And so it begins with EA and cutting next gen features

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 8:36 pm

GTHobbes wrote:I hate to be the one to ask the obvious, but if it's a cost/resources/assets issue, I have to wonder how much having the extra BILLION or so they are paying for the exclusive NFL and ESPN licenses takes away from the Tiger and other franchises EA has to fund. It would seem to me that you could employ a lot of artists with a billion dollars.

Each franchise (ie, Madden, Tiger, etc..) has it's own operating budget for development, publishing and marketing. There is no sharing of budgetary resources between the games. I also feel pretty confident that if one game has a bad year, it would not affect the other franchises in any way(assuming the bad year was not a total collapse)...

Inuyasha · Post by **Inuyasha** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 2:34 pm

Not just the lack of features piss me off about EA, but how about the lack of graphics.

I see these shots of nba2k6, pgr, and other games on 360 and when you compare it to madden360, you can clearly tell EA does not go out to do it's best when making games. Madden next gen looks like a half assed effort just for the sake of putting something on the market.

You're telling me with EA's money they can't even come close to see the detail in graphics as these other game companies are making? What a joke.

TRI · Post by **TRI** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 11:30 pm

NBA 2K6 XBOX 360 simply blows EA MADDEN 2006 and NBA LIVE 2006 out of the solar system. I know that one is a basketball game and the other football, but NBA 2K6 shows what is possible on the XBOX 360 and Madden 2006(even the new videos) does not. Not surprising at all. I think that EA is fearful of competition and that is the motivation to get the exclusive NFL license.

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 12:17 am

TRI wrote:I think that EA is fearful of competition and that is the motivation to get the exclusive NFL license.

For the last f***in time, the NFL wanted the exlusivity deal. EA was the one that was awarded that deal.

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 12:21 am

ScoopBrady wrote:For the last f***in time, the NFL wanted the exlusivity deal. EA was the one that was awarded that deal.

Scoop,

There are those that will cling to their version of why EA has the exclusive licenses and there is nothing you or anyone else can do to convince them of what really happened. Some have posted their version of what happened so many times, they actually believe it....

While I agree that the exclusive licenses are not in the best interests for gamers, it is what it is and some will have to find a way to deal with it.

Inuyasha · Post by **Inuyasha** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 12:23 am

I don't really buy EA's stand that the NFL wanted it. I am sure both worked hand in hand and it's a done deal so no need to rehash that topic. IN the long run we'll see if it was a good deal for EA business wise or not.

I guess the next question would be if EA will go after the NBA license since they somewhat have egg on their face when you compre NBA2K6 360 to either madden or nba live 360.

As for 360, EA will probably still sell madden very well on 360, but it just pisses me off that we get a half-assed effort from them while others take advantage of the technology. \
Its not even complicated things I get pissed off about. How about giving us some damn real grass in grass stadiums that doesn't look like green concrete. I'm the first to admit that I am not a programmer, but how hard can it be to get this right?

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 12:27 am

Inuyasha wrote:I'm the first to admit that I am not a programmer, but how hard can it be to get this right?

Rendering realistic grass at high framerates is just a tad easier than rendering realistic animated trees which happen to be one of the most difficult objects to render properly in 3D....

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 12:33 am

TRI wrote:NBA 2K6 XBOX 360 simply blows EA MADDEN 2006 and NBA LIVE 2006 out of the solar system. I know that one is a basketball game and the other football, but NBA 2K6 shows what is possible on the XBOX 360 and Madden 2006(even the new videos) does not. Not surprising at all. I think that EA is fearful of competition and that is the motivation to get the exclusive NFL license.

I am very impressed with the NBA 2k6 360 screens and video. It does make me wonder how many people are working on 2K6 versus Live and Madden. I am thinking that there may be more people working on 2k6 because their resource of programmers and artists are likely not anywhere near as diluted as EA's due to the fact that Sega likely has fewer sports games they are working on...pretty sure this is why EA chose to add additional programming and artistic support to TW360. This may highlight another reason why smaller companies can sometimes outperform larger companies because they choose to focus on fewer projects therefore giving more focus and resources to that project.

