If EA abandoned the Xbox....

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 4:49 pm

whould you care? I have loved EA games for years, and I´m a bit disturbed by their latest ads. Seems to me there are quite a few that specifically display the black& blue PS2 logo on screen, but I´m seeing less and less of them giving props to the other consoles. It had me wondering if at some point they might treat the Xbox like they did the DC and just stop supporting it altogether.
 
 If they did, I don´t think I´d be heartbroken. I do have a PS2, but even if it was gone, I´d be happy with the Xbox. Not that I want them go console monogamous. Competition breeds better games from ALL developers.
 
 I´ve been so happy with ESPN football that I actually sold Madden already. ID gives me my basketball fix. WSB and HH more than satisfy my baseball urges. For racing, the NFS series has been trumped by the PGR series. You´d still have Links for golf, and Rivals and ESPN for Hockey.
 
 I never realized just how far (in my eyes) EA has fallen back from a dominant part of my video gaming life to just another developer.
 
 -Matt

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 4:55 pm

The only thing I´d miss is NCAA 200X...that´s it. Everything else has a competitive or better product.

FloridaGators · Post by **FloridaGators** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 5:02 pm

NHL 2004 is a good game. MVP Baseball with a few changes to the game (IE: the CPU swings at outside pitches, more variety of grounders/hits, different field sizes) would make it the baseball game to own. The 10 man Mo Cap in Live looks pretty cool. I actually think EA Sports has had a really strong year reviving their sports games.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 5:12 pm

The commercials I see has logos for all the systems, including the PC if the game has a PC port.
 
 EA not only has to get permission to display those logos, they usually get co-op dollars from the system vendors. In other words, they pitch in to pay for the air time.
 
 Remember how heavily they aired those DOA and Munch´s Oddessyee commercials? Microsoft didn´t acquire Tecmo or Oddworld like they did with Bungie but those two games were suppose to be big exclusives. Those commericals heavily featured the Xbox brand and logo and had the same look, probably done by Microsoft´s ad agency, even though they were technically 3rd-party games.
 
 As for EA and Xbox, I think a lot of hardcore gamers will survive, as many were veterans of the DC and have no great love for EA due to the snub back then.
 
 But EA games still are best-sellers on the Xbox. That is why MS and both EA are cordial whenever they´re asked about XBL. They always talk about how they´re great partners and so on because EA games are doing a lot of business on the Xbox.
 
 I´m sure neither company wants to see that end.

jLp vAkEr0 · Post by **jLp vAkEr0** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 6:36 pm

Actually:
 
 After every EA Sports commercial they flash the GC logo.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 6:59 pm

Actually if EA Sports and EA had their games on XLB that would start the beggining of the end for the PS2 (not PS3). The PS2 knows that EA Sports online sells a lot of games and if they were to lose that it would mean a dark day for the PS2. Game like Madden, Sims, Battlefield 42. All those games could increase sales for the xbox if they ever went online on XBL.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 7:29 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2003-11-21 14:59, JRod wrote:
 Actually if EA Sports and EA had their games on XLB that would start the beggining of the end for the PS2 (not PS3). The PS2 knows that EA Sports online sells a lot of games and if they were to lose that it would mean a dark day for the PS2. Game like Madden, Sims, Battlefield 42. All those games could increase sales for the xbox if they ever went online on XBL.
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 You overestimate the influence of online games. The PS2 version will sell at least 2 million copies. A lot of those guys who buy the PS2 version do have Xboxes but most would have to buy Xboxes to play on XBL.
 
 At peak periods, the maximum number of people playing all EA online games on the PS2 is about 7-8,000 people. Even if every one of those people changed to the Xbox version, you´re not talking about a big number.
 
 The main advantage of the Xbox version over the PS2 version is better graphics, especially from progressive scan on digital televisions or HDTV sets. Most people today do not have those sets. But the early adopter/hardcore types to have those setups and they already are online, probably with XBL already and maybe with PS2 as well. So again, the potential for people switching from the PS2 to the Xbox version isn´t as great as you might think.
 
 Finally, EA games aren´t even the most popular online games or the most popular PS2 games. SOCOM 2 is getting over 20,000 people online or about 3 times as much as all EA games combined. And the next GTA games will be exclusive for the PS2 or the PS3.
 
