EA vs. Xbox Live

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.

Comments

Hmm.

[rincebrain]

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.

Re:Hmm.

[Toxygen]

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.

Re:Hmm.

[Osty]

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.

Re:Hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Re:Hmm.

[KDR_11k]

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.

Thanks...

[christopherfinke]

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.

Yeah...

[Proud like a god]

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

Sounds to me,

[ADRA]

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.

Re:Sounds to me,

[DeadScreenSky]

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!)

Re:Sounds to me,

[Babbster]

"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.

fastest driving evar

[DrSkwid]

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.