Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Entertainment Games

EA, Eidos Have No Plans for Xbox Live 339

Posted by CowboyNeal from the getting-connected dept.
News for nerds writes "Eidos, maker of Tomb Raider, said it doesn't plan to make games for Xbox Live because Microsoft controls the system and manages subscriptions itself, leaving no incentive for a publisher to collaborate. Sony's approach is to sell just the equipment needed to connect to other's services, such as those run by game makers. Electronics Arts, which makes titles such as 2002 FIFA World Cup and NHL 2003 for the Xbox console, is also reluctant to join Microsoft's system, while supporting GameCube."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EA, Eidos Have No Plans for Xbox Live More

EA, Eidos Have No Plans for Xbox Live

Comments Filter:

  • Yeah, and Alderan had no plans to blow up (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 15, 2003 @10:26AM (#5519292)
    Until the evil Empire made it. Give it time, give it time...

  • Without EA and Eidos (Score:3, Funny)

    by j-b0y ( 449975 ) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @10:27AM (#5519295)
    It's more Xbox Living Dead than Xbox Live

    • Don't be so quick to say that (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Raul654 ( 453029 ) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @10:36AM (#5519335) Homepage
      Unlimited funding (or nearly so) does have a way of keeping unsuccessful buisness ventures alive.

      • Re:Don't be so quick to say that (Score:4, Interesting)

        by j-b0y ( 449975 ) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @10:46AM (#5519377)

        EA's sports titles are highly visible and successful; I think Microsoft was counting on leveraging those brands to make Xbox Live a success and recoup some cash. Losing the multi-player angle is a big loss to Microsoft.



        Eidos isn't such a big loss, but it all adds to the FUD surrounding Xbox Live.



        Which is ironic, really, considering the FUDee.

        • Which is ironic, really, considering the FUDee.

          Who would that be? The game buying public?
        • Sure, EA's sports titles are big... but I actually think EA is losing the edge in their negotiations with MS on Live support.

          Think about it - EA has always liked being king-maker. They were able to help kill Dreamcast by not supporting it - partly because they didn't get the terms they felt they deserved from Sega. EA's problem here is that MS isn't Sega... $42B in the bank goes a long way to giving breathing room. Meanwhile Xbox Live has proven to be a huge success, racking up significant numbers.

          EA is

        • Sega can step in on the xbox for multiplayer. Sega Sports titles are incredibly close to EA for quality. Sega has the multiplayer experience. Of course Sega would rather own its own servers, but that's true of all companies. The problem with Sony's solution is that gamers have to pay $5 or $10 a month to each company that makes the titles they want to play online. I don't think many people will pay $10 to Sony for Everquest, $5 to EA for Football, $5 to Tecmo for DOA online.

      • Re:Don't be so quick to say that (Score:4, Insightful)

        by RoLi ( 141856 ) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @12:17PM (#5519726)
        XBox' problem is that it can't support itself, that means because of the braindead x86-nVidia architecture, it will die a quick painless death the moment Microsoft stops spending a billion/year on it.

        The PS2 architecture is optimized for gaming and much more efficient at it. - And it can also be put on one single chip. On the other side, XBox' architecture might win in terms of raw performance because it's 2 years newer, but a x86-architecture will never be able to put out a competitive console at the same price as a more optimized architecture.

        In a few years, Sony will bring out the PS3 and Microsoft will have no chance to put out anything comparable at the same time at a competitive price. Either they wait 2 years again and lose a little, or they put out a x86-monster at the same time and lose a lot.

      • Unlimited funding (or nearly so) does have a way of keeping unsuccessful buisness ventures alive.

        This is an intellectually dishonest statement for the following reasons:

        A) $2B allocated (not spent) over a period of at least 2 years is not a lot of funding to break into the console business (or in any saturated market). Heck, Sony invested over $1B in chip manufacturing alone for the PS2 - a cost that MS doesn't even incur because they buy chips from Intel.

        B) Nobody can determine if the XBOX is an unsu

  • Distributors (Score:2, Informative)

    by Loosewire ( 628916 )
    Theyre the distributors of tomb raider - core design made it

  • It's a catch-22... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dragoon412 ( 648209 ) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @10:36AM (#5519334)
    ...for consumers, I mean.

