INTERESTING FACTS ABOUT EA AND THEIR RECENT DEALINGS

[RCM]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/technology/18games.html?th

This is an interesting article about the EA/ESPN deal. They also mention the EA/NFL deal and some other neato stuff. Here are some interesting excerpts:

Under the agreement, Electronic Arts, the largest independent video game publisher, will pay $750 million to $850 million for the right to use the ESPN brand for games based on at least nine sports, including baseball, basketball and football, according to people briefed on the contract's terms. Some of that money will pay for commercials promoting the games on ESPN channels, they said.

That's a lot of money. I wonder if it's going to be worth it just snub the competition. EA certainly thinks so.

Electronic Arts announced an exclusive five-year deal with the National Football League to design games using its players, stadium and uniforms. That deal was worth more than $300 million.

That's all it's worth? $300 million? I'm shocked nobody else went after this. Sammy/Sega certainly have the funds. More Sammy than Sega of course.

Lawrence F. Probst III, chief executive of Electronic Arts, said that he thought his company had "very satisfied" customers and that he did not expect that to change.

But he acknowledged that Take-Two, in teaming up to distribute Sega's sports titles, put some heat on Electronic Arts and forced it to take aggressive steps.

"They certainly moved the needle, in the football category in particular," Mr. Probst said.

No shit.

Mr. Wilson said that Take-Two may still compete, but that the recent branding agreements by Electronic Arts had dealt a blow to that effort.

Electronic Arts "has created a virtual monopoly," he said.

Well said. In this case EA certainly has created a monopoly. Nobody will be able to compete with EA in football. The only way Sega will be able to compete is to buy out the other licenses and create monopolies of their own. While doubtful, perhaps Sega will be able to create NFL football games again within the next 5 years.

Sega: "Hey EA, i'll let you use my NBA and MLB licenses for your football"

crazy shite.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[bargora]

There may be an antitrust case (for monopolization) in there somewhere, but I friggin' hate antitrust law. Which is to say, I'd be interested to follow the lawsuit, but darned if I can lay out the cogent case for the plaintiff suing EA.

I suppose a question for discussion more within the realm of my limited intellectual capacity is this: Will there be a lawsuit?

[Blackjax]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v178/JohnnyPark/IGN/EArEVIL.gif

I didn't make it, but it's rather appropriate

[MetroidFan1164]

Did you have to type the subject line in all caps? :roll:

[RCM]

Did you have to type the subject line in all caps?

I'm pretty sure every topic I start is in all caps. So sorry. holy shit.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[Ed Oscuro]

OMG RCN HAEV U NO DECENSAY!!1

I thought this was a good candidate for the onging EA thread, but as that's degraded into a crabfest (er), I've no problem.

I'll say it - great find of the article, thanks for bringing it to us!

[badinsults]

Free registration required. :p

[RCM]

I'll say it - great find of the article, thanks for bringing it to us!

it's the most in-depth article ive read on the situation for sure.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[Gamereviewgod]

Even though the deal is quite a bit longer, it's hard to believe ESPN was that much more than the NFL. I also can't believe the NFL was that cheap.

Just think about this. More than a billion dollars. EA had a billion dollars just to throw around for these two deals. Am I the only one who finds that amount absolutely staggering for a game company??? I know how much this industry has grown, but that number is just unbelieveable to me.

Oh, and about the caps thing: RCM has two personalities. RCM and Bob. Bob gets a little out of control sometimes.

[RCM]

Oh, and about the caps thing: RCM has two personalities. RCM and Bob. Bob gets a little out of control sometimes.

Bob? I can't believe you called me Bob! You will get a spin kick for that I promise.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[Gamereviewgod]

Look at Bob go. See what I mean?

[goatdan]

I am also pretty surprised by the ESPN deal.

It also makes me wonder about what will happen to the just announced Blitz Playmakers game that was supposed to be based on the TV show and be sort of a day-to-day whole life football sim. Sounded pretty neat.

I also wonder what this means for Sega's next baseball.

And, as everyone else pointed out, I'm floored that the ESPN branding was worth the SAME amount as the exclusive NFL deal. Even if you're using the ESPN branding on all of your games, that still doesn't equate to an equal branding as the actual product. You could just have a really solid presentation, and I as well as probably 95% of the gamers out there wouldn't really notice too much.

But hey, it's EA. Whatever they want to do is fine. I definitely don't expect I'll be purchasing anything from them soon, but that has between little and nothing to do with these deals...

[Flack]

A billion dollars over 5 years is $40,000,000 per year. $40,000,000 / $50 (average cost of new games) = 8 million games per year to break even. I don't know how many copies Madden alone sells per year, but selling 8 million games per year for EA doesn't sound that hard to do, especially with a new generation of consoles just around the corner.

[Griking]

A billion dollars over 5 years is $40,000,000 per year. $40,000,000 / $50 (average cost of new games) = 8 million games per year to break even. I don't know how many copies Madden alone sells per year, but selling 8 million games per year for EA doesn't sound that hard to do, especially with a new generation of consoles just around the corner.

Isn't a billion dollars / 5 years = $200,000,000 per year?

[studvicious]

Isn't a billion dollars / 5 years = $200,000,000 per year?

Yes. Which would mean they would need to sell on average 4 million games a year at $50 to break even.

[SoulBlazer]

Which I'm SURE is no problem. Heck, Madden ALONE sells more then that, much less all the other stuff EA publishes. But I suspect other companies like Atari and Activision could also raise that much cash.

[RCM]

Which I'm SURE is no problem. Heck, Madden ALONE sells more then that, much less all the other stuff EA publishes. But I suspect other companies like Atari and Activision could also raise that much cash.

