EA now owns all things NFLPA

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:50 pm

fsquid wrote:EA hasn't been to the OS board in years. Its all 989, VC, High Voltage cats there. EA has never cared about the hardcore gamer.

That could be because their servers might not say

ELECTRONIC ARTS

In the contact information in regards to their IP.

EA also has a pretty tight grip on their employees when it comes to the internet. People have been fired for saying things about game they were not supposed to leak. That does not mean they do not surf these sites from work and/or at home. As much as I hate EA right now they visit these sites, they know what the hardcore gamer wants. Yet what the hardcore gamer wants does not translate into the most $ per SKU.

Post by **Jared** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:53 pm

bdoughty wrote: Speaking of now is the time

One might add that owners of certain websites dedicated to sports gaming should utilize their home pages with LARGE Banners stating that they and their members are PRO-Competition. Linking to these petitions and asking for people to sign them. Also using space to provide the contacts provided in this thread asking for everyone who visits to contact these people.

Just pondering outloud. If the owner has an intrest I will gladly make a nice batch of anti-EA NFL Monopoly banners.

Let me think about something like this. One thing we've always been known for here is objectivity in our reviews, and I wouldn't want anything to taint that.

At the same time, this is a site for sports gamers....and this deal is simply HORRIBLE for sports gamers. And advocacy against exclusive licenses is only a good thing, IMO.

If people have ideas for how DSP should address this (if at all), I'm open to suggestions. Even though we're not IGN here, we are a voice and our voice might make a difference.

Kazuya · Post by **Kazuya** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:56 pm

You guys are cracking me up with your outrage at EA while giving the NFL and NFLPA a free pass. I am definitely going to write the NFL a brief note, but I am not going to embarrass myself by writing a letter to EA saying, "Hey EA. Please stop trying to maximize your profits." When Jerry Jones forced me to drink Pepsi at Texas Stadium, I got mad at Jerry not f***in Pepsi.

I'm upset that the NFL would choose to accept this deal because the NFL is utlimately responsible for any product that bears their license. The *NFL* decided that this deal would go down, not EA. s***, even Take Two blames the NFL.

I will write a brief note to the NFL and then I will be done with it. Ultimately, it's just a game. If Madden sucks then I will pop in Front Mission 4 or some other game. My outrage will probably subside as quickly as my Pepsi/TS outrage did.

Programmed2Kill · Post by **Programmed2Kill** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:00 pm

What the f**k???

What's next...EA is going to buy out Steinbrenner and the Yanks?!?!?!

Thanks a bunch, EA

MUTTS · Post by **MUTTS** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:10 pm

Now that I'm 35, I seem to enjoy spending some time playing games like OOTP and Dave Koch's ActionPC football (a pretty fun game I may add).

In that mode, it would be cool to have a video game thats fully customizable where you can create the league, league size, cities involved, unis, stadiums, etc. However it would have to kick ass in all of these areas to sell. Then we'd have a football game similar to the fictional leagues many of us like to create on the PC. Its a dream I know and would likely never sell.

To reiterate what the rest of you have said- this blows.... For all of the above mentioned reasons.
Tony

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:27 pm

Kazuya wrote:I'm upset that the NFL would choose to accept this deal because the NFL is utlimately responsible for any product that bears their license. The *NFL* decided that this deal would go down, not EA. s***, even Take Two blames the NFL.

You're right, but there's absolutely no way in hell that the NFL initiated this deal. EA did.

Think about it: The NFL will earn a huge licensing fee, which is nice. But other than that, there's no motivation for them to grant exclusivity. If 20 million football games were sold this year, this deal won't cause 25 million football games to be sold next year, and the licensing fee isn't commission-based, I'm guessing. It's a flat fee, regardless of whether EA sells 20 million or 200 million copies of Madden per year.

There probably will be 20 million football games sold again next year, but all 20 million will have the EA label on it. So the incentive, both short- and long-term, is for EA to initiate this deal.

