EA still balking at Xbox Live

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 3:26 am

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2004-01-03 23:08, ScoopBrady wrote:
 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.
 
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 Apprecaite the comments Scoop.
 
 It was simply time for a break and actually have time to play some of these games.

GROGtheNailer · Post by **GROGtheNailer** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 5:19 am

There has been a lot of great points in this thread, good stuff ! One thing i would like to point out is this, the two companies are in a pissing match right now, in a way...both have a lot of money but isn´t true that Microsoft is in a whole different league?
 
 I could be wrong but Microsoft is a much much bigger and wealthier company. They have a lot more to work with (capital wise?) and if it comes down to it can probably hurt EA much more than EA can hurt Microsoft.
 
 Microsoft can take big big losses in this industry before the sh1t hits the fan while I don´t know that EA can. It´s just been a Microsoft tactic to muscle out the competition with a whole lot of money over the years.
 
 I think we may see a point where Microsoft starts to play some hardball and flex some muscle. I very well could be wrong but man.....they are just so rich and powerful.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 6:04 am

Yes MS could definitely crush EA. They could launch a hostile takeover of EA too, if they wanted, or crush EA the way they did other companies.
 
 But it doesn´t seem like they have a win at all costs type of mentality in games. They´ve spent a lot of money, acquiring some companies. Some people think at $50, they´re likely subsidizing the costs to run XBL, in addition to subsidizing the costs of hardware.
 
 They earn enough in interest to subsidize all these costs. Yet for all the money they spent, they could have done more, such as secure more exclusives. There´s no doubt for instance that they could outbid Sony for the GTA series if they wanted. And they tried to get some PS2 exclusives on the Xbox, like Tomb Raider (when people thought it might be a big deal again).
 
 They never did acquire a big Japanese developer as rumored, since the Xbox in Japan is a weak point. It could be that while they´d like to do better in games, it´s not their core business like the PC software business. Or an important strategic market like cell phones (Bill Gates once said Symbian, a cell phone software venture, was a big threat to MS).
 
 Online gaming isn´t lucrative enough for MS and EA to have a falling out over it. Whenever they´re asked about EA not being on XBL, they´re usually cordial to each other. Because the fact remains that EA is making money on Xbox games and MS needs EA games on the Xbox, whether they support XBL or not. So I don´t think they´ll go to war over this.

LazyScumbag · Post by **LazyScumbag** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 8:57 pm

how about ea big?
 
 who would turn down nba street 3 or ssx 4 on xbl?

Badgun · Post by **Badgun** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 9:17 pm

<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

Well Tim, like bdoughty said, I´d hate to see you quit posting too, but your argument simply held no weight. Microsoft would not require every Xbox owner to purchase additional software to play an online enabled version of Madden. Most of the people that care anything about playing online are already on Xbox Live and I think you´re fooling yourself if you think people are sitting around waiting for Madden to come to Xbox Live before subscribing to it.
 
 Like I said, I´d hate to see you quit posting too, as I am not one of those idiot posters from SR, as a matter of fact, I defended your constantly when people accused you of being biased against the Links pc series.
 
 If you´re going to post in forums where the dialog gets a little spirited, you´re certainly going to have to have a lot thicker skin than this.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:58 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2004-01-04 16:57, LazyScumbag wrote:
 how about ea big?
 
 who would turn down nba street 3 or ssx 4 on xbl?
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 Damn good point, man. Those games would be mucho fun on XBL. Hell, now that I think of it, I´d be more stoked for EA Big to go XBL than EA Sports!
 
 NBA Street 2 would be a blast on XBL.
 
 Take care,
 PK

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:45 am

Thinkings about it again, BD´s comic says it best.
 
 EA´s logic is one that they want a piece of the pie but they are hyprocritical with their own service.
 
 MS doesn´t want to give money to EA Sports becuase it´s there infrasturcture and they don´t want to let EA sports use XBL accounts to an independant EA Sports infrastructure.
 
 At the end of the day, the gaming public are the ones that are hurt most by this. And I guess that´s what matters most.

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 1:09 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2004-01-04 17:17, Badgun wrote:
 1. Well Tim, like bdoughty said, I´d hate to see you quit posting too, but your argument simply held no weight. Microsoft would not require every Xbox owner to purchase additional software to play an online enabled version of Madden. Most of the people that care anything about playing online are already on Xbox Live and I think you´re fooling yourself if you think people are sitting around waiting for Madden to come to Xbox Live before subscribing to it.
 
