What's new

EA Online Games: PS2-Yes Xbox-No (1 Viewer)

Ricky Hustle

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 29, 2000
Messages
976
This news bothers me not one bit.

As far as I am concerned, 90% of the games that sport the EA logo suck ass. They can keep thier product, as they have been replaced by Visual Concepts as being the sports title leader.
 

Dean Cooper

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 23, 2000
Messages
972
Yet another reason to hate EA...is it just me or are they really starting to feel like the "Walmart" of videogame companies?

Dean
 

Derrik Draven

Supporting Actor
Joined
Dec 7, 1998
Messages
936
Real Name
Chris
As far as I am concerned, 90% of the games that sport the EA logo suck ass.
Funny you should say that: I've kind of been feeling the same way the past couple of years. Looking over their E3 list, other than sports game after sports game, there isn't much else they offer anymore. Just mho.
I mean really...how friggin' innovative can another hockey/football/nascar/tiddlywinks game be? :rolleyes
 

Dave Falasco

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 2, 2000
Messages
1,185
I don't particularly like EA's titles either. But I have to admit, Madden football is a videogame institution. I may not like it as much as Fever, but for most people, Madden = videogame football. And being able to play it online on Sony and not on the Xbox is a definite plus for Sony. Not like they need another advantage with a 2 billion* unit headstart, but there you go.
*Note: numbers slightly exaggerated for effect. :)
 

Romier S

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 2, 1999
Messages
3,525
Here you are, Sega's online plans:
Online
X-box will have Sega Sports.
PS. I dont like Sports games personally so this doesn't matter to me either way but since you guys were asking I figured I'd post it. What I do find interesting and curious is the Phantasy Star Online game listed for the Box. Apparently its not a port of the GC game. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm *rubs chin and wonders what Sega is up to*
 

Dave F

Effects Supervisor
Joined
May 15, 1999
Messages
2,885
I don't care for the Madden series, anyway. I'll be very happy with online NFL Fever and/or NFL2k3.

What I do find interesting and curious is the Phantasy Star Online game listed for the Box.
Exactly what I thought....

-Dave
 

Kelley_B

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2001
Messages
2,324
Sega has mentioned the Phantasy Star Online for the Xbox before and previously they said it will be a port with extra features...wonder if they are changing their minds?

BTW - IMHO EA blows....everything that they put out that is good is not made by one of their internal studios, like MOH:AA was made by 2015, Battlefield: 1942 is being made by DICE...Visual Concepts and Sega Sports make the best sports games out there.
 

Peter D

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Aug 16, 2000
Messages
232
I dunno - I thought both Madden 2002 and SSX Tricky were nicely done on the Xbox.

As for online play, the question for me is what exactly is the Sony model? Is it that companies will take care of the online aspect themselves for each game? Are there fees attached to playing online PS2 games as is expected to be the case with Xbox Live?
 

Larry Seno Jr.

Supporting Actor
Joined
Feb 28, 2002
Messages
527
It should be noted that while the online model hasn't been announced for the Xbox, it's not dead in the water. What confuses me here is that the Sony online model requires consumers to buy a network adaptor, whereas the X-Box model has built in connectivity. The odds of everyone that buys their selected EA Sports game ALSO buying a network adaptor are SLIM.
 

Romier S

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 2, 1999
Messages
3,525
Are there fees attached to playing online PS2 games as is expected to be the case with Xbox Live?
Sony basically takes a kind of "hands off" approach. They allow the third parties to handle the online content and charge what they see fit. Not sure what kind of server setup they will use (ie allowing third parties access to Sony's servers..) but for the most part individual games will come with individual fees. I'm sure games made by Sony will be under one umbrella and charge.

Microsoft basically wants there to be one charge for its online service. What that means is that all third party and first party titles are all on run on Microsoft dedicated servers, controlled by the Big M. Microsoft in turn pays royalty fees to the third parties to compensate. This enables one dedicated network, with one monthly fee (Rumored to be between 10-30 dollars a month) and will give you access to all of the X-box's content.

This is all gathered from various reports that have gone around and some leaked info from both companies. All in all we will have to wait until E3 for more details.
 

Adam Nixon

Second Unit
Joined
Feb 21, 1999
Messages
334
Let's not forget that X-box live requires a broadband connection -- thus eliminating the vast majority of customers that either don't have access to or won't pay for broadband service. I'm beginning to wonder if X-box live will be D.O.A.
 

Larry Seno Jr.

Supporting Actor
Joined
Feb 28, 2002
Messages
527
The odds of me paying for online service are ZERO. Can't Sega serve as an example of what happens when you have a pay for play model? I already pay for DSL, Im not paying to play on MS servers.
 

Romier S

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 2, 1999
Messages
3,525
Can't Sega serve as an example of what happens when you have a pay for play model?
Considering that DC games were free to play (NFL2k2, Daytona, PSO V1 etc...) until near the end of the DC's life I'm not sure what example you mean. If anything Sega has shown that though generous they needed to be looking out for #1 (namely themselves).

Fact of the matter is the cost of buying and maintaining these online servers is expensive. The fact that MS is already losing money by cutting the price of the X-box for better market penetration I'm sure is going to be a factor as well. You wanna play, you gotta pay.
 

Masood Ali

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jan 31, 2002
Messages
921
I think it's funny you guys are bashing EA instead of the real culprit here: Microsoft's Online Strategy.

Microsoft may have had the luxery of having others conform to their models in the PC software business, but EA is making it clear that they don't have this control in the videogame business.

Remember the reason why so many publishers preferred developing for the original Playstation instead of the Nintendo 64? Because Sony developed their software structure around game developers and publishers to increase their profits and decrease licensing limitations. Publishing for the Nintendo 64 didn't seem as appealing as Sony's hands-off approach.

And the same holds true for today, only now we're dealing with a new monster: online gaming. Online gaming isn't new, but the only areas where it has been successful on a large scale is when the game developers had complete control of the environment. Because Microsoft is taking away some of this control, we'll not only see delays (like this situation with EA), but we'll also see developers flock to open models furnished by Sony and Nintendo.

On an unrelated tangent: while broadband-only might be the case 5 years from now, at least Sony and Nintendo catered to the majority audience of today by still releasing 56k adapters. I know for some games, like FPS and Action games, 56k will suck. But for RTS, RPGs, Puzzle games, etc, 56k is just fine; I don't see why Microsoft felt a need to force the broadband-only issue when they could've nurtured it instead.
 

Romier S

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 2, 1999
Messages
3,525
And the same holds true for today, only now we're dealing with a new monster: online gaming. Online gaming isn't new, but the only areas where it has been successful on a large scale is when the game developers had complete control of the environment. Because Microsoft is taking away some of this control, we'll not only see delays (like this situation with EA), but we'll also see developers flock to open models furnished by Sony and Nintendo.
Very true and well stated. This is almost the exact same discussion we are having in the "Sony drops to 199.99" thread in the hardware forum.
Microsoft and Sony have 2 very different strategies going into the console online world. Its almost very "run of the mill" since both companies are doing exactly what they have been doing for years. Sony is letting its third parties do the talking for them and getting the service in the gamers hands. Essentially allowing companies like EA to make money which is of course why they are in business to begin with.
Microsoft on the other hand wants the control they see in the PC world. A bi-product of this is lower cost for the consumer but invariably backing their third parties into a wall. (Never thought MS would actually be helping the consumer:)). I can see both sides of the picture. As a consumer though I will admit to liking and looking forward to Microsofts plans. If they can get all of the X-box's online content on one dedicated network for a flat fee per month I will be very interested.
*Continuing Masoods tangent*- Microsoft was bold going pure broadband. Its great that they are looking into the future but I think they were a bit premature. I have this nagging suspicion that once MS sees that broadband penetration isn't enough they will have some kind of 56k support. They are going to be in for a real shock if they don't.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
348,462
Messages
4,846,461
Members
142,322
Latest member
DK Baker
Recent bookmarks
0
Top