But yes, the NFL has to approve the deal. No sh*t. But this also is a no-lose, no-risk proposition for the NFL. It's not like the NFL is shafting its customers who are gamers by granting this license to an upstart with a lot of cash and no track record of producing games. EA does and has produced damn good pro football games that are the market leaders in sales and are played by way more NFL players than any other title.

So it was a no-brainer decision for the NFL. It's not responsible for ensuring a quality videogame created through competition in the marketplace. It's responsible for administering a professional football league and earning lots of money.

Now, EA also is responsible for earning lots of money. But it also is responsible for continuing to innovate and create quality products that sell like hell. Everyone knows the best way to create quality products is through competition.

EA just snuffed its competition and can just coast its way to easy sales without competition-bred innovation, as it knows NFL gaming is the most popular segment of sports gaming, by far. We're all NFL gaming lemmings, and we'll all buy Madden next year regardless of our outrage tonight. So you bet your ass I consider EA more culpable than the NFL when it comes to shabby treatment of videogamers.

The NFL is a football company; EA is a videogaming company. So who is more responsible for videogame customers?

Pretty easy choice, if you ask me, and it's why EA is more culpable for giving sports gamers the shaft here.

And it's why your Pepsi analogy is off. Jerry Jones is responsible for the welfare and happiness of his customers at Texas Stadium because he owns the team; Pepsi is not. EA is responsible for the quality and happiness of football videogaming customers because it's a videogaming company; the NFL is not.

Take care,
PK

blueduke · Post by **blueduke** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:33 pm

Hopefully MS and Sony have not sent out their next gen dev kits to the EA yet. EA shot both MS and Sony in the back with this. I hope they both boycott EA for upcoming system. Let EA survive on the Gamecube and PC

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:35 pm

I'm pretty sure the NFL license is based on a percentage of game sales.

Before this generation, football games were not selling millions of copies. In fact, last year, I believe NFL Street was the only other football game to hit a million.

So it would be stupid for the NFL to take a flat licensing fee, since the number of sales is unknown. They probably get a minimum and a percentage of gross sales.

Neither the EA nor the NFL has any responsibility to gamers, unless those gamers own EA stock or are taxpayers in Green Bay where the municipality owns the team.

You may own ERTS in your 401k for all you know.

At the end of this deal, EA may find that the deal wasn't worth it, just as NBC decided it wasn't worth what they paid for the NFL, NBA and Olympics broadcasting rights.

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:36 pm

I thought this was pretty funny. Someone over at IGN made a Madden 2006 cover.

http://students.uat.edu/ryamccab/images/madden2006.jpg

Fear our wallet...

Sully · Post by **Sully** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:38 pm

blueduke wrote:Hopefully MS and Sony have not sent out their next gen dev kits to the EA yet. EA shot both MS and Sony in the back with this. I hope they both boycott EA for upcoming system. Let EA survive on the Gamecube and PC

Good point, but highly unlikely.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:44 pm

Someone asked on OS if it was ESPN with the exclusive license, would they be condemning it as well.

One guy said it would be okay if ESPN had it because they have more upside.

Hmm...

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:47 pm

wco81 wrote:Someone asked on OS if it was ESPN with the exclusive license, would they be condemning it as well.

One guy said it would be okay if ESPN had it because they have more upside.

Hmm...

woah

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:49 pm

wco81 wrote:Someone asked on OS if it was ESPN with the exclusive license, would they be condemning it as well.

One guy said it would be okay if ESPN had it because they have more upside.

Hmm...

Not really a fair comparison or a logical question as Sega does not have the money to do something like that and their history has shown they do not do business this way. EA is like having a brother who kicks your ass everyday for no good reason. Sega is like having a weak brother who gets beat up alot. They are both you brothers but you feel differently for them.

Sure I would still be pissed if the shoe was on the other foot Sega does not do business that way. Unlike EA, Sega has not been purchasing every company under the sun lately. Just look at the companies and licenses they have bought out. They even ruined the great name that was Goldeneye.

