The unit sales in Europe are at best half of those in Japan for games. Part of this is simply due to the lower number of titles localized for Europe (because the market is pretty fragmented, different laws governing content and various languages).
Again, Japanese companies are definitely interested in US and European sales, but the Japanese sales determine how long their hardware is supported. Similarly, although Microsoft will continue to push the XBox in Japan (and Europe), US sales will be the primary focus when making the decision to continue supporting future consoles (as we already know they're doing an XBox 2).
Sorry, I should've been more specific. The graphics engine is what Valve wrote themselves. They didn't license any id technology for this game, unlike the original Half-life, which although heavily modified still used Quake code.
Actually, you have that wrong. It's time to sell all your ATI stock. Very, very soon.
re-read what I stated. My statement said nothing about buying or selling ATI stock.
If I had ever owned ATI stock and had it today, it definitely would be selling today or in the very near future (and I would be following information about ATI's plans better than I am), unless I had, for some reason, bought the stock at a higher price than it's currently going for.
The real question is this: is nVidia more likely to continue to fall after tomorrow, or come back up (and possibly increase a great deal in the near future, although I find this somewhat less likely since they don't seem to have a chip release in the immediate pipeline)? Of course, they got hammered last week, so it's hard to say how far they'll fall overall, but falling another $6 would bring them near their 52-week low, while their high is almost double their current price.
I wouldn't bother buying ATI at this point because their stock has been rising since the story hit the wire, unless I thought for some reason that the stock was just going to keep going up. You're right, though, in that ATI stock would've been a good buy earlier in the week (or even earlier than that, probably), and that now (or soon) would be the time to sell.
I'm quite aware of Carmack's sometimes staggering ability to pull complex formulas seemingly out of his head and translate them well into video games. The difference is that a physics engine (just like a graphics engine) takes time to tweak so that it not only feels right in terms of gameplay, but also looks right (in terms of how other things are effected in the game). id game engines are well-known for allowing rather odd exploits of their physics, not to mention having heavily framerate-based physics in the first place (ie having to have a certain minimum framerate far above normal to rocket-jump a certain height).
Of course, all of this assumes that he's adding in a completely new physics engine when the game is almost done, as opposed to just final tweaking and maybe some minor additions to make sure it's up to the state of other games, which has been implied by some posters in this thread.
Oh nevermind. Neither of them was a good day to buy. It's going down today:)
umm yeah, that was my point. Tomorrow's a good day to buy nVidia, yesterday was a good day to buy ATI. Today being today, though, I can't buy stock yesterday, and I wouldn't buy stock today.
In most cases, nVidia's share in the last quarter fell, while ATI's was on the rise. Plus, ATI will be in all XBox sales and Playstation sales.
In most cases, nVidia had 0% share of those markets only a couple of years ago (and the DX9 market didn't exist anyway), especially that 'integrated marketshare' which was the only thing that kept ATI alive while nVidia rose to dominance against 3dfx in the 3d market.
But, given that Sony produces the chips for Playstation consoles, I'm wondering how ATI gets anything from that market... Gamecube, maybe, but then we haven't seen an announcement yet regarding the next generation Nintendo console's graphics technology supplier.
Sony produces their own graphics chips, so no one else has a chance of getting in there unless they decide to go a different route for the PS4.
OTOH, if they're still going with the Cell technology for the PS3, there is that chance of getting in on joint development efforts with Sony in the future (since the Cell tech was/is a joint effort with IBM and Toshiba?).
You seem to have this a bit off, you need to buy when the stock is low, sell when it's high, unless you plan on shorting stock (ask a stock broker to explain it). If you already owned ATI stock, this would be a good time to sell it or sit on it a couple days and then sell it, because as soon as this article hit their stock prices started rising.
On the other hand, nVidia's stock started falling, so it's good to buy their stock, although best to wait as long as you can and buy it at the lowest possible price (though figuring out what that is is what makes the stock market a bit of a gamble).
