EA still balking at Xbox Live

Badgun · Post by **Badgun** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 1:38 pm

I just read this article about EA still balking at Xbox Live. This is really the only quote worth posting from the article.
 
 "It really comes down to a difference in philosophy about the business model," Probst said. "They´re creating a new revenue and profit stream. They want to use our intellectual property. They don´t want to compensate us for the use of our intellectual property. We think that´s a little unrealistic."
 
 He added, "It would be akin to someone starting a new cable channel and going to HBO or ESPN and saying, we´re going to use your content, but you´re not going to be compensated for that. I doubt that they would get much of a reception from HBO or ESPN."
 
 I can´t believe these guys get paid this much money and can´t see the forest for the trees. This nimrod doesn´t realize that if their games were on Xbox Live, that maybe MORE Xbox owners would buy them. Hello, McFly!! If I´m not mistaken, ESPN Football actually outsold Madden on the Xbox. His comparison of their business model is totally wrong. You´d more likely compare it to product placement in a movie. That box of Frosted Flakes didn´t find it´s way on Mike Myers´ table by accident. And after people see the movie, a lot of them run out and buy the product they see...this has been proven.
 
 My point is, EA getting on Xbox Live can only MAKE them money. Maybe it´s not as much as they want, but it´s better than zero. Kind of funny those EA guys keep calling Microsoft greedy, but I believe this is clearly a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
 
 You can read the whole article
 <A HREF="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/ ... archdiff=5" TARGET="_blank">here</A>

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 2:22 pm

Bad:
 
 Interesting stuff. Two very hard-headed, rich companies smashing heads like the rams in the Dodge Ram commercials.
 
 Like some guys in here, I don´t care if EA ever comes to Xbox Live because there are hardly any EA games I´d want to play on XBL.
 
 Maybe NCAA, although I´m not much of a college football fan. Maybe NHL, but Rivals is an excellent game. Otherwise, I can´t think of an EA game that is better than its competition.
 
 Sure, FIFA would be the only Xbox Live soccer game and NASCAR Thunder would be the only XBL NASCAR game, but I can´t tolerate the flaws in those games, XBL or not.
 
 Bringing EA to the XBL table would be good because it would give us gamers more options for our dollars. And you´re right: EA might even make some money off it -- gasp!
 
 But I´m certainly not yearning for EA to come to the Xbox. Que sera, sera.
 
 Take care,
 PK

Spooky · Post by **Spooky** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 2:26 pm

"He added, "It would be akin to someone starting a new cable channel and going to HBO or ESPN and saying, we´re going to use your content, but you´re not going to be compensated for that. I doubt that they would get much of a reception from HBO or ESPN." "
 
 
 That is the most ridiculous statement. How bout´ you´re being compensated for the extra sales you´ll generate not to mention the $$$ you will save from not having to upkeep the online functionality.
 
 I would really love to se the #´s they think they are going to be losing out on if they do not have control or are not being compensated for the use of X-Box LIVE with their games and compare that to the increase in actual game sales they would see. As well as compare the #´s for what it would cost them to put the LIVE functionality into their games with the cost for putting in the EA online component and then having to maintain the online gaming themselves. I mean EA is quite a large company so you would think that they have looked at all their options and would make the best business decision based on actual #´s, however, this really is beginning to look more and more like a pissing contest between MS and EA with EA is a couple of beers short of a full bladder.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 2:26 pm

I would like to see NCAA and MVP on XBL. I think both of the games would be a blast. Those are the only two EA games that intrest me online.
 
 I would also like to see myself on XBL <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_biggrin.gif">

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 3:29 pm

Right now, EA is not suffering by not being on XBL. I think ESPN NFL slightly outsold Madden on the Xbox in Sept. when it came out. But in August, Madden sold a ton on the Xbox. If you tally up the sales thru the end of the year, I´m pretty sure Madden still outsold all other Xbox football games. Add in NCAA sales and the market is telling EA that they don´t care that EA is not on XBL.
 
 Plus the fact is, the hardcore people who want to play online will either play other XBL games and/or get PS2 versions. Madden and NCAA on the PS2 are selling well enough that EA probably doesn´t feel the pressure to boost sales on the Xbox.
 
 If they put their games on XBL, EA may sell a few more thousand copies of their Xbox games. But a lot of it would be from people who previously bought the PS2 versions for online play. So there wouldn´t be new sales as much as replacing some PS2 sales with Xbox sales.
 