 2. Like I said, I´d hate to see you quit posting too, as I am not one of those idiot posters from SR, as a matter of fact, I defended your constantly when people accused you of being biased against the Links pc series.
 
 3. If you´re going to post in forums where the dialog gets a little spirited, you´re certainly going to have to have a lot thicker skin than this.
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 1. That is not what I posted whatsoever. What I did say, or intended to say is that EA is not comfortable at this point (my educated guess) in offering XBL with their XBox lineup because it would force users to pony up the dough to get XBL to play online when the online functionality is already included in PS2 games. This would make the XBox games less attractive to MASS MARKET XBox users. I am not referring to hardcore users like us who already have XBL. But the hardcore users are FAR outnumbered by the mass market users.
 
 When XBL reaches a subscription penetration point where EA feels that it is significant enough to be a part of (ie, a significant loss of revenue by not participating-enough users on XBL that the perception of requiring many users to subscribe to play online is diminished), they will likely make the deal. I have a feeling they know their market demographics better than you and I do.
 
 2. I appreciate your support in the past and I certainly was not including you with the likes of some of the SR folks. However, I am still sensitive to being accused of bias. In the past, I was biased and did not realize that I came off that way in many posts. I have worked very hard to maintain objectivity when the rare occasion does come up where I do post. I have read my only other post in this thread and I still don´t see the bias that you claim. I simply shared with this community how I saw things because I have had a peek or two into EA and how they make decisions and how they perceive themselves. If you claim that as being biased, then I guess I can´t stop you, but I disagree 100%. I guess we have differing opinions on what "bias" means.
 
 3. I am no stranger to "spirited" forum threads. I have taken my share of lumps, many of which were deserved because of bias in my past responses. I recognize that. I also visit PC Golf forums several times a day. I can tell you that these forums get a great deal more "spirited" than many of the threads here. I have an extremely thick skin because of the position I am in and I am a target for some who like to cause trouble. I have a very thick skin because it is a requirement to survive in the position that I am in. I get a number of pot shots taken at me on a daily basis and these days, I simply ignore them. However, when someone I respect says that I am "biased" when I feel it is unjustified, I will speak up and defend myself. Many times in the past, that kind of accusation would be partially to fully accurate. I´d like to think I have grown from that and I am extremely careful to avoid appearing biased. I do not believe I was in this case, but if you feel I was, then it was not my intention.
 
 I will lurk here when I can, but because of this thread, I will be even more cautious when posting in the future.
 
 -Tim [ This message was edited by: BigBerthaEA on 05-01-2004 09:10 ]

Badgun · Post by **Badgun** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:42 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2004-01-05 09:09, BigBerthaEA wrote:
 1. That is not what I posted whatsoever. What I did say, or intended to say is that EA is not comfortable at this point (my educated guess) in offering XBL with their XBox lineup because it would force users to pony up the dough to get XBL to play online when the online functionality is already included in PS2 games. This would make the XBox games less attractive to MASS MARKET XBox users. I am not referring to hardcore users like us who already have XBL. But the hardcore users are FAR outnumbered by the mass market users.
 
 When XBL reaches a subscription penetration point where EA feels that it is significant enough to be a part of (ie, a significant loss of revenue by not participating-enough users on XBL that the perception of requiring many users to subscribe to play online is diminished), they will likely make the deal. I have a feeling they know their market demographics better than you and I do.
 
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 Tim,
 Again, if I am reading you right, you are suggesting that people that would purchase an XBL version of Madden would have to spend the additional $50 for the Xbox Live service. You are wrong, my friend.
 
 Not knowing exact numbers, but the last time I read something about Xbox Live, there were somewhere in the neighborhood of 500,000 subscribers. That figure could have changed since then, but for reference sake I´ll use that. Out of those 500,000, I´d be willing to guarantee that they own at least one XBL enabled sports game. Maybe they´d prefer Madden, but they went with Fever or ESPN Football because that´s all that was available. Personally, I bought Madden and ESPN and played them both for awhile, but due to economics, some people are forced to choose only one game. That one game probably wasn´t Madden because they not only wanted something to play offline, but online as well. I´ve read this very thing in the forums at OS. People actually liked Madden better, but wanted something to play online with. For every EA game, there is a Microsoft or Sega counterpart that IS XBL enabled, so again your statement that they would have to spend additional money is very flawed and more than likely dead wrong.
 
