PlayStation®3 Support

[KazeEternal]

---

ChronoJoe wrote:

---

KazeEternal wrote:

---

WiZeGuY wrote:
keep in mind  That EA needs ps3 too. If ea stoped producing for ps3. It would lose alot of money. Making it harder to compete with Activision and ubisoft :-D

---

You are in Error, EA leaving is a domino effect. There is no escaping the vacuum that comes from EA's departure.

Basically Sony needs EA, but EA doesn't need Sony. Never has, never will. They've built a huge software empire that pretty much accentuates the point. Neither Activision or Ubisoft are in any kind of position to be taking over what EA has done. Neither has an exclusive license with the NFL nor do they have a competitor for Madden. Neither of those Companies has any of the licenses of EA with the exception of Guitar Hero which is quickly turning the music genre into a saturated market. Ubisoft on another note also seems to have zero dedication to PS3 especially with Splinter Cell still being an X360 exclusive.

EA is to Video games as Warner Brothers was to the Bluray vs HD-DVD format War.

---

EA would lose there exclusive licences/have to pay a lot more for them when NFL/other organisations realised EA were now targeting a significantly smaller demographic. If they wanted to keep them as exclusive licences that is, because these organisations would have large interest in tapping into the large market which is the PS3.

I agree EA would survive without Sony, but I think Sony would do so too. But at the same time It's not in the interst of either parties to split. EA would definitely have to downsize there company as a resulting effect, not to mention there productions - if exclusive would need to be of much higher quality. Plus many of the 3rd party developers uder EA are 3rd party simply because there not interested in being exclusive. If they were they would dispurse and go directly under MS/Sonys publication. 

Nice to see EA are posting a loss this year too. 

---

You mean like they did with Dreamcast. Ooops oh ya you forgot about that didn't you. I don't think the NFL is willing to question a company that has brought them so much money. The partnership is so old that find another company would be costly to the NFL. They would ride along with it until the contract expired.

[KazeEternal]

---

Morac_ wrote:

---

KazeEternal wrote:

So no this point doesn't hold water if you're saying that they stand to lose to much abandoning Sony. 139 million dollars on the PlayStation brand with the X360 doing maybe 2/3's of that, not including PC and other platforms. Imagine what would happen if EA switched exclusively. You can bet over half of that 139 dollar profit margin would follow them to X360. AFter all how much of that 139 million was Madden 09?

---

Your reasoning makes no sense unless every single PS3 user who buys EA games followed EA over to the X360 if they went exclusive. Otherwise EA loses money.

For example BioWare (part of EA) is already X360 exclusive, which makes it more remarkable that EA sells more games on the PS3.   As for Madden 2010, it already sells higher on the X360 than the PS3 and it hasn't been selling that well this year anyway.  Also considering people are calling boycot on EA based on a rumor, I don't think as many people would migrate over as you think would.

For the sake of argument though let's say enough PS3 users migrate over that EA manages to keep 2/3 of this years sales, EA still loses $46 million a year.  That's with a 66% migration rate, which I think is too high.

The question you need to ask yourself is how much money is EA willing to gamble losing yearly just to spite Sony?

---

here's a question for you many N64 gamers made a mass exodus to the PlayStation just to play Final Fantasy VII. I certainly can raise my hand and attest to this and I wasn't alone back in 1996 when I first heard the news......... or was it 95....pretty sure it was 96.

My argument holds weight, if a gamer loves a particular game series and doesn't care about the politics they will follow that series of games anywhere it leads them. EA has alot of licenses.

We rarely see games these days hold the strength of Final Fantasy, but when we do they usually come in sets and the following of various 3rd parties. If EA jumped ship we'd see alot of gamers switch and X360 software sales increase. That means bottom lines across the board would also increase for other 3rd parties due to the increase in install base.

