XBox Live! Propagation Of the Farce

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

I dunno if its just sheer stupidity, idiocy, constipation or what, thats making these two publishers (and possibly others) only now realizing that MS does control their service because (a) its their's (b) its part of their strategy (c) its only going to end up being a money make for MS in the long run.

But, thats not stopping these wankers (http://quote.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?ptitle=Technology%20News&s1=blk&tp=ad_topright_tech&T=markets_box.ht&s2=ad_right1_technology&bt=ad_position1_technology&box=ad_box_all&tag=technology&middle=ad_frame2_technology&s=APnGRuRXVTWljcm9z) from bitching about it to anyone who would listen. Thats like saying we're not developing games for DirectX anymore because MS controls the consumer desktop. sheesh. Babies. But they don't talk about the financial incentives and kickbacks they get from Sony.

And these people are actually paid to do this job :roll:

Anyway, isn't EIDOS already dead, dying or just plain ghosted and EA has proven - without a doubt - that it doesn't have a frigging clue how to build a network? (ea.com RIP)

[DaveC]

]I dunno if its just sheer stupidity, idiocy, constipation or what, thats making these two publishers (and possibly others) only now realizing that MS does control their service because (a) its their's (b) its part of their strategy (c) its only going to end up being a money make for MS in the long run.

But, thats not stopping these wankers (http://quote.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?ptitle=Technology%20News&s1=blk&tp=ad_topright_tech&T=markets_box.ht&s2=ad_right1_technology&bt=ad_position1_technology&box=ad_box_all&tag=technology&middle=ad_frame2_technology&s=APnGRuRXVTWljcm9z) from bitching about it to anyone who would listen. Thats like saying we're not developing games for DirectX anymore because MS controls the consumer desktop. sheesh. Babies. But they don't talk about the financial incentives and kickbacks they get from Sony.

And these people are actually paid to do this job :roll:

Anyway, isn't EIDOS already dead, dying or just plain ghosted and EA has proven - without a doubt - that it doesn't have a frigging clue how to build a network? (ea.com RIP)

Mainstream press needs to be beaten with a cluestick on a regular basis. Very few non-gaming media entities know enough about videogames to know the difference between Doom and The Sims. Most of the mainstream articles I have read in the last few years portray Sony as a hip, media savvy company and MS as a "Johnny come lately" in the videogame world. There is a bit of truth to both statements, but only on a very shallow level.

Personally, I think the only way the mainstream press will ever get it, is by hiring writers that actually play games and have more insight than watching their kids play Vice City.

[Andrew Mayer]

]
But, thats not stopping these wankers (http://quote.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?ptitle=Technology%20News&s1=blk&tp=ad_topright_tech&T=markets_box.ht&s2=ad_right1_technology&bt=ad_position1_technology&box=ad_box_all&tag=technology&middle=ad_frame2_technology&s=APnGRuRXVTWljcm9z) from bitching about it to anyone who would listen. Thats like saying we're not developing games for DirectX anymore because MS controls the consumer desktop. sheesh. Babies. But they don't talk about the financial incentives and kickbacks they get from Sony.

And these people are actually paid to do this job :roll:


Derek, you're sounding pretty naive.

It's obvious they're doing it to
1) Soften up Microsoft to get a better deal
2) Get some free publicity

Also, the whole point of the PC "consumer desktop" is that it's an open architecture. You or I can make a game for that platform without having to pay MS for the privilege.

With Live MS is essentially demanding that all the subscription dollars pass through their hands before giving it to the publishers. <sarcasm>While I'm sure that Redmond is totally trustworthy, and would never abuse that power</sarcasm>, it seems like EA might want to see what they can do to pick up some allies, and modify that system before it becomes entrenched.

Big corps are slow moving beasts, but when they want to apply pressure they can apply a lot of it.

Your Power Pill (http://www.levelupdesign.com/gamelog)

[DaveC]

]
But, thats not stopping these wankers (http://quote.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?ptitle=Technology%20News&s1=blk&tp=ad_topright_tech&T=markets_box.ht&s2=ad_right1_technology&bt=ad_position1_technology&box=ad_box_all&tag=technology&middle=ad_frame2_technology&s=APnGRuRXVTWljcm9z) from bitching about it to anyone who would listen. Thats like saying we're not developing games for DirectX anymore because MS controls the consumer desktop. sheesh. Babies. But they don't talk about the financial incentives and kickbacks they get from Sony.

And these people are actually paid to do this job :roll:


Derek, you're sounding pretty naive.

It's obvious they're doing it to
1) Soften up Microsoft to get a better deal
2) Get some free publicity

Also, the whole point of the PC "consumer desktop" is that it's an open architecture. You or I can make a game for that platform without having to pay MS for the privilege.

With Live MS is essentially demanding that all the subscription dollars pass through their hands before giving it to the publishers. <sarcasm>While I'm sure that Redmond is totally trustworthy, and would never abuse that power</sarcasm>, it seems like EA might want to see what they can do to pick up some allies, and modify that system before it becomes entrenched.

Big corps are slow moving beasts, but when they want to apply pressure they can apply a lot of it.

Your Power Pill (http://www.levelupdesign.com/gamelog)

Yeah because there is no advantage to using an established network with common interfaces, standard voice chat and a means to increase the value of your game through post purchase add-ons.

