data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/09668/09668cfa380c64b34680f5022cebdd18df332a72" alt="XBox (Games) XBox (Games)"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9e53c/9e53cc1df483017fbce385d1129fc00923cfa31a" alt="Entertainment Entertainment"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d0bf1/d0bf1a68952c1fc53428660bef21d8070fdf9709" alt="Games Games"
Microsoft Cancels 2004 Xbox Sports Lineup 73
madopal writes "Well, it's no secret that Microsoft has been slashing internal development (Mythica, anyone?). Now, they've announced that they're cancelling their entire 2004 line-up of XSN Sports games for Xbox. Wow, with Ed Fries gone, it sure is a different place over there." The article quotes Kevin Browne of Microsoft as saying: "We need to be making great games, and the marketplace told us that we're just not at that level."
Re:Oh no. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Oh no. (Score:4, Insightful)
For all they are slagged off, EA still do produce the goods year in year out.
And then there's Pro Evo Soccer... simply the best of the lot.
Why bother pumping resources into places that other people consistently out-perform you. Just get them to build their game for your platform instead...
You're missing the news here (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like someone over there might have finally caught a clue. In the game business people won't put up with a crappy 1.0 and a mediocre 2.0 while waiting for the finally good 3.0.
Re:Oh no. (Score:1)
Re:Oh no. (Score:2)
Circle the wagons! (Score:5, Funny)
i like quote (Score:1)
when have you guys made anything great? it's ok take your time to think about it....
only MS game i ever played was Halo and i didnt even like it. i played it because i bought an xbox and i beat the oddworld game too quick.
plus do we really need more sports titles anyway? there are like 10 variations of each sport possible, and they all are released every year with the new team info.
Re:i like quote (Score:5, Informative)
Asheron's Call
Flight Simulator
Halo
MechAssault
Crimson Skies
Project Gotham Racing
Counter-strike
Shenmue
Maybe they're not your cup of tea, but for millions of other gamers, they are great games. That Microsoft published them demonstrates an ability to identify quality games, and bring them to their gamers -- the only attribute worth having in a publisher.
In my opinion, this move only demonstrates further that Microsoft does 'get' gaming. Their sports games were also-rans, and completely unnecessary given the great lineup of third-party sports titles for their system. Cutting them was a smart move.
Re:i like quote (Score:5, Informative)
What most people really seem to be missing here is that Microsoft cut the titles to work on the next year's titles, rather than cutting their sports line completely. They also make it fairly clear in the interview that the most well-received titles (Top Spin and Amped) were never considered yearly titles, and were therefore not part of the cut (though sequels may not have been in the works yet).
Microsoft has a lot of solid code in their sports titles, especially with the number of code bases they have to derive from in some areas (like baseball titles). All they are doing now is giving their developers more time to make their titles competetive with EA and Sega titles. They seemed to be close their first year out, but their latest run definitely fell flat. This was probably the only way to save these titles, even if it means they won't have a new series on the shelves for a year (and isn't one of the biggest complaints about these types of games the fact that they don't improve much in a year anyway?).
Re:i like quote (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the yearly updates - Microsoft could easily carve a niche for themselves by simply issuing roster updates and gameplay patches over XBL several times each season, and only selling updated sports games based on actual improvements. EA and madden have been getting fat off essentially selling expansion packs each year, for full price. There is quite a bit of gamer animosity against them for it.
But my point was simply that: Microsoft can and does identify quality titles and deliver them to their customers. They know good games, and they (demonstratively) have the balls to hold back games that aren't going to be top-of-the-line.
(E.g. the well-documented delay of Crimson Skies until it was great, the delay of this sports lineup, and one is left to assume: the delay of halo2.)
Re:i like quote (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:i like quote (Score:2)
Personally, I am a huge fan of these exclusives:
Top Spin
Links 2004 (better than PC version)
Crimson Skies
Mechassault
I've looked into the number of games that I've purchased, vs. the number of games I've returned (crap)
I've purchased 40 games for my Xbox, and sold back 7.
That's a pretty good ratio.
Sold back:
Pac Man world 2
Rayman 3
KOTOR (I know that others don't agree)
Simpsons Road Rage
Phantasy Star Online
And two other crappy games that I can't re
Re:i like quote (Score:2)
Re:i like quote (Score:1)
Re:i like quote (Score:2, Informative)
Re:i like quote (Score:1, Interesting)
I strongly disagree with you, because I understand you to be wrong. Strongly.
