View Full Version : EA, cowardly moves... NFL is now EAs for 5 years...
chrisrt2
13-Dec-2004, 23:35
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7079814
:roll:
Uh, wow, so now they will basically kill their competitors completely and potentially allow themselves to have a premium price for the only true NFL football game.
Edit:
Where will the competition come from ?
And how does this promote the game, it was much better when you had some budget games.
Giving EA all the rights... :(
I wonder if other events will Hockey MLB will do the same.
Speng.
chrisrt2
13-Dec-2004, 23:51
Can't the NFL actually be sued for creating a monopoly?
:?:
Well there is NCAA Football I guess
Been the buzz for the last couple of weeks now. Watch for NCAA basketball next.
Hey, has anyone heard of a Microsoft manager migrating to EA?? Because this is surely a move Billy G would make! :lol:
Ok, being serious...
Can't the NFL actually be sued for creating a monopoly?
That was precisely what I was thinking. I may not give much of a damn about american football games, but costumers should have an option, and this hurts competition greatly.
EA also had the FIFA license for a good while and I had to deal with fake player names in good football games for a long time because of that. I hope something can be done to undo this...
Joshua Luna
14-Dec-2004, 00:30
This is HORRIBLE news.
Game review sites have noted the steady rise in quality of the Visual Concepts NFL2K series. While I personally like Madden better, the reality was that the high quality Football games that VC/Sega were turning out were forcing Madden to continue to innovate and give customers what they want. Further, with the price cuts that Sega did this last year it finally opened the door to some healthy competition. And the MS NFL Fever series was not bad and I thought they were taking time off to possibly make a polished second go on Xbox2.
EA must have paid the NFL a LOT of money (more than what Sega, MS, 939/Sony, etc... were) to get this exclusive.
The dissappointing aspect is that I see a repeat of past EA games here. I have the first version for the PC and SNES and have played every version since, and history tells me when EA has no competition that the Madden line lags badly. If I were a betting man, I would put some serious money that Madden for the new consoles will have pretty graphics and strip a significant chunk of the current game, only to backfill the features in their yearly updates. Basically they will resell us what we already have, just with a prettier package. And the sad part is that there will be no other option to turn to get a comparative product.
This is bad for consumers, and bad for NFL fans. Competition has kept the Madden franchise honest as of late. This is surely a sad day...
Joshua Luna
14-Dec-2004, 00:56
Another thought is that this could lead to some pretty devastating results for MS/Nintendo/Sony/PC if/when EA decides it is not a viable platform. I think everyone remembers what EA did with the Dreamcast.
This puts EA in a position to seek a king's ransom to support a platform unfairly because there wont be any competition. It is a fact that sport's games are a big mover in game systems, and a system without a NFL series is doomed. If VC was allowed to continue with the NFL license I would not see this as a big issue because NFL2k, quality wise, is a solid competitor. Not only do consumers lose because of the lack of competition, but not EA has a serious ace in the hole to use against console makers. Exclusives, even in the form of features, could be a very artificial way to sway support from one platform to another.
I cannot see how this is a good deal for anyone but EA. I would even say in the long run this is bad for the NFL because when EA does not live up to NFL fans standards it will reflect badly on the NFL. Yeah, they make their money, but I know this is a huge turn off for me. While most gamers wont care about the politics, most gamers and review sites will notice the reduction in features and will be sure to note the lack of competition. :x
Acert93:
I would even say in the long run this is bad for the NFL
Hurts the NFL brand, no doubt: since 2K5 had grown the market in sales and also reached a new price point demographic, the only thing that this move does for the NFL brand is limit its exposure.
Can't the NFL actually be sued for creating a monopoly?
:?:
people can still make football games...
you just cant use NFL names.
london-boy
14-Dec-2004, 01:26
Can't the NFL actually be sued for creating a monopoly?
:?:
There is always the EFL (Essex Football League), the HCBFU (Hackney Council Block Football Union)............ :twisted:
Imagine if Sega had gotten the exclusive rights instead...
They could have propelled their ESPN football into an overnight success.
Joshua Luna
14-Dec-2004, 01:50
The Sega franchise, from a critcal standpoint, is a success. The lower cost this year was the first chance many had to actually experience it.