Madden sells that much deep into this generation. I wonder what the sales will be once the next gen consoles are released. Does anyone know how well Madden sold on PS in 2000 and 2001?

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[TheRedEye]

Did you have to type the subject line in all caps?

I'm pretty sure every topic I start is in all caps. So sorry. holy shit.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

Yes, it's true, he does. When I log on to the Digital Press forums, and I see an all-caps line yelling "FANBOY FUN" or maybe "FLASH CART," I know that the yelling means it can only be "THE ONE, THE ONLY" RCM making another delightful post to the Digital Press forums. I am filled with glee as I click the topic until, inevitably, the panic sets in.

...what if this ISN'T my ONE, my ONLY, posting this thread? What if it's...someone else? Heavens!

Sure, I could look to the left and see if RCM's name is affixed to the post, as I do for every one of the 5,642 other members on these forums, but surely this is demeaning to our ONE, our ONLY RCM, as his incredible individuality is guaranteed to shine in every word of his posts! I could notice his Treasure avatar, even out of my peripheral vision, but...yee gods, what if another poster happens to use the same avatar? Why, my forums experience would be devestated!

And then, it hits me, and I remember that RCM, in his infinite ONE and ONLY ways, signs every one of his posts, and relief washes over me in an awesome wave. Sheepish drones such as you and I don't have to be bothered to look one centimeter to the left of his post to know that His word has been spoken. Nay, friends, we have the signature, the Seal of Quality.

So thank you, RCM, for being such an individual. The rest of us can only hope to have even half the style you do.

[soniko_karuto]

i'm glad i don't buy sports games.

THE ONE, THE ONLY, SONIKO KARUTO.

[robotriot]

Isn't a billion dollars / 5 years = $200,000,000 per year?

Yes. Which would mean they would need to sell on average 4 million games a year at $50 to break even.

Keep in mind though that they don't make $50 with each game they sell - some goes to the shop, then some for packaging and advertising, and maybe also a tiny sum for the development studio ;)

[RCM]

Did you have to type the subject line in all caps?

I'm pretty sure every topic I start is in all caps. So sorry. holy shit.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

Yes, it's true, he does. When I log on to the Digital Press forums, and I see an all-caps line yelling "FANBOY FUN" or maybe "FLASH CART," I know that the yelling means it can only be "THE ONE, THE ONLY" RCM making another delightful post to the Digital Press forums. I am filled with glee as I click the topic until, inevitably, the panic sets in.

...what if this ISN'T my ONE, my ONLY, posting this thread? What if it's...someone else? Heavens!

Sure, I could look to the left and see if RCM's name is affixed to the post, as I do for every one of the 5,642 other members on these forums, but surely this is demeaning to our ONE, our ONLY RCM, as his incredible individuality is guaranteed to shine in every word of his posts! I could notice his Treasure avatar, even out of my peripheral vision, but...yee gods, what if another poster happens to use the same avatar? Why, my forums experience would be devestated!

And then, it hits me, and I remember that RCM, in his infinite ONE and ONLY ways, signs every one of his posts, and relief washes over me in an awesome wave. Sheepish drones such as you and I don't have to be bothered to look one centimeter to the left of his post to know that His word has been spoken. Nay, friends, we have the signature, the Seal of Quality.

So thank you, RCM, for being such an individual. The rest of us can only hope to have even half the style you do.

Thanks for the kind words Redeye. Didn't know you had such a problem with RCM. If you have anymore to say let's take it to PM you asshole.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[Flack]

THE ONE, THE ONLY, SONIKO KARUTO.

Praise Jesus.

[Phosphor Dot Fossils]

Yes, sir! Praising Jesus now, sir!

Let's cool it on the personal attacks in here and get back on the topic before I have to hit this shiny new EA Topic Lock 2005 button.

[SoulBlazer]

You might as well do it now, PDF -- these people here hate EA and everything it stands for, and never seem to remember the number one rule of being a game player -- reserve judgement until you PLAY THE DAMN GAME!

[kainemaxwell]

RCA, with your sig as it is it does come off as being full of yourself.

Back on topic, since you refuse to buy their games, does that just include sports or any of their other titles too?

[Ed Oscuro]

Isn't a billion dollars / 5 years = $200,000,000 per year?

Yes. Which would mean they would need to sell on average 4 million games a year at $50 to break even.
That many titles across their sports line? Sure, I think they can do it. Top-notch games are said, as a rule of thumb, to need at least 1M sales to break even, and I'm sure that they've got enough sports titles to spread that around.

The profit-taking also depends on how long the various contracts are good; EA wouldn't take a loss on this just to be able to say they've got the contracts. They'll no doubt use their non-sports sales to help diminish the impact of this but the sports games will have to pay for themselves in the long term.

[Ninja Blacksox]

Didn't know you had such a problem with RCM. If you have anymore to say let's take it to PM you asshole.

I've got good money that says RCM is actually Ricky Henderson.

Any takers?

-A Boy

[Flack]

Isn't a billion dollars / 5 years = $200,000,000 per year?

Yes. Which would mean they would need to sell on average 4 million games a year at $50 to break even.
That many titles across their sports line? Sure, I think they can do it. Top-notch games are said, as a rule of thumb, to need at least 1M sales to break even, and I'm sure that they've got enough sports titles to spread that around.

The profit-taking also depends on how long the various contracts are good; EA wouldn't take a loss on this just to be able to say they've got the contracts. They'll no doubt use their non-sports sales to help diminish the impact of this but the sports games will have to pay for themselves in the long term.