GOLDENEYE.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:49 pm

JRod wrote:Sega might not be able to sue, but what about a class action lawsuit.

I'm not a lawyer but surely that decreases competition. I wish sports gamers would try a class action lawsuit or something. Becuase we should not be at the mecy of EA Sports.

Unlikely. Think about what we are talking about here. A union and a private business have sold an exclusive license to use their intellectual property rights. Happens every day on scales large and small.

Destroying your competition fairly isn't prima facie anti-competitive behavior in the eyes of even the most proactive Justice Department.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:50 pm

wco81 wrote:Someone asked on OS if it was ESPN with the exclusive license, would they be condemning it as well.

One guy said it would be okay if ESPN had it because they have more upside.

Hmm...

Well, that guy is a fool. Any exclusive deal is bad for gamers, regardless of the holder of the deal.

Take care,
PK

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:52 pm

bdoughty wrote:I thought this was pretty funny. Someone over at IGN made a Madden 2006 cover.

http://students.uat.edu/ryamccab/images/madden2006.jpg

Fear our wallet...

Very funny. But please, don't send the image to Trudy Muller at EA as proof that gamers are pissed.

EA probably would hunt down the kid and sue him for copyright infringement.

Take care,
PK

HockeyJock · Post by **HockeyJock** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:54 pm

pk500 wrote:
____________________________________________________________

Man, I better bone up on playing Madden. I'm so out of touch with that franchise it's comical. Now for the $1 million question: Do I ditch ESPN NFL 2K5 so I can pick up a copy of Madden 2005 on the double-cheap, or do I get Madden 2005 at $30 and keep ESPN NFL 2K5 as a keepsake, the last legitimate NFL game Sega will ever make?

_____________________________________________________________

Pk, on the bright side, Walmart is selling Madden 2005 for only $19.82!!

Here is the link:

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product. ... id=2553917

I live in the Chicago area and picked it up on Saturday. I am very happy with ESPN but for that price I said "what the heck"!

Kazuya · Post by **Kazuya** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:54 pm

pk500 wrote:You're right, but there's absolutely no way in hell that the NFL initiated this deal. EA did.

Antd there's no way in hell that EA signed the deal, the NFL did.

pk500 wrote:Think about it: The NFL will earn a huge licensing fee, which is nice. But other than that, there's no motivation for them to grant exclusivity. If 20 million football games were sold this year, this deal won't cause 25 million football games to be sold next year, and the licensing fee isn't commission-based, I'm guessing. It's a flat fee, regardless of whether EA sells 20 million or 200 million copies of Madden per year.

There probably will be 20 million football games sold again next year, but all 20 million will have the EA label on it. So the incentive, both short- and long-term, is for EA to initiate this deal.

Who do those guys think they are, making smart business decisions? Bad EA! Stop trying to make money!

pk500 wrote:But yes, the NFL has to approve the deal. No sh*t. But this also is a no-lose, no-risk proposition for the NFL. It's not like the NFL is shafting its customers who are gamers by granting this license to an upstart with a lot of cash and no track record of producing games.

If they aren't shafting their customers then why are we having this disucussion? They very much are shafting their customers, and they did it of their own free will, no matter how much you try to exonerate them.

It's also a no-lose, no-risk proposition for EA, but they don't get that consideration. Yet you give the NFL a free pass because it's no risk. Hey as long as it makes sense to you.

pk500 wrote:EA does and has produced damn good pro football games that are the market leaders in sales and are played by way more NFL players than any other title.

So it was a no-brainer decision for the NFL. It's not responsible for ensuring a quality videogame created through competition in the marketplace. It's responsible for administering a professional football league and earning lots of money.

EA is not responsible for ensuring competition in the marketplace. They are responsible for making video games and earning lots of money. Why anyone would think otherwise is baffling.

pk500 wrote:Now, EA also is responsible for earning lots of money. But it also is responsible for continuing to innovate and create quality products that sell like hell. Everyone knows the best way to create quality products is through competition.