I personally like how Madden plays, but there is no denying that the ESPN series was excellent and screamed polish and innovation.
I honestly feel the NFL name would have been in better hands with Sega than with EA. EA has a history, in general and specifically with the Madden franchise, of repacking the same product. I am actually quite upset about this (and I am a Madden fan). I wonder if this move had anything to do with the EA worker issues. Maybe they knew they were not going to be able to continue pushing their staff insanely hard year after year. This way they have no competition and can have a more relaxed outlook?
Does anyone think this could be good for gamers who are a fan of the NFL? Maybe I am missing something... :?
Wow, if EA goes exclusive to Sony with Madden, Xbox 2 is basically still-born. Yeesh..
Joshua Luna
14-Dec-2004, 03:08
More information from IGN. (http://sports.ign.com/articles/572/572886p1.html) The more I think about it the more it upsets me.
Based on EA's past comments concerning not enough room for 3 consoles, I wonder which one will be affected? My guess would be Nintendo. It was my understanding EA almost dropped Nintendo last year. If Nintendo really has some divergent hardware that is "revolutionary" it could cost too much to support them and thus get ignored. The only positive I see for Nintendo is that they may have a system very similar to the Xbox2 which would mean porting could be easier. But I do not see them dumping Sony because the PS3 will have a big install base. I see this getting ugly fast...
EA and Sony have always been in bed together. I guess the question is now, how blatant do they want to be about it?
marconelly!
14-Dec-2004, 03:43
I don't give a crap about American Football, but I really don't like what EA is doing here :\
There are all kinds of dire predictions, like EA raising the price to $75 and cutting development resources since they no longer have to compete.
Even if there are no other NFL games, they still have to try to win over gaming dollars from other gaming genres.
Regardless of genre, games are fungible.
EA has a high bar for the Madden series, aiming for over 5 million units a year. They don't get that if they just slap the NFL logo on it and doesn't invest in refining the game every year.
EA has exclusive licenses for NASCAR, FIFA and PGA. Is there any evidence that they didn't devote enough resources to developing and improving those games?
More information from IGN. (http://sports.ign.com/articles/572/572886p1.html) The more I think about it the more it upsets me.
Based on EA's past comments concerning not enough room for 3 consoles, I wonder which one will be affected? My guess would be Nintendo. It was my understanding EA almost dropped Nintendo last year. If Nintendo really has some divergent hardware that is "revolutionary" it could cost too much to support them and thus get ignored. The only positive I see for Nintendo is that they may have a system very similar to the Xbox2 which would mean porting could be easier. But I do not see them dumping Sony because the PS3 will have a big install base. I see this getting ugly fast...
Whoa. I don't know where that came from. Perhaps you should understand what you're talking about before making anymore predictions.
Joshua Luna
14-Dec-2004, 04:23
wco81,
EA has been, lets say, less than ambitious with the Madden line at times. There were issues in the 16bit era where they actually had releases get worse and worse. They had a very poor 1st PS release--so bad it was cancelled because 939's GameDay was a LOT better. Even with the year delay Madden was no where as good as GameDay, or maybe even Acclaims football game. They had to claw their way back, the Madden name really saved them. When the PS2 came out they stripped away a ton of features and basically reintroduced them in following years.
It is ironic that EA's decision to not support the DC has come back to bite them. NFL2k series was born out of that spurned relationship. I think any Madden fan can attest to the fact the last 3 years Madden has done MORE to fix problems than ever before. It is not a coincidence that those same 3 years have seen IMMENSE competition from Sega.
So there is evidence that EA would be more than happy to slow down progress. We will never surely know, but the rapid changes over the last few years I think does indicate that competition was GOOD.
Without the competition I am not sure what will happen, but I can say this: It is not good for consumers. Not everyone likes Madden, so why should they be forced to go with Madden? The NFL has a monopoly, and to share the monopoly hurts consumers.
Here is an example: EA refused to do Xbox Live. So MS had Fever and ESPN on Xbox Live. So gamers who wanted to play online COULD with non-EA games. Competition dictated who was successful. Now think about this: There is no more Fever or ESPN. If EA decides it does not like Xbox2 Live, or hates Revolution, gamers will have no other options. I don't tell me EA is above that. EA did it to Sega/DC before, and as this agreement shows they will do anything for competitions sake.
