Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
XBox (Games)

EA vs. Xbox Live 42

Posted by Zonk from the sharing-is-hard dept.
bigman2003 writes "In a big move earlier this year, EA started to offer games with Xbox Live support. One of the big concessions Microsoft made was to let outside companies run their own servers on Xbox Live. Today EA is having problems, partially brought on by their new title, Burnout 3." Tycho has commentary on the issue as well.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EA vs. Xbox Live More

EA vs. Xbox Live

Comments Filter:

  • Hmm. (Score:2, Funny)

    by rincebrain ( 776480 )
    So, a company like EA offers to run XBox Live servers, and their games are having problems with the usage levels.

    How unexpected. Because, you know, EA has tons of experience with realtime online games.

    But seriously. EA's servers shouldn't be causing problems with their games; they should just be a small drop in the pond of XBox Live servers...I'm not saying that's how it's implemented, I'm saying that's how it should be implemented.

    • Re:Hmm. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Toxygen ( 738180 )
      Aren't all games played in real time? Unless it's something turn-based, which are pretty rare cases these days.

      EA has had online matchmaking services for years now on the pc with the majority, if not all, of their sports lines, so it looks to me like they've got as much experience with online games as any other developer. They certainly have enough experience to be able to ballpark a usage level that they expect.

      Their problem isn't that they're some ignorant startup who doesn't know any better, their pr
      • My apologies; I have limited experience with EA's online gaming.

        But if I'm not mistaken, what you're saying is that they're an ignorant startup who never corrected their mistakes and was rich enough to keep going anyway?
      • Unless it's something turn-based, which are pretty rare cases these days.

        You must not play a lot of console RPGs. The majority of those games are turn based based. Major Final Fantasy games (excluding 11) are turn based as, as is the Tactic Orgre series and pretty much anything put out by Atlas. Not to mention the Advance Wars games out on the GBA.
        • Uh, don't most Final Fantasy games use that "Active Time Battle" system they came out with in IV? Technically that works more on time than it does conventional (non-realtime) turns. The only major turn-based RPG Atlus puts out is Shin Megami Tensei (Tactics Ogre isn't an RPG) AFAIK, and the Advance Wars series definitely, definitely aren't RPGs.

          Very few console games are turn-based nowadays - the grandparent poster was completely correct in calling them rare. (They are slightly more popular in Japan and on
          • Uh, don't most Final Fantasy games use that "Active Time Battle" system they came out with in IV? Technically that works more on time than it does conventional (non-realtime) turns

            Actually, that started in IV, was turned into a configuration toggle by VII, and has been completely dropped as of FFX. FFX is back to bein turn-based.
        • I apologize for being unclear.

          I was referring exclusively to EA's properties. I am well aware of the turn-based games, and, indeed, am a big fan of them.

          In addition, turn-based online games are still pretty rare. Yes, I am aware of the Worms series. Yes, I know of others. But they are still rare compared to the multitude of realtime or pseudorealtime games available.

    • Re:Hmm. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Osty ( 16825 ) on Sunday September 19, 2004 @08:06PM (#10293584)

      But seriously. EA's servers shouldn't be causing problems with their games; they should just be a small drop in the pond of XBox Live servers...I'm not saying that's how it's implemented, I'm saying that's how it should be implemented.

      The actual game portion of the game is not client/server, but peer-to-peer (all XBox Live! games are this way). The problem is with EA's matchmaking capabilities. Rather than using Microsoft's system that has been proven to work for nearly 2 years (more than 2 years, if you include the time XBox Live! spent in beta prior to the Nov. 2002 release), they wanted to use their own (ask PS2 owners, they'll tell you that EA's online play pretty much sucks). When playing an EA game on Live!, you're lulled into thinking you're on the Live! network by the login, but immediately after that you're shunted off to EA's crap. This means you run into things you'd never see on XBox Live!, like region-specific matchmaking (which could be a nice feature, but it shouldn't be the only way to make matches) and "technical" problems that never should have existed (for instance, you can't play an NTSC version of Burnout 3 against a PAL version of Burnout 3, which is just completely silly).


      Chalk this up to growing pains with 3rd-party matchmaking over XBox Live!, but it never would've come about had EA swallowed their pride and used the proven system already in place.

      • Ah. That explains it. I'd heard about the shunting crap from the infamous PA rant linked in the post, but I didn't know it was that bad.

      • Re:Hmm. (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        "Chalk this up to growing pains with 3rd-party matchmaking over XBox Live!, but it never would've come about had EA swallowed their pride and used the proven system already in place."

