Consolidation

Microsoft Xbox Live Not Backed by Biggest Game Makers (thanks HomeLan Fed) describes the difficulties MS is having getting a pair of gaming giants from signing on as Xbox live developers:
Eidos, maker of Tomb Raider and Championship Manager soccer games, said it doesn't plan to make games for Xbox Live because Microsoft controls the system and manages subscriptions itself, leaving no incentive for a publisher to collaborate. Sony's approach is to sell just the equipment needed to connect to other's services, such as those run by game makers.

``We're not supporting Xbox Live for the time being because we don't feel comfortable with Microsoft's business model -- they own the consumer,'' said Eidos Chief Executive Mike McGarvey in an interview on March 6. The company is developing games for Sony's PlayStation 2 online system, because ``Sony is more of a partner,'' he said.

Redwood City, California-based Electronics Arts, which makes titles such as ``2002 FIFA World Cup'' and ``NHL 2003'' for the Xbox console, said it's also reluctant to join Microsoft's system. ``We have no plans for online games with Xbox because we couldn't agree on the terms,'' said spokesman Jeff Brown, reiterating a position held since last May.
View : : :
34 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Older [  1  2  ] Newer
1.
 
Hahaha
Mar 16, 2003, 12:53
1.
Hahaha Mar 16, 2003, 12:53
Mar 16, 2003, 12:53
 
``We're not supporting Xbox Live for the time being because we don't feel comfortable with Microsoft's business model -- they own the consumer,''

We've been screaming about this for years! But it's nice to hear it from a big publisher. Microsoft's attitude towards market and consumer control looks to be backfiring a bit. I hope more publishers and developers stand up to the "Dominatrix."

Alex
-----------
Spatial Fear
Director/Creative Designer
http://www.planetunreal.com/le/sf/
2.
 
Re: Hahaha
Mar 16, 2003, 13:00
2.
Re: Hahaha Mar 16, 2003, 13:00
Mar 16, 2003, 13:00
 
This is reason enough for me not to get an xbox. When two of the biggest publishers say they won't develop for xbox live, it makes my ears perk up.

3.
 
No subject
Mar 16, 2003, 13:55
3.
No subject Mar 16, 2003, 13:55
Mar 16, 2003, 13:55
 
I think the complaint from Eidos is that MS owns the consumer as opposed to Eidos.

Essentially MS stand to earn money from subscriptions driven by content Eidos create, without enough of a kickback to them.

I would imagine there's an element of control there too, but I think money is the bigger issue.


(Just to clarify, the point I'm trying to make is that Eidos and EA aren't trying to make life better for us, they're after more cash. They're probably about as "evil" as MS are, in terms of market control, IMHO)
This comment was edited on Mar 16, 13:59.
4.
 
Hehe
Mar 16, 2003, 14:02
4.
Hehe Mar 16, 2003, 14:02
Mar 16, 2003, 14:02
 
While I have no particular love for Eidos, and I truly LOATHE the vileness that is EA, I think this is quality work by both of them.

Let Microsoft sweat, whine and sulk for awhile. MAYBE they will realise at some point that they do NOT own the whole world, and there is such a thing as actually listening to other people, and taking their input into account.

Creston


Avatar 15604
5.
 
Re: Hehe
Mar 16, 2003, 14:34
5.
Re: Hehe Mar 16, 2003, 14:34
Mar 16, 2003, 14:34
 
I think people don't quite understand how the Xbox Live model works. Companies provide Live-enabled games. There are certain requirements for said games -- they must be voice comm-enabled, work with the matchmaking service, etc. MS charges a subscription fee for the service, a service they fund and maintain. Eidos and EA make no more or no less money by making their games Live-enabled, apart from possible additional sales because they support online play.

From what I can see, their beef is that MS is not sharing the subscription fees with them. But then, MS provides and pays for the cost of running the Live service, so it's understandable that they'd want to keep the money for themselves.

Sony, on the other hand, has basically just tossed out a network adapter and let the developers do what they want with it. There's no real online support nor extra money to be had from it. If companies want, they can charge a fee to play their games online (essentially having a bunch of Live-style services instead of a single, centrally-controlled one).

So in summary: MS is not doing anything evil here, EA and Eidos just want a cut of the action. They're not getting it, so they won't support Live. Ulitmately, MS has to decide if losing them is worth changing their policy. Particularly with sports titles, I think they'll be more likely to come up with alternatives.

6.
 
As I follow it...
Mar 16, 2003, 14:34
6.
As I follow it... Mar 16, 2003, 14:34
Mar 16, 2003, 14:34
 
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/
7.
 
