Welcome to Emulationworld

Forum Index | FAQ | New User | Login | Search

Make a New PostPrevious ThreadView All ThreadsNext Thread*Show in Threaded Mode


SubjectWhat does everyone here think about EA/NFL? Reply to this message
Posted byJudgeInjury
Posted on01/19/05 05:22 AM



EA gave the NFL hundreds of millions (read from 300 to 500) to be the exclusive NFL game provider for the next five years.

And just in case, they also locked up the AFL (Arena football league) so ESPN/Sega has no choice now but to release an unlicensed football game, or do something crazy like the CFL or high schools or something.

I don't know if you guys are into sports games, but basically it was Madden and ESPN going toe to toe for best football game, with Madden winning the sales war but ESPN getting better reviews. ESPN even had a brand new $19.99 price point this year to try and take over, maybe that's what prompted this?

Personally, I have both, but I liked the ESPN version better because I loved the Dreamcast versions back when it was NFL2k series (Probably the reason I bought a DC). And you just can't run on Madden, it's all passes.

I don't mind EA stuff, they do a good job on the Lord of the Rings and Sims, but it sucks that we don't get the best product we can because they can do this. This is like old school Coleco tactics or something...

I sure wish Techmo would release a "retro version of Techmo Super Bowl




SubjectWhat do you expect? new Reply to this message
Posted byChachiSqrPants
Posted on01/19/05 05:58 AM



It makes sense for EA to try for exclusivity. The NFL apparently is okay with this, since they accepted the money. They didn't have to. If they were concerned about videogames, they wouldn't have granted exclusive rights.

If you're going to blame someone, blame the NFL. It simply makes good business sense for EA to buy the rights. That may suck, but they obviously have a decent product otherwise they wouldn't have the dough to do it.

The last ESPN game I played was nhl2k2 or something. I thought it was alot better than the ea version. I've been playing Madden, and I like it. The franchise options are unbelievable, much better than espn. You're right, though, it's tough to run.

CSP


SubjectRe: What do you expect? new Reply to this message
Posted byDeath Knight
Posted on01/19/05 06:33 AM



> It makes sense for EA to try for exclusivity. The NFL apparently is okay with
> this, since they accepted the money. They didn't have to. If they were concerned
> about videogames, they wouldn't have granted exclusive rights.
>
True, they approached the NBA with the same kind of deal, but they refused.

> If you're going to blame someone, blame the NFL. It simply makes good business
> sense for EA to buy the rights. That may suck, but they obviously have a decent
> product otherwise they wouldn't have the dough to do it.
>
I disagree there, i don't believe their products are good enough, they have the revenue because they've been taking over all the other smaller companies that had hits and milking them dry. That and choking the average Joe demographic with more ads than any other company can afford to have. They waste more money advertising the fuck out of everything than investing in their production staff.

Another reason they get so much money is because people are dumb enough to shell out cash to them every goddamn year in the annual sports titles, that haven't changed in a fucking decade, aside from "updating" the rosters, which become obsolete within a couple of months.
Kinda easy to make money when you churn out the same fucking crap year after year, at a minimum cost and maximum price.


Gives us a kiss precious.


SubjectRe: What do you expect? new Reply to this message
Posted byChachiSqrPants
Posted on01/19/05 08:12 AM



> I disagree there, i don't believe their products are good enough, they have the
> revenue because they've been taking over all the other smaller companies that
> had hits and milking them dry. That and choking the average Joe demographic with
> more ads than any other company can afford to have. They waste more money
> advertising the fuck out of everything than investing in their production staff.
> Another reason they get so much money is because people are dumb enough to shell
> out cash to them every goddamn year in the annual sports titles, that haven't
> changed in a fucking decade, aside from "updating" the rosters, which become
> obsolete within a couple of months.
> Kinda easy to make money when you churn out the same fucking crap year after
> year, at a minimum cost and maximum price.

I'll start at the top. You don't think their products are good enough? You must be in the minority, considering the sales. And it looks like that money isn't wasted, if they're selling that much via advertising.

