SR on OS and EA

[sdrotar]

Yeah, Fossen's column really wasn't a commentary as much as it was a synopsis of some of the more rational forum posts and opinion columns about this deal across the Internet.

Commentary or analysis? Not really. Cliffs Notes for gamers living under a rock the last 24 hours? Yes, indeed.

That's really what we were shooting for - a rational, level-headed assemblage of immediate thoughts regarding the deal.

It's going to take some time for the dust to settle before we can really ascertain the complete extent of the damage this caused to the industry on the whole.

I have my keyboard smoking right now, but I'm going to give myself a week or so to talk to some more folks and obtain some different perspectives before I speak formally on the subject.

Do I think it's the worst thing to happen to sports gaming? You bet.
Unfortunately, it was also inevitable - and conscientious sites like OS and DSP may have to reconsider their objectives to some extent in light of it.

Everyone is confused, frustrated and angry right now, however - and it's probably prudent to let the levels of vitriol diminish somewhat before expecting cogent analysis to be accepted with open arms.

[Sudz]

[sdrotar]

Reeche.
I appreciate your input and insight.
Nobody should be offended by constructive criticism, and I know that I'm certainly not.

You're reading OS, and you have a strong enough feeling about it to post. That's what I'm hoping for. When criticism is pointed and rational, as opposed to... I don't know, SR's... it's helpful and I pay attention to it.

Thank you!

[JRod]

Shawn,

Great post over at OS...I'll repost here...

Here's the bottom line: Necessity is the mother of invention.

It is no longer necessary for EA to invent and innovate in order to succeed in their market. In fact, it could be effectively argued that innovation would be a bad business strategy for EA to take at this juncture.

When we're not forced to be creative to survive - then we stick to what we know works; what's comfortable and secure. It's part of who we are as a species.

It's not business, not contractual obligations or anything else that control this - it's human nature - pure and simple.

I think that sums it up nicely from the consumers stand point.

[Programmed2Kill]

I thought the OS article was on point and well said.

**still trying to get myself unbanned over there**


Look, I don't know if the article was right or wrong (I think there is no right or wrong with this...it was clearly an unbiased article)...but for the dude from SR to come out like that and call someone else's site a joke is seriously hilarious. And in the SR fashion, he couldn't refrain from using bad words. Shame.

[reeche]

Reeche.
I appreciate your input and insight.
Nobody should be offended by constructive criticism, and I know that I'm certainly not.

You're reading OS, and you have a strong enough feeling about it to post. That's what I'm hoping for. When criticism is pointed and rational, as opposed to... I don't know, SR's... it's helpful and I pay attention to it.

Thank you!

Understood and back at ya. I respect you guys and I know one post isn't reflective of an entire website. Ultimately like I say, it doesn't matter as far as real world consquences go because whatever happens happens but I'm kind of a stickler on taking the gamers side in nearly all instances versus the business side even though we all know the business side is what runs everything.

[sdrotar]

Shawn,

Great post over at OS...I'll repost here...

Here's the bottom line: Necessity is the mother of invention.

It is no longer necessary for EA to invent and innovate in order to succeed in their market. In fact, it could be effectively argued that innovation would be a bad business strategy for EA to take at this juncture.

When we're not forced to be creative to survive - then we stick to what we know works; what's comfortable and secure. It's part of who we are as a species.

It's not business, not contractual obligations or anything else that control this - it's human nature - pure and simple.

I think that sums it up nicely from the consumers stand point.

Thanks. I'm a consumer. I've never made a dime off any of these companies.
As such, I'm always going to side with consumers and prefer to have as many choices as a market can sustain in every industry.

That's what I've been trying to get across for the last day or so.
I don't blame EA, the NFL or the NFLPA, because I freely admit that in their position - I'd do the same thing they did. Any of us with a scrap of business sense would.

That still doesn't make it a good thing for consumers - us.

[sdrotar]

Reeche.
I appreciate your input and insight.
Nobody should be offended by constructive criticism, and I know that I'm certainly not.

You're reading OS, and you have a strong enough feeling about it to post. That's what I'm hoping for. When criticism is pointed and rational, as opposed to... I don't know, SR's... it's helpful and I pay attention to it.

Thank you!

Understood and back at ya. I respect you guys and I know one post isn't reflective of an entire website. Ultimately like I say, it doesn't matter as far as real world consquences go because whatever happens happens but I'm kind of a stickler on taking the gamers side in nearly all instances versus the business side even though we all know the business side is what runs everything.

