EA Exec calls for 'open gaming platform'

[Bateluer]

Text

Now, if he wanted to support an open platform, he'd be pushing for development of PC games, running under Linux, written in OpenGL.

What he's actually describing is a closed system controlled by 1 entity with MS, Sony, Nintendo, and any other console maker paying licensing fees to use it. Bad idea.

 

[Throckmorton]

Whatever the hell they are talking about (which sounds like just another console) is going to be purpose built to screw consumers. EA is talking about server downloads... You can't even download an EA game you bought after 6 months or 2 years if you pay extra, and you can't backup your files.

 

[Arglebargle]

That's EA for you. They like the big business model of gaming, where they decide all, and it costs you double. They want a format that has content that can be controlled by the big dogs, and one that is inaccessable to most anyone else. EA, known for the quality of the game companies they have bought, squandered, and deystroyed......

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

Fuck EA.

 

[EvilComputer92]

That rep is a complete idiot. He thinks that cable boxes will be able to handle the requirements of games in the future. Yeah right, like a watered down PC for 80 pounds will be even capable of running next generation games. And everything will be stored on some forsaken EA server, so if you lose internet, no gaming, or any other media for that matter, for you.

Of course the ironic thing is that this would actually make gaming even more closed in a orwellian esque platform where everything you do is stored on some remote server, with absolutly nothing under your control.

Wow, I wish someone would just kill EA. First they eliminate Bioware, now they want to eat up all 3 gaming platforms. I'm not even buying Army of Two anymore because it's made by them.

 

[Dethfrumbelo]

The sad thing is, EA is pretty much unstoppable. They have about $1 billion in cash (I'm sure less now after the Bioware buyout) and ZERO debt. Even if everyone boycotted their games, they could hang around for quite a while living off of alternate investments. The only thing that will end EA is the near complete collapse of the entire gaming market across all platforms. When the cancer has metastasized to this degree, the 'cure' is usually death.

 

[Bateluer]

I half hope the entire gaming industry implodes in on itself.

 

[I4AT]

Originally posted by: EvilComputer92
That rep is a complete idiot. He thinks that cable boxes will be able to handle the requirements of games in the future. Yeah right, like a watered down PC for 80 pounds will be even capable of running next generation games. And everything will be stored on some forsaken EA server, so if you lose internet, no gaming, or any other media for that matter, for you.

Of course the ironic thing is that this would actually make gaming even more closed in a orwellian esque platform where everything you do is stored on some remote server, with absolutly nothing under your control.

Wow, I wish someone would just kill EA. First they eliminate Bioware, now they want to eat up all 3 gaming platforms. I'm not even buying Army of Two anymore because it's made by them.

Actually in the future it could be very possible for a simple set top box to run next gen games. It's already being done in some form with the PSP and PS3, where the PS3 acts as a render farm and streams the game to the PSP wirelessly.

The hardware itself would be very cheap, the real cost for the consumer would be in the form of subscription fees for renting games and to help pay for the server upkeep. Millions of gamers are already paying monthly for XBL and WoW subs, what EA is looking at doing could potentially cost no more than what we're paying now, but still give us access to hundreds or thousands of games without the hassle of hardware upgrade cycles, without driver issues, without incompatibility issues.

Granted you don't actually own the software, but how many games do we buy, beat once, then never touch again? It's really no different from something like Gamefly, but much more simple.

Now I do agree that EA is one of those companies that sees only dollar signs and would find a way to fuck this up pretty badly, but personally I have no problem with the business model, just with the company that plans on running it. I think if done right, there's a lot of potential in this, and it's definitely something I would embrace, cause I'm tired of buying buggy ass games, poor ports, having to upgrade constantly, running into driver issues, having two competing powerhouses designing two completely different architectures so we run into games that only run with this shadermodel, or this game runs better on an ATI card, but this game runs better on an Nvidia one. I'm ready for all that to go away.

 

[Dethfrumbelo]

And this is why a handful of corporations and the elite few backing them will end up owning everyone outright.

 

[EvilComputer92]

Originally posted by: I4AT

Originally posted by: EvilComputer92
That rep is a complete idiot. He thinks that cable boxes will be able to handle the requirements of games in the future. Yeah right, like a watered down PC for 80 pounds will be even capable of running next generation games. And everything will be stored on some forsaken EA server, so if you lose internet, no gaming, or any other media for that matter, for you.