I listen to a local sports station up here. Before every Vikings game, they have Jordan Edelstein, the product manager for EA sports. You know why? They have such a good football simulator that they run a matchup, then call the local radio stations and report the statistics of the simulation. It's a great bit. From listening to those bits, I've learned that they have 100 people in the Madden department working on the game 24/7/365. I think they do some work on it.

You're also telling me people are dumb enough to buy the new Madden for the roster. It's clearly not the same thing, since the roster has changed. Apparently, that's enough of a change for most people. I can tell you that I probably wouldn't buy the new game if it JUST had a roster change, but if you actually played one version of Madden to the next, there are thousands of subtle changes. And hell, the roster is a pretty big deal.

I guess you could equate it to all the "dumb" people that shell out dough every couple months for another Britney Spears album, or another recycled pop star. You and I might think they're dumb, but those gold records probably don't look very dumb on the latest pop stars' wall.



CSP


SubjectMust i use a cliche here? new Reply to this message
Posted byDeath Knight
Posted on01/19/05 09:18 AM



> I'll start at the top. You don't think their products are good enough? You must
> be in the minority, considering the sales. And it looks like that money isn't
> wasted, if they're selling that much via advertising.
>
Just because something sells a lot doesn't mean it's good. But most people aren't so discerning, so they're more susceptible to a massive ad campaign, instead of actually looking up good things. You're a movie fan right, do you rate a movie's quality by how much it earns in the box office? I hope not.
It's my oppinion that this is the same with EA in the game market. They're becoming a mega-monopoly so they can afford to spend more money in advertising than smaller companies, thus reaching more people. That doesn't make their shit good.

> I listen to a local sports station up here. Before every Vikings game, they have
> Jordan Edelstein, the product manager for EA sports. You know why? They have
> such a good football simulator that they run a matchup, then call the local
> radio stations and report the statistics of the simulation. It's a great bit.
> From listening to those bits, I've learned that they have 100 people in the
> Madden department working on the game 24/7/365. I think they do some work on it.
>
> You're also telling me people are dumb enough to buy the new Madden for the
> roster. It's clearly not the same thing, since the roster has changed.
> Apparently, that's enough of a change for most people. I can tell you that I
> probably wouldn't buy the new game if it JUST had a roster change, but if you
> actually played one version of Madden to the next, there are thousands of subtle
> changes. And hell, the roster is a pretty big deal.
>
Yes, but don't you agree that all these "subtle changes" and roster updates are hardly worth the price they charge? The budget titles Sega came out with seemed like a more worthy price, but now that EA will hold the monopoly over this shit, they'll feel justified in charging 50 bucks for it, and like i said, people will still be dumb enough to pay for it. Newsflash people, if you bitch about a game or movie the company won't give a shit. If you don't buy said shitty game or movie, the companies will feel the revenue loss and may start actually improving their products. ( ok, not even i'm buying that one, we know they just blame piracy instead of actually admitting they're making shit :-) )

> I guess you could equate it to all the "dumb" people that shell out dough every
> couple months for another Britney Spears album, or another recycled pop star.
> You and I might think they're dumb, but those gold records probably don't look
> very dumb on the latest pop stars' wall.
>
Same arguement as the first paragraph, just because it sells, doesn't make it good. I still hold my oppinion that people with such a mediocre sense of what's good should be shot. You may say, oh, it's a matter of oppinion. I say fuck it. There's just some stuff that is purely bad and is only popular because most people are too fucking dense to think for themselves and just accept the crap they're fed by the mass media without any discernment.


Gives us a kiss precious.


