Jump to content
IGNORED

Burnout 3

Cyhwuhx

By Cyhwuhx
in Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Easy Target

Easy Target

Posted
Posted
Erm... how are existing fans pissed off again?

Oh that's right, EA have come round to our houses and burned all copies of Burnout 1 and 2 again, haven't they?

Yes. Those utter, utter bastards.

no they've taken a franchise which has existing users (are you following this) and pissed around with the third installement.

stop the weed man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cyhwuhx

Cyhwuhx

Posted
  • Author
Posted
no they've taken a franchise which has existing users (are you following this) and pissed around with the third installement.

stop the weed man.

.::: Yes indeed, fans don't like a third installment of their series which will now get the proper attention it deserved.

What did you say about weed again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MK-1601

MK-1601

Posted
Posted
If the online play isn't good enough (which Burnout 3 won't be, just take a look at Fifa and NFS), it isn't worth bothering, as it damages the brand, and irritates players.

Erm, even though Burnout 3 is in the hands of a completely different development team to FIFA or NFS?

...Actually, that's what EA should do: Slap the online code in anyway, accessible via a cheat code. Mind you they'd have to hide it pretty thoroughly to get it past MS's testing procedures undetected. Unless it's close to Christmas of course. (KOTOR anyone?) :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sprite Machine

Sprite Machine

Posted
Posted
...Actually, that's what EA should do: Slap the online code in anyway, accessible via a cheat code. Mind you they'd have to hide it pretty thoroughly to get it past MS's testing procedures undetected. Unless it's close to Christmas of course. (KOTOR anyone?) :o

ZING!! :)

Crikey. You stay up all night and think these up? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
arhra

arhra

Posted
Posted
.::: I like Live as well, but it isn't life-threatning for a game not to have it. Really, is it THAT hard to get someone on the couch next to you holding a second controller?

If Burnout 3 doesn't have online, so be it, it's not like the game will significantly degrade because of it. It'll be a new Burnout. For crying out loud we should be celebrating!

Well, y'know, i'd quite like to play it online, /and/ with a decent controller.

Without having to buy two copies (and a PS2 network adapter).

But now i can't, because EA are a bunch of stubborn cunts.

--

Every little KB data transfer via the Xbox Live network has to be paid by the developer responsable for it.

With a million people playing FIFA for a whole year until the next version, I can imagine the view of Electronic Arts...

What the bleeding cunt are you on about? Game servers: player hosted. Matchmaking: standard live stuff, provided by MS afaik. If they wanted to provide anything else, they might have to pay to provide the service, but since they already provide services for PS2 and PC owners at no charge, i fail to see what the big deal is. They could even /charge/ for extra services, in order to fund the servers required, if they wanted to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prine

Prine

Posted
Posted
It's simple really:

A. EA join Live:

Ultima Online/X, The Sims Online, Battlefield 1942/Nam and any other game requiring a server can never be brought to the Xbox (or Xbox 2).

EA receive several thousand angry tech support calls because little Johnny can't play Xbox Live FIFA 2005 against his PS2, PC (and at a push, GC)-owning friends, due to the idiotic no-interoperability clause.

Five thousand other reasons, some of them remarkably involving money.

Less games for you, money down the toilet for EA.

B. EA don't join Live:

Possible outcomes:

1) MS never give in, Live remains tiny/evaporates completely while decent online titles flock to services with actual games and users. Rather like now (seeing as PS2 and PC online gaming outnumbers XBL take up by an astronomical figure), but without the weekly press release trumpeting how successful Live has been in trading three starter packs for some goats milk in Uzbekistan.

2) MS eventually give in, online games are allowed to ditch Live, overnight 99% of Xbox games (not just from EA) pick up online support, people skip and dance gaily.

Fuck that, let EA have their piss-poor service, Live is absolutly fine without it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scarbir

Scarbir

Posted
Posted

If a game on Playstation 2 or PC has online gameplay, it just sells better. That way EA will receive its own money again.

If a game on Xbox has online gameplay, it will sell better too. Investment starts here for EA. There is no chance to profit, it is only money giveaway for the players to play it online.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cyhwuhx

Cyhwuhx

Posted
  • Author
Posted
What the bleeding cunt are you on about? Game servers: player hosted. Matchmaking: standard live stuff, provided by MS afaik. If they wanted to provide anything else, they might have to pay to provide the service, but since they already provide services for PS2 and PC owners at no charge, i fail to see what the big deal is. They could even /charge/ for extra services, in order to fund the servers required, if they wanted to.

.::: All data for all Live games is transfered via the Live-service. Publishers HAVE to pay for player-generated data-transfer through Live. That's no joke.

