EA now owns all things NFLPA

Inuyasha · Post by **Inuyasha** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:32 am

I don't think people are really mad at EA getting the deal, it's just their track record that pisses people off.

Just off the top of my head, wasn't it EA that said that polygon football players couldn't be done on ps1. Then 989 does it the next year. Also, they said a few years back that gang tackles couldn't be done on ps2 since it would slow down the game, then Sega does that without any problems.

As long as EA innovates w/ the NFL/NFLPA exclusives and makes quality games, I'll be happy. But based on their past history, I am not sure they'll do that.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:34 am

Kazuya wrote:
pk500 wrote:Kaz:

You also write as if both the NFL and EA sold their souls on an equal level to make this deal. That's horsesh*t.

This deal is WAY more important to EA than the NFL. Where would EA be without Madden? A hell of a lot poorer, facing a ton of market pressure from Sega or another major publisher and not in position to make this deal financially. Madden is EA's second-largest franchise behind The Sims, right?

And where would the NFL be without the EA licensing deal? Still rich as hell from its deals with countless other licensees and still the colossus in American sports for the foreseeable future.

EA is just another licensee for the NFL. But the NFL is THE deal for EA. So EA puts a lot more importance and is much more willing to sell its soul as a company that puts gamers' needs first than the NFL does as a company that does the right thing for football fans.

Not every football fan plays video games. But I presume nearly every NFL football video gamer is a football fan, so EA risks pissing off a hell of a lot more of its core customer base than the NFL does with this deal.

And I'm one of those pissed customers.

Out,
PK
I can't give the NFL a free pass just because they don't need the deal as much as EA. They are still liable for what they do. The NFL is not a bunch of idiots; they knew that this deal effectively would kill the competition. They didn't care. They should be held accountable for that.

Perhaps, I have given the impression that EA is blameless; while *I* certainly don't blame them I can entertain the idea that people are quite sore at them, and they certainly played their part. But acting like the NFL is a blind dummy in this game is ridiculous. You yourself said earlier,
"I don't blame the NFL one bit for this deal". To use your own terminology, I find that viewpoint simplistic.

I don't blame either party one bit for the deal when looking at it from a financial perspective. The NFL earns a huge licensing fee; EA earns a monopoly. Win-win.

But I'm a videogamer who cares about the progress of the hobby, which apparently doesn't factor into your emotions, or lack thereof.

And I do blame EA more from a gaming side than the NFL. EA produces games; the NFL produces football. And this deal will have a much more significant impact on the gaming industry than the football industry.

So yes, I hold both parties with contempt. But it's not equal contempt. I'm a lot more pissed at EA because I'm certain in my mind this will lead to lack of innovation in NFL gaming for the next five years. The NFL isn't responsible for creating quality videogames; EA is. And we all know EA won't push nearly as hard as it would have if Sega and Sony were still in the NFL game business.

As JRod said in his letter, look what happened when EA faced competition over the last few years. Triple Play all of the sudden became the vastly improved MVP, thanks to High Heat, All-Star Baseball and ESPN Baseball. FIFA 2005 became a much improved, if still substandard, game because of Winning Eleven. NHL 2004 was light years better than NHL 2003 because of the critical acclaim of NHL 2K3. And the list goes on.

So if you believe that EA somehow will create the same football game it would have if Sega and Sony were still on the NFL football gaming scene for the next five years, then I admire your powers of personal persuasion or delusional denial. Take your pick.

I'm not buying it, not for a second. And as a gamer who cares about market competition-driven progression of both hardware and software in the industry, that pisses me off.

Take care,
PK

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:45 am

Kazuya wrote:I can't give the NFL a free pass just because they don't need the deal as much as EA. They are still liable for what they do. The NFL is not a bunch of idiots; they knew that this deal effectively would kill the competition. They didn't care. They should be held accountable for that.

One more thing just popped into my head. You write as if the rules of NFL videogaming have changed from the NFL perspective because of today's deal.

Nothing has changed. Nothing at all.

The NFL <b>always</b> has had a monopoly on its licensing rights because it's, er, the NFL. There has been no competition from an NFL perspective since the dawn of licensed NFL videogaming because the NFL always has held the license. And that's all the NFL cares about, is its license and protecting and maximizing it.

