March 8, 2001

7:58 PM

EA:WTF?I understand if people want to make web apps that only work on Windows based browsers. But you would think that a large games company like EA would treat others a little better than this (Proud Macintosh owners, get ready to squint).

Besides, I really want to play Majestic, and last time I checked, a game that uses email, fax, web and AOL IM technology doesn't require Windows. : p
posted by Brilliantcrank (13 comments total)

It's not just you. I'm using IE 5.5 for Win2000 and it's not letting me in. Go figure.
posted by waxpancake at 9:53 PM on March 8, 2001

Adam Mathes wrote an interesting commentary about EA's site vs the WaSP's campaign. To paraphrase, it's funny that people are upset about EA's rejection of Mac surfers but equally ready to lock out users with old browsers. I think not offering mac compatability is just laziness on EA's part - they should at least try to provide the content in some alternative format. But it's only Electronic Arts... Bungie forever!
posted by jed at 10:13 PM on March 8, 2001

I'm using IE 5.5 on Win2k and it works fine for me.
posted by redleaf at 10:23 PM on March 8, 2001

Does EA even deign to make Mac games these days?
posted by aaron at 10:45 PM on March 8, 2001

Oh, duh. The link goes directly to the error page. My mistake. I assumed the link went to the page that did the browser checking.
posted by waxpancake at 11:20 PM on March 8, 2001

Adam Mathes wrote an interesting commentary about EA's site vs the WaSP's campaign.

I feel this argument is apples v. oranges. The WaSP's campaign involves using web standards and promoting the idea of using browsers that support the standards. If a user chooses to use a non-standard browser, so be it, but don't expect it to be as pretty. IMHO, the site should still be functional... and mind you, the WaSP offers several methods of recommending new browsers to users. You can be forceful or gentle, but it's your choice. (You also have the choice of telling WaSP to go scratch, of course.)

EA's site, on the other hand, isn't pushing standards. It's pushing something proprietary (Windows) which, while used by a majority, isn't the only game in town. If it's worth anything, it doesn't work in Opera... the little "browse games" device is empty. Great!

I think that EA is just gunning for Windows users; the WaSP is gunning for standards. It's their choice, but I believe EA runs the risk of alienating a lot more people than WaSP does.
posted by hijinx at 6:15 AM on March 9, 2001

I find I usually agree with Adam's sentiments, but I think what he misses in this case is that EA isn't supporting standards at all. EA's coding for specific browsers, including non-standard implementations, whereas the browser upgrade initiative (BUI) is urging people to code to standards and leave non-standard work-arounds in the past.

I disagree with the thought of not letting users into your site if they aren't using a standards-compliant browser, but that's really not what the BUI is about so much.

It's arguable that there's been some retconning on the part of WaSP for clarification purposes - the BUI really did seem "All or Nothing" as presented by ALA #99 - but the basic premise is that by coding to standards your pages will degrade to plain text in browsers that don't properly support standards. At least that way you know people can still visit your site, regardless of the device. Everything from a WAP browser on a phone to IE6beta on Windows 2000 will be able to view the site, sometimes just flashier.

What EA is doing is not coding to standards and not degrading nicely. The difference may be a function of semantics, but I think there's an important and fundamental difference that's been exposed, especially with Zeldman's various interviews regarding the BUI.
posted by cCranium at 6:38 AM on March 9, 2001

GUI = Gooey.
BUI = Buoy.
posted by jragon at 7:59 AM on March 9, 2001

So then what's NetBUI?
posted by jammer at 10:30 AM on March 9, 2001

Um, nothing?

Dictionary.com has a great entry for NetBUI

'It's spelled "NetBEUI"'

:-)
posted by cCranium at 11:02 AM on March 9, 2001

BUI = Buoy.
GUI = Guirl.
posted by rodii at 4:30 PM on March 9, 2001

I think not offering mac compatability is just laziness on EA's part - they should at least try to provide the content in some alternative format. But it's only Electronic Arts... Bungie forever!

Bungie was acquired by Microsoft more than a year ago. The Bungie division of Microsoft's games group now makes Mac games only when required by prior commitment, which is to say, Oni is it -- they're reneging on Alex Seropian's (post-buyout) MWNY '00 commitment to release Halo for the Mac.
posted by bumppo at 11:27 AM on March 12, 2001

Interestingly enough, when I set iCab (a Mac web browser) not to report itself as a Mac browser, the ea.com site loads up just fine! Heck, I even managed to sign up to beta-test Majestic. Apparently the game involves a bunch of people IMing each other pretending to be spies. Gee, can't wait. No. Really.
posted by bcwinters at 1:27 PM on March 12, 2001