As long as Nintendo keeps making money and their Japanese sales stay ahead (XBox sales in Japan are pretty low (less than 1/5th GameCube sales in Japan in the first 5 months of the year)), they'll stay in the business of making consoles. As with Sega, Nintendo's a Japanese company, so often Japanese sales drive their business decisions more than worldwide or US sales (and Sega's Dreamcast sales were actually not bad in the US until they dropped it, but since Japanese sales were terrible, the US arm of Sega had no choice in the matter). Oh, and the fact that they are still making money (although the GBA platform is certainly more lucrative for them). They have 3 of the top 4 platforms in Japan, and the other 2 of the top 5 are Sony platforms (PS2 and PS1).
Dunno if that's true. The Xbox still has only sold a few million more than the GC,
Not to mention that's only in the US and Europe, while the Japanese Gamecube and XBox sales make up for that gap (and turn it around slightly, though not by millions iirc).
I think ATI would prefer to be selling chips to both Nintendo and MS, if possible (depending on the agreements with each company).
Hmm... Is Sony planning to have PS2 compatibility in PS3? If yes, and XBox2 doesn't have XBox compatibility, that'd be a very good reason to get PS3 instead and forget XBox2.
PS3 is supposed to have PS2 compatibility, but may not have PS1 compatibility.
It all really remains to be seen until each company (including Nintendo) makes more detailed announcements about their future consoles.
"We selected ATI after reviewing the top graphics technologies in development and determining that ATI's technical vision fits perfectly with the future direction of Xbox," Robbie Bach, senior vice president of Microsoft's home and entertainment division, said in a statement..... "Nvidia has really given a lot of signals...that they're trying to distance themselves from Xbox2,"
The second part of that statement (the part about nVidia) came from an analyst, not from a statement from anyone at Microsoft. The full quote about nVidia was:
Nvidia has really given a lot of signals...that they're trying to distance themselves from Xbox2," Michael McConnell, an analyst for Pacific Crest Securities, said earlier this summer. "That relationship has really soured over the last year...Microsoft in general is just not a very nice partner to deal with. I think the whole experience left Nvidia with a bad taste in their mouth."
My prediction: Tomorrow's a good day to buy nVidia stock.
I was seriously looking forward to the GC update, Donkey Kong Racing. Don't know what's going to happen to it (whether nintendo took over or it just died, I haven't been following the news at all)
The last rumour I heard was that Nintendo handed it over to Namco, but I'm not sure whether that's been confirmed or not.
The author of the article suggests that the delay in Doom III is due to the HL release--e.g., that the physics patch was added on in response to HL. I've never heard of this before. Does anyone who follows Doom III discussions know if this is the case? It seems reasonable, but also a bit silly in some ways.
For all of the things we have heard out of id about Doom 3, we never (afaik) heard anything about a new physics engine in the game, or any plans to move forward in physics from where id's previous games were.
For example, the author admits that, even given the physics and AI in HL, the graphics are better in Doom III--so why would Id feel threatened? To be honest, that's the way I've always sort of seen it developing--Id develops awesome graphics, Valve does awesome AI. For this reason, there's a part of me that finds the idea of Id being threatened by HL a bit strange, if realistic nonetheless.
There are a couple of things at play here. One is that Valve actually wrote this engine themselves. Before, companies (including Valve) took id's engine and improved the AI, graphics, maybe even physics, and that's all fine, because they still payed id (the exception being those that used Unreal or LithTech engines). Now you see people like Ion Storm ripping out the physics engines in their licensed graphics engines and inserting the physics engine that Valve is using (which is licensed from another company), and I'm sure Valve has a deal that allows them to sublicense the physics with the rest of their engine (so, for instance, the new Vampire game would be able to use the physics engine without buying that second license because they would get the license from Valve).
In other words, if companies are ripping the physics out of engines already to license this technology, they would be doing the same with id's engine, unless id had a comparable (or better) physics engine. If Valve's license is cheaper than id's and includes the physics they want, then it's quite possible a number of developers would take the graphics hit or enhance the graphics engine themselves (look at how many id licenses change the graphics engine, not a large percentage of them, but still a good number of the licensed games). I think id sees this as a requirement, both in terms of the game, and in terms of the licensing prospects of the engine.
