EA GOES XBOX LIVE! NO BS!

[nazlec]

http://xbox.ign.com/articles/508/508793p1.html

EA Goes Xbox Live
IGN brings you the first details on EA's first Xbox Live games.
April 23, 2004 - After years of discussions, Electronic Arts and Microsoft are putting the final touches on a partnership enabling four of EA's sports titles, and possibly three non-sports games, to go online with Xbox Live this fall, IGN learned today. The Redwood City, Ca.-based publisher will announce its strategy at the annual Electronic Entertainment Exposition this May, but it may reveal plans earlier to investors this April 29, during its upcoming fiscal announcement.


"They're psyched," a former EA employee, who asked not to be identified, told IGN. "EA is going to bring its games to Live this year. It's finally happening."

Madden NFL 2005, NCAA College Football, NASCAR Thunder 2005, and NBA Live comprise the sports package for Xbox Live this fall. The non-sports games are less concrete, but as IGN has learned from several sources close to the company, Battlefield: Modern Combat, EA's new Goldeneye game, and perhaps Burnout 3 are first in line for Xbox online compatibility.

Other investigations point to EA's long-awaited move on two of these titles. Digital Illusions CE (DICE) said in 2002 it planned to make a second Battlefield game for both PC and Xbox. It quickly re-worded its statements to include only PC.

Two Wall Street analysts (UBS Warburg Equity Research and Banc of America Securities) reported in their weekly newsletters that EA will bring its games to Xbox Live, one specifically naming Battlefield as an Xbox Live candidate. "We do expect that to change this year, with Battlefield 1942 for Xbox expected to have Xbox Live capability," said a UBS report. "The popularity of Xbox Live, which is likely to be supported by Electronic Arts for the first time in 2004, also contributes to our confidence in strong Xbox hardware sales this year," reported Banc of America Securities.

Criterion told IGN in 2003 that Burnout 2 would have been Xbox Live compatible, but Microsoft was late delivering critical information, so Burnout 2: Critical Impact only had minimal support. The representative added that the next game in the series (Burnout 3) will fully support Xbox Live; this was prior to EA's announcement to publish Burnout 3.

The games have never been the problem, as EA has publicly stated its issues with Microsoft's successful online strategy: Content control and cash. Xbox owners must pay $69.99 for a starter kit (and $49.99 to renew) to play online Xbox games on centralized servers run by Microsoft. EA wants both control over its content and money for gamers to play its titles. Unlike Sony Computer Entertainment America's laissez-faire setup, which is determined by independent publishers themselves, Microsoft gathers and controls everything. While full fiscal details were not revealed, IGN believes that EA was able to strike a deal with Microsoft to lower the manufacturer's licensing fees for those particular games. Another possibilitiy is that it's working on a new monetary package to pay for online play. As for content, IGN believes Microsoft will share its data with EA.

Recently, Microsoft's move to create Live Server Protocol (LSP), which enables publishers to set up their own specialized tournaments and leagues on sub-servers, has made the move easier for EA to swallow. Sega revealed its plans to bring its sports games online (check the story on IGN Sports, detailing the LSP's flexibility, and EA is likely to follow suit.

A Sega representative told IGN, "We expect EA to go to Xbox Live this year, and we would be shocked if they didn't."

EA and Microsoft firmly deny their change in plans. "EA and Microsoft do not have an agreement for including online capability in EA titles for Xbox," said an EA representative. "We have a solid partnership with Microsoft and many titles in development for the Xbox. Discussions are ongoing."

She added: "Competition from other developers is one of the dynamics that made EA SPORTS produce so many great games. We expect these teams will be reassigned to make more great games for the Xbox."

Microsoft was less imaginative in its response. "We haven't made any announcements and we don't comment on rumors or speculation."

IGN will have more details on EA's Xbox Live plans soon. Check back on April 29 and during E3.

 

[Guden Oden]

Now we know for sure why MS cancelled their own sports titles...

 

[Qroach]

Getting EA on xbx live doesn't have anything to do with MS created sports titles being cancelled. EA had an online exclusivity contract with Sony that recently expired.

MS cancelled thier sports line this year so they could concentrate on xbox 2.

 

[Farid]

MS cancelled thier sports line this year so they could concentrate on xbox 2.

That's a little Off Topic but if this "rumor/fact" that MS cancelled their sports titles on Xbox in previson of getting the XboxNext sport line ready.
That mean that we won't see anymore MSG sport lines (except the Pam's Top spin and few others) on Xbox... Wich is definitely a clue about the fact that XboxNext will be the first Next gen console on the shelves( MGS won't stay two year without sport line, IMHO).

 

[Guden Oden]

MS cancelled thier sports line this year so they could concentrate on xbox 2.