    The Xbox is the console in most need of some sort of killer-ap (if you'll be so kind as to excuse the dot-bomb era expression). Gamecube and Playstation both have great developers, good franchises, and a decent selection of games, and what's the Xbox have? Halo? Sure, it was a decent shooter by console standards. Phantasy Star Online? It's been delayed 5 consecutive times, beginning in November of last year, and is supposedly due out in April.

    The problem is that if game developers are disuaded from producing games by Microsoft's control of Xbox, it's bad for the consumers; we won't get any decent games made for the system. But on the other hand, I actually like what Microsoft's done with Xbox Live; every game has voice, and they all seem to have a unified (if someone spartan) interface. From a gamer's prospective, Live is a good thing; certainly better than Sony and Nintendo's feeble online offerings.

    Xbox Live has a ton of potential. It's a shame Microsoft can't strike a deal with some of these developers to bring their games to Live. ...then again, I wouldn't exactly consider EA a _good_ developer.

    • Yah, and you know what (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Raul654 ( 453029 ) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @10:39AM (#5519347) Homepage
      It kinda sucks being distrusted and loathed by every other company in the market, doesn't it? They ruthlessly crushed everyone in the PC world, and now they wonder why no one wants to help them do the same in the console world.

    • What you said... distilled to the nutshell (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ackthpt ( 218170 ) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @10:51AM (#5519398) Homepage Journal
      The problem is Microsoft doesn't understand the model. They try to dictate it, same as they do everything else. It works because businesses are suckers, but consumers are actually more choosey. Sand in the Xbox hourglass is running out.

      That said. There's only one game on the Xbox I'd buy it for, and I'm not going to shed $200+ to play it. I'm also not going to say what it is, in the even some Microsoft researcher/marketeer is reading ( nyah! :p )

      If anyone was unclear on the concept, before, Microsoft does not want to sell games, they want control over your entertainment console, as it's a portal. Once they 0wn it, you're just another entry in the journal of receivables.

      • >> The problem is Microsoft doesn't understand the model

        It looks like YOU understand the model. If you do, send them your resume, you'll get hired immediately if you pass their nightmarish 5-hour interview. Although I doubt you know you know anything better than folks at MS. You just fail to see a long term strategy here.
      • That said. There's only one game on the Xbox I'd buy it for, and I'm not going to shed $200+ to play it

        That'll be DoA Extreme Beach Volleyball right? ;) That's sure as hell the only xbox game I'm interested in playing.
    • then again, I wouldn't exactly consider EA a _good_ developer.

      Say what you will about the quality of EA's games... They publish 1 out of every 4 made!!!! I doubt microsoft can make it in the long run without them.

    • if you'll be so kind as to excuse the dot-bomb era expression

      I can excuse "killer-ap" (it's "killer app", by the way), but I can't excuse your use of the expression "dot-bomb era". Don't ever use it again.

    • Re:It's a catch-22... (Score:2, Informative)

      by gid-goo ( 52690 )
      EA might not be a great company to work for (I've heard they don't give royalties to employees) or whatever. But they have the #1 sports titles. Madden is an unstoppable sports behemoth right now (and has been for years). Sony hasn't been able to make a decent competitive football title since the ps1. Without EA Microsoft isn't going anywhere.
    • Far from being a 'dot-bomb' era expression, killer app has been used for at least 2 decades now. Google 'macintosh' and 'lotus', and you'll see what I mean.

  • Closed system, restricted development? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 15, 2003 @10:37AM (#5519339)
    The closed shop!
    To me this is the difference (the true difference) between pc and console - only approved developers can publish on the consoles while on the pc anybody can.
    Does this keep the quality levels up? You decide ;)
    Sony know how to encourage developemnt of their online system - make it open!
    An interesting parallel here for me is DRM coming soon to a pc near you! Imagine your windoz box having the same requirements as a console (hardware manufacturer mandated software certs), no coiencidence here that microsoft network=closed, sony=open.....
  • It would be easy to write off Xbox Live, but I don't think that would be very wise. By all accounts the Xbox live service is very slick, feature packed and easy to use. If M$ are smart they will see which way the wind is blowing and find a way to offer game publishers incentives (financial or otherwise).

  • EA can go screw (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 15, 2003 @10:44AM (#5519372)
    EA wouldn't know a valid online gameplan if it bit them in the ass. These are the people who killed "Ultima Online 2" because they were desperately afraid of hurting the original UO, their accidental cash-cow. These are the people that have driven countless quality game studios into the ground. They managed to bungle their license-to-print-money, "The Sims Online", which even Sierra probably couldn't have fucked up.

