The EA online strategy debate thread

Discussion in 'Gaming' started by Keith Frederick, Jul 23, 2003.

  1. Keith Frederick

    Keith Frederick Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    May 10, 2002
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just love debating this. Yes, I have XBlive, I do not have a PS2, and I am pissed EA does not support live (I want SSX online damn it). And some people say EA has a legitimate argument for not supporting live. They are only slightly correct. Here is my fair analysis of the situation. Let me know if you have anything more to offer:

    For games with viable subscription business models (e.g. Everquest), I understand how the XBlive service fee would be seen as detrimental. That makes sense. I personally have no interest in that model, because although I am willing to pay $50 to play dozens of XBlive games a year, I will never be willing to pay $100+ a year per online game (and that doesn't include the retail cost of the games). But that reflects my personal interest and pocketbook, and I know that other people feel differently.

    Where I strongly disagree with EA is their blindness for a business model where online capability actually increases sales. Would RTCW, Outlaw Volleyball, or Midtown Madness 3 have sold nearly as well if it weren't for the online capability? No way. This business model is mutually beneficial to Microsoft and software developers like EA. EA's stance hurts them (I won't be buying SSX or Madden, I'll buy Amped2 and NFL2K3), it hurts gamers, and it hurts Microsoft. I think it is a mistake.

    What do you think?
     
  2. Camp

    Camp Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 1999
    Messages:
    2,303
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can't agree more.

    I don't know how Microsoft works the Live financials. I would imagine the developers make some money from Live but I'm not going to pretend to know for sure. I'm quite sure, however, EA can make more charging their own monthly fee per game but realistically how many titles can the average consumer afford to support?

    Microsoft has done it right with Live and EA should get on board. It's a great opportunity for Microsoft's XSN sports line and Sega's sports line to knock EA from their far too comfortable perch.
     
  3. Michael St. Clair

    Joined:
    May 3, 1999
    Messages:
    6,009
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yep, I've said it before, and I've said it again. The online Ultima/Everquest/Galaxies kinds of games are 'lifestyle' (often total addiction) games with expensive-to-maintain persistent universes. I would never expect those to be included in a 'flat rate' or 'free' model.

    Outside of that, I still believe that all the other hundreds of games need to be free or flat-rate cheap to survive. $50 a year for dozens of games across multiple publishers is reasonable, anything where you pay-per-title or pay-per-publisher is going to create a model that scares away 90% of your prospective audience.

    That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it until somebody can prove me wrong.
     
  4. Allen_Appel

    Allen_Appel Second Unit

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2002
    Messages:
    418
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hasn't EA invested tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars into their own online network of servers, etc.? Why should they throw this money down the drain because (a generic) YOU wants to play Madden on your Xbox? MS and EA negotiated for EA games to have Live support and could not come to an agreement. Sony obviously offered them far better terms than Microsoft did. I'm not aware of what the EA pricing model will be or even when/if it will happen, but I would think it's more likely to be a flat fee encompassing all their online titles (a la Live) than a per game per month fee. Sales figures *might* increase over what they sell on PS2 if they supported Live, but, objectively, doesn't that seem unlikely, considering the larger PS2 user base (many of whom must also own Xbox and buy Madden anyway)?
     
  5. Paul_Fisher

    Paul_Fisher Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2001
    Messages:
    1,222
    Likes Received:
    1
    I agree with both of you. I would never pay a monthly fee outside of xbox live to play a game online. In fact the only reason I have xbox live in the first place is because its only $50/year. I don't think I would have it if it was more money.
     
  6. Rob_Pierce

    Rob_Pierce Second Unit

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's look at this from EA's perspective. This morning, EA released their quarterly earnings to Wall Street. Here are some excerpts from the financial press:

     
  7. Michael St. Clair

    Joined:
    May 3, 1999
    Messages:
    6,009
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  8. Allen_Appel

    Allen_Appel Second Unit

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2002
    Messages:
    418
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't forget that Microsoft is also going to a more expensive Live service in November, for new and occasional subscribers anyway ($70 per year, including headset, for new subscribers, or $5.99 per month if you don't want to commit for a year). While XSN seems to be free now, I could see that turning into a paid service at some point.
     
  9. Christopher_S

    Christopher_S Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    After reading this thread, I've done some searching and can't find more than a few hints that EA "might" start charging for online play, specifically a few short news articles from May. Now, I'm sure that if EA thinks there's money to be made, they'll do it in a heartbeat, but this thread confuses me. Is there some new statement I'm missing where EA has started talking expicitly about instituting charges for online players?

    A flat fee ($50-60) for a year of the service, including multiple games that I'd be purchasing anyway? OK, there's a decent chance I'd go for it. Anything more than that? No way.
     