 If you were EA or an EA shareholder, you´d see their point of view a little better. They have the hot properties and they´re suppose to help MS make XBL more attractive and not get compensated? Nobody who has leverage gives it away like that.
 
 If you want EA to support XBL, you don´t buy their Xbox or PS2 games. That sends a message to them that XBL compatibility is more important than anything else. A lot of Xbox owners are doing just that, going with Sega or even MS sports games. But there´s not enough people "boycotting" EA to affect their business adversely. The market is telling EA that lack of XBL support is not making them buy the competition´s products.
 
 Until these business realities change, EA will have little incentive to change their stance. With MS´s cash horde, they have reason to hold out, especially when MS was throwing money, like buying Rare for $400 million. EA has done more for the Xbox than Rare has and probably ever will.

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 3:55 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>1. I can´t believe these guys get paid this much money and can´t see the forest for the trees. This nimrod doesn´t realize that if their games were on Xbox Live, that maybe MORE Xbox owners would buy them.
 
 
 2. Hello, McFly!! If I´m not mistaken, ESPN Football actually outsold Madden on the Xbox.
 
 3. His comparison of their business model is totally wrong. You´d more likely compare it to product placement in a movie.
 
 4. That box of Frosted Flakes didn´t find it´s way on Mike Myers´ table by accident. And after people see the movie, a lot of them run out and buy the product they see...this has been proven.
 
 5. My point is, EA getting on Xbox Live can only MAKE them money. Maybe it´s not as much as they want, but it´s better than zero.
 
 6. Kind of funny those EA guys keep calling Microsoft greedy, but I believe this is clearly a case of the pot calling the kettle black.</BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 1. Calling Larry Probst a "nimrod" is pretty much out of line, IMHO. You have your perspective on the situation and he has his. I have to think that he has a much clearer view of his side of the situation than you do. Unfortunately, most of us will never get to see that side of the issue because we are not in that business. I have seen it and I understand the challenges facing most software publishers today. EA has grown explosively in the past 3 years and is continuing to prosper under Mr. Probst´s leadership. I would tend to believe there are very good reasons for his position in this issue.
 
 2. ESPN outselling Madden on XBox is no shock and I am quite sure very much expected. However, I am sure Madden PS2 sales dwarfed ESPN sales on the PS2/XBox/GC for the very same reasons.
 
 The one very big factor that is being ignored is the assumption that everyone who purchases an EA Sports XBox game is also going to be willing to shell out $49.95-$69.95 EXTRA just to play online when it is INCLUDED in the EA Sports $49.99 game price. Yes, early PS2 owners will have to cough up $39.99 for an ethernet adapter. But the online hardware issue is resolved since PS2´s are now being sold with the online adapter included for $20 more.
 
 3. His business model is not wrong. He knows more about his side of the business than we do. Just because it goes against what we think he should do is not in itself a good enough explanation. I would love to see EA Sports XBL games, but I believe the sticking point has something to do with asking users to shell out essentially the price of another game just to play online with XBox. To the average consumer, this is likely not the scenario that EA would like to see them faced with. Just my guess, but they consider how the average consumer views their games and marketing much moreso than the hardcore gamers like us.
 
 4. Comparing a $1.50 box of cereal to a $50 video game for the average consumer is not a valid comparison.
 
 5. I agree with you here. However, EA has always been very careful with how they are perceived. Charging 2003 PC EASO users was a horrible disappointment to them, not to mention a financial flop. The current XBL scenario is very similar in that you are asking users to invest in yet another program just to play online. I believe that EA is looking for an alternative to this partly due to the flop that EASO 2003 for PC was.
 
 6. I keep hearing this comment and it is so far from being true, IMHO. Yes, EA wants something in return for their intellectual property. Sony, MS, and Nintendo have NO problem asking for a licensing fee on every copy sold for the right to publish a game on their hardware. Why is this any different? I do not blame EA for wanting a piece of the action, but I also don´t blame them for trying to get a better arrangement with MS for themselves, but also their customers. Is that so bad? It certainly does not make Larry Probst a "nimrod"....
 