Sounds like damage control to me. MS must have known for quite a while EA was coming to XBL, I'd say they decided to cut their losses early, knowing it would be hard to compete against that behemoth.

That it allows them to 'concentrate on xbox 2' is merely a nifty side-effect, and an excuse that makes them look good in the process.

Of course, I expect you to vehemently deny this.

 

[Sonic]

This is news to me. Seems like ESPN series will sell even less this year than it did last. But it is a good sign that Microsoft and EA finally caved om and decided to settle their differences in the online playing field.

 

[Qroach]

First of all you compeltely ignored what I said about EA having an online exclusivity contract up until recently.

Sounds like damage control to me. MS must have known for quite a while EA was coming to XBL, I'd say they decided to cut their losses early, knowing it would be hard to compete against that behemoth.

How can it sound like damage control if you never actually heard MS say that is the specific reason? I'm not quoting anyone btw, but that's what has happened. You can beleive it or not for all i care.

Besides, EA won't come close to implementing the amount of features for it's sports games online. Judging by their online efforts with PS2, it was like night and day. You act like MS never had any EA sports games to contend with on xbox at all, but you are totally wrong.

That it allows them to 'concentrate on xbox 2' is merely a nifty side-effect, and an excuse that makes them look good in the process.

As I said above, MS never came out and said this was the reason, so it's pretty hard to call it a "excuse" when they never used it.

Of course, I expect you to vehemently deny this.

Of course, I expect you to not believe anything and troll this thread

 

[Qroach]

Here's a link to details regarding an exclusivity contract.

http://www.gamemarketwatch.com/news/item.asp?nid=2700

EA Gets Behind Sony for Online Gaming

by Joseph Moran
Electronic Arts and Sony have entered into an exclusive agreement which puts EA’s upcoming online-enabled EA Sports games solely on the PlayStation 2 platform. The deal represents a major rebuff to Microsoft, which has repeatedly tried to sign EA to produce its games for Xbox Live.

While the advent of online gaming has yet to make a significant impact on the market, the increasing emphasis on the segment by game makers means it’s only a matter of time before the market begins to take off. Sony’s recent announcement to bundle the PS2 Network Adaptor with the console for $199—essentially giving the adaptor away—could spark the heretofore slack interest in online games for the PS2 and prove highly beneficial to EA’s future sales.

EA’s decision to put all its online eggs in Sony’s basket is a departure from its historical platform-independent stance. While the company will continue to make games for Xbox and GameCube, all of its online titles will be available exclusively on the PS2—at least until March 2004, when the current agreement lapses.

EA’s history of hit games headlined by celebrated sports figures like John Madden and Tiger Woods give it an unusual amount of leverage over Microsoft. The dispute between the two companies stems from the centralized architecture of the Xbox Live service. EA doesn’t like the way Microsoft’s tight control over its network insinuates it into the relationship between game player and publisher, a stark comparison to the loose affiliation of Sony’s network which affords publishers more autonomy and flexibility to control the various aspects of the game-- including pricing and revenue collection.

Microsoft would point out that its approach saves publishers the cost of the technical infrastructure needed to support online games. But Microsoft’s desire to wield control over the emerging online game segment is not incongruous with its stance in prior endeavors. "The time is right for us to establish a position [in online games] and start setting the agenda for what the future of the digital entertainment lifestyle holds," said J Allard, Microsoft’s vice president in charge of Xbox Live.

Microsoft wanted EA games on Xbox Live, but EA executives say that Microsoft refused to share a percentage of subscription revenues with game publishers. EA and other developers complain that this arrangement concentrates too much control—regarding pricing, most notably-- in Microsoft’s hands. EA’s Chairman Larry Probst puts it bluntly: “Microsoft's strategy is very simple," says Probst, "They collect all the money; they keep all the money."

Microsoft won’t disclose the financial arrangements it has with individual developers, but Robbie Bach, a Microsoft Senior VP and head of its games division, counters EA’s argument by noting that Xbox Live benefits game publishers by boosting sales, since every player must purchase a copy of the game.

As 2003 began, says Probst, "it just became increasingly clear to us that we were not moving the needle toward our side" in discussions with Microsoft. In February, Sony announced the royalty structure for its online business. At this point, talks to give Sony exclusive rights to EA Sports Online began to move forward in earnest.

The last meeting between Microsoft and EA took place in mid-April. Microsoft’s Bach declined to comment on the meeting, but EA’s Probst says he issued a warning that Electronic Arts would build their own service, telling Bach, "Robbie, you don't need us, and we don't need you."

Admitting the two companies are not simpatico on the online gaming issue, Bach insists that Microsoft is nevertheless seeing strong subscriber growth with Xbox Live. "We're growing just fine without them, but I'd love to see them on the service," he says. He adds that there will be 50 available titles for Xbox live by years end.