[KazeEternal]

---

WiZeGuY wrote:

---

KazeEternal wrote:

---

WiZeGuY wrote:
keep in mind  That EA needs ps3 too. If ea stoped producing for ps3. It would lose alot of money. Making it harder to compete with Activision and ubisoft :-D

---

You are in Error, EA leaving is a domino effect. There is no escaping the vacuum that comes from EA's departure.

Basically Sony needs EA, but EA doesn't need Sony. Never has, never will. They've built a huge software empire that pretty much accentuates the point. Neither Activision or Ubisoft are in any kind of position to be taking over what EA has done. Neither has an exclusive license with the NFL nor do they have a competitor for Madden. Neither of those Companies has any of the licenses of EA with the exception of Guitar Hero which is quickly turning the music genre into a saturated market. Ubisoft on another note also seems to have zero dedication to PS3 especially with Splinter Cell still being an X360 exclusive.

EA is to Video games as Warner Brothers was to the Bluray vs HD-DVD format War.

---

No you are wrong. As the other guy said. Harry potter is a game that is ment to release on ALL platforms to maximise profit. If EA no longer produces content on Ps3 Then that contract will go to another company that DOES support the ps3. As I think we can all agree the ps3 has enough of a content base that it can not be ignored. The whole dominoe effect that you are talking about can't happen. It's too late in the game for that.

On top of the the games you mentioned like Spinter Cell. Their is a difference by exclusivity by choice and then by MS buying that exclusivity. While I agree that EA has enough Games to consider itself a stand alone power. I just don't think those representing Licenses would like that, ie. NFL, harry potter, NHL, FIFA, and so forth. These are properties that would like their conent on as MANY consols as possible. And if EA wont do it, im sure Activision or Ubisoft will. 

---

There is nothing in their contract that states that they have to do cross platform development. Never has been. EA just happens to do cross platform development, it's company policy. There maybe a clause about shooting for the largest demographic, but then again who's to say that the entire populace excluding PS3 isn't a largest possible demographic.

also that's just harry potter. I don't think EA is going to cry themselves to sleep at night over losing the harry potter contract now that there is only one movie left in the series.

[ChronoJoe]

---

KazeEternal wrote:

---

ChronoJoe wrote:

---

KazeEternal wrote:

---

WiZeGuY wrote:
keep in mind  That EA needs ps3 too. If ea stoped producing for ps3. It would lose alot of money. Making it harder to compete with Activision and ubisoft :-D

---

You are in Error, EA leaving is a domino effect. There is no escaping the vacuum that comes from EA's departure.

Basically Sony needs EA, but EA doesn't need Sony. Never has, never will. They've built a huge software empire that pretty much accentuates the point. Neither Activision or Ubisoft are in any kind of position to be taking over what EA has done. Neither has an exclusive license with the NFL nor do they have a competitor for Madden. Neither of those Companies has any of the licenses of EA with the exception of Guitar Hero which is quickly turning the music genre into a saturated market. Ubisoft on another note also seems to have zero dedication to PS3 especially with Splinter Cell still being an X360 exclusive.

EA is to Video games as Warner Brothers was to the Bluray vs HD-DVD format War.

---

EA would lose there exclusive licences/have to pay a lot more for them when NFL/other organisations realised EA were now targeting a significantly smaller demographic. If they wanted to keep them as exclusive licences that is, because these organisations would have large interest in tapping into the large market which is the PS3.

I agree EA would survive without Sony, but I think Sony would do so too. But at the same time It's not in the interst of either parties to split. EA would definitely have to downsize there company as a resulting effect, not to mention there productions - if exclusive would need to be of much higher quality. Plus many of the 3rd party developers uder EA are 3rd party simply because there not interested in being exclusive. If they were they would dispurse and go directly under MS/Sonys publication. 

Nice to see EA are posting a loss this year too. 

---

You mean like they did with Dreamcast. Ooops oh ya you forgot about that didn't you. I don't think the NFL is willing to question a company that has brought them so much money. The partnership is so old that find another company would be costly to the NFL. They would ride along with it until the contract expired.

---

No I'm just significantly more informed than yourself. You seem to attribute the Dreamcasts failure solely to EA pulling support, when this was nowhere NEAR the case.

1. It was released at a pretty stupid time, with pretty stupid intentions. It was released during the 5th generation as part of the 6th. Significantly more expensive than the 5th generatio systems, and then the 6th generation systems were superior to it on release. 

2. Lack of DVD support. This ones obvious.

3. Sega had been supporting multiple systems at the same time. When I say multiple I mean lots. There was a point when they were still advertising the CD, Genesis, 32X, Master System, Game Gear, Nomad, Arcade systems, Pico, Megajet AND the saturn. This caused obvious losses. 

4. They lost **bleep**loads on the saturn.

5. Considering there competition, Sega were poor.

6. Lack of dev support. Not just EA. A large part of this was caused by the Saturn, it wasn't very dev friendly and the costs didn't leave much incentive for devs. If they had played the saturn right they'd have had a good chance of netting devs like Square. A large part of Segas demogaphic was Japans gamers... RPG fans, the DC did awefully in Japan because of it's lack of RPG's. (Skies of Arcadia is all I remember, Skies is awesome). 

But yeah, no this isn't even close to the same situation. 

[KazeEternal]

---

ChronoJoe wrote:

---

KazeEternal wrote:

---

ChronoJoe wrote:

---

KazeEternal wrote:

---

WiZeGuY wrote:
keep in mind  That EA needs ps3 too. If ea stoped producing for ps3. It would lose alot of money. Making it harder to compete with Activision and ubisoft :-D

---

You are in Error, EA leaving is a domino effect. There is no escaping the vacuum that comes from EA's departure.

Basically Sony needs EA, but EA doesn't need Sony. Never has, never will. They've built a huge software empire that pretty much accentuates the point. Neither Activision or Ubisoft are in any kind of position to be taking over what EA has done. Neither has an exclusive license with the NFL nor do they have a competitor for Madden. Neither of those Companies has any of the licenses of EA with the exception of Guitar Hero which is quickly turning the music genre into a saturated market. Ubisoft on another note also seems to have zero dedication to PS3 especially with Splinter Cell still being an X360 exclusive.

EA is to Video games as Warner Brothers was to the Bluray vs HD-DVD format War.

---

EA would lose there exclusive licences/have to pay a lot more for them when NFL/other organisations realised EA were now targeting a significantly smaller demographic. If they wanted to keep them as exclusive licences that is, because these organisations would have large interest in tapping into the large market which is the PS3.

I agree EA would survive without Sony, but I think Sony would do so too. But at the same time It's not in the interst of either parties to split. EA would definitely have to downsize there company as a resulting effect, not to mention there productions - if exclusive would need to be of much higher quality. Plus many of the 3rd party developers uder EA are 3rd party simply because there not interested in being exclusive. If they were they would dispurse and go directly under MS/Sonys publication. 

Nice to see EA are posting a loss this year too. 

---

You mean like they did with Dreamcast. Ooops oh ya you forgot about that didn't you. I don't think the NFL is willing to question a company that has brought them so much money. The partnership is so old that find another company would be costly to the NFL. They would ride along with it until the contract expired.

---

No I'm just significantly more informed than yourself. You seem to attribute the Dreamcasts failure solely to EA pulling support, when this was nowhere NEAR the case.

1. It was released at a pretty stupid time, with pretty stupid intentions. It was released during the 5th generation as part of the 6th. Significantly more expensive than the 5th generatio systems, and then the 6th generation systems were superior to it on release. 

2. Lack of DVD support. This ones obvious.

3. Sega had been supporting multiple systems at the same time. When I say multiple I mean lots. There was a point when they were still advertising the CD, Genesis, 32X, Master System, Game Gear, Nomad, Arcade systems, Pico, Megajet AND the saturn. This caused obvious losses. 