 This is the line I have the most trouble with:
 
 "it would force users to pony up the dough to get XBL to play online when the online functionality is already included in PS2 games"
 
 Why is it that you think that everyone that bought an XBL version of Madden would have to buy the service? I don´t get it. You´ve got 500,000 subscribers already and a good portion of them bought a different football game because Madden wasn´t online. The truth of the matter is, there were probably more PS2 owners without an online adapter than Xbox owners without Xbox Live when the first online version of Madden came out last year. So the difference is really negligible when it comes to the extra money that customers would have to "pony up".
 
 You´re telling me that Larry Probst doesn´t feel like he´s losing any money by not making his games available to the 500,000 Xbox Live customers? I have no idea what EA´s profit margin is, but let´s say 100,000 of those users immediately abandoned Sega and bought EA´s product. Multiply that by every EA Sports game and that´s a pretty good drop in the bucket.
 
 But maybe there´s something bigger at work here. Maybe EA simply doesn´t have the online functionality that everyone is looking for. So far it appears all they can master is head to head competition. The golf and racing games are a joke online because of this. Maybe EA doesn´t want to get on Xbox Live because everyone would say, "you can play foursomes in Links, why not in Tiger Woods?"
 
 Something to think about, but either way, I think EA is shooting themselves in the foot over this thing and it might come back to haunt them one day.

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:28 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2004-01-05 10:42, Badgun wrote:
 
 
 Tim,
 
 1. Again, if I am reading you right, you are suggesting that people that would purchase an XBL version of Madden would have to spend the additional $50 for the Xbox Live service. You are wrong, my friend.
 
 2. Not knowing exact numbers, but the last time I read something about Xbox Live, there were somewhere in the neighborhood of 500,000 subscribers. That figure could have changed since then, but for reference sake I´ll use that. Out of those 500,000, I´d be willing to guarantee that they own at least one XBL enabled sports game. Maybe they´d prefer Madden, but they went with Fever or ESPN Football because that´s all that was available. Personally, I bought Madden and ESPN and played them both for awhile, but due to economics, some people are forced to choose only one game. That one game probably wasn´t Madden because they not only wanted something to play offline, but online as well. I´ve read this very thing in the forums at OS. People actually liked Madden better, but wanted something to play online with. For every EA game, there is a Microsoft or Sega counterpart that IS XBL enabled, so again your statement that they would have to spend additional money is very flawed and more than likely dead wrong.
 
 3. This is the line I have the most trouble with:
 
 "it would force users to pony up the dough to get XBL to play online when the online functionality is already included in PS2 games"
 
 4. Why is it that you think that everyone that bought an XBL version of Madden would have to buy the service? I don´t get it. You´ve got 500,000 subscribers already and a good portion of them bought a different football game because Madden wasn´t online. The truth of the matter is, there were probably more PS2 owners without an online adapter than Xbox owners without Xbox Live when the first online version of Madden came out last year. So the difference is really negligible when it comes to the extra money that customers would have to "pony up".
 
 5. You´re telling me that Larry Probst doesn´t feel like he´s losing any money by not making his games available to the 500,000 Xbox Live customers? I have no idea what EA´s profit margin is, but let´s say 100,000 of those users immediately abandoned Sega and bought EA´s product. Multiply that by every EA Sports game and that´s a pretty good drop in the bucket.
 
 6. But maybe there´s something bigger at work here. Maybe EA simply doesn´t have the online functionality that everyone is looking for. So far it appears all they can master is head to head competition. The golf and racing games are a joke online because of this. Maybe EA doesn´t want to get on Xbox Live because everyone would say, "you can play foursomes in Links, why not in Tiger Woods?"
 
 7. Something to think about, but either way, I think EA is shooting themselves in the foot over this thing and it might come back to haunt them one day.
 
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 1. If a Madden XBox user does NOT have XBL (95% DO NOT), then he WILL have to pay for this. There are still millions of console users who do NOT have XBL. MS has sold 9-10 million or so XBox´s in North America. So 5% of potential XBox users have XBL...sorry, but this is not what I would call "market penetration". ESPECIALLY in the console online gaming infancy.
 
 2. See #1.
 
 3. For 95% of current XBox owners, this is true.
 
 4. I did not say every Madden XBox user would be forced to buy XBL. Every non-XBL user (currently 95% of XBL users) would though.
 
 5. I am sure that Larry is aware of what he is missing out with Madden XBox/XBL, and you might be right. However, the sales of Madden PS2 dwarf any other sports title. They had a million copies of PS2 sold in the first 30 days. Those numbers are more important to him than the 5% of "potential" XBL Madden users at this point in time. If the number of XBL users increases dramatically, then I am sure Larry and EA will re-think their position and/or MS re-thinks theirs.
 