        Yes, and turned over the care of their customers to one of their competitors. That's why EA was wary of Xbox Live; basically, any company that uses Xbox live is giving the competition some levage over them.

        • Re:Hmm. (Score:1)

          by Osty ( 16825 )

          Yes, and turned over the care of their customers to one of their competitors. That's why EA was wary of Xbox Live; basically, any company that uses Xbox live is giving the competition some levage over them.

          If this is the way EA cares for their customers, they would've been better off handing them off to Microsoft. EA's not getting any money out of it anyway (at least, not directly from the customers, as they're paying the Live! subscription fee and not a separate fee to EA -- I have no idea whether or

          • Re:Hmm. (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward
            This is akin to the consumer long distance companies, in a way. For example, AT&T and MCI, in order to offer local service for consumer, must negotiate with Verizon (here in the east, at least) in order to lease lines to do so. Not a problem in itself, except that Verizon ALSO offers local service.

            If MS was simply a service provider, there would not be issues with using Xbox Live. However, MS is ALSO a games maker, like EA. There's an inherent conflict of interest. Yes, we can all pretend that MS will

            • Re:Hmm. (Score:2, Insightful)

              by KDR_11k ( 778916 )
              However, Microsoft is selling primarily one product and that's the XBox itself. they know it'll sell nbetter with more and better games and they know that pissing of large publishers (or even small ones) isn't the way to go. They won't start abusing their power before they're in a position to do so, which means PS2-style market domination (which won't be this generation). Microsoft is still in the "make friends" phase, the "screw them over" phase comes much later.
      • I'm not sure if this holds for xbox owners (I didn't watch my friend loading it up when he brought his xbox round to my place for a massive launch-day dual-format playfest), but on PS2 PAL we get the option to start the game in 50Hz or 60Hz during the "boot process".

        A lot of tv sets can handle this devious "PAL 60" trick - which then lets you play all other 60Hz players (including those in the states and Japan, as well as other PAL players who chose 60Hz), at the expense of not being able to play in 50Hz g

  • Thanks... (Score:3, Funny)

    by christopherfinke ( 608750 ) <chris@efinke.com> on Sunday September 19, 2004 @06:04PM (#10292813) Homepage Journal
    about fourteen earwigs had been born in the seed, and I had twisted open their dwelling. The fruit was black inside. Earwigs were writhing, falling out, clinging to it.
    Thanks Tycho, for ruining nectarines for me for the rest of my life.

  • Yeah... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Proud like a god ( 656928 ) on Sunday September 19, 2004 @06:05PM (#10292820) Homepage
    But today it's all good again [penny-arcade.com]...
    After playing a bit more Burnout online yesterday and not seeing any of the odd behaviors that enraged me so, I can now officially appreciate the fact that EA has put a game online for the Xbox. When their system was caddywompus, it made the fact that they persisted in using their own lobby system another offense in a long list. Now that it functions properly, I can see it as more of a doctrinal difference. We both agree that there is a God, for example, and we both believe that he embodies a certain suite of eternal characteristics - we're just trying agree on what he likes for breakfast
    • Not really. After reading that (and note that he said he was playing at 3am on the west coast), I tried a few games online on Friday night (Around 9pm EST). NOt only was the game browser slow (took about a minute for 5 games to be listed as "open", but I got kicked off after every game. Would always say something about not being able to connect to Live, then I get dumped out.

      I've never had those types of problems with, say, Crimson Skies (one of the few other Xbox games I have).
  • This game is the best game ever!!! I haven't been able to stop playing it all weekend. I recently tried the Live! multiplayer mode and it does suck. I play xbox live a lot on Midtown Madness 3, but wow, EA screwed up the great integration common in all non-EA Live! enabled games.

    But, don't let this stop you from buying this game!!! The single player mode is enough to capture the attention of my ADD self for HOURS AND HOURS. This game is so fast paced that if you blink, you'll probably crash. I find myself
    • I have to admit Burnout3 is good but I can't help thinking that I prefer Burnout2. I spent half my weekend playing 3 and part of the reason it took so much of my time was because of all the delays waiting for yet another new car/postcard/crash award/new track or just general posturing by that annoying DJ guy, none of which you can skip past with the usual 'a' button click. BO2 seemed to focus more on the sweat dripping from your brow, controller cracking in your tense grip, non-stop game play excitement in

  • Sounds to me, (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ADRA ( 37398 )
    the 1.0 syndrome. Is it really that surprising that is this not only EA's first XBox live title, but its also Microsoft's first third party vendor hosted service on XBox live. Typically if you haven't built proceedures and gotchas beforehand, things get forgotten, screwed up, etc...