That quote is from the writer of the article, not the publisher or developer. Additionally, while it was a publisher-held event, it was still id's people showing off the game.
It's good to see that Valve may have made id realize that physics are important, I just hope that id can put together a physics engine that is worth the delay, instead of just some rushed-together pos that we would've been better off without.
If you can't get your money back, give it a try before using it as a frisbee or a coaster. There's a very slim chance you might like it, though most people don't.
The problem is that the game wasn't awful, and the translation is not nearly as bad as many other games out there. The fact that you can figure out what it meant is sign enough of that.
He's probably never played Zero Wing, just got too into the stupid All your base thing when it hit big a year after it got old.
Nintendo seems to think that somehow by making beautiful, misunderstood games that they will someday get those kind of people into their camp. The problem is that it will never work (just ask Sega). If they don't care about attracting those people, that's fine by me and I'll buy their hi-quality sparsely released stuff, but they'll have to settle for third place in the meantime.
I have not yet found a single person that maintains the 'Nintendo is kiddie' opinion after sitting them down and having them play a handful of games on the system. I decided to buy a GameCube after sitting down and playing Metroid Prime. I decided to get Zelda with the system after playing it in a WalMart for a little while (I didn't like the look of it, but it played well), and finding Metroid Prime new (not previously viewed) at Blockbuster for $20.
Even games that people have watched me play and they've said 'that game is for kids' (like Animal Crossing) beat the image if I can get the controller into their hands and they can play it for a while.
The only game anyone other than me plays on my PS2 is GTA, but it is fair to say that most of the games I have on that system are not easy to just pick up and play for a short game (ie mostly RPGs).
There's no conflict in interest when a developer releases planned or in-development titles on a system which lies in a market that the developer's owner does not compete in. It's not even a conflict of interest if they release games for other consoles, although that's less likely to happen unless the game is really far along.
Not to mention that these were all titles either in development or planned before Microsoft bought them. Microsoft isn't going to tell them to dump existing projects unless there's good reason to do so (ie shifting those projects to XBox, such as in the case of Bungie).
Actually, iirc, patches and similar updates (ie content updates) are the reason that Final Fantasy XI requires the hard drive add-on for the PS2. Of course, i could be wrong, they might have some other reason to require the hard drive (thinking, data should be stored on the server, so what could it be?).
No, EA games don't just play on a Sony-only network, they work on the INTERNET through EA servers, just like 90% of all online games out there, such as Unreal Tournament, you name it.
EA runs the servers for EA's console titles, the story was about Sony launching the network for Sony's 989Sports titles. People have apparently been confused by the mentioning of XBox Live and EA Sports, both of which are seperate networks that compete with Sony's 989Sports network.
Also, how does 989=Sony? Unless Sony owns 989, which I suppose it is entirely possible that they do, but as far as I know, they do not.
Sony owns 989. If you'd like, check playstation.com's news/press section for press releases on 989 titles and then scroll down to the 'about 989 Sports/Studios' section. It says the following (example: http://www.us.playstation.com/news/PressReleases/D 011690.asp ) 989 Sports(R) is the sports software brand of Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc. Known for its top-selling sports franchise titles such as NFL GameDay(TM), MLB(TM), NBA ShootOut, NHL FaceOff(TM), NCAA(R) Final Four(R) and NCAA(R) GameBreaker(TM)...
So, when you say "Sony's network", I think you mean 989's network, right? That's why the PS2 is doing so damn well - people aren't forced to pay anything to join an online game, and that's the way it should be.
No, he means Sony's network, although the two would be the same (because Sony owns 989), the 989 network is really part of Sony's larger network. Sony's model has nothing to do with whether or not you pay to play a game, either, because Sony's flagship online title is fee-based anyway. Sony doesn't want to offer you online service for all games on their platform, they want to be able to charge you $15/month for EQ, $15/month for SWG, and maybe even something for their other games, too. Oh, and don't forget the $15/month (or whatever it's going to be) to SquareEnix for FFXI, either.