:roll:

All corporations are looking at the bottom line no matter how much they talk about fun, art and creativity in gaming.

[DaveC]

Speaking of Live:

http://www.ilovelive.com/

[Jim Preston]

Haven't we already had this discussion (http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2628&highlight=pretty)?

[GUTB]

The obvious answers tend to be the correct ones.

The obvious reason for Eidos and EA to stay clear of the Live! model is because they have their own business partners and infrastructure investments to protect. The Live! network is a great thing for your garage developer and your little nobody publisher, but the big boys have their own plans. Corporate protectionism could be overcome if Live! was mainstream enough, but it isn't. That is another hard fact of the industry that isn't going away: the Xbox has not achieved the mass-success it was aimed at, and has settled into a distant 2nd behind the unbeatable PS2. Cry and whine as fanboys may, the money talks and corporate boards listen.

If an exectuive board meeting comes to the conclusion that they would rather charge what they want and handle their own network with the much larger PS2 base than get locked into Microsoft's network and business model, you'll just have to forgive them for their insane, raving Sony fanboyism. Even if the PS2 never existed, these big publishers would try to get out of supporting Live! if they could; the PS2 just gives them a handy and sensible way to avoid Live! until Microsoft changes their tune. And I think Microsoft eventually will, as their entertainment division continues to be the loss-leader of the corporation and its execs forced to face the heat. If you want to be serious about the game industry, you can't tell players like EA and Eidos to take a hike.

[DaveC]

The obvious answers tend to be the correct ones.

The obvious reason for Eidos and EA to stay clear of the Live! model is because they have their own business partners and infrastructure investments to protect. The Live! network is a great thing for your garage developer and your little nobody publisher, but the big boys have their own plans. Corporate protectionism could be overcome if Live! was mainstream enough, but it isn't. That is another hard fact of the industry that isn't going away: the Xbox has not achieved the mass-success it was aimed at, and has settled into a distant 2nd behind the unbeatable PS2. Cry and whine as fanboys may, the money talks and corporate boards listen.



You truly are the GUTB. From all accounts I have read Xbox sales are very close to the projections MS had and sales of Live are above projections. Maybe you should get out from under there and have a look at the Real World(tm) once in a while.

[Xaroc]

EA should cut a deal with MS. The Live! setup makes all the sense in the world. Setting up an online venture for a game or set of games costs a lot of money but the online component is a nice extra draw for most games. So it is a win win for whoever gets involved with XBL. They don't have to pay for the server or infrastructure and they get the benefit of having a standard multiplayer interface for their games. If EA is concerned about losing revenue (I personally think they will lose money doing it themselves) then cut a deal for the number of subscribers that play EA games on XBL.

-- Xaroc

[Jason Becker]

" If EA is concerned about losing revenue (I personally think they will lose money doing it themselves)"


Thats about all they have been doing so far(outside of UO probably). They don't want to get hooked with Live! because of revenue they might loose doing it themelves. Ok fine, but so far all they have shown is that they know how to loose lots of money in this area.

[Tyjenks]

Maybe the fact that there is going to be a Derek Smart title on the system was enough for Eidos and EA to come out and say they will have no part of a console which sanctions the proliferation of BattleCruiser titles. :twisted: I bet they are boycotting French products, too.

[Jason Cross]

I don't know if I understand their complaint. At least, not the way they always state it.

So MS owns the consumer with Xbox Live. So Microsoft sets standards that must be conformed to. So MS collects the money and accepts the risk.

How is this different than the whole offline platform of EVERY console manufacturer? It's like saying "we don't want to deveop for the PS2 because Sony owns all the brand, and it's "playstation" that gets promoted an not our own brand, and we have to conform to their standards, and we have to fork over $7 or $8 for every disc we sell."

Xbox Live seems like a perfectly natural extention of the console gaming model to me. The manufacturer makes all the rules and drives the platform above all else, and accepts all the risk, so that the USER has the most consistant and simple experience possible.

Notice how neither EA nor Eidos ever say anything a gamer should care about, like "we won't make Xbox Live games because we could provide a better end-user experience if we go it alone?" No, it's all about the business. Which hey, that's fine, that's what they owe their shareholders. But stop trying to get gamers behind that decision. :)

[Andrew Mayer]

So MS owns the consumer with Xbox Live. So Microsoft sets standards that must be conformed to. So MS collects the money and accepts the risk.

How is this different than the whole offline platform of EVERY console manufacturer?

Because this puts the publishers in exactly the same position that they usually put the developer in, and they know that MS isn't afraid to do to them exactly what they do to everybody else.

No fools they...

Your Power Pill (http://www.levelupdesign.com/gamelog)

[GUTB]

In the case of Live!, publishers with matchmaking services of their own just view it as a competitor. Going with Live!, in that case, is the same as giving business to your competition while taking away from your own. There is no corporate discision-maker anywhere that would tropedo millions of dollars of investments and give away any potential gains to another company. It's ludicrous without a major incentive, and Microsoft has *nothing* to dangle infront of the likes of EA. Cutting 100% of brand royalties couldn't come close to matching just 25% royalty cut from Sony. All Microsoft can (and probably will) do is allow EA to use their own network for online. A loss-leader like Microsoft's entertainment division just can't keep saying no to mass-market giants like Madden and others like Battlefield, while Sony remains the sole benifactor.