I don't think the NFL cares whether there are seven games with its license or one, as long as its license, shield, players and teams are depicted accurately and within the league's definition of good taste, and the sales and distribution of the one game are equal to or greater than the sum of the sales of the previous licensees. The NFL wants the same level of exposure, whether it's through one game or six.

Brett Favre and the Indianapolis Colts' horseshoe logo are Brett Favre and the Indianapolis Colts' horseshoe logo, whether it's in Gameday, Madden, Fever and NFL 2K5, or just Madden. It's exposure for the NFL, its franchises and players, whether sales of 20 million licensed NFL games are divided among six companies or one.

No difference, other than the NFL pockets a larger chunk of change for granting exclusive rights than it would from divvying up those rights among three, four or six entities.

But it is a huge change for EA and the gaming industry. Instead of having competition, that competition is now dead, whether you see shared culpability or one side being more responsible than another.

Big difference. EA finally is standing on a level platform with the NFL in its respective industry.

The NFL has enjoyed a virtual monopoly on professional football in this country since the AFL-NFL merger in 1969, other than three ill-fated, short-lived exceptions, the WFL, USFL and XFL. EA finally has achieved the same monopoly in pro football video gaming, starting today.

Take care,
PK

Kazuya · Post by **Kazuya** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:57 am

pk500 wrote:I don't blame either party one bit for the deal when looking at it from a financial perspective. The NFL earns a huge licensing fee; EA earns a monopoly. Win-win.

But I'm a videogamer who cares about the progress of the hobby, which apparently doesn't factor into your emotions, or lack thereof.

And I do blame EA more from a gaming side than the NFL. EA produces games; the NFL produces football. And this deal will have a much more significant impact on the gaming industry than the football industry.

So yes, I hold both parties with contempt. But it's not equal contempt. I'm a lot more pissed at EA because I'm certain in my mind this will lead to lack of innovation in NFL gaming for the next five years. The NFL isn't responsible for creating quality videogames; EA is. And we all know EA won't push nearly as hard as it would have if Sega and Sony were still in the NFL game business.

As JRod said in his letter, look what happened when EA faced competition over the last few years. Triple Play all of the sudden became the vastly improved MVP, thanks to High Heat, All-Star Baseball and ESPN Baseball. FIFA 2005 became a much improved, if still substandard, game because of Winning Eleven. NHL 2004 was light years better than NHL 2003 because of the critical acclaim of NHL 2K3. And the list goes on.

So if you believe that EA somehow will create the same football game it would have if Sega and Sony were still on the NFL football gaming scene for the next five years, then I admire your powers of personal persuasion or delusional denial. Take your pick.

I'm not buying it, not for a second. And as a gamer who cares about market competition-driven progression of both hardware and software in the industry, that pisses me off.

Take care,
PK

Well, we might disagree where most of the blame ultimately lies, but I understand your perspective better thanks to this last post. I think contempt is a good word to use... I have a lot of contempt for EA today but little blame.

Danimal · Post by **Danimal** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:10 am

As a Madden fan let me just say I think this sucks.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:19 am

FWIW, an EA guy gives their side of the story, though probably not their official statement:

"Guys,

I have been going to the various fan sites reading the reactions to this news. I have been making basically the same post to all the forums. The main thing I have been saying is not to worry about the game quality going down hill.

The crew at Tiburon are just as dedicated to making the best football game possible.

EA didn't do this a reaction to Sega or any other developer. The NFL and Player's Association went to several different developers wanting to ink an exclusive deal. We have an excellent relationship with these two groups (e.g. 15 years of making Madden) and they went with us.

Both the NFL and the Player's Association are expecting a lot from us as well. Innovation and game play will not suffer."

I doubt this guy was privy to the negotiations or the deal that was ultimately signed but he's making it sound like the NFL and the NFLPA initiated these discussions, not them.

Will the NFL take the bullet for EA and say it was their idea, not EA's?