 -Tim

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 3:57 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2004-01-03 11:29, wco81 wrote:
 
 If you were EA or an EA shareholder, you´d see their point of view a little better. They have the hot properties and they´re suppose to help MS make XBL more attractive and not get compensated? Nobody who has leverage gives it away like that.
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 EXACTLY...your entire post is very well spoken and right on the money! [ This message was edited by: BigBerthaEA on 03-01-2004 11:58 ]

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 4:14 pm

“5. EA has always been very careful with how they are perceived. Charging 2003 PC EASO users was a horrible disappointment to them, not to mention a financial flop. The current XBL scenario is very similar in that you are asking users to invest in yet another program just to play online. I believe that EA is looking for an alternative to this partly due to the flop that EASO 2003 for PC was.”
 
 I agree with almost everything you and WCO are saying except for this statement. According to Probst’s quote above, it seems he wouldn’t have any problem asking consumers to invest in yet another program to play online as long as EA got a piece of the action.
 
 I don´t blame EA for not supporting XBL at all.

Boom · Post by **Boom** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 4:19 pm

I don´t understand why so many people look at EA as the only ones at fault here for this not happening.
 
 EA has dedicated many of their own resources into developing their own online gaming model for several years. Now people get pissed because they have no intentions of just throwing that all away and letting the people at MS do what they want with their software.
 
 I´m not the biggest EA Supporter in the world but I can definitely see their side of the story here.
 
 Both companies have their own ideas and neither one is willing to budge. Until they both decide to compromise a little on the issue it´s going to be dead in the water.
 
 
 
 EDIT: This isn´t directed toward people here, just mainly the general gaming publice that spout off without having a friggin clue. [ This message was edited by: Boom on 03-01-2004 12:22 ]

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 4:51 pm

>>>If you want EA to support XBL, you don´t buy their Xbox or PS2 games.<<<
 
 Actually, the lack of XBL support has nothing to do with my decision not to buy EA Sports games. My opinion that rival companies make better games in nearly every genre has everything to do with it.
 
 Take care,
 PK [ This message was edited by: pk500 on 03-01-2004 12:51 ]

Badgun · Post by **Badgun** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 5:37 pm

Big Bertha,
 I think you´re way off the mark here about Microsoft essentially charging for another piece of equipment to play online.
 
 Let´s be real here. Most Xbox owners that care anything about playing online football are not holding out waiting for an Xbox Live version of Madden to buy Xbox Live, they´ve already bought the service to play the other excellent XBL games like Ghost Recon, ESPN Football, and the many other great games on Xbox Live. I think it´s ignorant to assume that along with a XBL enabled copy of Madden, people are going to have to buy the XBL service.
 
 People just make other choices. When I bought Madden 2003 (PS2), I had to spend $40 more on extras than I did to buy ESPN Football. Even if a network adapter is included with the new PS2s for an additional $20, what about the 40 billion PS2 owners who had to shell out the 40 bucks for the network adapter?
 
 SO technically, you´re actually asking PS2 owners to take more of a hit than Xbox owners...and for a seriously more inferior online model.
 
 I´ve always respected your generally unbiased opinion, but this time you´re really showing your EA bias.
 
 As for me, if Sega makes an ESPN College Football game and it´s as good as ESPN Football, there´s not an EA game out there that I´ll be buying next year.
 
 Sorry you disagree, but I can see nothing but a win/win situation for EA to get on XBL.

Badgun · Post by **Badgun** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 5:43 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2004-01-03 11:29, wco81 wrote:
 Right now, EA is not suffering by not being on XBL. I think ESPN NFL slightly outsold Madden on the Xbox in Sept. when it came out. But in August, Madden sold a ton on the Xbox. If you tally up the sales thru the end of the year, I´m pretty sure Madden still outsold all other Xbox football games. Add in NCAA sales and the market is telling EA that they don´t care that EA is not on XBL.
 
 Plus the fact is, the hardcore people who want to play online will either play other XBL games and/or get PS2 versions. Madden and NCAA on the PS2 are selling well enough that EA probably doesn´t feel the pressure to boost sales on the Xbox.
 
 If they put their games on XBL, EA may sell a few more thousand copies of their Xbox games. But a lot of it would be from people who previously bought the PS2 versions for online play. So there wouldn´t be new sales as much as replacing some PS2 sales with Xbox sales.
 
 If you were EA or an EA shareholder, you´d see their point of view a little better. They have the hot properties and they´re suppose to help MS make XBL more attractive and not get compensated? Nobody who has leverage gives it away like that.
 