    Paraphasing: "To calculate how much cock EA sucks, you'd need one of those hilarious web page counters that keeps spinning and flipping out of control with the numbers appearing to race upward to infinity but really only getting to 999999 before resetting to 000000."

    Meanwhile, Microsoft is by all reports the most developer-friendly game publisher out there, and yet gets no loving from anyone because they're The Evil Empire. Bah.

    • Re:EA can go screw (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 15, 2003 @10:52AM (#5519403)
      Absolutely. As a game developer that works on all three consoles -- I don't what the hell EA is smoking. Actually, I do know. This has nothing to do with game developers -- it's about game _publishers_. Of course, this isn't the record industry, so /. can make an exception to detesting the assholes that steal all the money.

      EA is just pissed that they're not clever enough to make money off XBL. From a developer's perspective, Xbox blows PS2 and GCN (sic) out of the water. Not having to worry about reinventing the wheel (security, matchmaking, etc...) means more time to focus on making a good game, rather than dealing with Nintendo/Sony's laughable developer support. (Sony's is better than Nintendo, but neither one is even in the same league as MS).
      • "means more time to focus on making a good game"

        Then how come theres more games on the PS2 and also more better games on the PS2 then on the Xbox?

        Granted there are plenty more duff games on the PS2 though.

        • Re:EA can go screw (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          You're right (I'm the AC above). There are more good games on PS2. That's the best argument that Sony fanboys can make right now.

          As for why -- there are several reasons. First is that Sony had a significant head start with the PS2, so everybody jumped on the bandwagon and started making games. That much lead time meant lots of games, which meant more PS2 sales, which meant more games, etc...

          Cut to today -- It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that most games are being released for at least two

          • Re:EA can go screw (Score:2, Informative)

            by Firehawke ( 50498 )
            Well, I'm an old-timer for this sort of thing. I've been watching the console wars since the early 80s, and if there's anything I've learned, it's that the power of a console doesn't matter nearly as much as the software for it.

            Time after time, weaker systems have won because the games were better. The Atari 2600 beat out Coleco and Intellivision. The NES beat out the SMS. The Super NES beat the Genesis except in sports games. PSX managed to beat Dreamcast.

            As a gamer, I'm loath to trust a company with the

          • Re:EA can go screw (Score:3, Informative)

            by ryants ( 310088 )

            you end up spending 90% of your time working on PS2, as it's such an underwpowered, poorly designed piece of crap. It's a hella fun system with the best games, but writing code for it just sucks.

            I code for the PS2, and I like it just fine. Linux toolchain, gdb, MIPS instructions that you can actually understand, ... what could be better?

            The thing spends more time waiting on instruction cache stalls than executing code.

            Then you have poorly written code. Try using the ICACHE performance counters s

      • Re:EA can go screw (Score:2, Interesting)

        by gid-goo ( 52690 )
        As a developer the PS2 blows the XBox out of the water because I have over 50 MILLION customers to sell to.
        That being said, I agree that EA and online gaming is like oil and water. They just don't seem to get it. THey have amazing franchises that sell like mad. But they can't seem to let a developer have enough freedom to build a good online game.
    • These are the people who killed "Ultima Online 2" because they were desperately afraid of hurting the original UO, their accidental cash-cow.

      Um, no.. that was OSI. OSI killed off UO2 *before* it sold out to EA.

  • A benefit of paying $50 for a game...... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by scottp ( 129048 ) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @10:46AM (#5519380)
    should be the ability of playing online without any additional cost. IMO it should be left for the makers of the game to charge so they can keep making great games we all love to play. How much of the M$ XBOX tax do game makers receive? That's why I've never gotten an XBOX, because I can play Madden 2003, Tony Hawk 4 online on the PS2 for free.
    • should be the ability of playing online without any additional cost. IMO it should be left for the makers of the game to charge so they can keep making great games we all love to play.

      I agree, however simple economics dictate otherwise. A one time purchase of a game for $50 (which, whatever, is somewhat reasonable) does not cover the ongoing cost of bandwidth and support. Same reason why people can't sell "lifetime of dial up internet for one price" or "lifetime webhosting, just pay $200 up front".