    Mind you, it could be said that this was ultimately the result of bad QA.
    • Its more like version 0.1 and say its stable. EA has ALWAYS been hostile to Microsoft's Xbox Live so I'd say its more like EA refusing to cooperate at all. Given how long and how many games EA has developed online capability on the PS2, you'd think they'd be able to make the change fairly easily especially with the much more powerful hardware.

    • Re:Sounds to me, (Score:3, Informative)

      by DeadScreenSky ( 666442 )
      Uh, EA has released at least two Xbox Live titles prior to this (their two football games). First one game out back in July. This is just standard EA ineptitude/laziness, and justification for exactly why MS originally required Xbox Live hosting to be done by them. A shame they surrendered to EA.

      (Oh yeah, and Burnout 3 has a nice little warning on the back. EA can cancel all Live play with 30 days notice. Wonderful...thanks, EA!)

      • Re:Sounds to me, (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Babbster ( 107076 ) <aaronbabb&gmail,com> on Monday September 20, 2004 @12:09AM (#10294776) Homepage
        "Oh yeah, and Burnout 3 has a nice little warning on the back. EA can cancel all Live play with 30 days notice. Wonderful...thanks, EA!"

        Welcome to the whole reason EA wanted server control in the first place and why it took Microsoft so long to relent. EA wanted the ability to shut down online play for games that have been "replaced" by sequels. Otherwise, the theory goes, the online players will never upgrade. This way, even if they don't add any compelling new features to their sequel, they can still AT LEAST get all the online players to upgrade.

        One of many reasons why EA is evil. For me, the worst thing is that they come out with some must-play games and I don't have the stones to maintain a boycott.

        • One of many reasons why EA is evil. For me, the worst thing is that they come out with some must-play games and I don't have the stones to maintain a boycott.

          Makes me glad I'm an RPG-gamer (I loathe sports games and racers). I haven't had to touch an EA game since FF VIII PC.
        • I can understand why this would piss you off (as it pisses me off too), but since Live connects players in a peering fashion, you're only going to be able to play a game against other people as long as they're willing to play it. You can't even play some of the lesser-known titles at launch day because 95% of Live is dominated by the Clancy-shooter-du-jour.
      • That disclaimer is a direct result of EA's attempt to shut down their NFS:Hot Pursuit servers in a vain attempt to get more people to subscribe to Motor City Online (before they axed it). The problem came from the fact that EA was still selling NFS:HP boxes, all of those boxes touted online play, and there was no text saying EA could shut their servers down. EA legal went "eh...whoops, gotta keep em up". So people are still playing NFS:HP online for free and MCO has gone the way of the dodo.

        All EA game bo

  • fastest driving evar (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DrSkwid ( 118965 ) on Sunday September 19, 2004 @06:28PM (#10292943) Journal

    no surprise re: network play, NFS:Underground wasn't exactly the pinnacle of network gaming. The PS2 networking was plagued with cheating.

    It's a shame because Project Gotham 2 really set the standard for how online driving should be approached; with games suitable for both the HPB and the LPB, the world ladder system is fabulous.

    Burnout 3 does kick every other driving title in the nuts when it comes to adrenaline fuelled racing. We were determined to finish it before it was released like we did the other two titles but the deadline beat us. BO2 was too easy imho but EA hve really done the business with 3. NFS:U2 will be another stormer as it uses the same engine. Can't wait.

  • Follow up (Score:2, Redundant)

    by rmarll ( 161697 )
    Tycho also posted a follow up yesterday.

    http://www.penny-arcade.com/news.php3?date=2004 - 09 -18

    After playing a bit more Burnout online yesterday and not seeing any of the odd behaviors that enraged me so, I can now officially appreciate the fact that EA has put a game online for the Xbox. When their system was caddywompus, it made the fact that they persisted in using their own lobby system another offense in a long list. Now that it functions properly, I can see it as more of a doctrinal difference. We
  • I'm really glad that EA is doing something about this. I was afraid that EA would make some kind of stupid claim about "we don't really support NAT" or something stupid like that. What I don't understand is why EA insisted on running their own servers. How much money are they saving? And is it worth the bad rap they got because of Burnout 3?
  • They have the some worst user interfaces ever created for video games. Re-use the same code and release it a year later as a new title.

Slashdot Top Deals

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Close