I'm with you 100%. But we both know that game companies don't exist solely to make the best games. The programmers and designers often do (and that includes the ones at EA, too!), but the companies themselves exist to make saleable ones... and as many as possible.

The reality of that situation demands that we look at it from a distance from time to time, too..

[fossen]

I thought that OS article was fairly unenlighting and not very analytically correct. I suport OS but in this case (and maybe only once ever) I think SR is more accurate.

If I thought everyone agreed with me, it wouldn't be worth writing anything, would it?

And the fact I actually got SR to update means I have to be doing something right. I thought only Matt's other personalities could accomplish that.

"...the impact on us sports gamers seems minor."

I don't know if Fossen was being serious or sarcastic. If he was serious geez give me a break.

Compared to losing one's job? To businesses going under? To careers going down the drain?

Yeah, I'd say I'm fine with the word minor. Maybe you think that losing the chance to play ESPN NFL equates to not making your mortgage, but I don't.

And that was my whole point. Yes, we, as hardcore sports gamers are screwed by this. But it's still worth keeping perspective. A petition is useless. A boycott by people who don't usually buy or play Madden anyways seems pretty ineffective. The latest idea I read on OS, of a Congressional inquiry, is laughable. It's a black day for sports gamers, but I don't think there's anything foul going on.

Yeah, Fossen's column really wasn't a commentary as much as it was a synopsis of some of the more rational forum posts and opinion columns about this deal across the Internet.

Commentary or analysis? Not really. Cliffs Notes for gamers living under a rock the last 24 hours? Yes, indeed.

Yeah. Unfortunately, it sat for a bit. It was a little annoying to see these points come up in multiple posts and columns, but it wasn't worth throwing the thing out. There are front page readers who have never heard of either our forums, or DSP.

I've tried to avoid posting at DSP for a while ..... but hey, no one on the OS boards has even read the thing.

[pk500]

Shawn, Foss:

Don't take our constructive criticism of Fossen's column as OS bashing, and I don't think you see it that way. Just want to make sure. OS is a kick-ass site, the best comprehensive site on the Web for sports gaming. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't browse enough.

But while the column was a good read, I just didn't think it analyzed the situation anything like Bill Harris' blog. It wasn't a bad piece, but I guess we've just discussed all of the points in it to death here, so it didn't feel fresh to me.

I guess we need to get out more here at DSP!

Seriously, glad you cats came over to post. Don't be strangers -- most of us certainly aren't at OS.

Take care,
PK

[fsquid]

my bad Leebo. I work for a services firm to profitability is postively corralated with revenues. Heck, all our expenses for the year are covered with revenues through August. The rest is just money in the bonus pool!!

[JRod]

"...the impact on us sports gamers seems minor."

I don't know if Fossen was being serious or sarcastic. If he was serious geez give me a break.

Compared to losing one's job? To businesses going under? To careers going down the drain?

Yeah, I'd say I'm fine with the word minor. Maybe you think that losing the chance to play ESPN NFL equates to not making your mortgage, but I don't.

And that was my whole point. Yes, we, as hardcore sports gamers are screwed by this. But it's still worth keeping perspective. A petition is useless. A boycott by people who don't usually buy or play Madden anyways seems pretty ineffective. The latest idea I read on OS, of a Congressional inquiry, is laughable. It's a black day for sports gamers, but I don't think there's anything foul going on.

Perspective? Are you nuts, I'm not buying a freaking game thinking I'm putting someone's kids through college. I'm buying for the selfish "gasp" reason that I want to buy it. You think thats cold and heartless well how many on this board can honestly say they bought the game with the intention that they were paying someone's mortage. There are things I can't control being just a customer. If a business pays its employees poor wages, I can choose to shop somewhere else. If I think a company doesn't give me a good product I can get another product from a different company. These are the recourses I have as a customer. So before you get on your high and mighty horse saying that as customers we should be worried about someone's mortage, you better couple that by saying the company should worry that they are eliminating competition. You blatently said that EA and the NFL have every right to make this deal. So as a business its okay to screw the customer, but as a customer I have to be worried about someone's paycheck going through as my primary concern when a product I was a buyer of went bust. Come on.

Second I can't control where Sega Sports goes from here. Maybe they work on business software and they continue to pay their bills. Maybe they create another sports games and cover the losses from not having an NFL game. You dont' know what's going to happen. You don't know that they will lose their jobs. Again, there are things that I can't control as a customer. Labor practices and fairness to employees never entered into my thinking when I was buying ESPN NFL nor would I say yours. You bought it for the very selfish reason I did, to play a game.

