Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

EA Cites MS Bullying, Says No Xbox Online Games 373

Posted by timothy from the we-control-the-horizontal-we-control-the-vertical dept.
beggs writes: "It appears that Electronic Arts will not have any games for the new Xbox online service Microsoft is rolling out this week. In this article over at the Times, people close to the negotiations for the service say that Microsoft was "trying to force software publishers to offer their online games on data-serving computers controlled by Microsoft, a move that could potentially give Microsoft access to information about customers." In the end EA said it will work with Sony and the PS2 online service."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EA Cites MS Bullying, Says No Xbox Online Games More

EA Cites MS Bullying, Says No Xbox Online Games

Comments Filter:

  • Hailstorm recycled? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Ratface ( 21117 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @08:42AM (#3529032) Homepage Journal
    And there we were wondering why Microsoft were so prepared to back down and close their Hailstorm division. Who wants to bet that a good deal of the technology they were researching there shows up in their future gaming plans?


    • As if we don't know what kind of game plan Microsoft has in mind.

      Way back in the OLD DAYS, yeah, that old-'n-rusty days of BBS, the BoardWatch magazine came up with the now famous "Bill - The Droid" poster.

      Care to guess what's the slogan was / is ?

  • Serious question (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jackal! ( 88105 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @08:44AM (#3529041) Homepage
    (Mod up any good answer to this)

    Is there any online games that are going to be MS only? I know PSO is coming to all platforms, and I doubt EQ (owned by Sony) will be on MS at all. Is there any killer online app for Xbox? I don't expect MS to launch this service without something special backing it up, but I haven't heard what that would be yet.

  • Jack Welch rule of business #1 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by alen ( 225700 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @08:46AM (#3529050)
    Don't let anyone get between you and your customers. Microsoft and EA both know this.

  • EA is a big deal... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ChiPHeaD23 ( 147491 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @08:47AM (#3529057) Homepage
    The fact that Sega and EA couldn't be friends is, IMO, one of the reasons the Dreamcast got killed. Don't underestimate the power of EA Sports's games (which are re-released with minor improvements every year, so sales for their "series" are always huge) and the multitude of developers that EA publishes for. This *could* mean trouble for M$. Sure, they're only mentioning online play but what's Slashdot without a little extrapolation?
    • As long as Sega and Microsoft are in bed, I wouldn't worry about sports titles for the Xbox. There were no less than four football titles for the Xbox last year.

      Besides.. there's always Acklame's sports series. *shudder*

      • There were no less than four football titles for the Xbox last year.

        That is fine for you Americans who happen to love a boring game such as NFL football, but will those games sell in the rest of the world, too?

        If I recall the days of the Genesis, there were cricket games, rugby, soccer(football) and of course, hockey. All games that don't sell well in the United States. How many football games are needed?
        • True. I work at a Walmart (thank you for wincing), and you should see all the N64 clearance rack. Last count was one copy of Quake 2, one copy of Mario Party 2, and six dozen copies of various football games. I've worked there a year, and I've never seen a single one sold.
      • As long as Sega and Microsoft are in bed

        And what an ugly kid that would be...
    • Don't underestimate the power of EA Sports's games (which are re-released with minor improvements every year, so sales for their "series" are always huge) and the multitude of developers that EA publishes for. This *could* mean trouble for M$.

      Which is ironic, because Microsoft's own OS development follows almost exactly the same strategy.

  • The *obvious* thing to do now is... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Cynical_Dude ( 548704 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @08:53AM (#3529082)
    set mode(Nelson(Simpsons)==true)

    point finger at Micro$oft.

    Hah-Hah!
  • I really hope this is the beginning a trend. I am getting tired of marketing people trying to sell me a product with a 300 page legal agreement attached and a barely veiled threat that they will not like me or my company if I don't "Buy, sign, and then shut up and do what they say... or else."

    It sounds like that was what M$ tried to do (again) but this time it backfired in their face.

    I can only hope this is the lightening horizon of the dawn of an age where Mob-style business practices are met with swift justice.
  • if (ThisArticle.about()==Gaming) {
    Sony.opinion(like);
    Microsoft.opinion(hate);
    }
    elseif (ThisArticle.about()==Music) {
    Sony.opinion(hate);
    Microsoft.opinion(neutral);
    }
    else {
    Sony.opinion(like);
    Microsoft.opinion(hate);
    }
    • Man, u don't know how to code. Watch and learn:

      // assuming *this == /.