Of course the ironic thing is that this would actually make gaming even more closed in a orwellian esque platform where everything you do is stored on some remote server, with absolutly nothing under your control.

Wow, I wish someone would just kill EA. First they eliminate Bioware, now they want to eat up all 3 gaming platforms. I'm not even buying Army of Two anymore because it's made by them.

Actually in the future it could be very possible for a simple set top box to run next gen games. It's already being done in some form with the PSP and PS3, where the PS3 acts as a render farm and streams the game to the PSP wirelessly.

The hardware itself would be very cheap, the real cost for the consumer would be in the form of subscription fees for renting games and to help pay for the server upkeep. Millions of gamers are already paying monthly for XBL and WoW subs, what EA is looking at doing could potentially cost no more than what we're paying now, but still give us access to hundreds or thousands of games without the hassle of hardware upgrade cycles, without driver issues, without incompatibility issues.

Granted you don't actually own the software, but how many games do we buy, beat once, then never touch again? It's really no different from something like Gamefly, but much more simple.

Now I do agree that EA is one of those companies that sees only dollar signs and would find a way to fuck this up pretty badly, but personally I have no problem with the business model, just with the company that plans on running it. I think if done right, there's a lot of potential in this, and it's definitely something I would embrace, cause I'm tired of buying buggy ass games, poor ports, having to upgrade constantly, running into driver issues, having two competing powerhouses designing two completely different architectures so we run into games that only run with this shadermodel, or this game runs better on an ATI card, but this game runs better on an Nvidia one. I'm ready for all that to go away.

This whole thing sounds like the Bioshock DRM thing except 500 times worse.

Millions of gamers are already paying monthly for XBL

I would be one of them, and the only reason I do is because it allows me to easily coordinate games with my friends, much more so than the PC.
Once you actually start using the service, you start to see all it's faults.

1. No dedicated servers. I'm paying all this money and where is it going? Why can't Bungie set up some dedicated servers for Halo 3 so the host isn't in the UK while everyone else is in the US, and then when he quits it takes 5 minutes to select another host?

2. Must I pay two dollars for a single gamer picture? How about 3 dollars for a new wallpaper backround? That's how MS is running their point service. Can you imagine having to pay EA just to have your desktop backround changed? Nevermind that EA will probably turn your whole desktop into a advertisement billboard BF2142 style.

Granted you don't actually own the software, but how many games do we buy, beat once, then never touch again?

None in my case. I wouldn't buy a game if I was going to play it once and then toss it aside. That's what Blockbuster is for.

the real cost for the consumer would be in the form of subscription fees for renting games and to help pay for the server upkeep

What If I'm not interested in paying a monthly fee just to play a purely Single Player game like Oblivion? Why shouldn't I be able to pay a full $50 and actually own the whole game, disk and all if I KNOW that I'm buying this game because of it's replay value. If my internet goes down am I locked from playing a game that I clearly own, just because some corporate execs are worried about copy protection?

buggy ass games

That's the developer's fault for not testing games before they are released. Nothing to do with the platform it's played on.

poor ports

Again, fault of the developer. Having EA control this would probably make it worse.

having to upgrade constantly

If you absolutely hate upgrading with newer parts, get a 360. I did and I'm happy with it for the most part.

having two competing powerhouses designing two completely different architectures so we run into games that only run with this shadermodel, or this game runs better on an ATI card, but this game runs better on an Nvidia one. I'm ready for all that to go away.

Again, if you like having everything regulated for you, get a PS3 or 360.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
I half hope the entire gaming industry implodes in on itself.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

Originally posted by: Bateluer
I half hope the entire gaming industry implodes in on itself.

It is headed for another crash, people will only put up with the Ataris and EAs of the world releasing buggy, unfinished and overpriced products along with no innovation (just sequel after sequel) for so long.

 

[EvilComputer92]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

Originally posted by: Bateluer
I half hope the entire gaming industry implodes in on itself.

It is headed for another crash, people will only put up with the Ataris and EAs of the world releasing buggy, unfinished and overpriced products along with no innovation (just sequel after sequel) for so long.

The thing is people keep on buying those games, and as long as people keep paying another 60 bucks for a new Madden with nothing new, the company will live on.

I still do have faith in some companies though, namely Epic, Bethesda, and Crytek.

 

[I4AT]

This whole thing sounds like the Bioshock DRM thing except 500 times worse.

With one integrated platform DRM would be a non issue, so would any type of copyright protection. People running into the Bioshock DRM bullshit are trying to install the game more than once or on different PCs. Why would you have two client boxes sitting in your living room? And there is no traditional installation process, just a download and go like any XBLA game.

