Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
XBox (Games) Entertainment Games

EA On Tough Holiday Season, Xbox Live Rift 30

Posted by simoniker 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EA On Tough Holiday Season, Xbox Live Rift More

EA On Tough Holiday Season, Xbox Live Rift

Comments Filter:

  • Xbox live (Score:3, Interesting)

    by anarxia ( 651289 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @04:38AM (#7010822)
    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)
    • 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).

    • Re:Xbox live (Score:5, Insightful)

      by shadowcabbit ( 466253 ) * <cx AT thefurryone DOT net> on Saturday September 20, 2003 @05:49AM (#7010958) Journal
      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:Xbox live (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Ty ( 15982 )
        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?

        • "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.
          • 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 c
    • 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).
      • (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 o

        • Re:Forgot the most important one... (Score:1, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          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.
        • 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 E

          • Re:Forgot the most important one... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by bigman2003 ( 671309 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @10:17AM (#7011615) Homepage
            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.
            • 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.
          • 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...
            • 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 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

                • 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 upg

    • Re:Xbox live (Score:3, Interesting)

      by unclethursday ( 664807 )
      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 Li

  • 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?
    • 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 pe
    • 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)

  • Pity for an unpaid EA. (Not really) (Score:5, Insightful)

    by superultra ( 670002 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @01:38PM (#7012584) Homepage
    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.

  • The meat ain't ready yet (Score:3, Interesting)

    by WildBeast ( 189336 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @09:26PM (#7014783) Journal
    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 :)

Slashdot Top Deals

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Close