According to this page, Madden 2005 (including pre-sales) sold 1.35 million copies the first week.

http://ps2.gamespy.com/playstation-2/madden-nfl-2005/540367p1.html

According to this page, in 2003, Electronic Arts had 5 of the top 10 best selling PS2 games.

http://www.playstationpro2.com/best_sellers.html

Unfortunately I don't have access to any better numbers than what Google will cough up, but by those numbers it doesn't seem hard to imagine that for EA, this is a win/win move for them (win for sales, win to drive their opponents out of the running).

[Flack]

Hey, found another one.

"The Nintendo data was promising -- the company sold 500,000 units of its new handheld during its first week. But even if Nintendo continues to beat expectations, we're talking about less than $20 million in revenue for the year for EA, a company that in the last fiscal year saw sales of $3.22 billion."

http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/09/technology/techinvestor/hellweg/

Wow, with that kind of money ... who knows what the future holds.

[JJNova]

Wow, with that kind of money ... who knows what the future holds.

I just want to remind everyone on a whole that EA has a bank account that's still bloated with the interest it's earning form the sales of The Sims and all of it's Expansion packs, which everyone that owns that sims has at least one expansion pack, where as people with no virtual life have all the expansion. (ie = Me)

[Ed Oscuro]

Hmm...I think we're all on the same page here. I can't believe a Madden game sold over one and a third million copies the first week; those super common Genesis Madden carts probably didn't reach that circulation for the entire run! Well, I wonder if they can rake in $1B with just the Madden license per year. Far as I know sales go down drastically after the first week...or not. Interesting.

Of course the money they make off sales of Madden games isn't nearly all profit; each game carries its own production price tag. Still, I'd say they're pretty obviously on track to make that money up in good time.

Oh, and for the record, I've got a 2000 EA investor's kit banging around someplace...back from the early days of the Sims :) THOSE are something that I'd like to get more of. Need to ask about those actually.

[RCM]

That many titles across their sports line? Sure, I think they can do it. Top-notch games are said, as a rule of thumb, to need at least 1M sales to break even, and I'm sure that they've got enough sports titles to spread that around.

I wish I had a link. I read in the NY Times months ago that a movie licensed title could sell as little as 50,000 units and break even. Also, if what you're saying is true than out of all EA games only 3 broke even last year. Last years biggest sellers (I assume US only):

1. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (PS2) - 5.1 million
2. Halo 2 (Xbox) - 4.2 million
3. Madden NFL 2005 (PS2) - 3.2 million
4. ESPN NFL 2K5 (PS2) - 1.5 million
5. Need for Speed Underground 2 (PS2) - 1.4 million
6. Pokémon FireRed (with adapter) (GBA) - 1.2 million
7. NBA Live 2005 (PS2) - 1.2 million
8. Spider-Man 2 (PS2) - 1.1 million
9. Halo: Combat Evolved (Xbox) - 1.1 million
10. ESPN NFL 2K5 (Xbox)- 1.0 million

In the end, there are a lot of determining factors as to how many units it takes for a game to simply break even. Also, the worldwide sales could vault a few more EA titles at least over the million seller mark.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[Lady Jaye]

I have a question for people pissed off at EA:

If you buy the Mac port of an EA game, does it still count as an EA game? (I say this out of curiosity; then again, the EA logo does pop up at the beginning of Aspyr's port of SimCity 4...)

[Griking]

Isn't a billion dollars / 5 years = $200,000,000 per year?

Yes. Which would mean they would need to sell on average 4 million games a year at $50 to break even.

Keep in mind though that they don't make $50 with each game they sell - some goes to the shop, then some for packaging and advertising, and maybe also a tiny sum for the development studio ;)

The key phrase for me is "to break even". If they have to sell 4 million copies to break even that means that they'll probably have to sell twice that amount to make the same amount of profit as they made this year before they signed all these deals. Then they'd have to sell even more copies to made this all worth it. After all, what's the sense in paying all this money for the licenses if they're not going to make any more then they did before they bought them?

I don't know, I really have my doubts about this being such a great deal for EA after all.

[Captain Wrong]

I have a question for people pissed off at EA:

If you buy the Mac port of an EA game, does it still count as an EA game? (I say this out of curiosity; then again, the EA logo does pop up at the beginning of Aspyr's port of SimCity 4...)

Likewise, EA published some of the finest Saturn shmups (Japan only, of course.) They didn't have anything to do with making the game, they just published them for Saturn. Are those EA games?

[Cryomancer]

It's annoying to live in such an EA-infested world. Three people in this household have club pogo memberships, which is direct money to EA. Several people in this house also play a lot of sims, there's MULTIPLE copies of some expansion here. Yarg.

[retroman]

F--- EA...i hate them

[Leo_A]

"There may be an antitrust case (for monopolization) in there somewhere, but I friggin' hate antitrust law. Which is to say, I'd be interested to follow the lawsuit, but darned if I can lay out the cogent case for the plaintiff suing EA."

There's nothing to sue over. What EA has done isn't illegal.

[Ernster]

Congratulations to EA, best of luck :evil:

[Sanriostar]

*sigh* I miss the EA days of Archon, M.U.L.E, and Hard Hat Mack...

[hezeuschrist]

I have a question for people pissed off at EA:

If you buy the Mac port of an EA game, does it still count as an EA game? (I say this out of curiosity; then again, the EA logo does pop up at the beginning of Aspyr's port of SimCity 4...)

Likewise, EA published some of the finest Saturn shmups (Japan only, of course.) They didn't have anything to do with making the game, they just published them for Saturn. Are those EA games?

Burnout 3 was the same way. Absolutely nothing to do with the game other than adding a horrid soundtrack and a bunch of ads for NFSU and Tiger Woods.

When it comes down to it, there isn't one reason on this earth to deny myself a great game, regardless of who makes it. But, I've certainly got plenty of options that when it comes down to making a choice, EA will always be the last one.