You already pay for the internet access, you shouldn't have to pay EA (or anybody else) to play a friend over the internet. I say that they make the ps2 act as a host if you want, and screw the third party servers, just let people host their own servers and rooms, and people will be happier.
If EA decides that they can sell access to their servers for their sports titles, the PS2 and GC are the only places they'll be able to do it, because MS' model doesn't allow the games to charge an additional fee (over the Live fee). As it is, EA is just selling customer info collected from online players to sustain the server costs. Many game titles won't work well with console-hosted servers, while those that do have that option (on most consoles, including XBox).
Of course, the reason the PS2 is doing so well has absolutely nothing to do with their online strategy. Look at it this way: Sony proclaims that SOCOM is the #1 online console title, since it sold ~1 million units, yet Sony had only planned to ship 1 million network adapters by the end of this past March (after SOCOM had sold 1 million units). Chicken, Egg? Sony has no idea how many people are using their consoles online, and they never will. Anyone can pick up an adapter (although frankly, I can't find one unless I want to buy the console again), and they've been pushing a lot more of them out since they stopped forcing people to buy the hard drive at the same time (then again, the only online title I see myself playing on the PS2 anytime soon needs the hard drive, too), but it doesn't mean that everyone that bought the adapter is using it.
lso, from a support issue. How do you support trading real life money for virtual goods? Currently, money changes hands outside of the game first and then their respective characters meet up within the game to exchange the item(s). Its very easy for someone to get burned and i'm sure the last thing a company wants to deal with is this.
It's actually easier to support if the game handles it directly, and fewer people would get burned (as the game's code could transfer the item once the credit clears, without any need for the two characters to meet or even both players to be online). However, as you stated earlier, the company may not like the idea of being held legally responsible if they play broker in these deals.
Thats why they won't officially support it and as long as they are on the record as saying its goes against their user agreement they'll have a better leg to stand on in both court and support.
Actually, UO's user agreement doesn't forbid buying/selling/trading items, as stated in the article. Most of the other games do, but it's rarely (if ever) enforced.
Slashdot Mirror
The unit sales in Europe are at best half of those in Japan for games. Part of this is simply due to the lower number of titles localized for Europe (because the market is pretty fragmented, different laws governing content and various languages).
Again, Japanese companies are definitely interested in US and European sales, but the Japanese sales determine how long their hardware is supported. Similarly, although Microsoft will continue to push the XBox in Japan (and Europe), US sales will be the primary focus when making the decision to continue supporting future consoles (as we already know they're doing an XBox 2).
Sorry, I should've been more specific. The graphics engine is what Valve wrote themselves. They didn't license any id technology for this game, unlike the original Half-life, which although heavily modified still used Quake code.
Actually, you have that wrong. It's time to sell all your ATI stock. Very, very soon.
re-read what I stated. My statement said nothing about buying or selling ATI stock.
If I had ever owned ATI stock and had it today, it definitely would be selling today or in the very near future (and I would be following information about ATI's plans better than I am), unless I had, for some reason, bought the stock at a higher price than it's currently going for.
The real question is this:
is nVidia more likely to continue to fall after tomorrow, or come back up (and possibly increase a great deal in the near future, although I find this somewhat less likely since they don't seem to have a chip release in the immediate pipeline)? Of course, they got hammered last week, so it's hard to say how far they'll fall overall, but falling another $6 would bring them near their 52-week low, while their high is almost double their current price.
I wouldn't bother buying ATI at this point because their stock has been rising since the story hit the wire, unless I thought for some reason that the stock was just going to keep going up. You're right, though, in that ATI stock would've been a good buy earlier in the week (or even earlier than that, probably), and that now (or soon) would be the time to sell.
I'm quite aware of Carmack's sometimes staggering ability to pull complex formulas seemingly out of his head and translate them well into video games. The difference is that a physics engine (just like a graphics engine) takes time to tweak so that it not only feels right in terms of gameplay, but also looks right (in terms of how other things are effected in the game). id game engines are well-known for allowing rather odd exploits of their physics, not to mention having heavily framerate-based physics in the first place (ie having to have a certain minimum framerate far above normal to rocket-jump a certain height).