And comparing Microsft's bsuiness practices with Live! to other publishers in attempt to show that Live! is no different from anythign else -- it should be obvious to the most dim wit here that the comparison is falacious. Developers who sign the dotted line with EA go into it knowing that they will have to use EA's matchmaking services. However, EA is in no position to control the network for everyone else. Microsoft, however, can do so because they own the market platform (Xbox console) itself. So yes, EA is perfectly within their rights, and perfectly withing the realm of common sense to refuse Microsoft until Microsoft is willing to deal seriously with them and not try to shoe-horn giant bluckbuster publishers into the garage dev model.

And, frankly speaking, its already much too late if you're a big fan of EA sports online. Madden's PS2 online activity is much higher than anything on the Xbox, period. How can this happen without built-in voice chat and a universal standard, how?! the fanboy may scream. It happens because Madden is a massive mainstream blockbuster hit that sells millions each time.

[wumpus]

Madden's PS2 online activity is much higher than anything on the Xbox, period
And how much "revenue" is generated by this online play? Zip. Meanwhile, EA has to front whatever money is necessary to perform the matchmaking, server side storage, bandwidth, etcetera. Sounds more like a loss leader, particularly in light of the massive EA.COM debacle.

[Jakub]

And how much "revenue" is generated by this online play? Zip. Meanwhile, EA has to front whatever money is necessary to perform the matchmaking, server side storage, bandwidth, etcetera. Sounds more like a loss leader, particularly in light of the massive EA.COM debacle.

Jesus, the troll got trolled.

Dude, that's GUTB. He just makes up facts to suit himself. Why respond, you're only encouraging him.

[Anonymous]

And how much "revenue" is generated by this online play? Zip. Meanwhile, EA has to front whatever money is necessary to perform the matchmaking, server side storage, bandwidth, etcetera. Sounds more like a loss leader, particularly in light of the massive EA.COM debacle.

Wrong. Sony is quietly paying EA to put Madden online on the PS2, much in the same way that Nintendo is quietly paying EA to continue to support the NGC.

[Mark Asher]

And how much "revenue" is generated by this online play? Zip. Meanwhile, EA has to front whatever money is necessary to perform the matchmaking, server side storage, bandwidth, etcetera. Sounds more like a loss leader, particularly in light of the massive EA.COM debacle.

Wrong. Sony is quietly paying EA to put Madden online on the PS2, much in the same way that Nintendo is quietly paying EA to continue to support the NGC.

And Sony's smart to do so, if that's the case. I don't understand why Microsoft doesn't do the same and pay for publishers to make their games Live compatible.

[Dave Long]

Madden's PS2 online activity is much higher than anything on the Xbox, period
And how much "revenue" is generated by this online play? Zip. Meanwhile, EA has to front whatever money is necessary to perform the matchmaking, server side storage, bandwidth, etcetera. Sounds more like a loss leader, particularly in light of the massive EA.COM debacle.

I'm sure EA sees it as better for them if no one is making money on their Madden Online strategy rather than Microsoft being the only ones making money. You see, if EA feeds the Microsoft machine with Live content, they stand a good chance of allowing Microsoft to get their hands on all that Madden customer data, which means Microsoft may find ways to improve on Madden because they're getting the feedback instead of EA. Then next thing you know, Microsoft has a better football game and the bottomless pit of money to keep funding it until it beats out Madden and Microsoft becomes the world's biggest console software publisher instead of EA. Suddenly, all that effort to get Madden onto Live becomes exactly the catalyst Microsoft needs to shove EA down to "just another 3rd party" status and with EA's franchises weaker than Microsoft's their stock plummets, they struggle to find another niche (like Sega) and next thing you know it's buyout city for less than half of EA's previous value.

There really is no benefit to big publishers going with Live, just as GUTB has indicated. While he goes under that name, there is a lot of truth in what he says. Call it trolling if you want, I prefer to call it counterpoint. He's like the BitchX of the Qt3 boards in some ways.

--Dave

[Reeko]

There really is no benefit to big publishers going with Live

Except for the fact that if you don't provide all these Live! users with online play, someone else will.

[Dave Long]

There really is no benefit to big publishers going with Live

Except for the fact that if you don't provide all these Live! users with online play, someone else will.

Yeah, but they won't be getting rich with Microsoft's scheme, while on PS2, with a what... 5 to 1 ratio of consoles sold to the Xbox, EA can make millions more than any small pub could ever do on Xbox. Like I said...no incentive unless you're a MS-funded developer or a little guy.

--Dave

[Mark Asher]

There really is no benefit to big publishers going with Live

Except for the fact that if you don't provide all these Live! users with online play, someone else will.

You're still talking about a tiny slice of the market. The percentage of players who play online seems to be well under 10% of the market.

[graller]

10% of a market share that represents less then 10-15 of the overall market in consoles - wonderful! Sorry I'd stick with the PS2 as well, especially if I am getting a tasty kickback as well.

[Jason Becker]

"There really is no benefit to big publishers going with Live, just as GUTB has indicated."

As if they will have any choice eventually(i.e. Sony doing a similar setup to MS)



"You're still talking about a tiny slice of the market. The percentage of players who play online seems to be well under 10% of the market."