Sports are getting tired for me, I'm sure I can go a few years without them entirely, I've never liked the Underground series, and even though I love LotR, I don't really need any games based on the movies (cept Third Age, cause it's an RPG and I'm dumb like that). Lets say it were down to Devil May Cry 3 and some similar action title out of EA, I'd go with Capcom.

In all honesty though, I don't see myself having any desire to buy any EA products anyways. If I do boycott them it's out of dislike for their library, not their business practices. I haven't bought an EA title (aside from Burnout 3) for quite some time, NHL 2002 was the last one I think. No, that's wrong. I bought 007 Everything or Nothing on the cheap shortly after it came out, but that's it.

Anyone who denies themselves a game they ernestly want to play because of these dealings is likely more stubborn than wise.

[Nature Boy]

Random questions:

How can you possibly call this a potential antitrust suit when movie licenses have been around for *years*?

Why doesn't anybody speak out against the leagues? Aren't they the ones *truly* denying us a choice? They could have refused the deal (like they have in the past with respect to sports cards).

Weren't the various football games really just the same game in different packages? It's not like the rules of the game were any different. Or the teams. Or the players. Wouldn't you rather have four different games entirely to choose from?

Why is everybody convinced that sports games are the key to dominance? Hasn't Nintendo done a pretty good job of selling games these past 20 years without a licensed sports franchise? Or Square-Enix?

[goatdan]

Three people in this household have club pogo memberships, which is direct money to EA.

Was that a recent thing? I had played (free) games on there for about a week, until I couldn't stand all of the middle schoolers sitting around and swearing at you if you won (was playing pool.) I dropped by recently and saw the EA logo... don't remember it from a few months ago...


Why is everybody convinced that sports games are the key to dominance? Hasn't Nintendo done a pretty good job of selling games these past 20 years without a licensed sports franchise? Or Square-Enix?

Sports games will always sell a certain amount of copies, and can come out every year. There were some Mario games that didn't sell great (Mario: Fun With Numbers! and stuff...) An if there was a yearly installment of Mario, gamers would probably get sick of it pretty quickly.

Sports, and particularly football does dominate the US Sports market. If EA dominates sports, they have a franchise that is pretty much guaranteed to sell a bunch of copies every year even if they don't update anything but player rosters.

[bargora]

"There may be an antitrust case (for monopolization) in there somewhere, but I friggin' hate antitrust law. Which is to say, I'd be interested to follow the lawsuit, but darned if I can lay out the cogent case for the plaintiff suing EA."

There's nothing to sue over. What EA has done isn't illegal.
Well, they haven't shot anybody, burned buildings, or solicited sex from minors, so from that standpoint I can see your point. All they did was sign a number of license agreements, right?


Random questions:

How can you possibly call this a potential antitrust suit when movie licenses have been around for *years*?
And you point out that movie licenses have been done forever with no antitrust problems. True enough.

The thing about antitrust, and specifically monopolization suits, is that it's largely about defining the relevant market. In the case of movie licenses, it would be really, really hard to convince a jury that Sega is harming competition in the game market by locking up the "Addams Family" license. (In a monopolization suit, the ultimate--and nebulous as hell--question is whether the purported monopolizer is "harming competition" through its activities.)

EA, on the other hand, is purchasing exclusive licenses from the NFL, ESPN, and what, the arena football league? This is a much larger swath of the gaming market. EA could argue that competing game manufacturers can still make football games without using the NFL teams, or that they can just make games about other sports, like Cricket or Xtreme Beach Pachinko. But just because your competitors can make other products doesn't necessarily mean that you aren't monopolizing. A plaintiff would have to either convince the jury to focus on a segment of the overall game market--the "sports game" market, or else convince the jury that EA's dominance in the sports game market is detrimental to the game market in general. Which isn't completely irrational, since sports games comprise such a large segement of the game market as a whole. Lots of profit numbers and sales figures would be brought to bear.

Hey, I'm not saying that anybody would be successful in a monopolization lawsuit against EA. But for those of you that have expressed a distaste for all things EA, wouldn't it be fun to watch? The word is schadenfreude.


Why is everybody convinced that sports games are the key to dominance? Hasn't Nintendo done a pretty good job of selling games these past 20 years without a licensed sports franchise? Or Square-Enix?
Hmm. Nintendo's latest announcement regarding the Revolution sounds an awful lot like they're essentially ceding the console market, no? Maybe they should have published more licensed sports games!

[Nature Boy]

Sports games will always sell a certain amount of copies, and can come out every year. There were some Mario games that didn't sell great (Mario: Fun With Numbers! and stuff...) .

Bad example - I don't think educational games are ever created to be blockbusters...


And if there was a yearly installment of Mario, gamers would probably get sick of it pretty quickly.

Depends on how they did it, but I'm willing to concede the point. I'm not sure what it has to do with my point though - Nintendo is still successful when it comes to selling software without selling a Mario a year...


Sports, and particularly football does dominate the US Sports market. If EA dominates sports, they have a franchise that is pretty much guaranteed to sell a bunch of copies every year even if they don't update anything but player rosters.

So? Where does this fact dictate that you can't be succesful making other games? We've had a Grand Theft Auto game every other year which is selling *better* than Madden!

I'm not talking about dominating the market here, I'm talking about being successful! Square-Enix, Nintendo, Rockstar, etc. - they all make good money and don't make licensed sports games. Sega has *plenty* of talent and are capable of doing the same. If they magically lost their Matrix license do you think they'd disappear?

[Nature Boy]

EA, on the other hand, is purchasing exclusive licenses from the NFL, ESPN, and what, the arena football league? This is a much larger swath of the gaming market. EA could argue that competing game manufacturers can still make football games without using the NFL teams, or that they can just make games about other sports, like Cricket or Xtreme Beach Pachinko. But just because your competitors can make other products doesn't necessarily mean that you aren't monopolizing.