      Like(Sony.GetOpinion());
      Hate(Microsoft.GetOpin ion());

      if(GetCurrentArticle.about() == Music) {
      Hate(Sony.GetOpinion());
      Neutral(Microsoft.GetOpinion());
      }

      • If you really wanted to get technical, wouldn't the GetOpinion() method of the BigCorperationsToHate class return Like or Hate constants? This could then be passed into the CompanyReaction() method.
    • How inefficient. You can throw the first if/then clause away entirely and trust the final else clause to capture it with identical output.
    • its:

      Microsoft.opinion(hate);

      if (ThisArticle.about()==Gaming) {
      Sony.opinion(like);
      }
      elseif (ThisArticle.about()==Music) {
      Sony.opinion(hate);
      }
      else {
      Sony.opinion(like);
      }
  • Come on, everyone knows Microsoft is the most ethical company out there, they would *NEVER* steal a customer from anyone. God knows they're an industry leader in fair trade and low cost software products. Geez this article almost makes them sound like some sort of monopoly, which we all know is impossible.....

  • Sony (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CaffeineAddict2001 ( 518485 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @08:56AM (#3529100)
    It seems to me like everytime a major game company gets pissed off with their platform manufacturer they go to sony.

  • I've been sort of wondering when we're going to see an online Sports game where all the players on the opposing teams are controlled by real people. This is sort of the holy grail of sports video games... Virtual pick-up games.

    Then it would be cool "tune-in" to games in progress. This might be good content for that 24 video games channel that was just launched. People from all parts of the world (within decent ping times of course) could form virtual teams, etc. Play in virtual tournaments, etc.

    This could surpass real sports as we know them!

    -Russ

    • I'd like to be able to watch the game on my Xbox, too - let's say there's a doubles tennis match playing online with four people - I'd like to sit in the stands and watch the game while waiting on another game to open.

      The potential of this make my skin pale in anticipation.

    • Of course, with all the PK (player killers) in online FPS, you'd have a very tough ride.

      Let's say a football game: the quarterback chooses the play (is he alone to choose, or the rest of the team can have an input too?), everybody lines up... and before the play is started, that moron on the left gets another penalty for encroachment, doubled by a major fault on the QB. Sure you can kick him out, but the damage's still done.
      Also, seems very fun to play as an offensive guard...

      Another example, featuring "real" football (soccer): the PK gets to control a very good defenseman. He tackles by behind a few times (maybe injuring an opposing player in the process), and the AI referee finally redcards the player. PK gone, but he leaves his team 10 to 11!
      Again, very fun it is to control a player not part of the action... Who to be goalie wants and the game watch from 100 yards away? (bad attempt at Yoda speak)

      At least in real sports, you have some practices between the games, so there's no incentive for a moron to act funny in games, as he has to act correctly in practices. Or if he does act funny in games, at least you can kick him (for real)...
    • Check out the latest version of Half-Life/Counter-strike. This has a spectator (HLTV) mode with very cool features. You can follow people around, see what they are seeing, look at a dynamic map of the arena, or just move your camera anywhere you like. They have used it to broadcast title matches to the internet and it appears to work well.

      One of the best $30 I ever spent.

  • Bullying Tactics (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CaptainZapp ( 182233 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @09:08AM (#3529161) Homepage
    Oh boy

    The good folks in Redmond just don't see, that you can apply bullying tactics only where you have a monoploy. They definitely don't have one in the console market (yet) and they desperately need partners here to ever be successful.

    The problem nowadays is probably that Microsoft id a wholly untrustworthy company to partner with. Just ask all the companies that received the kiss of death.

  • Why always NY Times? (Score:4, Informative)

    by pubjames ( 468013 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @09:09AM (#3529172)
    Why does Slashdot always link to NY Times, a subscription site? I don't subscribe, so can't read it. A quick search on Google News is all it takes to throw up other links about this story:

    Reuters [reuters.com]

    Reuters [forbes.com]

    Does Slashdot have a deal with NY Times?
  • Where they planning on using passport for the XboX online? I would imagine so, it really pisses me off when I run in to a site that uses passport or even worse forces you to get a passport account. A good example is CNBC's website [cnbc.com] which now forces old accounts to "upgrade" to a passport account.