It's also one of the keypoints in the whole MS vs. EA discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kryptonian

Kryptonian

Posted
Posted

The reason why Live is good and why I think it's better than each publisher having their own online shenanigans is the cross game invites and being able to see what games your friends are playing from the dashboard / other games. It makes everything go very smoothly really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dr_lha

dr_lha

Posted
Posted
You know, i swear i read in Edge that one of Live's main selling point to devs is that MS basically set up the infrustructure which allows small devs to develop online games without having to deal with the extra costs??

"Extra costs" obviously don't include bandwidth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cyhwuhx

Cyhwuhx

Posted
  • Author
Posted
You know, i swear i read in Edge that one of Live's main selling point to devs is that MS basically set up the infrustructure which allows small devs to develop online games without having to deal with the extra costs??

.::: Indeed, the extra costs of setting it all up themselves. That doesn't mean you can get on the service for free. Just XBL subscriptions from players won't cover MS' costs.

It's why games like Ford Racing 2 and all have only online scoreboards and such. Less data-transfer make for less additional publisher costs, but slightly added consumer-value.

I know the system sounds whack, but how's MS to make money from it otherwise? The handful of gamers who download premium content?

To get back ontopic, EA simply has reasons not to enter XBL. And some of them are very good reasons, while others are laughable. Burnout 3 won't have XBL because of this. Period. You can get as grumpy about it as you will, but in the end we can only pray MS AND EA find ways to settle their differences.

In the meantime enjoy the game or there won't even be a future Live-sequel AT ALL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beertiger

Beertiger

Posted
Posted

well i'm still downloading it.

the developers were cocks anyway. denying other versions of the game existed and going on record to confirm that there will never be xbox or gamecube versions of Burnout 2 and it's only for PS2. Then the cocks go and release it for xbox and GC. pissed me right off after i'd bought the PS2 version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MK-1601

MK-1601

Posted
Posted
You know, i swear i read in Edge that one of Live's main selling point to devs is that MS basically set up the infrustructure which allows small devs to develop online games without having to deal with the extra costs??

Not much use for devs who already have a system in place though*, or those whose online games don't need any external gubbins. (E.g. action games.)

*which might be good, like Blizzard or Square's, or crap, like EA's. Or just GameSpy and Roger Wilco. Who knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dimahoo

Dimahoo

Posted
Posted
Given the speed and intensity of Criterion's destruction-minded arcade racing series, it was probably hardly surprising that EA's Burnout 3 announcement made it out of the blocks early. Today, the world's biggest publisher has confirmed the poorly kept secret that it will help to develop, and eventually publish, the latest instalment in Criterion's pacey racing franchise. Given the success of its own high production arcade racer, Need For Speed Underground (still at the top of the charts this week), few would doubt EA's credentials in this area.

Oooh Great. Because EA's need for speed engine (on PS2) is really poor, they thought they'd grab Burnout 3's engine.

So what input will EA have then?

Obviously not the gaming engine as Criterion's is far better then E.As (I presume NFS is not renderware).

No, what i think is the game will be called, NFS : Burnout, and will feature fantastic menu's (like EA do best), feature 'top' dance tracks, and of course, 'proper' real world drivers. Great. Thanks EA.

(Oh and the advertising is going to be very dull too. Don't expect the same 'headline' grabbing attention as number 2 had).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kapowza

Kapowza

Posted
Posted

oh, they can do what they want with the menus, Burnout 2's were shit, Gran Turismo style horror where you have to go through 6 screens just to retry a race, or get back to the title screen, with at least 3 'are you sure? really? REALLY? questions in each screen :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Graham S

Graham S

Posted
Posted
No Xbox Live?

I won't be buying this then.

I think I agree. BO2 was one of my favourite games of this gen, but without something new and exciting I don't know if I'll be putting my hand in my pocket again. I'd hoped that online play would be the thing. Maybe if it was well implemented it might encourage me to get a PS2 and try out the online in that, but forum response to PS2 online has been very underwhelming.

Auditor: I think your anti-XBL argument is very powerful, even if you do seem to make it in *every* XBL thread. It is very difficult for me as a user to look beyond the quality of the XBL service, whatever the implications for MS and its power over developers / and range of games (not) coming to XBL. I want an minimum hassle / maximum fun experience from my console gaming and for better or worse XBL manages to provide that well. You are coming at it from a different point of view entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Willei

Willei

Posted
Posted

Xbox Live is a joke. EA no supporting it is no joke. If I were in EA's shoes, there's no way in hell I'd bother with Xbox Live. The fact that most of you are screaming at EA for not supporting them is laughable, even though MS have made the decision for them with their closed network and large costs.

Go moan at MS for setting up their system to fuck with third parties, ok?

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