Yes ,yes its still too small. This is an easy and weak arguement that is changing as we speak. A year ago people were saying how the small user base on broadband will keep online gaming like Live! to small for a long time still. Oops guess what, there are 24 million broadband users now with 30 million by the end of the year compared to 40 dialup users which has leveled off. Yea thats right broadband will be close too dial-up numbes very soon...so much for that arguement.

[Dave Long]

Yes ,yes its still too small. This is an easy and weak arguement that is changing as we speak. A year ago people were saying how the small user base on broadband will keep online gaming like Live! to small for a long time still. Oops guess what, there are 24 million broadband users now with 30 million by the end of the year compared to 40 dialup users which has leveled off. Yea thats right broadband will be close too dial-up numbes very soon...so much for that arguement.

...and yet with 24 million broadband users as you claim, there are only 350,000 of them playing games on Live and another 500,000 or more (with some crossover very much likely between the two bases) playing online games on PS2. It's a tiny, tiny segment of the market and it will not come close to being rewarding to anyone until at least the NEXT console generation if not the one after that and they'll still have a huge population that simply can't get broadband that they'll either be alienating or simply not selling to.

How many servers do you think EA is running for Madden matching? I'd guess it's under five, probably more like one or two. However, the customer info they're generating from that drop in the bucket is invaluable to them. Information they wouldn't be getting from Live enabled games...instead they'd be feeding it to Microsoft.

--Dave

[Andrew Mayer]

As if they will have any choice eventually(i.e. Sony doing a similar setup to MS)


Which is why they're bitching now.

Your Power Pill (http://www.levelupdesign.com/gamelog)

[Ben Sones]

I'm sure EA sees it as better for them if no one is making money on their Madden Online strategy rather than Microsoft being the only ones making money. You see, if EA feeds the Microsoft machine with Live content, they stand a good chance of allowing Microsoft to get their hands on all that Madden customer data, which means Microsoft may find ways to improve on Madden because they're getting the feedback instead of EA. Then next thing you know, Microsoft has a better football game and the bottomless pit of money to keep funding it until it beats out Madden and Microsoft becomes the world's biggest console software publisher instead of EA.

Come on, Dave. This is as silly as that phobia that's common among unpublished writers, "What if the publisher takes my submission and publishes it as their own work?" In the real world that never happens, because the publisher needs writers as much as they need the publisher. Likewise, unless you are implying that Microsoft thinks they can run a console lock, stock, and barrel with no partners, it is exceedingly unlikely that they would ever pull the rug out from under one of their developers in this manner. It's equally unlikely that EA believes that they will do so.

[Jason Becker]

"...and yet with 24 million broadband users as you claim, there are only 350,000 of them playing games on Live and another 500,000 or more (with some crossover very much likely between the two bases) playing online games on PS2."


Live! just started a few months ago. What, all 10 million are supposed to sign up in the first month or its a failure? What impeccable logic. :roll:

"It's a tiny, tiny segment of the market and it will not come close to being rewarding to anyone until at least the NEXT console generation if not the one after that "


Hmm now what console makers current line of thinking does this fall in line with...

[Dave Long]

Come on, Dave. This is as silly as that phobia that's common among unpublished writers, "What if the publisher takes my submission and publishes it as their own work?" In the real world that never happens, because the publisher needs writers as much as they need the publisher. Likewise, unless you are implying that Microsoft thinks they can run a console lock, stock, and barrel with no partners, it is exceedingly unlikely that they would ever pull the rug out from under one of their developers in this manner. It's equally unlikely that EA believes that they will do so.

It certainly wouldn't be the first time Microsoft has used a company in this manner. I'm not the only one to imply it either, in this thread or others. I think that I am implying that Microsoft believes they can run a console lock, stock and barrel with no partners. They are basically doing it now without any major Japanese partners outside of Sega (whose games are tanking at the retail counter on Xbox) and Tecmo. They're footing the bill for things like Bioware's Star Wars game, etc. They certainly have the financial resources to do it too.

If EA thought Live was a good strategy, they'd already be on board. The fact that they're not speaks volumes about what they see with Live. Here's some more info on the situation...

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?section_name=new&aid=1388

Microsoft wants control, EA is big enough to tell them they can't have that kind of control. They're doing it now, as Mr. Mayer notes, because they don't want any of the console makers to dictate that kind of online service control.

But Microsoft being what they are, simply will try to cut everyone out of the pie but themselves, as they've been known to do for years and years. They made their billions on control...control of the operating system for the majority of the PCs worldwide. EA is trying to keep that from happening here...however small the stakes in the tiny online market that currently exists but MIGHT get bigger.

--Dave

[Anonymous]

I'm worried that the gaming community, both developers and players alike, is equating a proprietary Live service with Microsoft's strong-arm OS business. While there may be a large overlap, I don't think "monopoly" is the primary motivation for keeping Live exclusively in Redmond. Yes, they do want to make money on it (lots and lots of money, probably). But I think they're also VERY concerned about maintaining ease of use and with keeping the network secure.

Microsoft is desperately trying to build the business they want to run three years from now. They're taking steps to position themselves at the forefront of the market. Since they envision online as a big part of that future business, they're doing everything they can to make sure it's done right the first time. That means absolutely no cheaters and braindead connectivity. Either of these potential problems has the ability to forever turn off someone completely new to the online experience. As there's no way they can gurantee those two things if they leave online to publishers/developers, they've bit the bullet and done it themselves. It's likely they knew they were going to catch heat for doing it this way, but they did it anyway.