Of course, all of this assumes that he's adding in a completely new physics engine when the game is almost done, as opposed to just final tweaking and maybe some minor additions to make sure it's up to the state of other games, which has been implied by some posters in this thread.
Oh nevermind. Neither of them was a good day to buy. It's going down today :)
umm yeah, that was my point. Tomorrow's a good day to buy nVidia, yesterday was a good day to buy ATI. Today being today, though, I can't buy stock yesterday, and I wouldn't buy stock today.
In most cases, nVidia's share in the last quarter fell, while ATI's was on the rise. Plus, ATI will be in all XBox sales and Playstation sales.
In most cases, nVidia had 0% share of those markets only a couple of years ago (and the DX9 market didn't exist anyway), especially that 'integrated marketshare' which was the only thing that kept ATI alive while nVidia rose to dominance against 3dfx in the 3d market.
But, given that Sony produces the chips for Playstation consoles, I'm wondering how ATI gets anything from that market... Gamecube, maybe, but then we haven't seen an announcement yet regarding the next generation Nintendo console's graphics technology supplier.
Sony produces their own graphics chips, so no one else has a chance of getting in there unless they decide to go a different route for the PS4.
OTOH, if they're still going with the Cell technology for the PS3, there is that chance of getting in on joint development efforts with Sony in the future (since the Cell tech was/is a joint effort with IBM and Toshiba?).
You seem to have this a bit off, you need to buy when the stock is low, sell when it's high, unless you plan on shorting stock (ask a stock broker to explain it). If you already owned ATI stock, this would be a good time to sell it or sit on it a couple days and then sell it, because as soon as this article hit their stock prices started rising.
On the other hand, nVidia's stock started falling, so it's good to buy their stock, although best to wait as long as you can and buy it at the lowest possible price (though figuring out what that is is what makes the stock market a bit of a gamble).
As long as Nintendo keeps making money and their Japanese sales stay ahead (XBox sales in Japan are pretty low (less than 1/5th GameCube sales in Japan in the first 5 months of the year)), they'll stay in the business of making consoles. As with Sega, Nintendo's a Japanese company, so often Japanese sales drive their business decisions more than worldwide or US sales (and Sega's Dreamcast sales were actually not bad in the US until they dropped it, but since Japanese sales were terrible, the US arm of Sega had no choice in the matter). Oh, and the fact that they are still making money (although the GBA platform is certainly more lucrative for them). They have 3 of the top 4 platforms in Japan, and the other 2 of the top 5 are Sony platforms (PS2 and PS1).
Dunno if that's true. The Xbox still has only sold a few million more than the GC,
Not to mention that's only in the US and Europe, while the Japanese Gamecube and XBox sales make up for that gap (and turn it around slightly, though not by millions iirc).
I think ATI would prefer to be selling chips to both Nintendo and MS, if possible (depending on the agreements with each company).
Hmm... Is Sony planning to have PS2 compatibility in PS3? If yes, and XBox2 doesn't have XBox compatibility, that'd be a very good reason to get PS3 instead and forget XBox2.
PS3 is supposed to have PS2 compatibility, but may not have PS1 compatibility.
It all really remains to be seen until each company (including Nintendo) makes more detailed announcements about their future consoles.
"We selected ATI after reviewing the top graphics technologies in development and determining that ATI's technical vision fits perfectly with the future direction of Xbox," Robbie Bach, senior vice president of Microsoft's home and entertainment division, said in a statement..... "Nvidia has really given a lot of signals...that they're trying to distance themselves from Xbox2,"
The second part of that statement (the part about nVidia) came from an analyst, not from a statement from anyone at Microsoft. The full quote about nVidia was:
Nvidia has really given a lot of signals...that they're trying to distance themselves from Xbox2," Michael McConnell, an analyst for Pacific Crest Securities, said earlier this summer. "That relationship has really soured over the last year...Microsoft in general is just not a very nice partner to deal with. I think the whole experience left Nvidia with a bad taste in their mouth."
My prediction:
Tomorrow's a good day to buy nVidia stock.
