Jump to content
IGNORED

EA Games will / wont support Live

mr_rmg

By mr_rmg
in Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

mr_rmg

mr_rmg

Posted
Posted

http://xbox.ign.com/articles/473/473868p1.html

<quote>

In fact, we have reports of an unnamed Microsoft representative in New Zealand who confirmed that Battlefield 1942 will be EA's first Xbox Live game - a nice way to make an entrance, don't you think?

</quote>

Vs

<quote>

The official statement from an EA representative was: "EA has a strong partnership with MSFT and close to 20 titles in development for the Xbox system. EA and MSFT do not have an agreement for including online capability on our Xbox titles. EA does not have any titles in development that include Xbox Live capability. This includes the Battlefield franchise."

</quote>

FFS what would be the point of 1942 without Live???

--

rmg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sng

Sng

Posted
Posted

I guess they think the Xbox market isn't worth bothering with unless they can make money through LIVE.

I play SWG with about 7 people who work at EA. I thought it was just one or two but the whole bloody place is crawling with them ;) I'll see if any of them knows anything about where it's at right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Venice Cull

Venice Cull

Posted
Posted
Percentage of Xbox owners with live?

You are the exception to the masses.

Whilst that might make sense, the problem is that there are (what is it?) going on for 1 MILLION LIVE subscribers (?) Gamers who specifically bought LIVE because they want to play online games like Battlefield.

If EA sold the game to just a fraction of those people, they'd be outselling most current titles. Put it this way, I doubt they'll sell nearly as many without LIVE.

I'm sure MS could broker a licence reduction fee to EA which would bring about mutual benefit (making LIVE more attractive to sports/sim fans, and saving EA some money).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dam_aks

dam_aks

Posted
Posted
Percentage of Xbox owners with live?

You are the exception to the masses.

Maybe, but you said they won't get ANY money for it.

So for the ammount (lets say 2%) of people who have Xbox live it is worth implementing a function into the game (costing money) and then getting no money back for it. They would make more money by not including it, as it shortens the dev time and the percentage of users that effects is tiny.

Its business....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sng

Sng

Posted
Posted
Whilst that might make sense, the problem is that there are (what is it?) going on for 1 MILLION LIVE subscribers (?) Gamers who specifically bought LIVE because they want to play online games like Battlefield.

If EA sold the game to just a fraction of those people, they'd be outselling most current titles. Put it this way, I doubt they'll sell nearly as many without LIVE.

Or they could just avoid all the hassle?

If they sold to just a fraction of 1 million LIVE subscribers then what's the point?

NFSU on PS2 has sold nearly 800,000 copies in the UK alone.

It's Microsoft's demands on LIVE that EA are against. EA simply won't back down and just start releasing LIVE games, not for the sake of a few thousand extra sales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Systemshock

Systemshock

Posted
Posted
Whilst that might make sense, the problem is that there are (what is it?) going on for 1 MILLION LIVE subscribers (?) Gamers who specifically bought LIVE because they want to play online games like Battlefield.

If EA sold the game to just a fraction of those people, they'd be outselling most current titles. Put it this way, I doubt they'll sell nearly as many without LIVE.

I'm sure MS could broker a licence reduction fee to EA which would bring about mutual benefit (making LIVE more attractive to sports/sim fans, and saving EA some money).

If Xbox has sold say 10 million units, EA will want to sell their games to 10 million Xbox owners. Live probably has say 750,000 subscribers world wide which is a substantailly lower target market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Venice Cull

Venice Cull

Posted
Posted
Whilst that might make sense, the problem is that there are (what is it?) going on for 1 MILLION LIVE subscribers (?) Gamers who specifically bought LIVE because they want to play online games like Battlefield.

If EA sold the game to just a fraction of those people, they'd be outselling most current titles. Put it this way, I doubt they'll sell nearly as many without LIVE.

Or they could just avoid all the hassle?

If they sold to just a fraction of 1 million LIVE subscribers then what's the point?

NFSU on PS2 has sold nearly 800,000 copies in the UK alone.

It's Microsoft's demands on LIVE that EA are against. EA simply won't back down and just start releasing LIVE games, not for the sake of a few thousand extra sales.

If that's the case, then why are EA releasing a version of Burnout3 which plays online on the PS2, but not on XBL?

It's less of a selling point on the PS2 surely? (less online uptake than Live).

Do you think it might actually be to do with EA wanting to manange their own online services and charge subscriptions themselves? (I mean, what is the deal on the PS2 version?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ivanho

Ivanho

Posted
Posted

The main problem as I have read it (in EDGE I think) is that EA would want you to buy FIFA, NFL, NHL and play across the LIVE network. But the following year, EA would want you to buy the new game, so they want to turn off the server for the previous game, which would leave anyone who didn't "upgrade" unable to play on LIVE. MS have objected to this as they understand that not everyone would want to buy the new version each year, but would still want to play the one they have got.

Of course, I could be completely wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sng

Sng

Posted
Posted
Do you think it might actually be to do with EA wanting to manange their own online services and charge subscriptions themselves? (I mean, what is the deal on the PS2 version?).

That's what it is... EA see online gaming as nothing but a money maker. They can't do that with LIVE right now.

I said a while ago it would happen soon but it hasn't happened yet... I guess it'll take a little longer. EA will be putting a monthly fee on their online games. It'll be one set fee to play all EA online games. They can do that on PS2, but not LIVE. Not right now anyway... and I can't really see MS letting them. But you never know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dogbert

dogbert

Posted
Posted
It's less of a selling point on the PS2 surely? (less online uptake than Live).