Subjectif you go platinum, it's got nothing to do with luck new Reply to this message
Posted byJoffeman
Posted on01/19/05 10:49 AM



it just means a million people are stupid as fuck

j


SubjectRe: Must i use a cliche here? new Reply to this message
Posted byChachiSqrPants
Posted on01/19/05 12:12 PM



> Yes, but don't you agree that all these "subtle changes" and roster updates are
> hardly worth the price they charge? The budget titles Sega


I didn't play 2004 enough to say what the biggest changes in 2005 are, other than the immense franchise mode, new rosters, and the hit stick. At any rate, yes. Roster changes are enough for me.


came out with seemed
> like a more worthy price, but now that EA will hold the monopoly over this shit,
> they'll feel justified in charging 50 bucks for it, and like i said, people will
> still be dumb enough to pay for it. Newsflash people, if you bitch about a game
> or movie the company won't give a shit. If you don't buy said shitty game or
> movie, the companies will feel the revenue loss and may start actually improving
> their products. ( ok, not even i'm buying that one, we know they just blame
> piracy instead of actually admitting they're making shit :-) )


I don't buy that. They might blame piracy, but they'd be lying to themselves and you know it. They'd change it.


> Same arguement as the first paragraph, just because it sells, doesn't make it
> good. I still hold my oppinion that people with such a mediocre sense of what's
> good should be shot. You may say, oh, it's a matter of oppinion. I say fuck it.
> There's just some stuff that is purely bad and is only popular because most
> people are too fucking dense to think for themselves and just accept the crap
> they're fed by the mass media without any discernment.


So we're game afficianados, our opinion is better than everyone elses'? My opinion is no better than anyones. I understand your movie analogy, but that has to do with distribution as much as anything. The bigger company gets bigger exposure. So sure they'd see the bigger profit. And no, that doesn't make their movie better.

The simple fact is: Their game is very very good. It's obvious a roster change is worth the dough. You can't fault the company for doing that. Maybe it's not as good as the espn version, maybe it's better. It's opinion. We could go back and forth on this all day, so I'll just be done.

CSP


SubjectEA now owns ESPN license new Reply to this message
Posted byTheDarkAbyss
Posted on01/19/05 02:16 PM



heh...keep Googling, EA also bought the ESPN license.
so expect Madden 2006 to be full of ESPN crap

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Video game publisher Electronic Arts Inc. on Monday said it has signed a 15-year licensing deal with sports broadcaster ESPN, giving it the rights to use the network's brand and to develop new games based on ESPN properties.

The deal strikes a further blow against what was EA's chief competition in the sports market, the line of games from Sega Sammy Holdings and Take-Two Interactive Software Inc., which previously held the ESPN rights and used the ESPN name.

However, at least initially, any potential changes to the EA sports games will be more subtle.

"We don't anticipating changing anything significantly from what we are currently doing," Larry Probst, chairman and chief executive of EA, said in an interview. EA games will not necessarily be branded with the ESPN name, he said, though they will potentially include ESPN data, graphics and sportscasters .

ESPN executives said they had a good relationship with Sega and Take-Two but felt the time was right to move on to a larger partner.

"If you think about who the logical partner for ESPN (is) given our position in media and where we are and EA's position in video games ... it is a natural two companies to put together," said John Skipper, an executive vice president with ESPN.

Skipper and Probst said the two sides would look to a number of ESPN properties as potential video games, including the "X Games" extreme athletics competitions, poker and even bass fishing.

Last year, the Sega-Take-Two partnership challenged EA's dominance in pro football with a $20 game, "ESPN NFL 2K5," that received reviews just as strong as those for "Madden NFL 2005," the EA flagship that sold for $50.

Used to years of outselling Sega's football games by almost a 10-to-1 margin, EA was forced to respond when last year's Sega title gained a 40 percent market share.

The company slashed the price of "Madden" and moved quickly to lock up an exclusive licensing deal with the National Football League, keeping any other publisher from using NFL player or team names or likenesses in their games.

At least in the short term, Madden's name will stay on the pro football game, rather than being replaced by ESPN or another brand.

Madden is under contract to EA for the current season and the company said it is in negotiations with him on future versions of the game.

Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.