I'm no lawyer, but I don't think you're correct. Making an NFL game isn't like packaging a browser with your Operating System.

Besides, how do you fit the fact that Halo 2 and GTA: San Andreas both sold more copies than Madden did last year into the equation? Does Rockstar have a monopoly? Or Microsoft?

If EA was preventing companies from making *any* game then you've got an anti-trust suit. This is just a very specific license in a given genre, and probably isn't treated any different than the deals the NFL makes with Fox/ESPN/ABC to broadcast games on the TV.


Hmm. Nintendo's latest announcement regarding the Revolution sounds an awful lot like they're essentially ceding the console market, no? Maybe they should have published more licensed sports games!

I don't know of the announcement to which you are referring to, but we're talking about software publishing, not hardware manufacturing. Regardless, surely you don't think Nintendo's problems revolve around sports games - it's mismanagement, poor marketing, arrogance, whatever...

[esquire]

Electronic Arts "has created a virtual monopoly," he said.

Why isn't anyone harping on the real offender here, the NFL. The NFL is the party that allowed the monopoly all in the name of greed. If the NFL doesn't accept the deal, it is never an issue.

Additionally, as far as gameplay issues are concerned, I don't see the monopoly having any effect whatsoever on Sega's ability to put out quality football games. Having "Vick" or "McNabb" on the back of a jersey or being able to play as your hometown team does not mean the game is going to be good. Great gameplay, cameras and controls cannot be outdone by licensing. Sure its nice to be able to play as your favorite team, but if the game sucks, does that really matter?

That leads me to my next question. In general, I have been for the most part pleased with EA Sports games for consoles. There may have been a glitch or two in the past, but nothing to write home about, and certainly nothing that hasn't happened to other publishers (Sega, Microsoft, Konami, THQ and 989). So why does the monopoly on NFL licensing even bother most people? Do you think EA Sports is all of the sudden is going to start putting out crap Madden games?

[bargora]

EA, on the other hand, is purchasing exclusive licenses from the NFL, ESPN, and what, the arena football league? This is a much larger swath of the gaming market. EA could argue that competing game manufacturers can still make football games without using the NFL teams, or that they can just make games about other sports, like Cricket or Xtreme Beach Pachinko. But just because your competitors can make other products doesn't necessarily mean that you aren't monopolizing.

I'm no lawyer, but I don't think you're correct. Making an NFL game isn't like packaging a browser with your Operating System.

Besides, how do you fit the fact that Halo 2 and GTA: San Andreas both sold more copies than Madden did last year into the equation? Does Rockstar have a monopoly? Or Microsoft?

If EA was preventing companies from making *any* game then you've got an anti-trust suit. This is just a very specific license in a given genre, and probably isn't treated any different than the deals the NFL makes with Fox/ESPN/ABC to broadcast games on the TV.
Well, you may not be a lawyer, but you're doing a decent job of making EA's arguments if a case were to come up. Specifically, that Madden Football does not dominate the market, as witnessed by the fact that it was outsold by other games (Halo 2, GTA: San Andreas). And that game manufacturers can make other games and game types. Perhaps you ought to consider going into corporate antitrust defense?

Note, however, that you don't need to package things together (like a browser and an operating system) to commit an antitrust violation. That sort of thing is a special case called "tying" (as in tying the purchase of the browser to the purchase of the OS), and while it's often a screaming red flag for monopolization (or an attempt at it), it's a specific violation of its own, not a requirement for a monopolization case.



Hmm. Nintendo's latest announcement regarding the Revolution sounds an awful lot like they're essentially ceding the console market, no? Maybe they should have published more licensed sports games!

I don't know of the announcement to which you are referring to, but we're talking about software publishing, not hardware manufacturing. Regardless, surely you don't think Nintendo's problems revolve around sports games - it's mismanagement, poor marketing, arrogance, whatever...
Oh, it was in another post that had "Revolution" in the title. /mesa too lazy to find. What--you don't keep current on all the threads? LOL

And esquire, nobody accused football and videogame fans of excessive rationality. Like "M$", EA has acquired a bad rep in some people's minds lately, especially in light of recent articles detailing how EA employees are treated (i.e., like shit). And I think that you expect too much for football fans (who are, I assume, a major part of the Madden market) to start hating the NFL.

Now what would happen if EA jacked up the price of Madden to $75?

[RCM]

Additionally, as far as gameplay issues are concerned, I don't see the monopoly having any effect whatsoever on Sega's ability to put out quality football games. Having "Vick" or "McNabb" on the back of a jersey or being able to play as your hometown team does not mean the game is going to be good. Great gameplay, cameras and controls cannot be outdone by licensing. Sure its nice to be able to play as your favorite team, but if the game sucks, does that really matter?

you're right, this won't hamper VC/Sega from putting out a great football game. The licenses obviously do matter. It is very important to have real teams and players in sports games. As it stands now, a football game from Sega will not sell. Don't doubt that fact for a second.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[esquire]

Additionally, as far as gameplay issues are concerned, I don't see the monopoly having any effect whatsoever on Sega's ability to put out quality football games. Having "Vick" or "McNabb" on the back of a jersey or being able to play as your hometown team does not mean the game is going to be good. Great gameplay, cameras and controls cannot be outdone by licensing. Sure its nice to be able to play as your favorite team, but if the game sucks, does that really matter?

you're right, this won't hamper VC/Sega from putting out a great football game. The licenses obviously do matter. It is very important to have real teams and players in sports games. As it stands now, a football game from Sega will not sell. Don't doubt that fact for a second.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

How do you explain the success of games like Tecmo Bowl and Joe Montana's Football in the past? No licenses there. It can be done. Just take the names off the jerseys and remove the team nicknames. So instead of the Philadelphia Eagles, you just have Philadelphia. You may even be able to use the same numbers for the players (not sure if the NFL or NFL Players Union has any type of trademark/copyright on jersey numbers for specific players).