There are more people playing PS2 online than XBL owners. EA's Xbox games sell extremely well as it is without XBL support. THey want to "manage" the users - get their info & subscriptions etc, which XBL doesn't allow. With EA's PS2 online setup, they get to "own" the user, which is important to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Venice Cull

Venice Cull

Posted
Posted
There are more people playing PS2 online than XBL owners.

Didn't know that (I'm not doubting, but I don't follow these things, I just assumed XBL had more subscribers).

EA's Xbox games sell extremely well as it is without XBL support. THey want to "manage" the users - get their info & subscriptions etc, which XBL doesn't allow. With EA's PS2 online setup, they get to "own" the user, which is important to them.

But they don't make any money from online PS2 owners either do they? Do they? (not rhetorical, I've no idea).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sng

Sng

Posted
Posted

Sony "give incentives" to publishers for it. Not sure if that's financial or what, but I doubt it's much.

EA are just using it as a stepping-stone. Get established as a big online player and then unleash the monthly fee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Soo Denim

Soo Denim

Posted
Posted
Whilst that might make sense, the problem is that there are (what is it?) going on for 1 MILLION LIVE subscribers (?) Gamers who specifically bought LIVE because they want to play online games like Battlefield.

If EA sold the game to just a fraction of those people, they'd be outselling most current titles. Put it this way, I doubt they'll sell nearly as many without LIVE.

Or they could just avoid all the hassle?

If they sold to just a fraction of 1 million LIVE subscribers then what's the point?

NFSU on PS2 has sold nearly 800,000 copies in the UK alone.

It's Microsoft's demands on LIVE that EA are against. EA simply won't back down and just start releasing LIVE games, not for the sake of a few thousand extra sales.

If that's the case, then why are EA releasing a version of Burnout3 which plays online on the PS2, but not on XBL?

It's less of a selling point on the PS2 surely? (less online uptake than Live).

Do you think it might actually be to do with EA wanting to manange their own online services and charge subscriptions themselves? (I mean, what is the deal on the PS2 version?).

Dear Unky Clive,

With respect to what you said I agree with all of it except one point, that being that PS2 network gaming not taking off like LIVE. If I remember correctly Socom 2 in the states had concurrent usage figures of over 2 million users!

When compared to the live service in terms of numbers (in the states at least) I believe Sony are pissing all over MS. Thats not to say though that the Live experience is far better and more intergrated than Sonys. Also in Europe you look at the chart track sales of Network Adaptors and they outstrip Live kits every week.

I believe when you get down to it Sony allow EA to do what they want, do not make online mandatory and allow them to earn maintain and run their servers. With more online users the maths is simple for them. Add to the fact that EA are now well pissed with Mr Gates I don't see EA on Live FOR A WHILE. Well at least untill MS bends over and takes it from EA ;)

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MK-1601

MK-1601

Posted
Posted

In point form.

BF1942: Well, I'd be quite surprised if it has Live support as the Xbox version was canned many months ago.

1 million Live subscribers: Nearer 500,000, and that's worldwide - so, let's localise, market and distribute a game all over the world to snag a use base that's equivalent to 1% of the PS2 offline user base. Hmm.

There is a difference between making a game support Xbox Live and making a game support online multiplayer on the Xbox. Your Xbox is plugged in to the internet. Other matchmaking/server/voice/IM/billing etc. etc. technologies exist. MS expressly forbid third parties from implementing online play without using Live. Result: a vastly reduced quantity and variety of online titles. If a feature is present on a console out of the box, you really should expect an easy 50% of games to use it, even in a trivial way.

MS need EA more than vice versa.

Third parties don't sign up to Xbox Live on a per-title basis. Biting the bullet to put FIFA and Madden online now via Live means kissing goodbye to the possibility of ever putting The Sims Online or Ultima X on to the Xbox (or its successors) in future. Better for EA to stick to their guns and hope MS back down.

The 'yearly deactivation' thing is something I doubt very much. At the most they might stop running the leaderboards, but none of EA's sports games (afaik) are dependent on dedicated servers.

Sega were allowed to make money (not that they did) on PSO because they allowed MS to run the servers. This would not be a practical solution for a 'real' MMORPG.

Aside: It is still a blatant red herring that a 'difficult user experience' (e.g. PS Online Play) is a serious problem. Virtually all online games on PC are (to a greater or lesser extent) a spectacular pain in the arse to get running, it hasn't stopped a number of them from having user bases in the millions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burai

Burai

Posted
Posted
Percentage of Xbox owners with live?

You are the exception to the masses.

Whilst that might make sense, the problem is that there are (what is it?) going on for 1 MILLION LIVE subscribers (?) Gamers who specifically bought LIVE because they want to play online games like Battlefield.

If EA sold the game to just a fraction of those people, they'd be outselling most current titles. Put it this way, I doubt they'll sell nearly as many without LIVE.

I'm sure MS could broker a licence reduction fee to EA which would bring about mutual benefit (making LIVE more attractive to sports/sim fans, and saving EA some money).

You've been misinformed mate.

Microsoft are pushing for 1million this year, but at the close of 2003, the number of subscribers was more around the 650,000 - 700,000 mark.

That's about 5% of the Xbox userbase.

What was the best selling Xbox game in the UK last Christmas?

Medal of Honor. With no online.

In the States?

Grand Theft Auto Double Pack. With no online.

In the States, GTA was outselling PGR2 (the highest placed Live game) by 5 copies to 1. It's when you put this into consideration that it's no wonder EA can't be arsed with Live. Unless Microsoft start offering them cold, hard currency, there is no point taking the time out to do it. At least with PS2 and PC, they get a nice database of customers and the ability to control what experience gamers get. With Microsoft they lose all that and with their offline games outselling Microsoft's online games, they'll be in no hurry to compromise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.

  I accept