According to who exactly? You're going to write a letter to a billion dollar company telling them to stop stepping on the little guy? To tell them how to make money? I think they're doing fine without your help.

pk500 wrote:EA just snuffed its competition, so you bet your ass I consider them more culpable than the NFL when it comes to treatment of videogamers.

EA doesn't have the power to snuff the competition. Only the NFL does.

pk500 wrote:The NFL is a football company; EA is a videogaming company. So who is more responsible for videogame customers?

Obviously the NFL. Can EA make an NFL video game without the NFL's say so? The NFL and the NFL alone is responsible for *NFL* video games because they are the ones who have the power.

pk500 wrote:Pretty easy choice, if you ask me, and it's why EA is more culpable for giving sports gamers the shaft here.

And it's why your Pepsi analogy is off. Jerry Jones is responsible for the welfare and happiness of his customers at Texas Stadium because he owns the team; Pepsi is not. EA is responsible for the quality and happiness of football videogaming customers because it's a videogaming company; the NFL is not.

No my analogy is correct. I challenge you to find one real life example where you would blame the person who offered the deal over the person who signed it. Only people's anti-EA feelings make this even an issue. Hell, the definition of a contract automatically at least implicatest the NFL for half of the responsibility, but for some reason all of the fanboys are mad at EA. I'm not thrilled with EA at the moment, but the NFL has the final say so on all of their products. The NFL decided that for the next five years, only EA will make their games. Therefore, my beef is with them.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:58 pm

RobVarak wrote:
JRod wrote:Sega might not be able to sue, but what about a class action lawsuit.

I'm not a lawyer but surely that decreases competition. I wish sports gamers would try a class action lawsuit or something. Becuase we should not be at the mecy of EA Sports.
Unlikely. Think about what we are talking about here. A union and a private business have sold an exclusive license to use their intellectual property rights. Happens every day on scales large and small.

Destroying your competition fairly isn't prima facie anti-competitive behavior in the eyes of even the most proactive Justice Department.

It is when by having this deal it eliminates compeition. How can any game company compete adequately in this area. Again, I'm not an anti-trust lawyer but maybe someone should call Elliot Spitzer.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:58 pm

Kazuya wrote: Only people's anti-EA feelings make this even an issue. .

I think people have anti EA feelings because of issues like these.

Anytime competition is removed from the market...the consumer suffers...has nothing to do with EA love or hate.

I took a shot at the NFL much earlier in this thread.
I cant stand this deal or the deal they made with Direct TV....both are huge kicks to my NFL nuts.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:01 pm

Dear Mr. McCarthy,

This deal with Electronics Arts is going to kill sports video games. You have entered into a partnership with a company that shows a horrendous disregard for their most loyal patrons. In their history of making sports games they have shown, with consistency, that without competition they become lazy, unimaginative and any innovations they promise are not kept.

In terms of competition, without proper licensing no other game will be able to compete with EA’s offering. While the NFL and EA might be happy with this agreement, the fans, your fans, are not happy with the end result.

I’m sure in your research and talks with EA, the name of their competitor, Sega Sports was brought up. Since Sega Sports launched their football title in the late 90’s, they have consistently challenge EA to make a better product. This competition not only benefited both sides because both were challenged to innovate but also the consumer was the ultimate winner. We benefited with a price war, new features, innovations, and a commitment to a better product. All of this will not exist because of this deal. EA Sports will not have the need to offer a better product because they will be the “only show in town” and the consumer must buy it or else not play NFL videogame football.