TRI · Post by **TRI** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 12:34 am

ScoopBrady wrote:
TRI wrote:I think that EA is fearful of competition and that is the motivation to get the exclusive NFL license.
For the last f***in time, the NFL wanted the exlusivity deal. EA was the one that was awarded that deal.

EA went to the NFL to try to get the NFL exclusive license after the E3 convention in 1999 and the NFL refused. They knew that NFL 2K would be a competitive threat in the future even though it was only on the Dreamcast at that time.

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 12:39 am

TRI wrote:
EA went to the NFL to try to get the NFL exclusive license after the E3 convention in 1999 and the NFL refused. They knew that NFL 2K would be a competitive threat in the future even though it was only on the Dreamcast at that time.

It would be nice if you could serve up some proof of this. Unfortunately, if you don't work for either EA nor the NFL, then you likely will never know. I have always wondered where people come up with such allegations....

At the end of the day, it is a done deal. The NFL stated earlier this year that they approached the companies that made the NFL games. Not sure why you want to beat this dead horse all over again.....

TRI · Post by **TRI** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 12:51 am

DivotMaker wrote:
TRI wrote:
EA went to the NFL to try to get the NFL exclusive license after the E3 convention in 1999 and the NFL refused. They knew that NFL 2K would be a competitive threat in the future even though it was only on the Dreamcast at that time.
It would be nice if you could serve up some proof of this. Unfortunately, if you don't work for either EA nor the NFL, then you likely will never know. I have always wondered where people come up with such allegations....

At the end of the day, it is a done deal. The NFL stated earlier this year that they approached the companies that made the NFL games. Not sure why you want to beat this dead horse all over again.....

Actually there was an article written in May of 2004 describing negotiations between EA and the NFLPA for an exclusive license. I cannot remember the source or title of that article but it was before the NFL exclusive license deal so it throws cold water on the claim that the NFL went to EA first. Just because the NFL said they went to EA first does not mean that they did.

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 1:08 am

TRI wrote:
DivotMaker wrote:
TRI wrote:
EA went to the NFL to try to get the NFL exclusive license after the E3 convention in 1999 and the NFL refused. They knew that NFL 2K would be a competitive threat in the future even though it was only on the Dreamcast at that time.
It would be nice if you could serve up some proof of this. Unfortunately, if you don't work for either EA nor the NFL, then you likely will never know. I have always wondered where people come up with such allegations....

At the end of the day, it is a done deal. The NFL stated earlier this year that they approached the companies that made the NFL games. Not sure why you want to beat this dead horse all over again.....
Actually there was an article written in May of 2004 describing negotiations between EA and the NFLPA for an exclusive license. I cannot remember the source or title of that article but it was before the NFL exclusive license deal so it throws cold water on the claim that the NFL went to EA first. Just because the NFL said they went to EA first does not mean that they did.

That doesn't mean s***. So an article written before the deal was announced proved that EA went to the NFL first? How? If they were in negotiations isn't it possible that the NFL went to EA first? Who do you think the NFL would go to first, EA whose Madden franchise is consistently among the top selling video games each year or Sega (at the time) whose franchise struggled to make any sort of dent in EA's sales? Seriously man, take your anti-EA propaganda elsewhere.

TRI · Post by **TRI** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 1:09 am

TRI wrote:
DivotMaker wrote:
TRI wrote:
EA went to the NFL to try to get the NFL exclusive license after the E3 convention in 1999 and the NFL refused. They knew that NFL 2K would be a competitive threat in the future even though it was only on the Dreamcast at that time.
It would be nice if you could serve up some proof of this. Unfortunately, if you don't work for either EA nor the NFL, then you likely will never know. I have always wondered where people come up with such allegations....

At the end of the day, it is a done deal. The NFL stated earlier this year that they approached the companies that made the NFL games. Not sure why you want to beat this dead horse all over again.....
Actually there was an article written in May of 2004 describing negotiations between EA and the NFLPA for an exclusive license. I cannot remember the source or title of that article but it was before the NFL exclusive license deal so it throws cold water on the claim that the NFL went to EA first. Just because the NFL said they went to EA first does not mean that they did.