  • Creepy Quote (Score:4, Funny)

    by gambit3 ( 463693 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @09:12AM (#3529189) Homepage Journal
    From the NYT Article:

    "Microsoft executives said yesterday that they believed that they would be able to convince Electronic Arts that the Xbox online service would not constitute a threat to the customer base of Electronic Arts."

    This sounds like the old "We'll make them an offer they can't refuse" from the 'Godfather' movies.

  • H i g h . S t a k e s (Score:3)

    by tapiwa ( 52055 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @09:15AM (#3529201) Homepage
    The stakes these companies are playing for are quite huge.

    Whoever wins will be the FIFA/IOC (substitute world governing body of your choice) of the gaming industry.

    win2k, linux... who cares. What will emerge is an online gaming platform (think direct x or OS of your choice) that games will eventually standardise on.

    Whoever controls those servers, that platform will make the windoze licence to print money look like a game of monopoly. We are talking big bucks (tm) here.

    My take, keep the OS/gaming platform open.
    !!go bnetd go!!

  • It seems like they won't be able to hold out from Microsoft forever, but I sure hope they do, becasue EA makes the greatest sports games, especially John Madden Football, and XBox will really be hurting without them.

  • The irony with Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)

    by theolein ( 316044 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @09:27AM (#3529259) Journal
    The irony with Microsoft is that if they were less amenable to dirty tricks and actually showed some respect towards partners and customers they would be a much more popular company and possibly would not even be in court now.

    On the other hand they would probably never have become the huge monopoly that they are if they didn't resort to dirty tricks.

    This control freak syndrome exhibited by Microsoft in the EA story is so typical of Microsoft it seems not even worth mentioning or replying to. Although EA is no angel, it does give one a sort of evil satisfaction somewhere that Microsoft doesn't always win in their Everquest(;)) to win domination of the world.
  • Finally someone has started to look at the historical implications of cooperating with Microsoft. If any one console wins a monopoly, it is bad news for the game developers, since the monopolist will be able to charge lots of dough for development tools. That would probably mean more expensive games for us.

    I wouldn't even be surprised to see Sony and Nintendo coordinating attacks on Microsoft if XBox starts to gain too much momentum.

    The current chemistry works nicely. Why change it?
  • I understand EA not wanting to lessen the value of their own game servers. I also see MS desire to make as much $ as possible on their console business. Seems like a dead lock.

    EA is taking the upperhand because they have it. MS can always throw the trump card and buy their a$$.

    • Why does everyone keep assuming that if you just pile enough money in front of a corporation you will automaticly own them? No one can force the company to sell to MSFT. And the current BoD are quite happy with their current exorbitant profits. They have no reason to sellout to MSFT. Especially when they can just buddy up to Sony and have a platform for their games for the forseeable future.

      Kintanon

      • Yes, if you can pile up enough money in front of a corporation, you will eventually own them. Its all about who owns 51% of the shares. Corporations where the founders hold the "controlling" shares may be invulnerable to takeover, but anyplace else, its fair game. The board of directors do not "own" the company. They can only make the buyout process more costly.
        Usually, the price/value is too high to make it worthwhile to do a takeover.
      • Why does everyone keep assuming that if you just pile enough money in front of a corporation you will automaticly own them?

        Because if you do, you will.

        No one can force the company to sell to MSFT.

        It's not the company's (EA's) call. It's their shareholders' call. If MS is unsuccessful at negotiating a price, they can still buy shares on the open market until they have enough votes to get their way. Given enough money, there it no way to prevent a hostile takeover. You can make it expensive, sometimes, but you can't stop it if deep pockets are determined to own you.

  • the MS Report Card (Score:4, Funny)

    by Alien54 ( 180860 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @09:35AM (#3529301) Journal
    I suspect that there would be a comment on it that says:
    Does not get along well with others

    While talented, and extremely bright, MS has an inflated sense of self, and sometimes shows bullying behavior on the playground, and has difficulty in respecting the rights and property of others. This offers some concern for the future development of MS. MS displays developmental problems, conforming to what used to be called a "spoiled child", a symptom of ineffective parenting, with an inadequate example being set in the home.

    Possibly MS would wind up in foster care, being assigned to a parent that could both set a better example, and provide the proper discipline to encourage growth as a reponsible citizen.

    Just a wild day dream before the morning coffee kicks in.

