I don't own an Xbox. Neither my PS2 or GameCube system have network adapters. And I never even played
Chu Chu Rocket on my Dreamcast, so this is from the perspective of someone who doesn't own or use an online console.
That being said, what it looks like is happening is this - PC Gamers are very tolerant of the pains of getting online. You have to find a good server. You need to use something dedicated like All-Seeing Eye. People even devote spare systems to being game servers. Sure, the games have built-in server browsers and there's master servers to be had, but for the most part people don't like the integrated browser.
Joe Console on the other hand doesn't want a part of any of this. He just wants to go play. The problem of course is that there has to be somewhere to go. For various reasons I won't debate or dispute here, the servers need to be on dedicated computers, not other people's consoles. So someone has to have those servers, maintain said servers, and allow access to them. Since PC's are scalable and can do their own servers, even dedicated machines, PC Game Makers have a fire and forget attitude - they sell the game in box for like $50 and let people do their own. This won't work for consoles so someone on the non-consumer end has to do it.
With PS2 and GameCube, the technology is there, the hardware is there, and the ability is there. But SCEA doesn't want to do it themselves. So Eidos or EA come out with an online game, then do their own servers for the game. The game knows to look for these servers. Since the publisher/developer does this service, then they can set the price for the service - like an annual or monthly charge.
Microsoft on the other hand decided to do this service themselves. Their Xbox live is a kit that for $50 lets you play online for a year (I've heard conflicting reports as to if there's an annual or monthly renewal charge). And they handle the servers themselves. This means if a publisher goes out of business their online game doesn't have to die with them. It also keeps a consistent look and feel to joining a game. Finally it means you don't have to negotiate game play on a publisher-by-publisher basis. The downside of it is that if your game maker then wants to charge their own price (like for revolving MMORPG content) then that's an additional fee. Depending on your take on this, this is either a tactic from Microsoft to keep the money to themselves, or a favor Microsoft does for gamers to keep greedy publishers away.
The other side of this coin could be that Microsoft is either not allowing publishers to charge any additional fees or limiting them pretty badly (the "couldn't agree on terms" part). Plus Xbox Live I'm told only has a certian number of titles online at a time. Maybe EA didn't like the idea that no one can play
Madden 2003 online on XBL after August.
So let's say Nintendo did
Mario Kart Online. They'd either have to charge people to play it (beyond just buying the game), or come out with an elaborate system ala XBL. Now remember this is Nintendo that has found out that they can live just fine on first party titles and still sold truckloads of N64 systems despite few titles. They've found what works and will make them money - so they may be right that its difficult to make money with online games (witness how despite hundreds of thousands of
EverQuest players, the price goes up and service personnel get fired). Microsoft on the other hand has less of a care of making money (they reportedly lose money on everything but Windows and Office). Microsoft mostly wants their hands in everything.
So not every move by every company is a "greedy bastard" play - some are good business sense. And just because you don't agree with a decision doesn't mean its wrong.
I still want
Mario Kart Online though.
Schnapple
http://members.tripod.com/schnapple99/