The article appeared in ESPN Magazine in MAY of 2004. It was later denied which of course was a lie.

anchester · Post by **anchester** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 1:14 am

why should EA put any effort into their games. We their low development cost, max port, program for LCD strategy that EA has been using over the last 10 years has worked just fine.

The lemmings, masses, typical gamer seem to eat up their crap no matter what they put out.

TRI · Post by **TRI** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 1:15 am

ScoopBrady wrote:
TRI wrote:
DivotMaker wrote: It would be nice if you could serve up some proof of this. Unfortunately, if you don't work for either EA nor the NFL, then you likely will never know. I have always wondered where people come up with such allegations....

At the end of the day, it is a done deal. The NFL stated earlier this year that they approached the companies that made the NFL games. Not sure why you want to beat this dead horse all over again.....
Actually there was an article written in May of 2004 describing negotiations between EA and the NFLPA for an exclusive license. I cannot remember the source or title of that article but it was before the NFL exclusive license deal so it throws cold water on the claim that the NFL went to EA first. Just because the NFL said they went to EA first does not mean that they did.
That doesn't mean s***. So an article written before the deal was announced proved that EA went to the NFL first? How? If they were in negotiations isn't it possible that the NFL went to EA first? Who do you think the NFL would go to first, EA whose Madden franchise is consistently among the top selling video games each year or Sega (at the time) whose franchise struggled to make any sort of dent in EA's sales? Seriously man, take your anti-EA propaganda elsewhere.

It proves that EA went to the NFL first.

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 1:19 am

How? It doesn't mean s***. It just means that they were in negotiations.

TRI · Post by **TRI** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 1:23 am

ScoopBrady wrote:How? It doesn't mean s***. It just means that they were in negotiations.

The article was with reference to negotiations with the NFLPA NOT the NFL before May of 2004. The NFLPA denied they were negotiating an exclusive license at that time. IF they went to EA first there would be no reason to lie.

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 1:25 am

TRI wrote:
ScoopBrady wrote:How? It doesn't mean s***. It just means that they were in negotiations.

The article as with reference to negotiations with the NFLPA NOT the NFL before May of 2004. They NFLPA denied they were negotiating an exclusive license at that time. IF they went to EA first there would be no reason to lie.

Are you really that naive? There would be plenty of reason for them to lie. What would happen if the deal fell through? In big business you don't confirm anything until it's a done deal, and that includes negotiations. Seriously, take your blinders off man.

TRI · Post by **TRI** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 1:32 am

ScoopBrady wrote:
TRI wrote:
ScoopBrady wrote:How? It doesn't mean s***. It just means that they were in negotiations.

The article as with reference to negotiations with the NFLPA NOT the NFL before May of 2004. They NFLPA denied they were negotiating an exclusive license at that time. IF they went to EA first there would be no reason to lie.
Are you really that naive? There would be plenty of reason for them to lie. What would happen if the deal fell through? In big business you don't confirm anything until it's a done deal, and that includes negotiations. Seriously, take your blinders off man.

They lied about negotiations for an exclusive license and they lied yet again. It is called damage control. EA has been trying to get the NFL exclusive license for years and this is nothing new at all.

The article explains that EA was negotiating an exclusive deal with the NFLPA before the NFL exclusive deal. BEFORE THE NFL EXCLUSIVE LICENSE.

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:09 am

TRI wrote:
They lied about negotiations for an exclusive license and they lied yet again. It is called damage control. EA has been trying to get the NFL exclusive license for years and this is nothing new at all.

The article explains that EA was negotiating an exclusive deal with the NFLPA before the NFL exclusive deal. BEFORE THE NFL EXCLUSIVE LICENSE.

You do not have any proof of your accusations. I have no proof that they didn't. How do you know that the NFLPA did not approach EA? I have no proof that they didn't. You want to keep beating the dead horse to a pulp, go right ahead. The other companies with NFL licenses were given an opportunity to secure the exclusive license just like EA. Hell, since I have no proof that Sega did not approach the NFL first, does that mean I get to spam the forums with such an alleagation?