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:22 am

wco81 wrote:FWIW, an EA guy gives their side of the story, though probably not their official statement:
"Guys,

I have been going to the various fan sites reading the reactions to this news. I have been making basically the same post to all the forums. The main thing I have been saying is not to worry about the game quality going down hill.

The crew at Tiburon are just as dedicated to making the best football game possible.

EA didn't do this a reaction to Sega or any other developer. The NFL and Player's Association went to several different developers wanting to ink an exclusive deal. We have an excellent relationship with these two groups (e.g. 15 years of making Madden) and they went with us.

Both the NFL and the Player's Association are expecting a lot from us as well. Innovation and game play will not suffer."
I doubt this guy was privy to the negotiations or the deal that was ultimately signed but he's making it sound like the NFL and the NFLPA initiated these discussions, not them.

Will the NFL take the bullet for EA and say it was their idea, not EA's?

See new thread I started. IGN reports that it was the NFL who wanted to search for exclusive bids and there were more then one bid, according to Jeff (Hammy) Brown.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:37 am

What a competitor needs to do is create a near open source game. Make an engine like the PC FPS guys do and let startups and individual gamers mod the living s*** out of it. Harness the combines geek power of all the OS types.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:46 am

RobVarak wrote:What a competitor needs to do is create a near open source game. Make an engine like the PC FPS guys do and let startups and individual gamers mod the living s*** out of it. Harness the combines geek power of all the OS types.

You know it should be technically possible to have a file transfer utility within a console game. I have the Max Drive, which is a USB memory key. It comes with special software that basically sees the USB memory key, which you can mount on a computer to transfer files, including rosters and game save files.

But the Max Drive software can also connect online to the Codejunkies server through the Network Adapter. So you can download files directly from the Internet to the PS2.

Thus, VC could put in a small file transfer program within the game and let people share rosters. They could also put in design programs to let you import logos, maybe even create faces of their favorite players (like various games let you do with the Eyetoy).

Of course, a relatively small number of players will actually go and seek out these mods, no matter how easy VC makes it. It will unfortunately be easier for most people seeking NFL teams, players and stadia to simply buy the EA game rather than go to the trouble of doing this work.

But it's something to try.

GROGtheNailer · Post by **GROGtheNailer** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 2:35 am

Those mofo's....I know one thing. I will not buy any Madden game ever. So what I guess but it makes me feel better. This is a sad day for all sports gamers, this is really the shits. I imagine ESPN and the work they've done so far for next season will be scrapped. f***.

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 2:54 am

http://p084.ezboard.com/fthezboardsfrm1 ... 1407.topic

I forgot about DaveZ who works on ESPN NFL and used to be at IGN had a message board.

He has not said much but a thread/site to keep an eye on to see what ESPN might be doing. He did call EA chickenshits so the anger is there in full force.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 3:25 am

wco81 wrote:FWIW, an EA guy gives their side of the story, though probably not their official statement:
"Guys,

I have been going to the various fan sites reading the reactions to this news. I have been making basically the same post to all the forums. The main thing I have been saying is not to worry about the game quality going down hill.

The crew at Tiburon are just as dedicated to making the best football game possible.

EA didn't do this a reaction to Sega or any other developer. The NFL and Player's Association went to several different developers wanting to ink an exclusive deal. We have an excellent relationship with these two groups (e.g. 15 years of making Madden) and they went with us.

Both the NFL and the Player's Association are expecting a lot from us as well. Innovation and game play will not suffer."
I doubt this guy was privy to the negotiations or the deal that was ultimately signed but he's making it sound like the NFL and the NFLPA initiated these discussions, not them.

Will the NFL take the bullet for EA and say it was their idea, not EA's?

EA Director of Corporate Communications Jeff Brown made it pretty clear in a quote to IGN that companies have pitched the NFL for exclusivity for a while, and the NFL finally started to listen this spring, probably when the money figures reached the right threshold.

That's a far cry from the line of sh*t spewed by the supposed EA rep in the quote above. Total "cover your ass" tactics by the EA rep.

I don't believe for a second that the NFL was shopping exclusive rights. But I do believe that the NFL knew a killer deal when it was pitched to it, and it went ahead and climbed into bed with EA because the money was right, and EA is the market leader.