      The

  • Ramifications (Score:4, Interesting)

    by NeoMoose ( 626691 ) <neomooseNO@SPAMdespammed.com> on Saturday March 15, 2003 @10:48AM (#5519389) Homepage Journal
    This was a known fact as soon as EA cancelled the Xbox version of Battlefield 1942. They didn't go on record saying it or anything, but EA had no other titles in the pipeline for Xbox live.

    It's too bad too, as a developer I find that Xbox Live is by far and away the easiest online platform to develop for among any of the consoles.

    As for Eidos... Tomb Raider Online never sounded very appealling anyways.

  • Sony turns out to be more expensive (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ramzak2k ( 596734 ) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @10:48AM (#5519391)
    Well , sony selling out its equipment to connect to game services might make things more ideal for game makers but not consumers.Every time a new game come out we would end up paying a brand new subscription fee.
    X-Boxers would get to play as long as they like with as many games they like for a fixed subscription fee. I think Microsoft has it right here.

    • Re:Sony turns out to be more expensive (Score:5, Informative)

      by georgep77 ( 97111 ) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @11:12AM (#5519466) Homepage Journal
      Actually if you read up on XBox-Live there may be a fee of $10/month once your first year is over. Also MS has never ruled out extra fees for future games. So basically there is no "designed in" cost savings over the PS2 online model.

      http://xbox.ign.com/articles/361/361526p1.html

      Extra fees are already being charged (will be charged upon release) of Phantasy Star Online for the XBox.

      http://www.rpgfan.com/news/2002/1655.html

      Cheers,
      _GP_
      • You are correct. Certain games that require more resources (eg: MMORPG's) would cost more, but your typical FPS/Racer/etc. type games will probably never incur an extra cost. Furthermore, the XBox live system is still more convenient because you are still logging in to one system with a unified interface accross games, and a unified billing process to make it very easy to manage. I don't want seperate monthly bills from EA, Sony, Capcom, etc.
        • Also, many consoles are purchased by kids under 18 who don't have credit cards or checking accounts.

          Whatever the model, it must be something you can purchase at Wal-Mart to be able to play.
      • Unless you count the expense of the Hard Drive and the Broadband adapter... both which are impossible to get for the PS2 (the hard drive is not even out in the US and probably never will be)... that means EA and all PS2 only developers are coding features that only a sliver of the market will use.

        On the Xbox, developers know the consumer has an ethernet card and a harddrive already, so they feel more comfortable coding features that will make use of those even though the consumer might not have XBox live.
      • The $10 a month is far from confirmed. From the faq you linked to:

        "Pricing plans beyond the $49.99 for 12 months hasn't been revealed yet by Microsoft."

        At this point $10 is just speculation, there are absolutely no facts to back up that number. Another possibility which is being publised at least as often as the $5 or $10 a month rumors, is that the subscription would continue to cost $50 per year, the exact same price as the startup kit. Think about it, why would someone pay $120 for a year, when inste

    • Sony have many more games, at which point the XBoxer is paying money to play nothing as much as they like.

      Hint: How many other markets are _actually_ driven by consumers rather than business interests.... MS isn't thinking of you.
    • I think Microsoft has it right here.

      Are you sure you're at the right website ?
    • Where do you get this idea? So far besides EverQuest and Final Fantasy XI (only in Japan right now), I don't think there are any other games that require an additional fee. The sports games (EA Sports, Sega) which are probably the most played online game do not require additional fees, and these are probably the most important games that matter to your everyday consumer. FPS and RTS games are the vasty minority of the market looking at the sales charts of GTA, Madden, or Final Fantasy.

      BTW, it was confi

    • Phantasy Star Online is an extra 8.95$ USD/mont from Sega. This spoils their single-payment argument, effectively ruining the point of single-billing.
  • I can see how Microsoft keeping control of subscriptions might make the Xbox Live service less appealing to publishers trying to set up an elaborate MMORPG, but as for 'normal' multiplayer games like Unreal Championship - why not? If it significantly enhances the game (and therefore, theoretically at least, makes the game more appealing to consumers) why not build in Xbox Live multiplayer support? Are the development and server maintenance costs higher than, say, building in multiplayer functionality in an
    • The thing here is that it's not about the development costs being higher (they're not, and in fact Microsoft will help developers if they have trouble integrating the XBL features). Neither is it about maintaining servers for games like UC or, in EA's case, Battlefield 1942.