 If you want EA to support XBL, you don´t buy their Xbox or PS2 games. That sends a message to them that XBL compatibility is more important than anything else. A lot of Xbox owners are doing just that, going with Sega or even MS sports games. But there´s not enough people "boycotting" EA to affect their business adversely. The market is telling EA that lack of XBL support is not making them buy the competition´s products.
 
 Until these business realities change, EA will have little incentive to change their stance. With MS´s cash horde, they have reason to hold out, especially when MS was throwing money, like buying Rare for $400 million. EA has done more for the Xbox than Rare has and probably ever will.
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 Everything you say may very well be right, but please explain to me how getting on XBL will actually COST EA money. It can only help sell games. I will never "settle" for the graphically inferior version of another EA Ps2 game just so I can play online. I did that with last year´s Madden and I really couldn´t belive how bad the PS2 version looked compared to the Xbox version.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 6:29 pm

I didn´t use the word "cost" anywhere. But lets look at your characterization of a "win/win" situation.
 
 There is no evidence that EA is suffering lost sales on the Xbox because they´re not on XBL. Certainly that wasn´t the case last year when Madden and NCAA were #1 and #2 on the Xbox. I don´t know the latest figures but it would surprise me if that wasn´t the case this year.
 
 Their sales are huge on the PS2. So they´re not desperate to increase sales anywhere. Until you can quantify how much additional NEW sales they´d get by being on XBL, there is no financial argument to be made for them putting their games on XBL. More people might by the XBL versions of Madden but given the nature of online gaming, you´re probably talking about a lot of those additional XBL sales coming from people who were buying the PS2 versions already. So in those cases, there´s no net gain for them. And who knows, maybe EA pays more royalties to MS than to Sony or it´s the other way around. Or maybe Sony´s paying EA for this exclusivity. More than likely, EA is looking for financial incentives from MS since MS would be accruing additional XBL subscription fees. You can say they don´t deserve a share of those fees since MS put up all the infrastructure. But the fact remains that EA games would be causing some people to sign up for XBL or continue with their XBL subscriptions when they otherwise wouldn´t unless there were EA games on XBL. So that is the claim they´re staking.
 
 Look at other cases where content owners dictate the terms to technolgy or service providers. Why can´t you copy a DVD to VHS or to other DVDs? Why haven´t DVD recorders been more popular? After all, the consumer electronics makers invested millions or billions into the R&D while it costs the movie studios litterally a few cents to manufacture the discs (costs them less than to make VHS tapes of those same movies)? The answer is that without the content that everyone wants, all the greatest technology in the world means nothing. So the movie studios dictate the terms and the design of the hardware, even if it costs the hardware companies more money to implement the copy protection and Macrovision that the studios demand.
 
 Another recent example is in HDTV. Comcast, the biggest cable company in the country, just reached a deal with Viacom, which owns CBS and UPN, to put those channels, especially the HDTV versions of those channels, on Comcast systems across the country. Now Comcast has spend hundreds of millions, if not billions, to upgrade their cable systems across the country to carry HDTV channels. CBS, which has the highest-rated shows, also happens to produce the most number of HDTV shows. The installed base of HDTV sets is very small, still probably under 10 million out of hundreds of millions of sets in this country. Comcast only charges $5 for the HDTV cable box so they´re not making big money on HDTV yet. But this deal involved the CEOs of both companies, because HDTV is going to be bigger eventually. They didn´t announce the terms of the deal but you can bet if the CEOs were involved, there was significant money involved as well. You can argue that this would have been a "win/win" deal as it would lead to more people watching CBS HDTV programming but again, content owners dictate the terms over technology or service providers. They have the leverage.
 
 It may not be fair or right but these are the business realities.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 6:55 pm

BigBertha,
 
 Let us go over the facts.
 
 On the PS2, aren´t you guys having to shell out more money for having to supply the infrastructure. Because the PS2 doesn´t have any online structure, you have to supply the networks and resources to maintain that structure. The money you make from a $49.99 purchase goes toward that structure. It´s also the same infrastructure that you´re online model uses. You offer me free online play if I purchase the game.
 
 The contrast to Xbox Live is simple. MS charges $49.99 a year to use it´s service. You don´t get any game with that charge. i would assume that the money from the XBL purchase goes toward covering the cost of that infrastructure. Still I have to purchase games that are XBL enabled to use the service and I need an XBL account to play.
 
