SR on OS and EA

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 8:45 pm

http://www.sportsreviewers.com/

LOL

"You are a joke and a discredit to sports gamers. But hey, at least your site can keep good relations with EA. Time for some more pop-up ads and poorly written reviews at the site that's "dedicated to sports gaming." Heh."

Does he have a point...hmmmmm

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 8:48 pm

Its all funny ....but Im afraid Ill be reserving Madden soon.

bkrich83 · Post by **bkrich83** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 8:55 pm

Whether or not I am affiliated with OS, does anyone find it hilarious Matt is calling someone else a joke?

That guy needs prozac the size of a twinkie.

reeche · Post by **reeche** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:02 pm

Even a broken watch is correct twice a day and this may be one of those occasions.

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.

I think this will be my only comment on this whole EA and NFL deal as I actually endorse that front page although in the end such things won't have an ultimate effect.

Sorry

And now on to other things....

What's up with Kobe?

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:12 pm

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:26 pm

reeche,

Yep, I agree...

Here are some choice quotes...

"They are not in business to make videogames; they are in business to make money."

"...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.

"I know I'll be buying "Madden" next year, as I am a sports gamer. I love NFL Football, and love NFL Football videogames. And "Madden" is now officially the only game in town."

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I know that OS has no official stance on the issue but I find his blog or opinion is trying minimalize this whole situation.

Bill_Abner · Post by **Bill_Abner** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:29 pm

He said that compared to the guys who will lose their jobs that the impact on gamers is minor. But the entire tone of that seemed kinda pointless..as if he's saying, "Shrug..oh well!" Not quite biting commentary.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:33 pm

One thing is for sure. Madden 2006 (or whichever version is going to be the first under this deal) will be picked apart even more than ever before.

Start saving up your nits!

fletcher21 · Post by **fletcher21** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:34 pm

bd why did you get banned at os ? for a while it seemed like that was actually your personal website... what did you do lol

ps i am still at ups for all the haters out there *tear* haha

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:38 pm

fletcher21 wrote:ps i am still at ups for all the haters out there *tear* haha

Awesome!!!

I have 16 days in the pool.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:39 pm

fletcher21 wrote:ps i am still at ups for all the haters out there *tear* haha

What, are you getting laid daily by two chicks in the back of the truck?

Seriously, good for you for sticking with it, man.

Take care,
PK

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:42 pm

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:44 pm

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.

Still, I agree with BK in that SR calling another site a joke is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Take care,
PK

fsquid · Post by **fsquid** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:55 pm

"They are not in business to make videogames; they are in business to make money."

what is wrong with that quote? I work at my firm to maximize revenue. I'll assume that EA does the same.

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:58 pm

Can I ask a question? When did anything posted at SR become relevant?

fsquid · Post by **fsquid** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:05 pm

DivotMaker wrote:Can I ask a question? When did anything posted at SR become relevant?

never

Post by **Jared** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:06 pm

Brent,

Check your PMs.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:07 pm

fsquid wrote:
"They are not in business to make videogames; they are in business to make money."
what is wrong with that quote? I work at my firm to maximize revenue. I'll assume that EA does the same.

Nothing is wrong with it except for the fact that the consumer NOW has no recourse to speak with their pocket book. ESPN's success was partly due to consumers speaking their minds with their money.

Its the check and balances in the business world. Don't like Coke, buy Pepsi. Don't like Bud, buy Coors. Don't like Sprint, buy Verizon?

The consumer no has no recourse to speak their minds with their pocket book. Your company works under the same premise. If your company doesn't do what your customers want they'll speak their mind and find another company for their goods and services.

With this agreement, this option is between a game or no game. As Fossen has stated, speaking your mind and not buying the game will have minimal effect. So the customer now is effectively taken out of the loop. This is my problem with it. EA Sports now has 100% of the market share in NFL video games and the customer is left with the option of EA Sports or nothing. Speaking our minds with our wallet has been taken off the table.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:10 pm

fsquid wrote:
"They are not in business to make videogames; they are in business to make money."
what is wrong with that quote? I work at my firm to maximize revenue. I'll assume that EA does the same.

Actually, I assume that you work at your firm to maximize profits. Revenues are a big part of that, but so are costs. EA's revenues may go up as a result, but will the profits? Maybe.

EA is in the business for their stockholders. There are questions about whether this move is in their best interests:

From Yahoo Finance:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/041214/electron ... ock_2.html

Wedbush Morgan Securities analyst Michael Pachter said the agreement could mean EA can sell more games at higher prices next year, adding 8 cents a share to earnings.

However, Pachter in a research note cut his rating based on U.S. sales data to "hold" from "buy," saying there was limited upside to the stock price from current levels.

Downgraded by Pacific Crest as well:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ud?s=ERTS

bkrich83 · Post by **bkrich83** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:13 pm

bdoughty wrote:
I only mention what little I did so OS staffers could see the irony of calling someone else a joke when they play their own little Reindeer games.

Ho Ho Ho

How exactly did I engage in any Reindeer games? I don't even know what that means. Damn California public school system.