 I still believe that if EA games are offered on XBL and PS2 online simultaneously, the PS2 versions will still outsell simply because there are more PS2s out there. Plus, most of the PS2 online gamers have paid for their Network adapters already (and a surprisingly large number have headsets as well). Many of them would balk at paying $70 for a new XBL kit.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 7:51 pm

WCO:
 
 Do you have Xbox Live? Just curious.
 
 Take care,
 PK

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 8:17 pm

No XBL.

FloridaGators · Post by **FloridaGators** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 10:03 pm

I don´t see the whole mystigue of online gaming. I mean isn´t it the same thing as multiplayer offline? No system to me means anything because of their online lineup. Maybe I am missing out.

BBReBozo · Post by **BBReBozo** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 10:14 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2003-11-21 18:03, FloridaGators wrote:
 I don´t see the whole mystigue of online gaming. I mean isn´t it the same thing as multiplayer offline?
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 Well, it is and it isn´t. In my case, I have exactly ZERO friends with whom I play games with in person, and haven´t for several years. Yet I can fire up XBL and usually find an online friend (or at least acquaintence) with whom I can enjoy playing a game.
 
 When I play online I generally prefer to play with friends, as opposed to strangers but another appeal of online is: you really can meet some cool people online. I met a few people back in my heavy-rotation MotoGP days that I still keep in touch with today. [ This message was edited by: BBReBozo on 21-11-2003 18:15 ]

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 10:19 pm

WCO:
 
 Ever used Xbox Live? I just find it odd that you´re making some pretty strong statements about the service when you don´t have it.
 
 I´m not saying people who already have PS2 Online would abandon it for XBL if they own both systems. But I´m not saying they wouldn´t, either.
 
 XBL offers some very nice features, such as common Gamertags for all games, online chat in the lobbies, Friends list across the board, regular downloadable content for a lot of games, much more seamless online play for most titles, according to most reports, etc.
 
 I can´t comment on the performance of PS2 Online, as I haven´t played it. But I know it lacks in certain features compared to XBL, and I also think its online performance in many games lacks compared to XBL, according to feedback in various gaming forums.
 
 There are a few obvious advantages in some XBL games, such as foursomes in Links as opposed to twosomes in Tiger 2004 on the PS2, online racing with 16 people in Moto GP 2 and eight people in Project Gotham Racing 2 as opposed to two in NASCAR Thunder 2004 on the PS2 and up to 10 players in NHL Rivals 2004 as opposed to two in ESPN NHL and NHL 2004 on the PS2.
 
 Finally, I think you´re applying too much of the "PS2 model" to your interpretation of the potential of online gaming on the Xbox. That´s understandable, since you´re a PS2 owner and don´t have Xbox Live.
 
 Here´s what I mean by the "PS2 model." Online gaming always has been secondary for the PS2. Sony was pretty cryptic about its plans for online gaming for the PS2 at the launch, and the lack of built-in connectivity hardware with the PS2 indicates that Sony considered online gaming to be a small part of its business model when the PS2 was launched in 2001.
 
 Conversely, Microsoft trumpeted its online gaming plans and the built-in Ethernet capabilities of the Xbox in all of its pre-release hype in late summer and early fall 2001. Online gaming was one of the cornerstones of the Xbox´s future, not some add-on once it was determined online gaming had a future.
 
 That philosophy extends to a lot of XBL owners, too. I speak from experience: One of the reasons I switched from the PS2 to the Xbox in June 2001 was the upcoming launch of XBL. I saw it as something special and wanted to be a part of it. I haven´t been disappointed one bit.
 
 And most of the guys in here who own Xboxes use XBL and love it. Especially in the last two weeks. I can think of at least two guys -- TCrouch and HipE -- who were ready to let their Xbox Live subscriptions run out until they started playing the slew of quality XBL titles released in the last three weeks. Now they´re hooked.
 
 Take a look at any gaming forum: You don´t see a hell of a lot of activity from PS2 gamers talking about their online experiences other than SOCOM 2, ESPN College Hoops and NBA Live. There´s a hell of a lot more traffic and posts from XBox Live gamers talking about their experiences, and not just with one or two titles. You´ll find posts about Top Spin, Links, PGR 2, Amped 2, Inside Drive, ESPN College Hoops, etc.
 
 Again, that´s because online gaming is a cornerstone for the Xbox, and many of the Microsoft proprietary sports titles are optimized for online play. Say what you will about shafting the offline game and gamers, but right now Microsoft is flat-out delivering in the online market, in spades.
 