EA and Eidos aren't trying to build their business, they're trying to run their businesses. EA has already invested millions in the DOA ea.com. Eidos doesn't seem give a spit about pushing online capable console games in the first place. Both are hardly in a position to embrace Microsoft's unified vision of the future. Couple that with the fact that they won't be in control of the revenue stream and the fact that Sony is probably putting on huge pressure to stay away from Live and you get the current situation.

It's really too bad, because Live is a godsend for online gaming. The interface is clean, the playing field is level, and the ability to interact with others is unparalleled. It really is the best online experience available today. Of course, I'm sure we're all equally aware that the Betamax was far superior to the VHS. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the better product isn't always the most successful. I'll honestly be surprised if Live is the same beast with the launch of Xbox2.

[Andrew Mayer]

Either of these potential problems has the ability to forever turn off someone completely new to the online experience. As there's no way they can gurantee those two things if they leave online to publishers/developers, they've bit the bullet and done it themselves. It's likely they knew they were going to catch heat for doing it this way, but they did it anyway.

I think it's naive to think that MS is doing this just to help birth the "tender babe" of the interactive experience.

Does anyone doubt that over the next 5-10 years gaming is going to move to a 100% connected model?

Dave is right on. And that's why the war is being fought now, before the users arrive. What's at stake is which section of the industry is going to be the gateway for those users, and who gets to buy and sell those users when (not if) they show up.

MS believed that the OS was the gateway on the PC side, and they were right. When they internet caught them with their pants down they moved heaven and earth to make sure that they remained the conduit for the online experience.

With Live they're trying to get out in front. They're willing to lose billions of dollars on the X-Box, and you can bet it isn't because they think games are "cool".

Follow the money...

Your Power Pill (http://www.levelupdesign.com/gamelog)

[DaveC]

Either of these potential problems has the ability to forever turn off someone completely new to the online experience. As there's no way they can gurantee those two things if they leave online to publishers/developers, they've bit the bullet and done it themselves. It's likely they knew they were going to catch heat for doing it this way, but they did it anyway.

I think it's naive to think that MS is doing this just to help birth the "tender babe" of the interactive experience.

Does anyone doubt that over the next 5-10 years gaming is going to move to a 100% connected model?

Dave is right on. And that's why the war is being fought now, before the users arrive. What's at stake is which section of the industry is going to be the gateway for those users, and who gets to buy and sell those users when (not if) they show up.

MS believed that the OS was the gateway on the PC side, and they were right. When they internet caught them with their pants down they moved heaven and earth to make sure that they remained the conduit for the online experience.

With Live they're trying to get out in front. They're willing to lose billions of dollars on the X-Box, and you can bet it isn't because they think games are "cool".

Follow the money...

Your Power Pill (http://www.levelupdesign.com/gamelog)

And other large game publishers are different how?

[graller]

I have to agree with Dave and Andrew here. Look at any industry MS goes into. I started working in the database industry about 8 years ago. At that time no one talked about SQL Server as being anything...The big 4 were Oracle, Sybase, Informix and DB2....Informix is gone, Sybase is withering and Oracle is treading water. Who has grown during that timespan? IBM and MS - mostly MS...they gave away SQL Server and its baby brother Access. The spent tons to get it into small scale solutions...knowing that once people get used to working with something they tend to stay with the familiar...This story has played out a dozen times already with MS, why do any of you think MS has all of sudden turned altruistic? Oh yeah it must be the harsh penalties they had to pay to the DOJ 6 years after they crushed Netscape using the same practices right?

[Anonymous]

I think it's naive to think that MS is doing this just to help birth the "tender babe" of the interactive experience.


Sure, Microsoft is in it for the money. They want big, fat, bulbous sacks of cash. This is a no-brainer. But they realize that, with games, the ONLY way to make money is to make for a great gaming experience. The market has shown this time and time and time again. So, they're building Live to fight the problems that ruin the online experience. From the perspective of Joe/Jane gamer, this is a very, very good thing.

This whole situation is quite comical, when one thinks about it. Console gamers who are interested in getting online are very excited about the Live feature-set. VERY excited. The ONLY people who absolutely hate Live are publishers and fanboys. It certainly makes one think about how in-touch most publishers really are with the actual gaming public.

[Dave Weinstein]

XBox Live is as close as currently exists to the ideal network format to make games.

No one is going to get any closer without replicating the core features of Live (only accessible to a given secured hardware platform, stickiness of identity, security throughout the communications chain).

--Dave

[Anonymous]

http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/20865.html

Anyone that thinks Sony isn't moving toward a Live-like service with the PS3 is hopelessly insane.

[Dave Long]

http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/20865.html

Anyone that thinks Sony isn't moving toward a Live-like service with the PS3 is hopelessly insane.

That's more of a middleware solution according to the article. It provides libraries and the like for a developer to quickly get his game online. It does not create a closed online network that all publishers must adhere to. For EA, who has the resources to do it themselves, and would hopefully (at least as far as they're concerned) do it better, it makes no sense to pay for a third party solution.