  10. Michael St. Clair

    Joined:
    May 3, 1999
    Messages:
    6,009
    Likes Received:
    0
    And if Microsoft does that, I'll think it's a mistake too. [​IMG]
     
  11. Keith Frederick

    Keith Frederick Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    May 10, 2002
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    EA has stated publicly that they won't play ball with XBlive because it inherently squashes online content revenue stream. They have been very clear. My argument is that they shouldn't focus on their online content revenue stream, they should continue to focus on their retail content revenue stream, and seek to enhance that with online components.

    EA's success with offline content says nothing about their online strategy. In fact, their online strategy has thus far been a relative failure (purely PC-based). Their console strategy is pending... and as it stands, I think they will do relatively poorly.

    Look, the MS model is good for companies that don't want to invest in an online infrastructure, and bad for companies that already have invested. There is give and take... and to be honest, it is definitely working in Microsoft's favor. Sony might have a larger library of games, but Xbox will have a larger library of online games because of the very policies that EA doesn't like.
     
  12. Brandon_H

    Brandon_H Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'll bet anyone a steak dinner right now that EA won't be the only publisher charging for online play within the next three years -- especially by the time PS3/Xbox2 roll around. Particularly if people line up to pay for EA's service -- and I frankly suspect they will.

    EA is the publisher that has the most clout and can afford to disagree with Microoft right now. But as other publishers see the money to be made in online console gaming, they're not going to sit back and let Microsoft rake in the dough from titles they create. The Big M is going to fight this battle many times over, and not just with EA.

    And it isn't as if EA is the only company that isn't fully supporting Xbox Live. NFL Blitz, NHL Hitz, etc. -- PS2 online only this year. Ditto "Tony Hawk's Underground."

    It's going to get a lot more interesting...
     
  13. Damien

    Damien Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2002
    Messages:
    508
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think anybody will know the defenite answer. Midway and Sega both said they had difficulty setting up tournament settings for xbox, maybe because Microsoft wants all the attention on XSN. So Midway won't take Blitz Pro Online on the xbox since they want the tournaments online, and Sega is doing online leagues etc... on PS2 only. EA on the other hand is always trying to figure out how to make more money. Xbox Live won't get them a red penny. They also can't shut off the games when the newest version of one of there games comes out. Although unlikely, Sony could be helping EA out as well in exchange for online exclusitivity, because you'd be lying to yourself if you thought PS2 online wasn't getting killed software wise by xbox live. Actually from what I see with this new "EA sports talk" for NCAA, EA and Sony may be trying to catch up with xbox live. So next year we may be seeing some XSN like stuff in EA's 2005 games. Sony and EA will do whatever they can to help eachother as long as the sales keep coming.
     
  14. JamesH

    JamesH Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  15. Jeff Kleist

    Jeff Kleist Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 1999
    Messages:
    11,286
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly, they shouldn't be looking at how much money MS is making on Live, they SHOULD be looking at how many more copies they're selling because they put a title on Live

    How many copies would MechAssault have sold w/o Live?

    How many copies would Wolfenstein sold w/o Live?

    I can tell you right now "At least 1 less each, and probably thousands if not tens of thousands"
     
  16. Brandon_H

    Brandon_H Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    0
    But while Xbox Live certainly boosts sales of some titles, I doubt it would provide much of a boost to Madden.

    Sure, there are lots of Xbox owners -- including several here -- who won't buy Madden because it doesn't support Live. But that number pales in comparison to the number of Xbox owners who will buy Madden regardless, because it is an established brand and is far and away the most popular football game out there. And remember, the number of Xbox Live users is still a very small percentage of Xbox owners as a whole, so it isn't as if EA is sacrificing much to make its point.

    Believe me, EA has done the market studies. If it thought there were that many additional sales to be made with Live support, it would have caved and included it by now.
     
  17. Keith Frederick

    Keith Frederick Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    May 10, 2002
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    1 in every 10 XBOX owners have XBlive. And since hardcore games both buy the most games and are the most likely to have XBlive, you can see how XBlive support will significantly affect sales. I haven't heard any specific numbers yet, but rest assured that Microsoft has the numbers and are using them to their advantage in courting developer support.
     
  18. Morgan Jolley

    Morgan Jolley Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2000
    Messages:
    8,510
    Likes Received:
    82
    Not 1 in 10, closer to 1 in 18 or so.
     
  19. BrianB

    BrianB Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2000
    Messages:
    5,211
    Likes Received:
    1
     
  20. Jeff Kleist

    Jeff Kleist Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 1999
    Messages:
    11,286
    Likes Received:
    0
     

Share This Page