I was seriously looking forward to the GC update, Donkey Kong Racing. Don't know what's going to happen to it (whether nintendo took over or it just died, I haven't been following the news at all)
The last rumour I heard was that Nintendo handed it over to Namco, but I'm not sure whether that's been confirmed or not.
or even the first Aliens vs. Predator. Play as the Alien species to see the effect right off, by climbing up the walls and onto the ceiling.
The author of the article suggests that the delay in Doom III is due to the HL release--e.g., that the physics patch was added on in response to HL. I've never heard of this before. Does anyone who follows Doom III discussions know if this is the case? It seems reasonable, but also a bit silly in some ways.
For all of the things we have heard out of id about Doom 3, we never (afaik) heard anything about a new physics engine in the game, or any plans to move forward in physics from where id's previous games were.
For example, the author admits that, even given the physics and AI in HL, the graphics are better in Doom III--so why would Id feel threatened? To be honest, that's the way I've always sort of seen it developing--Id develops awesome graphics, Valve does awesome AI. For this reason, there's a part of me that finds the idea of Id being threatened by HL a bit strange, if realistic nonetheless.
There are a couple of things at play here. One is that Valve actually wrote this engine themselves. Before, companies (including Valve) took id's engine and improved the AI, graphics, maybe even physics, and that's all fine, because they still payed id (the exception being those that used Unreal or LithTech engines). Now you see people like Ion Storm ripping out the physics engines in their licensed graphics engines and inserting the physics engine that Valve is using (which is licensed from another company), and I'm sure Valve has a deal that allows them to sublicense the physics with the rest of their engine (so, for instance, the new Vampire game would be able to use the physics engine without buying that second license because they would get the license from Valve).
In other words, if companies are ripping the physics out of engines already to license this technology, they would be doing the same with id's engine, unless id had a comparable (or better) physics engine. If Valve's license is cheaper than id's and includes the physics they want, then it's quite possible a number of developers would take the graphics hit or enhance the graphics engine themselves (look at how many id licenses change the graphics engine, not a large percentage of them, but still a good number of the licensed games). I think id sees this as a requirement, both in terms of the game, and in terms of the licensing prospects of the engine.
That quote is from the writer of the article, not the publisher or developer. Additionally, while it was a publisher-held event, it was still id's people showing off the game.
It's good to see that Valve may have made id realize that physics are important, I just hope that id can put together a physics engine that is worth the delay, instead of just some rushed-together pos that we would've been better off without.
If you can't get your money back, give it a try before using it as a frisbee or a coaster. There's a very slim chance you might like it, though most people don't.
The problem is that the game wasn't awful, and the translation is not nearly as bad as many other games out there. The fact that you can figure out what it meant is sign enough of that.
He's probably never played Zero Wing, just got too into the stupid All your base thing when it hit big a year after it got old.
Nintendo seems to think that somehow by making beautiful, misunderstood games that they will someday get those kind of people into their camp. The problem is that it will never work (just ask Sega). If they don't care about attracting those people, that's fine by me and I'll buy their hi-quality sparsely released stuff, but they'll have to settle for third place in the meantime.
I have not yet found a single person that maintains the 'Nintendo is kiddie' opinion after sitting them down and having them play a handful of games on the system. I decided to buy a GameCube after sitting down and playing Metroid Prime. I decided to get Zelda with the system after playing it in a WalMart for a little while (I didn't like the look of it, but it played well), and finding Metroid Prime new (not previously viewed) at Blockbuster for $20.
Even games that people have watched me play and they've said 'that game is for kids' (like Animal Crossing) beat the image if I can get the controller into their hands and they can play it for a while.
The only game anyone other than me plays on my PS2 is GTA, but it is fair to say that most of the games I have on that system are not easy to just pick up and play for a short game (ie mostly RPGs).
There's no conflict in interest when a developer releases planned or in-development titles on a system which lies in a market that the developer's owner does not compete in. It's not even a conflict of interest if they release games for other consoles, although that's less likely to happen unless the game is really far along.