You might not play any sports video game so let me enlighten you about EA’s sports track record. If you look on the various internet message boards, none of their employees post any message or answer any of our questions. The two largest, www.operationsports.com and www.digitalsportspage.com are void of any contact from EA Sports. In contrast, you will find their competitors regularly post and answer questions and comments from their fans. In the NCAA football category, they release one of their worst titles to date. Currently they have no competition in racing and golf as they hold exclusive deals with the respective leagues. Those two titles are considered average in the sports gaming community. The other genre, soccer, they have direct competition because their competitor is finding ways to get around EA’s exclusive deal with FIFA and various leagues. This competition has resulted in EA Sports making huge strides in their game. Their competition has suffered because EA holds exclusive deals with certain European Leagues. Their competition has not been able to offer officially licensed leagues and teams, and they have suffered in sales.

You have allowed EA to kill off their competition which will not be good for any of your fans. Could you imagine if you turned the NFL into a one team league, where one team wins all the Super Bowls and has perfect season after perfect season? How much fun would watching the NFL be without any competition? I don’t think you would want a monopoly in the NFL and we don’t want a monopoly with these sports games and licensing.

Congratulations on helping to create a monopoly…

Seasons greetings,
John Rodriguez

PS. Head over to www.opertationsports.com, www.digitalsportspage.com and www.sportsgamer.blogspot.com, to see how your fans are reacting.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Kazuya,
You are right, big bad company for making money. Problem is that's the samething every business believes and turns them into a monopoly. They were just trying to make money. Problem is you should be able to make money by making a good product not just killing your competition. We just don't live in a country that cares that much however.

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:02 pm

EA doesn't have the power to snuff the competition. Only the NFL does.

As does FIFA, the PGA Tour, Nascar.... All companies that decided the bed EA was sleeping in looked pretty darn comfy. Do you see a trend here?

You can rattle off 50,000,000 reasons why EA should not be blamed for this. Won't change the fact that we only get ONE football game to pick from. Two if you count NFL Street as a football game.

Compare that with a few years ago when you had

Fever
Gameday
ESPN
NFL Blitz
Backyard Football (what about the children?)

I have no idea why I am replying, this is Kazuya at his finest.

Rodster · Post by **Rodster** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:04 pm

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/sportsbu ... id=1945691

In a statement, Take-Two spokesman Ed Nebb disagreed.

"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," Nebb said. The game was "not a material contributor" to the company's profitability, "nor was it expected to be," Nebb said.

An ESPN spokesman said the company will evaluate the impact that the deal has on the company's licensing business.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:07 pm

JRod wrote:
RobVarak wrote:
JRod wrote:Sega might not be able to sue, but what about a class action lawsuit.

I'm not a lawyer but surely that decreases competition. I wish sports gamers would try a class action lawsuit or something. Becuase we should not be at the mecy of EA Sports.
Unlikely. Think about what we are talking about here. A union and a private business have sold an exclusive license to use their intellectual property rights. Happens every day on scales large and small.

Destroying your competition fairly isn't prima facie anti-competitive behavior in the eyes of even the most proactive Justice Department.
It is when by having this deal it eliminates compeition. How can any game company compete adequately in this area. Again, I'm not an anti-trust lawyer but maybe someone should call Elliot Spitzer.

Well you're right there. Spitzer would be the guy to call. That doesn't mean he'd have a justifiable case, but that hasn't stopped him up to this point.

I'm a lawyer, but like GTHobbes don't specialize in anti-trust. It is possible for a company to run afoul of the antit-trust laws by making legitimate, arms-length transactions from a position of overwhelming power in an industry, but it's pretty rare. Much more common in Europe, naturally, where governments are much less squeamish about regulating markets.

seanmac31 · Post by **seanmac31** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:07 pm

And just when I'd come back to 2K5 and decided it was actually the better of the two games...

Like everyone else, I'm hoping VC will respond to this by releasing a college game next season. I could care less about college football, but I would absolutely shun NCAA 2006 for a chance to play the 2K engine. For that matter, I'd probably go ahead and pay $20 a year for roster updates and continued online access to 2K5 (is there anything to stop Sega from doing something like that?).

This is an awful day for football gamers, there's no getting around it.