 6. I have been trying to explain that there is indeed something bigger at work here. EA´s online implementation for PS2 for this year is really poorly thought out and seems "thrown together at the last minute". I never once was able to complete a TW 2004 PS2 online match in 3 tries and have not played the game since. I have heard that EA is fully aware of how far behind they are to XBL in many respects and I expect a MUCH better effort for their 2005 titles.
 
 All is not well in XBL land at this point in time either. While I think XBL is the best online service I have played, XSN is causing all sorts of headaches and complaints. I am sure it is just a matter of getting their hands around the issues as XBL is still a better service for online gaming than the PS2. This just shows that console online gaming is still in it´s infancy and I expect companies like EA to continue to be cautious in their approach to it until it matures.
 
 7. You may very well be right. But please don´t try and cram "you are wrong about this" down my throat when I think I have produced a fairly convincing counterpoint. I am not here to argue. I love a good discussion. So let´s respect each other´s opinions in the process, ok?

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 pm

I´m going to repost Probst´s quote again below. Am I missing something here? Am I reading too little into his words? It seems painfully obvious to me that Mr. Probst wants compensated. It´s about money. I can´t imagine that if Microsoft offered EA $10-20 (making those numbers up, of course) a year per XBL subscriber per year that EA wouldn´t join up right now.
 
 
 "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."
 [ This message was edited by: Leebo33 on 05-01-2004 11:59 ]

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 4:12 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2004-01-05 11:55, Leebo33 wrote:
 I´m going to repost Probst´s quote again below. Am I missing something here? Am I reading too little into his words? It seems painfully obvious to me that Mr. Probst wants compensated. It´s about money.
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 I don´t think there is ANY question that it is all about money. However, for any "agreement" to be a "good agreement", I feel that it has to be mutually beneficial to all parties concerned...users, MS, and EA. For some reason unbeknownst to us, a mutually beneficial agreement has yet to be reached. In the meantime, everyone loses, but until such losses violate MS and EA´s "comfort zone" so to speak, then gamers are the ultimate losers in all of this.
 
 At the end of the day it is all about money, we all should know that by now. However, as much as it is about money, it is also about NUMBERS. The NUMBERS are the key right now and that is what both MS and EA are looking at when they talk about agreements of any substance. Right now, the nubers do not tell MS nor EA that the issue is critical. When that happens, I can predict you will see them find a way to coexist on this issue and everyone will then "win".

mixdj1 · Post by **mixdj1** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 4:29 pm

OK, I normally don´t get involved in this kind of argument but I´ve got a couple points:
 
 1) Why does EA deserve some special deal from Microsoft when other publishers are willing to do Xbox Live support with the current arrangement? Does EA think they deserve special treatment above and beyond what Sega, Ubisoft, and others get? (OK, silly question ... obviously they do or they would already be doing Live enabled games)
 
 2) EA is losing sales by not supporting Live. I would have bought Tiger Woods, NFS: Underground and SSX 3 if they were online with Xbox Live. They weren´t and so I passed on them. BAM! 3 lost sales. I´m sure there are other people out there that feel the same way. In fact I spent that $150 on 3 games that did support Xbox Live so not only did they lose 3 sales but their competition gained 3 sales.
 
 To be honest I could care less if EA supports Live or not. I like playing online and I like my Xbox so I´ll continue to buy Xbox Live enabled titles. I have nothing against EA personally but I´m not going to spend $200 on a PS2 with an online adapter just to play a small number of EA games online. Just my opinion.
 
 mixdj1

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 4:37 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2004-01-04 22:45, JRod wrote:
 Thinkings about it again, BD´s comic says it best.
 
 EA´s logic is one that they want a piece of the pie but they are hyprocritical with their own service.
 
 MS doesn´t want to give money to EA Sports becuase it´s there infrasturcture and they don´t want to let EA sports use XBL accounts to an independant EA Sports infrastructure.
 
 At the end of the day, the gaming public are the ones that are hurt most by this. And I guess that´s what matters most.
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 
 Yep they hit the nail on the head but people just seem to want to argue the point from both sides. Both are at fault for different reasons. EA seems to think it can take the worst online gaming concept in the world and make it work. I think they would die trying before admitting defeat. I don´t think I have to bring up the 2003 PC EASO disaster as it has already been brought up. If you are giving it away free how do you expect to make money? If people are not going to pay for a bunch of individual service how are you going to make money? Just admit you screwed up and will leave the "online infrastructure" to the console makers and concentrate on making top notch games.
 
