So whats the deal with Ea Sports and Xbox live? (1 Viewer)

[Bruce Berti]

Just curious why they are not making their titles Xbox live compatible. Case in point is I own Tiger Woods golf which would be great to link up online with somebody but they are blowing it. Do they have any plans to change this policy in the future? I'm starting to get discouraged with new titles coming out that arent compatible including the new wave of baseball games.

 

[Doug Schiller]

I have never heard a definitive answer but it all boils down to MS having control of the servers.

Either that or EA signed some secret deal to give PS2 online exclusive rights like Activision secretly did with Tony Hawk 4 (in my opinion).

I could be wrong but EA will eventually want to charge for online sports play of their titles and they don't want MS getting a piece.

Doug

 

[James T]

EA just hates Xbox. As far as I know there is no plans for Xbox live titles for the sports series. Also, EA cancelled 1942 in favour of the explansion pack for the PC.

I can see EA change in favour of Live, but I don't think enough people are being loud enough.

I don't know about the PS2, but doesn't EA charge PC users to play online?

 

[Bruce Berti]

If they actually do hate xbox then I think they should either sh*t or get off the pot because it doesnt make sense to produce games for the xbox and not fully utilize its capabilities. Either dont support Xbox at all, or support it to its fullest.

 

[WillY]

I've been having so much fun playing NHL 2K3 and NFL 2K3 online with Live that I haven't missed EA Sports titles at all. Screw the man, screw EA (oops, I guess that would apply to Microsoft as well).

 

[Doug Schiller]

EA charges PC users so you know they will try to charge the PS2 users. They want to give everyone a free taste for a year (like PC), then start charging.
I think MS allows for subscription based games (PSO anyone?) but EA wants to control when to flip the switch on and off.
For example, they don't want people playing Madden 2003 for free when Madden 2004 is charging $10/month. I'm sure MS would have that power.
I remember EA's excuse was that Live wasn't ready during their development, let's see what their excuse is this year.
Sadly, NFL2k3 isn't an option, I bought it and it is simply no fun to play. Maybe I'm a Madden guy but I couldn't get into it.
I'll just have to stick with my beautiful HDTV Madden 2003 Xbox and buy the PS2 2004 version for online play.

Doug

 

[Kelley_B]

Either dont support Xbox at all, or support it to its fullest

You are lucky you have EA games on the Xbox at all. EA had originally taken the same stance with Xbox as they had with the DC. MS knowing they need EA games took a bunch of cash and tossed it EA's way.

Now about supporting Live.....if you knew how much money and how difficult it was to get Live running in a title you'd see why so many games that "should" support it don't. Just be happy with what you have.

 

[Bruce Berti]

Interesting that if it indeed is that expensive why does Sega's Nfl 2k3 retail for $29.99 and Madden for $49.99??

Now about supporting Live.....if you knew how much money and how difficult it was to get Live running in a title you'd see why so many games that "should" support it don't. Just be happy with what you have.

 

[BrianB]

Interesting that if it indeed is that expensive why does Sega's Nfl 2k3 retail for $29.99 and Madden for $49.99??

Both had a RRP of $49.99 when launched. That one has came down in price has nothing to do with the cost of development, instead it's all about available stock, amount of sales & what way the wind is blowing.

 

[JamesH]

You are lucky you have EA games on the Xbox at all.

I wouldn't call having EA games "lucky".

 

[BrianB]

If you're not keen on EA games, James, why do you care so much about their level of Xbox support?

 

[JamesH]

What gave you the impression that I'm concerned?

 

[Kelley_B]

The fact that you even bothered to post in this thread.

I WANT EA games on the Xbox, you know why....because EA games sale. When other developers/publishers see games selling on a platform they think....hmmmm maybe we should support it also. A game isn't made for a certain platform because thats just the platform that the developer wanted to do it on, hell if that was the way the industry ran then Xbox would a whole lot more then what it currently does. Its all about where the $$$ is at.

 

[BrianB]

I started my EA boycott midway through the quarter.

 

[Romier S]

*Yawn* Oh back on the EA vs Xbox subject are we eh?

Ea is teh suq..... Xbox OWNS JU! NO NO WAIT! All Third parties is teh suq....Xbox still RoXXOrs Ur BoXxoRs.

To be one with Xbox is to know it to be true. For all games should be completely scrapped and FULLY REWRITTEN to take FULL advantage of the Xbox's ultimate non-girly man muscle. To hell with making money! NO NO! There is no need to have the biggest and most important third party in the world developing for the Xbox for its big green jewel shall open up and rewrite the world in 3D bump mapped goodness . We will walk the plains of Azurik and bask in the light of Kakuto Chojin for all eternity.

Time Out: Since this debate and discussion is about as tired as the PS2 vs Xbox vs GC threads I figured Id try levity to get the point across since simple back and forth discussion seems to go right over the head of those not willing to listen.

This is not a difficult concept to comprehend so let me lay it out. EA is successful. Very successful. Boycott, hide under the toilet seat, hold your pillow really tight at night or Jump off a bridge while screaming "NO POWER GREATER THAN X" . EA DOES NOT GIVE A DAMN. The only thing EA cares about is the (Tell'em Shiggy):




Want to boycott? EA doesn't see its Xbox titles selling well enough? Very simple end to this story. No more EA titles on the Xbox. I'm sure Bing Gordon himself would love to place that phone call in to Ed Fries. Then the thought process here is that it would be a good thing to not have "EA" titles? Tell that to the Dreamcast.

PS: I vow to never again write that dreadful shite called internet speak again. (UGH what the hell is a RoXXor?) It was needed to get the point across.

 

[JayV]

EA is teh biased (joke). Sorry, didn't mean to threadcrap.

-j

 

[Doug Schiller]

Now about supporting Live.....if you knew how much money and how difficult it was to get Live running in a title you'd see why so many games that "should" support it don't. Just be happy with what you have.

The biggest slap in the face to us Live users was Microsoft not putting Live support into their own Baskeball game (Inside Drive).
That one still has me scratching my head.

Doug

 

[GlenHaag]

Yeah, that was a surprise Doug.

The game came out after Live, as I recall. That was a very strange one. No wonder it's already down to $20 or $30 bucks at most places already.

Glen

 

[BrianB]

The biggest slap in the face to us Live users was Microsoft not putting Live support into their own Baskeball game (Inside Drive).
That one still has me scratching my head.

How far into development was it when they received the live sdk?
How neat was the code?
Had they planned for Live support from day one in the codebase?
Did the developers have the manpower to implement Live support?
Was it originally scheduled for release before the LiveSDK was available?

It's not as simple as "Wah! They should have support Live!" (and I'm not meaning that's what you're doing, Doug).

 

[James T]

Don't remind me of how long it takes to program stuff...It took me a couple weeks, many hours a day to create a simple battleship game that didn't fully work.

They probably never planned for Live and when they knew about it, they were already too close to completion that delaying wasn't worth it.