EA, cowardly moves... NFL is now EAs for 5 years...

[Acert93]

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.

 

[Acert93]

More information from IGN. 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 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

 

[Almasy]

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.

 

[Farid]

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]

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!

 

[Tuttle]

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 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]

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.

 

[Acert93]

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, 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.

 

[Farid]

EA's NBA Street V3 is going to sell well on GC (Up left corner):

Mario plays BBall with his homies! That's gonna sell fo'shizzy!

 

[Acert93]

Oh man, I want to see Mario school MJ! Mario and his yellow cape, now that is hang time!

 

[London Geezer]

EA's NBA Street V3 is going to sell well on GC (Up left corner):

Mario plays BBall with his homies! That's gonna sell fo'shizzy!

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]

EA's NBA Street V3 is going to sell well on GC (Up left corner):

Mario plays BBall with his homies! That's gonna sell fo'shizzy!

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.

 

[jvd]

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 Geezer]

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.....

 

[theafu]

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.

 

[jvd]

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]

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 Geezer]

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.

 

[wco81]

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 Geezer]

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.