Take care,
PK

Post by **Jared** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:22 am

Any lawyers in the house?

http://www.gsblaw.com/resource/pub_resu ... 9151232001

Basic Antitrust Rules and Principles Applicable to Exclusive Dealing Contracts
Alan P. Sherbrooke

Exclusive dealing arrangements can violate the antitrust laws, but not all of them do. In general, a requirements contract, output contract, or other exclusive dealing arrangement will not violate the antitrust laws unless it locks up "too much" of the relevant market for "too long." In most cases, a contract which locks up less than twenty percent of the market for three years or less probably will not violate the antitrust laws. A contract which locks up more than thirty percent of the market for more than five years is likely to raise antitrust concerns, unless there are good business justifications for the long term commitment. For example, a long term commitment may be justified (or required) in order to make a long term investment in a new plant or facility. In that situation, even a contract which locks up a substantial part of the market for a long time is likely to be permitted.

Locking Up the Market

In general, an exclusive dealing arrangement will not violate the antitrust laws unless it has the effect of blocking a competitor's access to potential customers. For example, in the Microsoft case the Government argued that Microsoft had agreed with Compaq, AOL, and others to offer Microsoft's Internet Explorer and not Netscape's Navigator, and that those agreements were illegal exclusive contracts. The Government lost on that argument -- one of the few points on which Judge Jackson agreed with Microsoft -- primarily because Judge Jackson concluded that Microsoft's agreements did not block Netscape's access to customers. Navigator was available on the Internet and was distributed through other retailers, as well as being mailed directly to many consumers. Because Netscape could had many alternative ways of putting Navigator into consumers' hands, Microsoft's agreements did not lock up the market and did not violate the antitrust laws.

Thus the more effective an exclusive arrangement is at freezing competitors out of the market, the more likely it is to violate the antitrust laws. An exclusive dealing contract does not violate the antitrust laws "unless the court believes it probable that performance of the contract will foreclose competition in a substantial share of the line of commerce affected." Tampa Electric Co. v. Nashville Coal Co., 365 U.S. 320, 327 (1961). For there to be a violation, "the opportunities for other traders to enter into or remain in that market must be significantly limited." 365 U.S. at 328.

.....

Most exclusive dealing arrangements will pass muster under the antitrust laws. As long plenty of business remains in play after the exclusive, an antitrust violation is not likely. However, if an exclusive sucks the oxygen out of the market, making it very difficult for your competitors to survive, then there is substantial antitrust risk. When in doubt, restructure the arrangement so customers have incentives to deal with you, instead of iron clad requirements; shorten the duration of the exclusive (or allow the customer to terminate on six months' notice); make sure there are legitimate justifications for the exclusive; or do all of the above.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 5:36 am

And add this to the mix, after every exclusive deal that EA Sports has made, the competition has immediately gone under.

Prior to the Nascar Deal, you had the following, on the next-gen consoles
Nascar Heat,
Dirt to Daytona,
And the NASCAR Papyrus series.

After the deal you only had NASCAR Thunder/Chase for the Cup.

Prior to the exclusive deal with the PGA Tour,
Links,
PGA Golf (Sierra edition)
And EA's offering

After you have had no games that incorporate any PGA licenses. Golf is doing a little better than NASCAR, as Links, Hot Shots Golf and Outlaw golf have been made but no PGA games.

I did this quickly so I probably left some games out but I think anyone that challanges this deal would have grounds to say that this elimantes all competition.

There will only be one game with an NFL license next year. That's pretty sad.

Kazuya · Post by **Kazuya** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 6:39 am

Man, you guys are knee-jerking all over the place. Hopefully none of you loses it and starts running some petition or some campaign to try to save NFL video gaming like numbnuts on other boards. There isn't going to be any Antitrust case... if so we would have seen it with NASCAR, FIFA, etc. Hell, how is Lord of the Rings or Bond not an EA monopoly by these standards? "s*** your honor, I can't make a game with hobbits in it, my business is ruined!" The Sega/VC developers are not a bunch of drooling retards, they will be able to put their talents on other projects and they will be just fine. You have to draw a line somewhere or every exclusive licensing deal out there would be an antitrust problem.