TheDarkAbyss







SubjectDear Sega Sammy: Nice knowing you *nt* Love, David Kaemmer *nt* P.S. See you in the afterlife new Reply to this message
Posted bywildcat
Posted on01/19/05 02:41 PM



> heh...keep Googling, EA also bought the ESPN license.
> so expect Madden 2006 to be full of ESPN crap
>
> LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Video game publisher Electronic Arts Inc. on Monday said
> it has signed a 15-year licensing deal with sports broadcaster ESPN, giving it
> the rights to use the network's brand and to develop new games based on ESPN
> properties.
>
> The deal strikes a further blow against what was EA's chief competition in the
> sports market, the line of games from Sega Sammy Holdings and Take-Two
> Interactive Software Inc., which previously held the ESPN rights and used the
> ESPN name.
>
> However, at least initially, any potential changes to the EA sports games will
> be more subtle.
>
> "We don't anticipating changing anything significantly from what we are
> currently doing," Larry Probst, chairman and chief executive of EA, said in an
> interview. EA games will not necessarily be branded with the ESPN name, he said,
> though they will potentially include ESPN data, graphics and sportscasters .
>
> ESPN executives said they had a good relationship with Sega and Take-Two but
> felt the time was right to move on to a larger partner.
>
> "If you think about who the logical partner for ESPN (is) given our position in
> media and where we are and EA's position in video games ... it is a natural two
> companies to put together," said John Skipper, an executive vice president with
> ESPN.
>
> Skipper and Probst said the two sides would look to a number of ESPN properties
> as potential video games, including the "X Games" extreme athletics
> competitions, poker and even bass fishing.
>
> Last year, the Sega-Take-Two partnership challenged EA's dominance in pro
> football with a $20 game, "ESPN NFL 2K5," that received reviews just as strong
> as those for "Madden NFL 2005," the EA flagship that sold for $50.
>
> Used to years of outselling Sega's football games by almost a 10-to-1 margin, EA
> was forced to respond when last year's Sega title gained a 40 percent market
> share.
>
> The company slashed the price of "Madden" and moved quickly to lock up an
> exclusive licensing deal with the National Football League, keeping any other
> publisher from using NFL player or team names or likenesses in their games.
>
> At least in the short term, Madden's name will stay on the pro football game,
> rather than being replaced by ESPN or another brand.
>
> Madden is under contract to EA for the current season and the company said it is
> in negotiations with him on future versions of the game.
>
> Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.
>
>
>
>
> TheDarkAbyss
>
>
>
>





SubjectAgree about college - 15 year deal with ESPN too -edit- new Reply to this message
Posted byHalcyon
Posted on01/19/05 03:50 PM



15 year deal with ESPN too [details]

> EA gave the NFL hundreds of millions (read from 300 to 500) to be the exclusive
> NFL game provider for the next five years.

Doesn't really affect me since I don't play these games. But in my opinion, any exclusive just gives a developer an excuse to be lazy as it eliminates competition, and you're stuck with the only alternative.

On the other hand, it makes other developers even more competitive as they have to overcome the "shortcoming" of not having the NFL license. If you ask me, they will concentrate on college teams and drive the popularity of college football. They will also do the street football thing. College football games will be the next big thing, I think (they probably would have been with or without this deal anyway, it's been gaining traction as the NFL is getting over-commercialized). By granting exclusivity to EA, the NFL are risking the quality of their license, it was a bad decision for them, because there is no doubt that other companies will compete just as hard if not harder now that they don't have the license.

> I don't know if you guys are into sports games, but basically it was Madden and
> ESPN going toe to toe for best football game, with Madden winning the sales war
> but ESPN getting better reviews. ESPN even had a brand new $19.99 price point
> this year to try and take over, maybe that's what prompted this?

Sports games SHOULD be $19.99 because every year you're buying a new game just to get a stats increase and a slightly tweaked engine and updated playbook. That is not worth an extra $50, and there is no reason they shouldn't be offering downloads to the memory card for these updates. You can't turn around and sell last year's football game for more than $5 because nobody wants an outdated game so wtf is the point?

When SEGA released VF4, they did so at the normal price, and when they released VF4 Evo with two new characters and tweaked graphics, it was at $20, because VF4 had already sold so much and they wanted to thank customers. The game was just an upgrade of VF4, and next year's football game is just an upgrade of this year's.

