EA and EIDOS not supporting Xbox live.

[Ferocious]

Should they be applauded?

 

[Rent]

1) Eidos isn't big

2) EA is the devil

I could care less if they don't support live. Their loss.

 

[JoPh]

pc all the way. console arnt my thing.

 

[Queasy]

I'd be worried if EA was pulling support all together like they did with the Dreamcast...this is tiddly-winks though and is really nothing more than a pissing match between EA and MS. EA is wanting to charge for its online games and doesn't want to share within anybody else.

 

[oboeguy]

I wonder what they really mean by "own the consumer"? It's a shame to think that NBA Live and Madden won't be Live titles.

 

[Electric Amish]

Originally posted by: Rent
1) Eidos isn't big

2) EA is the devil

I could care less if they don't support live. Their loss.

I agree totally.


amish

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: oboeguy
I wonder what they really mean by "own the consumer"? It's a shame to think that NBA Live and Madden won't be Live titles.

It is just EA's way of complaining of the way that Live is setup where the consumer pays everything to Xbox Live first and sees everything Xbox Live first. They want the model that PS2 uses because then they can make the consumer come to them first and be charged by them solely.

Like I said above, pissing match between EA and MS over sharing the gamer.

 

[nord1899]

Originally posted by: Queasy
EA is wanting to charge for its online games and doesn't want to share within anybody else.

MS wants to control all the servers and customers and doesn't want to share with anybody else.

It works both ways you know.

 

[kmac1914]

Originally posted by: nord1899

Originally posted by: Queasy
EA is wanting to charge for its online games and doesn't want to share within anybody else.

MS wants to control all the servers and customers and doesn't want to share with anybody else.

It works both ways you know.

Possibly, but half the reason MS wants to control all of the servers is so as to make the gameplay as decent as possible (lag-free). However, I won't argue with you that money has something to do with it. But looking at the two online approaches side by side (xbox/ps2), the Xbox one seems to be more efficient.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: nord1899

Originally posted by: Queasy
EA is wanting to charge for its online games and doesn't want to share within anybody else.

MS wants to control all the servers and customers and doesn't want to share with anybody else.

It works both ways you know.

Yep, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that MS shares the revenues from the online games with the developers or gives them some kind of kickback. Plus there are games on Live that will charge you a subscription fee on top of what you pay for Live (Phantasy Star Online).

I wasn't absolving MS of anything...just pointing out that it's a control issue and a pissing match between EA and MS.

 

[alm99]

that sucks, I really like Madden a hell of alot better than Sega's NFL series and microsofts NFL Fever BS.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: alm99
that sucks, I really like Madden a hell of alot better than Sega's NFL series and microsofts NFL Fever BS.

Yep, you'd think Madden would sell like crack in a rehab clinic if it were Live enabled.

 

[BeauJangles]

Ugh... As others said, it's a pissing match, but that really sucks. XBL is the coolest thing I have ever seen on a console.

 

[JSClark]

What next, Tomb Raider Online?

I'll pass, thanks...

 

[arcain]

What about Microsoft's next OS, Longhorn?

"it would include a special "My Games" view that would centralize all the matchmaking, control panel settings, patching tools, and game lists " from Gamespot

Centralize matchmaking and game lists? Would that be bring XBL to the PC? I'm sure the pissing contest will only get bigger when this happens. What would happen to services like Battle.net?

 

[hdeck]

i can play madden 03 online on my PC anytime. go EA!

 

[HOWITIS]

does anyone care? EA's sports titles suck anymore. the 2k series is the way to go.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: arcain
What about Microsoft's next OS, Longhorn?

"it would include a special "My Games" view that would centralize all the matchmaking, control panel settings, patching tools, and game lists " from Gamespot

Centralize matchmaking and game lists? Would that be bring XBL to the PC? I'm sure the pissing contest will only get bigger when this happens. What would happen to services like Battle.net?

I imagine they would still survive. There wouldn't be any requirement on a PC to go through the MS game services to play online. If anything, it could hopefully drive companies to make their services such as Battle.net better. (If they don't get bought out by MS first )

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: dahotboykj

Originally posted by: nord1899

Originally posted by: Queasy
EA is wanting to charge for its online games and doesn't want to share within anybody else.

MS wants to control all the servers and customers and doesn't want to share with anybody else.

It works both ways you know.

Possibly, but half the reason MS wants to control all of the servers is so as to make the gameplay as decent as possible (lag-free). However, I won't argue with you that money has something to do with it. But looking at the two online approaches side by side (xbox/ps2), the Xbox one seems to be more efficient.

sniff sniff You go Bill!

It's about money, for both sides. He who controls the servers will have the ability to make huge revenues. I prefer the PC model of User maintained servers.

 

[Dragnov]

sniff sniff You go Bill!

It's about money, for both sides. He who controls the servers will have the ability to make huge revenues. I prefer the PC model of User maintained servers.

From my knowledge MS is taking HUGE losses from X-Box live no?

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK

sniff sniff You go Bill!

It's about money, for both sides. He who controls the servers will have the ability to make huge revenues. I prefer the PC model of User maintained servers.

From my knowledge MS is taking HUGE losses from X-Box live no?

Initially, for now, yes. They are basically using this to develop an online gaming system that will survive for a very long time into the next generations of consoles. Must be nice to have that kind of money to throw around

 

[Rent]

Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK

sniff sniff You go Bill!

It's about money, for both sides. He who controls the servers will have the ability to make huge revenues. I prefer the PC model of User maintained servers.

From my knowledge MS is taking HUGE losses from X-Box live no?

MS is taking huge losses on each Xbox they sell. They make a killing off XBL.

 

[AmdInside]

EA is just wanting control over their online games. See how they now charge to play online games on the PC. EA is just trying to make more money. It doesn't matter. I like Sega sports games much better.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: AmdInside
EA is just wanting control over their online games. See how they now charge to play online games on the PC. EA is just trying to make more money. It doesn't matter. I like Sega sports games much better.

Some of their games, they will be shutting down MCO in Sep though.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: nord1899

Originally posted by: Queasy
EA is wanting to charge for its online games and doesn't want to share within anybody else.

MS wants to control all the servers and customers and doesn't want to share with anybody else.

It works both ways you know.

But MS wants people to not have to worry about individual fees and such. Just buy xbox live and play any compatible game. No worries about network outages for certain games or lag. Much better this way IMO.