[bargora]

How do you explain the success of games like Tecmo Bowl and Joe Montana's Football in the past? No licenses there. It can be done. Just take the names off the jerseys and remove the team nicknames. So instead of the Philadelphia Eagles, you just have Philadelphia. You may even be able to use the same numbers for the players (not sure if the NFL or NFL Players Union has any type of trademark/copyright on jersey numbers for specific players).
I'll bet they'd come after you if you just "happened" to have the jersey numbers for well-known (and even not-so-well-known) players in all of same the positions on your "generic" teams. Whether they'd get you or not may be a novel legal question. Dunno without hitting the books. But I'll bet they'd come after ya.

The question I have is this: At the time that Tecmo Bowl and Joe Montana's Football came out, was there a league-licensed football game that they had to compete against? If not, then I'd say that it's not an analogous situation.

[RCM]

How do you explain the success of games like Tecmo Bowl and Joe Montana's Football in the past? No licenses there. It can be done. Just take the names off the jerseys and remove the team nicknames. So instead of the Philadelphia Eagles, you just have Philadelphia. You may even be able to use the same numbers for the players (not sure if the NFL or NFL Players Union has any type of trademark/copyright on jersey numbers for specific players).

What worked in the 80's will not work today. EA wouldn't have spent over a billion dollars if they knew it wasn't necessary. Licenses do matter in sports titles. Don't doubt it.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[hezeuschrist]

I'm not talking about dominating the market here, I'm talking about being successful! Square-Enix, Nintendo, Rockstar, etc. - they all make good money and don't make licensed sports games. Sega has *plenty* of talent and are capable of doing the same. If they magically lost their Matrix license do you think they'd disappear?

So you think Take Two has a chance in hell to survive these announcements? You think EA would be able to do a 10th of what they do now without an NFL or NBA license? Sega can't afford to carry that dead weight and they're gonna drop Take Two like it's their job if the NBA annoucements come through negative.

They're forcing a competing development firm out of business using monetary prowess to ensure they can no longer compete. If Madden were truly the best football game ever made and ESPN NFL 2k5 sucked, I wouldn't really care, but I absolutely prefer ESPN to Madden, and I have for years. I'm never going to have that option again, at least not until 2010. By then there's slim to none chance that they'll actually release an NFL game.

[GarrettCRW]

How do you explain the success of games like Tecmo Bowl and Joe Montana's Football in the past? No licenses there. It can be done. Just take the names off the jerseys and remove the team nicknames. So instead of the Philadelphia Eagles, you just have Philadelphia. You may even be able to use the same numbers for the players (not sure if the NFL or NFL Players Union has any type of trademark/copyright on jersey numbers for specific players).

When Tecmo came to the NES, it had the NFL Player's Association license-at that point, a first in football video games (RBI Baseball was the first sports game overall to get player names). The sequel was the first game to have both the players and the league in one package, setting the precedent that, at least in my corner of the world, made Tecmo the dominant football game until Madden caught up nearly five years later.While the game play made Tecmo Bowl a classic, it was the licenses that set it apart once worthy competition (i.e., Madden) emerged.

[Nature Boy]

Perhaps you ought to consider going into corporate antitrust defense?

Flattery will get you *everywhere* my good man :)

I don't think of what I'm saying as "defending EA" - because that's not my intention. My intention is to point out that I don't think EA *needs* to be defended. I think that what they're doing isn't really any different from what any other publisher would do, given the resoruces. And the only reason people feel the need to "attack" them is that they don't like how EA came by those resources.


Note, however, that you don't need to package things together (like a browser and an operating system) to commit an antitrust violation.

Yeah, it was just a way to reference an anti-trust case that *everybody* would know about.


Hmm. Oh, it was in another post that had "Revolution" in the title. /mesa too lazy to find. What--you don't keep current on all the threads? LOL ?

Heh. Not as I'm replying to one anyway :)


Now what would happen if EA jacked up the price of Madden to $75?

I'll answer: they'll sell less copies. Even when they're the only NFL game in town.

They're going to price the game at what the market will bear. And they're still competing with other games, both sports and non-sports, sitting on the shelves beside it.

I *guarantee* you I, for one, won't be buying a Madden game if it's $75 USDs (that'd be like $90 here - the days of me paying that much for a game are *long* behind me...)

[SoulBlazer]

Although to be fair, Matel's second baseball game that used the computer keyboard -- what the heck was that called again? -- was programed with real and past players names and stats. But Matell said they could'nt do that, so the names were changed to fake ones. Still, you KNOW who the players are by looking at their numbers, stats, etc. I think that was the first game that tried to use real players name. The first one to get them RELEASED -- are you sure that was'nt a PC baseball game? I thought one of those pre-dated RBI Baseball.

[Nature Boy]

So you think Take Two has a chance in hell to survive these announcements?

Never thought about it. Don't really care to be honest. If they break up the company the guys/gals will likely find work somewhere else if they're so inclined. Developers come and go all the time for all sorts of reasons.


You think EA would be able to do a 10th of what they do now without an NFL or NBA license?.

You make this sound like a bad thing! Isn't building the business successfully a good thing? Isn't that what any business should do?

I could argue that their sports games, back on Genesis, were *huge* - and everybody ran out and made "me too" games and piggybacked on EA's success!