      In the case of EA it's about control of the consumer (for example, EA can advertise their own games on their own servers exclusively if they choose) and getting dollars from that consumer. At some point, I expect EA to announce a mon

  • -- the more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @11:05AM (#5519448)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Xbox Live was intended to be the unique selling point of the Xbox. Microsoft assumed that their competitors would be to slow (and lacking in experience) to get behind online gaming, and therefore that they could dictate terms to third party publishers and consumers. (In short, that they could own online console gaming -in market terms- in the way Sony own traditional console gaming.)

    There were two flaws in this plan. The first is that the Xbox, even after having more money thrown at it than Mike Tyson, st

    • Re:I've been saying this for some time now... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SimplyCosmic ( 15296 ) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @12:28PM (#5519775) Homepage
      ... and yet neither the GC nor the PS2 are really stomping them when it comes to online games.

      I own a Playstation 2, and in many ways am jealous of the support the XBox owners get in terms of their online package.

      Sure, it cost them $50, but they get the ability to log onto Live through one account, see where their buddies are online and what games they're playing and join them in that game. They even get a cheap little headset.

      Of course, as a PS2 owner, I can get a headset too, provided I pay $60 for a copy of SOCOMM that comes with it.

      You are correct that Microsoft's model isn't enticing to developers who want to make money off of their own subscription model, but the truth is the majority of games that could have online support aren't MMORPGs that can get away with charging monthly fees on their own on top of anything else you might have to pay.

      The trouble for the PS2 is that in trying to develop online support for, say, your fighting game, you don't get anywhere near the pre-built support you do for the XBox, and have to reinvent the wheel in many places, which is why so few games are coming out that do support that feature, even when they should.

      Sony needs to push online features far more than it is with their completely hands off approach.
      • Of course, as a PS2 owner, I can get a headset too, provided I pay $60 for a copy of SOCOMM that comes with it.

        Not to forget that you also need to buy a modem / Network adapter, something that comes standard on the XBox.

        I was holding back for quite a while, couldn't decide if PS2, GCN or Xbox.... In the end I bougth an XBox and so far I am happy with it, more so than I think I would have been with a PS2 and if it is just for the larger, more comfortable controller.

        M.
    • If Sony and Nintendo are much more attractive to third party publishers; then why do both have so few multiplayer games compared to the Xbox?

      Xbox have the best plan for the consumer, 350K Xbox Live kits have been sold, that's more than the PS2 and GC kits.
    • Honestly, Microsoft assumed right, that Sony would make a mistake.

      What I see here is Sony wanting to follow the model of online games on the PC. But all they are really thinking of is the huge successes like Ultima Online and Everquest. With the exception of those and the third person shooters like Quake and Counterstrike, most PC games with online play have failed dramatically. The reason being, they each charged $10/month and never got to a critical mass where they could afford their infrastructure.

      B
  • First off if either of these companies need incentives from Microsoft to make a game LIVE, then they have some serious problems !

    As Publishers/Developers they have no upkeep costs on running any of the LIVE services, servers, or systems, how can they be complaining. Companies like Blizzard spend thousands if not millions to keep thier on-line services up and running, and all of these companies are getting the service for FREE while selling more copies becuse its LIVE enabled. For me thats an incentive en
    • I agree, I don't have an XBox, but Live is a great plan. Its not that expensive for the end users, and the developers have all the tools needed to play online, so they can focus on the game. However, EA probably has a point. They probably want their PS2 and XBox products to work together, so it doesn't matter which you own. With Microsoft running Live, its not a possibility.

      Microsoft seems to be adapting to the fact that nobody trusts them quite well. It will be interesting to see what sort of things come

    • Re:these companies need incentives ? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by RoLi ( 141856 ) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @12:37PM (#5519822)
      As Publishers/Developers they have no upkeep costs on running any of the LIVE services, servers, or systems, how can they be complaining. Companies like Blizzard spend thousands if not millions to keep thier on-line services up and running

      Contrary to the average gamers belief, neither bandwidth nor running a server is not expensive. For example at serverbeach they sell 100$/month packages with 400GB bandwidth and hardware included. Now that will probably not be enough to handle an entire continent, but the upkeep costs are maybe a few thousand $/month - neglegtible compared to development, marketing and packaging/sales costs.