I am 100% for them being successful, just as long as there is competition. History tells us lack of competition breeds complacancy, and EA has demonstrated this as being true with Madden in the past.
Just my opinion... and please note I LIKE Madden games, they are my favoritve football games. But I also appreciated the competition Sega provided, and in the end the NFL and Consumers were winners. Now, only EA and the NFL are winners.
Joshua Luna
14-Dec-2004, 04:38
More information from IGN. (http://sports.ign.com/articles/572/572886p1.html) The more I think about it the more it upsets me.
Based on EA's past comments concerning not enough room for 3 consoles, I wonder which one will be affected? My guess would be Nintendo. It was my understanding EA almost dropped Nintendo last year. If Nintendo really has some divergent hardware that is "revolutionary" it could cost too much to support them and thus get ignored. The only positive I see for Nintendo is that they may have a system very similar to the Xbox2 which would mean porting could be easier. But I do not see them dumping Sony because the PS3 will have a big install base. I see this getting ugly fast...
Whoa. I don't know where that came from. Perhaps you should understand what you're talking about before making anymore predictions.
What do I not understand? That seems like a personal flame with nothing to back it up :roll: Instead of flaming me why not point out what problems you see with my post?
EA has made the comment that they believe that the console market can only support 2 consoles. I remember this very clearly--this was one reason for not supporting the DC. If I have to I can go dig up quotes, but the 3 console concern was and has been a big issue that publishers have had issues with. So I know what I am talking about there--even if you disagree.
As for the Revolution, sites like IGN have noted that if Nintendo goes with some unique design it could further turn off 3rd parties even more. We have already seen Nintendo do this in the past (N64 anyone?) As for the EA issues, IGN had noted the troubled relationship last year and how shortly after Nintendo and EA reached a deal for like 19 new games. Since EA games like Madden do not do very well on the Cube I think it is pretty clear Nintendo most likely paid EA (that is speculation... there being issues is not as reported by IGN).
Anyhow, broad comments like "you should understand what you're talking about before making anymore predictions" that insinuate someone does not know what they are talking about are rude. At least give me the respect of pointing out my error. I can take constructive criticism :)
EA has exclusive licenses for NASCAR, FIFA and PGA. Is there any evidence that they didn't devote enough resources to developing and improving those games?
I don´t know about NASCAR and PGA (golf doesn´t interest me and NASCAR....is NASCAR), however FIFA has continually improved due to Konami´s much better football franchise Winning Eleven continously winning over fans and gaining notoriety everywhere.
It´s also not the same situation as with the NFL deal, since Konami lately has been able to get many of the names of national teams, official uniforms and a few leagues in their games, so it hasn´t hurt gamers that bad the fact that EA has the rights to the FIFA name.
Either way, I´m with marconelly on this one. I sure as heck don´t give a damn about american football, however, this is a very coward act by EA that affects consumers directly.
I'm now fully expecting a NFL Vietnam, a NFL Underground, a Need for Speed NFL and so on, in order to cover the cost of the enormous money hat they gave to the NFL.
Also, i'm expecting the NFL to stop any form of improvement too.
I remember an EA producer saying the Visual Concept serie forced them to work harder on Madden, because VC was, each years, raising the bar... *Sigh*
Riddlewire
14-Dec-2004, 05:57
I don't understand why you're all complaining.
This is GREAT news.
This opens the door for the return of TECMO BOWL to consoles! :D
If Nintendo really has some divergent hardware that is "revolutionary" it could cost too much to support them and thus get ignored."
What do I not understand? That seems like a personal flame with nothing to back it up :roll: Instead of flaming me why not point out what problems you see with my post?
You have absolutely no information about Nintendo's next hardware platform nor EA's plans for it. Yet you are lamenting poor Nintendo's chances to be supported by EA? And you call that a flame?
Readykilowatt
14-Dec-2004, 06:57
Another thought is that this could lead to some pretty devastating results for MS/<snip>/Sony/PC if/when EA decides it is not a viable platform.
Nintendo has Mario Tennis, Mario Golf, etc. ;)
I think everyone remembers what EA did with the Dreamcast.
The Dreamcast failed primarily because of Sega's ineptitude not because of a lack of support from EA.