 Now call me crazy, you are basically offereing online play for free? You are losing money becuase you have to pay for the online structure through other assets either game sales, other invesments and etc. So your claim and Mr. Probst really is very "political" and basically dancing around the issue.
 
 1. EA Sports want compensation for using XBL. This is no secret but you don´t get compensated now. You have to offer gamers free online play. Maybe you have some sort of infrastructe agreement with Sony or something but you bascially are not covereing your costs for online play. So the HBO analogy was pretty much a very idoitic statement. It would be true if EA Sports made their line for MS but MS kept every profit from every game sales. And correct me if I´m wrong, but are any other companies recieving compensation for being XBL, or do they make their money off of games sales.
 
 My only possible reason for MS holding out, is either
 1) Greed - you want money for putting your game on XBL on top of the money you make off of game sales. But the problem is EA Sports doesn´t have pay for the online infrastructure.
 
 2) Sony and EA Sports have an agreement. I don´t think this is conspiricy theory. Sony needs EA Sports the same if not more than EA Sports needs Sony. If EA Sports were to offer the same EXACT games to MS with XBL support, than want continued reason would many gamers have to own a PS2. The mass exodus would begin. Online play is a big seller and a great hype maker. EA Sports has snubbed consoles before. The dreamcast was essentially killed because many developers didn´t make games for it and just went straight to the PS2. I think this is the same business model. Instead of offereing everything to everyone, Sony and EA Sports can compete much better if they are in union.
 
 This Larry Probst isn´t the reason why EA Sports has grown. Any MBA graduate that has a shred of business knowledge could have rode the reigns to where they are now. In fact what has happened in the last three years in mainstream video gaming. More consumers have access and the want to "video game".
 
 In fact, in the last three year´s EA Sports only seem to hold themselves back. It´s taken you guys three years to realize that gamers want good games not just games with good hype. Madden is a big seller and the flagship for EA Sports but yet, the game is only benefitting because the competition isn´t competing on the same level.
 
 The FIFA example should be the case study for EA Sports. Here you have a number one selling game with little competition prior to the PS2 launch. Then a small Japanese game make it´s way to Europe. In less than three incarnations, it has outsold FIFA, the world´s best selling sports game. Yet it doens´t offer the tried and true EA Sports model. It doens´t have all the teams, nor does it have amazing graphics. Yet it continues to sell.
 
 Just now EA sports is realizing what sells. EA Sports needed to create a new line of games just to differentiate themselves from over the top gameplay -- EA Big. There has been a mass exodus to "sim-like" games.
 
 All these year´s the customer has been right with the sim v arcade style games. It takes a while to show up in game sales but now EA Sports is realizing it.
 
 So is the customer wrong about XBL too? Makes you wonder if EA Sports really understand gamers or just understand a good business model?

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 7:49 pm

JRod, some of your assumptions are incorrect.
 
 Online play is not a big seller. At its peak, I´ve seen maybe 8-9,000 people online with Madden at any time. Even if the number of people who tried online with Madden was over 20 times that, say 200,000 as a nice round number, and every one of these people switched from the PS2 to the Xbox because of XBL support, there would still be way more sales of the PS2 version.
 
 As for FIFA, I think EA has claimed that FIFA outsells Konami in Europe and Konami hasn´t disputed that. May be a different story in Japan but otherwise, it´s hard to overcome that license.
 
 As for anyone being able to make EA successful, I would give them more credit. If you remember in the PSOne days, Madden was nowhere this dominant. I don´t recall them selling 2 million copies in any one year, let alone what they´re selling now (I think over 4 million last year). They bet on the PS2 instead of the DC and history has pretty much vindicated their choice.
 
 EA Big I think is them trying to increase overall unit sales, not because their main sports games are suffering or anything. They started out in categories like snowboarding and other extreme sports and then added street variants of basketball and soon, football. Football I think everyone knows EA isn´t in any danger of losing sales. So NFL Street is an attempt to sell a variant to much of the same audience who bought NCAA back in July and Madden back in August. That is why they´re releasing in January. Rather than cannibalize sales, or make up for lost sales, they´re trying to increase overall sales.

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 8:58 pm

The funny thing is two people who do not play alot of sports game said it best in cartoon form.
 