Re: As I follow it...
Mar 16, 2003, 14:46
7.
Re: As I follow it... Mar 16, 2003, 14:46
Mar 16, 2003, 14:46
 
The title of the article is a little misleading... Eidos is nowhere near the biggest game maker, and EA doesn't make games, they're a publisher. Since they canceled BF1942 for XBox EA doesn't have anything interesting coming out anyway.

8.
 
Re: As I follow it...
Mar 16, 2003, 14:56
8.
Re: As I follow it... Mar 16, 2003, 14:56
Mar 16, 2003, 14:56
 
I cannot recall what Eidos is currently doing, but do not forget to mention that EA is trying to run its own online network of games.

Doubting any of my consoles will have network adapters any time soon,
Ray

---------------------------------------
Don't eat the Menchi!11111
http://users.ign.com/collection/RayMarden
There are two types of mods: DoD...and everything else
Everything is awesome!!!
http://www.kindafunny.com/
I love you, mom.
Avatar 2647
9.
 
Re: Hehe
Mar 16, 2003, 14:59
nin
9.
Re: Hehe Mar 16, 2003, 14:59
Mar 16, 2003, 14:59
nin
 
MS charges a subscription fee for the service, a service they fund and maintain. Eidos and EA make no more or no less money by making their games Live-enabled, apart from possible additional sales because they support online play.

You kind of answered your own question there (and maybe, in a round about way, we agree). MS wants publishers to support Live, but the publishers get no real incentive to do so, financially speaking (other than, as you said, sales based on people who buy a game since it's Live enabled).

I don't think there's really a "bad guy" in this scenario, but if I was MS (HA!) and wanted to attract the big publisher houses, I'd throw them a small enough bone to entice them to support Live. I don't think it's reasonable to expect a publisher to take the extra time (which in all fairness, could be very short compared to that publisher taking the time to developer their own online plan) to support Live and not receive anything in return.

Naturally, the MS response here would be to BUY EA and Eidos...

10.
 
Re: Hehe
Mar 16, 2003, 15:55
10.
Re: Hehe Mar 16, 2003, 15:55
Mar 16, 2003, 15:55
 
Didn't MS lose money on each xbox sold? I see the publisher's points, but how about letting MS make some money back on their investment.

Oh well, there's always that little title..what's it called..Halo 2

11.
 
Re: Hehe
Mar 16, 2003, 15:58
11.
Re: Hehe Mar 16, 2003, 15:58
Mar 16, 2003, 15:58
 
How's this for incentive. People won't buy your games if someone else is making them in the same genre that does support xbox live.

12.
 
Re: Hehe
Mar 16, 2003, 16:07
12.
Re: Hehe Mar 16, 2003, 16:07
Mar 16, 2003, 16:07
 
How's this for incentive. People won't buy your games if someone else is making them in the same genre that does support xbox live.

You're absolutely right - that's the incentive. So if EA makes all their titles XBL-less, and Sega does all theirs XBL-enabled, and they sell more than EA, then EA gives in and does XBL. However, if EA still sells more then they're proven right.

Schnapple

http://members.tripod.com/schnapple99/
13.
 
If i was MS...
Mar 16, 2003, 16:10
13.
If i was MS... Mar 16, 2003, 16:10
Mar 16, 2003, 16:10
 
What I would do is offer a comission to the game publishers based on the amount of people playing the game online on the Xbox Service. I don't know how buisness fesable (sp) this would be but it would offer some sort of incentive to the console publishers.

As for Eidos... They are doing a Sierra and making as much money as they can off the Tomb Raider series, as Sierra is trying to do with the Half Life/Tribes Series.

Avatar 12670
14.
 
w00t
Mar 16, 2003, 16:54
14.
w00t Mar 16, 2003, 16:54
Mar 16, 2003, 16:54
 
Yeah! w00! Go Eidos!

--------------------------------------------------
We should have fucking shotguns.
There was only one catch and that was Catch-22
15.
 
Re: As I follow it...
Mar 16, 2003, 16:57
15.
Re: As I follow it... Mar 16, 2003, 16:57
Mar 16, 2003, 16:57
 
Schnapple,

Here's a third option that could work: the Quake server format. Basically, release a server that can run on PC's and get others to run the servers for you, just like with HalfLife/Quake3/Unreal, etc. I doubt Nintendo would ever go this route because they'd probably like to control everything to ensure quality. But a third party developer could do it.

Sure there will be problems with it (for example, too many casual gamers versus the number people who will have servers available). But it's something I'd like to see some developer try out. After a few bumps, I think something like this could pan out.

16.
 
Re: As I follow it...
Mar 16, 2003, 17:23
16.
Re: As I follow it... Mar 16, 2003, 17:23
Mar 16, 2003, 17:23
 
1. Could an Xbox actually run as a server?
or
2. Could an Xbox log onto a PC based server?

snafu

Opinions are like A**holes, everybody has one and they usually stink
(all except mine of course)
Eye 4N Eye

Opinions are like A**holes, everybody has one and they usually stink
(all except mine of course)
17.
 