Sony seems content to let the publishers decide how they want to go online and so far, given the PS2's enormous success, that's working. Nintendo has done the same thing though to a much lesser extent. Microsoft can count on many US developers and especially those that are PC-centric to sign on and bluster their support, both on these boards and in the many press releases that have already appeared. They're comfortable with Microsoft because they've used the MS OS and made their money on that platform. But for a company like EA, that has made significantly more money working with Sony, and has a clear lead in sports gaming, where online games seem like a no-brainer, it makes a lot more sense to stay independent and go it alone under the Sony model.

That article says to me that Sony wants to provide services and support to those that don't want to do it themselves or find it cost-prohibitive to do so, while allowing those developers/publishers that want to reap the benefits on their own to do their own thing. Microsoft insists on none of that kind of thing happening on their service. It's MS way or the highway.

Edit: Here's something I found on GA today regarding how Microsoft must approve even the simplest of things...a roster update for Sega's sports games. Apparently, there's still no update for NHL2K3 after the trading deadline. (Which is a new problem, not the one referenced in this letter.)

http://www.sega.com/segasports/community/letters/post_letters_item.jhtml?contentId=3300025

--Dave

[Jessica]

I'm sure EA sees it as better for them if no one is making money on their Madden Online strategy rather than Microsoft being the only ones making money. You see, if EA feeds the Microsoft machine with Live content, they stand a good chance of allowing Microsoft to get their hands on all that Madden customer data, which means Microsoft may find ways to improve on Madden because they're getting the feedback instead of EA. Then next thing you know, Microsoft has a better football game and the bottomless pit of money to keep funding it until it beats out Madden and Microsoft becomes the world's biggest console software publisher instead of EA.

Come on, Dave. This is as silly as that phobia that's common among unpublished writers, "What if the publisher takes my submission and publishes it as their own work?" In the real world that never happens, because the publisher needs writers as much as they need the publisher. Likewise, unless you are implying that Microsoft thinks they can run a console lock, stock, and barrel with no partners, it is exceedingly unlikely that they would ever pull the rug out from under one of their developers in this manner. It's equally unlikely that EA believes that they will do so.

Actually, this kind of double-dealing happens a lot in the big business world. At least, to my experience it does and thinking it is a phobia is a little naive. If it didn't happen, there would be no need for contracts, non-disclosure agreements or injunctive relief.

[Andrew Mayer]

This whole situation is quite comical, when one thinks about it. Console gamers who are interested in getting online are very excited about the Live feature-set. VERY excited. The ONLY people who absolutely hate Live are publishers and fanboys. It certainly makes one think about how in-touch most publishers really are with the actual gaming public.

What's happening here is confusion of protocol and the medium itself. It's one of the oldest tricks in the MS book.

What if I come up with a genius online game structure that can't or won't work with the MS model?
It so smart, so good, it not only redefines gaming, but changes the way player's play, and pay for, the game. It's the damn online equivalent of Magic: The Gathering.

With live the only way I can "publish" my new model is to go up to MS and beg for their approval. They're willing to support it, maybe, but they want a hefty percentage of the pie, and since they're doing all the back end work they want to own part of the concept too. So much for innovation, but hey, what they never knew about won't hurt the gamers, right?

I'm aware that Sony isn't all daisies, peace, and love. But they seem to making a long term bet that creating a more open standard through supporting a solid development toolset, will ultimately give them the hits they need, while creating some uniformity.

It's worked like a charm for them so far...

Your Power Pill (http://www.levelupdesign.com/gamelog)

[Dave Weinstein]

If you don't want someone else to have veto power over what you publish, you avoid consoles entirely.

On any console, the platform owner has the right to tell you what you may and may not do, and how you may and may not innovate. That's part of the price of playing in a console space.

So can we avoid the righteous indigation that Microsoft would dare apply this into the network component? For that matter, you have to get Sony's approval for the network play on the PS2.

--Dave

[Mark Asher]

"There really is no benefit to big publishers going with Live, just as GUTB has indicated."

As if they will have any choice eventually(i.e. Sony doing a similar setup to MS)


"You're still talking about a tiny slice of the market. The percentage of players who play online seems to be well under 10% of the market."

Yes ,yes its still too small. This is an easy and weak arguement that is changing as we speak. A year ago people were saying how the small user base on broadband will keep online gaming like Live! to small for a long time still. Oops guess what, there are 24 million broadband users now with 30 million by the end of the year compared to 40 dialup users which has leveled off. Yea thats right broadband will be close too dial-up numbes very soon...so much for that arguement.

Yeah, but PC games have had multiplayer options for years, and yet the percentage of players who go online to play still seems minute. Even when you look at successes like AOE, Diablo, and Warcraft, the number of players online at any given time probably represent less than 1% of the copies sold. There's not a lot of evidence that online capability drives significant sales.

And even if you attribute some of the sales success of Blizzard games to the online component, so many PC games have multiplayer options that the players never use. What cachet will online multiplayer have for a console title once the majority of console releases have online options? It will be old hat then.

I think the best thing about Live is that it gives the Xbox something sexy that the PS2 and Gamecube don't have. It's a nice marketing angle. It generates some excitement for the Xbox. From a third party game publisher's perspective, however, I'm not convinced that going to the expense of making a game Live compatible will result in a significant increase in game sales. That's just a guess on my part, of course.