 <A HREF="http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2003-11-05" TARGET="_blank">http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?d ... 3-11-05</A>
 
 <A HREF="http://www.penny-arcade.com/news.php3?date=2003-11-05" TARGET="_blank">The news rant on this</A>

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 9:09 pm

>>>As for anyone being able to make EA successful, I would give them more credit. If you remember in the PSOne days, Madden was nowhere this dominant. I don´t recall them selling 2 million copies in any one year, let alone what they´re selling now (I think over 4 million last year)<<<
 
 WCO:
 
 Come on: Ever occur to you that there are a LOT more people playing video games in 2004 than in 1998?
 
 Raw sales numbers mean nothing to me in such a fluid, expanding market as gaming. I´d like to see percentages.
 
 The only year EA had competition in football on the PSOne was with Gameday ´98, a clearly superior game to Madden 98 due to it being the first polygon-based game. Otherwise, I bet EA has held about the same market share it does now.
 
 EA is a brilliant marketing company. It´s not a brilliant game development or publishing company. Very good, but not brilliant.
 
 Take care,
 PK

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 10:21 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2004-01-03 15:49, wco81 wrote:
 JRod, some of your assumptions are incorrect.
 
 Online play is not a big seller. At its peak, I´ve seen maybe 8-9,000 people online with Madden at any time. Even if the number of people who tried online with Madden was over 20 times that, say 200,000 as a nice round number, and every one of these people switched from the PS2 to the Xbox because of XBL support, there would still be way more sales of the PS2 version.
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 No online play isn´t a big seller but it´s a great hype maker. These days reviews and the press machine will bash any game that doesn´t atleast try to be onnline. A better way to put it is games release now have the benchmark of being online. If you don´t meet that benchmark the game receives rather bad press.
 
 It´s like many other stupid features. They don´t really add much to the game but you must have them. Online play isnt´ quite that meaningless but it´s still the benchmark.
 
 Like I said gaming has hit the mainstream. It´s much more popular than it was when the PS1 was out. And at the end of the day, EA Sports can only make more money by going to XBL. Of course that means the PS2 will become more and more dated and probalby start to decline is user base.
 
 And like PK said, EA Sports can market a game about two monkeys throwing poo in a zoo and it will sell millions. It will offer revolutionary gameplay. It will have awesome graphics. And we will all buy it but stop playing it two weeks later when we realize they overhyped the game again.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 10:34 pm

I agree it´s a bigger market now than it was 5 years ago. But it´s not several times bigger or anything like that. There were tens of millions of PSOnes and N64s back in the days too.
 
 The thing about Madden is that it was a no show in ´95-´96 and the original GameDay, GD97 and GD98 each sold very well.
 
 Madden sold well but back then, no sports game was as big as a platformer like Mario. Now, it´s the best or second-best selling game or at least in the top 5 every year.
 
 If you want to attribute it only to marketing, that´s fine and they do have more commercials and TV show tie-ins than they ever did before.
 
 Whatever the reasons for its success, it´s done so in the face of better competition: Sega and MS with its very deep pockets. So you can´t say anyone could have made them successful. Because MS is no stranger to dominating software sales and it hasn´t been able to produce big hit games outside of Halo.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 10:44 pm

Most people who play console sports games are using the offline franchise modes. I´m thinking at least 90% spend most of their time playing the CPU, not human opponents and certainly not online.
 
 A lot of people have no desire whatsoever to go online and play strangers.
 
 So I really don´t understand why online would be a big selling point for most people.
 
 I´m looking at the cases for the PS2 versions of Madden 2004 and ESPN NFL 2004. On the back, Madden´s case mentions EA Sports Online as just one of the 6 features listed. On ESPN, it doesn´t list online at all, except at the bottom in small print, in those small boxes where it lists number of players, analog control, vibration function and network adapter support, among all the other features it supports. ESPN doesn´t even mention online leagues.
 
 Really, I think the only people aware of online play are people like us who go on the web to discuss gaming. Most people just get the games on the recommendations of friends, sales clerks, etc.
 
 Once again, you have to keep in mind that both Madden and NCAA outsell other football games on the Xbox, even though neither have XBL support. Or at least that was the case with the 2003 titles. I´m sure Madden 2004 still outsold the other XBox games but not sure if NCAA 2004 did.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 12:46 am

>>>Because MS is no stranger to dominating software sales and it hasn´t been able to produce big hit games outside of Halo.<<<
 
 WCO:
 
 I disagree with this analogy 100 percent.
 