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:18 pm

reeche · Post by **reeche** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:25 pm

fsquid wrote:
"They are not in business to make videogames; they are in business to make money."
what is wrong with that quote? I work at my firm to maximize revenue. I'll assume that EA does the same.

I'm breaking my word on this but this will really be my last post on the subject

The problem with the statement is that it's obvious. We all know EA is a business. We all know that businesses try to make money. I don't go to OS for Macro 101, stock tips, or a life to live through common sense tips.

I go to OS generally speaking because they are an advocate on behalf of the hardcore sports gamer and you tend to want to see that reflected in their statements. If NFL Street were the only football title around I would expect them to vocally support a more real version of football like they tend to do on some subjects and sports if you read the posts of the moderators. I wouldn't expect to just quitely sit and say oh well....The market only wants NFL Street so that's we can get and there is no sense in complaining about it. Their is a such thing as righteous anger and it doesn't even necessarily have to take the form of EA bashing. ( Although it can if you want. )

I don't think that little post they put out does that. Further the other analysis they make (imo) is incorrect. The overall effect is negative for the market, and the consumer. Now short term it's great for the NFL and long-term it's great for EA. Fine. But as a gamer I don't care about that. I care about getting the best game possible and what relates materially on that. Even as someone who purchased both games every year of their existense, I think it's a bad move for gamers. Some if OS is going to give us common sense then at least gives us sports gamers common sense. Not bad or obvious analysis. They are a sports website, and not the Wall Street Journal. Get off the fence and take a stand. It's going to happen no matter what but at least you can say which way you stood on the subject.

bkrich83 · Post by **bkrich83** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:30 pm

reeche wrote:
fsquid wrote:
"They are not in business to make videogames; they are in business to make money."
what is wrong with that quote? I work at my firm to maximize revenue. I'll assume that EA does the same.
I'm breaking my word on this but this will really be my last post on the subject

The problem with the statement is that it's obvious. We all know EA is a business. We all know that businesses try to make money. I don't go to OS for Macro 101, stock tips, or a life to live through common sense tips.

I go to OS generally speaking because they are an advocate on behalf of the hardcore sports gamer and you tend to want to see that reflected in their statements. If NFL Street were the only football title around I would expect them to vocally support a more real version of football like they tend to do on some subjects and sports if you read the posts of the moderators. I wouldn't expect to just quitely sit and say oh well....The market only wants NFL Street so that's we can get and there is no sense in complaining about it. Their is a such thing as righteous anger and it doesn't even necessarily have to take the form of EA bashing. ( Although it can if you want. )

I don't think that little post they put out does that. Further the other analysis they make (imo) is incorrect. The overall effect is negative for the market, and the consumer. Now short term it's great for the NFL and long-term it's great for EA. Fine. But as a gamer I don't care about that. I care about getting the best game possible and what relates materially on that. Even as someone who purchased both games every year of their existense, I think it's a bad move for gamers. Some if OS is going to give us common sense then at least gives us sports gamers common sense. Not bad or obvious analysis. They are a sports website, and not the Wall Street Journal. Get off the fence and take a stand. It's going to happen no matter what but at least you can say which way you stood on the subject.

You're acting like it was a blanket statement on OS's stance on the whole deal. It was one mans view on the whole thing. Nothing more.

reeche · Post by **reeche** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:35 pm

bkrich83 wrote:
reeche wrote:
fsquid wrote: what is wrong with that quote? I work at my firm to maximize revenue. I'll assume that EA does the same.
I'm breaking my word on this but this will really be my last post on the subject

The problem with the statement is that it's obvious. We all know EA is a business. We all know that businesses try to make money. I don't go to OS for Macro 101, stock tips, or a life to live through common sense tips.

I go to OS generally speaking because they are an advocate on behalf of the hardcore sports gamer and you tend to want to see that reflected in their statements. If NFL Street were the only football title around I would expect them to vocally support a more real version of football like they tend to do on some subjects and sports if you read the posts of the moderators. I wouldn't expect to just quitely sit and say oh well....The market only wants NFL Street so that's we can get and there is no sense in complaining about it. Their is a such thing as righteous anger and it doesn't even necessarily have to take the form of EA bashing. ( Although it can if you want. )

I don't think that little post they put out does that. Further the other analysis they make (imo) is incorrect. The overall effect is negative for the market, and the consumer. Now short term it's great for the NFL and long-term it's great for EA. Fine. But as a gamer I don't care about that. I care about getting the best game possible and what relates materially on that. Even as someone who purchased both games every year of their existense, I think it's a bad move for gamers. Some if OS is going to give us common sense then at least gives us sports gamers common sense. Not bad or obvious analysis. They are a sports website, and not the Wall Street Journal. Get off the fence and take a stand. It's going to happen no matter what but at least you can say which way you stood on the subject.
You're acting like it was a blanket statement on OS's stance on the whole deal. It was one mans view on the whole thing. Nothing more.

Damn it keep breaking my word! You are of course correct. But first impressions are everything and when I go and see a statement labeled first look that has a very "oh I'm fine with this" attitude it's a little....disappointing. Like I said, I'm not asking for Don Quixote tilting against the wind mills but I think they can do better. Maybe they will. Like I said, for the most part I like OS. Always have. Just didn't think that was a very good post. All subjective of course.