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
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.
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.
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.