Joshua Luna
14-Dec-2004, 09:35
The post you quote builds off my thoughts on my second post. Rereading my post it does come across more as a prediction and less as a concern/speculation. For that I apologize. I did say that "If" Nintendo's new hardware is revolutionary as Nintendo is claiming and is divergent this would be an issue--and I still think it could be. You claim I did not know what I was talking about, but I beg to differ. :) That if is based upon 2 things: (1) Nintendo's history and (2) Nintendo's own statements. Lets deal with them individually.
(1) Nintendo's history. Nintendo has a habit of doing things their own way, whether 3rd party developers like it or not. ROMs on the N64 anyone? Even recently Nintendo has pushed connectivity with the GBA. EA is very much about cross platform publishing and these type of issues do cause difficulties.
(2) Nintendo's own statements about the Revolution fuel this speculation that they will be doing something different--as history shows they have a tendancy to do. Nintendo is calling it the Revolution for a reason. Nintendo has lamented about how the advancement of technology will not make better games and that the key to the future is not better graphics but instead innovative technologies that progresses gameplay. This is Nintendo speaking here, not me. Revolution is supposedly, according to Nintendo, bring some type of new gameplay experience. This could make porting a bit harder... we do not know, but it is a concern that has been expressed.
So while speculative, it is no more so than is common on these boards; at least it is founded in the companies own statements and an evaluation of a track record. And this is not unique speculation, game sites like cube.ign.com have the same concern and they are very well aquianted with the concerns and such of developers. So just because I do not know what will make the Revolution different does not mean I do not know what I am talking about as you accuse. All I am doing is looking at the consequences of the EA / NFL deal and I think it is valid to consider the impact it will have on the industry based on past dealing and what we know about the future.
The fact Nintendo's own statements indicate they will be doing something different, just as they did with ROMs, GBA connectivity, and the DS, is enough to move onto the next point--EA has raised the concern of supporting 3 consoles on the market at the same time. Since EA makes the most money by developing one product and porting it to numerous platforms, if the Revolution is significantly different that will cause problems. My logic is:
• If EA thinks 3 consoles is too many to support +
• Revolution being different conceptually from the Xbox2/PS3 =
• What?
Now the X factor: EA sports game sell far worse on the Nintendo platform compared to the Sony and MS platforms. When you pull all the points above together it would seem that my concern is valid. I did not say EA would drop support, but I did raise the concern. Considering EA's feelings about a 3 console market and the issues facing developers with more complex games and rising development costs it would be stupid not to consider the ramifications of this agreement. For the points listed above Nintendo would be a likely target if EA needed to focus development and drop a console. I never said they would, but it is a concern. Why? To refer back to IGN again, last year there were concerns about EA. As noted, EA's extremely poor sales of their sports series on GCN are no secret. You go where the money is, and right now (sadly imo) that is not the Nintendo system for many 3rd party developers including EA.
Anyhow, back to my point. "If" EA decides not to support the next Nintendo--or Sony or MS--system, it would be devastating with this exclusive. Sports video games accounted for more than 20 percent ($1.2 billion) of the $5.8 billion video game market last year. If you lose Madden, by far the largest sports franchise on the market, you alienate the Sports Gamers which compose 20% of the video game sales. Before this agreement, if a company lost EA support they always had another option. That is no longer the case. This deal also puts a premimium on features. When EA would no do Xbox Live, MS still had Fever and ESPN. Looking forward, if EA does not support a feature on a platform the only option is to live without or purchase the other platform. And this goes back to my original point--While EA has not done anything illegal, it is anti-competitive and hurts consumers. This is exactly how the Take Two feels. In a statement, (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/sportsbusiness/news/story?id=1945691) Take-Two spokesman Ed Nebb said:
"We believe that the decisions of the National Football League and Players Inc. to grant an exclusive license for videogames do a tremendous disservice to the consumers and sports fans whose funds ultimately support the NFL, by limiting their choices, curbing creativity and almost certainly leading to higher game prices."
I would agree with this statement.