4. They lost **bleep**loads on the saturn.

5. Considering there competition, Sega were poor.

6. Lack of dev support. Not just EA. A large part of this was caused by the Saturn, it wasn't very dev friendly and the costs didn't leave much incentive for devs. If they had played the saturn right they'd have had a good chance of netting devs like Square. A large part of Segas demogaphic was Japans gamers... RPG fans, the DC did awefully in Japan because of it's lack of RPG's. (Skies of Arcadia is all I remember, Skies is awesome). 

But yeah, no this isn't even close to the same situation. 

---

Look at the history of the thread I never attributed the entire fall of sega's dreamcast to EA. But they were the straw the broke the cammels back, without EA they could not recover from the long history that I'm sure you just provided (I didn't read it because I happened to be alive and kicking through all of Sega's debacles). EA was very significant and the Dreamcast did manage a significant install base and developed the same following as the Xbox 360 did at PS3's arrival. There were plenty of reasons for sega to fail, but lack of support from one of hte biggest publishers in the industry would kill any system.

[Zachareias]

Well its not the whole updating part, but its the new implmenation. If you look at it, Cross Chat, could require more ram, and if it does... and EA's games are using the ram. Than they honestly don't want to go back and have to fix all there games. That would just take up time, and money, which in business terms means NO, not only that, they also have to fix all the games they are currently working on. Which means more time and money. Since EA is a big publisher, they have to send out more money to there developers and tell them to change something... than there developers get upset, and are like ... "WHAT?" and EA's like... "well, um yeah." EA gets a lot of well angry comments from developers whom have been working on this game for a quite a while, and now need to reconstruct in order to meet the new modifications for the ram to work. Since EA publishes tons of games, look at all the angry developers. EA wants money, and they want it fast, but they also want to keep all there development staff as well. So I mean you have to look at what EA will lose...

Also that would explain why the games wouldn't function, because the ram would have to be dedicated to something else other than the game.

I also could be wrong about that. I'm only 15, an all honors student, whom can't spell or  grammatically construct sentences while typing upon this discussion forum. So I aplogize for any problems you have within reading my text.

[ChronoJoe]

---

KazeEternal wrote:

---

ChronoJoe wrote:

---

KazeEternal wrote:

---

ChronoJoe wrote:

---

KazeEternal wrote:

---

WiZeGuY wrote:
keep in mind  That EA needs ps3 too. If ea stoped producing for ps3. It would lose alot of money. Making it harder to compete with Activision and ubisoft :-D

---

You are in Error, EA leaving is a domino effect. There is no escaping the vacuum that comes from EA's departure.

Basically Sony needs EA, but EA doesn't need Sony. Never has, never will. They've built a huge software empire that pretty much accentuates the point. Neither Activision or Ubisoft are in any kind of position to be taking over what EA has done. Neither has an exclusive license with the NFL nor do they have a competitor for Madden. Neither of those Companies has any of the licenses of EA with the exception of Guitar Hero which is quickly turning the music genre into a saturated market. Ubisoft on another note also seems to have zero dedication to PS3 especially with Splinter Cell still being an X360 exclusive.

EA is to Video games as Warner Brothers was to the Bluray vs HD-DVD format War.

---

EA would lose there exclusive licences/have to pay a lot more for them when NFL/other organisations realised EA were now targeting a significantly smaller demographic. If they wanted to keep them as exclusive licences that is, because these organisations would have large interest in tapping into the large market which is the PS3.

I agree EA would survive without Sony, but I think Sony would do so too. But at the same time It's not in the interst of either parties to split. EA would definitely have to downsize there company as a resulting effect, not to mention there productions - if exclusive would need to be of much higher quality. Plus many of the 3rd party developers uder EA are 3rd party simply because there not interested in being exclusive. If they were they would dispurse and go directly under MS/Sonys publication. 

Nice to see EA are posting a loss this year too. 

---

You mean like they did with Dreamcast. Ooops oh ya you forgot about that didn't you. I don't think the NFL is willing to question a company that has brought them so much money. The partnership is so old that find another company would be costly to the NFL. They would ride along with it until the contract expired.