[Andrew Mayer]

If you don't want someone else to have veto power over what you publish, you avoid consoles entirely.

On any console, the platform owner has the right to tell you what you may and may not do, and how you may and may not innovate. That's part of the price of playing in a console space.

So can we avoid the righteous indigation that Microsoft would dare apply this into the network component? For that matter, you have to get Sony's approval for the network play on the PS2.

Dave, are you feeling okay? Perhaps you've been spending too much time over on the Ain't It Cool forums... Or arguing whether the Gambcube "rules" or not?

Trying to determine Microsoft's motives isn't the same thing as "righteous indignation".

I agree that you're always making deal with the devil when you go on a console, but that has nothing to do with the point I'm trying to make.

We're talking about the terms of that deal. It's a question of degree. The question isn't whether MS is right or wrong, it's about watching the strategy EA is using fight for their slice of the pie.

To me that's interesting.

Your Power Pill (http://www.levelupdesign.com/gamelog)

[Dave Weinstein]

We're talking about the terms of that deal. It's a question of degree.

Since the terms that seem to be bothering you so much are exactly what makes XBox Live fundamentally useful, I don't think we're going to get far, but I'll try anyway.

In order for the social constraints of a networked game community to work, there has to be a certain stickiness of identity.

So there has to be a central arbiter of identity. Under XBox Live, you have to pony up another $50 or so for each crack at a new identity. That is a barrier to "quick changes" as people burn through virtual personas.

Cheating is one of the most devastating threats to the online game play experience. People will rapidly leave in droves if they perceive that the game experience is unfair.

In order to have a good chance at stopping cheating, you need to control the hardware (say, with a proprietary platform that doesn't let you run any program you want on it), you need to control the software (by having to approve the titles), and you need to control the network itself.

This sounds remarkably like XBox Live, and that shouldn't be a surprise.

In short, the key features that make XBox Live desirable from a network developers perspective are precisely those that seem to be bothering you so much.

--Dave

[DaveC]

I think the best thing about Live is that it gives the Xbox something sexy that the PS2 and Gamecube don't have. It's a nice marketing angle. It generates some excitement for the Xbox. From a third party game publisher's perspective, however, I'm not convinced that going to the expense of making a game Live compatible will result in a significant increase in game sales. That's just a guess on my part, of course.

There are a great many people in this office who's first question about an Xbox titles is "Does it have Live support?". Especially in the racing, fighting, FPS genres.

[Dave Long]

In order to have a good chance at stopping cheating, you need to control the hardware (say, with a proprietary platform that doesn't let you run any program you want on it), you need to control the software (by having to approve the titles), and you need to control the network itself.

There seems to be some confusion about it, and I was going to post it the other day and forgot about it, but it looks like UK Xbox gamers can cheat in online games...

http://www.shoryuken.com/forums/showthread.php?s=17cb09878b958eb401a0bff78b42f6b6&threadid=24559&highlight=cheating

The Pro Action Replay is basically the Gameshark under another name. So the whole cheating thing is kind of out the window. Not only that, but lots of players have no problem pulling the wire from the box and other fun things like pausing games and hoping you'll quit etc. That all falls under the realm of cheating to me and no closed or open network can ever put a stop to it. It's just not a selling point for Live because one Gamertag or no, I can always find my friends online, meaning whether it's closed or open, I'll always be able to avoid cheaters.

--Dave

[Reeko]

I can always find my friends online, meaning whether it's closed or open, I'll always be able to avoid cheaters.


So:

if you don't want to participate in any sort of matching system,

and

if you don't want to be notified if one of your friends comes online to play a different game made by a different publisher

Then the Sony model is for you?

[filtersweep]

There seems to be some confusion about it, and I was going to post it the other day and forgot about it, but it looks like UK Xbox gamers can cheat in online games...

http://www.shoryuken.com/forums/showthread.php?s=17cb09878b958eb401a0bff78b42f6b6&threadid=24559&highlight=cheating


Woe to anyone that puts any stock in forum postings (this included :wink: ).

Even if it's true, there is a specific username and serial number associated with each Live subscriber. It's probably safe to assume that anyone who chooses to repeatedly violate the terms of service is going to get booted off the service fairly quickly.

[Andrew Mayer]

In order for the social constraints of a networked game community to work, there has to be a certain stickiness of identity. So there has to be a central arbiter of identity. Under XBox Live, you have to pony up another $50 or so for each crack at a new identity. That is a barrier to "quick changes" as people burn through virtual personas.

But only within the context of that game..
Do you really care who I am on Everquest when we're chatting on QT3?


In order to have a good chance at stopping cheating, you need to control the hardware (say, with a proprietary platform that doesn't let you run any program you want on it), you need to control the software (by having to approve the titles), and you need to control the network itself.

This sounds remarkably like XBox Live, and that shouldn't be a surprise.


I'm glad you're in agreement with your own arguments. But honestly, neither one of your conclusions necessarily follows from the premise.

Yes, it makes sense for MS to create a centrally controlled totalitarian environment for gaming. And for the majority of players it will create a "soft landing".

Take a look at Ebay for an effective alternate example of a working identity system that discourages theft. It solves a great deal of the problems, and in a gaming world there aren't even real $$$ at stake.