 Take care,
 PK [ This message was edited by: pk500 on 21-11-2003 18:32 ]

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 10:26 pm

>>>I don´t see the whole mystigue of online gaming. I mean isn´t it the same thing as multiplayer offline? No system to me means anything because of their online lineup. Maybe I am missing out.<<<
 
 Gators:
 
 Easy for you to say now, friend, because you´re 18 years old. You´ve grown up in a generation weaned on video games. All of your friends play video games. All of your dormmates have video games. So you´re a veteran multiplayer gamer.
 
 But for guys like BB and I, past 30 (you´re older than 30, right BB? -- I´m pushing 40!), online gaming is a huge plus.
 
 Take me, for example. With a wife and two small children, I don´t get out that much. None of my college friends live in the Syracuse area, as I went to school downstate, and many of my high school friends no longer live in the Syracuse area. I also work from home for a company based in Indianapolis, so all of my work friends are 700 miles away. So much for happy hour!
 
 So, social opportunities are a lot more limited for this 38-year-old than they were 10 to 15 years ago.
 
 Xbox Live has become a fun hobby and a social mechanism for me. It´s not my life -- despite my 2,080 posts in here! -- as I still get out with family and friends.
 
 But I have met a lot of very cool people through Xbox Live whom I can say without hesitation that I´m almost sure I would hit it off with if we met in real life. There are a lot of cats, especially from DSP, with whom I definitely would enjoy a beer and a cigar at the corner bar or a multiplayer gaming party at someone´s house.
 
 Well, Xbox Live is that corner bar or multiplayer gaming party for guys like me. And there´s a huge difference in actually talking with someone while gaming -- knowing their mannerisms, etc. -- than typing to them on a keyboard. In games like Amped 2, where you´re really not competing head to head per se, I´ve had some fun times just bullshitting with guys like dbdynsty25, getting to know them as more than just a fellow gamer.
 
 Gators, I don´t want to play the "graybeard" role here, but you are from a different generation than me. I´m more than twice as old as you. I was 20 years old -- well into college -- when you were born. So my social dynamic, and that of many other guys in here, is MUCH different than yours.
 
 I think you´ll see the advantage and appeal of online gaming in, say, 12 to 15 years when you have a Mrs. Gators and a few young crocs waggling around.
 
 Speaking of future Mrs. Gators, you getting laid at college? <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_smile.gif">
 
 Take care,
 PK [ This message was edited by: pk500 on 21-11-2003 18:32 ]

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 11:56 pm

PK, I was just offering an opinion that haven´t EA games on XBL alone would not swing the relative fortunes of the PS2 and the Xbox. There are tens of millions more users of the PS2 than the Xbox. Moreover, EA games sell way more on the PS2 than the Xbox. The difference in sales between the two platforms can´t be explained by online exclusivity on the PS2. We´re talking about millions of more copies of Madden sold on the PS2 than the Xbox and online isn´t the reason for it because you do not have millions of people playing any online console game.
 
 As for XBL, I have absolutely no financial obstacle preventing me from getting it. Reason I don´t is that last year, I mostly played Madden online (over 300 games). And the reason I chose Madden over NFL 2K3 was that there were far more Madden players online than any other game. That is one reason why XBL doesn´t have as much appeal to me as it might to others, because I play a wide variety of opponents, many random strangers, instead of a regular circle of people on the Friends List. That is what I´ve been used to from years of gaming online on the PC. Sure there were some regulars but I just ended up playing against a large number of people.
 
 As for the features, they do sound nice, in particular the voice chat. I notice this year, there are a lot more people who ask if I have a headset (I don´t always want to chat to someone I don´t know so sometimes I say no). It also sounds nice that you could track what you´re friends are doing or where they are in their games so that you can anticipate when they might be available. The gamertag idea sounds good in theory but my understanding is that a singular screen name hasn´t discouraged the cheats and quitting on XBL.
 
 Most of the features you talk about aren´t that novel nor are they incapable of being implemented elsewhere. In fact, most PS2 online games this year has headset support; most have lobby support with keyboard, some with headset support in lobby; the EA games have a Friends List feature which tracks what your friends are doing and the score and which quarter they´re in, etc.
 
 Regarding multiplayer games, that´s something I´m very interested in but there is really no technical reason why it isn´t on the PS2, with an exception here or there. EA decided to get all their games online but didn´t delve into multiplayer because apparently they thought one-on-one play was enough for most people and it probably is -- a lot of people love Tiger Woods online despite only 2-player support.
 