---

No I'm just significantly more informed than yourself. You seem to attribute the Dreamcasts failure solely to EA pulling support, when this was nowhere NEAR the case.

1. It was released at a pretty stupid time, with pretty stupid intentions. It was released during the 5th generation as part of the 6th. Significantly more expensive than the 5th generatio systems, and then the 6th generation systems were superior to it on release. 

2. Lack of DVD support. This ones obvious.

3. Sega had been supporting multiple systems at the same time. When I say multiple I mean lots. There was a point when they were still advertising the CD, Genesis, 32X, Master System, Game Gear, Nomad, Arcade systems, Pico, Megajet AND the saturn. This caused obvious losses. 

4. They lost **bleep**loads on the saturn.

5. Considering there competition, Sega were poor.

6. Lack of dev support. Not just EA. A large part of this was caused by the Saturn, it wasn't very dev friendly and the costs didn't leave much incentive for devs. If they had played the saturn right they'd have had a good chance of netting devs like Square. A large part of Segas demogaphic was Japans gamers... RPG fans, the DC did awefully in Japan because of it's lack of RPG's. (Skies of Arcadia is all I remember, Skies is awesome). 

But yeah, no this isn't even close to the same situation. 

---

Look at the history of the thread I never attributed the entire fall of sega's dreamcast to EA. But they were the straw the broke the cammels back, without EA they could not recover from the long history that I'm sure you just provided (I didn't read it because I happened to be alive and kicking through all of Sega's debacles). EA was very significant and the Dreamcast did manage a significant install base and developed the same following as the Xbox 360 did at PS3's arrival. There were plenty of reasons for sega to fail, but lack of support from one of hte biggest publishers in the industry would kill any system.

---

I still disagree. Sony if need be could buy themselves out of this kind of situation. (just curious but anyone have a link to EA's finacial status? can't find any info aside last years revenue)  

Yes it'd be a major blow for sony but no benefit (significant blow for EA too). And I think the Dreamcast was already dead, unless EA had given them more than developer support (as in money) they could have never covered there losses, I don't even understand how the Dreamcast was considered a good idea. 

EA splitting from Sony just isn't going to happen. You have to bear in mind Super_Secret just threw that out there. I think it's very unlikely, he mentioned legal action too and I think in this situation they would have to reach an out-of court settlement so as to maintain good relations. Probably the best solution.

 

[Sevenlives]

I'm really starting to reconsider my initial reactions. Threatening to cut of Sony for one game not receiving an OS feature does seem bizarre...especially if it's a game like Hairy Potter. 

What the crap is really going on?  Blagh...I'm tired. If there's no xchat coming..then damn it just say so...what the hell?

[CodeMaJic]

ive always hated EA they never seemed to care about the graphics or anything like that.

[Phillyblunz]

---

Morac_ wrote:

2. Why would Sony care what EA thinks at this stage in the game?  They didn't care when Activision threatened to boycott unless Sony immediately dropped the price of the PS3. 

Oh really????

Its really funny then because directly after Bob.K. (AKA The Hobbit) made that remark a PS3 price cut was announced.

Seriously Sony isnt as strong as they were back in the PS2 era, they seem afraid of everyone except their customers.

Its extra funny because if you look at sales per month, the PS3 has been in second place since just after launch this gen for console sales.

3.5 yrs and 35 million PS3's sold, is about 833,333.333 consoles sold per month.  Or 10,000,000 sales per year.

All the competition had a good year head start and so have sold more total consoles to date, but per month only the Wii is selling better.

4.5 yrs and 41 million 3fixme's sold, is about 759,259.2593 consoles sold per month.  Or 9,111,111.11 sales per year.

On average the PS3 sells about 74074.0737 more consoles per month then the 3fixme.

The thing to remember is some people buy the PS3 as a Blu-ray player, and so dont buy games.

This explains why despite having more sales per month, the games still sell better on the 3fixme, as thats all you use it for.