Meanwhile, EA readies PlayStation 2 online versions of Madden NFL and NBA Live for release this fall, to be followed by hockey, baseball, soccer, and NASCAR titles.

 

[Qroach]

Ya know it's funny reading this article and seeing quotes from EA execs as they say they didn't support xbox live becuase MS collects all the money...

However, how much of a problem could that be in reality, when EA didn't collect ANY money from having thier sports titles on PS2. Well, if you don't count the online exclusivity contract and how much they were paid for it. Hmmm, on second thught, it probably WAS all about the money.


Anyway, I hope it doesn't affect ESPN sales,. As I'd much rather buy ESPN hockey over EA's crap hockey games they released over the last two years.

 

[cthellis42]

Usually is.

Then again, since the exclusivity deal only applies to EA Sports-labelled titles, why did they extend it to other titles like 007, The Sims, Return of the King, and NFSU? It seems like that had issue otherwise with Live's protocols, and if they saw talks running long-term decided to make the best play for themselves. Signing exclusive with Sony for a bit would get them money, and more importantly give them leverage with Microsoft in their talks, because MS could already see what would happen if they didn't yield to EA on certain points. EA might also just have wanted to remind everyone of their weight and what they can do if you mess with them, rather than being nice and farming out just about everything to everyone at all times.

At any rate, since business posturing is pretty much always "all about the money" ultimately anyway, that applies too.

 

[Farid]

However, how much of a problem could that be in reality, when EA didn't collect ANY money from having thier sports titles on PS2. Well, if you don't count the online exclusivity contract and how much they were paid for it. Hmmm, on second thught, it probably WAS all about the money.

You know that this "free online gaming" from EA (and also Sony) was only meant to be a Test of the market, when everybody are equiped/looking for online gaming, then... Make them pay for the "sh*t they want".

 

[Qroach]

true enough guys, true enough

 

[marconelly!]

However, how much of a problem could that be in reality, when EA didn't collect ANY money from having thier sports titles on PS2.

I think you are looking at this from a bit naive point of view. Sure, they don't ask for money now, but they are building their userbase, and they probably DON'T want anyone outside to have access to those accounts, and possibly 'steal' them away by targeted advertising, which Microsoft could easily do. They want to keep them for themselves, and start charging money when they feel is the right time. Reason why they have no problem jumping on Xbox now is that Microsoft has prepared new server system (Live Server Protocol) which allows publishers to host games on their own servers.

Well, if you don't count the online exclusivity contract and how much they were paid for it. Hmmm, on second thught, it probably WAS all about the money.

The most they could get for such a small favour (it was small in the grand scheme of things, when you consider how tiny portion of games sold are being played online nowadays) was a decrease on royalty fees - which is not a bad thing considering how much EA games sell

 

[Guden Oden]

First of all you compeltely ignored what I said about EA having an online exclusivity contract up until recently.

Of course I did, since it wasn't relevant to anything you or I had to say. So they had an exclusivity contract with Sony, so what?

If anything, that points more towards MY point; since MS would have to know the contract was running out they decided to cancel their own sports games in order to not lose money developing them now that EA would go on XBL...

How can it sound like damage control if you never actually heard MS say that is the specific reason?

For starters, you didn't say they never said it so how could I know they never said it? I just said it sounds like damage control to me. Anyway, you had to have found it out from somewhere, it could still be damage control even if you don't have an exact quote. They did cancel games for a console that is going to be on sale for at least another whole year, probably a year and a half or more; it looks bad when they cut an entire line of titles citing quality concerns before they're even finished.

Are we to believe MS is so low on resources they can't make games for their current hardware when the next gen is THAT far off?

It's not hard to see they might want to spin this so it looks better than it really is. Now, being the die-hard Xbot you are, you'll undoubtedly refuse to entertain this idea is even a remote possibility... Funny, I didn't expect games developers to be such fanbois, but hey, I guess they come in all shapes and sizes.

You act like MS never had any EA sports games to contend with on xbox at all

I most certainly do not! Rofl, I haven't the faintest idea where you got that notion, unless it was straight out your nether regions...

but you are totally wrong.

*cough* You want to know how much I laughed after reading that above sentence, and then coming down to your next paragraph? Well, you probably don't, as it would just make you embarrassed.

"As I said above, MS never came out and said this was the reason, so it's pretty hard to call it a "excuse" when they never used it."

Yeah, you pretty much fell into your own trap on that one... First you accuse me of doing something (which I never did), and then you do the exact same thing you accused me of...

Yeah, it was a pretty big LOL, that I can assure you.

Of course, I expect you to not believe anything and troll this thread

Oh stop it. Get off your high horse you hypocrite... Seems to me you're the one that's trolling by making stuff up and then replying to it...