  • Isn't it strange? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by redragon ( 161901 )
    That Microsoft is still trying to bully people, when they're smack dab in the middle of an anti-trust case?

    And beyond that, they're attempting to brow beat one of the biggest names in computer games. It's just assinine to do that. They're the last people on earth that they should be attempting to "strong arm." These are the people you PARTNER with to see your game platform thrive.

  • In Public (Score:5, Interesting)

    by theolein ( 316044 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @09:43AM (#3529369) Journal
    Sorry to post again just after my other post but I forgot to add what is perhaps the most striking thing about this story: The fact that EA publicly informed the press of Microsoft's attempt's to control the server side of the equation. While it obvious why Microsoft is doing this - a public posing platform for it's hailstorm and .Net strategy , which hasn't been so successful as of late - it is fairly rare that anyone who has business dealings with Microsoft has the courage to go public about it. A lot of companies have simply been too frightened of Microsoft retaliation. I know that EA is far less dependant on Microsoft than most software companies, which perhaps explains the move, but given the current wave of shedding light on Microsoft's practices, it seems that it is a good method to avoid Microsoft retaliating, since Microsoft has had an enormous amount of bad press lately, is publicity shy when it comes to having it's dealings exposed and knows full well that negative news events like this *do* affect both other game developers who feel strengthened in their dealings with MS and the general public who normally doesn't care much whether Microsoft is a monopoly or not but defintely does react when seeing negative news about a company in the mainstream media (i.e."I don't think I'll go for an XBox, no one makes games for it" sort of thing).
    • I mean, Microsoft is not going to be able to break DirectX in a way that will only affect EA games on the PC. That's not possible!
      It's not like Microsoft using Windows to go after DrDos or using "secret" API to make MS-Office more integrated than WordPerfect, neither can Microsoft scare them by giving their concurent better deal like they can do with the OEM agreements to keep Dell, HP and Gateway in line...

      Microsoft can't do a thing about EA, and EA as clearly stated they are going with PS2 (ie. they don't believe X-Box will win the console war) so I believe that by putting this statement out, they are only making the PS2 stronger which is good for them. EA would not make such a statement if it was not in their interrest to do so...

    • I know that EA is far less dependant on Microsoft than most software companies, which perhaps explains the move, but given the current wave of shedding light on Microsoft's practices, it seems that it is a good method to avoid Microsoft retaliating, since Microsoft has had an enormous amount of bad press lately, is publicity shy when it comes to having it's dealings exposed and knows full well that negative news events like this *do* affect both other game developers who feel strengthened in their dealings with MS and the general public who normally doesn't care much whether Microsoft is a monopoly or not but defintely does react when seeing negative news about a company in the mainstream media (i.e."I don't think I'll go for an XBox, no one makes games for it" sort of thing).


      Periods. Learn about them.

      • Periods. Learn about them.

        Like any guy who has had girlfriends, I can only agree with you on that!
        Know your ennemy! ;o)

    • Re:In Public (Score:5, Insightful)

      by johnos ( 109351 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @02:14PM (#3531560)
      This is so bang on, but there are wider implications. In the computer business, we have come to believe that MS is invulnerable. Well, people outside the computer industry said MS would have their hands full in the console market. That it wasn't as easy as it looked. That MS had never dealt with competitors like Sony and Nintendo. Companies that had long ago figured out how to get rich in the razor sharp consumer electronics market. Some said that MS had no understanding of retail, where Sony rules supreme. I think many of us wanted to believe these things, but we were not hopeful, because MS was invulnerable.

      Guess what? MS is taking a corporate drubbing the likes of which happen once or twice in a generation. Everything the nay sayers said proved correct, and more. This week, for example, they have been thourougly humiliated by both Sony and EA. The impending price cut for the Xbox has been in the computer industry news for several weeks. The Register predicted a North American price drop when MS started discounting in Europe. In typical MS fashion, they failed to see a downside to this chatter, and sort of pre-announced the announcement for next week's E3. Sony trumped them with an impressive speed and boldness. The mass media picked up the Sony price cut as a leading item, and covered the MS price cut as a me-too move. Ouch.

      Now, we have EA going public with an announcement that seems to have humiliation as its sole purpose. MS looks arrogant, underhanded (like we didn't know), but most importantly, inept. Inept,Ineffective, incompetent, inferior. Maybe EA is not the first company to publicly tell MS to fuck off, but I can't remember anyone else doing it. So it can be done.