Millions of gamers are already paying monthly for XBL

I would be one of them, and the only reason I do is because it allows me to easily coordinate games with my friends, much more so than the PC.
Once you actually start using the service, you start to see all it's faults.

1. No dedicated servers. I'm paying all this money and where is it going? Why can't Bungie set up some dedicated servers for Halo 3 so the host isn't in the UK while everyone else is in the US, and then when he quits it takes 5 minutes to select another host?

2. Must I pay two dollars for a single gamer picture? How about 3 dollars for a new wallpaper backround? That's how MS is running their point service. Can you imagine having to pay EA just to have your desktop backround changed? Nevermind that EA will probably turn your whole desktop into a advertisement billboard BF2142 style.

That's on the fault of MS, again like I said, I'm looking at the potential of the business model, not the company that plans on running it. Also it'd be impossible for an individual client box to host the game, they'd have to be run on dedicated servers due to the nature of the technology itself. EA isn't trying to make a new console or a new PC like you guys are imagining it, what we're buying is simply the client. The actual work is being done on a machine in some air conditioned building.

Granted you don't actually own the software, but how many games do we buy, beat once, then never touch again?

None in my case. I wouldn't buy a game if I was going to play it once and then toss it aside. That's what Blockbuster is for.

the real cost for the consumer would be in the form of subscription fees for renting games and to help pay for the server upkeep

What If I'm not interested in paying a monthly fee just to play a purely Single Player game like Oblivion? Why shouldn't I be able to pay a full $50 and actually own the whole game, disk and all if I KNOW that I'm buying this game because of it's replay value. If my internet goes down am I locked from playing a game that I clearly own, just because some corporate execs are worried about copy protection?

Who says it can't work both ways, what if you paid a flat fee for the monthly service, and varying fees for the games themselves. You could pay something like $20 a month to play as many games as you wanted in a month's time. You could have the option to pay a one time fee of $5-10 per game and play it as long as your subscription lasted. Or what if you could pay a ridiculously low fee of say $1 per month per game. If the company was smart they'd be flexible enough to suit anybody's taste. Yeah your connection could go down leaving you a sitting duck for a bit, but who knows how reliable technology will be ten years from now. You pay monthly for electricity even though sometimes the power goes out, same with the internet or satellite TV, that's life. I think the advantages of such a system greatly outweigh the disadvantages.

buggy ass games

That's the developer's fault for not testing games before they are released. Nothing to do with the platform it's played on.

poor ports

Again, fault of the developer. Having EA control this would probably make it worse.

Focusing on one platform with one design means developers have more time to polish, more time to find bugs, more familiarity with the platform to make better looking smoother running games.

having to upgrade constantly

If you absolutely hate upgrading with newer parts, get a 360. I did and I'm happy with it for the most part.

Get a 360? What if I wanted to play a Nintendo game, a Sony game. With this system there's only one platform that ALL developers program for. The focus would be the games, not the console, not the hardware in the console, just the games.

having two competing powerhouses designing two completely different architectures so we run into games that only run with this shadermodel, or this game runs better on an ATI card, but this game runs better on an Nvidia one. I'm ready for all that to go away.

Again, if you like having everything regulated for you, get a PS3 or 360.

Same answer as above. You guys are being completely closed minded about this and not looking at the bigger picture. Don't write it off just because of the name EA, look at the potential of the system itself. I'm not saying it will be the future of gaming, I'm saying something like this could be, and doesn't have to be a bad thing, if it's handled correctly.

 

[coloumb]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

Originally posted by: Bateluer
I half hope the entire gaming industry implodes in on itself.

It is headed for another crash, people will only put up with the Ataris and EAs of the world releasing buggy, unfinished and overpriced products along with no innovation (just sequel after sequel) for so long.

I'd have to disagree. Forums are a great example of why people will continue to put up with "crap" rather than boycott it:

Game is delayed, forum is spammed with flames, boycotts, etc. Game is released, nearly all of the nay-sayers are praising the game.

It's easy to see why he wants an open platform. Look at the technology which allows us to watch our favorite movie, listen to our favorite songs, etc on nearly any device we want - phone, ipod, portable players, desktop computer, etc.

In order for a common platform to work - the big 5 [nintendo, sony, microsoft, pc destktops, apple] would have to agree to build a common platform. I seriously doubt that will ever happen...