 

[bbot]

MS has always said that they were cancelling this yearsport title because they felt the titles weren't good enough.

When is Dave Baumann going to post that interview with ATI CEO David Orton?

 

[Qroach]

Of course I did, since it wasn't relevant to anything you or I had to say.

Excuse me? You're telling me what was and wasn't relevant to something I said? Do you realize how foolish that sounds?

If anything, that points more towards MY point; since MS would have to know the contract was running out they decided to cancel their own sports games in order to not lose money developing them now that EA would go on XBL...

That's hardly the reason as I noted before, they still ARE developing them but only not for xbox. So, can you explain to me how MS is doing this to NOT lose money when they are still paying to develop thier sports titles? Why would they continue to develop thier sports games if they were really cencelling thie rsports line due to quality concerns? How could they be doing this becuase they wanted to save money even though EA will be on xbox 2 as well? How is continuing development NOT loosing money?

For starters, you didn't say they never said it so how could I know they never said it? I just said it sounds like damage control to me.

Oh so it's my fault you don't know what you're talking about? right that makes sense.

Anyway, you had to have found it out from somewhere, it could still be damage control even if you don't have an exact quote. They did cancel games for a console that is going to be on sale for at least another whole year, probably a year and a half or more; it looks bad when they cut an entire line of titles citing quality concerns before they're even finished.

Or, it could be a business decision that makes good sense if their new console is realy coming out in fall 2005. Not hard to comprehend really.

Are we to believe MS is so low on resources they can't make games for their current hardware when the next gen is THAT far off?

You'll obviously beleive what you want. No matter what someone says, so why bother asking a question like that.

It's not hard to see they might want to spin this so it looks better than it really is. Now, being the die-hard Xbot you are, you'll undoubtedly refuse to entertain this idea is even a remote possibility... Funny, I didn't expect games developers to be such fanbois, but hey, I guess they come in all shapes and sizes.

First, you said you didn't say/imply that MS was throwing the "developing for xbox 2" comment out for "damge control", and now you're trying to use that as your reasoning for "spin"? If you really weren't saying it sounded like MS damage control, then why are you saying it sounds like MS spin? Isn't "spin" a form of damage control? Or, aren't you full of troll nonsense? Hmm, I think my last question is the real answer.

Spin is what they put in the press FOR teh specific purpose of damage control. They said they cancelled the sports line due to quality concerns in the press, but in reality they aren't going to come out and say, we're focusing on xbox 2 at this point. Which is why the public hasn't heard that line. Hopefully that's clear enough for you.

Being the f@nboy you are , you have an idea in your head without really knowing the truth about the situation. You want to know the truth? I'll tell you again, MS is concetrating on xbox 2 with their sports games. How do I know? I know people that are working on a few of them.

I most certainly do not! Rofl, I haven't the faintest idea where you got that notion, unless it was straight out your nether regions...

Wow, short memory Guden. If you really think MS cancelled thier sports titles "because" EA is on xbox live", then you can obviously see why it looks like your forgetting that EA sports games are already available on xbox altogether. What makes you think xbxo live support would make MS lose more money, or enough money to even consider cacelling the sports games (that didn't sell all that well to begin with? MS and EA were already competing for the sports buying public, and EA was winning on all fronts to begin with.

MS sports titles aren't made because MS wants to make a huge profit on them (just like sony and 989). It's because every viable console needs to provide games in specific genres, and MS, just like Sony needs to maintain a presence in that space. This is obviously something you wouldn't or couldn't understand.

Not only that, but MS has cancelled a number of games that were looking like they would drag out into next year. Put 2 and 2 together.

Yeah, you pretty much fell into your own trap on that one... First you accuse me of doing something (which I never did), and then you do the exact same thing you accused me of...

Right, let me cut and paste what I wrote above. instead of writting things twice.

First, you said you "didn't" say/imply that MS was throwing the "developing for xbox 2" comment out for "damge control", and now you're trying to use that as your reasoning for "spin"? If you really weren't saying it sounded like MS damage control, then why are you saying it sounds like MS spin?Isn't "spin" a form of damage control?

Now you wrote:

Guden Wrote:
Anyway, you had to have found it out from somewhere, it could still be damage control even if you don't have an exact quote

Sounds, like you don't know what YOU are saying or implying guden. If you didn't imply that MS was using the " concetrating on xbox2" line as Damage control in your post, then how could they (MS) use it as Spin??

Oh stop it. Get off your high horse you hypocrite... Seems to me you're the one that's trolling by making stuff up and then replying to it...

Trolling is just what you're doing guden. You're making an argument out of nothing, Throwing insults and names. If I didn't know better, I'd say you and cybermerc were brothers. That's just what a troll does.