Thank you for clarifying what you took issue with in your response. Hopefully I have clarified my concerns. I was not trying to predict the future--so I probably presented what I said wrongly and that is my fault. I guess I was writing it more as a concern than a prediction... but I can see how that post alone, especially with how I worded it, can be taken that way. Maybe the above helps you understand where I am coming from. Btw, The example need not be Nintendo (although if EA ever did decide to drop support of a console I would bet, based on the current situation, that it would be Nintendo at this point). My main concern is that this deal not only limits consumer choice and stagnates competition, all negatives from the consumer standpoint, this deal also puts a new twist on the publisher/console maker relationship. If EA does not like Sony's new gaming network, for example, they could only give online support to MS and Nintendo. And since no one else can have the NFL license Sony would be in a bad position. As a consumer I do not like this. It is even scarier that EA may be looking at NBA and MLB exclusives.
I am sorry if my first response to you was a little harsh or rash btw. I apologize.
EA's NBA Street V3 is going to sell well on GC (Up left corner):
http://www.ebgames.com/ebx_assets/product_images/246574.jpg
Mario plays BBall with his homies! That's gonna sell fo'shizzy!
Joshua Luna
14-Dec-2004, 10:29
Oh man, I want to see Mario school MJ! Mario and his yellow cape, now that is hang time!
london-boy
14-Dec-2004, 10:30
EA's NBA Street V3 is going to sell well on GC (Up left corner):
http://www.ebgames.com/ebx_assets/product_images/246574.jpg
Mario plays BBall with his homies! That's gonna sell fo'shizzy!
:shock: :shock: They put Mario even in that game!!! Unbelievable!!! Then poeple get surprised when other people say (1)Nintendo can only live off Mario and Zelda...
Titanio
14-Dec-2004, 11:16
EA's NBA Street V3 is going to sell well on GC (Up left corner):
http://www.ebgames.com/ebx_assets/product_images/246574.jpg
Mario plays BBall with his homies! That's gonna sell fo'shizzy!
:shock: :shock: They put Mario even in that game!!! Unbelievable!!! Then poeple get surprised when other people say (1)Nintendo can only live off Mario and Zelda...
And Pokemon. No doubt about it, Pokemon, Mario and Zelda are the three jewels in Nintendo's crown, commercially. But they've plenty of other IP that sells well.
Even mario bb will be better than most of the ea games . They haven't made a good basketball game since 1995 on the super nes ! lets not even tlak about hocky
london-boy
14-Dec-2004, 12:29
Even mario bb will be better than most of the ea games . They haven't made a good basketball game since 1995 on the super nes ! lets not even tlak about hocky
Ok so instead of making a normal BB game, with normal people, that plays exactly the same, and much better than EA BB games (i don't play those, so let's just assume they just are better) they HAVE TO put Mario in it........ Riiight.....
Nobody liked Court Side so that says a lot about GCN owners basketball titles when it comes to the simulation aspect. Personally I'm more worried about the look of Vol 3 than anything, but a movie would easily show whether or not the style works for it.
EA shows its true colors with a business move like this. Acert93 laid out what madden franchise has been doing for years with the rehashing of features and gameplay. Though my thoughts on the nintendo situation. Next to Rockstar I can't think of a company that dislikes nintendo more than EA. The memory card situation was utter crap this and last generation. Other developers have learned to deal with space issues on the memory, yet two generations in a row this is still an issue. Marginal ports for cube and xbox titles is it any wonder the PS2 is their best selling system.
Even mario bb will be better than most of the ea games . They haven't made a good basketball game since 1995 on the super nes ! lets not even tlak about hocky
Ok so instead of making a normal BB game, with normal people, that plays exactly the same, and much better than EA BB games (i don't play those, so let's just assume they just are better) they HAVE TO put Mario in it........ Riiight.....
Hey , They should make grand theft mario too . YOu can never have to many games staring an italian !
Nick Laslett
14-Dec-2004, 13:08
Sony have got the exclusive licence for Formula 1.
But there have been a couple of Formula 1 games that used last years info, this seems to be a neat workaround.
Maybe they can do the same with NFL and use last seasons team sheets.
EA have had FIFA exclusivity for years, but other soccer games are still released.
Surely it is the way the game plays, not the official names that is important?
london-boy
14-Dec-2004, 13:36
Sony have got the exclusive licence for Formula 1.
But there have been a couple of Formula 1 games that used last years info, this seems to be a neat workaround.