They're forcing a competing development firm out of business using monetary prowess to ensure they can no longer compete.

I could argue that Take Two put themselves out of business, by not diversifying and producing other games if that's the case...


If Madden were truly the best football game ever made and ESPN NFL 2k5 sucked, I wouldn't really care, but I absolutely prefer ESPN to Madden, and I have for years. I'm never going to have that option again, at least not until 2010. By then there's slim to none chance that they'll actually release an NFL game.

Don't you think that's a little hypocritical? You cry bloody murder because Madden is going to be your only choice, and yet if ESPN were your only choice you'd be crowing? You don't think the move is bad for the industry, you think it's bad for you!

[Nature Boy]

I'll bet they'd come after you if you just "happened" to have the jersey numbers for well-known (and even not-so-well-known) players in all of same the positions on your "generic" teams. Whether they'd get you or not may be a novel legal question.

Interesting question. The NFL does have rules over which positions are allowed certain numbers, right? And the NCAA lets you wear anything. (I hate to admit this, but I don't know the CFL's rules!)

Is there some sort of international governing body for American football outside the NFL? (You know, like the IIHF is to the NHL). I'm assuming not, since nobody else plays it :)

For a basketball game you could get away with it - the rules for basketball numbers are international, are they not?

[hezeuschrist]

Don't you think that's a little hypocritical? You cry bloody murder because Madden is going to be your only choice, and yet if ESPN were your only choice you'd be crowing? You don't think the move is bad for the industry, you think it's bad for you!

If you think this move is good for the industry in any way, you're insane. Yeah, it sucks for me and all the other ESPN fans, but if it had gone the same way I wouldn't be upset, but it wouldn't change the fact that it's still a shady move by any company to do what EA's done. Great business move sure, and I certainly don't blame EA for making the move, but that doesn't stop it from sucking.

Whenever a great healthy rivalry comes about, it always brings about the best in a developer to try and secure the consumers dollar. Think if the SNES came out, and in 1992 Nintendo somehow secured rights to be the only console manufacturer in the world. We miss all the great titles from Sega and the ones developed for the Genesis, and Nintendo loses the burning desire to create triple A titles that eventually secured their success.

I fully expect Madden to drop from "great" to "good" in a year or two, and then to "only" by the end of this contract.

Removing competition is the best way to ruin a market. EA has effectively setup a chance for complete decimation of the entire sports game market. And while this certainly isn't anywhere as grand of a scale as the Nintendo-Sega 16 bit wars were, it was still a fantastic competiton and just when the underdog does everything right to secure it's place in the market, the big dog bites them in the juggular. It'd be no different if Forza came out, then Forza 2, and Forza 2 ties up with GT5... then Sony buys the rights to make all car customization simulations.

This is TERRIBLE for the market.

[RCM]

It's good for EA, the NFL, and ESPN. It's not good anyone else. Not even Madden fans.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[Ninja Blacksox]

I hope EA reaches and agreements with Major League Baseball.

Maybe that'd force SNK to make a new "Baseball Stars" game.

Monopolies be damned, I want some sweet polygonal Ninja Blacksox!

-A Boy

[Nature Boy]

If you think this move is good for the industry in any way, you're insane.

Insane, eh?

:rockets:

Where am I? Oh .... yeah, sorry.... :)

I don't actually recall saying the move was good - I've been commenting that I don't see it as a bad thing. Big difference there.


This is TERRIBLE for the market.

For the NFL Sports game market? Maybe. Bad for the whole industry? No way.

If the sports genre disappeared entirely then I suppose overall sales numbers would be down. Maybe. But the industry would move on, just like it's moved on after other genres have died (any Text Adventure fans out there?)

[RCM]

If the sports genre disappeared entirely then I suppose overall sales numbers would be down. Maybe.

last year sports games brought in $1.23 billion. It would be a pretty big blow to the industry. I think the industry brought in 9.9 billion last year. Sports titles are big business. The industry wouldn't just "move on." The industry would probably crumble.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[classicb]

I hope EA reaches and agreements with Major League Baseball.

Maybe that'd force SNK to make a new "Baseball Stars" game.

Monopolies be damned, I want some sweet polygonal Ninja Blacksox!

-A Boy

that would be nice and nice avatar too ;)

[Nature Boy]

[last year sports games brought in $1.23 billion. It would be a pretty big blow to the industry. I think the industry brought in 9.9 billion last year. Sports titles are big business. The industry wouldn't just "move on." The industry would probably crumble.

Crumble? After losing 10%? And that's assuming that 0 of that 1.23 billion sticks around? That's a pretty *big* leap of logic there my friend...

[RCM]

Crumble? After losing 10%? And that's assuming that 0 of that 1.23 billion sticks around? That's a pretty *big* leap of logic there my friend...

If you look at the post i was answering to they were talking about the Sports genre just disappearing. Meaning that there would be a loss of that 1.23 billion if the sports genre vanished last year. If the sports genre did vanish it would turn away at least some of the casual gamers who do buy games other than sports creating a ripple effect that would fuck the industry up pretty well.

Don't tell me you think everything else would be stable after a loss of one of the bigger genres (if not the biggest) in videogames. Hopefully we will never have to find out.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[Nature Boy]

Don't tell me you think everything else would be stable after a loss of one of the bigger genres (if not the biggest) in videogames. Hopefully we will never have to find out.

Stable? Interesting choice of words. Define what you mean by 'stable'

All the nay sayers love throwing around words like this but there's nothing to support any of the claims.

Two things are clear in my opinion:

(a) EA is *NOT* going to grind their product to a creative halt. They're going to continue doing what they've been doing. Maybe they release things on a slower pace because of the lack of competition (i.e. fewer upgrades from year to year) but that's really not going to affect the majority of purchasers (who do *NOT* purchase the game *EVERY STINKING YEAR*).