      With all the optic cables dug in for years, the cost of bandwidth has come down to almost nothing for datacenters. (Of course the last mile is still expensive, but you don't run your gameservers via DSL)

      Or to put it in another way: The expensive part about online gaming is making a server and supplying the clients with online capabilities (aka development) and marketing.

      my 2 cents but hey i think i have a damn good point !

      You have never had anything to do with running servers, that's for sure.

      Microsoft is asking the game developers to do more work and don't let them control it. For example, it might be feasible to let gamers use online services for free (see above) to boost sales. Or the game might be so good, that you want to charge much more.On XBox, both is impossible - MS just won't let game-publishers make their business decisions.

      • You have never had anything to do with running servers, that's for sure.

        Neither have you if you think running a bank of servers+upkeep+admins+misc costs is only a few thousand a month for a popular online game.
      • Look, i'm sorry but you have no idea what it takes to run a data center and all the server apps involved in making Xbox Live work. I suppose I could just go down to rackspace and pick up 50 servers to run as the backbone without custom coding, voice streaming etc. You are being a bit shortsighted I'm afraid.
      • "Microsoft is asking the game developers to do more work and don't let them control it. For example, it might be feasible to let gamers use online services for free (see above) to boost sales. Or the game might be so good, that you want to charge much more. On XBox, both is impossible - MS just won't let game-publishers make their business decisions."

        Huh? Sure they can charge-- MS isn't dictating that they can't charge a monthly fee.
    • i think XBox Live is one of the largest Gaming communities out there now, and the most advanced.

      I'm not arguing one way or the other on this, but do you have any actual facts to back up this hertofore wild and unfounded supposition?

      Larger than the millions of people who play Counterstrike daily on 27,000+ servers, never mind the LAN Counterstrike games? Larger than the hundreds of thousands who play Everquest on JUST the PC platform, not to mention those who have it available for their PS2? Larger than

  • Strange attitude on Slashdot... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MosesJones ( 55544 ) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @11:19AM (#5519492) Homepage

    Reading the comments here its rather strange, people seem to think that companies moving into new markets are strong because of what they do in other markets. Comments like "MS will change" etc etc misses the point some what.

    MS will have sat down and thought about this strategy, they are unlikely just to change in 6 months as they have models that indicate this will work. 6 months time then they may start changing. But the point here is that as the new player, even a new player with loads of cash, they have to adopt different business models as they have to differentiate themselves so they don't compete head to head with established players.

    Sony did this when they entered the console market, their interaction with publishers was different to Sega and Nintendo and it worked, this is the way that MS thinks it will win.

    And please folks lets remember that in 3 years of entering the Mobile Phone market place there is ONE major vendor who supports MS, Motorola, and they support Symbian and Linux as well. MS have failed to really break into this marketplace against established players, here they have decided to make the hardware as its simpler BUT...

    Being the biggest software company doesn't make you the biggest entertainment company... especially when one of them is the biggest competitor in the market place.

    ONE MARKET != ANOTHER MARKET folks. If GE entered the Console market would they do well ? What about AOL/Time Warner ? Think about why the console market is different before assuming its the same MS as the desktop MS.

    MS Will, as in the mobile market place, lose money for the next 3-5 years... this is clearly a long term play.

  • Live™ Gaming Hits Europe (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 15, 2003 @12:04PM (#5519675)
    More than 50 Xbox Live-enabled games are scheduled to launch in 2003 and beyond, including Star Wars: Galaxies, Counter-Strike, Midnight Club 2, MotoGP: Ultimate Racing Technology 2, Halo 2 and Project Gotham Racing 2. More than 60 game publishers are currently working on Xbox Live-enabled games.

    http://www.teamxbox.com/news.php?id=4197
    • I mean really, most of those games if people are losing in a sports game just disconnect halfway through. If they're losing a race, they drop out. A lot of the games being offered are all inferior ports from the PC with shoddy controls. No mouse, no keyboard.. Nothing. It's really quite cool for the first month you have it, but the gleam quickly wears off and it's back to enjoying a good single player RPG. Console online games were a flash in the pan and nothing more. Keep giving me good console games and i

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @12:28PM (#5519774)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Gotta be kidding (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WildBeast ( 189336 ) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @12:37PM (#5519820) Journal
    EA? EA? Did anyone of you try there servers? They charge you $5.95/month to play there sports games in a lagfull environment. It's more than frustrating, especially with NHL 2003. I gave up on EA a long time ago.

  • So are you implying...? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I find this story writeup wierd because it implies they are ignoring the XBox Live because they prefer (over XBLive's you-must-use-internet-through-microsoft model) the GCN and PS2's model where the game company sets up its own servers.

    This implies that they are actually going to make online games for the GCN or PS2.

    OK, well, it wouldn't surprise me to find they're writing PS2 games; the PS2 has a decent online game lineup, rivalling MS's even, and though there haven't been any new games i've heard of sin
    • Miyamoto has said in interview after interview that Nintendo doesn't really believe the online market's going to take off. I kind of believe him. The GC ethernet adapter is there mostly as an insurance, should things start to kick into gear - but I'm not holding my breath. Look at PC, for instance. How many truly successful for-pay online games are there? A couple MMORPGs, the biggest among them being EQ. Apart from that, nothing. Most big online PC games are shooters, people will set up servers for you, pl

  • Temporary situation (Score:4, Informative)

    by rmarll ( 161697 ) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @01:00PM (#5519944) Journal
    EA will keep up their attitude until some other company's sports games support Live AND start striping away market share.

    On the other hand if any big company can botch this up, it's EA.

    • Re:Temporary situation (Score:3, Interesting)

      by thurs ( 659332 )
      I have xbox live and couple my friends do too. We dont buy EA sports games. We buy sega they are way more fun. EA games are prettier but that means diddly compared to gameplay.
  • If I had a gaming company with the resources of EA, and I have had the opportunity to play Mech Assault or Unreal Championship on Live, I would be losing sleep until I could cash out on it. Sure, Microsoft controls it, but they are doing a hell of a job doing that.

    Live is more addictive than crack. A $50 game and a $50/yr subscription can keep a guy totally hooked for months. Dangle the carrot about posting extra content every X months and they will stick around even longer. I got my Xbox in October 2002 and got Live a few weeks after and I was so busy getting my ass kicked on Mech Assault that I did not even notice Microsoft had posted two new mechs and two new maps. Plus the promise for more. And today I just found out that Splinter Cell, a game that only has single-user mode, has a new module available thru Live.

    EA needs to port the Command and Conquer franchise to Xbox and use Live to allow network games and to post extra maps. That will be a good enough experiment to see if it is worth it to them to spend more in the platform. Microsoft went thru the trouble of creating a solid networking arrangement and online community, so the only thing these people have to do is sell the damn games.

    I switched to mac OS X last year, which is why I got the Xbox. One of my requisites for buying Xbox games is that they have to be Live enabled. The only game that I currently own that does not have Live is Morrowind, and I am hoping that by the time Bethesda Softworks releases a followup it has some Live functionality.
    • A $50 game and a $50/yr subscription can keep a guy totally hooked for months.

      Think about that. From that one realization, it seems plausible that online gaming will never be the money maker that people have predicted. With limited appeal and nearly unlimited gameplay, only a handful of companies can make a killing.
  • Eidos, maker of Tomb Raider, said it doesn't plan to make games for... ...anything. What the hell happened to the new Tomb Raider release date? Can't the PS2 handle the number of polygons necessary to "realistically" depict Lara's rack?

    GF.

  • Microsoft is actually in the right on this one. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nobodyman ( 90587 ) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @06:21PM (#5521214) Homepage
    The problem with the Sony solution is that the consumer is left in the position of having to set up several subscriptions to different publishers. So, if you have five premium games (some ps2 online games have no subscription model) from five seperate publishers , there are five sets of forms to fill out, five credit checks, and five bills (some monthly, some bimonthly, etc). What a friggin hassle.

    And that's not even addressing the technical side of things. On XBL, you have one user account, one buddy list, and the voice communication works regardless of the game. On the PS2, things aren't as consistent. Some games support voice com, some dont. Some games require seperate buddy lists. The developer is forced with figuring out a middleware solution (no small task).

    I can understand EA's motives, but let's not be under any impression that the Sony solution is more consumer-friendly. In fact, calling it a "solution" is being kind -- as they are basically telling the consumer "Here's your network card... you're on your own."

Slashdot Top Deals

You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.

Close