Maybe they can do the same with NFL and use last seasons team sheets.
EA have had FIFA exclusivity for years, but other soccer games are still released.
Surely it is the way the game plays, not the official names that is important?
Hey, that would be the logical theory.
But hey, in the last couple of years PES finally outsold FIFA so i guess Mr Joe finally learned the lesson.
Mario is cool but I'm more for online play in Vol. 3. My guess is no online play in the GC version.
EA has supported GC even when sales of the GC versions of their sports games have lagged far behind.
As for FIFA and PES, I thought FIFA was still the best-seller in Europe because of those licenses?
I once saw a French documentary about technology in the developing world and they showed all these kids huddled around the only TV in a village and they were playing FIFA. The appeal of those teams and stars was all they cared about, not the subtleties of gameplay.
london-boy
14-Dec-2004, 17:32
Mario is cool but I'm more for online play in Vol. 3. My guess is no online play in the GC version.
EA has supported GC even when sales of the GC versions of their sports games have lagged far behind.
As for FIFA and PES, I thought FIFA was still the best-seller in Europe because of those licenses?
I once saw a French documentary about technology in the developing world and they showed all these kids huddled around the only TV in a village and they were playing FIFA. The appeal of those teams and stars was all they cared about, not the subtleties of gameplay.
That's true, and it was true until PES outsold FIFA. Which showed not only that players are getting smarter, but that video game players are getting older.
Though my thoughts on the nintendo situation. Next to Rockstar I can't think of a company that dislikes nintendo more than EA.
Wrong, actually EA is one of Nintendos biggest supporters they titles may not sell as well but it is profitable for them.
Why do you think EA dislikes Nintendo?
Look at it this way most major third parties have dropped GCN completly (rockstar, eidos), but all of EAs major games are on both nintendo platforms.
EA has healthy support of the new DS system, healthy GBA support, they supported the N64 and still support the Gamcube very well.
What if...
The next ESPN football game, with made up characters and personas is even more involving, fun and creative than Madden NFL.
They would need a good ad campain and some features to influence people to forget about these "real" NFL players.
But we could see a major change for the better. Where the NFL gets punished for it's choice to allow exclusivity and EA gets beaten with a non-NFL game.
ESPN would have to beef up their player creation system and continue to improve the gameplay.
But I don't see this as a nail in the coffin, it might even force more innovation from pissed off developers, who says..we'll show ya what we can do with "made up" characters.
Speng.
Joshua Luna
14-Dec-2004, 21:11
Those are some good ideas. Maybe Sega will develop a College-Professional series that emphasizes a total career aspect. Giving players indepth personalities that affect how they play with some more excellent presentation etc... the question is it would be a lot of financial investment and questionable returns. Maybe Sega could get an NCAA exclusive?
Gamespot (http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/12/13/news_6114977.html) has a good article on this. I thought this quote was funny:
"I really respect them, but the consumer really loses," one analyst told GameSpot. "EA is both evil and really smart."
I find it interesting that the NFLPA made reporters retract statements about this deal being in the works in the spring. Funny how it was true all along, yet they denied it to the point of forcing magazines to retract the statements concerning a possible exclusive deal.
From what I read it seems not even ESPN/Sega can make a NFL game...
These five-year agreements -- which EA negotiated separately -- give EA the exclusive rights to the NFL teams, stadiums and players for use in its football videogames. Both agreements also include exclusive rights for console online features.
In addition to player names, it looks like EA got the rights to the team names and stadiums too. How can you have an NFL game without the team names? I seriously doubt ESPN or Sega will even get to use the word "NFL" in its game title. "ESPN Pro Football 2K6" just doesn't sound like a good game. Whoever said bring back Tecmo Bowl is right. ;)
Also, no more online roster updates for non-EA games. No wonder Microsoft shutdown their sports titles.
Tommy McClain
Inane_Dork
14-Dec-2004, 21:55
What if...
The next ESPN football game, with made up characters and personas is even more involving, fun and creative than Madden NFL.I'll tell you "what if." EA would run them into the dirt with PR and Sega would stay there.