Exclusive _third-party_ support for the Xbox is weaker than for GameCube: Xbox and PS2 share the same market, and it shows in the release schedules. For every Halo (now available for PC, but let's ignore that), KOTOR (now available for PC, but let's ignore that), Splinter Cell (now available for every system under the sun except for the Vectrex, and let's NOT ignore that), DOA 3, Ninja Gaiden, and Tekki, the GameCube has its Fi
Re:i like quote (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:i like quote (Score:1)
Except that MS publishes a lot of titles on the XBox, and in the end opening it up to publishing brings in a much higher percentage of bad titles than simply sticking to 1st and 2nd p
Bungie =/= Microsoft (Score:2)
Re:i like quote (Score:1)
Read between the lines (Score:4, Insightful)
We know better than to believe most PR. Perhaps much of MS's energy is being redirected towards Xbox 2?
Besides, as was pointed out earlier, Xbox sales are being driven by sports games, but largely not the ones made by MS: think EA, Sega, etc. Considering that Xbox hardware sales are not exactly a cash cow [slashdot.org], Xbox 2 seems to be of superb strategical importance for market domination, especially compared to the idea of doing Xbox 1 sports games.
Re:Read between the lines (Score:2)
They've said themselves that they're only cancelling the 2004 lineup - 2005 is still on track.
By all indications, Sony will likely have the PS3 out by 2005. Microsoft's learned the hard way that you don't come late to the party and expect to sit at the head table, but they also know that console wars are won and lost within the first few months of a new generation of releases.
They're acknowledging that the Xbox isn't going to win it, but there's still a shot at winning it
April Fools, anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:April Fools, anyone? (Score:2)
Start a petition! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Start a petition! (Score:1)
They didn't abandon them. They stated that they have yet to discuss an end-of-life for the current titles, and that the yearly titles will resume in 2005. In other words, they're taking a year to focus on improving the technical and gameplay aspects of these titles rather than releasing another rehash with updated rosters that won't pan out with the critics when up against Sega and EA.
Just another indication.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Just another indication.... (Score:2)
Also the PS2 should be able to run for another 4 years because it can maintain a price of $179, its getting ANOTHER Final Fantasy game, and EA continues to release sports games annually.
So one less line of sports titles, eh? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's sad that Microsoft's cutting out the XSN games because they had a great idea combining sports titles with Xbox Live (which would seem to indicate many more possibilities than simply playing online), and the console could always use some strong sports titles on Xbox Live, but as sports games go, the XSN titles just weren't good enough to compete with other companies' offerings, online or not.
Still I've gotta admit, I always got excited at the notion of what would be possible with Xbox Live sports games. Custom leagues, custom teams, drafts within the leagues... it could really break some new ground for the incredibly tired sports genre. Seems that won't be happeneing any time soon.
Re:So one less line of sports titles, eh? (Score:1)
Re:So one less line of sports titles, eh? (Score:2)
I think we're wandering back and forth across the line of XSN/Xbox Live, and I want to straighten this out:
The thing they're cutting out isn't Xbox Live, but XSN. I can (and, when I want to be embarassed, do) play ESPN NFL on Xbox Live - I just can't set up a tournament or track stats like I might with NFL Fever (XSN).
IMNSHO, XSN wasn't that robust to compel me to even TRY NFL Fever w
Re:So one less line of sports titles, eh? (Score:1)
They're not cutting out XSN, they're just cutting out the games that they were going to release for it this year. They even stated in the article not only that they haven't planned to drop XSN support from current games, but that it's completely possible for others (Sega, EA, etc) to make use of
Re:So one less line of sports titles, eh? (Score:2)
The only exception that I have found is Links 2004. Only because you don't play head-to-head with anyone. The simple fact that the other guy is better, does not make you any worse.
In basketball for instance, if my opponent is good, he can completely shut me down. In golf though, if my opponent is good, he beats me by 10 strokes. I still get to play my game, but I just get beat worse.
That is where XSN is great though. You can
Re:So one less line of sports titles, eh? (Score:2)
But not so great for whoever comes in as #64.
But I understand what you're saying, and agree. I also suck at online games (well, at games in general), and prefer games where I can play and play poorly than games where being bad means I can't play. It's even worse when I'm merrily playing a s
Re:So one less line of sports titles, eh? (Score:1)
I mean, they pushed into a market that would otherwise have been their own slaughter: EA and Sega have been doing sports titles (especially football) since the Joe Montana Sportstalk Football and Bird vs. Jordan Basketball days. They knew what they were up against. And even though the XSN line is only about 70% the quality of this year's EA/Sega lineups, they had innovation that gave them a chance: XSN network.
Give
Re:So one less line of sports titles, eh? (Score:2, Informative)
IGN Sports: Last year, the ESPN games weren't allowed to have Xbox leagues because of XSN. Now that the Microsoft lineup is not coming out, will the ESPN games be allowed to have leagues this year?