      The last six weeks have been a total disaster for MS. Dropping Hailstorm, because nobody wanted to play ball with them. Gates admitting in the trial that a modular windows was possible. Jones admitting in the trial that MS intended to make sure competitor's desktop icons would be nothing more than desktop icons. The anemic Japanese Xbox launch. The Xbox price cut in Europe. The widespread media coverage of Sun's StarOffice launch. David Villanueva Nuñez' brilliant Anti-FUD letter. The publicising of the Softimage piracy conviction. The pay-up-or-else dictats to the schools. The desperate demand that educational institutions have to licesnse Windows for people that don't even use computers. The donated PCs "gotta have windows" debacle. The pointed questions about MS' CIFS license, and the recent assertion that at least one of their two patents is unenforceble. The hapless witnesses at the trial, like Jerry "with friends like this" Sanders. Gateway's willingness to testify against them. The revelation that 1/3 of MS customers have taken no action on the new licensing scheme. The continuing, embarrasing security and virus problems (weekly MSIE uber-patch available now). The Lindows case and the possible loss of the Windows trademark. The delightful (well for me anyway) realization that MS can't afford to drop Apple support. Oh, and Apple's creation of the first sexy server.

      These are all stories covered here or at the Reg. Even for MS, which has reliably averaged one PR disaster per week for the last year at least, this is bad. I think the mortal blow is ironically going to be none of Microsoft's fault. The California/Oracle deal will have massive ramifications for all public software contracts. Got Open?

  • The attack of the clones...? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Rui del-Negro ( 531098 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @09:45AM (#3529384) Homepage
    EA is to games what MS is to operating systems. Most are crap, you have a new version every year (that looks just like last year's, with slightly differennt menus), but they control the market. Like MS, they buy out the competition just to kill them (ex., Origin, Bullfrog, etc.) and release their products based on commercial reasons, whether the software is finished or not.

    In other words, they could be long lost brothers, or perhaps clones that grew up in different towns.

    That said, this is a major blow for MS. EA controls a lot of games and a lot of different studios, and the X-Box's problem is precisely the lack of software. This may force MS to "speed up" the development of their games, possibly falling into the same traps as EA often does (buggy, unbalanced, unfinished games). And if PC gamers are fairly forgiving of that, console games expect the games to work right the first time.

    This could be an opportunity for Infogrames, but I don't think they get along with MS very well, either (does anyone?).

    RMN
    ~~~

  • Media spin in action? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 2Flower ( 216318 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @10:01AM (#3529479) Homepage

    I make a habit of reading Yahoo!'s Reuters provided news spools before hitting Slashdot each morning. I saw the same article there -- but there was no mention whatsoever of WHY Electronic Arts was turning down Microsoft.

    Then here we have the NYT article and it's got not just one but multiple quotes slamming Microsoft's policy regarding online game servers. I wonder why one media source covered that angle and others didn't?

    Of course, since I don't wanna scream conspiracy without screaming it from two directions, it could either be because Microsoft leaned on Rueters not to report that bit, or because NYT was digging for any dirt they could blow out of proportion in order to make it look like they were scooping their rivals. Who knows?

    Either way, consolidating servers like Microsoft is proposing is the same My Way Or The Highway tactics that nearly crushed Nintendo in the last generation of the console wars. Guess they didn't learn.

  • And SEGA? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Slad ( 155536 )
    I wonder if Sega will use this to their advantage - releasing NFL 2k3 for all three consoles and having online support for all three.

    Personally, I don't think XBox owners will be too upset by this - last I heard, NFL Fever 2002 and NFL 2k2 sold a lot better than Madden NFL 2002 (in the XBox world), and both of those will have online support in ther next releases (2k3 and Fever 2003).
  • ...how does it feel to be told "Go F yourself, we don't need you" by a vendor who then promptly goes and works with a competitor that you can't crush with your boot heel?

    I can feel the soon-to-be-damning-when-revealed-in-open-court e-mails flying already.... saying "XP SP1 isn't done, until EA games for Windows won't run."

    ~Philly

  • MS's Reasoning (Score:4, Insightful)

    by erasmus_ ( 119185 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @10:58AM (#3529827)
    I can feel the karma burn coming on, but I don't care. While I have dutifully read through all the posts, no one seems to have truly pointed out why MS and EA would be in disagreement on this issue. No, it's not "obvious" that MS is just doing this to plug Hailstorm and My Services - I think MS got a pretty clear message that companies are not interested in storing their private data on MS's servers given their track record on security.

    However, for anyone that has followed MS's Xbox online vision, the reason why they want everyone on the same servers is clear. One of the biggest selling points of the service (since getting ahead in a highly competitive field like games is all about differentiation) is that users will be able to switch between games on the fly if they already own those games. So I'm playing Halo, someone on my buddy list signs on and wants to play Tony Hawk, and I can get notified of it while playing Halo.

    While I can see that scheme happening with servers being hosted by different companies simply by using a common protocol of some sort, I would think that this would be very difficult to implement when you're talking about many vendors and many hosting facilities. I think MS wants to really control the positive user experience on the Xbox and they know that if EA's servers suck, people (including most of us on here) are going to blame MS, not the actual game vendor.

    A secondary reason is combined billing. I'm not sure if I'm in the minority, but I've never paid for an online game, I think it's a waste of money. If I already paid $50 for a game, I don't want to pay $10 each month to keep playing it. Diablo, etc. which were playable online for free were always a much better choice for me. Yet I'm considering Xbox Live (online service) when it gets started. Why? B/c I think this sounds like a better deal, where I'm going to be able to pay a flat fee for multiple games that I can play online, instead of $10/month to this company, $15 to another, and so on. Now sure that means that my billing information belongs to one place, MS, and that will potentially worry me. But I think I'd rather have one company to worry about, once again, than 5 different ones all having my credit card number. But that's just me.

    EA might not be happy with that idea, and wants to get its own monthly fee, but of course publicly they're going to say that they're just out to protect their customer's data. In reality, it's just business I think, let's not jus take sides automatically.

    • Re:MS's Reasoning (Score:4, Insightful)

      by kindbud ( 90044 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @12:39PM (#3530599) Homepage
      While I can see that scheme happening with servers being hosted by different companies simply by using a common protocol of some sort, I would think that this would be very difficult to implement when you're talking about many vendors and many hosting facilities.

      Nonsense. Just put a Instant Message client into the game. There is no need to reinvent the wheel, just make existing IM services available in the game.

  • The Lever of Riches (Score:2, Interesting)

    by rnd() ( 118781 )
    It is interesting to see US an Europe diverging on their treatment of the Microsoft 'monopoly'. For anyone who is interested in learning more about the history of innovation and antitrust and patent law, there is an excellent book. It's called The Lever of Riches [amazon.com]. It's a non-technical but fascinating look at the small decisions and factors that have made huge differences in the world as we know it today.

    Heck, I might have to re-read it and review it for Slashdot b/c it seems oddly relevant to the Microsoft issues now.

  • It's not like I have any love for Microsoft, but EA is practically the Microsoft in the video games Arena. I would not be surprised in the least if EA were simplying playing the "MS is a Bully" card merely as leverage for more favorable terms. The conspiracy theorist in me makes me think that this has more to do with Microsoft's chummy relationship with Sega (EA's software rival).

    Microsoft is Evil, but not stupid... they don't have the market share to start bullying developers and, in fact, they've been exceedingly friendly (in that crack-dealer-to-first-time-user sense) to anyone even remotely interested in developing for the XBox. If you're an Indy developer, just try getting a dev kit for a PS2 or a Gamecube. It will not happen. It makes no sense to then turn around and alienate developers with a hard-ass stance for the online network.

    Pretend you're an EA marketing droid, what sounds better:
    1. "We won't sign a deal with Microsoft if they sign a deal with Sega"
    2. "We won't sign a deal with Microsoft until they cut their royalty fees in half."
    3. "Microsoft is pushing us around!!"
  • ...yoda was writing story headlines for /.

  • the real story (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WildBeast ( 189336 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @04:50PM (#3532594) Journal
    The real story is that MS wants to charge a fixed fee to customers, $10/month for access to all the online games. EA on the other hand wants to charge a monthly fee per game and they also want to have the users use there own online services. So no thanks, I've been boycotting EA since March. I bought the NHL 2002 last october, and guess what? There online service hardly ever works. It's slow, it crashes and when you do get in, you won't find many people to play with because they have already given up on it. I've been able to play like 4 matches online since october. You get the idea.

    And there support, oh boy don't get me started on that one.

Slashdot Top Deals

Remember to say hello to your bank teller.

Close