-edit-

The license grab also seems like a move by EA to keep their stock moving. EA says they want to dominate the video game software industry, and they need to keep up the momentum of that announcement by backing it up with extravagant moves that will grab them a lot of publicity. What EA wants to do now is stay in the news and make people percieve them as a company that will do exactly what they say, take over the market. This will drum up money from investors who think they're going somewhere, which will cause even more momentum, etc. What EA are hoping is that all of this hype gains them more publicity and this all snowballs into exactly what they want. Of course now they will be scrutinized more than ever so they had better be prepared to back this up if something stupid happens.


SubjectRe: What does everyone here think about EA/NFL? new Reply to this message
Posted byVmprHntrD
Posted on01/19/05 04:12 PM



Said this in detail over in the Advanced Media Network (advancedmn.com) forums so I'll get a bit shorter.

Potential lawsuit. Basically the Sherman Anti-Trust Act could be used against EA at this point *IF* the gov't wanted to step in on Sega's behalf(since they can't afford to take on EA.) The act says that in creating an environment where competition is stifled to near or complete monopoly status is illegal and the gov't at that rate when proven in court can step in and kick some ass. EA taking up the NFL until 2010 means they got the only football license, but then by taking down ESPN until 2015(10yr contract) they've specifically targeted Sega and TakeTwo by taking their namesake license away which could at some level still been used to make non-NFL/AFL licensed games. At this rate it's easily proven they were losing sales at an increasing rate due to Madden being subpar to the ESPN lineup from Sega/TT so they took the football, then since it was the ESPN name they owned...EA took that as well to finish the job.

We can only hope for a lawsuit to fix this problem as it's already crossed the American legal borders...problem is EA is rich like M$ and probably could buy the damn judges as easily as MS has in those DOJ cases under the same Act. :\

Either way it's illegal and they fucked SEGA/TT nicely, and the consumer even worse.




SubjectDunno new Reply to this message
Posted byHalcyon
Posted on01/19/05 04:40 PM



> Potential lawsuit. Basically the Sherman Anti-Trust Act could be used against
> EA at this point *IF* the gov't wanted to step in on Sega's behalf(since they
> can't afford to take on EA.)
> The act says that in creating an environment where
> competition is stifled to near or complete monopoly status is illegal and the
> gov't at that rate when proven in court can step in and kick some ass.

But NFL/EA/ESPN entered into the deals willingly, and it doesn't prevent anyone else from making a football game. This may not be enough. And while abusing a monopoly is illegal (i.e. actually stifling competition), having one is not. NFL and ESPN are brand names and trademarks of commercial entities that can be licensed, but they do not own the game of football.

> EA
> taking up the NFL until 2010 means they got the only football license, but then
> by taking down ESPN until 2015(10yr contract) they've specifically targeted Sega
> and TakeTwo by taking their namesake license away which could at some level
> still been used to make non-NFL/AFL licensed games. At this rate it's easily
> proven they were losing sales at an increasing rate due to Madden being subpar
> to the ESPN lineup from Sega/TT so they took the football, then since it was the
> ESPN name they owned...EA took that as well to finish the job.

It might be hard to prove this as while it prevents people from obtaining licensed games from other companies, it doesn't prevent people from obtaining football games from other companies. Can a brand be considered as a commodity that prohibits the sale of football games? It's a pretty hard call to make, as the NFL could always create an internal game company and release their own games (what they should be doing from a business perspective?) or contract EA to produce them and we'd end up with about the same type of situation anyway.


Subjecti'm not a fan of either ea or the nfl new Reply to this message
Posted byJoffeman
Posted on01/19/05 05:37 PM



i like real football, though. don't mind rugby either. can't stand monopolistic bastards who make capitalism worse than it has to be normally, though.

j


SubjectThere is no competition for Rugby games... new Reply to this message
Posted byBuveed
Posted on01/19/05 07:47 PM



...so EA can just put out crap, and people will buy it since that's all there is. I've played 2 different EA rugby games, and the quality isn't anywhere near the Madden or FIFA games at the time of the release.






Previous ThreadView All ThreadsNext Thread*Show in Threaded Mode