"In general, an exclusive dealing arrangement will not violate the antitrust laws unless it has the effect of blocking a competitor's access to potential customers."

Pretty obviously, nothing has happened today that will block anybody's access to customers. There is nothing to stop Sega from developing a state of the art pro football game featuring the San Francisco Prospectors and the Baltimore Buzzards. And there will be nothing to stop customers from buying that game if they want to.

kevinpars · Post by **kevinpars** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:37 am

I don't care about how 'dedicated' Tiburon/EA is to making great games. The bottom line is that when you spend all that money for licensing fees, it leaves less money for game development and innovation.

The game developers make have a lot of cool ideas, but the investors, the suits, are going to see the idea of innovation as a waste of time and more importantly - a waste of money.

There is plently of blame to go around here. But the NFL holds a special distain for me. I bet they put more effort into making sure that 'Playmakers' was cancelled than they put into researching the increases in serious player injuries.

At least this all came out before I wasted money on the next generation of consoles. Plenty of books to read and plenty of real sports to play. I know a lot of people are over reacting and saying that they are going to be giving up this hobby, but I may actually do it. It is like the year baseball cancelled the World Series. I discovered that there were plenty of other things to fill my time and by the time baseball came back, I was no longer willing to invest my time and money into it.

The NFL is doing the same thing to me and driving me away. If I want to watch a paranoid oversensitive PR driven conservative sport in action I can simply watch a White House press conference.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:50 am

kevinpars wrote:I don't care about how 'dedicated' Tiburon/EA is to making great games. The bottom line is that when you spend all that money for licensing fees, it leaves less money for game development and innovation.

The game developers make have a lot of cool ideas, but the investors, the suits, are going to see the idea of innovation as a waste of time and more importantly - a waste of money.

That's a legitimate fear. I think the developers are dedicated and have pride in their work to aim for a quality product. But the question is, will the executives let them? Will they cut development budgets?

Even if they continue to pour the same level of development resources, you only have one interpretation of pro football (unless someone else does a game with fake teams and players). I think most gamers would prefer to have an alternative to fall back on, if one game doesn't suit their ideas of what an NFL sim should be like.

Regardless of which game people played the most, people with an open mind could recognize some things which one game did better than the other, and vice versa. Now, we probably won't get to compare.

It's too bad, in all our years of sports gaming, we always had two choices to compare -- Madden vs. Joe Montana, Madden vs. GameDay, Madden vs. NFL2K. We will look back with nostalgia at these days.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:54 am

Good points, Kevin and WCO. I don't know if EA will cut development budgets, but there certainly is a lot less motivation to increase them in the name of innovation.

That's what really sucks about this deal. There's zero incentive anymore for EA to innovate with its NFL franchise. And we've seen what can happen to an EA football game when there's no competition. Gentlemen, I present to you the mess known as NCAA 2005 ...

Take care,
PK

kevinpars · Post by **kevinpars** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:15 am

Maybe EA will follow the NFL's lead and make gamers buy a Madden license - a one time $200.00 fee that entitles you to then buy and play Madden NFL Football games.

Oh, but you can't just buy Madden. You have to buy Madden and NFL Street as a package for $125.00. Sort of like making fans pay for preseason games at the same rate as regular season games.

With all the money EA is spending on license fees, it would not surprise me if they cut their development budget and go back to using sprites and make the big feature in Madden 2006.........."Liquid AI."

Badgun · Post by **Badgun** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:16 am

I hate this. I really do. There's no way this can benefit anyone but EA and the NFL. Gamers are the big loser here.

That being said, the ESPN football game is the one game out of the 4 sports titles that they produce that I can stand to live without. For the last two years Sega's been claiming their game is better, but in the end I always wind up back with Madden. I can't say that about the other sports, though. I haven't bought NBA Live, March Madness, or their NHL game in over three years.

Hopefully, Sega will continue to make their other fine sports titles because the thought of me being forced to play NBA Live and March Madness repulses me.

GROGtheNailer · Post by **GROGtheNailer** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:27 am

Pretty obviously, nothing has happened today that will block anybody's access to customers.