 Microsoft dominates PC software sales because something like 90 percent of the PC´s in the world use MS operating systems. Many of the MS apps are bundled together with the operating system with new PC´s.
 
 Microsoft also controls the browser market, too. Now, it landed that dominance through dubious business tactics, as the Justice Department uncovered. IE also isn´t a bad program, either.
 
 MS´ operating system and software dominance is due to its marketing and decent products -- much like EA -- but a big part of it is due to the fact it was in the PC software game MUCH, MUCH earlier than it joined the console gaming arena.
 
 The Gates Brigade faces an entirely different scenario with gaming. It was late to the game, unlike PC´s.
 
 Also, no company in gaming -- even the market monolith EA -- has an app or a game or a peripheral that´s used in 90 percent of the consoles, regardless of their manufacturer. MS does with PC´s.
 
 With gaming, MS has to sell the hardware and software. You can´t run MS game software without buying an Xbox. MS doesn´t have that problem with PC´s. The potential MS software install base for PC´s is automatic every time someone buys -- screw that, every time a manufacturer other than Apple makes -- a PC. MS only has a chance to sell its gaming software to those who buy Xboxes.
 
 And finally, I don´t think EA used monopolistic tactics -- such as forcing PC manufacturers to bundle IE with their new PC´s or no MS software -- to bury its competition like MS, either.
 
 Take care,
 PK [ This message was edited by: pk500 on 03-01-2004 20:50 ]

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 1:29 am

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2004-01-03 13:37, Badgun wrote:
 I´ve always respected your generally unbiased opinion, but this time you´re really showing your EA bias.</BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 I was reading your post and I was getting ready to respond when I came across the quoted sentence. Now I no longer feel like responding. I thought I was getting away from this kind of nonsense that I endured at SR. I spent a bit of time sharing what I know about EA and how they think and what do I get...EA bias?
 
 This is why I am posting less and less in forums. The only way that I can see to avoid being accused of this is simply not to post at all. I wrongly guessed that my insight into EA might be able to shed some light on why some decisions are made and some are not. Looks like I will just be better off keeping my mouth shut.
 
 Thanks anyway,
 
 -Tim

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 1:57 am

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2004-01-03 21:29, BigBerthaEA wrote:

On 2004-01-03 13:37, Badgun wrote:
 I´ve always respected your generally unbiased opinion, but this time you´re really showing your EA bias.</BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 I was reading your post and I was getting ready to respond when I came across the quoted sentence. Now I no longer feel like responding. I thought I was getting away from this kind of nonsense that I endured at SR. I spent a bit of time sharing what I know about EA and how they think and what do I get...EA bias?
 
 This is why I am posting less and less in forums. The only way that I can see to avoid being accused of this is simply not to post at all. I wrongly guessed that my insight into EA might be able to shed some light on why some decisions are made and some are not. Looks like I will just be better off keeping my mouth shut.
 
 Thanks anyway,
 
 -Tim

Tim,
 
 I hope you change your mind because I always enjoyed seeing your posts on the Tiger Woods PC game over at SR. Fact is you do work in some capacity (even if it is just beta testing) for EA. People will always question an employee/beta testers posts. We all get labeled here on the internet for what we do. I was the admin at OS and was labeled a Nazi more times then I care to remember. It does not make me a Nazi nor does my leaving OS mean that people will stop calling me one.
 
 I guess what I am saying is keep shedding your insight on the game and quit worrying about what everyone thinks. You can´t please everyone.
 
 <--- Hopes that one day I can heed my own advice. Call it a late New Years Resolution.

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 3:08 am

Wait a minute here. You mean you´re not a Nazi Brent? I thought you were since all those really upstanding posters at SR, you know the ones I´m talking about:the OS rejects, always called you one.
 
 I don´t know why you left OS but I hope that wasn´t the only reason. Don´t let a very vocal minority be louder than they really were. I´ve always thought that you did a hell of a job over at OS especially considering the hell you had to endure from a lot of losers. You probably didn´t hear it as much from the very silent majority and that´s a damn shame.
 
 Ok, now back to the topic.
 
 Microsoft = Shaq
 EA = Kobe
 
 All we need is a friggin Phil Jackson to make em play nice.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 3:14 am

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being biased against EA.
 EA was biased against Dreamcast owners and they are biased against Xbox owners.
 Whats good for the big company is good for the little gamer.
 
 This is a free country .
 We dont have to like who you like.