 Most of the team sports games could have at least 4-player support, using one PS2 to "host" the other 3. There are racing games (Midnight Club 2, NFSU) and the Tony Hawk games, to give you some examples. Then there is SOCOM which demonstrates that with dedicated servers (for which they don´t charge you to play), you can have thousands of 16-player games going on with full voice-support. So there aren´t any technical limitations except in the case of something like NASCAR and having a field of 40 human-controlled cars. In this case, I doubt Xbox can do it either, using EA´s peer-to-peer networking.
 
 As for performance, I have absolutely no problem with Madden and NCAA. I´ve even played AndyP at MaddenPlanet, who´s playing from London. I´ve also played ESPN NFL with him, even though ESPN NFL´s networking performance on its PS2 version is really inferior to the EA football games (and to the XBL versions of the ESPN games, from what I understand). But like the whole multiplayer issue, the fault lies more with the developer/publisher because there are plenty of PS2 online games which are smooth, even with dialup connections on one end (and get this, I played AndyP last year when he only had dialup from London).
 
 Anyways, it´s still not inconceivable that there might be some game on XBL that I can´t play anywhere else which might get me to get it. Maybe something like online franchises with full roster management online, making use of the hard drive.

bkrich83 · Post by **bkrich83** » Sat Nov 22, 2003 12:36 am

As someone who plays PS2 online and has XBL. There´s no comparison. XBL is far superior, for me performance wise. From Voice chat to game performance. It´s not even close. If EA can get NCAA 2004 online then there would be no reason for me to keep my Ps2.

Boom · Post by **Boom** » Sat Nov 22, 2003 1:06 am

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2003-11-21 20:36, bkrich83 wrote:
 As someone who plays PS2 online and has XBL. There´s no comparison. XBL is far superior, for me performance wise. From Voice chat to game performance. It´s not even close. If EA can get NCAA 2004 online then there would be no reason for me to keep my Ps2.
 
 
 
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 WOW, how I disagree with that statement. I find voice chat much cleaner on the PS2. Many of the XBOX fps´s suck because of one thing.... their peer-to-peer format. Sure, it´s not bad if you know somebody with a T1, but for the average online gamer is sporting cable or dsl.
 
 Don´t get me wrong though, I enjoy both online tremendously. I think each format has it´s pros and cons, just like most comparable entities life.
 
 The voice thing baffles me though because the first thing I noticed when playing NCAA Football online is how much clearer the voice chat was compared to my xbox games.
 
 About the commercials.....
 
 I know the ones you are talking about, esspecially the lates EA Sports collage pimping the online play with EA Nation (or whatever) and then at the end it states, ONLY FOR PLAYSTATION 2. It´s very misleading and something makes me think that Sony is fronting those ads.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sat Nov 22, 2003 5:35 am

>>>Many of the XBOX fps´s suck because of one thing.... their peer-to-peer format.<<<
 
 Boom:
 
 You must have a strange connection, or mine is damn good, because I play host to eight to 10 guys every Tuesday night in Ghost Recon Island Thunder Poker Night without a hiccup with my cable modem. And the voice chat sounds clearer in my XBL headset than most cell phones.
 
 Take care,
 PK

FloridaGators · Post by **FloridaGators** » Sat Nov 22, 2003 11:07 am

I guess I see your side of it. Good post, pk.
 
 As for getting laid, I´m working on it. I am getting ready to go to the annual Lehigh-Lafayette football game. Soon I will be drunk amid all other drunks in as people claim "the oldest football rivalry" ever.

Badgun · Post by **Badgun** » Sat Nov 22, 2003 11:47 am

As for the original question, no I would not miss EA if they abandoned the Xbox. As a matter of fact, it feels like they have anyway.
 
 I´ve been told by someone at VC that the group that worked on the college football game is still employed and it´s quite possible we will see a college football game next year. If so, and it is anything like the pro game in terms of gameplay and presentation, there will be no reason to own a EA title.
 
 Links is now my golf game of choice, and ESPN´s football, hockey, and both basketball titles are my favorites this year. The fact is that SEGA/VC/ESPN have done much more to improve their sports games over the last few years while EA has basically stood pat with only minor improvements in their games.
 
 I currently only own one EA sports game and that´s the fixed copy of Madden that EA sent me for free. The copy I bought has long since been traded in to EB. For me, online play is not that big of a factor, I just happen to think the ESPN line of sports games are just better and more fun to play than EA´s. I won´t even begin to describe how much better Links is than Tiger Woods.
 