Kevin Browne: This past year, it wasn't a matter of them not being allowed, it was more that the technology came in at a latter date than what they felt comfortable reacting to. The ability exists for them to have the same sort of league functionality that exi
Re:So one less line of sports titles, eh? (Score:1)
He implies (no, states outright) that Sega didn't put the league ability in because they didn't feel they had enough time to react to the api. Hrm, maybe my memory is toast, but if I recall correctly, NFL Fever 2004 was released on August 26, 2003 (acco
Re:So one less line of sports titles, eh? (Score:1)
If XSN was ready to roll for NFL Fever 2004 (it was the launch of XSN), and that game came out a week ahead of ESPN, that whole reas
Re:So one less line of sports titles, eh? (Score:1)
Sega does make good sports game and are really the only serious competition to the EA Sports line. If Microsoft bought Sega, MS's current sports line would be unnecessary. Purchasing Sega would also give Microsoft that flagship game character (Sonic) that they have desperately sought.
Just food for thought.
Re:So one less line of sports titles, eh? (Score:2)
I think it would be much better if other sports games just got XSN support. You could run a league for each game, so they needn't conflict.
Yeah, but really... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Yeah, but really... (Score:2)
From Sony to Nintendo, How MS is going to Xbox3.11 (Score:5, Interesting)
First, it shows how much more like Nintendo Microsoft is moving for game development. Quality over quantity. I think initially, Microsoft was emulating Sony with its mere quantity, as if it were Microsoft's job to fill in the gaps in the lineup. Maybe it's because they finally have the third party support to start focusing on quality first party (and when I say first party I am also referring to second party) titles. For the first year or two after the launch, Microsoft seemed to releasing everything they possibly could. Over the past year they became much more focused, told the in house dev studios to get it done but take their time (Crimson Skies, for example) and canned other titles that weren't up to par.
Now, it seems they're getting even leaner.
Which brings me to my second point.
And this is the one that will draw the atypical slashdot trolls like flies to a honey factory. Say what you will about monopolistic practices or Microsoft always borrowing from other companies. It's true. But one of the things Microsoft excels at is adapting their products until they work. With regards to the Xbox, they've displayed much more willingless to change the xbox based on market movements than Sony, and especially Nintendo. Canning and revamping the sports lineup is just one of these macro-adaptations that will make them that much more formidable in Xbox2. Someone posted that the canning was because of Xbox2. I think that's true, but only indirectly. They're not going to be Azurik 2, Bloodwake 2, and Fusion Frenzy 2 with the Xbox2 just because they can. My guess is that it will 2-5 extremely strong titles.
I know I'm sounding like a fanboy here, but it might take an Xbox 3.11 to start to dominate the market, but they're moving towards that, and this is demonstrative of that movement.
Re:From Sony to Nintendo, How MS is going to Xbox3 (Score:5, Insightful)
That is because they have the cash to enter a market and do very poorly but still survive. Any other company (pretty much) would not have time to adapt their product while losing money.
Re:From Sony to Nintendo, How MS is going to Xbox3 (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, to some degree yes. That is certainly true now. However, while I might be off on my MS history, I'm not so sure it was true back in the DOS/early windows era. I think you're defintely right, but I also think that it's as much a characteristic of Microsoft's corporate identity as much as it is money.
Re:From Sony to Nintendo, How MS is going to Xbox3 (Score:2)
"Michael Jordan is a great basketball player."
"That's because he's much taller than your average person."
And?
Re:From Sony to Nintendo, How MS is going to Xbox3 (Score:2)
FACT: Inside Pitch sucked. (Score:2)
Good riddance to bad rubbish. Top Spin is the only good game to come out of all of the XSN junk, and even its load times were painfully slow.
I dig my Xbox, but crap is crap.
Re:FACT: Inside Pitch sucked. (Score:1)
Links 2004 is loved by many (including me).
OK, but you gotta admit, (Score:2)
Good news, everyone. (Score:3, Funny)
Amped snowboarding (Score:2)
Crap^H^H^H^HSports games (Score:3, Funny)
Rumor has it... (Score:1)
Just the first step... (Score:2, Insightful)
Obligatory Xbox Fanboy Post! (Score:1)
Wow, sports games are hurting. (Score:1)
Fact is, there are what seem to be a huge amount of sports titles at first, until you realize how fragemented the games and series' are across systems and platforms.
It seems to me that Microsoft killing off an entire line of X-box games is a huge blow to a genre that is essentially now left only with the EA Sports line of games across all platforms, with possibly Sega having a small share of that.
It's sad. The RP
Re:Wow, sports games are hurting. (Score:2)
Maybe ..just maybe (Score:1)