[Xbox]XSN Sports is Dead

[Janus]

XSN Sports is Dead
http://xbox.ign.com/articles/503/503517p1.html
http://xbox.ign.com/articles/503/503517p2.html
http://xbox.ign.com/articles/503/503517p3.html

XSN Sports is Dead
Without sports, can Xbox survive?

----------------------

Page 1

March 31, 2004 - On Monday, IGN Sports shocked the gaming community with a report that all Microsoft first-party XSN Sports games were cancelled for 2004. The next installment of MS sports games won't hit until at least 2005 and may not come out until Xbox Next. XSN Sports Manager Kevin Browne was pretty clear in the reasoning -- Microsoft's sports games just haven't been very good. But is there more to it than wanting an extra year of development? We'll take a look at the reasoning and what options Microsoft has to fill the sports void on Xbox.

Can Xbox survive with fewer sports games? That's the first thing Microsoft must have considered before making its decision. Checking the history of recent consoles with low sports output doesn't show many positives. Dreamcast had the benefit of some great first-party sports games, but that was about it. There were no other options for gamers. EA, who really got their start on Sega's Genesis, refused to develop for Dreamcast. The giant sports vacuum was too great for one publisher to fill and the lack of sports support (something PlayStation enjoyed) was one of the major factors in Dreamcast's demise.
You can also take a peek at N64, which originally had some Nintendo first-party sports games with Ken Griffey Jr.'s Slugfest and NBA Courtside to compliment Mario Golf and Tennis, but as the N64 waned, Nintendo dropped their traditional, annual sports titles. That wasn't what killed the N64, but a general lack of sports love continue onto the GameCube and is certainly impacting the system. It's not that sports gamers wouldn't buy a GameCube, it's just that, because there isn't much sports support for Cube, sports gamers are forced to also buy the competition's console. In the great console war, it's vital for a console publisher to be a one-stop shop for the consumer. Nintendo's biggest weakness is in sports. But do sports really matter that much?

Yes, sports games do matter quite a bit. According to NPD, four of the top twelve best-selling Xbox games through 2003 are sports titles. More importantly, sports games come out annually, so once you can get a gamer hooked on a title, they will buy it year after year. That's how Madden continues to grow each year. EA's built a solid foundation of gamers who always come back each year and any new gamers they attract is just another $50 on the pile. Because the majority sports gamers can be depended on to purchase a sports title each year, they are a base on which to grow a console. It's not just about selling a lot of copies of a particular sports game, once you have a gamer invested in your system (remember, they'll stick around year-to-year for the next iteration of a sports title), they'll likely fill out their gaming cabinet with non-sports titles.

With Xbox Live being Microsoft's best shot at pulling closer to Sony in terms of market share, online sports games are the perfect tool. So why chop Fever, Inside Drive, and the rest? It is true that the traditional sports games (basketball, football, baseball, hockey) weren't particularly well-represented by Microsoft. Fever has done little to improve over its initial offering, and both Inside Pitch and NHL Rivals were far below the quality offered by EA and Sega's sports titles. Inside Drive has been the only consistently good sports title for Microsoft. As for games like Amped and Top Spin, these are titles that were almost certainly planned to come out every other year, so hearing that new versions won't ship until 2005 at the earliest isn't much of a shock.

[Janus]

Page 2

Okay, so the quality wasn't the best, but Sony has been putting out some pretty lackluster 989 Sports titles the past few years and they have consistently sold well. That's true, and the fact that they continue to sell (thanks to aggressive marketing, ideal store product placement, and a huge installed base), is the reason they continue to come out. It's a cash cow and a nice supplement to the massive cheddar brought in by EA. But, looking at NPD's stats, Microsoft's first-party titles have declined in sales each year. While NFL Fever 2002 sold over a million copies, the 2003 version sold several hundred-thousand copies less and Fever 2004 has done even worse. Because of the declining sales, Microsoft doesn't have the luxury of hoping its sports games take a big leap and get better next year -- they need some serious work.

But there may be other factors involved in Microsoft's decision. To make the bold move of cutting its sports line for a year and a half, MS must have felt confident it what would fill the void. There are two popular theories as to what MS has in store. The more likely is that at their press conference at E3 2004, Microsoft will announce they have reached an agreement with Electronic Arts to allow all future EA Sports product to be Xbox Live-enabled. The other theory is that Microsoft is poised to purchase Visual Concepts from Sega. This one's much less likely, but very possible since it appears Microsoft is severing its sports ties with developer High Voltage. So which is true? Let's examine.
Though these rumors are just that, rumors, there is evidence that both possibilities may come to pass. The big beef between EA and Microsoft is that Xbox Live is run on Microsoft's servers, they have control, and they make the majority of cash off of Live outside of video game sales. EA has spent bucketloads of money to create their online network and to get on Live, EA would need to go outside of its own business model.

Microsoft needs EA online much more than EA needs to be on Xbox Live (EA Sports titles still outsell the competition on Xbox without being online). That means EA can stand strong and not budge on any of its demands. Microsoft, on the other hand, can't be too certain how improved Xbox Live or even EA Sports sales would be if EA went online with the 'box. In theory, sales should improve greatly, but what's to say that sports gamers haven't been buying two sports titles each year to have the EA game for offline and then a secondary title to play on Xbox Live? What Microsoft certainly knows is that Sony is able to tout that they are the exclusive home for EA online and that's not a good thing for the big MS. And don't forget that almost every EA title outside of the sports lineup is also online, so breaking the barrier on sports would open up numerous online titles for Xbox owners.

From what we hear, there are regular talks between MS and EA. Both would like to find a resolution, but Microsoft has to be careful not to make too many exceptions for EA and step too far from Xbox Live's foundation just to satisfy the biggest developer in gaming. As for EA, well, no one over in Redwood Shores is likely to be losing sleep over the issue. However, Microsoft is a strong leader in sports and in online gaming and EA stands to make a lot more cash if they can get online with Xbox. This is a never-ending negotiation, but if MS was willing to slash its sports program, a deal may be very close to being reached.

As for the other option, it's been rumored for a good two years that Microsoft and Sega were in talks about acquiring Visual Concepts. Sega of Japan has stated on multiple occasions that it does not particularly care for its sports division and went so far as to blame Visual Concepts for Sega's previous poor financial state. And then there are the people at VC, who would likely welcome the opportunity to be owned by someone else. Several sources at VC have stated over the past year that it's almost impossible to compete with EA's marketing and development budget. Microsoft could give a boost in that area.

[Janus]

Page 3

So would Sega sell VC? Probably not. SOJ is blowing a lot of hot air when they blame VC for any economic troubles. The truth is, Sega Sports games make up about half of Sega's earnings each year. While selling Visual Concepts would bank some immediate cash and cut on some spending, it would also put a much heavier burden on the, as of late, unreliable Sega entertainment team. As long as it has VC, Sega of Japan can continue to use them as a scapegoat, but once VC is gone, Sega has no one to blame but themselves for any future disappointments. In a perfect world, Visual Concepts would earn enough money to allow Sega to make the high-concept, low sales titles that hardcore gamers love.

While Sega may not be shopping VC around, if Microsoft came with a good enough offer it could still happen. After all, MS could use an experienced sports developer with a good history online. Plus it would take Sega Sports games away from Sony. However, if MS can't get EA Sports on Xbox Live, then it becomes a war between Sony with EA online and MS with Visual Concepts. That's not a war MS can win. Plus, Xbox needs three quality sports developers to give Xbox and Xbox Next a sound foundation of sports gamers. Right now they have EA and Visual Concepts and just need to get the first-party sports jumble in order. If they buy VC, they are narrowing the sports market on Xbox down to two. Not the wisest move.
So what will actually happen? The smart money is on MS to have no actual filler plans for the sports gap in 2004. It's highly unlikely they will purchase Visual Concepts and it's probably about a 60% chance that they'll get EA on Xbox Live this year. Microsoft will more likely make new ties with established third-party sports developers. They may try and steal Blue Shift away from Visual Concepts (though rumor is, Blue Shift will not be back working on ESPN Baseball next year), though it's also unclear if MS will even attempt to make another baseball title.

While this doesn't signal the end of Xbox in any way, it does seem like a bad move on Microsoft's part. Yes, they have weaker sports titles than the competition, but they should have taken a cue from EA and how they handled the building of MVP Baseball. Rather than cancel the abysmal Triple Play series, EA kept putting the title out, secretly building a brand new engine and a great new game in MVP. Instead, MS is leaving a gaping hole in Xbox sports.

Will this cost Microsoft money in the long run? Probably not. But part of the video game business is perception, and with a rash of recent cuts, Microsoft seems to be sending a clear message -- they're sick of losing money. Projects with long development cycles, such as Psychonauts, and sports titles that can't compete with even the second-tier sports games don't have a high enough probability of making a profit. That's too bad, because some games take time and it seems MS and even Sega are taking the position that quicker development equals better business. But does it equal better games? Only time will tell.

-- Hilary Goldstein

[Osmosis]

i am really disappointed about this news...i was waiting for nba inside drive 2005 gar.....

[GimGim]

hmm i think EA's sports games are much better than XSN sport games
but before the new said EA's sports games online feature are exclusvie for PS2

[Janus]

because EA wants to generate online game service revenue

under PS2 business model, EA can run its own online platform and collect revenue
under Xbox business model, MS will run Xbox Live and collect revenue, not EA

[GimGim]

right, thatz what i heard.

[啤梨王子]

作者: Janus

because EA wants to generate online game service revenue

under PS2 business model, EA can run its own online platform and collect revenue
under Xbox business model, MS will run Xbox Live and collect revenue, not EA

原來係咁~