As for you stance on anything foul going on...
Let's put this one into perspective, was there anything foul with ATT, Standard Oil, Microsoft. We had to create a whole section of laws on monopolies. So here's the perspective just because that didn't screw their employees its not foul. It might be well within the reaches of the current law but only because the laws haven't change to address the problem.

I understand what you are saying that there other bigger issues for the employees of Sega Sports. But get real Fossen, this isn't what the agreement affects. It affects competition and that is the overriding factor. As cold as it sounds, Sega Sports might still employ these guys although in role that doens't involve an NFL game. I think I'm a customer that shops at places of business that treat their employees good. I avoid Wal-Mart.

I just want to add what PK said, I'm not taking a shot at OS over this. Its Fossen's opinion. I don't agree with all of it but in no way am I taking any personal shots at the site, column or fossen.

[Leebo33]

my bad Leebo. I work for a services firm to profitability is postively corralated with revenues. Heck, all our expenses for the year are covered with revenues through August. The rest is just money in the bonus pool!!

I just wanted to point out that EA is not in the business to make money, per se. It's debatable whether or not this will make money for EA or increase the value of the stock.

I see it as bad for gamers and possibly bad or maybe neutral for EA investors as well. Sure, they will earn more money but I'm not sure they will have a good return on capital. The street isn't totally stupid. They realize that it's pretty easy to go out and spend $300 million and increase your profits for a time period. But are they doing it efficiently? That's why they look at numbers like economic value added and many different ratios. What else could they have done with that $300 million? I really don't know the business side of videogaming all that well, but it seems like a lot of money that could have been spent on R&D, marketing, development of other products, etc. Only time will tell.

[fossen]

So before you get on your high and mighty horse saying that as customers we should be worried about someone's mortage, you better couple that by saying the company should worry that they are eliminating competition. You blatently said that EA and the NFL have every right to make this deal. So as a business its okay to screw the customer, but as a customer I have to be worried about someone's paycheck going through. Come on.

What?

OK, Jrod. You're missing the point. I don't know if you intentionally cropped that quote to make me look bad, and I don't care. Fact is, besides the effect on us gamers not geting the game we want, an entire industry is being affected. There is much wailing and gnashing of teeth amongst gamers, but this actually affects the livelihoods of a lot of people. You think your agony over not geting ESPN is equal to the shockwaves felt by Greg Thomas ort the other VC guys? Get a grip, man. Gamers are not the only ones who EA screwed, and we'll get by.

[JRod]

So before you get on your high and mighty horse saying that as customers we should be worried about someone's mortage, you better couple that by saying the company should worry that they are eliminating competition. You blatently said that EA and the NFL have every right to make this deal. So as a business its okay to screw the customer, but as a customer I have to be worried about someone's paycheck going through. Come on.

What?

OK, Jrod. You're missing the point. I don't know if you intentionally cropped that quote to make me look bad, and I don't care. Fact is, besides the effect on us gamers not geting the game we want, an entire industry is being affected. There is much wailing and gnashing of teeth amongst gamers, but this actually affects the livelihoods of a lot of people. You think your agony over not geting ESPN is equal to the shockwaves felt by Greg Thomas ort the other VC guys? Get a grip, man. Gamers are not the only ones who EA screwed, and we'll get by.

All I'm saying is that as a customer I can't influence where these people go from here. Should I put my interests as a consumer behind those people according to you, losing their jobs or the possibility of it. Like I said, as a consumer I can't control that. I would love to but I can't. Nor do I think its my responsiblility, all I can do is buy their product or not. I have no say in their 401k.

I don't know if you intentionally cropped that quote to make me look bad

Don't be so cynical. I didn't feel it was important because I can't control were these guys go from here. So I just left it out. I should have offered the whole quote, my mistake.

[Sudz]

we haven't had a big bruhaha with the OS gang since the old days of the SR forum!

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHA!





L to R : Sudz, DB, Fletcher's b*tch, PK, fletch, Fletcher's other b*tch, Danimal

[Danimal]

Now why do I have to be the guy who gets offed by the Lesbian chick gang?

...

On second thought, I have no problem with it.

[bkrich83]

BTW, I heard from a very credible person EA paid a lot more than 300 million for the deal. Still looking for confirmation.

[JRod]

BTW, I heard from a very credible person EA paid a lot more than 300 million for the deal. Still looking for confirmation.