(b) If other companies choose to continue making football games they *CAN AND WILL*. Games like NFL Street don't sell simply because of the licensing - they also sell because they don't offer an overly simulated version of the sport. A good publisher like SEGA *WILL* be able to come up with something if they feel they need it!

I think I'm spent on the topic of EA. There are just *too* many people who just hate them (like people hate Microsoft and Square-Enix and Nintendo and any company of any size...)

[kainemaxwell]

Take Two gets MLBPA licence (http://news.com.com/Take-Two+out+to+the+ball+game/2100-1047_3-5548049.html?tag=nefd.top)

[SoulBlazer]

Okay, I'M one of the people who buys the game every year. ;) Call me what you want, but I get more then enough game play and time out of it that it's always worthwhile for me. If you don't like that, you can stuff it. I'm not going to change the aproach that I want to do.

[RCM]

Stable? Interesting choice of words. Define what you mean by 'stable'


Buy a dictionary to find out the definition of stable. Maybe your confused but I never claimed the sports genre would vanish. I was merely responding to you talking about the industry just "moving on" if the genre just up and vanished. It would be a major blow. No doubt about it.


All the nay sayers love throwing around words like this but there's nothing to support any of the claims.

You were throwing words around. Where's the back up for your claims? You gave an opinion and I gave mine.


(a) EA is *NOT* going to grind their product to a creative halt. They're going to continue doing what they've been doing. Maybe they release things on a slower pace because of the lack of competition (i.e. fewer upgrades from year to year) but that's really not going to affect the majority of purchasers (who do *NOT* purchase the game *EVERY STINKING YEAR*).

I agree with you. EA already announced a while ago that they were going to stop releasing certain titles so frequently. But it's never good to have a monopoly of any sort and competition breeds creativity.


(b) If other companies choose to continue making football games they *CAN AND WILL*. Games like NFL Street don't sell simply because of the licensing - they also sell because they don't offer an overly simulated version of the sport. A good publisher like SEGA *WILL* be able to come up with something if they feel they need it!

Sure they can. But they can't make any football games having to do with tthe NFL and that clearly means a lot. Where is your proof that NFL Street doesn't simply sell b/c of the licensing? Where is the support to your claims?

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[xaer0knight]

But I suspect other companies like Atari and Activision could also raise that much cash.

Well Atari can do it easy with out breaking a sweat, a rundown of atari:

Hasbro, Atari, Wizards of the Coast, TSR, Five Rings Publishing Group. Yep, Hasboro bought Atari quite a while ago, Wizards of the Coast the makers of Magic: The Gathering ang the card game of Pokemon, TSR were the makers of Dungeons and Dragons now owned by Hasbro and WotC, and Five Rings Publishing Group got bought out by WotC about 4 years ago, the makers Legend of the Five Rings CCG and RPGs.

And Activision will be making games with a company they worked closely with and that same company they bought LOL , has a contract with EA. so Activision will be cashing in also via EA.

Thank god, i dont play Sport games !

[SoulBlazer]

I'm really getting tired of the bashing of sports gamers on here. Just because I like to play sports games along with my FPS and RPG games does'nt make me a bad person. :roll:

The bottom line is that like it or not what EA did was PERFECTLY LEGAL. And I suspect any OTHER company would have done the same thing if they could -- look at the MLB licence being snapped up now. I'm sure the NBA will follow.

I'm a gamer. I play games if they are GOOD, regardless of who the heck MAKES them. Say what you want to about EA or any other company -- it's the games that matter in the end.

I hope ALL of us can agree on that, at least. :)

[goatdan]

But I suspect other companies like Atari and Activision could also raise that much cash.

Well Atari can do it easy with out breaking a sweat, a rundown of atari:

Hasbro, Atari, Wizards of the Coast, TSR, Five Rings Publishing Group. Yep, Hasboro bought Atari quite a while ago, Wizards of the Coast the makers of Magic: The Gathering ang the card game of Pokemon, TSR were the makers of Dungeons and Dragons now owned by Hasbro and WotC, and Five Rings Publishing Group got bought out by WotC about 4 years ago, the makers Legend of the Five Rings CCG and RPGs.

And Activision will be making games with a company they worked closely with and that same company they bought LOL , has a contract with EA. so Activision will be cashing in also via EA.

Thank god, i dont play Sport games !

:hmm: Hasbro sold Atari to Infogrames a long time ago... What are you talking about? I'm really confused.

And out of my casual gamer friends, I have three that claim that they have their current systems only to play Madden every year, and one who claims Madden and ESPN NBA 2KX. I asked them about what other games they had, and they said that games were too expensive, so they would only buy what they knew they'd like.

While in the grand scheme of things, four people isn't that much I'm sure that the people that I know aren't the only people that feel this way...

Anyway, I'm glad that I'm a gamer that doesn't appreciate too many different sports titles. I don't plan on purchasing much of anything in the next five years, and that's just fine with me. I only got the ESPN titles this year because they were so cheap, and I'm sure that neither EA or Take 2 will make the games that cheap again...

[xaer0knight]

:hmm: Hasbro sold Atari to Infogrames a long time ago...


Thats news to me i didnt know Atari was sold.... :hmm:

http://www.atari.com/us/faq/:
Atari has acquired the following companies:
* Accolade
* GT Interactive
* Humongous Entertainment
* Hasbro Interactive
* Ocean Software Ltd.
* Microprose
* Wizardworks

anyway ::smacks head::

[RCM]

I thought Hasbro Interactive was acquired by Infogrames and HI owned the rights to all the groovy REAL Atari games. I'm pretty sure it went down like that.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM