 |
 |
| ActiveWin | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise | VBA in Excel | Users Online: 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Network |
|
ActiveMac |
|
ActiveWin |
|
ActiveXbox |
|
DirectX |
|
Downloads |
|
FAQs |
|
Interviews |
|
MS Games & Hardware |
|
Reviews |
|
Rocky Bytes |
|
Support Center |
|
TopTechTips |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows XP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
Apple/Mac |
|
Xbox/Xbox 360 |
|
News Search |
|
XML/RSS Newsfeeds |
|
Pocket PC Site |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows XP |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Windows 8 |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox 360 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Xbox/Games |
|
Fable 2 |
|
|
|
Applications |
|
Windows Server 2008 R2 |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Adobe CS5 Master Collection |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Microsoft Express Mouse |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Interviews |
|
Mike Swanson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Advertise |
|
Affiliates |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
 |
Microsoft tries to "own the consumer" with Xbox | |
|
||
| Time: 07:13 EST/12:13 GMT | News Source: | Posted By: Bill Roach | ||
|
MICROSOFT IS HAVING A TOUGH TIME getting support for its Xbox Live. The Vole's usual strategy of keeping as much of the money for itself as possible isn't sitting well with the biggest games makers. Electronic Arts and Eidos have both said they will not be supporting Xbox Live. |
||
|
Read Only Comments Return to News |
Displaying Comments 1 through 16 of 16 |
This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com. |
| #1 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at Friday, March 14, 2003 11:27:28 AM |
| This shouldn't surprise anyone. EA spent millions to build their own XBoxLIVE-type site. They want that billing relationship with their customers. BUT, their site has struggled and XBL is shining bright. It will be very interesting to watch this play out. |
| #2 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at Friday, March 14, 2003 12:39:00 PM |
| Struggling? I guess it's how you look at it. EA had 225,000 subscribers to a SINGLE GAME ALONE (Ultima Online) back in July, 2002... |
| #3 By 6859 (206.156.242.36) at Friday, March 14, 2003 12:58:39 PM |
| Why would EA be so stupid as to not support something like XBL when all it will do is drive sales of their software up. UO notwithstanding, this decision shouldn't be partisan, but rather looking at the $. |
| #4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at Friday, March 14, 2003 01:40:35 PM |
|
The XBox-Live model is by far the more intelligent subscription service, at least as far as the consumer is concerned. Because it fits the consumer needs, it benefits the game seller by insuring higher sales, and longevity on the shelf of games.
Again sodajerk is consistent in that he takes the anti-Microsoft position, while totally ignoring the consumers best interests. |
| #5 By 7390 (198.246.16.251) at Friday, March 14, 2003 02:15:51 PM |
|
Why shouldn't the consumer have a centralized gaming experience? Doesn't it make sense that the console owner would be the one to run the operation? Of course the major game manufacturers that have invested in their own infrastructure would object to giving up control. But the smaller manufacturers that can’t afford to support their own online venture will jump at Xbox live. When confronted with the success of Xbox live I am sure that EA and others will fall inline, if it makes good business sense. These are the kind of statements a rational and fair person would make. I would never expect {you know who} to make a statement like that. Since his passionate dislikes for Microsoft clouds his judgment.
Let us see how long before he responds my calling me derogatory names instead of carrying on an intelligent conversation. Hello SojaJerk, how is your day going? This post was edited by RedHook on Friday, March 14, 2003 at 14:16. |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at Friday, March 14, 2003 02:19:44 PM |
|
the consumer NEEDS EA games to only be available through XBL?
EA is having problems selling its titles? How does providing EA games through XBL guarantee higher sales? EA games have a problem with short shelf life? I would say the consumer is satisfied with EA--so the question is what's in the best interests of EA? To give up control of their online games? To only provide them through XBL? Or to duplicate another network for PC gamers and PS2 owners because MS wants some form of support through their network? To give up their own subscriptions to MS, or worse double up on the consumer (an EA subscription and an XBL subscription)? The logic that you've provided so far that this is in the consumers' interest and/or EA's is specious at best. But it does sound like you are looking out for MS's interests as usual. |
| #7 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at Friday, March 14, 2003 02:29:33 PM |
|
"Why shouldn't the consumer have a centralized gaming experience?" Because there's no need for it. (The most popular online games remain those which have their own network.) It doesn't necessarily present the best platform. (Should every game be the same cost? Shouldn't certain games present their own unique features and communties, etc.)
"Doesn't it make sense that the console owner would be the one to run the operation?" No, it doesn't make sense at all. What does Microsoft know about the Ultima community? The Everquest community? Should consumers who are only concerned about one game, one community be forced into a whole community of many games and users? Etc... Don't the game developers know a whole lot more about their games and consumers than does Microsoft? Don't most games transcend consoles, even PCs, so why would a game developer who builds a game for every platform need to create different communties and networks for each platform? Etc... "But the smaller manufacturers that can’t afford to support their own online venture will jump at Xbox live." Sure, good for them, but that doesn't equate to: EA is crazy for not doing so, does it? "These are the kind of statements a rational and fair person would make. I would never expect {you know who} to make a statement like that." I have no problem with such statements; I'm just supporting EAs right to do their own thing--I think that's in their best interest. "When confronted with the success of Xbox live I am sure that EA and others will fall inline, if it makes good business sense." Hugely presumptious--Everquest alone kills whatever XBL has accomplished to date. If you then look at subscriptions for individual games, or game developer networks, or Sony's rival network, there is no reason to believe that XBL is doing anything substantially better. Nevermind asking the question: how much profit goes to the game developer, and how much does MS get to keep? This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, March 14, 2003 at 15:05. |
| #8 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at Friday, March 14, 2003 04:10:43 PM |
| Once more sodajerk proves he is beyond logic, beyond rational thought... and solely anti-Microsoft. |
| #9 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at Friday, March 14, 2003 04:45:18 PM |
|
Refute a single idea that I expressed and maybe I'll give a sh!t what you have to say.
Until then, I see no specific reason that EA is losing out on this--MS is, and that's why you have a reason to see them using XBL. |
| #10 By 3653 (209.149.57.116) at Saturday, March 15, 2003 01:51:21 AM |
|
Refute? Sure, no problem...
Sodajerk, you don't think EA's online unit is struggling? Hmm... 225k subscribers after almost THREE YEARS of operation... compared to XBox LIVE being available for only FOUR MONTHS and having 350k subscribers. One might define "struggling" as "doing much worse than your competition". And its not like EA is actually making any money with their online unit... they predicted break-even this quarter. Did it happen? NOPE. What do the analysts say about it? "We view the consolidation of EA.com into the core business as a signal from management that it does not expect to achieve break-even results any time over the near term,". Hmmm... so EA says their online unit will do well, it misses its goal... and the analyst believes it won't reach that goal anytime soon. Are you still with me sodajerk? Pay close attention here... EA has lost MILLIONS with their online unit over the past few YEARS and break-even is no where in site. A reasonable person might describe that situation as EA "struggling". http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/030304/tech_electronicarts_outlook_4.html Consider yourself REFUTED. This post was edited by mooresa56 on Saturday, March 15, 2003 at 01:53. |
| #11 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at Saturday, March 15, 2003 11:18:22 AM |
|
jerky boy - "Refute a single idea that I expressed and maybe I'll give a sh!t what you have to say. "
I already have. The XBox Live model rolls everything up into a single subscription fee for the consumer. The EA/Sony model has a different subscription fee for each game. As a consumer I might buy several different games that have online capabilities. XBox model - $50/year Sony model - $50/month Now please tell me which is better for the consumer. |
| #12 By 3339 (67.116.254.149) at Saturday, March 15, 2003 03:10:34 PM |
|
"The XBox Live model rolls everything up into a single subscription fee for the consumer."
No, it doesn't; there are games that roll an additional fee on top of the service (Phantasy Star Online, for example). "The EA/Sony model has a different subscription fee for each game. As a consumer I might buy several different games that have online capabilities." Including games which are completely FREE. So your little bit of math is completely arbitrary--it could just as easily be completely reversed. XBox model - $50/month Sony(/PC/EA) model - $50/year "Now please tell me which is better for the consumer." Well, you seem to only be considering the X-Box consumer--why? That's only 15% of the console market. An even smaller (much smaller) number if you factor in the PC game market. When did what was best for 15% of the market equal what was good for the whole market? So let's consider a PS2 owner or PC owner who CONSUMES EA games... Is it in their interest for EA to use XBL? Well, that means: XBox model - $50/year Sony(/PC/EA) model - free/year before subscribing to individual games (still a requirment of XBL sometimes; most PC online games are FREE). But PC users and PS2 users (let's just guess at least 90% of EA's market don't have X-Boxes so they also have to buy ANOTHER console ($200), ANOTHER game (the X-Box version), and an XBL subscription ($50 a year) just to have an option if EA chooses to use XBL instead of their own network. That doesn't sound good for EA consumers--which is what I'm asking, why is it good for EA? The majority of their games sold are not X-Box games... They would either need to support TWO systems anyway, OR only sell X-Box games and be a company 90% smaller... and in the process that former market would have to re-experience the upfront cost of a new console, game and subscription ($300, or $25/month) just to play on XBL when they had chosen to buy the PC version or PS2 version of the game in the first place. So you'd have... XBox model - $25/month (to play EA games only on XBL) Sony(/PC/EA) model - free/month (no longer supports EA games) |
| #13 By 3653 (209.149.57.116) at Saturday, March 15, 2003 03:15:42 PM |
|
XBL Customer's credit card statement, every 12 months-
XBox LIVE - Microsoft $49.95 ----------------- The other way, every month (but still with annual committments) - EA.com - Sims Online $7.95 UbiSoft - Ghost Recon $3.42 ($2.95 + tax because of where you happen to live) Eidios - GameX $4.80 EA.com - downloaded mission $0.95 frustrated-and-lonely.com personals ad $6.00 (remember, this is sodajerk's credit card) Atari - Unreal fee $3.95 EA.com - Madden roster update $2.95 and remember, you'll still need to pay $40 for the PS2 "adapter". With XBox, it comes standard. JWM/jerk - name a few more XBL games with extra fees. Go ahead, just name a few more. This post was edited by mooresa56 on Saturday, March 15, 2003 at 15:20. |
| #14 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at Saturday, March 15, 2003 04:01:46 PM |
|
sodajerk - You sound like daz defending President Bush.
Seriously, you need to lose the anti-Microsoft bias and start looking at things critically. Sony's online gaming is a complete failure at this point... Moving forward Microsoft clearly has the right idea with the common subscription scheme. And the PC world is hardly one of free online gaming. You are obviously forgetting the hundreds of games which have tried to charge subscription fees and have gone the way of the doodoo as a result. On the console side you can't afford to have dead games like this, as it weakens the platform tremendously. |
| #15 By 3653 (209.149.57.116) at Sunday, March 16, 2003 07:31:41 PM |
| typical sodajerk - beaten in debate and he pretends not to visit this particular thread again. How obvious, pathetic, and typical of the jerk. |
| #16 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at Monday, March 17, 2003 12:24:40 PM |
|
Actually, mooresa, I do have better things to do with my weekend. I jumped in once quick to reply and I've now returned Monday morning.
If you'd like, I can continue... for example, why do you and soda ignore the fact that EA has more customers besides XBox customers? What does EA do for online gaming for PS2 and PC owners? It's a simple question that explains the simple situation for you. They would have to provide their own solution. So if they are providing their own solution anyway, why give MS the bulk of the profit for doing nothing but logging scores? Are you really suggesting EA shouldn't do anything for 90% of their customers? Are you suggesting that XBL is a better situation for them to be in (MS calls the shots) when they need their own network anyway? Very simple. Come out on a side and try to defend yourself instead of insulting me for not being such the loser you are, sitting at home hitting refresh all weekend. |