Re: Hehe
Mar 16, 2003, 17:27
17.
Re: Hehe Mar 16, 2003, 17:27
Mar 16, 2003, 17:27
 
How's this for incentive. People won't buy your games if someone else is making them in the same genre that does support xbox live.

That sounds like incentive alright...incentive for companies to make games for platforms other than Xbox.

I see the publisher's points, but how about letting MS make some money back on their investment.

Well, MS chose to get into this market...no one forced them. If Sony can deliver a better product at or around the same price to the consumer and still make money then I have no sympathy for MS. It seems to me that if MS isnt making any money off Xbox they can either get our of the biz or do something to increase their sales. More game titles would certainly make Xbox more attractive to the consumer...running off dev houses and publishers ISNT going to help MS.

MAIN PC (for Soupkin)
=======
Asus A7N8X Deluxe
AMD Barton 2800
1024 Meg Corsair XMS PC3200 CAS2(2x512 in Dual Channel)
ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
Maxtor 40 Gig 7200 RPM ATA133
Maxtor 60 Gig 7200 RPM ATA133
350W Power Supply
Windows XP Home
18.
 
Control Vs. Consumer
Mar 16, 2003, 19:06
18.
Control Vs. Consumer Mar 16, 2003, 19:06
Mar 16, 2003, 19:06
 
Microsoft's problem (imo) is that they try to control what they should befriend.
Everybody loves Playstation, nobody considers that they're nearly cornering the Online RPG world. Why? Because they don't concern themselves with re-releasing hardware in order to befuddle would-be 'hackers' or release a system with the notion that it has DVD capability, only to charge fifty extra bucks later for a damned remote control that then allows the use of that included hardware.
Or paying ninety bucks (this is CDN btw) for this Live! service which the X-Box was capable of all along.
Not to mention having to pay the monthly fee (which is expected, but just another straw in a very large mound of hay).
Sony concerns themselves with putting out games by quality professionals. Microsoft concerns themselves with the bottom-line.
I find this absolutly hysterical.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if Microsoft got somebody who was less concerned with dollar figures and PR and more concerned with what counted, that being CONTENT then maybe they would be able to get their ass out of the sling.
They're wasting resources where it is really not needed, and it's not in a detailed scope. It's in the overall picture.
Just spend the money on making the good games. Sure, they need to make money back but that's where they need to bend a little in order to attract the bigger and better publishers.
I have to wonder what Ubisoft is getting out of releasing extra content for Splinter Cell for the Live! service, as opposed to what they would have recieved if they had released it as a computer product complete with modding tools. Eh?

The bigger the company, the bigger their shovel.

Avatar 13202
19.
 
Re: As I follow it...
Mar 16, 2003, 19:10
19.
Re: As I follow it... Mar 16, 2003, 19:10
Mar 16, 2003, 19:10
 
snafu, you can play your x-box online through Gamespy's Tunnel software already. Your x-box hooks up to your PC which connects with other players. Not sure of the specifics, I own an x-box (and a PS2 and a Gamecube) but they are primarily for my kids (daddy's toy is the pc...). From this, it seems fairly obvious that the pc server / x-box model is viable technically. I just don't see the typical console gamer doing it. It would appeal to a small slice of the console crowd -- those that already game online with PCs. As for an x-box server... it is basically a PC, with an intel processor, a hard drive and an Nvidia graphics card built in... I guess you could develop software that would enable it to do so if the games supported it. I imagine you would need MS permission to develop software for the x-box, and good luck getting that. And again, I think the relative complexities of it (I KNOW it doesn't seem complex to us) would put off most console gamers. Not to speak of things like lag / ping rates which the console crowd does not have to deal with ordinarily (and probably doesn't on x-box live weither).

*edit* Tanto Edge -- IIRC Splintercell is being released as a PC game as well, it's Unreal engined and probably (? not sure) modable the way most Unreal engine games are...

*edit 2, 3* Trouble with English today...

This comment was edited on Mar 16, 19:22.
20.
 
Re: Hehe
Mar 16, 2003, 19:13
20.
Re: Hehe Mar 16, 2003, 19:13
Mar 16, 2003, 19:13
 
If the game isn't updated every month, I don't see why the developer should be paid every month. Microsoft provides a service (servers), the devopers don't.
No PC games have monthly fees except Massivly Multiplayer Online Games.
I think Live has been successful because it is simple. Just buy the headset and CD, and you can go online anytime with any game. People like consoles because they are simple to use

34 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Older [  1  2  ] Newer