AlexMax
11-06-2003, 09:33 PM
I had always wanted so say something about how ridiculous it is that EA insists on leaving out online play for Xbox Live while substituting SHIT online play for PS2.
Finally, I've got some backup... Ladies and gentlemen, Tycho from PA.
Playing the excellent SSX3 just made me angrier. This feud between EA and Microsoft has got to stop. It's hurting the kids.
When it was just regular sports games, I didn't really care. I wasn't running out there half-dressed to get a copy of Madden, got to get that Madden. The fact that their games only supported two players was silly in some cases, illustrated best by Tiger Woods 2004 (where they simply don't allow you to play the more interesting modes) and Nascar Thunder 2004 (race with as many as... one other driver). When they say Head To Head play, let's be clear - they mean only two heads. But when they started releasing what were essentially neutered forms of games, excising multiplayer co-op in Return of the King and Medal of Honor: Rising Sun, or leaving out multiplayer altogether in SSX3, I just flipped out. Every console has exclusives. I expect that. While multiplatform games provide at least the illusion of choice, antics like this completely pierce that notion. The Xbox and Gamecube versions are incomplete.
It was easy to think of EA's offering and Microsoft's offering as fungible initially. EA was doing theirs for free, and Microsoft had a pay service, and obviously free is... nice. But while I was being desiccated by Las Vegas nights soaked with alcohol, it seemed to me that their service is free because it sucks. It's free because it is so without ambition that it can be offered for nothing, until such time as they want to charge for it. Why else would they reserve the right, why else would they go through all the trouble?
I've spent enough time on Live with recent titles that it's impossible for me to compare the two approaches. You don't sign in to Live, you don't create a password, you push A. Every game supports voice and a universal friends list I can view from the web. I have a hard disk built in for content. There is an ethernet port. That's not so you can put a jelly bean in there in case you need it later, it's so you can put in a cable and access the Internet. You assholes.
That is all to say nothing about game invites. If I'm playing a game by Ubi Soft, I can still receive invites to play games from other developers - each publisher doesn't have it's own little fairy land where I can only play games with other people who have their games. I can be playing Crimson Skies and get an invite to play Ghost Recon. If I say yes, the tray pops out and I put in the other disc. Then, it joins me automatically. When I can do that with games from EA, I'll shut the fuck up. Until then, they need to act like big people and make choices that are of value to consumers.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Anyone have anything to say on this matter?
Finally, I've got some backup... Ladies and gentlemen, Tycho from PA.
Playing the excellent SSX3 just made me angrier. This feud between EA and Microsoft has got to stop. It's hurting the kids.
When it was just regular sports games, I didn't really care. I wasn't running out there half-dressed to get a copy of Madden, got to get that Madden. The fact that their games only supported two players was silly in some cases, illustrated best by Tiger Woods 2004 (where they simply don't allow you to play the more interesting modes) and Nascar Thunder 2004 (race with as many as... one other driver). When they say Head To Head play, let's be clear - they mean only two heads. But when they started releasing what were essentially neutered forms of games, excising multiplayer co-op in Return of the King and Medal of Honor: Rising Sun, or leaving out multiplayer altogether in SSX3, I just flipped out. Every console has exclusives. I expect that. While multiplatform games provide at least the illusion of choice, antics like this completely pierce that notion. The Xbox and Gamecube versions are incomplete.
It was easy to think of EA's offering and Microsoft's offering as fungible initially. EA was doing theirs for free, and Microsoft had a pay service, and obviously free is... nice. But while I was being desiccated by Las Vegas nights soaked with alcohol, it seemed to me that their service is free because it sucks. It's free because it is so without ambition that it can be offered for nothing, until such time as they want to charge for it. Why else would they reserve the right, why else would they go through all the trouble?
I've spent enough time on Live with recent titles that it's impossible for me to compare the two approaches. You don't sign in to Live, you don't create a password, you push A. Every game supports voice and a universal friends list I can view from the web. I have a hard disk built in for content. There is an ethernet port. That's not so you can put a jelly bean in there in case you need it later, it's so you can put in a cable and access the Internet. You assholes.
That is all to say nothing about game invites. If I'm playing a game by Ubi Soft, I can still receive invites to play games from other developers - each publisher doesn't have it's own little fairy land where I can only play games with other people who have their games. I can be playing Crimson Skies and get an invite to play Ghost Recon. If I say yes, the tray pops out and I put in the other disc. Then, it joins me automatically. When I can do that with games from EA, I'll shut the fuck up. Until then, they need to act like big people and make choices that are of value to consumers.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Anyone have anything to say on this matter?