 As for all the talk of Xbox Live being better than PS2´s network. I can echo what everyone else has said. Xbox Live feels so organized and efficient, while the PS2 thing feels so wild and out of control. The structure of Xbox Live makes it a winner hands down, not to mention that so many of the games on the PS2 only allow you to play with one individual.
 
 I will admit that SOCOM 2 has me interested, but I don´t know if I could stomach those graphics long enough to enjoy it.
 
 Personally, I could care less if EA never makes another game for the Xbox.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Sat Nov 22, 2003 12:41 pm

Ultimately, it´s a subjective choice on whether the game selection and the online features/performance of either system is appealing enough for each individual.
 
 Right now, I get more than enough use between all the Madden and ESPN NFL leagues that I´m in. I play about a half dozen online league games a week, which takes at least an hour each. It doesn´t always leave me much time for other games so having a second system is not that much of an issue.
 
 I did see the Xbox version of Madden running in progressive mode on a nice HDTV at a store once. It looked really nice. Although I have an HDTV now, without online play, I would not play the prettier progressive version that much. Links and Top Spin do sound nice, especially since there is no online tennis game for the PS2. But football is my favorite type of game, period, so for the time being, I like having the selection of Madden, ESPN NFL, Blitz Pro, GameDay and later Street, all with online play. I understand ESPN NFL is better on XBL but I really like the online leagues feature. Blitz Pro and GameDay have not been received that well, although some people think GameDay has better user control than any other game this year. But I will get around to renting those and checking out the online features, some of which are unique.
 
 Supposedly, Bill Gates will talk about the next Xbox system at CES in January, in connection with the IBM, ATI and SIS deals they announced recently. There are suggestions that their new system may come out in 2004. I don´t think that will happen but if it did, I´d be more interested because it would be 4 years since I bought a console and there should be a real nice jump in performance, including true HDTV support.

Badgun · Post by **Badgun** » Sat Nov 22, 2003 1:46 pm

wco81,
 Just curious...and maybe I´ve missed something in some of your posts, but why don´t you own an Xbox at this time? Is it purely financial reasons or you just don´t think it´s worth it to own more than one console?
 
 The reason I´m asking is that I´ve noticed a sort of blind loyalty to the PS2 for some odd reason. People that will not buy an Xbox for whatever reason seem to scoff at its validity as a game console of choice. I´ve heard every excuse under the sun as to why people don´t like the Xbox. The big controller, not enough games, no EA online games, but it continues to confound me as to why anyone would prefer the PS2 over the Xbox if they could afford one.
 
 I don´t need to continue to hammer home the reasons as to why I think it´s better, but I´ll just list the no-brainers. Better graphics, hard drive, and Xbox Live. Why would anyone prefer to play games on an inferior system and have to manage memory cards at the same time?
 
 I own a PS2, and before the Xbox, it was my favorite system. There was never any doubt from the moment that I booted the Xbox up that it would be my system of choice until something better came along. And yes, when the PS3 comes out, I´ll be right there with money in hand, but for now, there is simply no doubt that the Xbox and Xbox Live are just miles ahead of anything the PS2 has to offer.
 
 There was a time when the games library of the PS2 had a clear cut advantage over the Xbox, but all that has changed now and I´d dare say the list of Xbox exclusives now are now more desireable than the PS2 exclusives.
 
 You now have Links, Top Spin, Amped 2, and Inside Drive that are basically at the top of their class and they´re all Xbox exclusives. Not to mention Project Gotham 2, Knights of the Old Republic, Voodoo Vince, and others that are also considered tops shelf titles. At this point what does Sony have left? Well, they still have the Final Fantasy series and the Socom series, but Grand Theft Auto has gone multi system and I hear the next Smackdown title will as well.
 
 So what will be the future attraction to keep people buying PS2 games and avoiding the Xbox?
 
 I´m not trying to pick a fight, I´m just trying to understand the logic as to why someone that had $180 to spare would not buy an Xbox. I mean pretty much the same games, but look better and a kick ass online model that Sony hasn´t even begun to figure out how to counter. Help me here, my brother.

Boom · Post by **Boom** » Sat Nov 22, 2003 1:48 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2003-11-22 01:35, pk500 wrote:
 >>>Many of the XBOX fps´s suck because of one thing.... their peer-to-peer format.<<<
 
 Boom:
 
 You must have a strange connection, or mine is damn good, because I play host to eight to 10 guys every Tuesday night in Ghost Recon Island Thunder Poker Night without a hiccup with my cable modem. And the voice chat sounds clearer in my XBL headset than most cell phones.
 