In short, the key features that make XBox Live desirable from a network developers perspective are precisely those that seem to be bothering you so much.


Dave, stop putting words in my mouth! :evil:
I doesn't bother me at all. But it's interesting (and fun) to watch.

I'm sure that whatever model(s) gets adopted developers will adapt, and players will hack it and crack it like an egg on a sidewalk. Totalitarian solutions usually are mostly effective in allowing a smaller number of players to propogate their mischeif across a wider number of users...

Your Power Pill (http://www.levelupdesign.com/gamelog)

[DaveC]

Well, in the end we'll see who comes out on top for the online console experience. Consumers will buy whatever appeals to them the most, be it through blitz marketing, feature set, price, etc. To say the jury is in one way or another is to be incredibly short sighted.

[Kool Moe Dee]

Edit: Here's something I found on GA today regarding how Microsoft must approve even the simplest of things...a roster update for Sega's sports games. Apparently, there's still no update for NHL2K3 after the trading deadline. (Which is a new problem, not the one referenced in this letter.)


OK, make up your mind. Do you want PC-style patchfests, or do you want a publisher to actually (gasp) take the time to QA a game update? You can't have it both ways.

(and yes, something as simple as a roster update can potentially cause problems...)

(edit: btw, broken link in that other post. have a copy of that post?)

[Kool Moe Dee]

Dave, are you feeling okay? Perhaps you've been spending too much time over on the Ain't It Cool forums... Or arguing whether the Gambcube "rules" or not?


Methinks you've confused Mr. Weinstein with Mr. Long.

[Jason Becker]

"Yeah, but PC games have had multiplayer options for years, and yet the percentage of players who go online to play still seems minute. "


What is the percentage change over the last few years? I'd bet its allot. Take say a Friday night and add up all the MM games, Battle.net, all the FPS servers, People playing AOE and such on the Zone. etc etc. I'd bet its more than most people think. Its just spread out among dozens of diffrent games/services. Also considering how decentralized it all is on the PC, and thats its not always easy to play online I don't think its that bad.

Just look at Battle.net for one small example. The servers were overwhelmed initially when Diablo 2 came out since so many wanted to play online. Do you think 4 years ago anybody thought that EQ would amass 400K subscribers? I doubt it.

I put the online Cable/DSL numbers base up because people were saying not more than a year ago that there arn't enough people signed up so its goign to stay niche, its growing too slow. Well that simply not true.

Sorry but I just see more pundit talk. Is online gaming taking off like wildfire? No not really but its growing and it will continue to grow.

[filtersweep]

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?section_name=new&aid=1388

Here's some more fuel for the fire. Rumors indicate that one of EA's major sticking points with Live is that users will still be able to play older versions of games even when new versions are released. They want users to buy new games yearly in order to keep playing online.

If it's true, that's got to be one of the dirtiest angles I've read about all month. It's one thing to make the offer of new content for money (EA's bread and butter). It's another thing to cripple an existing game when you've got new versions to sell. That's just low.

[Anonymous]

If it's true, that's got to be one of the dirtiest angles I've read about all month. It's one thing to make the offer of new content for money (EA's bread and butter). It's another thing to cripple an existing game when you've got new versions to sell. That's just low.
Easy enough to prove-- see what happens to the current PS2 Madden when the new one is released. If users of last year's PS2 Madden suddenly can't play online, then it's true.

[Reeko]

But how much sense does it really make? Why go through all the trouble of developing a new game, if you can keep selling the old one, but charge for roster updates?

Hey kids, if you want to play online next season, you've got to purchase the latest rosters and stat updates!

Benefits:

Everyone who is connected pays your update fee. No skipping a generation.

Beyond marketing and fiddling with the rosters and stats, no costs! Invest the rest of the money in other games to grow your market share.

Keep selling the same software to new users for $50

Seems reasonable to me, but probably impossible without a hard drive in the console.

[Dave Long]

It says right on the Madden 2003 box that online play will be available only until August 31, 2003. EA will no longer support the game for online play at that time.

Considering that there have been more Madden games sold with each successive release, there is no danger of getting people to "upgrade" being a problem for EA. If anyone truly believes that the majority of Madden players don't upgrade each year, they're sorely mistaken. Madden 2003 has sold 2,525,161 copies on PS2 as of the end of January. Madden 2002 has sold 1,997,978 as of the end of January. Basically, the userbase grows each year. Same for Xbox but with only 1/5 the amount of games sold overall...457,332 copies of Madden 2003 Xbox as of the end of January to be exact, that's about 50,000 copies more than Madden 2002 on Xbox.

--Dave

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

Maybe the fact that there is going to be a Derek Smart title on the system was enough for Eidos and EA to come out and say they will have no part of a console which sanctions the proliferation of BattleCruiser titles. :twisted: I bet they are boycotting French products, too.

LMAO!!! oh wait...bastard!!! :D

[Reeko]

If anyone truly believes that the majority of Madden players don't upgrade each year, they're sorely mistaken. Madden 2003 has sold 2,525,161 copies on PS2 as of the end of January. Madden 2002 has sold 1,997,978 as of the end of January. Basically, the userbase grows each year.

That's a valid point, if the number of PS2 machines was static. How many of those games were sold to new PS2 owners?

And how many more copies of Madden 2003 would be sold on the Xbox if they had included Live! support? Who knows?