Casual gamers, almost the entire football fanbase I'm guessing, want to play as the NFL stars. It's a nice thought, and I wish it would work, but I doubt it very, very much.
wco81,
EA has been, lets say, less than ambitious with the Madden line at times. There were issues in the 16bit era where they actually had releases get worse and worse. They had a very poor 1st PS release--so bad it was cancelled because 939's GameDay was a LOT better. Even with the year delay Madden was no where as good as GameDay, or maybe even Acclaims football game. They had to claw their way back, the Madden name really saved them. When the PS2 came out they stripped away a ton of features and basically reintroduced them in following years.
It is ironic that EA's decision to not support the DC has come back to bite them. NFL2k series was born out of that spurned relationship. I think any Madden fan can attest to the fact the last 3 years Madden has done MORE to fix problems than ever before. It is not a coincidence that those same 3 years have seen IMMENSE competition from Sega.
So there is evidence that EA would be more than happy to slow down progress. We will never surely know, but the rapid changes over the last few years I think does indicate that competition was GOOD.
Without the competition I am not sure what will happen, but I can say this: It is not good for consumers. Not everyone likes Madden, so why should they be forced to go with Madden? The NFL has a monopoly, and to share the monopoly hurts consumers.
Here is an example: EA refused to do Xbox Live. So MS had Fever and ESPN on Xbox Live. So gamers who wanted to play online COULD with non-EA games. Competition dictated who was successful. Now think about this: There is no more Fever or ESPN. If EA decides it does not like Xbox2 Live, or hates Revolution, gamers will have no other options. I don't tell me EA is above that. EA did it to Sega/DC before, and as this agreement shows they will do anything for competitions sake.
I am 100% for them being successful, just as long as there is competition. History tells us lack of competition breeds complacancy, and EA has demonstrated this as being true with Madden in the past.
Just my opinion... and please note I LIKE Madden games, they are my favoritve football games. But I also appreciated the competition Sega provided, and in the end the NFL and Consumers were winners. Now, only EA and the NFL are winners.
Isn't the NFL2k team the old EA madden team from the genesis days? What where they doing for the rest of the 90s? I guess it took EA a while to replace the dev team they lost.
EA still has yet to replace the team they lost. This is tragic news. EA is a dirty underhanded company and I may opt to never support them again. Not that it will matter much if I go that route. I will post more mon my thoughts of this tomorrow.
THere is nothing dirty about it. THe NFL and the NFLPA solicited bids from several other companies. So EA had to bid to win, unless they wanted to kiss their NFL games goodbye.
It's what every other company would have done. Now, I understand there is some resentment against EA for their practice of gobbling up promising developers.
But EA doesn't owe anyone but their shareholders anything. This is a ruthless move but it's also a rational business decision. They have a lot of money tied up in their NFL games so they had to win the bid.
Now it's not good for consumers but EA like every other company in the industry is out to make money.
EA still has yet to replace the team they lost. This is tragic news. EA is a dirty underhanded company and I may opt to never support them again. Not that it will matter much if I go that route. I will post more mon my thoughts of this tomorrow.
Does EA have dev teams in the normal sense? They always seem to buy out companies(like westwood), and then fire all the employees and close the company. I assume they keep a good amount of people around though, and that maybe they shift employees from project to project as needed, and there is no Madden team, or Medal of Honor team, or what not since the people involved are always changing.
BTW, how high do you think EA would have gone with the bidding for the NFL license? Would it have been a level that sega couldn't afford, even with the massively increased sales to their football games it would bring in the future years?
EA does have a Madden team. They are EA Tiburon in Florida.
One thing ominous that Larry Probst said was that they will try to bring along all their development staff to the new generation, training where necessary but some of them won't be able to make the transition.
CNN has a column on this deal where they report the rumor that EA paid between $300 to $500 million for this 5-year deal.
With the only NFL game now, EA could affect next gen market share if they chose to award exclusivity. Their business model is obviously to be on all platforms but if MS or Sony paid for exclusivity...
Joshua Luna
15-Dec-2004, 06:10
THere is nothing dirty about it... Now it's not good for consumers but EA like every other company in the industry is out to make money.
I agree wco91. EA did a smart business thing, but I do believe for many reasons this is a bad deal for the consumer because of the many reasons pointed out before. One thing I would say though is that while EA is accountable to their shareholders, public opinion is important also. While this alone may not turn people against them, the more things they do to hurt publical opinion of their company could hurt sales, and therefore shareholders.