 Take care,
 PK
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 With the guys I run with mostly, we couldn´t play Ghost Recon because nobody could hold more than 8. Screw that I say. It´s sweet to hear that you have a good enough connection to host 10, but i will put you in the minority.
 
 Also, while 10 is decent, playing 16 person SOCOM 2 blows the roof off it IMO.
 
 Voice chat is clearer than most cells on both, but through the PS2 is still clearer than through XBL from my experiences.
 
 XBL does offer a nice host of advanges.
 - XBL chat takes away any need for Roger Wilco. It´s a great feature that comes in handy for PC titles like TW PGA Tour.
 
 - Downloadable content. Some of the maps and extra content that I´ve downloaded through XBL has been sweet. Really looking forward to more courses in Links and extremely excited about the Amped 2 possibilities.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Sat Nov 22, 2003 3:02 pm

I thought I pretty much outlined the reasons, Badgun.
 
 I like football, particularly online football, more than anything else. Madden made sense because of it´s huge following online -- I´d been playing the PC version for years so I knew that the PS2 version would have tons of players.
 
 This year, I played a bunch of NCAA before selling it and concentrating on the NFL games, including ESPN NFL with online leagues.
 
 I´m in 4 Madden leagues and 4 ESPN leagues currently. I like a lot of things about ESPN. However, the Madden leagues will finish whereas I don´t know that more than 1 or 2 of the ESPN leagues will. There is always attrition in leagues which last months. But with Madden, you have plenty of people ready to take over orphaned teams, no matter how bad the record. In ESPN, there have been so many leagues aborted because people stopped playing and we couldn´t get replacements. The sheer size of the Madden following online is pretty unbeatable, aside from the relative merits of the games themselves. It´s like there may be better Office suites than MS Office but everyone sends files in Word and Excel format so you´re compelled to have Office as well.
 
 Yes with HDTV the progressive scan games seem more enticing. But I tried progressive on a couple of PS2 games I have and while it looked nice, I went back to one of my S-Video input because my Sony XBR doesn´t let me display the component video output in Twin View (side by side pictures from two different video sources) mode. I use that mode to watch TV while waiting to play my online games. So while graphics are nice, utility and above all, game selection are more important to me.
 
 Like I said before, Links and Top Spin sound nice and are games I would try out. But I don´t have an overwhelming desire to play those genres -- I haven´t tried Tiger Woods yet for instance, or SSX3, but at some point I will. I am trying more of the non-sports games right now, like Beyond Good and Evil, Rachet and Clank 2 and other platformer/adventure games.
 
 But in the next generation, I´m really looking forward to real 720p and 1080i support, with no compromises (like the 720p mode of Soul Calibur 2 on Xbox having black side bars) or slower frame rates. I´m sure all 3 systems will have that so it´ll come down again to game selection.

bkrich83 · Post by **bkrich83** » Sat Nov 22, 2003 3:55 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 
 With the guys I run with mostly, we couldn´t play Ghost Recon because nobody could hold more than 8. Screw that I say. It´s sweet to hear that you have a good enough connection to host 10, but i will put you in the minority.
 
 Also, while 10 is decent, playing 16 person SOCOM 2 blows the roof off it IMO.
 
 Voice chat is clearer than most cells on both, but through the PS2 is still clearer than through XBL from my experiences.
 
 XBL does offer a nice host of advanges.
 - XBL chat takes away any need for Roger Wilco. It´s a great feature that comes in handy for PC titles like TW PGA Tour.
 
 - Downloadable content. Some of the maps and extra content that I´ve downloaded through XBL has been sweet. Really looking forward to more courses in Links and extremely excited about the Amped 2 possibilities.
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 That´s wierd. I find it the opposite. Lag and voice qualitiy are much better for me in XBL. 16 players in SoCom is great, but unfortunately, I think the GR series and R6 as well as Counterstrike are all superior games to SoCom and SoCom II. Although that´s purely subjective.
 
 If EA ever came to XBL my PS2 would be a doorstop. I own it strictly to play EA games online. But would kill for NCAA 200x on XBL´s network as opposed to the PS2 network.
 
 [ This message was edited by: bkrich83 on 22-11-2003 11:56 ]