 <TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE> 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. </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 Ehh sorry but that does not fly here. Last I checked alot of people were shelling out money simply to a play a few EA games on the PS2. I doubt there is a broadband adapter and headset fairy at EA Sports, so these users you refer to are shelling out money to buy them (around $50 if I recall for both).
 
 No need to compare what you get for that $50 versus what you get for a years service of XBL.
 
 ------
 
 Microsoft on the other hand does not want to budge. Now one thing I am not sure if people are aware of, and this is assuming MS still charges the fee. If any 3rd party wants to make their game Xbox Live compatible it costs that company to do so. Since MS is paying for the servers, etc, they take an extra fee for doing so. This is where I am sure EA is saying, "Well F you Jobu". Of course they also want all the user information because of it´s value.
 
 I just want them to work it out so I can play NCAA 2005 online. Until they do both of them are to blame but I still place the bulk of it on EA for their failure to admit that their online service is just that "a failure".
 
 Don´t even get me started on pogo.com

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 4:47 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2004-01-05 11:55, Leebo33 wrote:
 I´m going to repost Probst´s quote again below. Am I missing something here? Am I reading too little into his words? It seems painfully obvious to me that Mr. Probst wants compensated. It´s about money. I can´t imagine that if Microsoft offered EA $10-20 (making those numbers up, of course) a year per XBL subscriber per year that EA wouldn´t join up right now.
 
 
 "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."
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 
 Yes he does want to be compensated and there lies the problem. If Microsoft was to pay EA then you might as well kiss XBL goodbye or see the yearly charge go up a drastic amount because the other publishers are going to put their hands out wanting the same thing. Or simply say to hell with XBL. Right now, unless my info is wrong the companies have to pay extra to MS to have their game online. Someone has to pay for the fee for the service, the broadband fees, etc etc.
 
 I think EA is simply jealous that Microsoft has found a way to make money in this whole online game. That other companies are will to pay Microsoft to have their game on XBL.

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 4:58 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2004-01-05 12:47, bdoughty wrote:
 I think EA is simply jealous that Microsoft has found a way to make money in this whole online game.
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 You may be right, but with only 5% current market penetration, I think you would have a hard time finding anyone at MS to admit that XBL is making money at this point in time. If they continue growing though, I like their chances to eventually make a profit.

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 5:20 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2004-01-05 12:58, BigBerthaEA wrote:

On 2004-01-05 12:47, bdoughty wrote:
 I think EA is simply jealous that Microsoft has found a way to make money in this whole online game.
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 You may be right, but with only 5% current market penetration, I think you would have a hard time finding anyone at MS to admit that XBL is making money at this point in time. If they continue growing though, I like their chances to eventually make a profit.

---------
 
 Agreed but to Microsoft´s credit they have found an online forumla that is working. Sure it may not be on a grand scale and not yet profitable but sacrafices are made. The Xbox sacraficed not allowing the majority of online users (dial up) to for the greater good of the service. I apprecaite that as not all moeny is good for the cause. I have played the PS2 online and had my share of woes with 56K users. I have played without a headset and speech and to be honest I can´t go back to that.
 
 Everyone else (Sony & EA) are fumbling around. Which could lead to why I think Microsoft has a bright future ahead and why Nintendo just does not get it.
 
 A simple trip to EBgames.com will provide some insight...
 
 Current list of games coming in 2004 (so far)
 
 PS2 - 99
 Xbox - 90
 Gamecube - 28 (the majoity oif which are available for multi console)
 
 and before I hear the quality vs. quantity debate from Nintendo fans go check that list as there is alot of junk games a-coming. Heck 3 games on the list (World Champ Pool, MI Operation Surma) that are already out elsewhere.
 
 
 Alot of games from 3rd party companies (including EA) not showing up on the Cube.
 
 XBL has played a big role in this, even without the help of EA.
 
 [ This message was edited by: bdoughty on 05-01-2004 13:21 ]

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 10:19 pm

Nobody knows if MS is making money on XBL. I´ve heard analysts say $50 can´t cover the costs to run the infrastructure.
 
 As for why EA should expect concessions from MS that other XBL game makers might not expect, the obvious answer is that EA games are way more popular than most of those other games. And people believe that if EA games were on XBL, they would get more people to buy Xbox versions of those games and sign up for XBL, if not get Xboxes. I think at this point, this wouldn´t be that big a number but there would be some more sales of the Xbox versions at the expense of PS2 versions.
 
 Anyways, we´ll know for sure in about 4 months. If EA and MS can´t come to an agreement this year or next, it´ll be more or less moot as the new generation of consoles will be out by then and we can start the console war threads once again.