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 12:56 pm

Not that it matters but some of what has been said has some merit.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/12/13 ... 14977.html

The deal, one EA admits to having lobbied for over the past few years, is an exclusive five-year licensing deal granting EA the sole rights to the NFL's teams, stadiums, and players. However, the publisher and Players Inc. denied a similar deal was in the works in May 2004, even requesting publications that ran the story run public retractions.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/05/18 ... 98784.html

The person who admitted to lobbying for the exclusive was EA forum favorite, Jeff Brown.

It is easy to go into a bid war with companies who can't touch what you plan to offer. It is not like Sega had wheelbarrows of money to compete with EA. Sony or Microsoft were the only possibilities to match such a bid, but they only had a football game for one platform so that would not be good for Sony/MS or the NFL with the money involved.

and for more

http://sports.ign.com/articles/596/596975p1.html

IGN/GameSpy: Regarding the exclusive deal with the NFL, who approached who?

Todd Sitrin: We talk with the NFL all the time, and it was during the spring time period that the NFL started looking at the business and talking to a lot of people in the business about changing the various relationships, and it all sort of proceeded from there throughout the rest of the year. The NFL and Players Inc eventually made a decision to take the business exclusive and then it became an issue of who they wanted to partner with.

Yea that sounds like it was all the NFL's idea.

TRI · Post by **TRI** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 1:35 pm

bdoughty wrote:Not that it matters but some of what has been said has some merit.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/12/13 ... 14977.html

The deal, one EA admits to having lobbied for over the past few years, is an exclusive five-year licensing deal granting EA the sole rights to the NFL's teams, stadiums, and players. However, the publisher and Players Inc. denied a similar deal was in the works in May 2004, even requesting publications that ran the story run public retractions.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/05/18 ... 98784.html

The person who admitted to lobbying for the exclusive was EA forum favorite, Jeff Brown.

It is easy to go into a bid war with companies who can't touch what you plan to offer. It is not like Sega had wheelbarrows of money to compete with EA. Sony or Microsoft were the only possibilities to match such a bid, but they only had a football game for one platform so that would not be good for Sony/MS or the NFL with the money involved.

and for more

http://sports.ign.com/articles/596/596975p1.html

IGN/GameSpy: Regarding the exclusive deal with the NFL, who approached who?

Todd Sitrin: We talk with the NFL all the time, and it was during the spring time period that the NFL started looking at the business and talking to a lot of people in the business about changing the various relationships, and it all sort of proceeded from there throughout the rest of the year. The NFL and Players Inc eventually made a decision to take the business exclusive and then it became an issue of who they wanted to partner with.

Yea that sounds like it was all the NFL's idea.

Yes I knew there were other articles that proved EA lobbied for the NFL exclusive license. They were in negotiations with the NFL long before the deal was announced. Well the claim that the NFL went to EA first should be put to rest.

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 1:46 pm

TRI wrote: Yes I knew there were other articles that proved EA lobbied for the NFL exclusive license. They were in negotiations with the NFL long before the deal was announced. Well the claim that the NFL went to EA first should be put to rest.

Just FYI I wanted to simply clear up a few things. Things that EA stated and were posted on legitimate internet sites showing where they said them.

For the record I find you just as bad as those defending EA as if their very lives depend on it. There are enough blinders to go around on both sides of the fence. How many of your 199 posts have been spent attacking EA? Show some variety and try contributing to the forum for once.

TRI · Post by **TRI** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 1:49 pm

bdoughty wrote:
TRI wrote: Yes I knew there were other articles that proved EA lobbied for the NFL exclusive license. They were in negotiations with the NFL long before the deal was announced. Well the claim that the NFL went to EA first should be put to rest.
Just FYI I wanted to simply clear up a few things. Things that EA stated and were posted on legitimate internet sites showing where they said them.

For the record I find you just as bad as those defending EA as if their very lives depend on it. There are enough blinders to go around on both sides of the fence. How many of your 199 posts have been spent attacking EA? Show some variety and try contributing to the forum for once.

Sorry I am not going to drink the EA KOOL AIDE.

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 1:51 pm

TRI wrote: Sorry I am not going to drink the EA KOOL AIDE.

What about random Kool Aid that shows up in your mailbox from an unmarked address? What is your favorite flavor?