Not to mention that these were all titles either in development or planned before Microsoft bought them. Microsoft isn't going to tell them to dump existing projects unless there's good reason to do so (ie shifting those projects to XBox, such as in the case of Bungie).
Actually, iirc, patches and similar updates (ie content updates) are the reason that Final Fantasy XI requires the hard drive add-on for the PS2. Of course, i could be wrong, they might have some other reason to require the hard drive (thinking, data should be stored on the server, so what could it be?).
No, EA games don't just play on a Sony-only network, they work on the INTERNET through EA servers, just like 90% of all online games out there, such as Unreal Tournament, you name it.
D 011690.asp )
EA runs the servers for EA's console titles, the story was about Sony launching the network for Sony's 989Sports titles. People have apparently been confused by the mentioning of XBox Live and EA Sports, both of which are seperate networks that compete with Sony's 989Sports network.
Also, how does 989=Sony? Unless Sony owns 989, which I suppose it is entirely possible that they do, but as far as I know, they do not.
Sony owns 989. If you'd like, check playstation.com's news/press section for press releases on 989 titles and then scroll down to the 'about 989 Sports/Studios' section. It says the following (example: http://www.us.playstation.com/news/PressReleases/
989 Sports(R) is the sports software brand of Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc. Known for its top-selling sports franchise titles such as NFL GameDay(TM), MLB(TM), NBA ShootOut, NHL FaceOff(TM), NCAA(R) Final Four(R) and NCAA(R) GameBreaker(TM)...
So, when you say "Sony's network", I think you mean 989's network, right? That's why the PS2 is doing so damn well - people aren't forced to pay anything to join an online game, and that's the way it should be.
No, he means Sony's network, although the two would be the same (because Sony owns 989), the 989 network is really part of Sony's larger network. Sony's model has nothing to do with whether or not you pay to play a game, either, because Sony's flagship online title is fee-based anyway. Sony doesn't want to offer you online service for all games on their platform, they want to be able to charge you $15/month for EQ, $15/month for SWG, and maybe even something for their other games, too. Oh, and don't forget the $15/month (or whatever it's going to be) to SquareEnix for FFXI, either.
You already pay for the internet access, you shouldn't have to pay EA (or anybody else) to play a friend over the internet. I say that they make the ps2 act as a host if you want, and screw the third party servers, just let people host their own servers and rooms, and people will be happier.
If EA decides that they can sell access to their servers for their sports titles, the PS2 and GC are the only places they'll be able to do it, because MS' model doesn't allow the games to charge an additional fee (over the Live fee). As it is, EA is just selling customer info collected from online players to sustain the server costs. Many game titles won't work well with console-hosted servers, while those that do have that option (on most consoles, including XBox).
Of course, the reason the PS2 is doing so well has absolutely nothing to do with their online strategy. Look at it this way: Sony proclaims that SOCOM is the #1 online console title, since it sold ~1 million units, yet Sony had only planned to ship 1 million network adapters by the end of this past March (after SOCOM had sold 1 million units). Chicken, Egg? Sony has no idea how many people are using their consoles online, and they never will. Anyone can pick up an adapter (although frankly, I can't find one unless I want to buy the console again), and they've been pushing a lot more of them out since they stopped forcing people to buy the hard drive at the same time (then again, the only online title I see myself playing on the PS2 anytime soon needs the hard drive, too), but it doesn't mean that everyone that bought the adapter is using it.
lso, from a support issue. How do you support trading real life money for virtual goods? Currently, money changes hands outside of the game first and then their respective characters meet up within the game to exchange the item(s). Its very easy for someone to get burned and i'm sure the last thing a company wants to deal with is this.
It's actually easier to support if the game handles it directly, and fewer people would get burned (as the game's code could transfer the item once the credit clears, without any need for the two characters to meet or even both players to be online). However, as you stated earlier, the company may not like the idea of being held legally responsible if they play broker in these deals.
Thats why they won't officially support it and as long as they are on the record as saying its goes against their user agreement they'll have a better leg to stand on in both court and support.
Actually, UO's user agreement doesn't forbid buying/selling/trading items, as stated in the article. Most of the other games do, but it's rarely (if ever) enforced.