It blocks access to anyone who wants to play an NFL game that is not EA, it blocks other companies who want to make a NFL game, they can't because no one is going to buy it. If it's not blocked...well, then we will see other NFL games next year won't we?

ubrakto · Post by **ubrakto** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:37 am

A contract which locks up more than thirty percent of the market for more than five years is likely to raise antitrust concerns, unless there are good business justifications for the long term commitment.

In general, an exclusive dealing arrangement will not violate the antitrust laws unless it has the effect of blocking a competitor's access to potential customers.

Thus the more effective an exclusive arrangement is at freezing competitors out of the market, the more likely it is to violate the antitrust laws. An exclusive dealing contract does not violate the antitrust laws "unless the court believes it probable that performance of the contract will foreclose competition in a substantial share of the line of commerce affected."

I'll preface this by saying what I don't understand about the law you can just about squeeze into the grand canyon, but the language used here does indicate to me that there's room to argue anti-trust violations in this deal if you're looking purely at the letter of the law. I don't see how you can't argue that this deal:

- locks up more than thirty percent of the market for more than five years
- blocks a competitor's access to a huge pre-existing customer base
- forecloses competition in a substantial share of the line of commerce affected

I'm sure that and $20 will buy you a large (or venti or whatever) half-double-decaf-with-a-half-caf at Starbucks. Understand, though, that this is just commentary. I'm not suggesting some pointless exercise in futility like gamers suing EA over this. The ball's in Sega's court. If the deal does violate anti-trust laws I'm sure Sega has a room full of lawyers that will tell them so.
---Todd

Sudz · Post by **Sudz** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:45 am

F EA.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:47 am

I side with Kaz on the issue of antitrust -- it's not going to happen.

The army of lawyers working for EA and the NFL, respectively, investigated every possible antitrust possibility before consumating this deal. Plus, as Kaz and others have said, this isn't the first exclusive licensing deal between EA and a sanctioning body.

I know EA has the PGA and FIFA licenses, but there are workarounds for other companies wishing to produce games with licensed players or teams. Links 2004 still had pro golfers in the game; it just didn't have PGA Tour events or PGA courses. Konami still works with teams individually to get their licenses for Winning Eleven.

The direct analogy with this deal is EA's deal with NASCAR. No other company can produce a game with NASCAR drivers or sponsors, and that deal ended all competition EA had in the NASCAR market. EA probably commanded a similar market share, if not bigger, in NASCAR gaming as it does now in NFL gaming, and antitrust suits didn't arise due to the deal.

More people are raising antitrust as a possible dealbreaker between EA and the NFL this time because the NFL is way more popular than NASCAR. But as I said, I think EA commanded as much or more of the NASCAR gaming market than it does with the NFL gaming market when it struck the deal with NASCAR, and no antitrust stuff arose.

As Kaz said, no one is preventing another company from making a pro football game, just as no one is preventing another company from making a stock-car racing game. In fact, TOCA 2 has NASCAR-style stock cars on real American tracks, but none of the drivers or liveries are real. But you can't use the NFL or NASCAR license in those games unless the initials of your company are EA.

And this is no different than any other exclusive licensing deal between a company and a sanctioning body, team or facility. For example, Miller Lite is the exclusive beer of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, and Miller products are the only beer sold at the track. That doesn't mean that Budweiser and Coors can't sell beer in Indianapolis anymore -- it just means they can't sell it at the track, use the Wing and Wheel logo and track images in advertising or on the can and can't call themselves the official beer of the Speedway.

This deal sucks hard for gamers, but it's not illegal. All of the hopeful can kiss a successful antitrust suit against EA and the NFL goodbye, I'm afraid.

Take care,
PK

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:01 am

There will be no case. I'd bet my house on it. Like PK said, EA certainly explored every legal angle before offering hundreds of millions of dollars to the NFL for an exclusive license.

I also can't get terribly mad at the NFL or EA. The NFL saw a huge chance to make some money, and let's face it, most of their fan base that plays video football play Madden. EA saw a chance to dominate a lucrative market for years. Hard to argue with that.

What I wonder is, will this be a chance for arcade-style sports to reemerge? That's going to be your only outlet for putting out a football game.