Although I am a realist. I may boycot Madden, but I expect this to pay HUGE dividens for shareholders. Madden 2006 will do substantually better than 2005. I would even guess that 2006 is a better game to "prove" they deserved the license. The average consumer really loves Madden and this was a good move for EA. In my opinion it hurts consumers, and that is why I am upset. Oh well, I am replacable with all the NFL fans who bought ESPN who now have no choice but to by Madden now :) I know how this works... but I am not happy about it.
Inane_Dork
15-Dec-2004, 09:03
Chances EA will demand money to release each version of Madden 2006: 1/1
So that pretty much means it'll only be roster upgrades in the next 5 years? I cannot imagine EA trying hard anymore after that deal.
Joshua Luna
15-Dec-2004, 22:15
Interesting, DICE stockholders rejected the EA bid to buy them out:
http://www.gamesarefun.com/news.php?newsid=4026
Who knows, maybe since BF is a online game maybe they want to go the Steam route and make more fo the pie? Maybe the stock holders think BF can be a massive franchise? Dunno... interesting none the less.
Who knows, maybe since BF is a online game maybe they want to go the Steam route and make more fo the pie? Maybe the stock holders think BF can be a massive franchise? Dunno... interesting none the less.
Or maybe someone finally looked at what happened to all the other formerly great developers EA swallowed up, put two and two together, and told them to where to stick their takeover bid.
http://sports.ign.com/articles/573/573544p1.html
http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/7361/Midway-Announces-Blitz-Playmakers/
Looks like we won't have to suffer with nobody releasing non-EA pro football games.
The Midway game sounds cool. I also like the idea of a HOF or another NCAA game. I hope this NFL deal EA got comes to bite them in the ass.
Tommy McClain
Well if you want Xenon to do well, you would want the version of Madden which launches with Xenon to do well, help sell systems.
Interesting, DICE stockholders rejected the EA bid to buy them out:
http://www.gamesarefun.com/news.php?newsid=4026
Who knows, maybe since BF is a online game maybe they want to go the Steam route and make more fo the pie? Maybe the stock holders think BF can be a massive franchise? Dunno... interesting none the less.
yes! this is a good news. :) when their board of directors decided to accept the deal, there was _A LOT_ of discussion on the net about old EA devs that had experienced something what I don't call constructive working enviroment. Maybe that had something do with this.
(I admit that also I used all my connections that might have contact at DICE to deliver message NOT to accept the deal or DICE is going to be dead sooner or later. So, I do care about the business in all nordic countries. besides, DICE is "a flipper legend." :) )
there's no dev house that would have been suvived alive from EA. Even Maxis, though it's part of the EA, isn't anymore the same. quite lot of ppl have left or given flag to go.
Well if you want Xenon to do well, you would want the version of Madden which launches with Xenon to do well, help sell systems.
True. You got a point, but I still don't like the idea behind this deal. Only way for this to be good for the consumer is for EA to loose the contract and allow other companies compete against them. I doubt it will happen though.
Tommy McClain
I've been thinking how important are the names/faces really? EA also holds the FIFA license exclusively (for many years now), yet real football (soccer) fans always claim that Winning Eleven (Pro Evolution Soccer) is the better game anyway.
If ESPN is sneaky they are gonna make all characters fully editable, data with all characters faces and names will leak to the net in no time.
Joshua Luna
16-Dec-2004, 22:09
I think the Mailbag idea about a All-Pro game would be a good move; also focusing on NCAA. They could even allow their players to graduate to their own pro league, which in the long run would be very fun.
And if they keep the game open to outside information from the community I am sure all the player rankings and names could be imported. The question is does SEGA want to try it... I think they may give it a go since 2006 was already in the works... we will see. Competition is good.
see colon
17-Dec-2004, 07:34
someone should make a football game like pro race drive/toca race driver, where the sport is only half of the game, and a "i need to find out who kiled my dad" type drama story unfolds in the background. or maybe something like what tecmo did with beach vollyball.
anyway, don't some (or all) of the espn sports titles use renderware (now owned by EA) anyway? so effectivly buying an espn/sega sports title was like buying an AMD cpu. your money goes to the competition eventualy.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.