    To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
  12. Re:Yeah, you're right by HAKdragon · · Score: 1

    Ahh, I wasn't aware that it was for online games. I'm pretty sure the last few games from the Worms franchise have online play and it's turn based.

    --
    "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs. We have a protractor."
  13. EA is a pile, what did you expect ? by jocmaff · · Score: 1

    They have the some worst user interfaces ever created for video games. Re-use the same code and release it a year later as a new title.