Quote
Originally posted by: Termin8Anakin
I think that it was good that MS rushed into it (Even if they have a good plan), but then that shows that they didn't consider ALL the options.
Nintendo seems to be back in the safe zone after all (in terms of online gaming).
Microsoft didn't rush into anything. They hyped it up, and Xbox Live has lived up to that hype. There's no better online gaming out right now for consoles. PS2 Online pure crap, and Nintendo hasn't released info on their online gaming, except the fact that it will come out when the market is ready.
Xbox Live
does not need EA to succeed. EA would make it even more popular, but as of right now, Xbox Live is doing very well, and out selling the PS2 Network Adaptor. Either it's doing very well or PS2 just flat out out sucks online, or possibly both.
All options were considered. You must remember, Microsoft knows what they're doing when it comes to stuff like this. They didn't want consumers to have to pay each and every game maker to play their games online. Every game maker was told about this, and all but a select few said they'd still support Xbox Live. Why? Because Microsoft would help add the Xbox Live options into their games to save them money.
EA is just being greedy and selfish. They want to charge their own fees. They don't want to add the Xbox Live options into their games. They want to run the games on their own servers (which happen to be a lot worse than what Xbox Live games run on). EA wants to do things their way, and their way only. That's fine. Let them. As far as I'm concerned, Xbox Live is doing better without them than it would with them.