It seems they would almost have to.

I wonder how much a license for the NFLPA and NFL costs per year. I'm sure the NFL made sure that the number averaged out to be something like 4 or 5 times the cost of a one year license. I'm just guessing here but it could be they used as a batometer much they made when there were 3 games on the market, ESPN, Madden and Fever. Because the NFL would not sell the rights if they thought they would get more money with more licenses because of more games on the 2nd generation consoles.

I don't think that its the 1 billion mark as reported at E3. I believe that was just EA's way of trying to scare off the competition. But who knows.

[sdrotar]

Shawn, Foss:

Don't take our constructive criticism of Fossen's column as OS bashing, and I don't think you see it that way. Just want to make sure. OS is a kick-ass site, the best comprehensive site on the Web for sports gaming. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't browse enough.

But while the column was a good read, I just didn't think it analyzed the situation anything like Bill Harris' blog. It wasn't a bad piece, but I guess we've just discussed all of the points in it to death here, so it didn't feel fresh to me.

I guess we need to get out more here at DSP!

Seriously, glad you cats came over to post. Don't be strangers -- most of us certainly aren't at OS.

Take care,
PK

Nah, no problems here. I just figured that since you grace OS with your presence so often that I thought I should try to return the favor.

I really do mean to post here more, but I just haven't gotten around to it like I've wanted to. I'll try to do better in the future. I appreciate DSP, it's members and it's staff a great deal - and I'd love to take part in the discussions here much more often.

Like I said, constructive criticism is both beneficial and appreciated, and I never mind hearing it.

I liked Bill's piece, too - but I could say that most of the time.

I suppose I shouldn't speak for him, but when I first read the piece, I didn't think Mark was aiming for hard-hitting analysis at this point, and you're right - this knowledgeable community's already discussed things ad infinitum, so it may seem less in-depth to some of the more ardent readers than it is. That just comes with the territory.

Mark had some initial thoughts he wanted to express, and I wanted to run them. They were well thought-out without being too preachy, but I thought that any voice that wasn't the now-standard "F*ck EA" talk would be beneficial. After all, like this deal or not - and who does? - it's here, and we might as well start discussing it within that framework. Fossen's piece was a good start. We have a lot of more casual readers than some other sites do, and we have to realize that they may not understand this situation as well or feel it's impact as deeply as we do, and I thought that Mark targeted that audience rather well.

But, trust me - we're not done with this - not by a long shot.

***

And Sudz - there's no "brouhaha". We're brothers in arms, man - on the same side...

[fsquid]

I really don't know the business side of videogaming all that well, but it seems like a lot of money that could have been spent on R&D, marketing, development of other products, etc.

Well, the pro football genre is the biggest genre in sports gaming. They don't really need to spend more on marketing as with this agreement, they've taken care of the competition. I think its money well spent for them as Madden drives the whole EA Sports segment of EA. Sure, the $300 million could have been spent on some of their weaker titles, but EA Sports is like a college. Football is the money cow and just like other schools, they will plow their money into the football side of things to generate more revenue to cover the other sports.

[Brando70]

LOL, sudz, that was hilarious.

This whole thing is just annoying as all hell. I wish we could make our players in the ESPN NFL league wear armbands in protest.

But unless it completely sucks or costs $100, I'm going to probably buy Madden next year. I just know myself. There is no way I will be able to resist unless EA really, really drops the ball with the series.

I think that's highly unlikely. I realize EA won't have the push of competition, but they will have the push of increasing sales to pay for the extra expense. That will reign them in on price. There are certain price points the market is willing to except. 49.99 for a new game is one of them. Perhaps the next generation will see an increase, but it is a gamble to go over that price. If they were to go to 59.99 while every other game is $10 cheaper, they stand to lose sales from more casual gamers.

Second, if the series started to get really bad, their sales would start to suffer, for reasons related to the price. The casual gamer doesn't want to overspend or pay for a crap game. They may just take their dollars elsewhere, maybe for a non-NFL football game like the Midway Playmakers title.

So while EA is definitely in control, they don't have a free pass to jack prices or let quality totally slip. There are certain parameters that can keep them in check.

We are screwed on the online level, though, they will be able to do whatever they want there since that's really a bonus revenue stream.

[TheMightyPuck]

Next gen development costs are going to be through the roof. EA is betting big on Madden and if they can get a blow you the f*** away graphics version out alongside the nextbox the world will belong to EA and Microsoft.